What if Bush has been right about Iraq all along?

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

raildogg

Lifer
Aug 24, 2004
12,892
572
126
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: raildogg
Originally posted by: conjur
Democracy in the Middle East? What's the benefit to us from that?

Do you seriously not believe democracy is a good thing? Would you rather there be a tyranny there under Saddam? Do you? Tell us.

Democracy anywhere is a wonderful thing, ask Japan and Germany that. Ask Taiwan that, ask Turkey that (one of the few Islamic democracies) how wonderful democracy is. We should be proud that America helped these people in setting up the first steps towards a democracy - voting. But after all, we should be proud of the Iraqi's who turned out in huge numbers to defy the terrorist thugs
Yeah...that democratic state of Israel is just all on the high road, eh? Let's forget the dozens of UN resolutions of which Israel is in violation. And the democracy here in the US, yeah, we're all righteous and stuff, too, dude. We kicked some ass in Panama and removed a two-bit general that had nothing to do with the war on drugs so we could flex our new F117 muscles.

Turkey, yeah, they're just champing at the bit to do some knockdown on the Kurds.

LOL UN violations. UN finally recognized the holocaust after 60 years of denial. The UN is saying the current genocide in Sudan is not genocide but crimes. Who can take this organiztion seriously? I bet they're not calling genocide in Sudan because Arabs are commiting the atrocities there like the Nazi's did back in the 40's. Lets not forget that the UN did absolutely NOTHING to stop the genocide in Rwanda. And neither did the rest of the world for that matter, shame on all humans for that. Guess we did not learn our lesson from the holocaust.

What does democracy have to do with all the stuff you mentioned? Please stay focused.
 

ntdz

Diamond Member
Aug 5, 2004
6,989
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
Bush was wrong. 100% wrong.

The justification used for invading Iraq was the known stockpiles of WMDs and other known "evidence" of reconstituted BW/CW/Nuclear weapons programs.

This has been proven to be a complete and utter fabrication and exaggeration of dubious intelligence.

Ergo, this war can never be justified.


If the Iraqis wanted democracy, they'd have found a way to get it. We did back in the late 18th century.

So what if that wasn't the main justification for war. Doesn't mean its not a worthy cause.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
You tell me. You think democracy is da shiznit or something. Democracy can be grand but it can have its tyrannical moments, too. You like to ignore those, though.


And, yes, UN violations:
http://www.middleeastnews.com/unresolutionslist.html
A list of UN Resolutions against "Israel"

1955-1992:
* Resolution 106: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for Gaza raid".
* Resolution 111: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people".
* Resolution 127: " . . . 'recommends' Israel suspends it's 'no-man's zone' in Jerusalem".
* Resolution 162: " . . . 'urges' Israel to comply with UN decisions".
* Resolution 171: " . . . determines flagrant violations' by Israel in its attack on Syria".
* Resolution 228: " . . . 'censures' Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control".
* Resolution 237: " . . . 'urges' Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees".
* Resolution 248: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan".
* Resolution 250: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem".
* Resolution 251: " . . . 'deeply deplores' Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250".
* Resolution 252: " . . . 'declares invalid' Israel's acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital".
* Resolution 256: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli raids on Jordan as 'flagrant violation".
* Resolution 259: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation".
* Resolution 262: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for attack on Beirut airport".
* Resolution 265: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks for Salt in Jordan".
* Resolution 267: " . . . 'censures' Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem".
*Resolution 270: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon".
* Resolution 271: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem".
* Resolution 279: " . . . 'demands' withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon".
* Resolution 280: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli's attacks against Lebanon".
* Resolution 285: " . . . 'demands' immediate Israeli withdrawal form Lebanon".
* Resolution 298: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's changing of the status of Jerusalem".
* Resolution 313: " . . . 'demands' that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon".
* Resolution 316: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon".
* Resolution 317: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to release Arabs abducted in Lebanon".
* Resolution 332: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's repeated attacks against Lebanon".
* Resolution 337: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violating Lebanon's sovereignty".
* Resolution 347: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli attacks on Lebanon".
* Resolution 425: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon".
* Resolution 427: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon.
* Resolution 444: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces".
* Resolution 446: " . . . 'determines' that Israeli settlements are a 'serious
obstruction' to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention".
* Resolution 450: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon".
* Resolution 452: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories".
* Resolution 465: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's settlements and asks all member
states not to assist Israel's settlements program".
* Resolution 467: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's military intervention in Lebanon".
* Resolution 468: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of
two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return".
* Resolution 469: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's failure to observe the
council's order not to deport Palestinians".
* Resolution 471: " . . . 'expresses deep concern' at Israel's failure to abide
by the Fourth Geneva Convention".
* Resolution 476: " . . . 'reiterates' that Israel's claim to Jerusalem are 'null and void'".
* Resolution 478: " . . . 'censures (Israel) in the strongest terms' for its
claim to Jerusalem in its 'Basic Law'".
* Resolution 484: " . . . 'declares it imperative' that Israel re-admit two deported
Palestinian mayors".
* Resolution 487: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel for its attack on Iraq's
nuclear facility".
* Resolution 497: " . . . 'decides' that Israel's annexation of Syria's Golan
Heights is 'null and void' and demands that Israel rescinds its decision forthwith".
* Resolution 498: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon".
* Resolution 501: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops".
* Resolution 509: " . . . 'demands' that Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon".
* Resolution 515: " . . . 'demands' that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and
allow food supplies to be brought in".
* Resolution 517: " . . . 'censures' Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions
and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon".
* Resolution 518: " . . . 'demands' that Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon".
* Resolution 520: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's attack into West Beirut".
* Resolution 573: " . . . 'condemns' Israel 'vigorously' for bombing Tunisia
in attack on PLO headquarters.
* Resolution 587: " . . . 'takes note' of previous calls on Israel to withdraw
its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw".
* Resolution 592: " . . . 'strongly deplores' the killing of Palestinian students
at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops".
* Resolution 605: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's policies and practices
denying the human rights of Palestinians.
* Resolution 607: " . . . 'calls' on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly
requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.
* Resolution 608: " . . . 'deeply regrets' that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians".
* Resolution 636: " . . . 'deeply regrets' Israeli deportation of Palestinian civilians.
* Resolution 641: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's continuing deportation of Palestinians.
* Resolution 672: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violence against Palestinians
at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount.
* Resolution 673: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to cooperate with the United
Nations.
* Resolution 681: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's resumption of the deportation of
Palestinians.
* Resolution 694: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's deportation of Palestinians and
calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return.
* Resolution 726: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of Palestinians.
* Resolution 799: ". . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of 413 Palestinians
and calls for their immediate return.


Oh...this one's a bit more up-to-date:
http://bitterfact.tripod.com/israel/unresolutions.html
UN Resolutions pertaining to Iraq: (16)

Resolution 678 - November 29, 1990,
Resolution 686 - March 2, 1991,
Resolution 687 - April 3, 1991,
Resolution 688 - April 5, 1991,
Resolution 707 - August 15, 1991,
Resolution 715 - October 11, 1991,
Resolution 949 - October 15, 1994,
Resolution 1051 - March 27, 1996,
Resolution 1060 - June 12, 1996,
Resolution 1115 - June 21, 1997,
Resolution 1134 - October 23, 1997,
Resolution 1137 - November 12, 1997,
Resolution 1154 - March 2, 1998,
Resolution 1194 - September 9, 1998,
Resolution 1205 - November 5, 1998,
Resolution 1284 - December 17, 1999.
UN Security Council Resolutions pertaining to Israel: 1955-2002 (70)

(UN General Assembly Resolution 181 (1947) approved the creation of Israel, the Jewish State by calling for the partition of the British-ruled palestine. In this resolution itseft, Israel has never accepted the following elements.

1. The creation of a Palestinian State, whose boundaries are specified.
2. The designation of Jerusalem as an International zone.
3. The adoption of a constitution for the Jewish State, of which the State of Israel does not have till today.
4. "No expropriation of land owned by an Arab in a Jewish State should be allowed except for public purposes".
5. Persons residing in Palestine shall "become citizens of the State in which they are resident and enjoy full civil and political rights."
6. Jaffa should be an Arab Enclave in the Jewish State. (More on this...)

Resolution 106: "... 'condemns' Israel for Gaza raid"
Resolution 111: "...'condemns' Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people"
Resolution 127: "...'recommends' Israel suspend its 'no-man's zone' in Jerusalem"
Resolution 162: "...'urges' Israel to comply with UN decisions"
Resolution 171: "...determines flagrant violations' by Israel in its attack on Syria"
Resolution 228: "...'censures' Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control"
Resolution 237: "...'urges' Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees"
Resolution 248: "... 'condemns' Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan"
Resolution 250: "... 'calls' on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem"
Resolution 251: "... 'deeply deplores' Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250"
Resolution 252: "...'declares invalid' Israel's acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital"
Resolution 256: "... 'condemns' Israeli raids on Jordan as 'flagrant violation""
Resolution 259: "...'deplores' Israel's refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation"
Resolution 262: "...'condemns' Israel for attack on Beirut airport"
Resolution 265: "... 'condemns' Israel for air attacks for Salt in Jordan"
Resolution 267: "...'censures' Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem"
Resolution 270: "...'condemns' Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon"
Resolution 271: "...'condemns' Israel's failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem"
Resolution 279: "...'demands' withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon"
Resolution 280: "....'condemns' Israeli's attacks against Lebanon"
Resolution 285: "...'demands' immediate Israeli withdrawal form Lebanon"
Resolution 298: "...'deplores' Israel's changing of the status of Jerusalem"
Resolution 313: "...'demands' that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon"
Resolution 316: "...'condemns' Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon"
Resolution 317: "...'deplores' Israel's refusal to release Arabs abducted in Lebanon"
Resolution 332: "...'condemns' Israel's repeated attacks against Lebanon"
Resolution 337: "...'condemns' Israel for violating Lebanon's sovereignty"
Resolution 347: "...'condemns' Israeli attacks on Lebanon"
Resolution 425: "...'calls' on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon"
Resolution 427: "...'calls' on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon'
Resolution 444: "...'deplores' Israel's lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces"
Resolution 446: "...'determines' that Israeli settlements are a 'serious obstruction' to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention"
Resolution 450: "...'calls' on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon"
Resolution 452: "...'calls' on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories"
Resolution 465: "...'deplores' Israel's settlements and asks all member states not to assist Israel's settlements program"
Resolution 467: "...'strongly deplores' Israel's military intervention in Lebanon"
Resolution 468: "...'calls' on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return"
Resolution 469: "...'strongly deplores' Israel's failure to observe the council's order not to deport Palestinians" 39. Resolution 471: "... 'expresses deep concern' at Israel's failure to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention"
Resolution 476: "... 'reiterates' that Israel's claims to Jerusalem are 'null and void'"
Resolution 478: "...'censures (Israel) in the strongest terms' for its claim to Jerusalem in its 'Basic Law'"
Resolution 484: "...'declares it imperative' that Israel re-admit two deported Palestinian mayors"
Resolution 487: "...'strongly condemns' Israel for its attack on Iraq's nuclear facility"
Resolution 497: "...'decides' that Israel's annexation of Syria's Golan Heights is 'null and void' and demands that Israel rescind its decision forthwith"
Resolution 498: "...'calls' on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon"
Resolution 501: "...'calls' on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops"
Resolution 509: "...'demands' that Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon"
Resolution 515: "...'demands' that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and allow food supplies to be brought in"
Resolution 517: "...'censures' Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon"
Resolution 518: "...'demands' that Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon"
Resolution 520: "...'condemns' Israel's attack into West Beirut"
Resolution 573: "...'condemns' Israel 'vigorously' for bombing Tunisia in attack on PLO headquarters
Resolution 587: "...'takes note' of previous calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw"
Resolution 592: "...'strongly deplores' the killing of Palestinian students at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops" 55. Resolution 605: "...'strongly deplores' Israel's policies and practices denying the human rights of Palestinians
Resolution 607: "...'calls' on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention
Resolution 608: "...'deeply regrets' that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians"
Resolution 636: "...'deeply regrets' Israeli deportation of Palestinian civilians
Resolution 641: "...'deplores' Israel's continuing deportation of Palestinians
Resolution 672: "...'condemns' Israel for violence against Palestinians at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount
Resolution 673: "...'deplores' Israel's refusal to cooperate with the United Nations
Resolution 681: "...'deplores' Israel's resumption of the deportation of Palestinians
Resolution 694: "...'deplores' Israel's deportation of Palestinians and calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return
Resolution 726: "...'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of Palestinians
Resolution 799: "...'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of 413 Palestinians and calls for their immediate return.
Resolution 904: "..Strongly condemns the massacre in Hebron and its aftermath which took the lives of more than 50 Palestinian civilians and injured several hundred others"
Resolution1073: ".. Deeply concerned about the tragic events in Jerusalem and the areas of Nablus, Ramallah, Bethlehem and the Gaza Strip, resulting in a high number of deaths and injuries among the Palestinian civilians.
Resolution 1322: "..Condemns acts of violence, especially the excessive use of force against Palestinians, resulting in injury and loss of human life"
Resolution 1397: "..Demands immediate cessation of all acts of violence, including all acts of terror, provocation, incitement and destruction. "
Resolution 1402: ".. calls for the withdrawal of Israeli troops from Palestinian cities, including Ramallah."
Resolution 1403: "..Demands the implementation of its resolution 1402 (2002) without delay ."
Resolution 1405: "..Deeply concerned about the dire humanitarian situation of the Palestinian civilian population in the Jenin refugee camp."
 

ntdz

Diamond Member
Aug 5, 2004
6,989
0
0
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
I don't care.

He LIED about WMD to force the War, end of story.

Would a reason of going to War to just rid Iraq of Saddam been enough to authorize the War we'll never know because he LIED.

What about all the other Countries led by Dictators even worse than Saddam???

Only reason we went into Iraq was because it has Oil.

Because of Oil? What oil have we gotten? Where are the lower gas prices? The whole reasoning saying we went in there for oil is just plain bogus. If you believe something to be true and say it, its not a lie.

lie
A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

You can believe all you want, but we thought that the intelligence was real. Every country in the world thought they had the wmd.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: ntdz
Originally posted by: conjur
Bush was wrong. 100% wrong.

The justification used for invading Iraq was the known stockpiles of WMDs and other known "evidence" of reconstituted BW/CW/Nuclear weapons programs.

This has been proven to be a complete and utter fabrication and exaggeration of dubious intelligence.

Ergo, this war can never be justified.


If the Iraqis wanted democracy, they'd have found a way to get it. We did back in the late 18th century.
So what if that wasn't the main justification for war. Doesn't mean its not a worthy cause.
The ends do not justify the means. If the Iraqis wanted democracy, why did we force it upon them? Is that just another of Bush's flip-flops? "We will not force democracy upon those who want it."
 

jlmadyson

Platinum Member
Aug 13, 2004
2,201
0
0
So what if that wasn't the main justification for war. Doesn't mean its not a worthy cause


No way dude. You didn't know? Saddam was the best thing for the Iraqi people since slice bread. :laugh:

Of course, the Iraqi's dancing in the streets after the vote said it all for me.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Iraq is about the WoT, whether you want to admit it or not.
BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!


I *knew* that's where you were headed.


Seriously, enough with the Skoorb effect. Joke's over. Go back to being a regular poster again, please?
We've discussed this previously in another thread about Iraq being a part of the larger picture in the WoT. iirc, after taking a bit of a beating and refusing to answer some questions, you withdrew from the discussion.

Care for round 2?
I withdrew?? BWA HA!! I seriously doubt that.

Now, come on, TLC. Drop this charade of yours. You know the WoT had *nothing* to do with Iraq. Just drop that line of bull right now. No one falls for it anymore.

Well, the ignorant masses do (as proven by the PIPA study)
No. Some of the ignorant masses think Saddam was involved in 9/11. That's what the PIPA study demonstrated.

Some other ignorant masses think Saddam wasn't involved in terror at all and believe that by refusing to recognize the fact that he was makes them right; except all it really does is make them ignorant refuseniks. That's what the ignorant refuseniks in this forum demonstrate.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: ntdz
Originally posted by: conjur
Bush was wrong. 100% wrong.

The justification used for invading Iraq was the known stockpiles of WMDs and other known "evidence" of reconstituted BW/CW/Nuclear weapons programs.

This has been proven to be a complete and utter fabrication and exaggeration of dubious intelligence.

Ergo, this war can never be justified.


If the Iraqis wanted democracy, they'd have found a way to get it. We did back in the late 18th century.

So what if that wasn't the main justification for war. Doesn't mean its not a worthy cause.
It may be a worthy cause but the Dub would never have been able to sell this war to the American Public if he didn't mislead them (whether intentionally or not) about the threat of Iraq's WMD's. Free the Iraqi's for the cost of a few thousand American Lives and Hundreds of Billions of Dollars? Yeah right, Americans in droves would have told him to pound salt.

The only reason to invade Iraq when we did was because of the urgency needed to prevent Saddam from deploying and using these WMD's against us, our allies and Iraq's neighbors. Now that it's been discovered that he shut down the program in 91, it seems the urgency was BS. We probably could have accomplished a free Iraq without the thousands of deaths, the destroyed infrastructure and the instability we created in the M.E. by Dick and Dub's ill advised excellent adventure into Iraq with patience, cunning and intelligent foreign policy and the help from our allies. I could be wrong but we'll never know because the Dub jumped their Shark with Iraq.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: ntdz
Originally posted by: conjur
Bush was wrong. 100% wrong.

The justification used for invading Iraq was the known stockpiles of WMDs and other known "evidence" of reconstituted BW/CW/Nuclear weapons programs.

This has been proven to be a complete and utter fabrication and exaggeration of dubious intelligence.

Ergo, this war can never be justified.


If the Iraqis wanted democracy, they'd have found a way to get it. We did back in the late 18th century.
So what if that wasn't the main justification for war. Doesn't mean its not a worthy cause.
The ends do not justify the means. If the Iraqis wanted democracy, why did we force it upon them? Is that just another of Bush's flip-flops? "We will not force democracy upon those who want it."

Ah yes. Let's drag out that dusty old strawman of an argument that if people really wanted democracy it would come from within and will be done without outside help.

Except that doesn't jibe with history, even our own history, as without the French helping us we never would have defeated the British.

btw, how many democracies have been established from internal coups, by an overthrow of the people?

Nor did we force democracy on those who did not want it, as the recent Iraqi elections and their reaction to the freedom of voting so aptly demonstrated.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: ntdz
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
I don't care.

He LIED about WMD to force the War, end of story.

Would a reason of going to War to just rid Iraq of Saddam been enough to authorize the War we'll never know because he LIED.

What about all the other Countries led by Dictators even worse than Saddam???

Only reason we went into Iraq was because it has Oil.

Because of Oil? What oil have we gotten? Where are the lower gas prices? The whole reasoning saying we went in there for oil is just plain bogus. If you believe something to be true and say it, its not a lie.

lie
A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

You can believe all you want, but we thought that the intelligence was real. Every country in the world thought they had the wmd.

I truly hope someday the wool is removed from in front of your eyes and the rest of the W Supporters.

Did you not just see the massive profits of the Oil Cartel??? Are you going to not believe the securing by the U.S. of the Iraq reserve had nothing to do with that??? :confused:

Of course as the consumers we would never see prices go down, that is one thing the Oil Barons have learned well from the Corrupt Americans, how to price gouge and get away with it.

The "Intelligence" you speak of has been proven over and over again to be fabricated and made up by Bush and Blair to start the phoney War. History will show that clearly long after the Sheeple that believed them are long dead and gone.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: ntdz
Originally posted by: conjur
Bush was wrong. 100% wrong.

The justification used for invading Iraq was the known stockpiles of WMDs and other known "evidence" of reconstituted BW/CW/Nuclear weapons programs.

This has been proven to be a complete and utter fabrication and exaggeration of dubious intelligence.

Ergo, this war can never be justified.


If the Iraqis wanted democracy, they'd have found a way to get it. We did back in the late 18th century.
So what if that wasn't the main justification for war. Doesn't mean its not a worthy cause.
The ends do not justify the means. If the Iraqis wanted democracy, why did we force it upon them? Is that just another of Bush's flip-flops? "We will not force democracy upon those who want it."

Ah yes. Let's drag out that dusty old strawman of an argument that if people really wanted democracy it would come from within and will be done without outside help.

Except that doesn't jibe with history, even our own history, as without the French helping us we never would have defeated the British.

btw, how many democracies have been established from internal coups, by an overthrow of the people?

Nor did we force democracy on those who did not want it, as the recent Iraqi elections and their reaction to the freedom of voting so aptly demonstrated.
Well one great reason for them to vote is that it will get the American Occupying Forces out of there sooner.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: conjur
So what if that wasn't the main justification for war. Doesn't mean its not a worthy cause.
The ends do not justify the means. If the Iraqis wanted democracy, why did we force it upon them? Is that just another of Bush's flip-flops? "We will not force democracy upon those who want it."
Ah yes. Let's drag out that dusty old strawman of an argument that if people really wanted democracy it would come from within and will be done without outside help.

Except that doesn't jibe with history, even our own history, as without the French helping us we never would have defeated the British.
Tell me, TLC. What's the difference between that situation and what occurred in Iraq? I know you know the difference. I just want to know if you're willing to admit it in public view.

btw, how many democracies have been established from internal coups, by an overthrow of the people?
I can't say. I haven't researched that. But, you can count the U.S. as one.

Nor did we force democracy on those who did not want it, as the recent Iraqi elections and their reaction to the freedom of voting so aptly demonstrated.
I never said we forced it on people who didn't want it. Go back and read my post again.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: conjur
You still haven't addressed how Iraq was a threat, TLC.

Trying your 'narrow the scope' route again?

Go back a few replies as I've already answered you concerning that question.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: raildogg
Originally posted by: conjur
Democracy in the Middle East? What's the benefit to us from that?

Do you seriously not believe democracy is a good thing? Would you rather there be a tyranny there under Saddam? Do you? Tell us.

Democracy anywhere is a wonderful thing, ask Japan and Germany that. Ask Taiwan that, ask Turkey that (one of the few Islamic democracies) how wonderful democracy is. We should be proud that America helped these people in setting up the first steps towards a democracy - voting. But after all, we should be proud of the Iraqi's who turned out in huge numbers to defy the terrorist thugs

Just playing Devil's advocate here (sorry, DA :D), but you didn't answer conjur's question at all. He asked how we benefit from Democracy in the Middle East and you go off on some big speech about how wonderful Democracy is. As far as I can tell, that doesn't address how THEIR democracy is good for US. I think that's the point, why should we be the well armed ambassadors of democracy? After all, conservatives are supposed to be realists, so what's the justification beyond it makes us feel warm and fuzzy. I'm not asking myself this question, I know where I stand...do you?

Speaking of how wonderful democracy is, I think I WILL ask Germany. Perhaps they can remind me that Hitler was elected in a full, fair, democratic election. What a win for democracy! Hey, you brought it up.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
I still stand by my comment that I don't see why Bush has to be 100% right or 100% wrong. Why can't you appreciate that Iraq is making progress towards democracy yet dislike the fact that freeing the Iraqis wasn't the main reason we went to Iraq, and as it turns out, the main reason was wrong?

Half of you guys are holding up the Iraqi elections screaming "Bush was right" while ignoring the 900 lb gorilla of absent WMDs sitting in the corner and the other half of you seem awfully quick to brush aside what looks like a positive step for the Iraqi people just to rake Bush across the coals for what was, I agree, some seriously odd war justification.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: conjur
So what if that wasn't the main justification for war. Doesn't mean its not a worthy cause.
The ends do not justify the means. If the Iraqis wanted democracy, why did we force it upon them? Is that just another of Bush's flip-flops? "We will not force democracy upon those who want it."
Ah yes. Let's drag out that dusty old strawman of an argument that if people really wanted democracy it would come from within and will be done without outside help.

Except that doesn't jibe with history, even our own history, as without the French helping us we never would have defeated the British.
Tell me, TLC. What's the difference between that situation and what occurred in Iraq? I know you know the difference. I just want to know if you're willing to admit it in public view.
It doesn't matter.

The claim is made around here that democracy must come from within, not without. There are no caveats made in that statement If you don't like the US example, discard it. There are others.

btw, how many democracies have been established from internal coups, by an overthrow of the people?
I can't say. I haven't researched that. But, you can count the U.S. as one.
Not really It was an overthow of the people with outside help. Without the French help we would have been smacked down and singing God Save the Queen today.

Nor did we force democracy on those who did not want it, as the recent Iraqi elections and their reaction to the freedom of voting so aptly demonstrated.
I never said we forced it on people who didn't want it. Go back and read my post again.[/quote]
You implied it in your statement:

"If the Iraqis wanted democracy, why did we force it upon them?"

It implies that the Iraqis really didn't want democracy and that we had to force it on them.

If you meant it elsewise, please clarify because that's the way I parsed your statement and the intent I got from it.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: conjur
You still haven't addressed how Iraq was a threat, TLC.

Trying your 'narrow the scope' route again?

Go back a few replies as I've already answered you concerning that question.
You gave a blanket BS response of it being part of the WoT but you failed to explain how it was.
 

GoPackGo

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2003
6,458
527
126
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: conjur
You still haven't addressed how Iraq was a threat, TLC.

Trying your 'narrow the scope' route again?

Go back a few replies as I've already answered you concerning that question.
You gave a blanket BS response of it being part of the WoT but you failed to explain how it was.

Many in the world believed Iraq was a threat...even pre-Bush...now there are many that opposed war but still agreed he was a threat....

I believe Saddam probably played a bad hand of poker and lost.

We looked like fools...but now we can't give up....this is the second time we have offered the Iraqi people the hope of freedom...

Bush Sr. failed them...lets hope this Bush doesn't

Learn of the past....Make the best of the present....Have hope for the future...

That must be our motto
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Ah yes. Let's drag out that dusty old strawman of an argument that if people really wanted democracy it would come from within and will be done without outside help.

Except that doesn't jibe with history, even our own history, as without the French helping us we never would have defeated the British.
Tell me, TLC. What's the difference between that situation and what occurred in Iraq? I know you know the difference. I just want to know if you're willing to admit it in public view.
It doesn't matter.

The claim is made around here that democracy must come from within, not without. There are no caveats made in that statement If you don't like the US example, discard it. There are others.
Ah...what's wrong, TLC? Chicken? Afraid to answer lest you reveal yourself to be the hypocrite you are?

btw, how many democracies have been established from internal coups, by an overthrow of the people?
I can't say. I haven't researched that. But, you can count the U.S. as one.
Not really It was an overthow of the people with outside help. Without the French help we would have been smacked down and singing God Save the Queen today.
It started internally. It didn't start with outside intervention. And, given enough time, who's to say we couldn't have won w/o the help of the French? You don't know.

Nor did we force democracy on those who did not want it, as the recent Iraqi elections and their reaction to the freedom of voting so aptly demonstrated.
I never said we forced it on people who didn't want it. Go back and read my post again.
You implied it in your statement:

"If the Iraqis wanted democracy, why did we force it upon them?"

It implies that the Iraqis really didn't want democracy and that we had to force it on them.

If you meant it elsewise, please clarify because that's the way I parsed your statement and the intent I got from it.
No, I was referring to your stance that the Iraqis wanted democracy and tying that to Bush's statement that we wouldn't force democracy upon those who want it. That would mean the Iraqis want democracy, we wouldn't force them to move to a democracy so they'd have to move to a democracy on their own. However, as we have seen by the loss of 1,440 American soldiers and $160 billion that we did force democracy upon them. You can't have it both ways.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: conjur
You still haven't addressed how Iraq was a threat, TLC.

Trying your 'narrow the scope' route again?

Go back a few replies as I've already answered you concerning that question.
You gave a blanket BS response of it being part of the WoT but you failed to explain how it was.
Many in the world believed Iraq was a threat...even pre-Bush...now there are many that opposed war but still agreed he was a threat....

I believe Saddam probably played a bad hand of poker and lost.

We looked like fools...but now we can't give up....this is the second time we have offered the Iraqi people the hope of freedom...

Bush Sr. failed them...lets hope this Bush doesn't

Learn of the past....Make the best of the present....Have hope for the future...

That must be our motto
Saddam was never a threat to the U.S.. Never. Iraq never launched an attack against the U.S. Iraq was not even capable of launching an attack against the U.S.

I'll agree with your poker analogy, though, but that's hardly a reason to wage a war (improperly filed paperwork.)
 

GoPackGo

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2003
6,458
527
126
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: conjur
You still haven't addressed how Iraq was a threat, TLC.

Trying your 'narrow the scope' route again?

Go back a few replies as I've already answered you concerning that question.
You gave a blanket BS response of it being part of the WoT but you failed to explain how it was.
Many in the world believed Iraq was a threat...even pre-Bush...now there are many that opposed war but still agreed he was a threat....

I believe Saddam probably played a bad hand of poker and lost.

We looked like fools...but now we can't give up....this is the second time we have offered the Iraqi people the hope of freedom...

Bush Sr. failed them...lets hope this Bush doesn't

Learn of the past....Make the best of the present....Have hope for the future...

That must be our motto
Saddam was never a threat to the U.S.. Never. Iraq never launched an attack against the U.S. Iraq was not even capable of launching an attack against the U.S.

I'll agree with your poker analogy, though, but that's hardly a reason to wage a war (improperly filed paperwork.)

Under the WMD assumption, he was a threat, it turned out though he was a lion with no teeth nor claws. I think if we knew that there were no WMDs, then you are right, we should not have gone to war, but we cant change the past...only work hard for a better future.

 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: conjur
You still haven't addressed how Iraq was a threat, TLC.

Trying your 'narrow the scope' route again?

Go back a few replies as I've already answered you concerning that question.
You gave a blanket BS response of it being part of the WoT but you failed to explain how it was.
Many in the world believed Iraq was a threat...even pre-Bush...now there are many that opposed war but still agreed he was a threat....

I believe Saddam probably played a bad hand of poker and lost.

We looked like fools...but now we can't give up....this is the second time we have offered the Iraqi people the hope of freedom...

Bush Sr. failed them...lets hope this Bush doesn't

Learn of the past....Make the best of the present....Have hope for the future...

That must be our motto
Saddam was never a threat to the U.S.. Never. Iraq never launched an attack against the U.S. Iraq was not even capable of launching an attack against the U.S.

I'll agree with your poker analogy, though, but that's hardly a reason to wage a war (improperly filed paperwork.)
Under the WMD assumption, he was a threat, it turned out though he was a lion with no teeth nor claws. I think if we knew that there were no WMDs, then you are right, we should not have gone to war, but we cant change the past...only work hard for a better future.
Not even under the WMD assumption (which was quite debated among the various intelligence agencies.) If Saddam had a nuclear warhead and eleventy billion tons of Anthrax and Ricin, how was he going to attack the U.S.? Send it FedEx?
 

GoPackGo

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2003
6,458
527
126
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: conjur
You still haven't addressed how Iraq was a threat, TLC.

Trying your 'narrow the scope' route again?

Go back a few replies as I've already answered you concerning that question.
You gave a blanket BS response of it being part of the WoT but you failed to explain how it was.
Many in the world believed Iraq was a threat...even pre-Bush...now there are many that opposed war but still agreed he was a threat....

I believe Saddam probably played a bad hand of poker and lost.

We looked like fools...but now we can't give up....this is the second time we have offered the Iraqi people the hope of freedom...

Bush Sr. failed them...lets hope this Bush doesn't

Learn of the past....Make the best of the present....Have hope for the future...

That must be our motto
Saddam was never a threat to the U.S.. Never. Iraq never launched an attack against the U.S. Iraq was not even capable of launching an attack against the U.S.

I'll agree with your poker analogy, though, but that's hardly a reason to wage a war (improperly filed paperwork.)
Under the WMD assumption, he was a threat, it turned out though he was a lion with no teeth nor claws. I think if we knew that there were no WMDs, then you are right, we should not have gone to war, but we cant change the past...only work hard for a better future.
Not even under the WMD assumption (which was quite debated among the various intelligence agencies.) If Saddam had a nuclear warhead and eleventy billion tons of Anthrax and Ricin, how was he going to attack the U.S.? Send it FedEx?


He smuggles it (or pays someone off) onto a cargo ship...it sails into New York Harbor...then BOOM or LA or SF etc...etc... Where there is a will there is a way.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Under the WMD assumption, he was a threat, it turned out though he was a lion with no teeth nor claws. I think if we knew that there were no WMDs, then you are right, we should not have gone to war, but we cant change the past...only work hard for a better future.
Not even under the WMD assumption (which was quite debated among the various intelligence agencies.) If Saddam had a nuclear warhead and eleventy billion tons of Anthrax and Ricin, how was he going to attack the U.S.? Send it FedEx?
He smuggles it (or pays someone off) onto a cargo ship...it sails into New York Harbor...then BOOM or LA or SF etc...etc... Where there is a will there is a way.
Woulda shoulda coulda. Saddam didn't have collaborative relationships with al Qaeda and he didn't have WMDs (which was pretty much known before the invasion.)