Ok Boys!

[Shortfuse]

Originally posted by KSig RC
come on buddy, I already laid waste to your entire line of reasoning, and addressed the lack of WMDs in earlier posts. Stop being obtuse and starting addressing issues raised in the thread. I'm not going to try anymore b/c you frankly don't seem to care what other people post, you'll just go "NO WMD, YOU AREN'T EVEN TRYING"

Where did you lay waste to it? WMDs was the main reason we went to Iraq in the first place. If genocide was the reason the US would've been in Iraq before 9/11. Please show me some type of proof that Bush, Cheney, or Powell made to the UN that the US should go in because of genocide?

[Kevin]

Originally posted by Shortfuse
I never doubt that, but we didn't go in because of genocide.

Come on fellas, I wanted to see some spin for lack of WMDs. You're not even trying.

Actually, genocide and WMD's were both part of the original reasoning.

Remember? Saddam was a ruthless dictator that didn't hesitate to use WMD's against his own countrymen for genocide.

Now, the 9/11 commission has vindicated Bush. It says that Saddam indeed planned to restart his WMD programs as soon as the international heat went away -- which if countries like France and other critics of the war had their way, it would have.

Dems are standing on one SMALL part of the 9/11 report that favors them to call Bush a liar. When taken in context, we can say with a pretty high degree of certainty that a catastrophe was prevented.

After all, part of the Bush doctrine is being proactive rather than reactive when combating terrorism. Based on that, his and the legislature's decision to go into Iraq was a sound one.

[Shortfuse]

Originally posted by ktsnake
Actually, genocide and WMD's were both part of the original reasoning.

Remember? Saddam was a ruthless dictator that didn't hesitate to use WMD's against his own countrymen for genocide.

Now, the 9/11 commission has vindicated Bush. It says that Saddam indeed planned to restart his WMD programs as soon as the international heat went away -- which if countries like France and other critics of the war had their way, it would have.

Dems are standing on one SMALL part of the 9/11 report that favors them to call Bush a liar. When taken in context, we can say with a pretty high degree of certainty that a catastrophe was prevented.

After all, part of the Bush doctrine is being proactive rather than reactive when combating terrorism. Based on that, his and the legislature's decision to go into Iraq was a sound one.

Partially Correct, because I remember the reports and people talk about loved ones beign murdered and trust my heart goes out to them. But WMD was the issue because we believe he was going to attack us with them. Much of the talk was about pre-emptive strikes to protect AMERICAN LIVES. Not to have another 9/11, it seems that genocide was something to fall back on to help sell it to the people who didn't believe in WMDs. But trust me, this government was no more concern with the plight of the Iraqi people as they are with the people in the Sudan.


But if there isn't WMDs doesn't it make all the pre-war talk hollow?

[KSig RC]

Originally posted by Shortfuse
Where did you lay waste to it? WMDs was the main reason we went to Iraq in the first place. If genocide was the reason the US would've been in Iraq before 9/11. Please show me some type of proof that Bush, Cheney, or Powell made to the UN that the US should go in because of genocide?

I also made no mention of genocide. Help me out here, man, you're one of the few that actually want to discuss things in the open.

Go back and re-read my posts in this thread.

[Kevin]

Originally posted by Shortfuse
But WMD was the issue because we believe he was going to attack us with them. Much of the talk was about pre-emptive strikes to protect AMERICAN LIVES.

That's exactly what the war did though according to the 9/11 Commission. It prevented Saddam from being able to produce the WMD that he wanted to produce. That's a matter of fact. WMD in his hands were reasonably deemed more dangerous than WMD in anyone else's because he wasn't afraid to use them.

I believe that 10-20 years down the line, we would have had to invade anyway. Especially after say a chemical barrage on Israel with the Al-Samoud missiles he had that were capable of transporting chemical warheads to Israel -- that is very obviously what they were developed for.

The attacks according to the 9/11 report did in fact stop him from producing WMD's preemptively. We'll never know how many lives that saved. Probably quite a few.

[Shortfuse]

Originally posted by KSig RC
I also made no mention of genocide. Help me out here, man, you're one of the few that actually want to discuss things in the open.

Go back and re-read my posts in this thread.

I know, just putting that in there because people are now saying that. I'm not saying that YOU said that.

Here's my problem. I believe that Bin Laden was the greater threat and not Saddam. If I was on this board in 01, then you'd heard me (being a Muslim) say that it was time for the US to go and serve Bin Laden with a plate of BOMBS with some Marines to wash it down. I'm sure most people were down with that.

My issue was that the Bin Laden problem wasn't solved before we walked into Iraq. WMDs was the MAIN (not the only) reason given that we should go there. Bush dropped the ball by naming a so-called Axis of evil of countries that had nothign to do with the WORSE attack on AMerican Soil in almost 60 years. I know a war on Terrorism would be fought on many fronts but to stretch us out all over the place was crazy as well as dangerous.


KTSNAKE, I would agree that it takes along time before History shows us who was right or wrong. I also agree that Saddam would ahve to be dealt with sooner or later. But it's the manner we dealt with him.

[Kevin]

Are you saying we're not going after Bin Ladin?

Tell that to the thousands of Marines in Afghanistan. Tell that to one of the members of my chapter's advisor panel that just got back from a tour of duty in Afghanistan.

Catching Bin Ladin is not all that important anyhow. He's just a leader of a movement that will survive without him. What we're doing now in Afghanistan is far more important. We're trying to bring about some sort of civilized way of life for those people. One where the suicide bomber mentality does not fester.

I don't think militarily we can just go and 'blow up' Al Quaeda.

I do think we can beat them in a war of ideas and ideals though.

[Kevin]

Originally posted by Shortfuse


KTSNAKE, I would agree that it takes along time before History shows us who was right or wrong. I also agree that Saddam would ahve to be dealt with sooner or later. But it's the manner we dealt with him.

That's what I'm saying though. That's the Bush doctrine. If you agree that we were going to have to go in anyway because of WMD's, your issue is not with the lack of WMD's, it's with his preemptive approach to threats against the United States.

You are admitting here that you do agree that Iraq would have certainly eventually have become a threat to the US that we would have had to deal with.

Now, which would you have rather fought? An Iraq with weaponized WMD's? Or one that was only stockpiling resources to be able to have weaponized WMD?

For me, and I think most Americans, the choice is clear.

[RACooper]

Originally posted by ktsnake
Actually, genocide and WMD's were both part of the original reasoning.

Remember? Saddam was a ruthless dictator that didn't hesitate to use WMD's against his own countrymen for genocide.

Now, the 9/11 commission has vindicated Bush. It says that Saddam indeed planned to restart his WMD programs as soon as the international heat went away -- which if countries like France and other critics of the war had their way, it would have.

Dems are standing on one SMALL part of the 9/11 report that favors them to call Bush a liar. When taken in context, we can say with a pretty high degree of certainty that a catastrophe was prevented.

After all, part of the Bush doctrine is being proactive rather than reactive when combating terrorism. Based on that, his and the legislature's decision to go into Iraq was a sound one.

Hey I look at the 9/11 commision as actually decrediting many of the arguements, especially the constant attacks against the UN inspectors and sanctions... well to me it looks like that the inspectors and sanctions were efffectinve in conrolling or limiting Saddam's access to WMD capability... ie. no imminent threat as was touted at the UN.

My arguement was that Iraq was much further down on the list of horrifying or frightening regimes... at least compared to say North Korea... a country ruled by a leader that makes Saddam look like a boy-scout by comparsion, and with a much greater capacity to supply other "rogue" nations or groups with WMD capabilities.

[KSig RC]

Originally posted by RACooper
My arguement was that Iraq was much further down on the list of horrifying or frightening regimes... at least compared to say North Korea... a country ruled by a leader that makes Saddam look like a boy-scout by comparsion, and with a much greater capacity to supply other "rogue" nations or groups with WMD capabilities.

... and while this may be true, there is really no logical way to attack North Korea for the timebeing. Similarly, the US cannot just waltz into Saudi Arabia, which is probably the worst nation on the earth as far as harboring and promoting terrorism, without serious issues. Iran? Same.

But maybe, just maybe, regime change in Iraq will create the sort of change that will allow us to challenge and undermine these nations in the future (obviously not referring to NK with this statement).

North Korea is currently a CF - but that's neither a new nor a straightforward problem, this regime has been an issue for quite some time. There's just not a way to attack it right now, to my mind. What would you suggest, RAC?

[KSig RC]

Originally posted by Shortfuse
I know, just putting that in there because people are now saying that. I'm not saying that YOU said that.

Here's my problem. I believe that Bin Laden was the greater threat and not Saddam. If I was on this board in 01, then you'd heard me (being a Muslim) say that it was time for the US to go and serve Bin Laden with a plate of BOMBS with some Marines to wash it down. I'm sure most people were down with that.

My issue was that the Bin Laden problem wasn't solved before we walked into Iraq. WMDs was the MAIN (not the only) reason given that we should go there. Bush dropped the ball by naming a so-called Axis of evil of countries that had nothign to do with the WORSE attack on AMerican Soil in almost 60 years. I know a war on Terrorism would be fought on many fronts but to stretch us out all over the place was crazy as well as dangerous.


KTSNAKE, I would agree that it takes along time before History shows us who was right or wrong. I also agree that Saddam would ahve to be dealt with sooner or later. But it's the manner we dealt with him.

My issue with this statement is that bin Laden himself is much less of a threat than the movement he has helped spawn. The reality is that al Qaeda and other radical terrorist organizations would still exist without bin Laden, far more so than bin Laden would survive without his organizational strongholds.

So, I feel that attacking these strongholds is a must - let's remove the environment that fosters, supports, and hides these organizations. I believe the hope is that by changing the environment that has allowed these organizations to rise, you'll bring about their fall.

I do agree, however, that Afghanistan is an extremely important front, and I support that military action in the fullest.

[RACooper]

Originally posted by KSig RC
... and while this may be true, there is really no logical way to attack North Korea for the timebeing. Similarly, the US cannot just waltz into Saudi Arabia, which is probably the worst nation on the earth as far as harboring and promoting terrorism, without serious issues. Iran? Same.

But maybe, just maybe, regime change in Iraq will create the sort of change that will allow us to challenge and undermine these nations in the future (obviously not referring to NK with this statement).

North Korea is currently a CF - but that's neither a new nor a straightforward problem, this regime has been an issue for quite some time. There's just not a way to attack it right now, to my mind. What would you suggest, RAC?

Well know things are much more complicated, and while they were before it's pretty apparent that the so-called "Bush Doctrine" has complicated the issue more. I had hoped that negoations (read bribes) involving both western and eastern countries would have kept North Korea in check (WMD speaking) until the "Dear Leader" (or whatever he's called) passed on - then maybe there would be room for change... but even I doubt that. Basically North Korea is one of those problems that I'd personally prefer to see contained, watched, and gently pushed hoping for constructive change.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by RACooper
Well know things are much more complicated, and while they were before it's pretty apparent that the so-called "Bush Doctrine" has complicated the issue more. I had hoped that negoations (read bribes) involving both western and eastern countries would have kept North Korea in check (WMD speaking) until the "Dear Leader" (or whatever he's called) passed on - then maybe there would be room for change... but even I doubt that. Basically North Korea is one of those problems that I'd personally prefer to see contained, watched, and gently pushed hoping for constructive change.

I'm glad to hear that you Canadians support the North Korean quest for world destruction.

-Rudey

[KSig RC]

Originally posted by RACooper
Basically North Korea is one of those problems that I'd personally prefer to see contained, watched, and gently pushed hoping for constructive change.

I think this pretty much IS the Bush Doctrine, at least as far as the f-ups of his predecessor(s) will allow it.

[Shortfuse]

Originally posted by ktsnake
Are you saying we're not going after Bin Ladin?

Tell that to the thousands of Marines in Afghanistan. Tell that to one of the members of my chapter's advisor panel that just got back from a tour of duty in Afghanistan.

Catching Bin Ladin is not all that important anyhow. He's just a leader of a movement that will survive without him. What we're doing now in Afghanistan is far more important. We're trying to bring about some sort of civilized way of life for those people. One where the suicide bomber mentality does not fester.

I don't think militarily we can just go and 'blow up' Al Quaeda.

I do think we can beat them in a war of ideas and ideals though.

I'll answer both of your post with this one.


That's not what I'm saying. I know we're going after him. I just think that giving him our FULL attention would have given him to us a long time ago. As most people have been saying that Saddam is far down teh list of people who are threats to our country.


We'll agree to disagree about if he had them or not. Personally I don't think he had the ability to grab them w/o us knowing and since we've been bombing him for the past few years, he was bottled up. Now, us going to match up with him again was going to come later on because I believe he was going to get the gonads to actually CHALLENGE us down the road, but he was just a small mini-midget dictator who can only bully his people. His army didn't even belong on the same field as most urban gangs.

Saddam wasn't a HUGE threat to us.