Iraq War

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by Assttodixie

Dixie International supports the war in Iraq. Furthermore, we support the use of nuclear, chemical and all biological warfare.

First we're going to go to iraq. Then we are going to go to iran. And then we are going to go to syria and lebanon. And then we are going to take the whole middle east...

Byahhhhh!

Wow! That sounds very ambitious.
After all those "Arab folks" are gone, are there plans to turn the region into the world's largest golf course?
You might find this article of interest:http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/45707/

[Downthestretch55]

Danzig,
If you don't mind, I'll answer you over here.
You said:

"bush isn't the only one responsible for the war being put into action. what about congress? last time i checked, we had a three-pronged approach to governing this country. bush is only one branch of the three comprising the federal govt.

besides dts, you said yourself you agree with no war. so it wouldn't matter what it was about, any executive in your mind would be wrong, any reason for any war would be. bush one, reagan, fdr, equally as evil as bush? lincoln, washington, that's a hell of a list.


a country that posed 'no threat'?? you feel iraq, who went to war with one neighbor, bombed a second and invaded a third, while sending money to suicide bombers was no threat?"

1) Both Legislative branches were controlled by Bush's party at the time of the invasion. Yes, many members of the other party went along with authorizing sweeping power to wage war in 2002 by the Commander-in-chief.
Some have since claimed they were given "faulty intelligence".
Who made the decision to invade? That's obvious.
2) The invasion was a "war of choice". UN sanctons were in place and inspectors were on the ground. Saddam was contained. Bush delivered the "ultimatum" to vacate Baghdad within 48 hours, remember?
3) As I have previously stated, war should be the last option, and only when invasions or realistic threat of same exists. The Iraq debacle wasn't a "defensive war".

I could go on about the rewriting of the Constitution, lack of judicial oversight, and many other consequences of the action initiated by the present administration. The consequences will be very real, and long lasting, but I'll discuss these at a later time.
Have a nice holiday.
Peace.
DTS

[Danzig]

do you feel at this point that posts like these, threads like these, are redundant?
we can't change why we're there at this point. we can't change what has happened. but i think most everyone agrees that we need to finish the job as well as we can. certainly constant rehashing about the evil bush and his evil henchmen won't change a thing!
as for faulty intelligence, i think that's crap. dems voted as they did. had the war gone swimmingly, we wouldn't be writing any of this right now. because it's not easy, it was wrong? a mistake? i wish i could retroactively make all my life-altering decisions! doesn't work that way tho, does it? dems, congress, the u.n., the executive, are ALL responsible for this mess. one no more than any other. no third of the federal govt has more power than the others.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Danzig188

do you feel at this point that posts like these, threads like these, are redundant?
we can't change why we're there at this point. we can't change what has happened. but i think most everyone agrees that we need to finish the job as well as we can. certainly constant rehashing about the evil bush and his evil henchmen won't change a thing!
as for faulty intelligence, i think that's crap. dems voted as they did. had the war gone swimmingly, we wouldn't be writing any of this right now. because it's not easy, it was wrong? a mistake? i wish i could retroactively make all my life-altering decisions! doesn't work that way tho, does it? dems, congress, the u.n., the executive, are ALL responsible for this mess. one no more than any other. no third of the federal govt has more power than the others.

I agree with a lot of what you have said here. You are right- we cant undo the damage that has been done by one of the worst administrations in the history of this great country.

But...I do have issue with the last sentence of your post. Do you really believe this to be true in regards to the last 6 years? Remember, after 9-11, the country rallied around Bush. Any dissension from congress was labeled as "unpatriotic" and close to being treasonous. the power that was granted to this administration has not been seen since WW2. Sorry, Danzig, but the blame rests almost entirely on the Bush administration in this case.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

I agree with a lot of what you have said here. You are right- we cant undo the damage that has been done by one of the worst administrations in the history of this great country.

But...I do have issue with the last sentence of your post. Do you really believe this to be true in regards to the last 6 years? Remember, after 9-11, the country rallied around Bush. Any dissension from congress was labeled as "unpatriotic" and close to being treasonous. the power that was granted to this administration has not been seen since WW2. Sorry, Danzig, but the blame rests almost entirely on the Bush administration in this case.

from what i've read, the dems basically conceded any and all foreign policy regarding terror--they didn't want to be viewed as 'soft on terror' in the elections after 9-11. if bush suddenly had more power than he should have, i'd say more was given than taken! the blame can't rest almost entirely on bush, as the federal govt is not almost entirely vested in that branch of the fed govt. congress voted for the war, including sen kerry, yet now they 'see the light'. in other words, as polls and the wind blows...
so, if this all turns out right in the end....was all this b.s., because change wasn't affected over night, because it got difficult and sometimes ugly, suddenly unnecessary? would bush no longe be subject to calls for impeachment? if he deserves to be impeached, then so does every member of congress who voted for this. wouldn't break my heart to see that happen, cut corruption out from the core!

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Danzig188

from what i've read, the dems basically conceded any and all foreign policy regarding terror--they didn't want to be viewed as 'soft on terror' in the elections after 9-11. if bush suddenly had more power than he should have, i'd say more was given than taken! the blame can't rest almost entirely on bush, as the federal govt is not almost entirely vested in that branch of the fed govt. congress voted for the war, including sen kerry, yet now they 'see the light'. in other words, as polls and the wind blows...
so, if this all turns out right in the end....was all this b.s., because change wasn't affected over night, because it got difficult and sometimes ugly, suddenly unnecessary? would bush no longe be subject to calls for impeachment? if he deserves to be impeached, then so does every member of congress who voted for this. wouldn't break my heart to see that happen, cut corruption out from the core!

If we viewed the "case" to go to war with Iraq as courtroom, the Bush admin would be the prosecution and congress would be the jury. Now, if the jury was given false and misleading evidence, how can we blame them for coming to the wrong verdict? The part about the false and misleading evidence has been proven and now they want to turn the verdict. Unfortunately, its too late.

The spin on "why" we went to Iraq has changed so many times that its hard to keep it straight. First and foremost, we were supposedly going because Sadaam was a threat to American security with weapons of mass destruction. After it was shown that indeed that was false, it became a mission to lead the Iraqi people from the tyranny of Saddaam's regime and liberate them with police zones and no bid contracts. Now why are we there?

Only the blind would see any end in sight. This is a mess that will be around for years to come. And the world knows that we created it.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

If we viewed the "case" to go to war with Iraq as courtroom, the Bush admin would be the prosecution and congress would be the jury. Now, if the jury was given false and misleading evidence, how can we blame them for coming to the wrong verdict? The part about the false and misleading evidence has been proven and now they want to turn the verdict. Unfortunately, its too late.

The spin on "why" we went to Iraq has changed so many times that its hard to keep it straight. First and foremost, we were supposedly going because Sadaam was a threat to American security with weapons of mass destruction. After it was shown that indeed that was false, it became a mission to lead the Iraqi people from the tyranny of Saddaam's regime and liberate them with police zones and no bid contracts. Now why are we there?

Only the blind would see any end in sight. This is a mess that will be around for years to come. And the world knows that we created it.

i read that congress knew exactly what the intelligence really was--it wasn't faulty, they were told the same things as the prez. but the members felt they were between a rock and a hard place--dems especially thought that a no vote on the war would cost them the elections in '02--so they voted for the war, so they wouldn't be viewed as being soft on terror. the cia is their fall guy.
if the cia lied, don't you think their would have been investigations that would make the iran contra hearings look like a pta meeting???
and as for wmd's...how did we have such a good idea that saddam had these weapons? because we provided a lot of them! remember the iran/iraq war? (for some reason for many years we based our entire foreign policy on the 'enemy of my enemy is friend' system. incredibly flawed system!! it gained us afganistan and iraq.) remember the gassing of the kurds? gas is a wmd....

all the truths behind all this may never come out. what about oil for food? what about kofi annan and his son? the u.n. mess? what about russia and france worrying more about $ than doing what's right?