I just keep thinking that people have forgotten. Or maybe I never fully understood it, but somebody remind me. Why did we invade Iraq? Seriously, wasn't that proven to have been a mistake? Didn't we fuck that up and invade a sovereign nation based on false information? Why all of a sudden is the Republican party treating it like it's some kind of honorable cause and talking like it's the next goddamn World War II that, in any way, can result in 'victory'? And in some twisted way, anyone who questions it is somehow less of a Patriot or is in some way against America. What am I missing?
After 9/11 when the whole country was patriotic, again, we went into Asscrackistan. We swiftly aided the Afgannies in their overthrow of the taliban. Then, like in Iraq, there was a lot of talk of Iraq harboring terrorist (which it was) and Mr. Hussein paying families of suicide bombers up to 25k (US) for their sons 'martrydom' against the infadels. When we went to the UN to get support for going into Iraq over their ongoing failure to comply with UN inspectors and the vast amount of knowledge regarding their open look for Nukes on the black market. With the failed Soviet Union nations just a short distance away, and those countries very poor economic conditions and willingness to sell nukes (cold war leftovers) to anyone so they could buy vodka and hookers. We got antsy. There was evidence that transactions had occured and that the only thing they were lacking was a quality delivery system (missile). So we go to the UN, wanting support, Russia and France (putos) were against it, and as we all know any of the big 6 can veto anything. Then we came to congress, a congress with democrats and republicans, and said hey, this is what we got, we need your support to move forward with protecting our country (and out interest abroad). Congress said hell yea, heres a FEMA card go crazy. All of this took about 6 months, including the staging and what not prior to invasion. So the Iraqi in control at the time says, 'holy crap, they will be here in 6 months, what do I do with all these russian nukes?' Syria says, 'no worries mate, just send them over here and we will hold on to them for you'. So Iraq loads em up and trapes them across the mountains to Syria. And the stuff they didnt send over, like nerve gas, they buried. We get there start looking around, find a bunch of Jets they got from France and Russia (that they buried in the sand so we wouldnt bomb them) hmmm, very suspicous. Then we find French manufactured anti-toxins for nerve gas exposure....hmmmmm, very suspicous again....then we find Russian manufactured serin nerve gas.....hmmmm I wonder why russia and france didnt want us shutting saddam down, he was a great revenue stream for them in illegal (to the geneva convention) arms. I dont know why nerve gas isnt high on the WMD list, apparently the majority of Americans have never been exposed to many nerve agents, but had they been they would have that stuff right there next to nukes. I think we went about it wrong, but you do what you have to. The same thing with Iran and N. Korea. A couple of seal teams could go in there wouldnt be a problem and the news would just say, 'nuclear accident'. But Im a conservative.
Possibly the longest post by Phatboy I have seen. And right on point. The crime would be to call someone else a criminal for taking diligent actions as is their responsibility to do so in protecting you. I would like to reming you of the very words of THE SAME PEOPLE wanting to press charges or make allegations against the current administration. http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 "Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998 "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998 "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 "There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by: -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001 "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them." -- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 "He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" -- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002 "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
The Current War in Iraq is simply a continuation of the first Gulf War. Lets go back in history and remember 1991 when Saddam invaded Kuwait, and threatened to invade Saudi Arabia. The US had an agreement with Saudi Arabia at the time we would defend them against agression (thus protecting the flow of oil to America) in exchange for them actually paying the expenses of the war. Wikipedia sums it up - "The decision by the U.S. and its allies to fight the Iraqi invasion had as much to do with preventing an attack on Saudi Arabia, a nation of considerable importance owing to its oil reserves, as it did with liberating Kuwait itself. The rapid success of the Iraqi army had brought it within easy striking distance of the Hama oil fields, one of Saudi Arabia’s largest. Iraqi control of these fields as well as Kuwait and Iraqi reserves would have given it control of the majority of the world's reserves." The underlined part is the real reason for the war. Yes, it was about oil. People say "it was just about oil" like that is a bad reason to go to war. Oil is the life blood of America - sad but true. Inturrupting the flow of oil from the Middle East would crush the U.S. economy and effectively destroy this country as efficiently as a nuclear bomb. As part of the cease fire in 1991 America agreed not to occupy Iran. Bush Sr really believed that the Iraqi people would overthrow a weakened Saddam. Saddam agreed to multiple reparations and agreed not to proliferate a military presence again. He repeatedly broke that promise. American war planes and Iraqi anti aircraft batteries traded shots almost weekly up until 2003. The War never truly ended. Again from Wikipedia - "Combined, they flew more sorties over Iraq in the eleven years following the war than were flown during the war. These sorties dropped bombs nearly every other day, officially against surface-to-air missiles and anti-aircraft guns which engaged the patrolling aircraft but in reality against a variety of infrastructure targets.The greatest amount of bombs was dropped during two sustained bombing campaigns: Operation Desert Strike, which lasted a few weeks in September 1996, and Operation Desert Fox, in December 1998." 911 gave Bush the excuse he needed to go finish what Daddy started. In order to sell it to the American people, he needed a "just cause." Some of the intelligence given to Bush was inaccurate, and much was proven wrong. The fact that we never found "weapons of mass destruction" in no way changes the fact that Saddam absoultely failed to honor the agreement of the war of 1991. Finishing this War was inevitable and necessary. Saddam was again ammasing an army, and would well have been a formidable foe if allowed to continue. Bush should have been honest and simply stated - it's time to finish what Saddam started in 1991. The problem is that the American people are soft and lazy. We want instant results and easy victories. The reality of human existance is that war is reality. There have been Wars since the beginning of time, and losers of those wars do not fare well. The strong survive and thrive. I for one do not care to be weak. At this time in history there are about 30 wars going on worldwide. See the list here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ongoing_wars. Why does every think that war is so rare? To end the war now prematurely will be a disaster for this country. PLEASE NEVER FORGET THHAT IRAQ IS AN ALLY OF RUSSIA. Russia is not or friend. Never has be, never will be. The rule of War is simple - finish it or fight it again.
The stakes were high going in and are still high today. The key to stability in the Middle East area in general is a happy, healthy, thriving democracy in Iraq. To hope for anything else is TREASON. To publicly bitch and complain and whine to leverage a successful debate on the subject against your opponent as being weather or not more people get bombed out in the streets of Iraq. This is in my opinion colluding with the terrorist. Basically in doing so you are telling terrorist: "Hey guys we are an enemy of your enemy. Help us out see you give yahoo news CNN, ABC, CBS some propaganda and they will in turn give you maximum coverage. We will use this propaganda to defeat our opposition. Together we can win!" Then when it looks like the American side is winning to the chagrin of the Democrats. Change strategy to "Even if the surge worked it does not matter because they were better under Saddam. Look there is a Theocracy!" Once again radical Islamist will be glad to accommodate you in helping to support this strategy also.
Or McCarthy McCarthyism is a communist idea to spin the fact that they were traitors against their own country and diserved to be pissed on to the idea that they were victims.
Joeslogic, I'm sorry. I just don't understand what you're trying to say most of the time. McCarthyism is not a communist idea. It describes a period of time in the US when there was intense anti-communist suspicion. Some people DID end up victims of that overwhelmingly intense anti-communist suspicion. Is that what you're trying to say?
And Phatboy. There is no evidence that Iraq had any kind of WMDs. If there was even the slightest shred of evidence that they had weapons of mass destruction, it would have been shown on Fox News 24/7 for months. Weapons of mass destruction was excuse we used to invade them but it turned out to be wrong. They did not have any Russian nukes or anything else.
Right. All of those people believed that Iraq had WMDs because that's what they were told. It turned out to be a mistake in the end. There were none. We suspected that Iraq was plotting to attack us and that they were hiding weapons to do it. We used that excuse to invade their country. After we got there, we found no evidence that they had any WMDs and it was concluded that they had no ties to Al Qaeda. So why are we still there? We realized we took over some country for no good reason and then we STAYED there. Is that not what happened?
Nope thats not what happened. But if you feel the people in that list of quotes should be brought up on charges well I can understand your perspective given your predisposition to being gullible.
