Good point, pan. You aren't brainwashed, that's for sure.

What we did is immoral. It was baseless and tactless. We've killed thousands (possibly hundreds of thousands) of Iraqi's trying to free them from a dictator who killed them? Bullshit. It makes no sense whatsoever. As pan pointed out, there are plenty of places that need a lot more help then Iraq did.

That's it. Iraq/al Qaeda link is dead. Iraq WMD link is dead. Liberation is a poor excuse at best. We have no buisness here. GWB owes a lot of people a very serious apology and he owes us a very quick exit strategy.

Okay. They wouldn't be liberated if we controled their leader. If the US takes control of the Iraqi government for good, that means that Iraq was conqoured, not liberated.

Never been a Bush Supporter....just waiting for all the dust to settle and prove how deceived most Americans were this past election. All I can say is that I am thankful that Bush will not get re-elected again. This has been a sad and dreadful 5 years.

Here's another for ya, Will.

What if elections go as planned and the winner is a "supposed friend of ours" but once in power decides it is safer for him to align with Syria, Iran, China and so forth and demands we leave or he will truly open the floodgates to a true WAR? Or what if he treats his people worse then Saddam?

What do we do then? Do we claim then that we need to liberate Iraq from him? After a supposed free election, that we watched?

Crazy, paranoid? perhaps, that's in the eye of the beholder.

Plausible? Yes.

Possible? History has shown that it happens time and time again.

Ok two words,

North Korea.

For those that need explanation. North korea opresses its citizens equal if not worse than iraq did. North Korea openly proclaims programs to develop Nuclear, yes admits Nuclear programs are underway. Infact there is a reasonale chance that north korea has the means to develop them already.

Also north korea has long range ballistic missles capable of holding their nukes. With range capable of easily hitting Hawaii and maybe even california. Iraq would need to have other means of delivering them, The missile defence shield is a joke so you arent safe.

Another great thing. North Korea is selling their Nuclear and Missile technology to Iran.

So how about this, One word: Iran

Never let it be said that the Left cannot be as extreme and reactionary in it's views as the Right.

So are you implying it was safer to invade Sadam because we knew he had nothing?

Wouldn't it make far more sense if you are "liberating" and "taking out the Triangle of Terror (or whatever phrase W used for Iran, Iraq and N. Korea)" to go after the worst (N. Korea) first, then the second (Iran) and finally Iraq?

But of course the first 2 offer nothing of value (such as ooooo I don't know..... OIL).

Both sides can be horrid and as bad as the other.... especially when emotions are brought into play.

Sorry bout that dead link. Maybe this time it'll work..

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0021002-2.html

Willravel, you conveniently glossed over the paragraph directly above the one you quoted. It said something about the Iraqi regime's brutal repression of its civilian population. I think an argument can be made that ending that brutal repression could be considered liberating. Would you consider that a good intention?

...UNTIL SAID COUNTRY STARTS ASKING OTHER COUNTRIES FOR LARGE FAVORS. ;)

Thanks for the post and link. I had not read this before.

Interesting. Just shows you I was right when I said the question of the "legality" of the war is still open to question; in the US at least.

This doesn't change my opinion that the war turned out to be a mistake.


Mr Mephisto

Maybe it's because I'm tired, but I don't understand how these two sentences can be right next to each other.

pan: I don't find merit in the "You can't take care of that bully because you failed to take care of those other three bullies" argument.

Because our past 'liberation' attempts were less than golden, we're not capable of wanting to do it the right way this time around?

Oops. I'll grant you that one. Would most likely be an improved situation, but it'd be imperialism and not liberation.

A definite possibility, but not evidence that liberation was a lie. That's what this imagination session was about.

Just to clarify, WE CANNOT FUCKING HANDLE NORTH KOREA THE SAME WAY WE HANDLED IRAQ! To quote myself:

Don't grant the favors, that is what embargos and such are for.

If we're foolish and stupid enough to grant those favors to an oppressive and brutal dictatorship and not getting human rights restored in their country then we are guilty of allowing that dictator to run rampant and we have no right to complain about him (as a government, the people can and hopefully policy changes).

But this is still not a reason for going to war.

thats my point, america can not handle north korea. but going in to iraq because of wmd when North Korea is far worse is not very ethical.

The saying "why don't you pick on someone your own size" comes to mind.

Sorry, should have stated my question with that.

If that scenario does happen, then we liberated Iraq for what? And do we contest the election and go back in?

To answer the other:

Who was Sadam bullying, though? And no, it's not we can't take care of the other bullies, it's WE CHOSE TO TAKE ON THE WEAKER OF THE 3.

If you say he bullied his own people..... again I ask does that not set a precedence to have the far left tell China Bush is bullying them and ignoring their rights and putting dissenters into prisons for life with no trial?

To be honest, we probably could topple Kim's regime in North Korea, but it would take some of the efforts that it took to wage World War II.

Forced democracy and freedom are not interchangable. Democracy can lead to or mean freedom, but it doesn't have to. If they have a democracy, they can still become victims of their government. Remember Waco? That was not pretty.

one would hope that nothing is ever handled like the way in which iraq was handled.

Precisely who he was 'bullying'. And I don't find fault with choosing to take on the weaker of the 3, it seems a wise tactical move.

Unless the dictator was benevolent, and it's not so in this case, a properly imposed democracy will mean more liberty. If Waco-esque situations come about, the people will be better equipped to handle them under a democracy than under a despotism.

And I submit that we are generally an incredibly liberated people, despite occurences like Waco.

Bush should go on trial now that they are done searching for the very things we went to war over. But republicans would like to make the point" Oh but the world is much better without him" Now that thousands of lives have been destroyed by our bombing.

Nah, Bush and all his minions are too busy spending 42 Million on a big party in Washington for "The Haves".

Obviously we weren't invited. Bush says he wants to spread Freedom all over the World....What a lie and pretense.

Meanwhile our dedicated young soldiers don't even have proper body protection or safe vehicles in this Iraq War. Oh, and BushCo is planning on invading Iran soon, too. Just because: (yah, don't worry...they'll pretend those Weapons of Mass Destruction are there now).

Didnt Clinton have to go on a apology tour for having his dick sucked? Bush should at least issue some kind of regret about this. This was the primaray reason for the invasion. You cant just pass it off as an intelligence mistake. That is weak. 100, 000 people are dead because of this decision. Or he could at least ask god to give some kind of official statement, because it was god who told him to go to war in the first place.

America, a self proclaimed democracy, went to war under international law in supposed self defence (it would have been illegal to invade a country simply to 'liberate' citizens from a tyrant). We went in with WMDs to find and the obvious connections from Iraq to al Qaeda, those being legitimate reasons to go to war.

These reasons have since been disproven. We are still there.

This is very cut and dry. We have no buisness being in Iraq, as they never posed a threat to our country. Had the Iraqi citizens called on american aid to overthrow Saddam, we might have a reason. That is not the case.

This was not a war, but an invasion without legal or moral base, the conclusion of which has frightening implications for future generations. What happens the next time America decides to claim someone else has WMDs or connections to terrorism? We get hundreds of thousands of civilians dying and our soldiers being used not for protection, but domination. Can no one stop this?

"Uphill Battle"

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v4...llBattle-X.gif

I think the driver is Iraqi.

Bottom line is america fucked up. Enough said. We need Bush to admitt hes wrong (i have faith hes human and that hes able to make mistakes) yet hes too arrogant to admitt it. Ergo there is the problem

You DO realize that they did indeed find at least one bunker with WMDs in Iraq, but it hasn't been opened yet because they don't know how to do it safely, right? It was listed in the CIA report...

Erm... How do they know there is WMD in it if it hasn't been opened?

:)

And surely, if this truly were the case, we would have heard this trumpeted at proof. This is the first I've ever heard that WMD's were indeed discovered.

And finally, no one is arguing over the fact that WMD's did exist (we all know they did), but whether there was an active programme and whether Iraq was a real threat to the US.


Mr Mephisto

They're under seal from an international agency from right after the cease-fire, they have the manifests of what's in there, but because of the way it was stored, they're more than slightly concerned about how to get it all out safely.

FYI, their inventory was supposed to be destroyed according to the cease-fire, but apparently they didn't get around to it.

this is the full text of page 78 of Section 3 of the Duelfer Report, available at
http://www.foia.cia.gov/duelfer/Iraqs_WMD_Vol3.pdf

Pay special attention to the bold, italicized part that's separated.

Thanks for the link.

My comment was partly tongue-in-cheek, but the main point I was trying to make was that we all know Iraq had WMD. The issue people seem to have (including me, who actually supported the invasion initially!!) was the complete rubbish that Bush and Blair spouted about "current" (or contemporaenous if you will) programs and imminent threats to the US and UK safety.

Perhaps it was because of faulty intelligence. Perhaps it was because Bush & Co wanted to invade anyway, so they were more likely to rely upon faulty intelligence. Who knows? I'm not one of the ones who believe Bush willfully and conspiratorially misled the people. I just think he turned a blind eye when he should have been more careful. That, or he's just plain stupid.

:)

Mr Mephisto

Well, it depends by what you mean by "had". Yes, we all knew he had them prior to 1991. We all know that under the terms of the cease-fire and UN resolutions, he was required to destroy existing stockpiles after the war. We went in during 2004, 13 years AFTER the original cease-fire said he would destroy his existing stockpiles, and there were, indeed, still stockpiles there. Why hadn't they been destroyed in those intervening 13 years, and how long should we have waited for him to comply with the 1991 ceasefire?

Were they post 1991 production? Nope. At least not that we have found. Were there still chemical weapons stockpiles that posed a danger? According to that report, yes, there were. "Under UN seal" means that if he wanted to access them, all he would have had to do is snip the plastic or metal sealing device, which is reasonably similar to a quik-cuff. One guy with a pair of pliers or tin snips could have done it. They haven't gone into the bunkers because apparently their MOPP suits wouldn't "cut it" from a safety perspective. If Chemical Warfare protective gear wouldn't "cut it" to protect our people from the contents of the bunker, the stuff must be pretty bloody dangerous, yes? Now imagine the contents of that bunker in the hands of the nutjob du jure who doesn't care if he dies as long as he takes others with him. Does that sound like something you'd want going on in your neighborhood?