quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

Firm, the two main reasons for the invasion of Iraq were given as Sadam having WMD`s, of which none were found. The other was that he was supporting Bin Laden, and the quote in one of your own posts confirms this wasnt true either.

"The report, released this week by the Institute for Defense Analyses, says it found no "smoking gun" linking Iraq operationally to Al Qaeda."  Afghanistan was always the place that should have been the only theatre of operation, and no report from the Penatagon ( hardly unbiased ) will persuade many of us otherwise. Cutting through the B/s hardly makes us blinkered.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Vendaval

I think in this case, as with the desert areas between the U.S. and Mexico, the terrain and the local tribes shape the cultural and political environment,  more so than the official governments in distant cities.  From an outsiders perspective an area viewed as being two or more separate entities may not appear that way on the ground, especially not to the locals.
 
I am not refuting or disputing any points made previously, just noting that it is easy to overlook the social/cultural/religious/linguistic realities that in turn shape a political and military reality.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

You wish to ignore the established fact that even if Saddam did not have a massive stockpile of nerve gas, biological agents and nuclear weapons at the invasion, he had the full intention of rebuilding and restocking them just as soon as he could get the sanctions lifted, and the weapons inspectors off his back.

quote:


You choose to ignore his growing terrorist connections, and the financing of terrorist organizations over time, and pin your dismissal on the word "operational" without understanding what it means, and what it doesn't mean.

Whether or not you agree with the invasion, ignoring these facts is ignoring reality.

"Cutting through the BS" is not what you are doing.

Firm

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

You wish to pick any two reasons, and ignore the rest, and say the entire invasion was based solely on those two reasons.

You wish to ignore the established fact that even if Saddam did not have a massive stockpile of nerve gas, biological agents and nuclear weapons at the invasion, he had the full intention of rebuilding and restocking them just as soon as he could get the sanctions lifted, and the weapons inspectors off his back.

You choose to ignore his growing terrorist connections, and the financing of terrorist organizations over time, and pin your dismissal on the word "operational" without understanding what it means, and what it doesn't mean.

Whether or not you agree with the invasion, ignoring these facts is ignoring reality.

"Cutting through the BS" is not what you are doing.

Firm

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy


..i'm unfamiliar with Saddam planning to assasinate a US president. However, what you're describing is regime change. Fair enough. If the Western powers had been honest about this from the get go there may have been more support. The problem is, however, that regime change is under international law an illegal reason to go to war. It's a bad precedent. In this sphere we can't just play one game at a time. Wise leaders have to look beyond the short term.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


Is the US a signatory of the UN charter? We are. Therefore any invasion of another country is illegal unless the strict requirements of the charter are followed. They weren't therefore the invasion was illegal under US law. Note that the security council resolutions before the invasion are insufficient to authorize the invasion and conquest of a nation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife


If you truly want to have an honest discussion you might consider avoiding terms that denigrate the people you are debating, such as "lefty newspeak".

quote:

Considering the nature of the poster he was responding to, I agree, "lefty newspeak" is inappropriate.  It doesnt even come close to the intellectual dishonesty that are a constant. Is it denigrating to factually identify someone as intellectually dishonest?  I dont think so. Intellectually challenged, would be.

(in reply to rulemylife)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CruelNUnsual

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


Is the US a signatory of the UN charter? We are. Therefore any invasion of another country is illegal unless the strict requirements of the charter are followed. They weren't therefore the invasion was illegal under US law. Note that the security council resolutions before the invasion are insufficient to authorize the invasion and conquest of a nation.

You may want to brush up on the UN. It doesnt make laws, therefore any action taken can't be illegal as a result of anything the UN does.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: CruelNUnsual

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


Is the US a signatory of the UN charter? We are. Therefore any invasion of another country is illegal unless the strict requirements of the charter are followed. They weren't therefore the invasion was illegal under US law. Note that the security council resolutions before the invasion are insufficient to authorize the invasion and conquest of a nation.

You may want to brush up on the UN. It doesnt make laws, therefore any action taken can't be illegal as a result of anything the UN does.

You might want to read the US Constitution before making any more claims about things you don't understand.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CruelNUnsual

Honest about regime change? Bush was very clear that was the objective.

http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2002/10/08/5630/

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

Silly me, I picked the two reasons Tony Blair kept giving. He was in charge of the Government, and if there were other reasons he should have stated them.

Operational was the correct word to use. Sadam had no links with AQ, confimed by US sources within your own quote. It said " No smoking gun linking Al Qaeda to Iraq.

"The rise of Islamist fundamentalism in the region gave Saddam the opportunity to make terrorism, one of the few tools remaining in Saddam's 'coercion' tool box." ... "Evidence that was uncovered and analyzed attests to the existence of a terrorist capability and a willingness to use it until the day Saddam was forced to flee Baghdad by Coalition forces."

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: CruelNUnsual

Honest about regime change? Bush was very clear that was the objective.

http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2002/10/08/5630/

And what was the reason the regime in Iraq needed changing?

From your link:

Recent satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding production facilities for chemical and biological weapons, as well as renewing its efforts to develop nuclear weapons. This revelation is a reason for acting now, Bush argued.

October 31, 1998

An Act

To establish a program to support a transition to democracy in Iraq.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Iraq Liberation Act of 1998'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress makes the following findings:

(1) On September 22, 1980, Iraq invaded Iran, starting an 8 year war in which Iraq employed chemical weapons against Iranian troops and ballistic missiles against Iranian cities.

(2) In February 1988, Iraq forcibly relocated Kurdish civilians from their home villages in the Anfal campaign, killing an estimated 50,000 to 180,000 Kurds.

(3) On March 16, 1988, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iraqi Kurdish civilian opponents in the town of Halabja, killing an estimated 5,000 Kurds and causing numerous birth defects that affect the town today.

(4) On August 2, 1990, Iraq invaded and began a 7 month occupation of Kuwait, killing and committing numerous abuses against Kuwaiti civilians, and setting Kuwait's oil wells ablaze upon retreat.

(5) Hostilities in Operation Desert Storm ended on February 28, 1991, and Iraq subsequently accepted the ceasefire conditions specified in United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (April 3, 1991) requiring Iraq, among other things, to disclose fully and permit the dismantlement of its weapons of mass destruction programs and submit to long-term monitoring and verification of such dismantlement.

(6) In April 1993, Iraq orchestrated a failed plot to assassinate former President George Bush during his April 14-16, 1993, visit to Kuwait.

(7) In October 1994, Iraq moved 80,000 troops to areas near the border with Kuwait, posing an imminent threat of a renewed invasion of or attack against Kuwait.

(8) On August 31, 1996, Iraq suppressed many of its opponents by helping one Kurdish faction capture Irbil, the seat of the Kurdish regional government.

(9) Since March 1996, Iraq has systematically sought to deny weapons inspectors from the United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) access to key facilities and documents, has on several occasions endangered the safe operation of UNSCOM helicopters transporting UNSCOM personnel in Iraq, and has persisted in a pattern of deception and concealment regarding the history of its weapons of mass destruction programs.

(10) On August 5, 1998, Iraq ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM, and subsequently threatened to end long-term monitoring activities by the International Atomic Energy Agency and UNSCOM.

(11) On August 14, 1998, President Clinton signed Public Law 105-235, which declared that `the Government of Iraq is in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations.'.

(12) On May 1, 1998, President Clinton signed Public Law 105-174, which made $5,000,000 available for assistance to the Iraqi democratic opposition for such activities as organization, training, communication and dissemination of information, developing and implementing agreements among opposition groups, compiling information to support the indictment of Iraqi officials for war crimes, and for related purposes.

SEC. 3. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING UNITED STATES POLICY TOWARD IRAQ.

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: CruelNUnsual

Honest about regime change? Bush was very clear that was the objective.

http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2002/10/08/5630/

And what was the reason the regime in Iraq needed changing?

From your link:

Recent satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding production facilities for chemical and biological weapons, as well as renewing its efforts to develop nuclear weapons. This revelation is a reason for acting now, Bush argued.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

"Lefty" is exactly what it is. Owner59 (bless his heart) is pretty much my definition of a "lefty", although he does have a hidden heart. But when it comes to his positions and posts - he's as "lefty" as they get.

"Newspeak" is exactly what it is: "illegal war" is a term which has moral condemnation built into it, even though the "illegal" part of it is both unproven, and false. It attempts to change the terms of reference without the benefit of reason.

Now, if you (and others) wish to call it an "immoral war", I'd still take exception, but I wouldn't accuse anyone of newspeak.

Firm

quote:

ORIGINAL: CruelNUnsual

Im missing your point, since you obviously dont agree with me but posted something that supports what i said.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CruelNUnsual

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: CruelNUnsual

Honest about regime change? Bush was very clear that was the objective.

http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2002/10/08/5630/

And what was the reason the regime in Iraq needed changing?

From your link:

Recent satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding production facilities for chemical and biological weapons, as well as renewing its efforts to develop nuclear weapons. This revelation is a reason for acting now, Bush argued.

Im missing your point, since you obviously dont agree with me but posted something that supports what i said.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

Silly me.  I thought we were talking about Bush and the US government.

As for the terrorist connections, you must not of had the patience or desire to actually read the post in which I quoted one summary of the report of what Saddam's archives revealed, nor the report itself, which I gave you a direct link to, nor the other two analysis of the report.

If you are only interested in maintaining your position, then no amount of facts will persuade you, but here is an important quote directly from the report:

"The rise of Islamist fundamentalism in the region gave Saddam the opportunity to make terrorism, one of the few tools remaining in Saddam's 'coercion' tool box." ... "Evidence that was uncovered and analyzed attests to the existence of a terrorist capability and a willingness to use it until the day Saddam was forced to flee Baghdad by Coalition forces."

Firm

quote:

The ABC link didn't work.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

The ABC link didn't work.

It works fine for me, but here's another link to the same document:

http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/Saddam%20and%20Terrorism%20Redaction%20EXSUM%20Extract.pdf