48 replies to this topic

[G1223]

What would be the right reasons?

[Bad Wolf]

G1223, on Apr 9 2003, 11:16 PM, said:

What would be the right reasons?

For War?

Precious little G.

But political power, oil, and hypocricy don't fit my bill.  And before you get mad understand that this is my view of Dubbaya's motivations.  

However, having started it I hope they get it right this time.  And like I said, I'm damned glad those kids are okay.  Maybe they would have been okay sooner had not the US supported Hussein in the past and then 12 years ago left him in power.

[Kosh]

G1223, on Apr 9 2003, 04:44 PM, said:

A couple of points. Kosh it was not that no else could it was no one else wanted to.

Richie the Presedent has the authority under the War powers acts to use the troops for 90 days before requiring the consent of congress.  Bush got the approval prior to activly using the troops in combat.

I think we need to be ready becasue this is going to be a long stay for our troops. We need to help a government form up as we did with West Germany after the war. This can be a great oppertunity to turn around and make a second  Turkey. Turkey is an islamic nation ,but it has elected represntation. It has by it's set up but not worded as such a seperation of church and state.

We need the international community know that the end is near to be ready to give the support to the new state and help ease burdens it will have.

Other Arab countries maybe could have pulled this off, but you are right, they don't care.
Isreal could have done it, but they would have been facing every counrty in the middle east, not just Iraq.
No one else could have done it. The only other countries with enough military power are allies, or at least hold the liens on Iraq, and if they invaded they'd have never gotten payed.

Christopher, I'm PMing you.

[G1223]

Una Salus Lillius, on Apr 9 2003, 10:20 PM, said:

G1223, on Apr 9 2003, 11:16 PM, said:

What would be the right reasons?

For War?

Precious little G.

But political power, oil, and hypocricy don't fit my bill.  And before you get mad understand that this is my view of Dubbaya's motivations.  

However, having started it I hope they get it right this time.  And like I said, I'm damned glad those kids are okay.  Maybe they would have been okay sooner had not the US supported Hussein in the past and then 12 years ago left him in power.

Well that would be the Clinton adminitration as wellas the other Bush administrations  who bowed to allies in the reigon who claimed they would disarm the madman,but did not.

[DWF]

G1223, on Apr 9 2003, 11:06 PM, said:

Una Salus Lillius, on Apr 9 2003, 10:20 PM, said:

G1223, on Apr 9 2003, 11:16 PM, said:

What would be the right reasons?

For War?

Precious little G.

But political power, oil, and hypocricy don't fit my bill.  And before you get mad understand that this is my view of Dubbaya's motivations.  

However, having started it I hope they get it right this time.  And like I said, I'm damned glad those kids are okay.  Maybe they would have been okay sooner had not the US supported Hussein in the past and then 12 years ago left him in power.

Well that would be the Clinton adminitration as wellas the other Bush administrations  who bowed to allies in the reigon who claimed they would disarm the madman,but did not.

Well, if Bush Sr. had finished the job, none of this would've happened. Thousands of Kurds would still be alive, and we wouldn't be over there now, putting ourselves into even greater debt,  and being seen as an agressor in the third world.

[G1223]

The Collalition was starting to come apart becasue of the fact we had beaten them so easily. The Middest east partners feared a Iraq in the middle of a civil war would be worse than a Iraq under Saddam.  Also the specter of Iran being in a position to push west worried the arab memebers and Saddam had been their stone wall against the religious fanatics from Iran. That was why they gave him just enough support to fight Iran but would cut it back to keep him weak.

[bandit]

RPITA, on Apr 9 2003, 03:41 PM, said:

Javert Rovinski, on Apr 9 2003, 09:00 AM, said:

That actually surprises me. Children are really no threat. Unless they're being held to get leverage out of their parents.....

I'm beyond being surprised by anything attributed to Saddam's regime. If a guy can condone [Edited before hitting the reply button, I can't even deal with seeing it in print. Insert your atrocity here], imprisoning children hardly seems out of character.

I just pray there's a special place in hell for these monsters.

Anna

I am a christian, and beleve me, if what my bible says is at all true, these bastards will have to answer to every man they murdered, woman they raped or chiled they had beaten, and i am sure the big guy upstairs will contrive something special for them

[StarDust]

Lover of Purple, on Apr 9 2003, 04:44 PM, said:

I wonder what the response would be if it was Clinton doing this? What did they say when Clinton sent troops into Kosovo (without even talking to the UN). I just kind of wonder about that. I don't expect answers, I just would like anyone who might think like that to contemplate their thinking.

I've wondered that myself.

You know, Clinton and Bush pretty much agree on this. People are forgetting very easily every thing that happened in the 90s, maybe they were paying too much attention to Monica Clinton went as far as he could, but the political climate was different and Americans were too busy living the high life. All that changed with 9/11 and the realization that we couldn't stick our heads in the sand. So Bush gets to do what Clinton tried to do.

Have you ever noticed, when it comes to Foreign policy, most Presidents don't differ very greatly once they get into office. I figure it's in part because they find out things the rest of us don't know, and because they deal with it every day. Most Americans seem to only notice when something gets 'big'.

http://www.cnn.com/A...nton/index.html

Quote

WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, December 16, 1998) -- President Bill Clinton Wednesday defended his decision to order airstrikes against Iraq, saying Saddam Hussein had failed his "one last chance" to cooperate with United Nations resolutions. "So we've had to act and act now."
"Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces," Clinton said during his Oval Office address to the nation.

"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs, and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the middle east and around the world," Clinton said.

A showdown between the U.S. and Iraq six weeks ago, when again the military action was threatened, ended with Saddam Hussein's promise to give U.N. inspectors unconditional access to Iraqi facilities so they could determine if Iraq was rebuilding its biological, chemical and nuclear weapons programs.

At the time, Clinton said he "concluded then that the right thing to do was to use restraint and give Saddam one last chance to prove his willingness to cooperate. I made it very clear at that time what 'unconditional cooperation' meant."

The American president said a report by inspectors to the U.N. over the weekend determined that Iraq had failed to fulfill that promise and had instead placed new restrictions on the inspections.

In response, Clinton gave the go ahead for "Operation Desert Fox."

Both directly and indirectly, Clinton addressed the impeachment crisis his presidency is currently facing. He defended the timing of strikes, which his critics have questioned in light of Thursday's scheduled debate and floor vote.

He also said that Saddam Hussein should not believe that domestic troubles in the U.S. would deter the nation from taking decisive action.

"Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate before the House of Representatives would distract Americans," Clinton said. "But once more the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests we will do so."

White House press secretary Joe Lockhart said earlier that the president made his decision Wednesday morning after reviewing the United Nation's report.

Does this routine sound familiar? In, Out, threats, In, Out, threats, In ... and all the while getting no where. The guy had more second chances than any of us will ever get!
http://www.cnn.com/S...line/index.html

Quote

November 13, 1997:Iraq expels U.S. arms inspectors.

November 20, 1997:Iraq agrees to allow U.N. inspectors, including Americans, to return.

January 13, 1998:Iraq effectively bars U.N. arms inspectors led by an American from working.

January 16, 1998:American-led U.N. arms inspection team leaves Iraq, other inspectors continue their work.

January 29, 1998:U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright begins tour of Europe, Middle East to garner support for stand against Iraq.

February 6, 1998:Middle East military buildup continues as an additional 2,200 U.S. Marines head for Gulf.

February 11, 1998:Iraq offers to open eight presidential sites to inspections conducted under direct authority of U.N. Security Council for 60 days. Washington dismisses proposal.

February 20, 1998:U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan arrives in Baghdad on an 11th-hour mission to find a peaceful resolution to the standoff with Iraq.

February 23, 1998:After three days of talks in Baghdad, Annan and Iraq sign a tentative deal allowing full access to suspected Iraqi weapon sites.

October 31, 1998:Iraq suspends all cooperation with U.N. arms inspectors and monitors.

November 5, 1998:The U.N. Security Council votes unanimously to condemn Iraq and demands that it immediately resume cooperation with weapons inspectors.

November 7, 1998:The United Nations begins withdrawing its arms inspectors from Baghdad.

Nov.15-16:After some diplomatic wrangling,Iraq does an about face and agrees to let U.N. weapons inspectors do their work. U.S. President Bill Clinton warns that while Washington has accepted Iraq's agreement, the United States remained "ready to act" should there be any further defiance over weapons inspections. Clinton also called for a new government in Iraq that was "committed to peace," adding that Washington would intensify efforts toward that aim.

December 16:The U.S. launches Operation Desert Fox -- an airstrike on Iraq a day after Chief U.N. weapons inspector Richard Butler issues a report saying Iraq had failed to live up to its promise to restore full cooperation with the U.N. Special Commission (UNSCOM) in charge of disarming Iraq.

December 28:U.S. jets fire on an Iraqi post in the northern no-fly zone, set up in 1991 to protect Iraqi Kurds from Saddam's forces. Iraq said that four soldiers were killed and seven wounded. Two days later, a similar incident occurs. Iraq vows to defy western patrolled "no-fly" zones in northern and southern Iraq.

And all the same international hystrionics and 'hoping for a diplomatic' solution. They really did a good job there in the last 5 years!
Russia: Iraq airstrikes a blow to world order

Quote

Egypt urges Clinton to 'contain the crisis'
December 18, 1998
In this story:

    * Russia recalls ambassador to Britain
    * Albright: Russia 'had no ideas'
    * Chirac, Blair discuss crisis
    * Related stories and sites

MOSCOW (CNN) -- As Russian leaders warned Friday that their country's relations with the West may be seriously damaged by the attack on Iraq by the United States and Britain, street protests in Egypt against the raids intensified.

"This strike on Iraq is also a very strong blow on the whole system of international relations," Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov told CNN.

Ivanov said he telephoned U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright on Friday and told her, "Everything must be done to rule out a setback in our relations."
...
Hundreds of Egyptians burned U.S. flags and shouted anti-U.S. slogans near Cairo's al-Azhar mosque in a second day of protests.

"Each Muslim must support the Iraqis, who have been subject to injustices, including their rulers' practices," said Sheikh Mohamed Sayyed Tantawi, grand sheikh of al-Azhar, during the Friday prayer sermon. "When we see Iraqis subject to injustices and shelling, and the killing of innocents, we have to stand by them."

Many other Muslim nations, as well as China, have also spoken out strongly against the bombing campaign.

China's Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhu Bangzo added to China's official condemnation on Friday, expressing "deep regret" over the attacks in a statement carried by the official Xinhua news agency.

Zhu renewed Beijing's demand for an immediate halt to the military action.

...

Chirac, Blair discuss crisis

French President Jacques Chirac and British Prime Minister Tony Blair on Friday discussed ways to end the Iraqi crisis after a second wave of airstrikes.

Chirac's spokeswoman, Catherine Colonna, said the two leaders discussed ways to define a new relationship between Baghdad and the United Nations to ensure Iraq's disarmament.

France, a permanent U.N. Security Council member, and Italy have said airstrikes will not solve the concerns caused by Iraq's alleged stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons.

German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer said Friday he hoped for a political solution to the crisis in Iraq.

[StarDust]

RichieAvatar, on Apr 9 2003, 04:31 PM, said:

Just out of curiousity.....and this isn't any sort of criticism about the war per se, as I do think Saddam's got to go, but can anybody tell me exactly when Congress made a declaration of war against Iraq? Call me crazy, but I thought that was a control put in place so a president couldn't just use the military to attack anyone he wanted whenever he felt like......everyone is calling this a war, but I don't remember hearing any formal declaration....am I dense and just missed it?

Bush sends letter to Congress on Iraqi action
Friday, March 21, 2003

House gives Bush authority for war with Iraq
October 10, 2002