Top-Ten Reasons to Get Out of Iraq. Now!

[actsnoblemartin]

Agree or disagree and why?. Please do not attack any political party, politician, or person on the board, Please stay on topic, and relate only to the authors points, and whether you agree or disagree and why.

Top-Ten Reasons to Get Out of Iraq. Now!


May 18, 2007
by Michael Boldin

10. The U.S. military has absolutely no right, whether legal or moral, to be killing people who live in Iraq. It has no right to even be in Iraq. Why is this? Because neither the Iraqi government nor the Iraqi people ever attacked the United States. This fact makes the war in Iraq an optional one, not a necessary one.

To reiterate what should be obvious, the fact that the U.S. was attacked in 2001 does not give this country the right to attack and kill people who had nothing to do with those crimes. It is morally acceptable to go after criminals, but it is a crime to kill their families, their friends, their neighbors, or anyone else not criminally complicit.

9. Both political parties have pursued a foreign policy of aggression for decades, and where has that gotten us?

Our military is based in over 120 countries around the world. The U.S. government has spent billions and billions of dollars of our tax money to prop up dictators and despotic regimes. It has armed people such as Osama bin Laden and the "freedom fighters" in Afghanistan, Saddam Hussein, and Manuel Noriega, only to use military force to oust them later on. This type of foreign policy has driven people all over the world to hate us. Don't we have enough enemies yet? Isn't it time to say enough is enough?

8. Since this war began back in 1991, millions of people have been driven from their homes, injured, or killed. Considering this fact, I cannot be convinced that the Iraqi people are better off in any way.

7. In a free country, aggressive war should never be used as a tool of foreign policy. Using force to impose what American politicians consider to be a proper government for Iraq violates every principle of freedom which this country is supposed to stand for. This is not freedom for Iraqis

6. No one can convince me that kindness and charity are the primary motives in a war where hundreds of billions of dollars are forcibly redistributed from American citizens to the military-industrial complex; especially the weapons-manufacturers. Maybe something else motivates the war-makers. Could it be greed?

5. Like virtually every war, this war is being funded through the coercive method of taxation. The wealth of the American people is being forcibly transferred to the government and their corporate partners; the merchants of death. Just considering this one point, the war in Iraq is just as immoral and illegal as stealing from one person to give to another.

On top of this, taxation, deficit-spending, and the printing of money gives the government an almost unlimited source of funding. Thus, there is no incentive for the government to spend the money wisely, because it can always get more - from us. Conversely, the access to such vast wealth is actually an incentive to continue the war perpetually. The ability to grow in wealth and power is something that not many politicians have had the strength to resist throughout history. American politicians are no different.

4. The Iraq War is the polar opposite of any proper concept of self-defense. The United States is the aggressor and Iraq is the defender; plain and simple. This fact brings up some very difficult moral and legal issues for everyone involved. Thomas Paine may have summed it up best:

"Not all the treasures of the world, so far as I believe, could have induced me to support an offensive war, for I think it murder."

3. We fought in Vietnam to stop the "domino effect" of communism, but when the communists took over, the world didn't come to an end. We "saved" Kuwait from an evil dictator, but it's still run by a family dynasty that has no interest in liberty for the people. We waged war on Afghanistan to capture Osama bin Laden. Oddly, rights violations are still rampant and Afghani opium production has soared since the invasion. And then, of course, we have all the "good" done in Iraq.

This foreign policy of aggression and intervention, which we have seen grow in preeminence over the last century, just doesn't work. The politicians promise us peace; they promise us security; they promise us anything to get us to go along with their policies, but what happens? In virtually every situation, the intervention totally fails, or the "enemy" is replaced by another despotic regime. The U.S. government has caused chaos in Iraq, and the time for that to come to an end is now.

2. You don't bring freedom to people by waging war on their cities and towns, and you don't protect innocent people by killing innocent people. It is a crime to aggressively take the life of another person. There is no murder of innocent people that can be justified by claiming that it was necessary for the "greater good."

If you consider that to be the right way of handling the problems in Iraq, you more closely resemble Joseph Stalin's way of thinking than that of liberty-lovers like Patrick Henry and Thomas Paine.

And the No. 1 reason to get the U.S. out of Iraq...now...

1. The warfare state is, hands down, the greatest threat to liberty. In war, the government always claims the need for massive power, and it uses war as an excuse to expand its control over our lives in every way possible.

War, the politicians claim, "changes everything." They tap our phones, read our emails, monitor our bank accounts, and give us "free speech zones." They consider torture acceptable and imprison people indefinitely. They take our property, waste our resources, and threaten to spend our economy into oblivion.

Throughout history, even kings and queens have often failed to survive such disastrous governance.

And, just in case that's not enough, here's one more "bonus" reason to get out Iraq now:

The Constitution does not give the president the power to wage war without first getting a declaration of war from Congress. Although some try to claim that the 2002 Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) fulfilled this requirement, it did not. All it did was transfer a Constitutional power - the power to declare war - from congress to the president. This transfer of power is a violation of the Constitution in and of itself.

Thus, the president violated the Constitution by waging war on Iraq without a declaration of war from congress. And, possibly even more important, everyone in congress who voted for the AUMF in 2002 violated the Constitution as well by illegally transferring their power to declare war to the president.

This is how the U.S. government has handled every war since World War II. By allowing the government to wage undeclared wars, politicians from both political parties have violated their Constitutional oaths repeatedly.

Whether you like it or not, the Constitution is not just a set of loose guidelines, it's the law. Now is the time to demand that our representatives in government abide by the law. We must stop allowing Presidents to drag us into wars, which they later claim we have to continue for years and years until the "job is done."

NATIONAL DEFENSE, NOT OFFENSE

If government should be playing any role at all in foreign affairs, it should be only to keep us out of wars. Their sole job is to ensure that this country will not be attacked so you and your family can live in peace.

I'd actually like to see some national defense for once in this country; all we have now is a national offense. Such things as staging coups, backing dictators with billions in foreign aid, basing our military in over 120 nations, and attacking other countries does nothing to keep this country safe. In fact, it does just the opposite, and almost guarantees more war in the future.

To make this country safer, we don't need to increase the power of the politicians, and we definitely don't need more national offense. We don't need more weapons, a larger military, or wars in more countries.

We need the exact opposite of this. We need to focus on defending the country rather than aggressing against the rest of the world.

The only reason to have a military force at all is to deter and discourage potential invaders; it's not to be used as a pre-emptive strike force. If the attackers come anyway, it's the military's job to repel them at our borders. Nothing more, nothing less. If they're unable to do that job, maybe we should consider something different.

WHAT NOW?

The path this country is on right now, the path of empire and militarism, will only guarantee us more violence, death, and loss of liberty.

This state of affairs is intolerable.

The right plan, in the short term, is the immediate withdrawal of all U.S. forces from Iraq. Now. Not when the violence "subsides." Not when Iraq has a stable government. Not when more Iraqi forces are trained. Not when the Democrats tell us the war is over, not when the Republicans tell us the war is over, and not when we have a new president.

The time to leave Iraq is now. Not in the fall. Not next year. Not next month or next week. Today, not tomorrow - right now.

Could the entire U.S. Military machine and its associated contractors leave Iraq this very moment? Obviously not. But, we could easily announce an immediate cessation of aggressive hostilities, and start mobilizing all of our resources to transport the troops out right away. It didn't take all that long to march into Iraq, and it won't take that long to march right on out.

FOR THE FUTURE

I hope that the painful lessons of the Iraq war will cause the American people to realize that the only solution to our foreign policy problems, including our nation's security, is not just a withdrawal from Iraq.

These long-term measures should be taken:

* Bring all U.S. troops home. All of them.
* Stop inciting violence against us by backing coups and despotic regimes.
* Stop telling other countries what type of government they should have, who their leaders should be, and what their policies should be.
* End all foreign aid; both military and economic. Allow the American people, with their own free will, to decide which charities and movements they want to support with their money and lives.

On top of these essential measures, we must clearly recognize that people in other countries don't hate us for "being free." They attack us when our government continually interferes in their lives.

This long-term solution requires a return to our nation's founding principles of individual liberty. This is quite contrary to America's current policies of militarism, endless foreign aid, massive standing armies, assassinations, coups, deadly sanctions, and wars.

As a nation, we cannot solve all the problems of the world. We cannot bring peace to the world. And, as the historical record shows, we cannot trust our politicians to do so either. Such has been the arrogance of many of the most murderous tyrants in world history, and such has been the path to their destruction.

We may not be able to stop war and bloodshed in places like Darfur, and we may not be able to bring liberty to places like North Korea. But, by standing up for what we believe in, our voices can make a real difference in what our own government is allowed to do.

When a government that rules in our name engages in torture, killing, and war, the number one question that will be asked of us someday is this: did you rise in opposition to it? Did you speak out against it? Or, did you approve of it by remaining silent?

I, for one, rise in opposition, and will continue to speak out.

[jimnyc]

Martin, please remember to cite a source when quoting others.

Since this is posted in many places, here's just one:

http://www.counterbias.com/888.html

[Gaffer]

Michael boldin, a bonifide left wing nutjob is just rehashing old material. It's not worth answering as its all been answered before, multiple times.

[JohnDoe]

Michael boldin, a bonifide left wing nutjob is just rehashing old material. It's not worth answering as its all been answered before, multiple times.
But maybe it hasn't been explained to Martin yet? He is quite young and new to this board?

[Gaffer]

But maybe it hasn't been explained to Martin yet? He is quite young and new to this board?

Every few months people like boldin put out this crap to rejuvenate the hate mongers. A reaffirmation of Bush hatred is all it is. The surge is working so they have to stir things up again in case any of the nut jobs begin to waver. He's a liberal pundit who's job is to produce propaganda. If Martin wants to ask a question himself I would be more than happy to respond. Posting an article is not asking a question. If he can take the time to dig up the article he can take the time to read what has been said in earlier posts on here.

[actsnoblemartin]

Can iraq still be won, and how much longer will it take?

I know im a nieve idiot, but im waivering. Im in the middle on this right now. Half of me feels like fuck the iraqis, were given them enough time, and half of me says, we can still win... War takes time, and we are being impatient shmucks.

I feel confused, and scared because, i dont wanna disapoint my friends, and inevitable, i do, because no matter what i think... my friends on the left get pissed, or my friends on the right, and trying to find the truth on any issue is so hard because of all the spin.

[MtnBiker]

Half of me feels like fuck the iraqis,

Fuck the Iraqis? what about the power vacum that will be created with a weak Iraq and the inevitable filling of that power by Iran? Is that the best for future world politics?

[Dilloduck]

Fuck the Iraqis? what about the power vacum that will be created with a weak Iraq and the inevitable filling of that power by Iran? Is that the best for future world politics?

I'm afraid there are very few sophisticated enough to understand what you are even talking about much less come up with an answer that doesn't fall under the heading " Another Bush Bash ".

[LiberalNation]

Sure Iran might gain more regional power but then again it might cause the entire region to distablize with the saudies & co battling the Iranian & co for power for there sects in Iraq. They focus on killing each other and it takes the spotlight of us. Occuping the ME can not go on forever, they will boot us out eventually. We can't stay as long as they can wait.

[theHawk]

10. The U.S. military has absolutely no right, whether legal or moral, to be killing people who live in Iraq. It has no right to even be in Iraq. Why is this? Because neither the Iraqi government nor the Iraqi people ever attacked the United States. This fact makes the war in Iraq an optional one, not a necessary one.
First of all, it wasn't our military that just up and decided to go attack Iraq. It was our elected leaders. The President, and the Congress. Thus, they are actually morally and legally obligated to do as the Commander-in-Chief orders. Secondly, they are not just there to "be killing people who live in Iraq." They were there to remove Saddam Hussien from power and to give the Iraqi people the chance for a democracy.





9. Both political parties have pursued a foreign policy of aggression for decades, and where has that gotten us?

Our military is based in over 120 countries around the world. The U.S. government has spent billions and billions of dollars of our tax money to prop up dictators and despotic regimes. It has armed people such as Osama bin Laden and the "freedom fighters" in Afghanistan, Saddam Hussein, and Manuel Noriega, only to use military force to oust them later on. This type of foreign policy has driven people all over the world to hate us. Don't we have enough enemies yet? Isn't it time to say enough is enough?

Yea, lets just stick our head in the sand and our asses in the air and hope for the best. Dipshit.




8. Since this war began back in 1991, millions of people have been driven from their homes, injured, or killed. Considering this fact, I cannot be convinced that the Iraqi people are better off in any way.

I could really care less what you can be convinced or not. I'm sure if the Iraqi people prefer living under a totalitarian dictator, they'll find one soon enough. Maybe we could just send them Hitlery?




7. In a free country, aggressive war should never be used as a tool of foreign policy. Using force to impose what American politicians consider to be a proper government for Iraq violates every principle of freedom which this country is supposed to stand for. This is not freedom for Iraqis

In other words, we should never lift a finger to help people living in a totalitarian society. Gotcha.


6. No one can convince me that kindness and charity are the primary motives in a war where hundreds of billions of dollars are forcibly redistributed from American citizens to the military-industrial complex; especially the weapons-manufacturers. Maybe something else motivates the war-makers. Could it be greed?
Who the hell every said we went to war because of kindness and charity?


5. Like virtually every war, this war is being funded through the coercive method of taxation. The wealth of the American people is being forcibly transferred to the government and their corporate partners; the merchants of death. Just considering this one point, the war in Iraq is just as immoral and illegal as stealing from one person to give to another.
You can always move out of the country.




4. The Iraq War is the polar opposite of any proper concept of self-defense. The United States is the aggressor and Iraq is the defender; plain and simple. This fact brings up some very difficult moral and legal issues for everyone involved. Thomas Paine may have summed it up best:

"Not all the treasures of the world, so far as I believe, could have induced me to support an offensive war, for I think it murder."
Well, feel free to go join the "minute men" of Al Queda in Iraq. We'll see how long you last.



3. We fought in Vietnam to stop the "domino effect" of communism, but when the communists took over, the world didn't come to an end. We "saved" Kuwait from an evil dictator, but it's still run by a family dynasty that has no interest in liberty for the people. We waged war on Afghanistan to capture Osama bin Laden. Oddly, rights violations are still rampant and Afghani opium production has soared since the invasion. And then, of course, we have all the "good" done in Iraq.
No the world didn't come to an end but millions of people died as a result.
Is this man actually saying we should had not of kicked Saddam's army out of Kuwait?






2. You don't bring freedom to people by waging war on their cities and towns, and you don't protect innocent people by killing innocent people. It is a crime to aggressively take the life of another person. There is no murder of innocent people that can be justified by claiming that it was necessary for the "greater good."

If you consider that to be the right way of handling the problems in Iraq, you more closely resemble Joseph Stalin's way of thinking than that of liberty-lovers like Patrick Henry and Thomas Paine.

Sounds exactly like points #8, 7, and 4. I guess this guy really couldn't come up with 10 reasons so he just keeps repeating the same ones over and over.
But, we'll go over it again.
Actually, we do get freedom by waging war on "cities and towns". Its how we won the war against Japan and Germany in WWII. We bombed entire cities killing hundreds of thousands of people, many of which were no doubt 'innocent.' And in the long term it was for the better because it ended the war and we made those countries into free democracies.



And the No. 1 reason to get the U.S. out of Iraq...now...

1. The warfare state is, hands down, the greatest threat to liberty. In war, the government always claims the need for massive power, and it uses war as an excuse to expand its control over our lives in every way possible.

War, the politicians claim, "changes everything." They tap our phones, read our emails, monitor our bank accounts, and give us "free speech zones." They consider torture acceptable and imprison people indefinitely. They take our property, waste our resources, and threaten to spend our economy into oblivion.
Wow, all of our phones are tapped!!! They're reading our emails!!! "Free speech zones"!!!
This moron needs to seek theropy.


And, just in case that's not enough, here's one more "bonus" reason to get out Iraq now:

The Constitution does not give the president the power to wage war without first getting a declaration of war from Congress. Although some try to claim that the 2002 Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) fulfilled this requirement, it did not. All it did was transfer a Constitutional power - the power to declare war - from congress to the president. This transfer of power is a violation of the Constitution in and of itself.

Thus, the president violated the Constitution by waging war on Iraq without a declaration of war from congress. And, possibly even more important, everyone in congress who voted for the AUMF in 2002 violated the Constitution as well by illegally transferring their power to declare war to the president.

The Congress did vote on this war. And there hasn't been a "Declaration of War" since WWII. Hell, Congress didn't even approve of the Korean War. So if this President violated the Constitution, then so did Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, Bush Sr, Clinton, and even Presidents Jefferson and Madison for the Barbary Wars and President John Adams for the war with France in 1798-1800. I guess all those lawyers over the last two centuries didn't have a clue what was the powers of the President were as spelled out by the Constitution. Glad Mr. Boldin is here to straighten us all out!

[diuretic]

Fuck the Iraqis? what about the power vacum that will be created with a weak Iraq and the inevitable filling of that power by Iran? Is that the best for future world politics?

Ironic isn't it? An anti-Iran dictator was removed and replaced with a pro-Iran regime.

[Ruby]

First of all, it wasn't our military that just up and decided to go attack Iraq. It was our elected leaders. The President, and the Congress. Thus, they are actually morally and legally obligated to do as the Commander-in-Chief orders. Secondly, they are not just there to "be killing people who live in Iraq." They were there to remove Saddam Hussien from power and to give the Iraqi people the chance for a democracy.

He didnt say it was military that made the decision so that seems a strawman you are using. Our elected leaders did not do it the proper way and no they didnt do it properly in Korea, Vietnam, etc. I guess since we have let them get away with it before means we should allow them to continue doing it and continue getting away with it. There was good reason for requiring congress to give declaration of war, there isnt a good reason to bypass that.



Yea, lets just stick our head in the sand and our asses in the air and hope for the best. Dipshit.

You think its either aggressive predatory policy vs asses in the air? Thats ridiculous. You neglect to realize all the other options available and even seem to suggest they dont exist.



I could really care less what you can be convinced or not. I'm sure if the Iraqi people prefer living under a totalitarian dictator, they'll find one soon enough. Maybe we could just send them Hitlery?

Its a quantifiable fact that Iraqis are worse off with US involvement. We have no right to inflict such suffering onto people.



In other words, we should never lift a finger to help people living in a totalitarian society. Gotcha.

Its seems disingenous to pretend you care about Iraqi people or anyone living under a totalitarian dictator since just in the statement above you arent even willing to deal with the fact that we have only ADDED to their suffering. Invading and bombing people, creating puppet regimes, installing or SUPPORTING totalitarian dicators are all things that are not helpful. We have supported numerous dictators, INCLUDING Saddam, the extremes in our reactions are not helpful, they are harmful.



Who the hell every said we went to war because of kindness and charity?

Well the first excuse was WMD, that didnt hold water though. Then we were quick to switch it to "liberation" of the Iraqi people and pretend our reasons are altruistic. Our goals are solely based on geo-political goals to suit ourselves and dont bother to take into account what this means for those we harm.



You can always move out of the country.

People also have a right to stay and try to change things as well.




Well, feel free to go join the "minute men" of Al Queda in Iraq. We'll see how long you last.

The comment dosent really make sense. It seems that you inserted macho swaggering taunts in place of dealing with the difficult legal and moral questions our own wars of aggression raise.



No the world didn't come to an end but millions of people died as a result.
Is this man actually saying we should had not of kicked Saddam's army out of Kuwait?

Vietnam is a good illustration of the "fear mongering" has little to do with reality in the end. We have a right to stop aggressive wars in their tracks, which is why it is justified to stop Iraq from invading Kuwait..... which of course reminds us that aggressive wars are wrong and we are knowingly engaging in this action we oursleves deems to be wrong.

We are obvious hypocrites though cause we backed Saddams other aggressive invasion against Iran. We obviously dont have legal or moral standards we stick to.




Sounds exactly like points #8, 7, and 4. I guess this guy really couldn't come up with 10 reasons so he just keeps repeating the same ones over and over.
But, we'll go over it again.
Actually, we do get freedom by waging war on "cities and towns". Its how we won the war against Japan and Germany in WWII. We bombed entire cities killing hundreds of thousands of people, many of which were no doubt 'innocent.' And in the long term it was for the better because it ended the war and we made those countries into free democracies.

We won the war in ww2 (along with other nations) but we didnt bring "freedom and democracy". Germany had been a democracy and they allowed it to be erroded and simply went back to an earlier state. Japan pushed themselves into a corner with their own behavior (aggressive wars again) and found they needed radical change if they were to survive as a nation.




Wow, all of our phones are tapped!!! They're reading our emails!!! "Free speech zones"!!!
This moron needs to seek theropy.

Its sad to see that rights of privacy are so easily discarded. You dont seem all that opposed to totalitarian dicator concepts, you seem ready to embrace them even. Pretty contradictory to your stated position really.




The Congress did vote on this war. And there hasn't been a "Declaration of War" since WWII. Hell, Congress didn't even approve of the Korean War. So if this President violated the Constitution, then so did Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, Bush Sr, Clinton, and even Presidents Jefferson and Madison for the Barbary Wars and President John Adams for the war with France in 1798-1800. I guess all those lawyers over the last two centuries didn't have a clue what was the powers of the President were as spelled out by the Constitution. Glad Mr. Boldin is here to straighten us all out!


The congress needed to DECLARE war and we need to stop trying to slide things through on technicalities, create new terms to avoid current laws etc. Its a ridiculous and dangerous game to play. You really do seem very quick to toss out the safeguards in our system and not at all bothered as they are bypassed. Its an odd stance to take while also claiming to care about democratic principles.

We have been letting our govt get away with far too much and the levels of corruption are truly extreme.

[Gaffer]

Wow, comrade ruby really, really, really hates America.

[nevadamedic]

Can iraq still be won, and how much longer will it take?

I know im a nieve idiot, but im waivering. Im in the middle on this right now. Half of me feels like fuck the iraqis, were given them enough time, and half of me says, we can still win... War takes time, and we are being impatient shmucks.

I feel confused, and scared because, i dont wanna disapoint my friends, and inevitable, i do, because no matter what i think... my friends on the left get pissed, or my friends on the right, and trying to find the truth on any issue is so hard because of all the spin.

In the words of the late great Ricky Nelson "You Can't Please Everyone, So You GOtta PLease Yourself"

[nevadamedic]

He didnt say it was military that made the decision so that seems a strawman you are using. Our elected leaders did not do it the proper way and no they didnt do it properly in Korea, Vietnam, etc. I guess since we have let them get away with it before means we should allow them to continue doing it and continue getting away with it. There was good reason for requiring congress to give declaration of war, there isnt a good reason to bypass that.



You think its either aggressive predatory policy vs asses in the air? Thats ridiculous. You neglect to realize all the other options available and even seem to suggest they dont exist.



Its a quantifiable fact that Iraqis are worse off with US involvement. We have no right to inflict such suffering onto people.



Its seems disingenous to pretend you care about Iraqi people or anyone living under a totalitarian dictator since just in the statement above you arent even willing to deal with the fact that we have only ADDED to their suffering. Invading and bombing people, creating puppet regimes, installing or SUPPORTING totalitarian dicators are all things that are not helpful. We have supported numerous dictators, INCLUDING Saddam, the extremes in our reactions are not helpful, they are harmful.



Well the first excuse was WMD, that didnt hold water though. Then we were quick to switch it to "liberation" of the Iraqi people and pretend our reasons are altruistic. Our goals are solely based on geo-political goals to suit ourselves and dont bother to take into account what this means for those we harm.



People also have a right to stay and try to change things as well.




The comment dosent really make sense. It seems that you inserted macho swaggering taunts in place of dealing with the difficult legal and moral questions our own wars of aggression raise.



Vietnam is a good illustration of the "fear mongering" has little to do with reality in the end. We have a right to stop aggressive wars in their tracks, which is why it is justified to stop Iraq from invading Kuwait..... which of course reminds us that aggressive wars are wrong and we are knowingly engaging in this action we oursleves deems to be wrong.

We are obvious hypocrites though cause we backed Saddams other aggressive invasion against Iran. We obviously dont have legal or moral standards we stick to.




We won the war in ww2 (along with other nations) but we didnt bring "freedom and democracy". Germany had been a democracy and they allowed it to be erroded and simply went back to an earlier state. Japan pushed themselves into a corner with their own behavior (aggressive wars again) and found they needed radical change if they were to survive as a nation.




Its sad to see that rights of privacy are so easily discarded. You dont seem all that opposed to totalitarian dicator concepts, you seem ready to embrace them even. Pretty contradictory to your stated position really.





The congress needed to DECLARE war and we need to stop trying to slide things through on technicalities, create new terms to avoid current laws etc. Its a ridiculous and dangerous game to play. You really do seem very quick to toss out the safeguards in our system and not at all bothered as they are bypassed. Its an odd stance to take while also claiming to care about democratic principles.

We have been letting our govt get away with far too much and the levels of corruption are truly extreme.

What the fuck, we are creating Iraqui's pain and discomfort? Well actually you are right, we did cause pain and suffering to the dictator and criminals running that country that were torturing, raping and killing innocent people just because they lost in an Olympic event.

[theHawk]

He didnt say it was military that made the decision so that seems a strawman you are using.

Thats exactly what he said. Go back and read it.





You think its either aggressive predatory policy vs asses in the air? Thats ridiculous. You neglect to realize all the other options available and even seem to suggest they dont exist.

Thats basically the two choices when dealing with barbaric regimes in the Middle East. They know damn well they can continue doing whatever the hell they want, including building a nuclear bomb, and the world will do nothing about it. So that leave us the options of either using force, or letting them do as they please and hope that out of the goodness of their muslim hearts, they don't ever attacks us with their nukes.




Its a quantifiable fact that Iraqis are worse off with US involvement. We have no right to inflict such suffering onto people.

We have every right to inflict any amount of suffering onto people if we percieve a threat from them.



Its seems disingenous to pretend you care about Iraqi people or anyone living under a totalitarian dictator since just in the statement above you arent even willing to deal with the fact that we have only ADDED to their suffering. Invading and bombing people, creating puppet regimes, installing or SUPPORTING totalitarian dicators are all things that are not helpful. We have supported numerous dictators, INCLUDING Saddam, the extremes in our reactions are not helpful, they are harmful.

Forget what I feel, how do YOU feel about the Iraqi people or anyone else living in a totalitarian state? If YOU don't care if they live like that, why do you so suddenly care about if they are 'worse off'? If they are better off with such dicators, what was wrong with supporting them in the past? You seem to be implying things that contradict your own statements, since you don't really come out and say what your beliefs are. All you do is critisize what we did, and what we are doing.





Well the first excuse was WMD, that didnt hold water though. Then we were quick to switch it to "liberation" of the Iraqi people and pretend our reasons are altruistic. Our goals are solely based on geo-political goals to suit ourselves and dont bother to take into account what this means for those we harm.

Wrong, I was active duty the day the war began. And the mission was clearly stated on that first day. It was called Operation Iraqi Freedom. And its clearly stated goals was to free the Iraqi people from Saddam, and to search for WMD. You sir, have selective memory or you're just a flat out liar.



People also have a right to stay and try to change things as well.

Right, and the majority of the country supported the war when it started. Including the elected leaders, Republican and Democrat. You can pretend its all 'illegal' because there was no Declaration of War issued, but Congress did authorize the President to use force. As much as you'd like to rewrite history, that is what happened.




The comment dosent really make sense. It seems that you inserted macho swaggering taunts in place of dealing with the difficult legal and moral questions our own wars of aggression raise.

Mr. Boldin was the one that stated Iraq was the "defender" implying they have the moral high ground. He blantantly leaves out the fact that this same dictator started a war with Kuwait which we never really finished, and had every right to resume since Iraq constantly violated the no-fly zone rules. But people like Mr. Boldin, and yourself, like to ignore these facts.





Vietnam is a good illustration of the "fear mongering" has little to do with reality in the end. We have a right to stop aggressive wars in their tracks, which is why it is justified to stop Iraq from invading Kuwait..... which of course reminds us that aggressive wars are wrong and we are knowingly engaging in this action we oursleves deems to be wrong.

We are obvious hypocrites though cause we backed Saddams other aggressive invasion against Iran. We obviously dont have legal or moral standards we stick to.

We only 'supported' Iraq in their war against Iran because of what Iran did to us before. They were seen as the bigger of the two evils at the time. I think we all wish they just would had killed each other off.



We won the war in ww2 (along with other nations) but we didnt bring "freedom and democracy". Germany had been a democracy and they allowed it to be erroded and simply went back to an earlier state. Japan pushed themselves into a corner with their own behavior (aggressive wars again) and found they needed radical change if they were to survive as a nation.

Oh yes, I'm sure Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan would had someday given up dictator governments and worldly conquests to usher in a new era of democracy. None of our bombs were neccessary.

You sir, are a delusional twit.





Its sad to see that rights of privacy are so easily discarded. You dont seem all that opposed to totalitarian dicator concepts, you seem ready to embrace them even. Pretty contradictory to your stated position really.

I'd like you to list all the liberties that YOU yourself have lost in the last six years. What can YOU not do today that you could had six years ago?





The congress needed to DECLARE war and we need to stop trying to slide things through on technicalities, create new terms to avoid current laws etc. Its a ridiculous and dangerous game to play. You really do seem very quick to toss out the safeguards in our system and not at all bothered as they are bypassed. Its an odd stance to take while also claiming to care about democratic principles.

We have been letting our govt get away with far too much and the levels of corruption are truly extreme.
Yes, I'm sure my stance as a believer in what the Constitution stands for is "odd" to you.

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment

You can try to dance around what is written in the Constitution, but the Pres is the Commander-in-Chief and he did get authorization from Congress to use the military.


:salute:

[Ruby]

Thats exactly what he said. Go back and read it.

No, he said they didnt have A RIGHT to be there. He never said they made the decision to invade.



Thats basically the two choices when dealing with barbaric regimes in the Middle East. They know damn well they can continue doing whatever the hell they want, including building a nuclear bomb, and the world will do nothing about it. So that leave us the options of either using force, or letting them do as they please and hope that out of the goodness of their muslim hearts, they don't ever attacks us with their nukes.

It isnt our place to "let" them. They have the same rights we do to advance themselves or military capablities. It wasnt their region who invaded europe or north america and redrew our borders, it wasnt their region who staged coups in our regions govts, it wasnt their region that installed dictators in our nations who are more friendly to their interests than ours.

You seem to expect them to "let" the western world have WMD, the same region who has invaded them numerous times, redrawn their borders, installed dictators and just trust that out of the goodness of our christian hearts we wont attack them with nukes. I mean we HAVE used nuclear weapons on populations before.




We have every right to inflict any amount of suffering onto people if we percieve a threat from them.

So you are saying we have a right to inflict suffering on people over any unfounded threat that may arise from our paranoia and bigotry. Iraq was no threat to us.



Forget what I feel, how do YOU feel about the Iraqi people or anyone else living in a totalitarian state? If YOU don't care if they live like that, why do you so suddenly care about if they are 'worse off'? If they are better off with such dicators, what was wrong with supporting them in the past? You seem to be implying things that contradict your own statements, since you don't really come out and say what your beliefs are. All you do is critisize what we did, and what we are doing.

I feel badly for anyone living in what they percieve to be a totalitarian state BUT I recognize it is their right to be the ones to fix it as they see fit, how they see fit and when they see fit. Anything less is to deny them their self-determination rights. Supporting dictators and installing dictators ALL interferre with their rights to self-determine. THATS why I have a problem with us doing it.




Wrong, I was active duty the day the war began. And the mission was clearly stated on that first day. It was called Operation Iraqi Freedom. And its clearly stated goals was to free the Iraqi people from Saddam, and to search for WMD. You sir, have selective memory or you're just a flat out liar.

There is no way you are going to get away with such a bold faced lie. We invaded on the basis that he was hiding WMD and the inspectors were told to leave Iraq and we proceeded with our invasion "shock and awe".



Right, and the majority of the country supported the war when it started. Including the elected leaders, Republican and Democrat. You can pretend its all 'illegal' because there was no Declaration of War issued, but Congress did authorize the President to use force. As much as you'd like to rewrite history, that is what happened.

It was illegal. International law states it is an illegal invasion and we even bypassed the legal way to do it according to our own laws. We just create new definitions and new ways AROUND laws, that still adds up to illegal.

I dont care for republicans or democrats, they are both equally corrupted and it wasnt surprising they all agreed do somthing so corrupt.




Mr. Boldin was the one that stated Iraq was the "defender" implying they have the moral high ground. He blantantly leaves out the fact that this same dictator started a war with Kuwait which we never really finished, and had every right to resume since Iraq constantly violated the no-fly zone rules. But people like Mr. Boldin, and yourself, like to ignore these facts.

Iraq is the defender, we invaded them. We had a right to stop Iraq from invading Kuwait as the aggressive and illegal invasion it was. We did finish the job, we never had the right to determine another nations leaders or govt, we only had a right to stop an invasion.




We only 'supported' Iraq in their war against Iran because of what Iran did to us before. They were seen as the bigger of the two evils at the time. I think we all wish they just would had killed each other off.

Not liking Iran is no reason to SUPPORT illegal and aggressive invasions and war. It is also good to remember that what happened in Iran is a result of us overthrowing a previous govt and installing the brutal shah and the suffering they endured under the US installed dictator. Again, reminding us why it is WRONG to interferre in other nations rights of soveriegnty and self determination.




Oh yes, I'm sure Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan would had someday given up dictator governments and worldly conquests to usher in a new era of democracy. None of our bombs were neccessary.

You sir, are a delusional twit.


Germany was a democracy previous to Hitler, they allowed their democracy to be erroded just as we are allowing ours to be erroded. We didnt "teach" them about democracy or bring it to them, they were well acquainted with it. They made the same mistake we are currently making...they were apathetic and went along with a govt who used propaganda, fear mongering and extreme patriotism.

Why am I not surprised you resorted to name calling?




I'd like you to list all the liberties that YOU yourself have lost in the last six years. What can YOU not do today that you could had six years ago?

I no longer live in the US so they arent going to have much luck in stripping me of rights I enjoy here. But currently the govt can now take you and not give you due process. They can label you an enemy combatant..that easy. They can now peek into places they shouldnt. They can spy on citizens and collect data. They can keep you in free speech zones. They can take away your right to vote...they did that to many people already. They can take away your property for some profitable corporation...they used to only be able to take it for public NEED but now that "need" seems to have gotten a new definition. Its not hospitals or roads we need, its WALMART!



Yes, I'm sure my stance as a believer in what the Constitution stands for is "odd" to you.

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment

You can try to dance around what is written in the Constitution, but the Pres is the Commander-in-Chief and he did get authorization from Congress to use the military.


:salute:


You dont seem to support the checks and balances nor the balance of powers at all. If you believe in it so much then why couldnt congress go and declare war the right and legal way? Why the new terms and new definitions created?

[Gaffer]

comrade ruby's not even a fucking citizen and is trying to tell us how to run our country. No wonder she doesn't understand the Constitution.

[theHawk]

It isnt our place to "let" them. They have the same rights we do to advance themselves or military capablities. It wasnt their region who invaded europe or north america and redrew our borders, it wasnt their region who staged coups in our regions govts, it wasnt their region that installed dictators in our nations who are more friendly to their interests than ours.

You seem to expect them to "let" the western world have WMD, the same region who has invaded them numerous times, redrawn their borders, installed dictators and just trust that out of the goodness of our christian hearts we wont attack them with nukes. I mean we HAVE used nuclear weapons on populations before.

Yup, we've used them before on an enemy that attacked us. This is a war we are in with the islamists. Take your side, or stay out of our way.




So you are saying we have a right to inflict suffering on people over any unfounded threat that may arise from our paranoia and bigotry. Iraq was no threat to us.

I'm saying any country that percieves a threat and has the ability to do something about it, can and will.





I feel badly for anyone living in what they percieve to be a totalitarian state BUT I recognize it is their right to be the ones to fix it as they see fit, how they see fit and when they see fit. Anything less is to deny them their self-determination rights. Supporting dictators and installing dictators ALL interferre with their rights to self-determine. THATS why I have a problem with us doing it.

LOL, I see. Your grand solution is to let the citizens living in a totalitarian state just deal with it themselves. A totalitarian state is a police state where it is impossible to organize any kind of resistance. In other words, your content on just letting the citizens be jailed, tortured, and executed by their dictator.





There is no way you are going to get away with such a bold faced lie. We invaded on the basis that he was hiding WMD and the inspectors were told to leave Iraq and we proceeded with our invasion "shock and awe".
LOL, now I am the one lying? WMD was only one of the reasons we wanted to invade. The "Shock and Awe" bombing campaign had nothing to do with any of the mission goals.

The military objectives of Operation Iraqi Freedom consist of first, ending the regime of Saddam Hussein. Second, to identify, isolate and eliminate, Iraq's weapons of mass destruciton. Third, to search for, to capture and to drive out terrorists from the country. Fourth, to collect intelligence related to terrorist networks. Fifth, to collect such intelligence as is related to the global network of illicit weapons of mass destruction. Sixth, to end sanctions and to immediately deliver humanitarian support to the displaced and to many needed citizens. Seventh, to secure Iraq's oil fields and resources, which belong to the Iraqi people. Finally, to help the Iraqi people create conditions for a transition to a representative self-government.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraqi_freedom.htm

Opps, the truth sucks doesn't it?



It was illegal. International law states it is an illegal invasion and we even bypassed the legal way to do it according to our own laws. We just create new definitions and new ways AROUND laws, that still adds up to illegal.

I dont care for republicans or democrats, they are both equally corrupted and it wasnt surprising they all agreed do somthing so corrupt.

LOL, WHO cares about international law? You don't seem to understand war very well. If any country wants to go to war, it doesn't matter if its 'legal' or 'illegal' in some court of law. People fight for what THEY believe in, nothing will ever change that.



Not liking Iran is no reason to SUPPORT illegal and aggressive invasions and war.

Your opionion. Apparently our government felt otherwise at the time. Deal with it.



Germany was a democracy previous to Hitler, they allowed their democracy to be erroded just as we are allowing ours to be erroded. We didnt "teach" them about democracy or bring it to them, they were well acquainted with it. They made the same mistake we are currently making...they were apathetic and went along with a govt who used propaganda, fear mongering and extreme patriotism.

They were not a democracy at the time of the war, they were a dictatorship. Only violence disposed of that dictator, not peaceful democracy from within.





I no longer live in the US so they arent going to have much luck in stripping me of rights I enjoy here. But currently the govt can now take you and not give you due process. They can label you an enemy combatant..that easy. They can now peek into places they shouldnt. They can spy on citizens and collect data. They can keep you in free speech zones. They can take away your right to vote...they did that to many people already. They can take away your property for some profitable corporation...they used to only be able to take it for public NEED but now that "need" seems to have gotten a new definition. Its not hospitals or roads we need, its WALMART!
AHAHAHAHHA, your not even here and yet your telling us that we're being robbed of our rights! Can you at least name people that have had their rights stripped? Pretty sad that all you can do is rant about generalizations and give no specifics. Thanks for proving my point!

[Dilloduck]

So you are saying we have a right ------------




Yes--we have the "right" to do anything we want. So does every other country in the world. Where do you get the idea that things are otherwise ? Do you think screaming "you don't have the "right" to do that" has any effect on anything ? Who is going to come along and put us in jail ?

[Ruby]

comrade ruby's not even a fucking citizen and is trying to tell us how to run our country. No wonder she doesn't understand the Constitution.

Wrong on all counts there.

I am an american citizen.

And we are talking about FOREIGN POLICY and what america does OUTSIDE its own borders.

I dont think its a good idea to start pulling the "mind your own business" while we discuss american invasions of foreign nations and telling others what to do in their own nations.

[Ruby]

Yes--we have the "right" to do anything we want. So does every other country in the world. Where do you get the idea that things are otherwise ? Do you think screaming "you don't have the "right" to do that" has any effect on anything ? Who is going to come along and put us in jail ?


Now you have sunk to "laws of the jungle" mentality and might makes right logic? Gee how civilized and democratic that is, how respectful of the rule of the law that is :rolleyes:

[Ruby]

Yup, we've used them before on an enemy that attacked us. This is a war we are in with the islamists. Take your side, or stay out of our way.

Again, you arent able to justify an invasion of Iraq.



I'm saying any country that percieves a threat and has the ability to do something about it, can and will.

It has to be beyond percieved, it has to be a REAL threat to justify a self defense criteria.



LOL, I see. Your grand solution is to let the citizens living in a totalitarian state just deal with it themselves. A totalitarian state is a police state where it is impossible to organize any kind of resistance. In other words, your content on just letting the citizens be jailed, tortured, and executed by their dictator.

Wrong, we are chock full of history of numerous nations that overcame oppression and self-determined. Yes, we stop pretending we have a right to interferre in the other nations rights to self-determine. I am content to give people the respect of their own struggle and to not empower their oppressors and to not take measures that weaken them.




LOL, now I am the one lying? WMD was only one of the reasons we wanted to invade. The "Shock and Awe" bombing campaign had nothing to do with any of the mission goals.

Yes you are lying, we invaded based on the notion that we had to because he was hiding WMD. Shock and awe was indeed the first strike that was to help us fix the WMD situation. Of course this didnt hold water which is why we didnt find the stock piles of WMD.



The military objectives of Operation Iraqi Freedom consist of first, ending the regime of Saddam Hussein. Second, to identify, isolate and eliminate, Iraq's weapons of mass destruciton. Third, to search for, to capture and to drive out terrorists from the country. Fourth, to collect intelligence related to terrorist networks. Fifth, to collect such intelligence as is related to the global network of illicit weapons of mass destruction. Sixth, to end sanctions and to immediately deliver humanitarian support to the displaced and to many needed citizens. Seventh, to secure Iraq's oil fields and resources, which belong to the Iraqi people. Finally, to help the Iraqi people create conditions for a transition to a representative self-government.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraqi_freedom.htm

Opps, the truth sucks doesn't it?

No I think you proved my point there...firstly we dont have a RIGHT to determine the leadership of another nation and secondly...why was there an objective to find non-existant WMD and why did we tell inspectors to leave?

I dont see LIBERATION there as a stated goal either as you seemed to say was the REASON we did all this.

I havent had many people offer information that conflicts with their own point and helps to bolster mine...I guess I should thank you for that?



LOL, WHO cares about international law? You don't seem to understand war very well. If any country wants to go to war, it doesn't matter if its 'legal' or 'illegal' in some court of law. People fight for what THEY believe in, nothing will ever change that.

Well first we say that democracy and rule of law are important, now we say they dont matter? Gee that isnt an obvious hypocrites dance is it?




Your opionion. Apparently our government felt otherwise at the time. Deal with it.

Yea there we go with more praise of fascism. All hail the govt right? THEY DO AS THEY WANT and screw the american people, the Iraqi people and the international community. Nations who have behaved that way and taken such a stance have never done well. Good luck on repeating historic mistakes.



They were not a democracy at the time of the war, they were a dictatorship. Only violence disposed of that dictator, not peaceful democracy from within.

They went back to the same democracy they had before it was erroded via their own apathy and the same attitude we are seeing so well displayed by you.



AHAHAHAHHA, your not even here and yet your telling us that we're being robbed of our rights! Can you at least name people that have had their rights stripped? Pretty sad that all you can do is rant about generalizations and give no specifics. Thanks for proving my point!

I am an american citizen and you are right that I wont have to go suffer along side the rest of the american citizens, and for that I am glad, but I am also sad for the many people who do. I did provide specifics but I dont expect that to slow down your love for authoritarian govt and your contempt for rule of law.

Supporting wars of aggression is about as low as you can go, the good news is that you cant sink any lower really.

[theHawk]

Again, you arent able to justify an invasion of Iraq.

It has to be beyond percieved, it has to be a REAL threat to justify a self defense criteria.

It has been justified to those of us that support it. I could care less if you ever felt it was justified or not.



Wrong, we are chock full of history of numerous nations that overcame oppression and self-determined. Yes, we stop pretending we have a right to interferre in the other nations rights to self-determine. I am content to give people the respect of their own struggle and to not empower their oppressors and to not take measures that weaken them.

I know you are content on letting them go on as they are.
Most of us aren't. Our majority of our elected leaders choose not to. I guess you only agree with Democracy when its pushing forward agendas you care about.




Yes you are lying, we invaded based on the notion that we had to because he was hiding WMD. Shock and awe was indeed the first strike that was to help us fix the WMD situation. Of course this didnt hold water which is why we didnt find the stock piles of WMD.

Prove that I am lying. You sir, are the one that is saying our mission was soley to find WMD. That is flately false. I provided to you the mission statement which clearly states otherwise.
And by the way, shock and awe was an Air Force bombing campaign, how was it in any way connected to "help us fix the WMD situation"? You have any links to support this?
Here's a good summary of what shock and awe is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_and_awe#Iraq_War
It has nothing to do with finding WMDs....




No I think you proved my point there...firstly we dont have a RIGHT to determine the leadership of another nation and secondly...why was there an objective to find non-existant WMD and why did we tell inspectors to leave?

I never said looking for WMD wasn't an objective of the war. I clearly showed that it was in the mission statement.




I dont see LIBERATION there as a stated goal either as you seemed to say was the REASON we did all this.

Typically removing a totalitarian dictator and helping people "create conditions for a transition to a representative self-government", would be called 'liberation" by most people. Which of course, was in the mission statement.




I havent had many people offer information that conflicts with their own point and helps to bolster mine...I guess I should thank you for that?

What information did I offer bolsters your point? You seem to be completely ignoring the mission statement which clearly states all the goals of the mission. It clearly states that WMD was one of them (which I never disputed), but it also states its mission was to remove Saddam and try to give the Iraqi people a chance at self-representitive government.




Yea there we go with more praise of fascism. All hail the govt right? THEY DO AS THEY WANT and screw the american people, the Iraqi people and the international community. Nations who have behaved that way and taken such a stance have never done well. Good luck on repeating historic mistakes.
Sorry, I wasn't aware that our government in the 1980's wasn't a freely elected one. I wasn't aware we had a dictator calling all the shots. I wasn't aware that we were fascists.




I am an american citizen and you are right that I wont have to go suffer along side the rest of the american citizens, and for that I am glad, but I am also sad for the many people who do. I did provide specifics but I dont expect that to slow down your love for authoritarian govt and your contempt for rule of law.

Supporting wars of aggression is about as low as you can go, the good news is that you cant sink any lower really.
Good for you. Please do the rest of us a favor and stay out of our country. I'll stay right here going on "suffering", LOL.

[Ruby]

It has been justified to those of us that support it. I could care less if you ever felt it was justified or not.

It hasnt been justified in a legal or moral sense. You cant just invade countries cause "ya wanna".



I know you are content on letting them go on as they are.
Most of us aren't. Our majority of our elected leaders choose not to. I guess you only agree with Democracy when its pushing forward agendas you care about.

You keep trying to minimize self determination but that wont change it is as the VERY FOUNDATION of freedom. You also contradict yourself, you dont really care about people living under a totalitarian govt, you have been clearly carefree about bombing them, invading and occupying them. To support such a thing is a blatent disregard for their well-being.




Prove that I am lying. You sir, are the one that is saying our mission was soley to find WMD. That is flately false. I provided to you the mission statement which clearly states otherwise.
And by the way, shock and awe was an Air Force bombing campaign, how was it in any way connected to "help us fix the WMD situation"? You have any links to support this?

Its patently obvious you are lying, people arent that blind. They KNOW for a fact our entire premise for invading Iraq was because of "WMD" and that filler reasons were later added to bolster the WMD story, cause the WMD story FELL APART.



Here's a good summary of what shock and awe is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_and_awe#Iraq_War
It has nothing to do with finding WMDs....

Shock and awe was the beginning of our invasion that was justified on the basis that we were in imminent danger from Saddams hidden stockpiles of WMD and his secret WMD programs. We kept trying to offer evidence, but the evidence kept falling apart as invalid and non-credible. Then of course there has been that pesky problem of NOT FINDING ANY.




I never said looking for WMD wasn't an objective of the war. I clearly showed that it was in the mission statement.

You said it was not the reason we invaded, it was to liberate which is a clear lie.





Typically removing a totalitarian dictator and helping people "create conditions for a transition to a representative self-government", would be called 'liberation" by most people. Which of course, was in the mission statement.

Pretty words but the truth is...its a demand, its bombing, its invading, its a destruction of their infra-structure, its a take-over of their economic policies. Its a denial of self determination rights, rights you refuse to hold in high regard for others but I bet you hold in high regard for yourself.



What information did I offer bolsters your point? You seem to be completely ignoring the mission statement which clearly states all the goals of the mission. It clearly states that WMD was one of them (which I never disputed), but it also states its mission was to remove Saddam and try to give the Iraqi people a chance at self-representitive government.

That we didnt go in to liberate, we went in to get rid of a govt that we didnt like and to search for the excuse we pawned off on the world....the fictional WMD.



Sorry, I wasn't aware that our government in the 1980's wasn't a freely elected one. I wasn't aware we had a dictator calling all the shots. I wasn't aware that we were fascists.

Thats just a weird response to what I said, it just dosent even connect to what I said. You had claimed the govt DECIDED so DEAL WITH IT. That is your attitude that is welcoming fascism. You seem to feel that the GOVT can decide and make the american people, the Iraqi people and anyone else it chooses to suffer and no justification needed. Thats a willingness to hand over so much power that it can only be viewed as a support for fascism.




Good for you. Please do the rest of us a favor and stay out of our country. I'll stay right here going on "suffering", LOL.

I visit my family and friends and will continue to do so as I choose to. I cant say as I feel a need to do you any favors.

[Hagbard Celine]

Fuck the Iraqis? what about the power vacum that will be created with a weak Iraq and the inevitable filling of that power by Iran? Is that the best for future world politics?

It's inevitable that Iran will take control over Iraq when or if we leave. The truth is we created the vacuum that currently exists in Iraq when we took-out Saddam and disbanded Iraq's military. Saddam was the stablizing force in the region, which provided the counterweight to Iran. Now he's gone. Iraq no longer has any kind of strong or cohesive military and it's government is weak. Iran already controls certain portions of the population in Iraq by supporting local militias with weapons and other forms of support. Whether or not we stay or leave Iraq, Iran has already cemented its place as the dominant power in the Middle East. That's the reality we created. :dunno:

[theHawk]

Its patently obvious you are lying, people arent that blind. They KNOW for a fact our entire premise for invading Iraq was because of "WMD" and that filler reasons were later added to bolster the WMD story, cause the WMD story FELL APART.


Its "patently obvious" I am lying? I provided a link that clearly states what the mission of Operation Iraqi Freedom was from day 1. Most people aren't that blind, but apparently you are. Its right there, in plain English. Only the looney left believes that the "entire premise" for invading Iraq was of WMD. Its a lie that you all have repeated so many times to yourself that you believe it.
Here, lets try it again. The Mission statement of Operation Iraqi Freedom as it read on the FIRST day the war began.

The military objectives of Operation Iraqi Freedom consist of first, ending the regime of Saddam Hussein. Second, to identify, isolate and eliminate, Iraq's weapons of mass destruciton. Third, to search for, to capture and to drive out terrorists from the country. Fourth, to collect intelligence related to terrorist networks. Fifth, to collect such intelligence as is related to the global network of illicit weapons of mass destruction. Sixth, to end sanctions and to immediately deliver humanitarian support to the displaced and to many needed citizens. Seventh, to secure Iraq's oil fields and resources, which belong to the Iraqi people. Finally, to help the Iraqi people create conditions for a transition to a representative self-government.

Eight objectives in the mission, two of which pertains to WMD. Since you have such a hard time understanding basic English sentences, I'll summarize it for you even further:

1. Remove Saddam's regime.
2. Search for WMD.
3. Capture/kill Terrorists.
4. Collect Intell on Terrorst netowrks.
5. Collect intell on WMD networks.
6. End sanctions, provide humanitarian aid to people.
7. Secure oil fields.
8. Help Iraqi people form a representitive government.


So if I am a liar as you claim, then none of these goals were ever apart of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Prove it.


I like watching you dance around this one.
:dance:



Shock and awe was the beginning of our invasion that was justified on the basis that we were in imminent danger from Saddams hidden stockpiles of WMD and his secret WMD programs. We kept trying to offer evidence, but the evidence kept falling apart as invalid and non-credible. Then of course there has been that pesky problem of NOT FINDING ANY.
Shock and Awe is simply an Air Force doctrine to instill fear into the opposing enemy's army in an attempt to get them to surrender quicker. I know it was used at the "beginning of our invasion," but it has nothing to do with finding WMDs. I'm not sure why you keep insisting on this connection. Just because in your head you think its so, doesn't mean it is.

Carry on. :salute:

[theHawk]

It's inevitable that Iran will take control over Iraq when or if we leave. The truth is we created the vacuum that currently exists in Iraq when we took-out Saddam and disbanded Iraq's military. Saddam was the stablizing force in the region, which provided the counterweight to Iran. Now he's gone. Iraq no longer has any kind of strong or cohesive military and it's government is weak. Iran already controls certain portions of the population in Iraq by supporting local militias with weapons and other forms of support. Whether or not we stay or leave Iraq, Iran has already cemented its place as the dominant power in the Middle East. That's the reality we created. :dunno:

Thats true, which is why we should get rid of Iran's regime too. We already surround them and they won't give up their quest for nukes.

[Hagbard Celine]

Thats true, which is why we should get rid of Iran's regime too. We already surround them and they won't give up their quest for nukes.

I don't think we have the military power that would be needed to do this effectively. We could use our dominant air and sea power to "take-out" Iran's regime, but in the end our ground forces aren't large enough to simultaneously occupy and police Iraq AND Iran. I think attacking Iran would be a disastrous mistake because in the end I think we would see the same kind of violence and chaos in Iran as we saw in Iraq post invasion to present.

[theHawk]

I don't think we have the military power that would be needed to do this effectively. We could use our dominant air and sea power to "take-out" Iran's regime, but in the end our ground forces aren't large enough to simultaneously occupy and police Iraq AND Iran. I think attacking Iran would be a disastrous mistake.

It could be. To me the whole situation in the middle east is "damned if you do, damned if you don't".

[Hagbard Celine]

It could be. To me the whole situation in the middle east is "damned if you do, damned if you don't".

I think the only way to beat Islamic Gangsters at their own game is to hit 'em where it hurts them. Their wallets. When they do something to us we don't like, we punish them economically. When Saudi Arabian terrorists flew planes into the world trade center, we should have stopped buying oil from them. Instead, they're our good buddies. Go figure! We also need arms manufacturers to stop pouring weapons into the Middle East. It's chaotic enough there as it is.

[Ruby]

Its "patently obvious" I am lying? I provided a link that clearly states what the mission of Operation Iraqi Freedom was from day 1. Most people aren't that blind, but apparently you are. Its right there, in plain English. Only the looney left believes that the "entire premise" for invading Iraq was of WMD. Its a lie that you all have repeated so many times to yourself that you believe it.
Here, lets try it again. The Mission statement of Operation Iraqi Freedom as it read on the FIRST day the war began.

The military objectives of Operation Iraqi Freedom consist of first, ending the regime of Saddam Hussein. Second, to identify, isolate and eliminate, Iraq's weapons of mass destruciton. Third, to search for, to capture and to drive out terrorists from the country. Fourth, to collect intelligence related to terrorist networks. Fifth, to collect such intelligence as is related to the global network of illicit weapons of mass destruction. Sixth, to end sanctions and to immediately deliver humanitarian support to the displaced and to many needed citizens. Seventh, to secure Iraq's oil fields and resources, which belong to the Iraqi people. Finally, to help the Iraqi people create conditions for a transition to a representative self-government.

Eight objectives in the mission, two of which pertains to WMD. Since you have such a hard time understanding basic English sentences, I'll summarize it for you even further:

1. Remove Saddam's regime.
2. Search for WMD.
3. Capture/kill Terrorists.
4. Collect Intell on Terrorst netowrks.
5. Collect intell on WMD networks.
6. End sanctions, provide humanitarian aid to people.
7. Secure oil fields.
8. Help Iraqi people form a representitive government.


So if I am a liar as you claim, then none of these goals were ever apart of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Prove it.


I like watching you dance around this one.
:dance:


Shock and Awe is simply an Air Force doctrine to instill fear into the opposing enemy's army in an attempt to get them to surrender quicker. I know it was used at the "beginning of our invasion," but it has nothing to do with finding WMDs. I'm not sure why you keep insisting on this connection. Just because in your head you think its so, doesn't mean it is.

Carry on. :salute:


No need to dance, I dont think pointing out the obvious requires it. WMD and imminent danger was the reason we were given...all the rest is just fillers to bolster the case up as much as possible.

I remember very clearly, as I am sure most do....that we were told it was urgent and we cant wait for mushroom clouds over the US.

There is NO WAY the US would have supported a war based on "liberation"...I cant even believe that has to be pointed out. It was all about capitalizing on fear and anger after 9/11 and they used the fear of WMD to do it. It was the only way to justify an invasion of Iraq.

Now you want to invade MORE nations! You must live in constant fear, how sad.

[theHawk]

No need to dance, I dont think pointing out the obvious requires it. WMD and imminent danger was the reason we were given...all the rest is just fillers to bolster the case up as much as possible.

I remember very clearly, as I am sure most do....that we were told it was urgent and we cant wait for mushroom clouds over the US.


Here is what you stated:


Well the first excuse was WMD, that didnt hold water though. Then we were quick to switch it to "liberation" of the Iraqi people and pretend our reasons are altruistic. Our goals are solely based on geo-political goals to suit ourselves and dont bother to take into account what this means for those we harm.
You claimed it was all WMD, and then "switched" to liberation. I pointed out to you that wasn't the case with a link proving it. You got caught lying.





There is NO WAY the US would have supported a war based on "liberation"...I cant even believe that has to be pointed out. It was all about capitalizing on fear and anger after 9/11 and they used the fear of WMD to do it. It was the only way to justify an invasion of Iraq.

Now you want to invade MORE nations! You must live in constant fear, how sad.
I guess if the US would never support a war based on "liberation", then the Revolutionary War and every war we fought since in order to preserve our liberation is a figment of our imaginations. More recently, I recall us going to war to liberate Kuwait from Saddam's army. And I also recall most of the country including Democrats in Congress supporting this war.

In fact, in 1998, Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act, which called for regime change and to support a transition to democracy. So I guess it isn't just our "fascist" leader Bush who believed in this. It was, *gasp*, a democrat that made this huge change in U.S. foreign policy! And Clinton backed it up with military force with bombing raids in a little something called Operation Desert Fox.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act



Got your dance shoes on? :dance:

[theHawk]

You must live in constant fear, how sad.

I'm not the one that ran away from my country.

[Ruby]

Here is what you stated:


You claimed it was all WMD, and then "switched" to liberation. I pointed out to you that wasn't the case with a link proving it. You got caught lying.

It is exactly what occurred. Before the invasion it was all about WMD and mushroom clouds over our heads. Fake niger documents, pictures of WMD sites that turned out to be false AND of areas that were under US control. As no WMD's were popping up, then the focus became liberation.





I guess if the US would never support a war based on "liberation", then the Revolutionary War and every war we fought since in order to preserve our liberation is a figment of our imaginations. More recently, I recall us going to war to liberate Kuwait from Saddam's army. And I also recall most of the country including Democrats in Congress supporting this war.

In fact, in 1998, Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act, which called for regime change and to support a transition to democracy. So I guess it isn't just our "fascist" leader Bush who believed in this. It was, *gasp*, a democrat that made this huge change in U.S. foreign policy! And Clinton backed it up with military force with bombing raids in a little something called Operation Desert Fox.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act



Got your dance shoes on? :dance:

Our own liberation we would fight for sure, but we have never fought for someone elses. Even WW2 was because OUR OWN interests were in serious jepordy. We were attacked by another nation and Hitler was also making statements that made it obvious we werent going to be able to avoid confrontation with him either.

All the wars we go into are to feed our own political needs and gains and have nothing to do with "liberating" anyone.

I dont like Clinton any more than I like Bush so you can consider that "trump" card a dud. I am not surprised that democrats are just as corrupt as the republicans, I accept that fact fully and am neither a democrat nor a republican.

We didnt liberate kuwait, we stopped an aggression invasion and war.

[Ruby]

I'm not the one that ran away from my country.


Ran away? What an odd term. I married a swede and we decided to live in Sweden and yes I am happy with that decision. It wasnt a political decision LOL!

You are very predictable, you want to make it personal cause you arent doing well on the merits of the issues and the macho swaggering tough talk isnt going all that well either...

[theHawk]

It is exactly what occurred. Before the invasion it was all about WMD and mushroom clouds over our heads. Fake niger documents, pictures of WMD sites that turned out to be false AND of areas that were under US control. As no WMD's were popping up, then the focus became liberation.

Thats what the media focused on. The media would never blow things out of proportion would they?



I dont like Clinton any more than I like Bush so you can consider that "trump" card a dud. I am not surprised that democrats are just as corrupt as the republicans, I accept that fact fully and am neither a democrat nor a republican.

Convenient. But don't go around bellowing that its all the cause of a fascist dictator when its quite obvious both parties started this war and form our foreign policy. You'll notice that none of the current Democrat candidates for President promise any kind of withdraw once they are in office.

[theHawk]

Ran away? What an odd term. I married a swede and we decided to live in Sweden and yes I am happy with that decision. It wasnt a political decision LOL!

You are very predictable, you want to make it personal cause you arent doing well on the merits of the issues and the macho swaggering tough talk isnt going all that well either...

You're the one that made a comment about how I live based on my politics.

[actsnoblemartin]

I spoke with a friend of mine on the issues i raised here. I dont think we can or should just run away. Which is what I believe we would be doing. Is it hard, yes?, is it a struggle yes?, but their are people in the media, and in america, who geniunly seem to either want us to lose or dont tell the whole truth, about the war.

I believe we can win it, and if we retreat now, it hands an important victory to al queda, and teaches them how to defeat us again in the future. Plus the consequences of iran getting their hands on iraq's oil, could cripple our economy.

I do not believe it wise to leave, until we win.


In the words of the late great Ricky Nelson "You Can't Please Everyone, So You GOtta PLease Yourself"

[emmett]

1) Because plane fairs out of Iraq are cheap

2) Because Nancy Pelosi says so.

3) So Democrats can say they were right all along even though most voted to go there.

4) So ActsNoble can say "I told you so"

5) Its gonna snow there tomorrow

6) So George Bush will have nothing else to worry about except a good economy and getting oil prices down.

7) So Iran can move in and take control?

8) So John Mirtha can go back to being insignificant and shut the fuck up.

9) So Gunny can over and solve the problem and we won't have to worry about anyone being caught in friendly fire

10) How about, it ain't our problem no more so let's bring em home to defend the shores of America and stop being the world's police officer.

[Psychoblues]

Your intelligence astounds me, emmett!!!!!!!!!!!




1) Because plane fairs out of Iraq are cheap

2) Because Nancy Pelosi says so.

3) So Democrats can say they were right all along even though most voted to go there.

4) So ActsNoble can say "I told you so"

5) Its gonna snow there tomorrow

6) So George Bush will have nothing else to worry about except a good economy and getting oil prices down.

7) So Iran can move in and take control?

8) So John Mirtha can go back to being insignificant and shut the fuck up.

9) So Gunny can over and solve the problem and we won't have to worry about anyone being caught in friendly fire

10) How about, it ain't our problem no more so let's bring em home to defend the shores of America and stop being the world's police officer.

Have you ever thought about saving American lives or preserving American good will or advancing common humanities that would preclude violence, death and destruction of otherwise peaceful societies?

If you are such a warmonger, then why ain't you in Iraq? They need truck drivers there. You need a number? I'll get it for you, hero.

[Ruby]

Thats what the media focused on. The media would never blow things out of proportion would they?

Oh I think we all know it was the Bush admin doing the blowing it out of proportion.

How bout this?

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/10/wbr.smoking.gun/


"The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud

It was the admin who played the threat of WMD to hysteria levels. Those were the words of Ms. Rice....straight of the Bush admin.




Convenient. But don't go around bellowing that its all the cause of a fascist dictator when its quite obvious both parties started this war and form our foreign policy. You'll notice that none of the current Democrat candidates for President promise any kind of withdraw once they are in office.

Its your head thats stuck in partisan, not mine. The "fascism" comment was directed AT YOU and your obvious support of facist concepts. Secondly I have NEVER said it was just ONE party or ONE admin that causes the problems we have now. I talk of a predatory, terrorist foreign policy the US has engaged in for decades! I think you are creating more strawman arguments.

I never claimed it was all the cause of ONE fascist dictator, I have stated its POLICY that the US has carried out for years and certainly isnt down to ONE PERSON. However, that dosent alleviate the Bush admin for speeding the whole thing up and an intensifying a long standing immoral foreign policy.

You were just hoping for the overly simplified game of dem vs repub.

[Ruby]

You're the one that made a comment about how I live based on my politics.

No I actually said that you base your politics on your emotion of fear.

[theHawk]

Its your head thats stuck in partisan, not mine. The "fascism" comment was directed AT YOU and your obvious support of facist concepts. Secondly I have NEVER said it was just ONE party or ONE admin that causes the problems we have now. I talk of a predatory, terrorist foreign policy the US has engaged in for decades! I think you are creating more strawman arguments.

I never claimed it was all the cause of ONE fascist dictator, I have stated its POLICY that the US has carried out for years and certainly isnt down to ONE PERSON. However, that dosent alleviate the Bush admin for speeding the whole thing up and an intensifying a long standing immoral foreign policy.

You were just hoping for the overly simplified game of dem vs repub.


When have I ever stated that I am a Republican? Its quite obvious you have absolutely no idea what concepts I believe in, so refrain from putting words into my mouth so to speak. Its quite laughable that you think I believe in "fascist" ideas. My first reaction to a statement like that is that you must have no idea what the term means in the first place, and you're just using it as a slur. Fascism is usually associated with dictatorships and racism. If there is any fascist type movement in the world, its happening in the Islamic world, which I personally consider myself and my country at war with. Fascism at its very core, is anti-conservative. Fascism wants to give all of its power to a dictator, conservatism wants to take most of it away, leaving only the "bare minimum" for the government to take care of. Things like the Department of Justice to keep domestic criminals out of the main population, and a strong Department of Defense, to protect us from foreign threats. Most everything else can be scrapped and left to local governments.

[Ruby]

When have I ever stated that I am a Republican? Its quite obvious you have absolutely no idea what concepts I believe in, so refrain from putting words into my mouth so to speak. Its quite laughable that you think I believe in "fascist" ideas. My first reaction to a statement like that is that you must have no idea what the term means in the first place, and you're just using it as a slur. Fascism is usually associated with dictatorships and racism. If there is any fascist type movement in the world, its happening in the Islamic world, which I personally consider myself and my country at war with. Fascism at its very core, is anti-conservative. Fascism wants to give all of its power to a dictator, conservatism wants to take most of it away, leaving only the "bare minimum" for the government to take care of. Things like the Department of Justice to keep domestic criminals out of the main population, and a strong Department of Defense, to protect us from foreign threats. Most everything else can be scrapped and left to local governments.


I never did say you were republican, I said you tried a partisan approach because you seemed to think that attacking Democrats would somehow make me feel defensive, you assumed my critical stance was directed at one admin as well (you know the whole dem vs repub thing)....it didnt so we can dispose of that tactic right?

You are fascist minded, you just dont want YOUR freedom taken away...just other peoples. You are ready to hand over plenty of control to the govt and dont seem to care if they follow the rules and policies we set as a nation...they bypass it to invade other nations and you are fine with it. As long as you think the fascists are on your "side" you seem to support it...the problem that always comes up though is that you will find they arent on your "side" at all.

You consider yourself at war with Islam? Yep thats bigotry alright. You have no concept of the years of intereferrence we have engaged in their nations, nor the suffering we cause them. Its not a religion vs religion issue but it sure is convenient to make it so. Nice basic appeal to bigots. They use the same tactic and I bet it works just as well on their bigots.

I do wish they werent so much like us but they are...they react violently to such things, just as we would. They are wrong to react in violence and terrorism just as we are wrong to react in violence and terrorism.

Yea I am not surprised you just want the govt to "protect" you from all you fear but would oppose them providing health care or food for people who dont have it...makes complete sense. Just like a fascist, love the miltary and hate the people. Spend it on weapons instead of human beings, kill em instead of heal em. Tell me what fascists didnt favor brute force over humanitarian endeavors...just like you!

[theHawk]

Oh wow what a surprise, just because I call Islam out for what it is and thus oppose it, that makes me a "bigot"!!! You can make all the excuses you want so you can side with them, if that makes you feel better. You obviously are quick to blame the U.S. for all the problems within the Islamic world.
Keep on spewing your idiotic statements like "love the miltary and hate the people. Spend it on weapons instead of human beings, kill em instead of heal em." You only show your own utter contempt towards the military and those that serve in it with statements like that. Sorry, but I'm not going to spend money or time on "healing" my enemies. If you're one of those wackos that believes we don't need any military at all then there really isn't any point in going on any further.
And its still quite obvious you have no idea what the term 'fascist' means. Just because someone supports the idea of having an effective military doesn't mean they believe in fascism.

[Gaffer]

When it comes to muslims I'm a bigot. I want them scrutinized and profiled. I make no bones about it. islam is a political theocracy with world domination as its goal. Religion is just the cloak it wraps itself in.

[Pale Rider]

It's inevitable that Iran will take control over Iraq when or if we leave. The truth is we created the vacuum that currently exists in Iraq when we took-out Saddam and disbanded Iraq's military. Saddam was the stablizing force in the region, which provided the counterweight to Iran. Now he's gone. Iraq no longer has any kind of strong or cohesive military and it's government is weak. Iran already controls certain portions of the population in Iraq by supporting local militias with weapons and other forms of support. Whether or not we stay or leave Iraq, Iran has already cemented its place as the dominant power in the Middle East. That's the reality we created. :dunno:

I don't think so Hag. I think that little shit Ahmadinejad's hold over Iran is precarious at best. I think if he isn't careful he's going to lose control of his OWN country. As a matter of fact, I believe that with a little well placed black ops and some stiff sanctions, that little prick is going to be out of there. If that happens, we truly WILL win in Iraq. Because I think there's more and more arabs, and yes muslims, that are getting sick and damn tired of all the blood shed. That's what's happening in Iraq right now. More and more Iraq's are turning in terrorists. The terrorists are in growing numbers being ratted out, and that's all we really need. Is to turn the tide against them on their own battle field. We do that, and we win.

[gabosaurus]

Pale is obviously living in Disneyland.

[theHawk]

Pale is obviously living in Disneyland.

I thought you were the one from Anaheim?