|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 3,290
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 3,290 |
ScottR, what they're trying to tell you is this subject has been discussed in this forum. You'll run across a few threads if you do a search. Welcome to CEG.
E0 #36
'95 Ranger
'82 Honda CX500
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 4,149
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 4,149 |
Originally posted by ScottR:
The justifications for attacking Iraq have turned out to be false. Iraq did not have viable weapons of mass destruction or nuclear weapons. If it did, they would have been used against us. Saddam is not a nice man. He used WMDs on his own people and he would have used them on us. Also, if Iraq were close to getting nukes, Israel would have bombed the plant, like it did before on October 7, 1981.
And Saddam Hussein is not in bed with Osama bin Laden. Hussein ran a secular government in which womenâ??s rights were prominent and religious freedom was celebrated. Many of his top officials were Christian. Also, he allowed western media influences. And he was a friend with the west (America) during his war against Islamic radicals in Iran. Iraq was everything that Bin Laden opposed, as shown in his Front Line (PBS) interview:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/who/interview.html
At some point, it may have been necessary to launch a full-fledged invasion of Iraq. If Saddam had his way, he would have acquired nuclear weapons. However, the war was premature, unjustified, and hardly supported internationally. North Korea is/was more dangerous than Iraq. And North Korea clearly supports terrorist states. The only problem is that N. Korea really DOES have nukes. Itâ??s not about what country is most threatening, but more about which country is most vulnerable.
In fact, many of our allies like Saudi Arabia supported terrorism. How many of the 9/11 terrorists were Iraqi and how many were Saudi? And where does Bin Laden come from? Do you wonder why the section of the 9/11 report RE Saudi was removed from public record?
Iraq has a lot of oil and Saddam launched a failed assassination attempt on Bush senior whilst Clinton was in office. Also, our military was already in the area having dealt with Afghanistan. And there is the argument that prevention is important. These might have been possible motivating factors. Who knows?
Yes, there are many possible reasons for attacking Iraq. But the claim about nukes and Saddam supporting the 9/11 attacks are all completely unfounded. Bill Oâ??Reilly has it right.
http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/163375p-143201c.html
We'll forgive the newbie for rehashing a year old topic, but if the next thread you start says something about Ford now offering Flex Fuel Vehicles I'm gonna get a bit suspicious. 
-- 1999 SVT #220 --
In retrospect, it was all downhill from here. RIP, CEG.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,132
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,132 |
I heard that Saddam Hussein hired assassins to try to kill former president George Bush sr. If that is true then that should be enough reason to go to war.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 5,725
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 5,725 |
welcome to CEG. feel free to have your opinion. some people around here are ery close-minded especially when it comes to political/military things (one BOTH SIDES of the argument).
free speech is a good thing.
For Sale:
- Sony PSP with a Baseball 2k6 and the movie Crash. $100
- 1973 Karmann Ghia Convertible w/ Auto-Stick. Needs Restoration. $1200 OBO
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,037
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,037 |
Originally posted by 7999:
I heard that Saddam Hussein hired assassins to try to kill former president George Bush sr. If that is true then that should be enough reason to go to war.
Yeah, they attempted that when he was in Kuwait in 1993, I think it was...'93 or '94. I don't think they got anywhere near actually threatening him, though.
What gets me is that every time you hear the "lack of justification" thing come up, all you have to do to shut them up is ask "Would you prefer that he still be there?" The inevitable reaction is always "Well, no, but..." and then half-assedly talking about international support (which we had) and exhausting all alternatives (which we had, IMO).
I also like to watch as new people apparently "discover!" the truth about What Really Happened and then start threads thinking they're going to make everyone believe them.
"Think of it, if you like, as a librarian with a G-string under the tweed." Clarkson on the Mondeo.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,960
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,960 |
The majority of the world would prefer that George Bush not be in office either but I dont see the navies of the rest of the world lined up on the Eastern seaboard now, do I ?
There were bigger security issues in the world than Saddam.
Bless our servicemen & women overseas.
L.Cpl Ian Malone, 1st Battalion Irish Guards, R.I.P.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718 |
Answer the following questions:
1) What was Hussein hiding, then, if it wasn't WMD?
2) Where did the tons of nerve agents disappear to that went missing and unaccounted for after the Gulf War?
Also list the number of countries that supported the US action; Germany, Russia and France DON'T make up a majority in terms of international support, no matter how inflated their egos are.
You go on to state that we ultimately would have invaded Iraq at some point in the future; why, if not for the precise reasons we went into Iraq in the first place?
Did Quasay Hussein bareface lie to a Jordanian diplomat when he told him that equipment and agents were buried where nobody would ever find them?
What about reports from Hussien's own kin that fled Iraq and tattled to the CIA on his nuclear and WMD programs (who, by the way were stupid enough to head back into Iraq and ended up executed)?
Given the clandestine nature of Hussein's programs during the time that he had the UN hounding his every move, the Israelis would have had NO clue on where to drop ordinance. Only a blithering idiot would try to assume that the situations were the same as they were in 1981...
You can't compare N. Korea to Iraq. Period. The politics and dynamics are totally different. How? One word: CHINA.
The Al-Quaeda links were very shaky, at best and total BS at worst, I will give you that. Iraq's ties to terrorism aren't. Any number of Syrian and Eqyptian terrorists have made their way into Baghdad; a notable one just died in US custody, I seem to recall.
The UN found it convincing enough to run weapons inspections for a decade in Iraq; ALL the members of the UN, I might add.
It's now very obvious Iraq didn't represent an immediate WMD or nuclear threat. Am I to understand that we shouldn't have gone in until we were 100% positive that our troops were to be gassed and nuked? If so, I now have a new definition of stupidity to refer to...
JaTo
e-Tough Guy
Missouri City, TX
99 Contour SVT
#143/2760
00 Corvette Coupe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 2,039
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 2,039 |
Originally posted by JaTo:
It's now very obvious Iraq didn't represent an immediate WMD or nuclear threat. Am I to understand that we shouldn't have gone in until we were 100% positive that our troops were to be gassed and nuked? If so, I now have a new definition of stupidity to refer to...
Thank you.
'98 4Runner
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,469
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,469 |
Originally posted by JVT:
Originally posted by JaTo:
It's now very obvious Iraq didn't represent an immediate WMD or nuclear threat. Am I to understand that we shouldn't have gone in until we were 100% positive that our troops were to be gassed and nuked? If so, I now have a new definition of stupidity to refer to...
Thank you.
It is also VERY obvious that several nuclear threats are being defused as a DIRECT result of the Iraq invasion..
1) Pakistan. AQ Khan gives up his nuclear secrets...allows tracing of centrifuge tech to Manila. Details shipments to Iran and Libya revealed (see below). Now we have Pakistan troops and tribal leaders helping in the hunt for Bin Laden. Remember when they were afraid to go to the region?
2) Libya...ship "BBC China" from Manila to Libya with centrifuges intercepted. Set stage for nuclear dismantling and most recently 55 TONs of mustard gas turned over. Quedafi now has "seen the light"
3) Iran..compelled to allow IAEC inspectors in. Evidence of greater nuclear proliferation than expected has worried investigators, pressure to sanction Iran insuing..
4) N. Korea...after shotting off mouth BIG TIME pre Iraq..now comming to table in 6 way talks that WE wanted (remember the Dems screaming that we should agree to 1 on 1 talks back in April??). Now clear it is a nukes for cash/food blackmail sceem all along (similar to the one they sucessfully employed against Clinton). I'm sure we will give them something but THIS time around we will REQUIRE varification.
Now, are there any of you out there that can honastly say that this is not related to the Iraq invasion? These are 4 problems that brewed for the last DECADE, refractory to solution, now all at once breaking open within MONTHS of our Iraq invasion... Why, because they respect strength/power in the middle east, not lawyering and cheap talk. The captured Al Queda even told us that Clintons/UN limp wristed responses to the WTC 1, Embassy bombings, USS Cole, etc. egged them on. There is a new sheriff in town and THIS is the case that Bush needs to put together for the folks..not going to hear this on ABC/NBC/CNN..And this is what Bush is refering to when he stated we were going to reshape the face of the Middle East, one of the STATED reasons for going to Iraq and by far the MOST IMPORTANT reason.
Thats all for now..
1999 Amazon Green SVT Contour (#554/2760)
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use."
-Soren Kierkegaard (as posted by Jato)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 54
CEG\'er
|
|
OP
CEG\'er
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 54 |
Well, I think being new to the forum made me unaware that this has been debated before at length. However, I am not a newbie to discussion forums in general. I am a moderator of a discussion forum myself and started putting up web pages when the net was in its infant stages (1995-96).
Basically, while reading some recent posts (one from a doctor, I think), I came across something about Bushâ??s policies. Thatâ??s what prompted me to post on the topic. And by the way, I voted for Bush in the last election.
My interest in the Contour is simple. I find it useful to read and discuss hints and ideas about maintaining the car in top shape. I am 36 years old and have outgrown the need to build up muscle cars, drag race, and spend thousands of dollars on audio equipment. Whilst a younger man, I did have my fling with those things when I drove a 1969 Mercury Cougar. I spent thousands of dollars fixing that car up. So I understand the joy of fine automobiles.
However, I now prefer to spend my money on more useful endeavors such as home improvements, vacations, and/or investments in my retirement portfolio.
Sincerely,
Scott
|
|
|
|
|
