Iraqi Liberation

Discussion in 'Off-Topic Discussions' started by Guest, Feb 17, 2004.

Loading...
?

Should President Bush have liberated Iraq even if WMD's are not located?

Poll closed Feb 21, 2004.
  1. Yes

    22 vote(s)
    64.7%
  2. No

    9 vote(s)
    26.5%
  3. No sure/No opinion

    3 vote(s)
    8.8%
  1. Guest

    Guest Guest

    I voted "Yes." I have never supported American military intervention/action until now. I struggled with Clinton's going into Bosnia thinking about all the suffering.

    I have come to the conclusion that a free, civilized nation cannot idly stand by and watch slaughter of other human beings. I think we have to act in situations where genocide or near genocide occurs.
     
  2. tcnixon

    tcnixon Active Member

    The bias in the survey is clear from the beginning. "Liberated Iraq?"

    Gee, and voting against that makes you what kind of dirtbag?


    :rolleyes:



    Tom Nixon
     
  3. pugbelly

    pugbelly New Member

    The bias in the survey is clear from the beginning. "Liberated Iraq?" Gee, and voting against that makes you what kind of dirtbag?


    A misinformed one. Whether you are "for" or "against" the war in Iraq, Irag HAS been liberated. Iraq is being taken through a process that has removed a dictator and will implement a freely elected government. This IS liberation. Whether you support Bush's reasons for the war is another matter entirely. The common complaints are 1) There are no WMD and 2) The U.S. acted without U.N. approval. My responses to these arguments: 1) Intelligence is not perfect. It IS clear that he had a desire for WMD. It IS clear he once had them. It IS clear that he would use them because he used them on his own people. It IS clear that there are still weapons that are unaccounted for from the last pre-war inspections. He DID continually disallow inspections, raising justified suspicion regarding the WMD, and putting the men and women of Irag in danger as a result. 2) The United Nations spelled out very clear resolutions regarding Iraq's need to comply on many issues. Saddam didn't, period. The U.S. didn't act alone. It acted as the head to an alliance of nations, yes, outside of U.N. sanction. But I ask you this: If the U.N. refuses to enforce its own resolutions, what good is it? It's like a parent that warns his child repeatedly but never follows through. It creates an even bigger problem down the road. It's frustrating to always hear the U.S. painted as this renegade superpower that acted alone in Iraq. It's simply untrue.

    Tony
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 17, 2004
  4. Guest

    Guest Guest

    I guess if one is an Iraqi "membership bias" might occur!



     
  5. Guest

    Guest Guest

    The fact WMD's have not been found should cause grave concern but not the kind of concern the "Bush bashers" are expressing.

    The concern should be where are the WMD's? We know he had them. Who has them now? This, it seems, is the real and most dangerous issue.
     
  6. airtorn

    airtorn Moderator

    When you get down to it, none of us are really in a position to judge the justness of the President's decision to go to war. We simply do not have access to the information that he received when making his decision.

    There are many other reasons for going to war that the President could have presented to the world instead of the WMD angle. The question posed by this pole is an example of one. The argument for war could have been that of an intervention like the first Gulf War. However, instead of thwarting Iraq occupation of Kuwait, the intervention would have been for the purpose of rescuing the Iraqi people from the atrocities inflicted upon them by their leader. We know that the Kurds definitely suffered under Iraq's former management. Tony presented another example of an argument for open conflict when he mentions that the UN imposed certain requirements upon Iraq as the terms of surrender following the first Gulf. From this point of view, Gulf War 2 can be viewed as an extension of the first with the goal being enforcement of the original terms of surrender - terms that were never fully complied with. In this case, the UN should have stepped up to the plate years ago and done a better job enforcing these terms.

    I agree with Jimmy in that we should be concerned with finding out where the WMD have gone and not with bashing the current administration because none are readily apparent in Iraq. We know that Iraq had them at one time. Where did they go?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 17, 2004
  7. Tireman4

    Tireman4 member

    I am very thankful that we live in a country in which we can express our opinion openly. I believe in everyone's right to choose, vote, decide or support whomever they choose. Although I am a Democrat( and proud of it...lol), I support anyone's opinion. I might not agree, but will support them to the end. Like I have told my students...vote...I dont care if it is Democrat, Republican, Socialist Workers Party...just vote. It is a fun and exciting process.
     
  8. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    Iraq has not been "liberated." It was not occupied. It has been invaded by a foreign power and had its sovereignty violated. It is now occupied. Whether or not the invasion and occupation was justified is arguable. But "liberated"? Hardly.

    By the way, if "liberating" Iraq was the idea, why Iraq? Why not North Korea, Cuba, China, Iran, Burma, Libya. Vietnam, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Yemen, Somalia, oh, you get the idea. :rolleyes:
     
  9. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Ah, a true patriot!

     
  10. Guest

    Guest Guest

    So, Rich, Iraq is not liberated?

    You are saying Iraq was not liberated from Saddam Hussein's butchery, rape rooms (including girls as young as five), torture, etc., you know. :rolleyes:

    Just the mere fact Hussein put out a hit on Bush's father and Bill Clinton would justify his removal all by itself.
     
  11. chris

    chris New Member

    An argument may be made

    That a few of these countries governments ar as bad as Saddam's, most are nowhere near. And for the most part, none of them have shown the willingness to use WMD or attack their neighbors recently. This is a bankrupt argument.

    And, liberated is a correct term when applied to an unelected dictator. It is correct to say one is liberated from oppression.
     
  12. elyk1979

    elyk1979 New Member

    Jimmy Clifton....Why do I get the impression that you feel it is "unpatriotic" if you disagree with the presidents decisions. Rich's points that he brought up is straight up reality and the truth. Dont be confused by CNN as they try relentlessly to sway public opinion in favour of the administration. What is happening in Iraq is a travesty. People their are living in more fear, chaos and anarchy then they were under Saddam. Dont be fooled in thinking that they are liberated in any shape or form!
     
  13. airtorn

    airtorn Moderator

    What makes you say that?
     
  14. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    You're missing the point, Jim. It's not that Sadaam was a bad guy, or that Iraq has improved. It's not that he should have been removed. But there are many other bad guys out there, why him? Why did Bush have to lie about WMD's to justify it? Why not just say he's a bad guy and we're going to take him out? Because neither this country, nor the world, would have supported it! But the WMD's (the cooked-up information, actually) were the only way in, so the Bush administration took it.

    It's very convenient to move the argument from the original rationale to the new one after the fact. Sadaam was a bad guy for decades; that never resulted in an invasion of Iraq. No, it took the false pretense of WMD to even justify going it mostly alone, which we did.

    You "liberate" a country that is occupied by a foreign power, not one being run by its own government. The U.S. has a long history of invading its present and former allies. Iraq is just the latest example.

    (This is contrasted with the "liberation of Kuwiat." At least we "liberated" Kuwait by driving out the Iraqis. Of course, then we returned it to the same people in charge before--the ones who suppress human rights. And the Saudis....sheesh. :rolleyes: )
     
  15. airtorn

    airtorn Moderator

    Now I remember why it is a good idea to never discuss religion or politics... :D
     
  16. plcscott

    plcscott New Member

    Is there any proof of that? If our intelligence thought he had WMD, then what makes you say he lied about it. He may have been giving misinformation, but lie? Bush may have been zealous about getting rid of Saddam, but I do not think he made up a big lie just to give justification. If he did he is even more dumb than his opposition says he is. It has been reported that even Saddam, and his officers even thought they had WMD. I agree with the others here that if he once had it then where is it now. We know he once had WMD because he used it on his people. So who has it now?


    I agree I do not see this at all as liberation. Whether it is the right or wrong move who knows? I tend to think most any President tries to do the right thing with the information they have. I do not think Bush, or Clinton, or Reagan would put our troops in harms way unless they thought they were doing the right thing in long run. I may be wrong, but that is my opinion.
     
  17. chris

    chris New Member

    Gallup Poll

    Where did you get this? This is rumor backed up by nothing. In fact, a Gallup poll of Baghdad citizens in September 2003 revealed the exact opposite.

    See here for poll:
    http://www.gallup.com/content/default.asp?ci=9334

    If you are going to make statements make sure they are supported by the facts. In the Army we called a failure to do so, "talking out your a$$". Remember as well, Gallup is run by an Arab-American so I wouldn't imagine he would be too biased towards the USA.

    Rich, get a dictionary on your liberation comments. Liberation has more to do with relief of oppression than a foreign power. In fact, I didn't even find foreign power used in any of the definitions I found. Also, give me some examples of our "long history" of invading our former allies. Even if there are one or two good examples that would not make for a "long history". For every good example I could show half a dozen where we did what was needed and just. Look up your Kuwait comments as well. As a whole, the Kuwaitis are very happy with their government. Except for the fundamentalists that is.
     
  18. elyk1979

    elyk1979 New Member

    Sorry "for talking out of my a$$" Chris


    Lets not discuss the merits and credibility issues that go along with these polls. They measure nothing. Your right about one thing, I may have not had any facts to back up my statements, but I do have dozens of family members that live in Iraq, so maybe, just maybe, I may have somewhat of an idea of what the feeling is their


    :)
     
  19. pugbelly

    pugbelly New Member

    Bush didn't lie about the WMD. He was apparently misinformed. Here is the problem: We know from the inspectors reports from years ago that there were still large quantities of chemical agents. Where did it go? Who has it?

    Regarding the question of "Why Saddam?" It's not only Saddam. First it was Afganistan, then Saddam. My guess is there will be more if Bush gets another 4 years. You are seeing Bush wage wars that should have been fought under the Clinton administration. If you leave a problem for another day, all you've done is create an even bigger problem! Don't get me wrong...I hate war. BUT, I'd rather fight these wars today rather than having my kids and grandkids fight them tomorrow. If anyone thinks the Muslim world will leave us alone if we just extend a few more pleasantries, you don't know anything about Islam. Islamic fundamentalism calls for the destruction of our society, and all other societies like it. Period. They don't hate us because of what we do, they hate us because of who we are. How can you reason with a group of people that genuinely feel they have been ordered by God to exterminate or convert the rest of the world? You don't. You kill them. I know that sounds horrible...but that's how it goes. We can't fight a war by rules against an enemy that doesn't understand rules.
     
  20. GENO

    GENO New Member

    You know that he (GWB) did it to vindicate his pappy.

    Oh by the way, we almost forgot.... where's Osama?
     

Share This Page