Bush's War

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by Veeraj87
http:///forum/post/2535798
....... this administration is not abiding to the principles we stand for PERIOD.

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2535885
You are certainly entitled to your views...
What you are not entitled to is to post things like "Bush's War" and the war in Iraq is "unjust" without expecting to be questioned on it.... I don't know what America you stand for. I stand for an America that backs her soldiers. Saddam targetted and fired, literally, hundreds of times at American and allied pilots enforcing the No Fly Zone. Saddam violated 17 UN Resolutions, as well as his treaty he signed with us post Desert Storm. The America I stand for doesn't let a 2 bit sadistic dictator fire at our soldiers or break a treaty with us.

Originally Posted by Suzy
http:///forum/post/2535929
I do not see how these two statements can be in the same post. You say the poster is entitled to their views, but if then you question the patriotism of the OP.
We all stand for the same America, there is only one, right?
I questioned no one's "patriotism" Suzy; simply responded using the same phrasing as the OP whom I quoted.
Sadly, there is definitely more than one "America" today. The Republican and Democratic Parties are heading in polar opposite directions.

 

[crimzy]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2535885
It's funny that the CIA is now saying we didn't have the evidence. Where were these "experts" when Clinton bombed Iraq's "Chemical, nuclear, and biological" facilities in 98? How do the experts explain EVERY MAJOR nations' intel agencies (Russia, China, Britain, Israel, France, Germany, etc.) saying they too had evidence of WMD's in Iraq?
I don't know what America you stand for. I stand for an America that backs her soldiers. Saddam targetted and fired, literally, hundreds of times at American and allied pilots enforcing the No Fly Zone. Saddam violated 17 UN Resolutions, as well as his treaty he signed with us post Desert Storm. The America I stand for doesn't let a 2 bit sadistic dictator fire at our soldiers or break a treaty with us...
Journey, you change your argument as the wind blows (surprised you're not a Hillary supporter

). In one breath, you'll argue that we went to war because of the WMDs. Yet when it is pointed out that we failed to uncover these, you conveniently change your argument to suggest that Saddam was the problem. However if that was true then our mission was accomplished when he was captured IN 2003! When this argument is made, then you'll back-pedal and claim that we are there to fight Al Queda (even though Al Queda wasn't in Iraq in 2003). However, as I bring all this to your attention, I'm sure you'll give your catch-all response about how Bill Clinton was responsible for all of America's problems.
All the while, the effort in Afghanistan was secondary and we failed to capture the leader of the 9/11 attacks.
If you think that being a good American means that you should not express opinions about poor leadership decisions that affect American lives then you don't know a whole lot about American history.
JMO

 

[darthtang aw]

Ok a few things.
The administration gave many reasons for the war in Bush's first two speeches.
Just because one reason appears to have been wrong does not the rest were. I grow tired of hearing the phrases "Sure Sadaam was a bad man but........or we got sadaam so now we need to pull out.........."
I find it amazing at the number of people that sit and comment about the civilian casuaties incurred in this war and in the next breath state we should pull out. How is this going to stop the civilian casualties? How is this going to make their lives easier if we don't stay and help finish the rebuilding and help set up security forces?
Someone please answer these specific questions for me.
As I see it Iran is just waiting for us to pull out so they can go in and gain the territory they have wanted for the last 40 years. They have repeatedly attacked iraq in history trying to gain control of that region. If we pull out what is to stop them from doing this and causing far more civilian casualties?
When we pulled out of vietnam the subsequent result was the murder and genocide of almost 2 million people, women, children, and men. This went on up until 1989. a hidden war between cambodia and Vietnam was started as campodia suppoorted the U.S. and aided us.
250,000 muslims were massacred. They were specificaslly targeted. Buddhism was suppressed and monks killed out right.
Now fast forward......Iraq today. as I stated Iran has wanted this region under it's control for a long time. If we pull out what stops Iran from attacking and killing many more civilains. What stops Syria from joining in the free for all and getting it's own piece of the pie?
No, we have a RESPONSIBILITY to stay. We helped create this mess. We should pick it up. Everyone complains about the up and coming generations not having enough responsibilty......why is that I wonder when the current and previous generation hold no responsibilty themselves.
Regardless if the reasons were wrong or unjust the bottomline is 80% of the population in this country agreed to it. we gave our stamp of approval. Congress overwhelming ly gave their approval. NOW we changed our mind and

[hr]
the people left behind to suffer our decision.....we don't care.
I hear so much about the plight of the people in this region from many, yet you care not one whit about their plight. This has become the feel good nation of lies. We lie to ourselves that we care and in reality we care not for the people of the world just how we, ourselves, are affected.
Just once, I want to hear one person that was against this war from the beginning understand responsibility and how it is now our responsibilty to better the lives of that region and stick it our until it is better or we are ASKED to leave.

 

[reefraff]

Well wait a minute here. WMD's were amoung various reasons listed for going into Iraq. None of the others (in my opinion) warranted invading. As is so famously reported Colin Powell said if we broke it we had to fix it and thats what we are trying to do. We can't do that if we pull out and allow Al Qeada to take over the country.

 

[reefraff]

Beat me to it Darth one

 

[darthtang aw]

And if it is abad as many make it out to be someone needs to tell that to the Iraqi's. ABC ran some polls in Iraq on the anniversary of the war and here were the stats.
How Iraqis See Their Lives Overall
How things are going today:AllNorthSouthCentralBaghdad
Good 70% 85% 65% 70% 67%
Bad 29 14 34 28 32
Compared to a year ago:
Better 56% 70% 63% 54% 46%
Same 23 15 21 22 31
Worse 19 13 13 23 23
How they'll be a year from now:
Better 71% 83% 74% 70% 63%
Same 9 4 6 10 16
Worse 7 1 4 9 10
They only area they seem to be worse off in is jobs and electricity. But from the poll data the majority have what Obama likes to call HOPE.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by crimzy
http:///forum/post/2536040
Journey, you change your argument as the wind blows (surprised you're not a Hillary supporter

). In one breath, you'll argue that we went to war because of the WMDs. ...

Not even close to accurate. I've said all along why I thought we should go into Iraq. Show me a single post (ever) where I said it was all about WMD's? A single post... in the hundreds I've posted on this topic....
If my argument seems to change it is because I post to refute the misinformation and challenges from the other side.

 

[crimzy]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/2536092
How Iraqis See Their Lives Overall
How things are going today:AllNorthSouthCentralBaghdad
Good 70% 85% 65% 70% 67%
Bad 29 14 34 28 32
Compared to a year ago:
Better 56% 70% 63% 54% 46%
Same 23 15 21 22 31
Worse 19 13 13 23 23
How they'll be a year from now:
Better 71% 83% 74% 70% 63%
Same 9 4 6 10 16
Worse 7 1 4 9 10
Darth, did you know that 87.5% of people believe that polls can be manipulated to get the desired results. If you disagree then I can introduce you to the 8 people who expressed their opinions on this issue.

 

[agent-x]

Originally Posted by Veeraj87
http:///forum/post/2535855
we stand by Humanity and ETHICS!
We do, because it seems to me that if you look at how americans treat each other most of the time I'd disagree.
Sorry, I know this has nothing to do with the Thread, I just found this humorous.

 

[darthtang aw]

Once again, someone dodges and and doesn't answer my questions. Are my questions that hard?
Crimzy, what would abc gain by manipulating a poll IN FAVOR. and there were 2,737 people polled and asked a lot of questions.
The story is here.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world...ll_040314.html
As noted, 51 percent oppose the presence of coalition forces — but that doesn't mean most want them withdrawn immediately, likely because of security concerns. Fifteen percent of Iraqis say the forces should leave the country now; by contrast, 36 percent say they should remain until a new government is in place; 18 percent, until security is restored.
How Long Should Coalition Forces Remain?
Until Iraq gov't is in place 36%
Until security is restored 18
Leave now 15
Six months or more 10
Few months 8

 

[veeraj87]

we didnt find a single WMD in iraq. PERIOD. Saddam could have been put on trial through other methods, one being the UN going in and removing him, a failure to do so would be going to war.... but we didnt check down, we fit the plans around the policy read the links above about what i found in africa, this is someone that the administration appointed and how can you say this war isnt unjust, theres KIDs dieing everyday i dont understand your logic, frankly if my kids or if i were in that situation what would you expect me to do i would steal i would create havoc becuase i have been reduced to nothing just because america didnt choose to follow the rules that were set forth by our allies, we went about this whole mess the wrong way, im not saying pull out nowhere have i said we need to pull out of iraq im argueing here for people that are ignorant and REFUSE to see the causes of this war im trying to shed some new light, just becuase we want to support our soldiers does not make this war right, this war IS WRONG and should have been done in another manner, therefore i believe this administration and its party should not be supported... its just flat out wrong, u cant justify killing with killing two wrongs does not make a right... early u taked about 250000 muslims being massacred but there is 5000 children dieing a month in IRAQ becuase of our sancations on medication because we are afraid of them making WMD's and we distroyed their water supply, that is against international law, and humanitarian laws ... its against the code of ethics, someone address that point, i see all of you have responded all the other stuff but no one has a counter to the destruction of the water supply, please how is that justified enlighten me, because we still have killed 500000 + people through slow diseased deaths. again it was diliberate destruction there are US documents to the pentagon describing the situation. so Reefraff journeyman i mean you all seem to have a response for all the other unjust stuff in the world what bout this.... Why kill innocent people? is it because their just a number to us? is it because we messed up and we want to leave iraq quicker and what better way then them being submissive and saying well give up because we have no water (at the same time killing all the true civilians (not terrorists) becuase they cant get clean water.

 

[veeraj87]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/2535946
Suzy, you can keep repeating the same tired old lies about "plamegate" but it doesn't change the proven facts in the case.
Wilson lied about his trip from who recomended him to go to what the information he gathered led the analysts to believe.
Richard Amitage (who argued against the war) was the source of the Novak leak, not Bush, Cheney or any of the Pro War "Neocons".
where is the facts... back it up... show me proof because all you got is something that people think, is there proof that he lied, because we got DOCUMENTS supporting Armitage and Wilsons findings that the WMD's in Iraq were nonexistant and if they were the Germans gave us some red herrings and our governments namely the Neocons jumped the gun and didnt do their HW ... so SHOW me evidence of these things being wrong... show me the WMDs we found ???

 

[veeraj87]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/2536139
Once again, someone dodges and and doesn't answer my questions. Are my questions that hard?
Crimzy, what would abc gain by manipulating a poll IN FAVOR. and there were 2,737 people polled and asked a lot of questions.
The story is here.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world...ll_040314.html
As noted, 51 percent oppose the presence of coalition forces — but that doesn't mean most want them withdrawn immediately, likely because of security concerns. Fifteen percent of Iraqis say the forces should leave the country now; by contrast, 36 percent say they should remain until a new government is in place; 18 percent, until security is restored.
How Long Should Coalition Forces Remain?
Until Iraq gov't is in place 36%
Until security is restored 18
Leave now 15
Six months or more 10
Few months 8
First off let me start by saying it doesnt matter if its abc or fox news they both have media filters that are controlled by the government and a lot of things are censored,second so a grand total of 2787 people did this interview or survey leaving only about 500 per location they said they interviewed people out of a grand total of roughly
estimated at a population of 7,000,000
in Baghdad... thats a LARGE pool of people rightttttttt

, i learned in school that this not significant when you have only interviewed hmmm less than a percent of the largest city in Iraq which is baghdad also these interviews came from controlled areas where the US military had secured, so yes it can be a little swayed and no, there is no way in Heck that 2787 people represent the country let alone just one city, this is not accurate at all, this is not a significant poll its for american viewers to support this war people like you that believe 2787 people is significant, imagine a poll in america this large it would be irrelevant and written off in a heart beat.

 

[veeraj87]

one more thing, do you think the people that oppose the US were gonna come and talk to their reporters and say we dotn want you here? do you think their not crapping in their pants somewhere cuz their scared, this poll was soo small, 2737 this is just a joke of a poll... wow

 

[crimzy]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/2536139
Once again, someone dodges and and doesn't answer my questions. Are my questions that hard?
Crimzy, what would abc gain by manipulating a poll IN FAVOR. and there were 2,737 people polled and asked a lot of questions.
The story is here.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world...ll_040314.html
As noted, 51 percent oppose the presence of coalition forces — but that doesn't mean most want them withdrawn immediately, likely because of security concerns. Fifteen percent of Iraqis say the forces should leave the country now; by contrast, 36 percent say they should remain until a new government is in place; 18 percent, until security is restored.
How Long Should Coalition Forces Remain?
Until Iraq gov't is in place 36%
Until security is restored 18
Leave now 15
Six months or more 10
Few months 8
What question is dodged? Maybe no one thinks that your questions are that important.

But to this question, anyone can create a poll to say virtually anything based on the location/types of people polled/socioeconomic status/etc. I'm not really suggesting that the poll was taken to create a perception that the Iraqi people love us being there. But as stated previously, agenda's are easily corroborated through non-arbitrary polling. They are not necessarily an accurate reflection of the views of a nation with millions of citizens.

 

[crimzy]

I am listening to the documentary as I work and there are some interesting things brought out. Did you know that it was Chaney who was the "administrative source" to the New York Times claiming that Iraq was collecting steel tubes to be used for uranium enrichment? Then the Times published an article about it and Chaney used references to the Times' article in his campaign to support the war effort. Neat trick...

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by Veeraj87
http:///forum/post/2536159
where is the facts... back it up... show me proof because all you got is something that people think, is there proof that he lied, because we got DOCUMENTS supporting Armitage and Wilsons findings that the WMD's in Iraq were nonexistant and if they were the Germans gave us some red herrings and our governments namely the Neocons jumped the gun and didnt do their HW ... so SHOW me evidence of these things being wrong... show me the WMDs we found ???
You obviously dont have the slightest clue what you are talking about. Wilson's mission was to the country of Niger to investigate reports Iraq was seeking to buy yellowcake from them. Armitage was a deputy Secretary of State under Powell, not a weapons inspector
"Wilson last year launched a public firestorm with his accusations that the administration had manipulated intelligence to build a case for war. He has said that his trip to Niger should have laid to rest any notion that Iraq sought uranium there and has said his findings were ignored by the White House.
Wilson's assertions -- both about what he found in Niger and what the Bush administration did with the information -- were undermined yesterday in a bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report.
The panel found that Wilson's report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts. And contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address.
Yesterday's report said that whether Iraq sought to buy lightly enriched "yellowcake" uranium from Niger is one of the few bits of prewar intelligence that remains an open question. Much of the rest of the intelligence suggesting a buildup of weapons of mass destruction was unfounded, the report said."
Continued

 

[reefraff]

The report may bolster the rationale that administration officials provided the information not to intentionally expose an undercover CIA employee, but to call into question Wilson's bona fides as an investigator into trafficking of weapons of mass destruction. To charge anyone with a crime, prosecutors need evidence that exposure of a covert officer was intentional. The report states that a CIA official told the Senate committee that Plame "offered up" Wilson's name for the Niger trip, then on Feb. 12, 2002, sent a memo to a deputy chief in the CIA's Directorate of Operations saying her husband "has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity." The next day, the operations official cabled an overseas officer seeking concurrence with the idea of sending Wilson, the report said.
Wilson has asserted that his wife was not involved in the decision to send him to Niger.
"Valerie had nothing to do with the matter," Wilson wrote in a memoir published this year. "She definitely had not proposed that I make the trip."
Wilson stood by his assertion in an interview yesterday, saying Plame was not the person who made the decision to send him. Of her memo, he said: "I don't see it as a recommendation to send me."
The report said Plame told committee staffers that she relayed the CIA's request to her husband, saying, "there's this crazy report" about a purported deal for Niger to sell uranium to Iraq. The committee found Wilson had made an earlier trip to Niger in 1999 for the CIA, also at his wife's suggestion.
The report also said Wilson provided misleading information to The Washington Post last June. He said then that he concluded the Niger intelligence was based on documents that had clearly been forged because "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong."
"Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the 'dates were wrong and the names were wrong' when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports," the Senate panel said. Wilson told the panel he may have been confused and may have "misspoken" to reporters. The documents -- purported sales agreements between Niger and Iraq -- were not in U.S. hands until eight months after Wilson made his trip to Niger.
Wilson's reports to the CIA added to the evidence that Iraq may have tried to buy uranium in Niger, although officials at the State Department remained highly skeptical, the report said.
Wilson said that a former prime minister of Niger, Ibrahim Assane Mayaki, was unaware of any sales contract with Iraq, but said that in June 1999 a businessman approached him, insisting that he meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Niger and Iraq -- which Mayaki interpreted to mean they wanted to discuss yellowcake sales. A report CIA officials drafted after debriefing Wilson said that "although the meeting took place, Mayaki let the matter drop due to UN sanctions on Iraq."
According to the former Niger mining minister, Wilson told his CIA contacts, Iraq tried to buy 400 tons of uranium in 1998.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Jul9.html
That enough or do you want more?

 

[veeraj87]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/2536219
The report may bolster the rationale that administration officials provided the information not to intentionally expose an undercover CIA employee, but to call into question Wilson's bona fides as an investigator into trafficking of weapons of mass destruction. To charge anyone with a crime, prosecutors need evidence that exposure of a covert officer was intentional.
The report states that a CIA official told the Senate committee that Plame "offered up" Wilson's name for the Niger trip, then on Feb. 12, 2002, sent a memo to a deputy chief in the CIA's Directorate of Operations saying her husband "has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity." The next day, the operations official cabled an overseas officer seeking concurrence with the idea of sending Wilson, the report said.
Wilson has asserted that his wife was not involved in the decision to send him to Niger.
"Valerie had nothing to do with the matter," Wilson wrote in a memoir published this year. "She definitely had not proposed that I make the trip."
Wilson stood by his assertion in an interview yesterday, saying Plame was not the person who made the decision to send him. Of her memo, he said: "I don't see it as a recommendation to send me."
The report said Plame told committee staffers that she relayed the CIA's request to her husband, saying, "there's this crazy report" about a purported deal for Niger to sell uranium to Iraq. The committee found Wilson had made an earlier trip to Niger in 1999 for the CIA, also at his wife's suggestion.
The report also said Wilson provided misleading information to The Washington Post last June. He said then that he concluded the Niger intelligence was based on documents that had clearly been forged because "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong."
"Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the 'dates were wrong and the names were wrong' when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports," the Senate panel said. Wilson told the panel he may have been confused and may have "misspoken" to reporters. The documents -- purported sales agreements between Niger and Iraq -- were not in U.S. hands until eight months after Wilson made his trip to Niger.
Wilson's reports to the CIA added to the evidence that Iraq may have tried to buy uranium in Niger, although officials at the State Department remained highly skeptical, the report said.
Wilson said that a former prime minister of Niger, Ibrahim Assane Mayaki, was unaware of any sales contract with Iraq, but said that in June 1999 a businessman approached him, insisting that he meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Niger and Iraq -- which Mayaki interpreted to mean they wanted to discuss yellowcake sales. A report CIA officials drafted after debriefing Wilson said that "although the meeting took place, Mayaki let the matter drop due to UN sanctions on Iraq."
>According to the former Niger mining minister, Wilson told his CIA contacts, Iraq tried to buy 400 tons of uranium in 1998.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Jul9.html
That enough or do you want more?
Now tell me where the WMD's are cuz clearly you know were Saddam hid them.... so enlighten me where is the yellow cake, where is the mobile biowarfare trucks where are they mr. Reefraff i dont see them i have yet to hear a SINGLE account of those being found, however i have found evidence that we have destroyed waterlines please address this....

havent found any WMD

must be giving you and you neo con buddies a headache the UN could found nothing just like our military did...

 

[darthtang aw]

Ok I will say it again I guess.
We are in Iraq, now what.
I find it amazing at the number of people that sit and comment about the civilian casuaties incurred in this war and in the next breath state we should pull out. How is this going to stop the civilian casualties? How is this going to make their lives easier if we don't stay and help finish the rebuilding and help set up security forces?
Someone please answer these specific questions for me.
As I see it Iran is just waiting for us to pull out so they can go in and gain the territory they have wanted for the last 40 years. They have repeatedly attacked iraq in history trying to gain control of that region. If we pull out what is to stop them from doing this and causing far more civilian casualties?
When we pulled out of vietnam the subsequent result was the murder and genocide of almost 2 million people, women, children, and men. This went on up until 1989. a hidden war between cambodia and Vietnam was started as campodia suppoorted the U.S. and aided us.
250,000 muslims were massacred. They were specificaslly targeted. Buddhism was suppressed and monks killed out right.
Now fast forward......Iraq today. as I stated Iran has wanted this region under it's control for a long time. If we pull out what stops Iran from attacking and killing many more civilains. What stops Syria from joining in the free for all and getting it's own piece of the pie?
No, we have a RESPONSIBILITY to stay. We helped create this mess. We should pick it up. Everyone complains about the up and coming generations not having enough responsibilty......why is that I wonder when the current and previous generation hold no responsibilty themselves.
Regardless if the reasons were wrong or unjust the bottomline is 80% of the population in this country agreed to it. we gave our stamp of approval. Congress overwhelming ly gave their approval. NOW we changed our mind and

[hr]
the people left behind to suffer our decision.....we don't care.
I hear so much about the plight of the people in this region from many, yet you care not one whit about their plight. This has become the feel good nation of lies. We lie to ourselves that we care and in reality we care not for the people of the world just how we, ourselves, are affected.
Just once, I want to hear one person that was against this war from the beginning understand responsibility and how it is now our responsibilty to better the lives of that region and stick it our until it is better or we are ASKED to leave.