livendive 8 #1 September 8, 2004 So what if GWB had gone to Congress a couple years ago and said "Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator and has killed many of his own people. Additionally, we think he might be developing WMDs (though we're not sure). Given the events of September 11th, 2001, we don't think we should allow people like Saddam to remain in power. For this reason, I am here to ask Congress to approve an invasion of Iraq with the goal of removing Saddam Hussein from power and installing a democratic government." If he had not sold us on the WMDs, but instead on SH having an atrocious human rights record, would you have supported the invasion? Do you think Congress would have authorized the invasion under those circumstances? Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #2 September 8, 2004 maybe. We've done human rights stuff before. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jib 0 #3 September 8, 2004 QuoteAdditionally, we think he might be developing WMDs (though we're not sure). I think it depends on your definition of "think" and "developing." Are you talking about credible evidence, pure speculation,...? Are you talking about working on or has them or both? -------------------------------------------------- the depth of his depravity sickens me. -- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CrazyIvan 0 #4 September 8, 2004 Is Michael Moore working on a sequel? __________________________________________ Blue Skies and May the Force be with you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #5 September 8, 2004 QuoteQuoteAdditionally, we think he might be developing WMDs (though we're not sure). I think it depends on your definition of "think" and "developing." Are you talking about credible evidence, pure speculation,...? Are you talking about working on or has them or both? I'm talking about what we actually had, i.e. not a clue. These days, many of the supporters of the war state that SH's record was reason enough for our action. I'm just wondering if they would have felt the same way if that had been the primary reason given before the action and whether they think Congress would have authorized the action on that premise. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #6 September 8, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteAdditionally, we think he might be developing WMDs (though we're not sure). I think it depends on your definition of "think" and "developing." Are you talking about credible evidence, pure speculation,...? Are you talking about working on or has them or both? I'm talking about what we actually had, i.e. not a clue. These days, many of the supporters of the war state that SH's record was reason enough for our action. I'm just wondering if they would have felt the same way if that had been the primary reason given before the action and whether they think Congress would have authorized the action on that premise. Blues, Dave The Bush supporters will say yes, but browsing through the archives here proves otherwise. Back before the invasion the only thing that mattered to them were the supposed "WMD"s. Failure to find the WMDs initiated a burst of revisionism.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #7 September 8, 2004 If our government cared about human rights in the rest of the world we'd have stopped the Rwandan genocide (800,000 deaths) in 1994. We also wouldn't have ignored Sadam when he gassed the Kurds in 1988. The truth is that we don't care about human rights violations unless we need an acceptable excuse for military action with other positive side effects. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #8 September 8, 2004 QuoteIf our government cared about human rights in the rest of the world we'd have stopped the Rwandan genocide (800,000 deaths) in 1994. We also wouldn't have ignored Sadam when he gassed the Kurds in 1988. The truth is that we don't care about human rights violations unless we need an acceptable excuse for military action with other positive side effects. No, wrong answer. The UN was supposed to "Do their thing" with all of those situations. It is not my fault that Clinton was too much of a pussy. He should have done something, he should have defended human rights! He had the power to do so. - but he was too worried about how they felt about it. That is until he got caught with his cock in an interns mouth, and his Cuban Cigar in the intern - THEN it was ok to go blow someone up - yep lets draw attention away from the incident. As far as 1988 - that was the start - the very beginning - to what was known as Desert Shield. It was because of that incident that we were gearing up for war. Yes it took a while to get going - but we had to wait for the wheels to start turning - and getting democrats to agree with a republican president is obviously a rare thing.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
christelsabine 1 #9 September 8, 2004 QuoteThe truth is that we don't care about human rights violations unless we need an acceptable excuse for military action with other positive side effects This sounds like a very wise statement. dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Botellines 0 #10 September 8, 2004 I agree. In adition, international laws states that you cannot invade a sovereign country unless that country has attacked you first (wich was not the case) or something along those lines. That is why Bush made up the preemptive war concept disregarding international treaties. I want to think that had he been honest about the war someone would have stopped him. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #11 September 8, 2004 I'd have found the war more acceptable if we'd just admitted we were doing it to protect the current standard of 'the American way of life' and our countries economic interests.... but the truth rarely sells well....____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tunaplanet 0 #12 September 8, 2004 Not sure why you haven't comprehended the reason we went the first bazillion times it's been said, but here goes again. We went as a preemptive strike so another 9/11 doesn't occur. What part of that do you not understand? Forty-two Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #13 September 8, 2004 QuoteThe Bush supporters will say yes, but browsing through the archives here proves otherwise. Back before the invasion the only thing that mattered to them were the supposed "WMD"s. WMDs or not, I suspect that many people would have supported toppling Saddam. Because people agreed with finding the WMDs hardly means that they wouldn't have supported a humanitarian mission. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #14 September 8, 2004 QuoteNot sure why you haven't comprehended the reason we went the first bazillion times it's been said, but here goes again. We went as a preemptive strike so another 9/11 doesn't occur. What part of that do you not understand? The part where it will do any good to prevent that would be a nice start. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #15 September 8, 2004 Don't forget, he could have pushed the point that Hussein was flouting the U.N.'s sanctions and resolutions, and the terms of his earlier surrender, and making the U.N. look like a bunch of fuggin' losers. (Well, they are fuggin' losers, but they didn't need a shitstain like Saddam Hussein parading that fact around in front of the whole world proudly!) If the President of the U.S. went before Congress and the U.N. and said, "Well lead an invasion to depose Saddam Hussein with the goal of holding democratic elections in Iraq within five years," how could they have said no, if he made clear how the U.N. was being made fools of, and caused to look extremely impotent? --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #16 September 8, 2004 QuoteI agree. In adition, international laws states that you cannot invade a sovereign country unless that country has attacked you first (wich was not the case) or something along those lines. That is why Bush made up the preemptive war concept disregarding international treaties. I want to think that had he been honest about the war someone would have stopped him. Bush went in in 2003 to depose a murderous dictator who did just what you said international law prohibits but was never deposed for it back in the '90s. The U.N. also fell down on the job of keeping Hussein in line, and he walked all over the supposed sanctions and terms of surrender imposed on him. So in the long run, we got rid of a guy who illegally invaded sovereign nations, just like you said. Our reaction was delayed, but is essentially part of the same campaign, which clearly was justified in 1991. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #17 September 8, 2004 QuoteWell lead an invasion to depose Saddam Hussein with the goal of holding democratic elections in Iraq within five years," how could they have said no, They would have said no because a pre-emptive war of aggression against a sovereign nation is an international crime and the reason for the first Gulf War, because that's what Hussein did. You pretty much summed up the actual reason for the invasion, but to state that would be commiting a crime. Instead we had to trump up a "pre-emptive self defense to an imminent threat" that didn't exist. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #18 September 8, 2004 QuoteQuoteWell lead an invasion to depose Saddam Hussein with the goal of holding democratic elections in Iraq within five years," how could they have said no, They would have said no because a pre-emptive war of aggression against a sovereign nation is an international crime and the reason for the first Gulf War, because that's what Hussein did. You pretty much summed up the actual reason for the invasion, but to state that would be commiting a crime. Instead we had to trump up a "pre-emptive self defense to an imminent threat" that didn't exist. What about the fact that Hussein was shitting on the reputation of the U.N.? What about enforcing the terms of Hussein's surrender? Didn't his failure to accede to the terms invite military action against him? Otherwise, what was held over him if he were to fail to abide by the terms of his surrender? --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #19 September 8, 2004 QuoteWhat about the fact that Hussein was shitting on the reputation of the U.N.? Not a good reason for war. QuoteWhat about enforcing the terms of Hussein's surrender? We were doing so without war. QuoteDidn't his failure to accede to the terms invite military action against him? Yes, to the point that was necessary to enforce those terms. You're talking like we invaded a country to punish one man. QuoteOtherwise, what was held over him if he were to fail to abide by the terms of his surrender? Again, punishing one man shouldn't justify the invasion of a country. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #20 September 8, 2004 QuoteWhat about the fact that Hussein was shitting on the reputation of the U.N.? What about enforcing the terms of Hussein's surrender? Didn't his failure to accede to the terms invite military action against him? Otherwise, what was held over him if he were to fail to abide by the terms of his surrender? Are you talking about Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei, both of whom were in country before the war insisting they couldn't find whatever it was the US was chest-pounding about? You know, the guys who turned out to be right? Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #21 September 8, 2004 That seems to be something that the liberals shy away from. 1)What are the penalties for not following the sanctions?(similar to what we are doing now) 2)Why did the countries that voted for the sanctions not enforce them.(Oil and Money) 3)What would they have done after more subsequent refusals.(Nothing - see #2)I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #22 September 8, 2004 And the question I want an answer to is: What was the threat posed by Iraq? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thecap 0 #23 September 8, 2004 Why Iraq? Why not North Korea? Or China? Or Sudan? There are plenty of gov'ts that are not so nice to their people. Can't invade them all because of lack of $$$. Can hardly afford to go into one. Guess we should try to find a different solution. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #24 September 9, 2004 QuoteWe went as a preemptive strike so another 9/11 doesn't occur. Do we have any evidence that Saddam Hussein was planning another 9/11 or that our "preemptive strike" prevented such an occurrence? Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #25 September 9, 2004 QuoteQuoteWe went as a preemptive strike so another 9/11 doesn't occur. Do we have any evidence that Saddam Hussein was planning another 9/11 or that our "preemptive strike" prevented such an occurrence? Blues, Dave Can you provide evidence that he wasn't or that it didn't?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
