Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I had absolutely no problem with invading Iraq, and still do not. Public Law 107-40 in effect declared war against every nation that sponsored, trained, financed, or provided safe harbor to international terrorist organizations. At the time war against terrorism was declared, there were four nations that actively sponsored international terrorism - Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, and Syria.
I was not going to quibble about the order in which they were taken out, as long as all four were taken out. Bush 43 only completed half the job, the other half (Iran and Syria) remains incomplete.
Except for the fact that Al Quada had nothing to do with Iraq and Saddam was no friends with Al Quada. The only terrorism Saddam was hosting was against his own people. As said before, the war in Iraq was about nothing but oil and revenge.
Some "conservatives" are simply pro-war, pro-any war, on principle. They aren't happy if we aren't killing someone, somewhere. How that squares with conservatism is unclear; as the late Joseph Sobran observed, "Conserve and destroy are antonyms."
Others are pro-war only when their party is in power. When it isn't, they make wild claims like "Obama invaded Libya", etc.
We both know why this happens: Republicans have pledged to use the military as their shield, hiding behind their sacrifices because it makes alot of people alot of money. And there you have it, follow the money trail and you find out why the Republican Party is so infatuated with war. It's all dollars and cents. It also provides cover, as it gives them an ace in the hole, something they can always fall back on: Supporting the troops. The more they "support the troops", the greater their "patriotism", which wins votes amongst Joe Six-pack and other low information, FOX watching conservatives.
I had absolutely no problem with invading Iraq, and still do not. Public Law 107-40 in effect declared war against every nation that sponsored, trained, financed, or provided safe harbor to international terrorist organizations. At the time war against terrorism was declared, there were four nations that actively sponsored international terrorism - Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, and Syria.
I was not going to quibble about the order in which they were taken out, as long as all four were taken out. Bush 43 only completed half the job, the other half (Iran and Syria) remains incomplete.
Iraq sponsored terrorism. Really? The evidence points to contrary and, in fact, it was Saddam that HATED Islamic terrorist organizations so much he actively pursued and suppressed them. By invading Iraq and removing him from power, we gave AQ the access it never had and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia benefited as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by busterkeaton
My problem with this whole middle east mess, is that we aren't at war with them, because they hate our freedom. No, we're at war with them, because we're on their soil, dictating to them how they are going to be conducting business with us. I also know, that every dollar you have in your pocket, right now, has some blood that was spilt for it to end up there in your pocket. Maybe, you yourself didn't spill the blood, personally, but somebody did.
Can't argue with this but good luck explaining to the likes of Bachman and Santorum that we're over there NOT because they hate our freedoms.
Except for the fact that Al Quada had nothing to do with Iraq and Saddam was no friends with Al Quada. The only terrorism Saddam was hosting was against his own people. As said before, the war in Iraq was about nothing but oil and revenge.
While it is certainly true that Saddam had no direct involvement with the attacks on 09/11/2001, it is not true that Iraqi terrorism was contained to only Iraq. Saddam Hussein had been sponsoring international terrorist organizations since 1977. More specifically, the terrorist organization known as the Palestinian Liberation Front. He built the PLF training facility, financed their operation, and gave them safe harbor in Iraq.
You need to take a closer look at Public Law 107-40:
Quote:
Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and
Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and
Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and
Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and
Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States:
Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) IN GENERAL.—That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
Do you see any mention of al Qaeda or the Taliban? Congress essentially gave the President a blank check to wage war against any "nations, organizations, or persons ... in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."
That opened the door for President Bush, and now President Obama since the law is still in effect, to wage war against any nation, organization, or person that meets the criteria of Public Law 107-40. At the time the law was passed on September 18, 2001, there were four nations whose governments were actively sponsoring international terrorist organizations - Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, and Syria. That makes all of them legitimate military targets under Public Law 107-40.
Iraq sponsored terrorism. Really? The evidence points to contrary and, in fact, it was Saddam that HATED Islamic terrorist organizations so much he actively pursued and suppressed them. By invading Iraq and removing him from power, we gave AQ the access it never had and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia benefited as well.
Yes, really. Saddam Hussein and the Baath Party in Iraq actively sponsored, financed, trained, and sheltered the Palestinian Liberation Front since 1977. The PLF, with Muhammad Zaidan (a.k.a., Abu Abbas) as their leader, were responsible for the hijacking of the Italian cruise ship the MS Achille Lauro. As a result of our overthrowing the Iraqi government, the PLF and Muhammad Zaidan have ceased to be.
...but never really seemed all that interested in actually going after al Qaeda.
After 9.11 everybody was calling for the head of al Qaeda, and rightfully so, but then something strange happened, getting al Qaeda gave way to getting Saddam 24/7. And while I was definitely not a fan of the late Mr. Hussein I found myself in incessant arguments with conservatives asking... "but, but what about Afghanistan. You know over there the place where al Qaeda trained and operated" But my questions were always answered by a stream of invective about Iraq, in general and Saddam Hussein in particular. "We have to fight then there so we don't have to fight them overhere.. "or something like that.
Today, you never here read a thread about going after al-Qaeda, in fact the conversation always seems to going the other way - I exclude many "left, left wing liberals" because they never seemed interested in either al Qaeda or Hussein - why are we sending troops here, why are we sending troops there. Why are we using this tactic, blase, blase, blase...
So what happened in 2008, or 2003, that folks loose interest in actually going after the folks who actually had something to do with 9.11?
It was about supporting the party. If the party says Iraq, then Iraq it is.
Then there is this snippet from Richard Engle's book, Fist in the Hornet's Nest which I have quoted before. Engle was one of few Western journalists who lived in Baghdad right up to the time of the 2003 invasion:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Engle
But there was a bigger problem with the Palestine[hotel in Baghdad]. It was full of men dying to become suicide bomers. There were about twenty-five of them. Most were Arabs...also several Asians, including one man who looked to be in his early twenties. He had unkempt hair and wore a green bandana around his forehead that said, in Arabic, 'there is no god but god, and mohammed is the propht of god'....A Greek journalist, Efi Pentaraki, who was in the room next to mine on the fourteenth floor, said she recognized several of the Arab volunteers from a training camp for suicide bombers....'
Then there is this snippet from Richard Engle's book, Fist in the Hornet's Nest which I have quoted before. Engle was one of few Western journalists who lived in Baghdad right up to the time of the 2003 invasion:
and we spent 10 years at war for that???
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
