The Iraq War

[mf_dolphin]

Because of your age you don't remeber the scenes of the Iraqi childer dead on the streets like I do. There is no doubt that he produced and used these weapons on several different series of attacks. You're failure to acknowledge documented facts that the weapons existed leaves a glaring hole in your arguement. Not only did Saddam produce them and use them he admitted to larger stockpiles than we had even estimated after denying it for years.

I was not very clear about the gas masks. My point is why did Iraq's troops have new chemical warefare gear deployed to their troops?

As far as your characterization of why the need for "immediate action". Again, a misrepresentation of the facts. The mandates behind the US action stemmed from the Kuwait War and were still in full effect. The terms required full and complete disclosure and destruction. By the UN's own admission, Iraq did not comply not just on one front but many. President Bush was very clear that he did not need to go to the UN for any follow-on resolution. The fact he did so was to go the extra mile and give the UN to stand up to their responsibility. When they chose not to, the coalition did what they felt was in their best interests.

I see no problem with the "nation building" stance either before or after the war. We should not be in the business of nation building. We undertook the war to enforce the UN sanctions and protect US national interests. Since Saddam chose not to comply with the mandates we chose to remove him. Once that decision was made we have an obligation to help rebuild. Again, it's a matter of point of view. You contend we went in to build a nation. I contend we went in to destroy a threat and as a result we have an resposibility to restore order.

I happen to like your selection of Hitler as an example. If the free countries and not adopted a lasiez-faire stance with Germany at the outset and enforced the sanctions that came out of WWI, then we might have avoided 100,000's of thousands of dead in WWII.

[hunter84]

You guys are putting up very good points. This (the war) was something I was against before it started, then switched somewhat when you see or hear Iraqi people happy to see Saddam gone and you realize things will eventually get better for them. Now our troops are stilll under constant threat, no weapons have been found and i see a report that says they aren't sure he had them. It does make me wonder.

[JetMaxx]

We cannot, absolutely cannot, romp around the Middle East looking for weapons that may exist.

My friend...since the morning of September 11, 2001...ALL THE RULES have changed. We have over 3200 reasons that died that tragic morning to do whatever it takes to make sure what happened in America that horrible morning never happens again.

[mf_dolphin]

I have never been Pro-War Widreman. I for one have seen first hand the devastation that happens during war. Anyone that has been in that position or understands the horror that comes from war wants to go to war. However sometimes doing nothing is far more dangerous than dealing with a threat. ANyone who believes that Saddam did not have any WMD is just sticking their heads in the sand. He admitted developing Anthrax, bottulism and other chemical warefare agents. There were identified stockpiles of those weapons whent he inspectors were kicked out of Iraq some 12 years ago. Iraq also continued to develop banned weapon and delivery systems for those agents after the inspectors were forced to leave. The fact that we allowed the inspectors to be forced out and neither the US nor the UN acted to enforce the mandates of the Kuwait War gave Saddam plenty to hide and or export those stockpiles.

As far as one of your earlier points about other nations that present a threat to the US and world peace. I can guarantee you that these nations are reevaluating their positions in light of the coalition action against Iraq. In the future there may be a need to take action against one or more of these nations as well. Hopefully not, but if you take a look back through history you can almost be guaranteed that it will happen eventually.

[wx247]

I am seeing the points on both sides. Someone help me make up my mind!

[ColdFront77]

I believe I have seen video on television of Iraqis making weapons of mass destruction.

[Lindaloo]

Widreman.. he has most definitely used WMD on his own people and using chemical weapons to kill over 5000 Kurds, who make up the majority of Iraq!!

We also found shallow graves of this evidence!! He has had 12 years to comply and failed to do so. IMO Clinton should have inforced the UN resolutions on Saddam in 1993! He has had 12 years to hide WMD.

I would like some evidence to back up what you said about the government admitting ANYTHING.

All this is coming from the liberal left side because this is election year!! We see through it.

[j]

Linda is RIGHT wildman. After the Gulf War SH admitted to WMD's and the resolutions called for the destruction of them....he has never provided any evidence that this has been done..PERIOD...end of debate...but his word alone is not the only evidence...the evidence that he had WMD's is tangible, not some politicians election year imagination as you would like like to paint.

[nystate]

Something interesting comes to mind, a quote from Clinton in 1998.

-"What if Saddam Hussein fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop his program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction."

The president's warnings are firm. "If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." The stakes, he says, could not be higher. "Some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal."

That's right, Clinton said this. Where was the outrage then??

[Stephanie]

Something interesting comes to mind, a quote from Clinton in 1998.

-"What if Saddam Hussein fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop his program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction."

The president's warnings are firm. "If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." The stakes, he says, could not be higher. "Some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal."

That's right, Clinton said this. Where was the outrage then??

That was before 9/11 obviously. Good point NYstate!

I understand that Hussein has admitted to developing WMD's, but I'm getting frustrated at the whole situation. No Osama, no Hussein and prodigy, the plight of the Iraqi people, no WMD's, new threats to Iran about WMD and we haven't at least start to finish what we started with what I said above. I realize that this is not going to get finished in a day, month or a year, but I'd like to see something on the news that doesn't refer to another soldier being killed.

[Lindaloo]

Steph... there should have NEVER been a 9/11 if Clinton had merely acted on his own words.

[Stephanie]

Steph... there should have NEVER been a 9/11 if Clinton had merely acted on his own words.

I've been WAITING for the right time to post this one. Check out the date;

Yankee Go Home
Who's leading the anti-war movement? Congressional Republicans.
By William Saletan
Posted Friday, May 7, 1999, at 12:30 AM PT

Every time the United States goes into battle, anti-war activists blame the causes and casualties of the conflict on the U.S. government. They excuse the enemy regime's aggression and insist that it can be trusted to negotiate and honor a fair resolution. While doing everything they can to hamstring the American administration's ability to wage the war, they argue that the war can never be won, that the administration's claims to the contrary are lies, and that the United States should trim its absurd dema



Last weekend, three of the top five Republicans in Congress--Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott of Mississippi, Senate Majority Whip Don Nickles of Oklahoma, and House Majority Whip Tom DeLay of Texas--went on television to discuss the war. Here's what they said.

1. The atrocities are America's fault. "Once the bombing commenced, I think then [Slobodan] Milosevic unleashed his forces, and then that's when the slaughtering and the massive ethnic cleansing really started," Nickles said at a news conference after appearing on Meet the Press. "The administration's campaign has been a disaster. ... [It] escalated a guerrilla warfare into a real war, and the real losers are the Kosovars and innocent civilians." On Fox News Sunday, DeLay blamed the ethnic cleansing on U.S

2. The failure of diplomacy to avert the war is America's fault. "I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning," Lott offered on Late Edition. "I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area." Nickles called NATO's prewar peace proposal to the Serbs "a very arrogant agreement" that "really caused this thing to escalate."

3. Congress should not support the war. When asked whether they would authorize Clinton "to use all necessary force to win this war, including ground troops," Lott and Nickles --who had voted a month ago, along with 70 percent of the Senate GOP, not to support the NATO air campaign--said they wouldn't. Nickles questioned the propriety of "NATO's objectives," calling its goal of "access to all of Serbia ... ludicrous." DeLay, meanwhile, voted not only against last week's House resolution authorizing Clinton

4. We can't win. "I don't know that Milosevic will ever raise a white flag," warned Nickles. DeLay agreed: "He's stronger in Kosovo now than he was before the bombing. ... The Serbian people are rallying around him like never before. He's much stronger with his allies, Russians and others." Clinton "has no plan for the end" and "recognizes that Milosevic will still be in power," added DeLay. "The bombing was a mistake. ... And this president ought to show some leadership and admit it, and come to some sort

5. Don't believe U.S. propaganda. On Meet the Press, Defense Secretary William Cohen argued that Yugoslavia had underestimated NATO's resolve more than NATO had underestimated Yugoslavia's, and Joint Chiefs vice chairman Gen. Joseph Ralston asserted that Milosevic "had already started his campaign of killing" before NATO intervened. Nickles dismissed both arguments. "This war is not going well," he declared. "I heard Secretary Cohen say, 'Well, Milosevic miscalculated how, you know, steadfast we would be i

6. Give peace a chance. Cohen said it was "highly unlikely" that Clinton would meet with Milosevic in response to Yugoslavia's release of the three captured American soldiers over the weekend, since the Serbs were continuing their atrocities and weren't offering to meet NATO's conditions. DeLay called this refusal "really disappointing" and a failure of "leadership. ... The president ought to open up negotiations and come to some sort of diplomatic end." Lott implored Clinton to "give peace a chance" and,

7. We have no choice but to compromise. Unless Clinton finds "a way to get the bombing stopped" and to "get Milosevic to pull back his troops" voluntarily, NATO faces "a quagmire ... a long, protracted, bloody war," warned Lott. Clinton "only has two choices," said DeLay--to "occupy Yugoslavia and take Milosevic out" or "to negotiate some sort of diplomatic end, diplomatic agreement in order to end this failed policy."

8. We're eager to compromise. NATO has insisted all along that Milosevic must allow a well-armed international force in Kosovo to protect the ethnic Albanians. When asked whether "the administration ought to insist" that these requirements "be met" as a condition of negotiation, DeLay twice ducked the question. Nickles advocated "a compromise," and Lott expressed interest in Yugoslavia's proposal for a "lightly armed" U.N. peacekeeping force in Kosovo rather than a fully equipped NATO force. "Surely there'

9. We'll back off first. Nickles discounted the administration's demand that Yugoslavia halt its ethnic cleansing in order to halt NATO's bombardment: "Secretary Cohen says, 'Well, Mr. Milosevic has to do all these things, then we'll stop the bombing.' Tim, I strongly believe we need a simultaneous withdrawal of the Serbian aggressive forces, have a stopping of the bombing, and an insertion of international police-keeping force." Lott's formulation put NATO's withdrawal first: "Let's see if we can't find a

Some Democrats call Republicans who make these arguments unpatriotic. Republicans reply that they're serving their country by debunking and thwarting a bad policy administered by a bad president. You can be sure of only two things: Each party is arguing exactly the opposite of what it argued the last time a Republican president led the nation into war, and exactly the opposite of what it will argue next time.

Sorry folks, but it looks like I didn't copy and paste the article correctly. Please excuse where the sentences are cut off!

[Lindaloo]

Steph.. where did you copy and paste this from? Just curious.

[Stephanie]

It was an article that I received I believe from Wannabe. I'm sure that it could be retrieved from some search engine on the net.

Postscript - It's on MSN "The Slate" website

[Lindaloo]

Wannabehippie? lol.

Did I mention that Trent is my Uncle and Godfather?

I can go to ANY Conservative website and copy and paste a story bashing Liberals and Dems. That does not make it true.

After 1993 he dropped a few bombs on Osama. Big deal. Bush took the bull by the horns and went after them full force. When this war was waged the Dems did not like the war and were against it, wanting diplomacy. And vice versa with the Republicans with Clinton's war. Well, a bomb drop. lol.

[Stephanie]

Wannabehippie? lol.

Did I mention that Trent is my Uncle and Godfather?

I can go to ANY Conservative website and copy and paste a story bashing Liberals and Dems. That does not make it true.

Whatever Lindaloo. I can also just stick my head in the sand and pretend nothing's wrong. Or listen to Rush (which I admit he does have a few good comments), and think it's gospel. Any articles you have copied and pasted I gave the benefit of the doubt.

Like it or not, everyone has a difference in opinion and CHOOSE what they want to read and/or believe.

[Lindaloo]

Not trying to step on your beliefs by any means Steph. Just trying to make a point.

[Stephanie]

So was I Lindaloo.

[Lindaloo]

I know Steph..