Related Information to Post War Iraq

Post War Iraq - Page 36

That's a great list of quotes -- are you keeping a log of that sort of thing (I'm not being facetious, I'm really curious)?

Interesting to note the who has spoken out, but the criticism really is focused on Bush at the moment. All those others have been sidelined while Bush gets roasted.

IMO
Roz

Iraq War Post

someone posted those quotes in the forum on deanforamerica.com

i guess they were making the point that Dean's the only candidate who's been consistent regarding their anti-war stance

for sure Bush is gonna get bashed. He's the figurehead. He's the boi that everyone sees on TV and therefore he's the boi that the whole world assumes is responsible for every foreign policy decision that the US takes

the reality is, of course, that Bush is surrounded by a team of seriously smart people like Condi Rice who advise the president what is the best course of action, and so on

and in any case, Bush is powerless without Congress

unlike Saddam, Bush does not have the power to pick up the phone and order an air strike on all the hippie peacetards that took to the streets of San Fran last March, nor does he have the power to wage a war against a foreign power

for such an act, Bush has to ask Congress, and most of Congress voted yes, including most of Democrats who are now saying that they are anti-war blah

Post War Iraq History & Civil Business Politics

Well at last we see there were no WMD, something most of us who were not blinded by patriotism saw, now the question is... should a war like that have happened? I would say no, because the only other real target was Saddam they could have sent in a much smaller force to take him out without having all this turmoil that the people of Iraq have to go through. We can also see that the loose term of 'preemptive strikes' is very dangerous and is almost an excuse to do the utmost when it is not necessarily justifiable.

BUSH DEFENDS IRAQ WAR

Though conceding Iraq apparently did not possess WMD, President Bush has
defended his decision to go to war, saying, "Saddam Hussein was dangerous, and
I'm not just going to leave him in power and trust a madman."
https://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/08/...bush/index.html

Page 36 Iraq War Post

I still think the war was right. Call me blindly patriotic if you wish, and maybe I am, but in this case that is not why I think it was right. I think most of you here in this thread are blindly anti-US, so I guess we are even.

Anyway, any war is begun based upon the intelligence available to you at the time you begin. That intelligence said there was WMD. It wasn't just US intelligence either.

We know he used chemical weapons in the past, and as has been stated before, he refused to give an accounting for where they went. Why did he refuse to cooperate if he had nothing to hide.

I don't think so. In my opinion, you can't just send in a few soldiers, hunt down Saddam, and capture him. I think this is simply wishful thinking on the part of people without a good understanding of what it takes to do this. Do you think if we sent in a small force, the Iraqi military would not have fought them? Would they have allowed us to just move in and do what we wanted? I doubt it.

When you go to war, it must be done 100%. One of the problems we had in Vietnam was exactly this. We didn't allow our military to really fight full strength. If you decide to go to war, you must do all you can to protect the lives of your soldiers. That is the responsibility the US had first and foremost in my opinion.

You do what you can to minimize civilian casualties, but you must keep the safety and well being of your soldiers paramount, as well.

In addition, it was necessary to remove all of those in power, not just Saddam. His entire regime was evil. Look at all the horrible things they did in their country to their own citizens. They all needed to be removed, not just Saddam so that one of his son's could take over for him.

I believe most of what the Iraqi people are currently experiencing would have happened even in JB's scenario if his scenario was workable. What they are experiencing is the pains of new found freedom. If Saddam is removed from power along with all of this cronies, then the government is gone and must be rebuilt just like it is today.

Edited: tenaheff on 9th Feb, 2004 - 2:26pm

Iraq War Post

Tenaheff your emotions are too close to this topic for it to not be biased, but I will mention this one word that small force represents, 'assassin', even if from within. There are enough people who want Saddam dead and that has nothing to do with the US.

By the way, your term that we are all anti-US just because we do not agree with the way the US handles it's wars is unfounded, or yet it may be too if you APPLY that term to ALL the US citizens who also feel that way. Too often I see US citizens apply 'anti-US' to mean outsiders that are against US policy, so does that mean those within the US that are against Bush and the way he runs things are also 'anti'? Please... nuff said.

Post War Iraq

JB, my statement about being anti-US is based upon my reading many posts in many threads on this forum, not just this one.

I never said I didn't have a biased opinion either. However, it is still my opinion, and I think some of it is based upon reason, even if we do not agree. I do not think all people who are opposed to this war are necessarily anti-American. However, I do see a lot of that sentiment posted in this forum.

Anyway, back on topic. It is against current US law to seek out a leader of another country and assassinate them. So, that is not and never was a viable solution for the US to implement. There was some discussion of changing this law, just before we entered Iraq, but that law was not changed. Therefore, this was not an option available to the US.

Post War Iraq - Page 36

Let me post what I said earlier:
'...small force represents, 'assassin', even if from within. There are enough people who want Saddam dead and that has nothing to do with the US.'
Plus... do you really believe that if the US wanted someone assassinated that a law would stop it from happening? 'Someone' will do it and then claim 'others' did it. Every country has its 'blacklist group'.

Post War Iraq Politics Business Civil & History - Page 36

okay, let's say we had sent in a black-ops team to take SH out, and lets be extra generous and say that they were successful in spite of him being so well protected blah

then what? yuo think that would have been the end of the slaughter? what about his even more murderous and evil sons who would have succeeded him? take them out as well? and what about the people under them? and so on and so forth

the following is a FTS

No amount of sanctions, covert black ops, or UN diplomacy would have resulted in regime change.

SH and his cronies, would rather every Iraqi man woman and child be slaughtered and their country burnt to the ground, than to reliquish power

the only thing that could have stopped them from continuing their reign of slaughter for decades to come, was an INVASION by a foreign power

- Car Key Boi
Hippie Heart, Conservative Head, knows the questions that liberals cannot answer, D N T