Draft May Be Reinstated in USA :(

[\m/ KILLER \m/]

Right. Not sure what Iraq had to do with 9/11, but nevertheless...

Dont even bother. Alot of the americans have been brainwashed, by their parents, by TV programs, by their shitty school system. With guys like this theres no use to arguing. Any idiot knows that the iraq war was only about controlling the oil. Except brainwashed Bush voter. fifthtea sausage is really obviously that. It's impossible to admit "I was brainwashed into voting for a monster" or "I don't understand even simple 100% facts". Even impossible to admit to yourself!! Reading intelligent writings about 100% facts won't change the mind of very brainwashed person.

[NeonVomit]

Why do you hate America so much?

[NordicStorm]

C'mon, no flaming please! And this was going so well...

[fifthtea_sausage]

Eh, Muslim fundamentalist terrorists would be dying to mess with you. Literally.

Its the unfortunate truth. But once we see that the terrorists who are literally "dying to mess" with us, then invasion is an option.

And given these new reasons justifying the war - what about Sudan?

Well, its important to understand that we invaded Iraq not assuming the role of "world police" but assuming the role of protecting our interests, in terms of safety. Maybe this action was necessary and maybe it wasn't. But in any case, at least we had evidence to invade Iraq (if faulty) relating to WMD's, when we have nothing for Sudan.

Had he actually left, you'd pretty much have to go in anyway to keep the country at least somewhat stable.

Correct, but perhaps, there is a chance that we would have not had to fight against the Iraq soldiers if he had given in peacefully. I mean, he is the absolute dictator. I'm sure he can tell his generals not to attack the invading army. I mean what was this guy thinking? Did he assume that he could win? He was stubborn and stupid, and therefore, we lost 1,000 men and he lost 100,000. It isn't pretty, but it wasn't inevitable either.

I'm not sure why you deemed the qualifier "Democratic" necessary.
That said, Clinton is not the current president, none of his administration is in the current administration, and he didn't invade Iraq on faulty intelligence.

I used the word "democratic" to subtly hint that the anti-Iraq stance, to some members, is partially because they do not believe with other policies of the Republic party. It cannot be a coincidence that 98% of Democrats (not an actual statastic, of course) are against the war. Furthermore, you say that he did not invade Iraq on faulty intelligence. But I proved to you that he went on a bombing campaign looking for likely targets of the WMD's. "But there are no WMD's, FifthTea_Sausage!". Then I wonder perhaps he did attack Iraq on faulty intelligence because he thought they had WMD's!

Because I have a very limited role in deciding the foreign policy of my country? I just don't understand why the fate of the Iraqi people is more important than the fate of those perishing in the ongoing Sudanese genocide, especially given that Iraq did not pose a threat to the US, there were no WMDs and there were on links to Al-Qaeda.

When I said why don't you, I meant why do you think your country is not helping the people of Sudan, if it is such a concern. But as to why Iraq is more important to Sudan? I believe it is because there was evidence of WMD's, be them faulty, and it was in our interest. We didn't do it because of the humanitarian abuses. But that was also a factor, though definitely not a controlling one. Our national security first!

The problem with that theory is that the definiton of "pissing the US off" seems a bit unclear - Iran isn't pissing you off? North Korea isn't pissing you off?

I'm not sure of the best way to answer your question. But I think you need to understand that we have to prioritize. America can't and won't go on a killing rampage around the world because they are not behaving in our favor. Iraq was a special circumstance. Exactly why? I can't answer. I want to hear your answer instead, actually. But keep in mind that Kuwait would be easier to invade, and has much more oil.

Well...as it turns out, Iraq had diddly-squat to do with your national security. And the process of realizing that was well under way at the time of the war.

Oh but it involved our national security nevertheless. We thought they had powerful weapons of mass destruction. We found out that he had weapons of mass destruction, but they weren't what we were expecting. They were instead thousands of biological and chemical weapons being reserved for the Kurds, or whatever group started to annoy Hussein (Americans?).

Aah, the grand idea of spreading freedom and democracy reduced to a mere afterthought to bring up when it turns out no other given justification holds.

No other justification holds?
1. His biological weapons
2. His former attack on the Kurds
3. His former attack on Kuwait
4. The possibility of nuclear weapons
5. The impact he would have on other countries if we carelessly allowed him to have nuclear weapons.

Seriousely. One of these days we turn our backs, and he has a hydrogen bomb. Next he triest to invade Kuwait again. If we defend Kuwait, we are going to have one of those nuclear weapons dropped on our heads and then, it'll be too late for me to say that we should have done something when we had the opportunity.

"We're concerned about the Iraqi people, but only because we think, maybe, perhaps, there's a chance Saddam has nukes. But we're not going to validate the intelligence that makes those claims before we attack. Sudan? Yeah, well, not our problem."
I mean, there's seems to be no logic to it. Unless, of course, the humanitarian aspect isn't actually a factor.

First, only use quotes when you are genuinly quoting someone.
Secondly, I believe that President Bush can make a solid decision regarding whether he should attack or not. I can't defend my position well because I have probably 1/10th of the facts. Perhaps there is some deep motive that none of us no about? Perhaps it is possible that I don't have all the intelligence that the US gov has?

Thirdly, there isn't even a chance that Sudan has nukes. And we don't think they have biological weapons. Iraq - there was a decend chance they had WMD', and we knew they had biological weapons. We also knew that Saddam was a nut and was willing to use them.

Cheers,
Your turn

[\m/ KILLER \m/]

C'mon, no flaming please! And this was going so well...

Yeah! Look at the post above this. you really managed to change that fifth tea USA sausage guy's mind!

First it was the WMDs. When they found no WMDs - then it's for democracy. Then you ask "why not do democracy" in .... well ... let's say Togo. Then answer becomes "it was not really for democracy, it was for the USA national security". Notice how we get closer and closer to the truth!

Notice how Togo has no oil. Notice how Bush is corrupted by oil companies, pentagon hawks and the weapons industry. Notice how he fooled more than half of the USA voters.

98% of under educated idiots were for the iraq war

[\m/ KILLER \m/]

I can't defend my position well because I have probably 1/10th of the facts.

That's the smartest thing you've said in this discussion

Perhaps there is some deep motive that none of us no about?

Yeah, motive is spelled "OIL" and now you know about

Thirdly, there isn't even a chance that Sudan has nukes. And we don't think they have biological weapons.

Wrong again, Clinton thought Sudan had a bio weapons factory and sent cruise missiles. If USA had proof Iraq had a forbidden factory they could have done the same thing, just take out the factory. ALready Israel did that once in bombing an Iraq reactor.

Problem is, you only take out the factory then you don't get control of the OIL!!!!!

Any USA people, just be honest, it's easier to discuss that way. Just say "OK it was for the oil who cares". Don't pretend anymore that it was something else, it just looks really stupid. It's one thing to be greedy. It's much worse to bee too stupid to even realize you're greedy. Then you're both stupid and greedy

[khamael]

Black Gold...hum... "my preccccciousssss"

Yeah, i think that now it's obvious, that OIL was one of the targets of this war...It's impossible to deny this...and it's stupid to try to prove the opposite.

Btw Guys, dont flame...we dont want this topic to close, no?

[fifthtea_sausage]

We were having a discussion here, KILLER. You came with your obnoxious rants and made it into a flame fest. If you ask me, YOU are the blind one, not me. At least I take time to read and undestand my opponents instead of flaming them like a child would.

Yeah, motive is spelled "OIL" and now you know about

YEP! Exactly! What we are planning to do is, despite the fact that Iraqi's have their own government well along the way, and have had an election, have the military soldiers each take a barral, dip it in an oil lake which is of course commonly found in Iraq and it is not necessary to set up some sort of system for withdrawing the oil, put it back on their cruise ship, and before long, each individual American soldier will have a can of oil for their own goodness. But the evil satan bush will seize this oil from the soldiers and bathe in it.

And despite your blubberings about us withdrawing oil, you have failed to give me one official source or piece of evidence that the United States is in there for the oil!

Wrong again, Clinton thought Sudan had a bio weapons factory and sent cruise missiles.

And Bush thought Saddam had WMD's. But this is CLINTON we are talking about. And what he says is definitely reliable, except for the fact that he even lied to his wife.

Problem is, you only take out the factory then you don't get control of the OIL!!!!!

You would think that if there were giant factories in Iraq greedily sucking up all the oil with the American tags on it, and shipping it trans-atlantic to America, then there would be one spot of evidence for it!

Any USA people, just be honest, it's easier to discuss that way. Just say "OK it was for the oil who cares". Don't pretend anymore that it was something else, it just looks really stupid. It's one thing to be greedy. It's much worse to bee too stupid to even realize you're greedy. Then you're both stupid and greedy

I have answered your oil charge already. But I think you fail to understand that I could care less about whether the United States (however impossibly) recieves a shipment of oil from Iraq. Therefore I am in no way greedy. I don't really see how saying I am stupid and greedy defends your argument in anyway. If you can't be more mature about this discussion, please don't bother posting. I don't want this topic closed.

Yeah! Look at the post above this. you really managed to change that fifth tea USA sausage guy's mind!

And you of all people think that you can call me dumb&stupid and manage for me to change my mind while you are doing it? At least Norcicstorm had some decent arguments. All you type is a mush of vague choleric jibberish.

[\m/ KILLER \m/]

At least Norcicstorm had some decent arguments. All you type is a mush of vague choleric jibberish.

Decent arguments or not, did you change your mind or learn something from either of us?

That's what I thought.

Easier to be impolite and just say the truth how it is.

you have failed to give me one official source or piece of evidence that the United States is in there for the oil!

Doesn't matter what I say, if i would find good data nect step for american bush supporter is simply "but that guys is a communist" or "but that paper is not credible" or even "but that's a UN info and the UN is useless". Thus dragging an useless discussion into more useless discussion.

Example, I would write something like http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=8228 and typical answer is "that website is full of clinton supporter and he lied under oath!!!"

There is no official source saying grass is green either. But, it is green. Either you see it is green or you don't

[khamael]

you have failed to give me one official source or piece of evidence that the United States is in there for the oil!

d'oh! hey try to be a little more malicious, nothing in the world is totally white or black, good or evil. It's normal and legitime, now for public's opinion to think that one of the reasons of the attack was OIL.

Found some mass-destruction weapons? Huh? Maybe they hide all in a giant hole in the desert?

And dont misunderstood me...i'm not anti-american...far from this.
But when i see something that seems not clear, i havent problem to admit the possibilities.


Dont you think it should be sad to discover that 1500 US soldiers, more than 100000 Iraqi etc etc, were sacrified...not only for freedom but also for OIL?

[khamael]

BTW. I'm not referring to anyone in particular but Stop Flaming!
Or this thread will be closed.

[NordicStorm]

Its the unfortunate truth. But once we see that the terrorists who are literally "dying to mess" with us, then invasion is an option.

So long as you invade the right country, is all I'm saying. That country was Afghanistan. It wasn't Iraq.

Well, its important to understand that we invaded Iraq not assuming the role of "world police" but assuming the role of protecting our interests, in terms of safety. Maybe this action was necessary and maybe it wasn't. But in any case, at least we had evidence to invade Iraq (if faulty) relating to WMD's, when we have nothing for Sudan.

So will you then admit the sudden compassion for the plight of the Iraqi people under Saddam's rule is nothing but spin?

Correct, but perhaps, there is a chance that we would have not had to fight against the Iraq soldiers if he had given in peacefully. I mean, he is the absolute dictator. I'm sure he can tell his generals not to attack the invading army. I mean what was this guy thinking? Did he assume that he could win? He was stubborn and stupid, and therefore, we lost 1,000 men and he lost 100,000. It isn't pretty, but it wasn't inevitable either.

I can only assume he was operating under the assumption that cooperating with the weapons inspectors would be enough. Alternatively, he may have counted on the insurgency to eventually drive out the US. Of course, his capturing was a minor snag on his plans, but nevertheless..

I used the word "democratic" to subtly hint that the anti-Iraq stance, to some members, is partially because they do not believe with other policies of the Republic party. It cannot be a coincidence that 98% of Democrats (not an actual statastic, of course) are against the war.

I can only assume you haven't been exposed much to partisan politics. Democrats oppose what Republicans do and Republicans oppose what Democrats do. This is hardly anything new or indeed a trait specific to the Democrats. And furthermore, the same charge can be made against the Republicans: they're only supporting the war because a Republican president started it.
That said, a vast majority of Congress (Democrats and Republicans alike) voted in support of authorizing Bush to resort to warfare, if necessary, in October 2002, presumably operating under the assumption that the information given to them at the time was factually correct. The opposition grew stronger when the invasion drew nearer and the intelligence used to justify the war was called into question.

Furthermore, you say that he did not invade Iraq on faulty intelligence. But I proved to you that he went on a bombing campaign looking for likely targets of the WMD's. "But there are no WMD's, FifthTea_Sausage!". Then I wonder perhaps he did attack Iraq on faulty intelligence because he thought they had WMD's!

Further down you lecture me about not using real quotes, but only after you make one up yourself? Heh.
There's a subtle (very subtle indeed) difference between a bombing campaign and a full-scale invasion. Is Clinton a goober for buying into faulty intelligence? Certainly. Does that make Bush less of a goober? No.

When I said why don't you, I meant why do you think your country is not helping the people of Sudan, if it is such a concern. But as to why Iraq is more important to Sudan? I believe it is because there was evidence of WMD's, be them faulty, and it was in our interest. We didn't do it because of the humanitarian abuses. But that was also a factor, though definitely not a controlling one. Our national security first!

Your national security first, but you are willing to spend hundreds of billions and commit thousand upon thousand of troops for an undetermined period of time, on a country that has diddly-squat to do with your national security, while you botch Afghanistan that has bucketloads to do with your national security?

I'm not sure of the best way to answer your question. But I think you need to understand that we have to prioritize.

Yes, I'm already aware of the concept of prioritizing. I just don't think the US government has its priorities straight.

America can't and won't go on a killing rampage around the world because they are not behaving in our favor.

Nor has anyone suggested America should.

Iraq was a special circumstance. Exactly why? I can't answer.

Right.

I want to hear your answer instead, actually.

And I'd very much like to hear the Bush administration's answer.

But keep in mind that Kuwait would be easier to invade, and has much more oil.

Kuwait does not have much more oil than Iraq. Why would you want to invade a country you already control anyway? Next you're telling me the US should invade Texas.

Oh but it involved our national security nevertheless. We thought they had powerful weapons of mass destruction. We found out that he had weapons of mass destruction, but they weren't what we were expecting. They were instead thousands of biological and chemical weapons being reserved for the Kurds, or whatever group started to annoy Hussein (Americans?).

Quite the opposite actually. No WMDs, be it nuclear, biological, chemical or otherwise, were discovered. What little there was wasn't deployable and typically remains from the first Gulf war. Remnants of research projects, abandoned either as a result of the first Gulf war or the sanctions, were discovered, but that's pretty much it.

No other justification holds?

No, I said no other GIVEN justification holds.

1. His biological weapons

The ones that were destroyed in 1991? Besides, he was cooperating with the weapons inspectors, because he wanted to avoid war. Any weapons found would have been dismantled in accordance with the UN resolution.

2. His former attack on the Kurds

Happened in the 80s, with no opposition from the US.

3. His former attack on Kuwait

Which you had kicked his ass for once already.

4. The possibility of nuclear weapons

Based on faulty intelligence. Which was already being called into question prior to the war.

5. The impact he would have on other countries if we carelessly allowed him to have nuclear weapons.

That is assuming "not invading" implies "carelessly allowing him to have nuclear weapons".

Seriousely. One of these days we turn our backs, and he has a hydrogen bomb. Next he triest to invade Kuwait again. If we defend Kuwait, we are going to have one of those nuclear weapons dropped on our heads and then, it'll be too late for me to say that we should have done something when we had the opportunity.

That is assuming "not invading" implies "carelessly allowing him to have nuclear weapons".

First, only use quotes when you are genuinly quoting someone.

How long did it take you to realize it wasn't a genuine quote?

Secondly, I believe that President Bush can make a solid decision regarding whether he should attack or not. I can't defend my position well because I have probably 1/10th of the facts. Perhaps there is some deep motive that none of us no about? Perhaps it is possible that I don't have all the intelligence that the US gov has?

Like what? That Saddam had secretly developed a terminator and sent it back in time to kill Christopher Columbus?
But, if this "secret" intelligence is of the same quality as the "public" intelligence, it's probably prudent to keep it secret, to spare the government from further embarrassment...

Thirdly, there isn't even a chance that Sudan has nukes. And we don't think they have biological weapons. Iraq - there was a decend chance they had WMD', and we knew they had biological weapons. We also knew that Saddam was a nut and was willing to use them.

That's what I'm getting at. Who cares about the Sudanese genocide, because it doesn't serve self-interest to care about them. There is no humanitarian aspect to it. I don't know what biological weapons you are referring to.

[fifthtea_sausage]

So long as you invade the right country, is all I'm saying. That country was Afghanistan. It wasn't Iraq.

Sure, but again, invading Iraq wasn't a mistake. It wasn't justified for our reasons, but it was still justified for other reasons. I don't think that it is fair to say that invading Iraq was wrong, because you are also saying that sacrificing our men (you said its our men, its our business, after all) for the freedom of 25 million Iraqi's was a bad thing.

So will you then admit the sudden compassion for the plight of the Iraqi people under Saddam's rule is nothing but spin?

Once again sir, that was a secondary priority. Saddam Hussein did not encourage democracy. But that doesn't mean that we can just invade any non-democratic country. So the WMD theory was wrong. But the invasion of Iraq was still the right thing to do. Remember, weapons do not kill, people kill.

I can only assume he was operating under the assumption that cooperating with the weapons inspectors would be enough. Alternatively, he may have counted on the insurgency to eventually drive out the US. Of course, his capturing was a minor snag on his plans, but nevertheless..

So when we said leave the country in 48 hours or we would invade, it was just a joke? And here's another joke: Saddam thinking the insurgants would defeat The United States when we have much superior technology. Perhaps he was just insane?

That said, a vast majority of Congress (Democrats and Republicans alike) voted in support of authorizing Bush to resort to warfare, if necessary, in October 2002, presumably operating under the assumption that the information given to them at the time was factually correct.

Actually, Bush never told the congress that there are WMD's. He said that the intelligence that we have gathered indicates that Iraq MAY contain weapons of mass destruction. But for some reason, the opponents of the war have removed that "may" from the statement so they can say Bush outright lied.

The congress isn't stupid. Its their job to judge. And they judged, and they chose.

There's a subtle (very subtle indeed) difference between a bombing campaign and a full-scale invasion.

I agree, its very subtle indeed. Insignificant, really, by my book.

Is Clinton a goober for buying into faulty intelligence? Certainly. Does that make Bush less of a goober? No.

I am just saying that it never provoked such an outrage at the time. No one said that Clinton decieved us!

Your national security first, but you are willing to spend hundreds of billions and commit thousand upon thousand of troops for an undetermined period of time, on a country that has diddly-squat to do with your national security, while you botch Afghanistan that has bucketloads to do with your national security?

First, we have not "botched" Afghanistan. We invaded Afghanistan to get rid of the Al Qaeda terrorist group. I don't know what the hell everyone is complaining about. I repeat, Al Qaeda.

Secondly, while you may in the aftermath say that invading Iraq was useless for our national security, it was certainly a priority as we saw it before the war began.

Why would you want to invade a country you already control anyway?

America controls Kuwait?

No WMDs, be it nuclear, biological, chemical or otherwise, were discovered.

It is a fact that the troops in southern Baghdad and the areas south of that were armed with chemical weapons when W invaded.

That's what I'm getting at. Who cares about the Sudanese genocide, because it doesn't serve self-interest to care about them.

Is this a bad thing? They don't pose a threat to us, and we don't attack them. Why is that such a weird concept for you?

If we felt Iraq was completely safe but was still a fascist dictatorship, we would not invade.

[\m/ KILLER \m/]

nice long discussion.

let's make it shorter:

BLOOD FOR OIL

[NordicStorm]

Sure, but again, invading Iraq wasn't a mistake.

Yeah, because when you invade a country to disarm them, and it turns out they have nothing to disarm, it's not a mistake, it's a...glorious success?

It wasn't justified for our reasons, but it was still justified for other reasons. I don't think that it is fair to say that invading Iraq was wrong, because you are also saying that sacrificing our men (you said its our men, its our business, after all) for the freedom of 25 million Iraqi's was a bad thing.

Iraq may have WMDs (not that we're going to verify it), so the suffering of the Iraqi people is intolerable. Sudan has no WMDs, so 38 million Sudanese suffering is tolerable. Gotcha.

Once again sir, that was a secondary priority. Saddam Hussein did not encourage democracy. But that doesn't mean that we can just invade any non-democratic country. So the WMD theory was wrong. But the invasion of Iraq was still the right thing to do. Remember, weapons do not kill, people kill.

Attacking Iraq was the right thing to do, despite the fact that the only justification that holds is freeing the Iraqi people. But going into Sudan isn't the right thing to do, despite a very similar justification, plus the added bonus of no extra justification of questionable accuracy.

So when we said leave the country in 48 hours or we would invade, it was just a joke? And here's another joke: Saddam thinking the insurgants would defeat The United States when we have much superior technology. Perhaps he was just insane?

Your conflict in Vietnam dragged on and on and on and on...so no, probably not an outlandish thought. No one is contesting his insanity.

Actually, Bush never told the congress that there are WMD's. He said that the intelligence that we have gathered indicates that Iraq MAY contain weapons of mass destruction. But for some reason, the opponents of the war have removed that "may" from the statement so they can say Bush outright lied.

MAY? But that's even worse, now you're invading countries while admitting you don't really have a clue!

The congress isn't stupid. Its their job to judge. And they judged, and they chose.

Congress is a corrupt body ruled by special interest. But disregarding that, they obviously misjudged.

I agree, its very subtle indeed. Insignificant, really, by my book.

Yeah, throwing a few bombs as compared to commiting thousands upon thousands of troops and spending several billions...insignificant, really. Impossible to tell them apart.

I am just saying that it never provoked such an outrage at the time. No one said that Clinton decieved us!

Again you seem to be disregarding the difference in magnitude.
You think there'd be such an outrage if Bush just ordered a targetted bombing campaign, as opposed to comitting American lives and hundreds of billions? Of course not.
Besides, there was quite the outrage over Kosovo (justified or not), but you seem to conveniently be forgetting that. But hey, it's Osama Bin Clinton, so it's alright, apparently.

First, we have not "botched" Afghanistan. We invaded Afghanistan to get rid of the Al Qaeda terrorist group. I don't know what the hell everyone is complaining about. I repeat, Al Qaeda.

You have botched Afghanistan. You have not defeated Al Qaeda, you have not captured Bin Ladin, and in all actuality you control the Kabul area and nothing else. How that can be defined as "not botched" I don't know.

Secondly, while you may in the aftermath say that invading Iraq was useless for our national security, it was certainly a priority as we saw it before the war began.

Based on flawed intelligence. But hey, at least you learnt something: Your intelligence community is crap and shouldn't be charged with protecting you!

America controls Kuwait?

Kuwait has one of the most fiercely pro-US governments in the region. Do read up before throwing around emoticons.

It is a fact that the troops in southern Baghdad and the areas south of that were armed with chemical weapons when W invaded.

And they were WMDs? Can't have been very effective...

Is this a bad thing? They don't pose a threat to us, and we don't attack them. Why is that such a weird concept for you?

So stop pretending the plight of the Iraqi people matters.

If we felt Iraq was completely safe but was still a fascist dictatorship, we would not invade.

So stop pretending the plight of the Iraqi people matters.

[khamael]

America controls Kuwait?

Whaaaa...hey open your eyes.

[fifthtea_sausage]

Yeah, because when you invade a country to disarm them, and it turns out they have nothing to disarm, it's not a mistake, it's a...glorious success?

No one said that it was a glorious success. But it was not a "mistake!" The nutcase perhaps didn't have the weapons to kill us yet, but he would of course make those weapons! Saddam Hussein was a grave danger to us, WMD"s today or not!

raq may have WMDs (not that we're going to verify it), so the suffering of the Iraqi people is intolerable. Sudan has no WMDs, so 38 million Sudanese suffering is tolerable. Gotcha.

Wrong! The argument was:
-Saddam is a nut.
-Iraq may have WND's. THE END.
How many times do I have to explain to you that the humantiarian issue was a second priority. Saddam Hussein was the priority! I keep telling this to you and then you come back and throw the Sudan argument at me again. Lets move on!

Attacking Iraq was the right thing to do, despite the fact that the only justification that holds is freeing the Iraqi people. But going into Sudan isn't the right thing to do, despite a very similar justification, plus the added bonus of no extra justification of questionable accuracy.

Attacking Iraq was the right thing to do because it put Saddam out of power, because he was a threat to us.

MAY? But that's even worse, now you're invading countries while admitting you don't really have a clue!

I'm not invading anyone. And we did have a clue. Our intelligence and the British intelligence failed us regarding one DETAIL of the war. The main purpose of the war was Saddam, not the WMD's. Of course, the suspision of WMD"s made the war a higher priority, but Saddam's downfall was a great reason why we invaded.

Once again, remember, weapons do not kill. People kill. That person is Saddam Hussein.

Congress is a corrupt body ruled by special interest. But disregarding that, they obviously misjudged.

Don't throw blatant accusations for which you have no evidence. And they did not misjudge going into war. But thats the whole basis of this discussion, isn't it?

Yeah, throwing a few bombs as compared to commiting thousands upon thousands of troops and spending several billions...insignificant, really. Impossible to tell them apart.

You yourself said the difference was subtle.

You have botched Afghanistan. You have not defeated Al Qaeda, you have not captured Bin Ladin, and in all actuality you control the Kabul area and nothing else. How that can be defined as "not botched" I don't know.

We have kicked Al Qaeda out of the country. Perhaps they are not all dead, but they certainly don't have a whole country to themselves now. Bin Laden is alive. But his organization was kicked out of their country. Maybe this isn't absolute success, but I think its a pretty damn good starting point in the war vs. terrorism.

Based on flawed intelligence. But hey, at least you learnt something: Your intelligence community is crap and shouldn't be charged with protecting you!

Maybe one day the terrorists will get mad at your country. Then when you try to do something so your women and children are not exploded into pieces by them, we will attack your "intelligence" and your moves.

I seriously doubt that your country understands our priorities. THen again, your country did not have planes ran into your buildings. This is the war against Terrorism and Saddam Hussein is terrorist and scum.

Kuwait has one of the most fiercely pro-US governments in the region. Do read up before throwing around emoticons.

Kuwait can have whatever government they want. And if they choose to support us or work with us, thats fine. But saying we "control" them because their government supports us is absuird and ludicrous. It is like saying America also controls Britain.

And they were WMDs? Can't have been very effective...

I doubt they were the WMD's that Bush/Our Intelligence were referring to. But they were chemical weapons. You claimed there were none.

So stop pretending the plight of the Iraqi people matters.

But it does matter. But it was simply a secondary justification. Saddam and the WMD's were a higher priority.

nice long discussion.
let's make it shorter:
BLOOD FOR OIL

Please stop participating in this discussion, as you have nothing meaningful to say. We already discussed that situation. So one independant company won some profits because of it. What does that company have to do with US? Cheney isn't CEO anymore and what they do with the Iraqi government is their business!

In America, the government does not take oil and keep it for themselves. I really don't know how it is in some of the more socialist countries where the government plays a bigger role.

[NordicStorm]

No one said that it was a glorious success. But it was not a "mistake!" The nutcase perhaps didn't have the weapons to kill us yet, but he would of course make those weapons! Saddam Hussein was a grave danger to us, WMD"s today or not!

Yes! He was such a grave danger, sitting there contained in his country. Whereas Iran and North Korea apparently are small cute puppies.

Wrong! The argument was:
-Saddam is a nut.
-Iraq may have WND's. THE END.

You seem to be forgetting the links to Al-Qaeda. So what are we left with now then? "Saddam is a nut". Well great, the arguments in support of the war just keeps getting better and better. You're going to be awfully busy ridding the world of nuts in the coming years.

How many times do I have to explain to you that the humantiarian issue was a second priority.

Until you realize a necessary consequence of your argument is that the humanitarian issue wasn't an issue. You yourself said you wouldn't have attacked if you didn't believe Iraq posed a threat. Which makes the humanitarian issue not even secondary, it makes it irrelevant.
So on that note: What about Sudan, if the humanitarian issue is indeed an issue?

Saddam Hussein was the priority! I keep telling this to you and then you come back and throw the Sudan argument at me again. Lets move on!

See above.

Attacking Iraq was the right thing to do because it put Saddam out of power, because he was a threat to us.

He wasn't.

I'm not invading anyone.

"You" referring to the US government, as was clear from the context.

And we did have a clue. Our intelligence and the British intelligence failed us regarding one DETAIL of the war. The main purpose of the war was Saddam, not the WMD's. Of course, the suspision of WMD"s made the war a higher priority, but Saddam's downfall was a great reason why we invaded.

One? How is no WMDs and no links to AL-Qaeda one detail? And, not to mention, that's a huge fucking detail! You're making it sound like it was some small detail waaay down on the list, when it in fact was reason 1A, which without you wouldn't be in Iraq right now. Not even to get rid off Saddam for the sake of getting rid of Saddam, as you now all of a sudden claim was an incredibly important reason.
And, if indeed it was so important to get rid of Saddam, even if he possessed no WMDs and had no links to Al-Qaeda, why was he so important to get rid of? Humanitarian reasons?

Once again, remember, weapons do not kill. People kill. That person is Saddam Hussein.

And tons of other nutbags. But Saddam Hussein is the chosen one. Seemingly arbitrarily. But it's funny to hear NRA slogans in regards to WMDs. I didn't even know they had a WMD lobby.

Don't throw blatant accusations for which you have no evidence. And they did not misjudge going into war. But thats the whole basis of this discussion, isn't it?

No evidence? Look no further than the bankruptcy bill passed this very week.
And they did misjudge going into war. Unless of course they already knew at the time the information given to them was bullshit, and they decided to authorize the war for humanitarian reasons...

You yourself said the difference was subtle.

It's called sarcasm.

We have kicked Al Qaeda out of the country.

You haven't. There are large areas of Afghanistan you simply have no control over.

Perhaps they are not all dead, but they certainly don't have a whole country to themselves now.

They didn't before either.

Bin Laden is alive. But his organization was kicked out of their country.

Some of it was thrown out, not all. Which is why Al-Qaeda lives on and is now growing independently of Bin Ladin.

Maybe this isn't absolute success, but I think its a pretty damn good starting point in the war vs. terrorism.

It would have been a good starting point, and it would have been successful in eradicating Al-Qaeda, if it hadn't been for your misadventures in a country nearby that drew attention, resources and troops away from Afghanistan. But as it stands right now...you botched it.

Maybe one day the terrorists will get mad at your country. Then when you try to do something so your women and children are not exploded into pieces by them, we will attack your "intelligence" and your moves.

Nevermind the fact that Saddam wasn't involved in 9/11. But nice try with the emotional appeal.

I seriously doubt that your country understands our priorities.

I seriously doubt anyone does.

THen again, your country did not have planes ran into your buildings. This is the war against Terrorism and Saddam Hussein is terrorist and scum.

Funny how you keep mentioning 9/11 and Saddam Hussein in such close proximity, despite the fact that Saddam wasn't involved. It also funny how you're fighting the war on terror in a country peripheral, at best, to the war on terror.

Kuwait can have whatever government they want. And if they choose to support us or work with us, thats fine. But saying we "control" them because their government supports us is absuird and ludicrous. It is like saying America also controls Britain.

Though, I was contesting your assertion that invading Kuwait would be smarter if it was for the oil, you seem to be contesting my choice of words. Whether you think it's "absuird and ludicrous" notwithstanding, why would you want to invade a country that's more than happy to sell the oil to you?
I'd still venture to say you control Kuwait, via money flow and other means, despite your sincere efforts to make it seem like an outlandish thought.

I doubt they were the WMD's that Bush/Our Intelligence were referring to. But they were chemical weapons. You claimed there were none.

"No WMDs, be it nuclear, biological, chemical or otherwise, were discovered." I don't know what weapons you are referring to, but they can't have been WMDs. Otherwise there wouldn't be such an outrage about going to war on false intelligence.

But it does matter. But it was simply a secondary justification. Saddam and the WMD's were a higher priority.

But it wasn't a justification enough for you to go into the country if you didn't falsely believe Saddam was a threat. Which means it wasn't secondary, it was irrelevant. So stop pretending the plight of the Iraqi people matter.

[fifthtea_sausage]

Yes! He was such a grave danger, sitting there contained in his country.

Despite your blatant use of sarcasm, Saddam was a threat to us and the free world. I can understand in Europe that isn't a concern since the government is socialist anyway.

ou seem to be forgetting the links to Al-Qaeda. So what are we left with now then? "Saddam is a nut". Well great, the arguments in support of the war just keeps getting better and better. You're going to be awfully busy ridding the world of nuts in the coming years.

Because the man was out of his mind and a danger to us! That is the reason for going to war. If he has WMD's, that only makes it a higher priority.

He wasn't.

He was.

And, if indeed it was so important to get rid of Saddam, even if he possessed no WMDs and had no links to Al-Qaeda, why was he so important to get rid of? Humanitarian reasons?

It is only a matter of time when you will decide to use a new argument instead of repeating the old one over and over and getting the same response over and over. But I'll say it again. Because he was a threat to us. WMD's or not. The fact that we thought he had WMD's prompted us to act sooner. But his position made it inevitable.

And tons of other nutbags. But Saddam Hussein is the chosen one. Seemingly arbitrarily. But it's funny to hear NRA slogans in regards to WMDs. I didn't even know they had a WMD lobby.

Because Saddam was a threat! Sudan is not a threat! And the NRA slogan is genius...

I seriously doubt anyone does.

Europe doesn't. Because all Europeans are a bunch of flowery hippie-liberals who don't realize that you can't have peace without war. You would be much happier if Saddam was still in power. Or you just hate America because your friends do and are running out of arguments.

Funny how you keep mentioning 9/11 and Saddam Hussein in such close proximity, despite the fact that Saddam wasn't involved.

Saddam Hussein is a terrorist. If you have seen what kind of things his sons had done...just imagine that these guys had a few missiles. Would they hesitate to blow us up? I'm not going to wait and see.

Though, I was contesting your assertion that invading Kuwait would be smarter if it was for the oil, you seem to be contesting my choice of words. Whether you think it's "absuird and ludicrous" notwithstanding, why would you want to invade a country that's more than happy to sell the oil to you?

We wouldn't have to buy it. And it is quite lame that you are using a "typo" as a part of your argument.

Otherwise there wouldn't be such an outrage about going to war on false intelligence.

Your statement is phrased to say that the only reason we went to war is because they have WMD's. We did not go to war on ambiguous intelligence. I have explained to you why we went to war many times already.

Your statement is basically like saying: France has WMD's. Lets invade them!

But it wasn't a justification enough for you to go into the country if you didn't falsely believe Saddam was a threat. Which means it wasn't secondary, it was irrelevant. So stop pretending the plight of the Iraqi people matter.

FALSELY believe Saddam was a threat
Considering that France was supplying them with weapons as a fact, its only time until they would decide to ship something a little more destructive to their Hussein brothers.

The plight of the Iraqi people do matter. Its simply that we cannot invade a country given that justification because euro-socialist-hippies would whine. Of course, it raises new questions such as whether it is worth it to play world police if it isn't necessary.

[NordicStorm]

Despite your blatant use of sarcasm, Saddam was a threat to us and the free world. I can understand in Europe that isn't a concern since the government is socialist anyway.

Lol. Yes, because of the European socialist government, it is generally understood that Saddam wasn't a threat. I must say, your arguments are compelling.

Because the man was out of his mind and a danger to us! That is the reason for going to war. If he has WMD's, that only makes it a higher priority.

Higher priority? What did you think this guy was going to do, throw stones at you?

He was.

I'll humour you and pretend he posed a modicum of a threat. What about those being more of a threat? Specifically, Iran and North Korea? And why did you botch Afghanistan if you're so concerned about getting rid of threats? And why haven't you held Pakistan to account for selling nuclear weapon secrets to North Korea? Or Saudi Arabia for that matter, 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis, after all.

It is only a matter of time when you will decide to use a new argument instead of repeating the old one over and over and getting the same response over and over.

Likewise. Maybe Saddam and his stone collection could come and help you redecorate that glass house of yours.

But I'll say it again. Because he was a threat to us. WMD's or not. The fact that we thought he had WMD's prompted us to act sooner. But his position made it inevitable.

Yes, he was such a threat, with no deployable WMDs, being contained in his country, having no Al-Qaeda connections. But he does throw a mean stone. Forgive my blatant use of sarcasm.

Because Saddam was a threat! Sudan is not a threat!

You keep saying that, but when I point out that implies that the Iraqi people suffering then is irrelevant, you scold me and say I'm repeating myself. While you yourself admit you wouldn't even be in Iraq if it wasn't for the perceived threat of Saddam and his stone collection. How am I supposed to draw the conclusion that the plight of the Iraqi people is of any significance?

Europe doesn't. Because all Europeans are a bunch of flowery hippie-liberals who don't realize that you can't have peace without war. You would be much happier if Saddam was still in power. Or you just hate America because your friends do and are running out of arguments.

Tsk tsk tsk. No wonder you can't convince anyone you're right. Might want to rethink your approach there.

Who's running out of arguments?
No deployable WMDs, there are no Al-Qaeda connections, Saddam was contained. He did not pose a threat. The intelligence getting you in there in the first place was flawed. You botched Afghanistan while having your little misadventures in Iraq. What you're left with is "Saddam is a nut. 9/11!" and the humanitarian aspect, which you yourself call secondary, at best. There is very little to support this war on the basis of international security.

Do I want democracy to work in Iraq? Absolutely. But I'm not going to pretend like the rationale for going to war being hogwash is a minor detail. Nor am I going to pretend the rationale was anything but hogwash. Nor that your beloved president Bush, by virtue of being a Republican, is above all criticism. But hey, that Democratic president Osama Bin Clinton sure is up to no good!

And apparently criticizing certain aspects of the policies of the US government makes you hate America. Interesting. I guess that means I hate France for criticizing their support of selling weapons to the Chinese. I guess that also means I hate China. Not to mention Russia, because of my criticizing Generalissimo Putin. And let's not forget Sweden. And Saudi Arabia! And Sudan! Heck, I even hate my own country for criticizing my own government!

Saddam Hussein is a terrorist. If you have seen what kind of things his sons had done...just imagine that these guys had a few missiles. Would they hesitate to blow us up? I'm not going to wait and see.

You know, there's a crapload of people who have done a crapload of horrible things. Not all of them are threats to American interests, some of them even favors American interests. Such as Saddam being at war with Iran for 8 years, for example.
But yes! Let's imagine they have missiles! That way, we succumb to fear and stop thinking rationally about it! If we're scared to death, we'll accept whatever crap they're telling us, as long as we think they're protecting us! I guess that's how they passed the Patriot act.

We wouldn't have to buy it.

Yeah, and that wouldn't be particularly wise. If you're a capitalist, you want a money flow.

And it is quite lame that you are using a "typo" as a part of your argument.

What on earth are you talking about? I couldn't care less about your typos. I'm sure I've made several myself without noticing.

Your statement is phrased to say that the only reason we went to war is because they have WMD's.

Well, now you're forgetting the Al-Qaeda links again. I strongly disagree with your characterization of my arguments. The reason you went, or at least the reason you gave for going, was to disarm Saddam because he was perceived as a threat. Well, guess what? No WMDs, no threat, no Al-Qaeda ties, no nothing.

We did not go to war on ambiguous intelligence.

Actually, you did. There was great disagreement within the intelligence community regarding the veracity of the claims. Which made the insistence on there being WMDs all the more peculiar.

I have explained to you why we went to war many times already.

Yeah, and we went through your list of justifications, and concluded they didn't hold. Or have you forgotten that already?

Your statement is basically like saying: France has WMD's. Lets invade them!

You don't remember the vast protests against France in 1998ish for their tests of nuclear weapons in the Pacific Ocean?

FALSELY believe Saddam was a threat

Yup.

Considering that France was supplying them with weapons as a fact, its only time until they would decide to ship something a little more destructive to their Hussein brothers.

So when are you invading France?

The plight of the Iraqi people do matter. Its simply that we cannot invade a country given that justification because euro-socialist-hippies would whine.

Especially not if you try to sell the war on a threat that just isn't there. Also, you might want to rethink your marketing strategy, I don't think people characterized as "euro-socialist-hippies" are going to be any keener to support you.

Of course, it raises new questions such as whether it is worth it to play world police if it isn't necessary.

Well, when you're done supporting dictatorships such as Saudi Arabia, and you're actually committed to the idea of freedom and democracy, and are truly ready to be the world police, as opposed to a superpower acting purely out of self interest, let me know. I'm not holding my breath on that one, though.

[khamael]

Considering that France was supplying them with weapons as a fact

Yes it's true... But obviously USA never sold any weapons to other countries in your opinion, hum... ?:roll:

Dont try to accuse other countries for something USA have done a lot in past and continue to do. Any "powerful" nation produce and sells weapons!

Are you too young to remember the Cold War?

[Neorave]

wow, once again I am shocked to see how many foreign people are into American affairs. I'm even more shocked to see that there is more discussion than the Presidential election topic. There's too many people with too many quotes, I can't keep track of them all.

In addition, I've noticed there hasn't been any American representatives in this topic. Where are my fellow American friends in this topic?

[khamael]

...hum. I guess that fithtea_sausage is an US citizen. Anyway nothing wrong for me to discuss here, without flames obviously (already said this).

[Neorave]

I realize that fifthtea_sausage is a US citizen, but I'm talking about actual born-American people, what about them? I mean, not saying that people like fifthtea_sausage knows a lot about America, but what about those who are born and raised here. I think they would know more about America, being the fact that theyu've been a part of it most of their lives. Let me see if I can straighten some of this out for you guys:

First, I'm sorry to say, but YES, we are doing it for oil. Don't believe in what people say it was because "oh, we did it to get Saddam" or "we did it to get rid of the WMD", because in the end, it all was for oil. And now, look at gas prices here in America now. We pay over $2.00 per gallon without worry!

Second, we technically don't have the best president in power right now. Many people can argue that Kerry is a better candidate, but something about him just makes me think he's a fake. Plus, many of these things that Bush had started (most domestic programs and policies), I'd rather have him finish these up that to have a different president somehow fuck it up. Some of these programs Bush has going is pretty good.

Anything else I can think up, I'll report back here.

Anyway nothing wrong for me to discuss here, without flames obviously (already said this).

One little flame is not gonna kill anyone, really. Technically, you can't really stop it from happening. All I can say is don't worry about it.

[Equinox]

First, I'm sorry to say, but YES, we are doing it for oil. Don't believe in what people say it was because "oh, we did it to get Saddam" or "we did it to get rid of the WMD", because in the end, it all was for oil. And now, look at gas prices here in America now. We pay over $2.00 per gallon without worry!

I think the same. . . . . . .even though this is a Finnish-American discussion.

[fifthtea_sausage]

First, I want to start out to talk with nordicstorm.
I heard your arguments and you heard mine. At this point we are just playing lacross back and forth if you would pardon the analogy as you say "Sudan!" and I say "Threat" and you say "Stone" etc etc. There is really nothing more we can get out of our little debate. We have exhausted our arguments. Its just up to interpretation now.

Neorave, my fellow American. You have to realize that many different people live in the United States. Many different beliefs. It is not fair for you to say as an internal source that the war was for the oil, because when you taking the position of "American," you're speaking for all of us. I know many Americans who would disagree on your explanation for the war. I'm just saying that other Americans have different opinions, and your comment sounds a lot like a general confession on the part of the Americans.

Second, we technically don't have the best president in power right now.

Again, thats your opinion. Its because of these internal representations that people on these boards think there isn't a single person in the world who supports Bush.

Anyway take it easy guys.

-FifthTea_Sausage

[Neorave]

fifthtea, let me first do something...
*walks out...large banging noises come from outside*

..ok! Sorry, had to readjust my head there. I though you were a foreign citizen that got his US citizenship. Well, that shows how much of a dumbshit I am

Second, you're right, it is my opinion. And this is going back to the first point, that I thought this was mainly foreign people discussing about American affairs. Once again this shows how much of a dumbshit I am.

So, I'm open to flaming on myself at this time.

[Equinox]

So, I'm open to flaming on myself at this time.

*EquinoX grab his flamethrower gun*

*Target: Neorave.*

*Pulls trigger*

*Death*

[\m/ KILLER \m/]

First, I want to start out to talk with nordicstorm. I heard your arguments and you heard mine. At this point we are just playing lacross back and forth if you would pardon the analogy as you say "Sudan!" and I say "Threat" and you say "Stone" etc etc. There is really nothing more we can get out of our little debate. We have exhausted our arguments. Its just up to interpretation now.

Right it's up to imterpretation. And I can tell you that most people who read your arguments and who read nordicstorms arguments (better than yours i think) come to same conclusion via interpretation: Iraq was mainly about oil.

But i can be wrong and i will put up a poll about it so we can see what people think here really!

[\m/ KILLER \m/]

First, I'm sorry to say, but YES, we are doing it for oil. Don't believe in what people say it was because "oh, we did it to get Saddam" or "we did it to get rid of the WMD", because in the end, it all was for oil. And now, look at gas prices here in America now. We pay over $2.00 per gallon without worry!

This is what I've been saying all along. Of course not all Americans are blind. many many many USA people also voted AGAINST Bush, sadly not enough of them.