The War in Iraq and Afghanistan, was/is it worth it?

[bears]

But we took down a dictator who was next to ZERO threat tot he USA!

"Now let me be clear -- I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein.  He is a brutal man.  A ruthless man.  A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power.  He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.  He's a bad guy.  The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him."

    State Senator Barack Obama (Democrat, Illinois)
    Speech at Federal Plaza, Chicago, Illinois
    October 2, 2002

[bears]

But we took down a dictator who was next to ZERO threat tot he USA!

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations.  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."

    Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)
    Statement on US Led Military Strike Against Iraq
    December 16, 1998

[bears]

But we took down a dictator who was next to ZERO threat tot he USA!

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States and to our allies.

If Saddam persists in thumbing his nose at the inspectors, then we're clearly going to have to do something about it."

    Howard Dean, Democratic Presidential Candidate
    During an interview on "Face The Nation"
    September 29, 2002

[bears]

But we took down a dictator who was next to ZERO threat tot he USA!

"The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.

The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people."

    President Clinton
    Oval Office Address to the American People
    December 16, 1998

[bears]

But we took down a dictator who was next to ZERO threat tot he USA!

Regime change in Iraq has been official US policy since 1998.  The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, signed into law by President Clinton, states:

"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."

    Iraq Liberation Act of 1998
    105th Congress, 2nd Session
    September 29, 1998

[bears]

But we took down a dictator who was next to ZERO threat tot he USA!

just sayin that we will never know what the world would have been like if we hadn't invaded Iraq.  It's so easy to sit there now and say it was unnecessary.  just so you know though, EVERYONE democrat or republican believed that Sadaam was an imminent threat to the world and the US.  The liberal propoganda machine we have today conveniently ignores this fact whenever they discuss Iraq and GWB.  I can't even tell you how many of my liberal friends flat out did not believe that John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, John Edwards, and Harry Reid all voted in favor of invading Iraq until I showed them.  Without fail every one of them backpedal and say "Well they were tricked into voting yes."  It's like they simply refuse to hear it.

[bears]

  "Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction.  If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future.  Saddam will strike again at his neighbors; he will make war on his own people.  And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction.  He will deploy them, and he will use them."

   President Clinton
   National Address from the Oval Office
   December 16, 1998

   http://freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html#baS7aVmeAo

   http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/New/html/19981216-3611.html

   http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html 
 

[OzmO]

You could have just put that all on one post  


All that is nothing but political blabber.  I hope you can tell the difference.   After the gulf war we were looking for any reasonable excuse to attack Iraq and Saddam knew this, and knew that if that happened it would be the end of him.  9/11 gave us that excuse.  Saddam was no threat simply because anything he did would have resulted him losing his power and likely his life.  

Yes I agree, we don't how it would turned out.  But we do how it likely would have been because of the last 12 years since the gulf war. 

Also please remember, for me this was never ever about lib, conservative, repub or dem for me. 

[bears]

You could have just put that all on one post  


All that is nothing but political blabber.  I hope you can tell the difference.   After the gulf war we were looking for any reasonable excuse to attack Iraq and Saddam knew this, and knew that if that happened it would be the end of him.  9/11 gave us that excuse.  Saddam was no threat simply because anything he did would have resulted him losing his power and likely his life.  

Yes I agree, we don't how it would turned out.  But we do how it likely would have been because of the last 12 years since the gulf war. 

Also please remember, for me this was never ever about lib, conservative, repub or dem for me. 

what do you mean by political blabber?  They are all lying?  I'm all ears.

[OzmO]

what do you mean by political blabber?  They are all lying?  I'm all ears.

Never said they were lying.  But the "need" to invade Iraq because he is a threat to the USA is total 100% BS. 

So they can go on and on about how much a threat Saddam is, but in reality to the USA he is not.  Hence: Political blabber, because they can in no way make statements indicating what i just said because that could mean trouble for them politically.  Especially in 2003 when war fever was rampant here.   That's why its blabber, nothing but blabber.  Kind of like Hope and Change. 

[bears]

Never said they were lying.  But the "need" to invade Iraq because he is a threat to the USA is total 100% BS. 

So they can go on and on about how much a threat Saddam is, but in reality to the USA he is not.  Hence: Political blabber, because they can in no way make statements indicating what i just said because that could mean trouble for them politically.  Especially in 2003 when war fever was rampant here.   That's why its blabber, nothing but blabber.  Kind of like Hope and Change. 

but thats exactly what you're saying.  if they purposefully do not make statements about what they actually believe to be the truth because of the fear of political retribution thats the same as lying. 

[Roger Bacon]

Just weight the pros and cons, you would be absolutely insane or blind to not see what a complete waste this "war on terror" has been.

[OzmO]

but thats exactly what you're saying.  if they purposefully do not make statements about what they actually believe to be the truth because of the fear of political retribution thats the same as lying. 

A politician is lying?  that's a new idea.   

What i was referring to was some if the things they were citing as facts, that were not likely lies.

Their "opinion" based on those facts is blabber. 

[bears]

Just weight the pros and cons, you would be absolutely insane or blind to not see what a complete waste this "war on terror" has been.

I guess i agree.  However i'm not stupid or arrogant enough to think that i would have had a better solution.   And i absolutely cannot stand people who sit on internet boards proclaiming that they know exactly what should have been done.  And i am also intelligent enough to know that anyone can make up conspiracy theories that make sense. However making sense and being true are two completely different things.  And i think most people forget that.

I mean there are still a lot of people who think GWB planned 9/11.  Its funny back when Fahrenheit 9/11 came out about half of the people i knew believed it to be 100% true and argued mercilessly with anyone who disagreed.  Now none of those people will even admit that they ever believed it, let alone that its true.

[Roger Bacon]

I guess i agree.  However i'm not stupid or arrogant enough to think that i would have had a better solution.   And i absolutely cannot stand people who sit on internet boards proclaiming that they know exactly what should have been done.  And i am also intelligent enough to know that anyone can make up conspiracy theories that make sense. However making sense and being true are two completely different things.  And i think most people forget that.

I mean there are still a lot of people who think GWB planned 9/11.  Its funny back when Fahrenheit 9/11 came out about half of the people i knew believed it to be 100% true and argued mercilessly with anyone who disagreed.  Now none of those people will even admit that they ever believed it, let alone that its true.

I pretty much agree with you completely.  Although I do believe that Bush and Company had ulterior motives in taking us to war in Iraq.

[andreisdaman]

What about a countries responsibility to stand up for themselves? Freedom or democracy won FOR you by another country probably won't work in the long run. I wouldn't mind so much helping another country but doing it for them? Not so much.  We generally have the government we deserve 

that would definitely be the ideal but the dissidents in many countries need help and a country like the U.S. can give those regimes a little push in the right direction or a big push if necessary

[andreisdaman]

We do look the other way.  All the time, even right now.  We did Not topple Saddam because he was a dictator abusing his poeple.  So your belief is based on a false assumption. 

I never said that was why we toppled Saddham..I simply stated that it was a happy by-product of such.....and that we should topple dictators as a matter of policy..no false assumptions here....I know we only go after dictators when it serves our best interests (such as when oil is involved)

[OzmO]

I never said that was why we toppled Saddham..I simply stated that it was a happy by-product of such.....and that we should topple dictators as a matter of policy..no false assumptions here....I know we only go after dictators when it serves our best interests (such as when oil is involved)

It's irresponsible for a POTUS to put American soldiers in harms way, not to mention all the other effects of war, for both of those reasons. 

We also have a history of propping up or supporting dictators when it serves our interests. 

[bears]

I pretty much agree with you completely.  Although I do believe that Bush and Company had ulterior motives in taking us to war in Iraq.

As long as you concede that "and Company" includes Pelosi, Clinton, Reid, Kerry, and Biden I can begin to entertain that theory.  Again, I'm not saying that the US government is not capable of misleading the american public.  I'm just saying that I won't let the men and women who authorized the US armed forces to invade Iraq off the hook simply because they belong to the Democratic party.  The fact is they all believed that Iraq was a threat (or at least they said they did), and I will not allow them to backpedal.  That's just fucking weak.  And if you are a 9/11 conspiracy theorist who voted for John Kerry after his vote and his statements concerning Iraq and Sadaam, I don't really know what to say to you.  

[bears]

What about a countries responsibility to stand up for themselves? Freedom or democracy won FOR you by another country probably won't work in the long run. I wouldn't mind so much helping another country but doing it for them? Not so much.  We generally have the government we deserve 

good post.  the idea of "imposing democracy" is inherently hypocritical.

[bears]

that would definitely be the ideal but the dissidents in many countries need help and a country like the U.S. can give those regimes a little push in the right direction or a big push if necessary

right and when they do they are accused of exploiting a weaker country for financial gain by the members of the non incumbent party.  i.e. half of the country.  it's none of our business unless it will negatively affect us.  I disagree.  it's simply not our reponsibility.   

[Dos Equis]

"Now let me be clear -- I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein.  He is a brutal man.  A ruthless man.  A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power.  He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.  He's a bad guy.  The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him."

    State Senator Barack Obama (Democrat, Illinois)
    Speech at Federal Plaza, Chicago, Illinois
    October 2, 2002

Good luck with that.  This goes way back on the board.  http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=128312.0

[Roger Bacon]

As long as you concede that "and Company" includes Pelosi, Clinton, Reid, Kerry, and Biden I can begin to entertain that theory.  

Those bastards were definitely complicit.

[tu_holmes]

Those bastards were definitely complicit.

Fuck yes they were.

[freespirit]

Ask that question to Emmanuel Kelly:

[ Invalid YouTube link ]

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29099.htm