Terrorism can not be permitted.

First, I realize that this forum is not a democracy.

However, I think it is unfortunate that "the adminstrators" have chosen to lock the thread on "The War in Iraq," given that one of the administrators was among the chief participants in the debate, and given that his side was given the last word. But to make matters worse, that "last word" included several questions to the other side. Perhaps the other side could have answered them in an intelligent manner. But we can't have that. The thread must be locked to make sure, to anyone who views this thread in the future, that it appears that the other side could not answer your accusations. How sad. I'm sure it's only because those who disagree with the party line are terrorists. And we are at war! For God's sake!

 

We're not at war. Congress didn't declare war. We invaded a country that was not an imminent threat, taking away valuable resources that could be used to fight actual terror. (But lining the pockets of the President's associates.)

Despite the President's "Mission Accomplished" carrier landing, nothing has been accomplished except to throw a country into chaos. (Please don't give me that "we deposed a despot" stuff, because people are dying every day over there; we've done nothing except generate violence.)

Sadaam wasn't doing anything to threaten world peace or our national security when we invaded. He was contained. Perhaps if those resources were used to get Osama bin Laden, we'd have him by now. Instead, we face guerilla insurgencies in two countries, just the kind of engagements we've shown ourselves unable to win. (See Vietnam, Somalia, Lebanon, the Philippines, Cuba and others.)

No terrorists, no Osama, no Sadaam, no rose petals tossed at our feet, no short-term strategy for success, no long-term strategy for success, no peace, no democracy, no control, no WMDs. What, exactly, have we done? Besides kill a bunch of people and turn most of the civilized world against us, that is.

 

i would like to say that on 9/11/2001 we were attacked - and about 2,900 peple died. let us not forget that.

 

.

 

But not by Iraq. And without any Iraqi involvement. The invasion of Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with the destruction of the World Trade Center. Even the White House has admitted that.

More than 2,900 innocent Iraqis have died since our attack, by the way. And neither they nor their government had anything to do with attacking us. Nor do we have the excuse of "liberating" a bunch of rich guys in Kuwait, reinstalling their monarchy to allow them to return to their oppressive ways like the last "war."

This thing is about oil and U.S. hegemony into the Middle East. Any other excuse the Administration has come up with can't be supported.

WMDs? No.
Terrorists? No.
WTC connection? No.
Imminent threat to the U.S.? No.
Sadaam? No. (What a joke!)

The only thing the Administration has left is its nation-building. But that's going horribly, is a bottomless sinkhole of funding, is contrary to Bush's very own statements about not engaging in it, and it wasn't the stated reason for invading. This Administration said it was making Iraq the new front on terror. Well, they weren't there until after we invaded. No nukes, bio, or chem weapons, either.

This is the Spanish-American War all over again.

(Please don't start a flame war. I haven't said a thing about anyone posting on this board, and I would appreciate the same in return. The last time I gave my opinion--about the draft--an ad hominem attack is what I got in return. No thank you, please.)

 

Political!!!

Explain that Rich, or better yet show some proof of that ridiculous statement.

It is one thing to think we are wasting resources on a evil regime that had nothing to do with 9/11 and has never obeyed UN resolutions, but that statement is clearly political. I do not think that Clinton launched his attacks because of Monica do you? Do you really think that Bush, or Clinton would put our military in danger to make money for their friends. That is absurd.

 

It's actually a modified autocracy, where a few people (myself included) wield absolute power. Since this is a private website, that's what you're stuck with.

As I mentioned to you in a Private Message (the key word being "Private", a concept apparently lost on you), I didn't close that thread with the intention of giving anyone the "last word". I just believed that further discussion of the subject would not yield any good, so I closed it. I stand by my decision.

 

You know, it sure is irritating for those of us who understand the true nature and scope of the Uruguayan world directorate to put up with the rest of you yaya-ing about I-raq. Come on, Americans, lookit the evidence before it's too late. First, they name the thing so we'll get it confused with Paraguay. Then they call it the Oriental Republic so we'll think the Chicoms are behind it--a really clever ruse since we know where the Chicoms get their orders from. Wake up before every video is nothing but Monty Video. If you've got a bug up your *ss it wasn't Bush or Saddam who put it there. Every wind you break floats the armada of world domination sailing down the Rio de la Plata. They're listening to every bean you eat. Remember the Graf Spee!

Don't say you weren't warned.

 

Yeah, we'll be right there, just as soon as we figure out which Guinea we're supposed to be invading.

 

That number may be a lot higher...

More than 21,000 Iraq dead: report

By Beth Gardiner in London

http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,7845133%255E1702,00.html

BETWEEN 21,000 and 55,000 people have died as a direct result of the war in Iraq, most of them Iraqi soldiers and civilians, a report estimates.

Medact, an activist group of health professionals, said it had derived the figures - which it called "tentative" - by adding numbers it obtained from news reports and a Web site that estimates the number of Iraqi civilian deaths by tracking all those reported in the media.

The group cited the Iraqi Body Count Web site's estimate that between 7757 and 9565 Iraqi civilians had been killed between the war's start in March and October 20, the date the report went to press.

It added to that The Guardian newspaper's estimate that between 13,500 and 45,000 Iraqi soldiers died, probably closer to the lower number. Also included in the total were 394 US and British soldiers reported dead by October 20, the report says.

 

Dammit, Douglas, just pick one!

 

Rich,

Fact: Saddam had been under international sanctions intended to depose him for over 10 years. They didn't work they only served to impoverish the country and starve and impoverish those he was oppressing even further. Fact: Many of the so called opponents of the war (France, Germanny, Russia) routinely violated the embargo and had billions of dollars of contracts with the regime. Not exactly unbiased parties. Fact: during the time of the failing embargo he murdered or maimed 10's of thousands of people who opposed his tyrannical rule. Fact: he monetarily supported the Palestinian terror bombers to divert attention away from his regime's crimes, thereby supporting the flood of Islamic terror which has inflamed the world since the Munich Olympics. Fact: he is now deposed and will inevitably soon be gone permanently if he isn't already. Fact: the vast majority of Iraqi's are glad he is gone. Those who aren't were generally his supporters so they have no moral standing anyway.

Maybe if it was one of your children or relatives who was murdered by Saddam and his henchman you would have a different opinion?

No WMD? He could have brewed up a batch of bio agent in less than a week from a petri dish of live cultures. Could hide that anywhere. Nuclear weapons? Didn't need to make them, he could have easily bought some from Russia on the black market. Did the studies say he had no WMD? Yes, but they also said he wanted and was trying to acquire it. I guess we should have waited? Would you leave a rabid dog in your backyard until it bit your kids? Too late then. Contracts for companies who supported Bush. They supported Gore too. Those types of companies butter their bread on both sides. They employ Americans so why shouldn't they benefit from our country's efforts.

Fact: Anyone who truly believes that Saddam's his departure was not necessary or could have been achieved by any other means is uninformed. Do I want any of our young men or women killed? No, but some things are worth fighting for and this was one. And it probably shouldn't stop there. Wherever there is oppression it needs to be stopped. Where is the terror? People keep saying we need to go find it and fight it there and not in Iraq. I've got news for you, Islamic terrorists are everywhere there is an Islamic country whether or not the country or its populace wants them. Where should we attack now? You disagreed with Iraq. Where now? Don't just criticise, make a suggestion. I will make one, we need to lean hard on any country which overtly or covertly supports terrorism. We should garner as much international support as possible but if they refuse, do it ourselves. It needs to be pursued to its last hiding hole and rooted out and killed to the last advocate. Otherwise, it will fester forever. Unlike economic terror of the type the Barbary pirates practiced in the 17th century, this is idealogical and most be ripped out by its roots. We will never conquer it, but if we fight it long enough the Islamic people themselves will take up the cause themselves and stamp it out on their own. Witness Iranian politics today. I don't expect to change your mind because you have obviously made up your mind, but doing nothing is not an option and we are doing in Iraq what needed to be done a long time ago and has still to be done elsewhere in the future.

See here for a third world opinion:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/997080.asp?0cv=OB10

 

They were intended to enforce compliance to UN Resolutions not to oust him from power.

A situation America never gave a damn about until they needed to invade somebody after 9/11.

Where were the calls to "liberate" the people of Iraq before 9/11?

Source?

Where was America and its coalition allies when this was going on?

In fact where was the world when this was going on? Where is the world when hideous abuses are still taking place in places like North Korea?

America funds and arms Israel...a nation with a history of human rights abuses. Abuses even America's State Department cited.

Some good came out of this assuming that Iraq does not fall into civil war or a regime that is even worse.

Anonymous Authority

He simply recognises that Saddam is not near the threat that Al-Qaeda has proven and proving itself to be to America and friends.

Then maybe America should attack Russia and eliminate the threat of nuclear weapons being distributed from Russian agents?

Then the anti-war crowd was right.

Prejudicial Language

So you want to see America go to war with China, Russia and North Korea?

All have been cited for human rights violations.

How about finishing the war against Al-Qaeda before attacking another nation?

I agree that terrorism must be combatted but giving Al-Qaeda a breather and time to regroup by going after a third party is ludicrous.

Chris, do you believe that Saudi Arabia and Pakistan would fall into the category of nations that overtly or covertly support terrorism?

 

Fact

The sanctions were meant or enforce compliance or depose him. Being deposed is a proma facia result of failure to comply. It was in the language.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fact: during the time of the failing embargo he murdered or maimed 10's of thousands of people who opposed his tyrannical rule.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Many cared. Many spoke out. Don't blame us for the previous administrations lapses. Clinton didn't even attempt to take out Osama when we had some idea as to his location. Didn't want to rock the boat I guess. Bush had only been in office for 8 months at the time of the WTC attacks and he had already spoken out. 8 months is a heartbeat of time in world affairs.

Sources? Heres a good one from Islamic online:

http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2002-08/20/article34.shtml

Hers one from a student newspaper:

http://www.southend.wayne.edu/days/2003/march/3252003/oped/saddam/saddam.html

Not exactly unbiased but has his facts correct:

http://www.house.gov/burton/RSC/IraqiRegimeBeneficiaries.pdf

and here:

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world_business/view/56096/1/.html

do a Google there are hundreds more sources. Heck, even the Times admits that Iraq owed Germany France and Russia billions.

I answered the question about where we were above. North Korea is on the agenda as well. Remember the Axis of Evil speech. I agree we should have done more sooner.

We do not pay Israelis to blow themselves up in Palestinean cafe's. Israel ain't perfect but even Clinton tired of trying to get Arafat to agree to anything resembling peace. It is not Israel who demands the end of Palestine, it is the other way around. Israel and its right wing aren't perfect but neither are they on the same level as the jihadists or the many other palestinian terrorist groups.

Worse in charge of Iraq is a very real threat, but it was always a threat and is all the more reason to do this thing right this time and not leave before the job is done.

Anonymous Authority? How about Gallup Baghdad Poll?
see here:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/focus/sr030924.asp

"He simply recognises that Saddam is not near the threat that Al-Qaeda has proven and proving itself to be to America and friends."

As a threat they are one and the same. That was the point and your response does not negate or refute the truth of my statement.

We have quietly funded the clean up of excess weapons in Russia for years. We work and give money to support those that may be tempted to sell weapons to earn money to live. Russians aren't jihadists and it is incorrect to imply they are.

Where are Russia and China murdering thousands of their people. North Korea is and will be dealt with.

"How about finishing the war against Al-Qaeda before attacking another nation?"

Where? Al-Qaeda is everywhere, this is a week dodge by the left. Once again, this is not a suggestion. Attack, where, whom, when. Suggestions!!! Attacking Iraq was an attack on Al-Qaeda as he stood as a symbol of America's unwillingness to face up to evil. Not any more he don't. The next country tempted to harbor Al-Qaeda will think twice. Syria is already more willing to crack down on terrorists in its borders. Saudi Arabia as well. They were one of the worst abettors of terrorists but they are finally seeing the futility of looking the other way. We gave the Al-Qaeda no breather we still have troops in Afghanistan and are doing what can be done to find the remnants of the Taliban. The best way to attack an insurgency is to wipe out its support. We could spend years chasing shadows in Iraq and Afghanistan if we left the support unmolested.

When I was a child my father told me to never use another mans poor example as justification for my own transgressions. That is the lefts common tactic for debate. Why Iraq, what about North Korea, Syria, etc. Why here, why now? Why, Why Why? It is an argument for the whitless. It is a childish argument which offers no solutions only argument. Theirs is the recipe for inaction and it is a mindset which cannot be argued against even when the facts are apparent.

And yes, it is very aparent many in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia support terrorists. However, the Pakistanian military would never allow an Islamic government and has taken steps to oppress the mullahs. They could do more but it is a start. Saudi arabian public opinion is finally seeing the light. The Al-qaeda crapped in its own nest when it started blowing up housing areas in Saudi Arabia. Lets see if the country finally gets a spine.

 

I do not recall his election platform or interviews including plans or a desire to "liberate" the Iraqi people?

No, America supplies them with military aid, machinery and arms for the Israelis to blow up residential buildings in residential neighbourhoods.

Actually I do agree that most likely enjoyed seeing Saddam removed. However, do they want the Americans sticking around?

Most Iraqis distrust coalition troops: poll

Associated Press

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1070325884661_65735084///?hub=World

LONDON — Nearly four out of five Iraqis have little or no confidence in occupying U.S. and British forces, according to initial findings published Monday from a survey of public opinion in Iraq.

The study, conducted across Iraq between mid-October and mid-November, also showed that almost three-quarters of respondents lack confidence in the American-led Coalition Provisional Authority.

But only around a fifth of Iraqis questioned said they trust political parties, according to Oxford Research International, the British-based consultancy that led the survey of 3,244 people aged 15 and over.

It described the poll as "the first truly representative national study in the recent history" of Iraq. The margin of error was not immediately available and researchers warned that some findings could change following secondary statistical analysis, to be conducted in the coming weeks.

The survey results were published a day after the end of the bloodiest month yet for the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq. At least 104 coalition troops died in Iraq in November, including 79 Americans.

Asked how much confidence they had in U.S. and British forces in Iraq, 56.6 percent of respondents said they had none at all and 22.2 percent said they didn't have very much confidence, while only 7.6 percent had "a great deal."

A rather unusual way to feel about your "liberators?"

I have no evidence that Al-Qaeda or Bin Laden had a major operation or base in Iraq.

More Prejudicial Language.

You have to prove that your arguments have basis in fact to warrant a refutation.

You said:

"Wherever there is oppression it needs to be stopped."

Are you saying that oppression does not exist in China or Russia?

yet, America calls these two nations "Allies."

 

a couple of facts:

yes over 2900 americans were killed in nyc on 9/11.

you may say that iraq had nothing to do with it - but we dont know that for sure. pakistan, saudis etc are anti-american and so is the former iraqi leadership

america is not in middle east after oil (in iraq, kuwait etc) only. itmay be a small reason but there are larger reasons.

why is america in Kosovo ... there is no oil there .. so the above is not totally true.

one more observation.
this is how successful al-qaeda was

before 9/11
USA was in saudi arabia and kuwait.

after 9/11
USA is in kuwait, qatar, iraq, afghanistan and more -

their plan worked out really well --

 

Many of those killed were citizens of other nations as well as American. It was a tragic loss of life.

In all honesty if a coalition wants to "liberate" a people from a brutal dictator. I am all for it; just be honest about your reasons for the attack, present verifiable concrete evidence to support each one of your claims and just level with the world.

 

Frankie, your argument keeps shifting...

as its fallacies are pointed out. Oppression is not the same as massacre. So what, it wasn't on his platform, neither was the WTC bombing. President's should just stick to their platform? WW1 and WW2 weren't on Wilson's and Roosevelt's either. In fact, Wilson said he would keep us out of the Great War. Situations change and our presidents need to as well. Again, comparing the Israeli's to terrorist bombers is naive at best. Your argument don't fly, get over it. Your constant repetition don't make it right or better than it was the first time. Did you read that entire poll? The Iraqi's were upset with how fast jobs were being created, the infrastructure was being rebuilt and a government restored. Look at your history, it took us four years to restore self government to Germany and that was without any ongoing insurgency. The Germans, also, had a history of self government and an inate desire to form governing bodies, something the Iraqi's have little or none of in their past. There are a lot of unreasonable expectations on theirs and apparently your part. If you are going to use a source read the whole thing. Back to the Al Qaeda thing in Iraq again, actually they found a airplane hijacking camp there but you are right there is no real evidence of who used it. If you cannot understand the indirect support afforded the Al Qaeda by the example of someone like Saddam you will never understand much of anything in world affairs. And, there is still the source for a lot of money spent by Al Qaeda unaccounted for. Where did it come from? Heck, Saddam gave each suicide bombers family $25k. I don't think it was much a stretch to think he would support the Al Qaeda as well. The Al Qaeda had no major base or operation in many places at all. They operated in Germany out of a single apartment in Hamburg. They don't set up bases and fly a flag. They're terrorist groups, not militaries. I won't continue to hammer this point with you as it is apparently a waste of time. Even with that, the removal of Saddam on purely humanitarian grounds was more than justifiable. Read my comment on Pakistan and Saudi Arabia again, I said SOME. The governments are finally getting around to the danger within their own border. Heck, some in our own borders support terrorism, witness your comments in support of the Palestinian bombers. They are a real brave group, throwing crippled old men off cruise ships and gunning down tourists in airports. How old are you? Trust me, oppression in Russia and China is much less today than in the past. Not even China, though, fills up mass graves these days. Saddam and a few others in Africa have had that act to themselves for the past few years. Oh, and Milosovich in Serbia but we took care of him too. So much for your theory Iraq was a sole event of compassion. They do have problems but we have addressed them with them as well. Again, the argument that others are bad so why can't I be is a morally bankrupt one. Did you look up that prejudicial language thing. You like to use it a lot. And, it is still a weak dodge by the left. They have many of them these days as the world leaves them behind.

 

For a small variety of reasons I haven't involved myself in this general "War in Iraq" debate that is taking place in at least a few threads. However, I just couldn't let the above quotation pass. The logic involved is so poor that I can only say,
"You may say that 'onlinephd' (obviously a terrorist pseudonmym) had nothing to do with it - but we don't know that for sure."
It's clearly a manner of thinking that says "guilty until proven innocent." Hopefully you're not really earning a phd with this crappy logic.
Jack

 

I think I have been fairly consistant. It is the U.S. position that seems to be confused.

DADDY, WHY DID WE HAVE TO ATTACK IRAQ?

http://www.uua.org/pipermail/uupeaceworld/2003q3/000500.html

I am quoting your own State Department who criticised Israeli forces for serious human rights abuses.

I am simply saying that America has a credibility issue when they speak of liberating the persecuted then turns around and arms/funds a nation its own State Department accuses of...you guessed it...committing serious human rights abuses.

Ad Hominem or Prejudicial Language? Hmmm?

In other words you cannot present any credible evidence of any Al-Qaeda operations within Iraq during the Saddam era?

However, there is plenty of evidence of them operating in Afghanistan. See where I am going?

Lying to the world is not justifiable even if the war was justifiable.

Your exact comment was "And yes, it is very aparent many in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia support terrorists."

This is an inflammatory straw man and an outright slanderous accusation.

I invite you to show me where I support the actions of any suicide bomber or to show some integrity and apologize for your vicious slander.

How dare you accuse me of supporting such acts? I challenge you to show me where I supported any such activity?

I invite you again to retract your slanderous accusations Chris.

Are you denying that people are oppressed in these two nations? How about this?

Falun Gong persecuted for practicing

By Stacy J. Willis

July 20, 2001

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/lv-other/2001/jul/20/512109134.html

Two years ago Chinese police pushed a 59-year-old woman into a van, drove her to jail and kept her there for 24 days. She had confessed to being a practitioner of Falun Gong -- a spiritual philosophy banned by the Communist government.

These poor Chinese people are not oppressed?

Now you are resorting to vile personal attacks on my character. That is more serious then using prejudicial language.

How dare you accuse me of supporting terrorists? How dare you Chris?