Saddam Hussein Saw al-Qaida As Threat

[Diekan]

Ahh blessed man... you have preformed a great service. I thank you.

[Lueyen]

Hey... many posts ago I took the time to hunt down and post all the House Resolutions that the GOP voted down (items that would have been a great help to the people of this country - like more Pell Grant money, etc etc)... no one took the time to provide a sourced reply to explain the dissenting votes.

I just want to know what Bush has done for us (on the domestic side) that has GOP supporters standing behind him seemingly 100%

Let's say hypothetically that he is honest with his desire to win the war on terror and reasons for being in Iraq. I ask you, what good will success over there do when the country self-destructs from within? There's more to being a good president than fighting "the good war."

For my part, I'm neither a huge fan of Republican or Democratic domestic actions and adjenda. As a general rule I dislike government welfare, be it toward people or coorperations. Unfortunatly I would have a tendancy to answer your question with a question. Why is it that you feel any administration should "do something for us" on the domestic side, beyond infrastructure and basic public services? I see it not as a problem between what the left or right will or will not do for us via social programs or monkeying with the economy, I see it as a problem that either side thinks the answers lay in more government.

[Evermore]

1. Clinton NEVER in his entire presidency made any decisions so bad that thousands of lives were lost.

Oh how thick the veil is...

and how blind the believers are...


Harrison i read that link and still do not see where Cliniton lied about anything more the getting a blow job and it costing thousands of lives.

[Lyion]

For my part, I'm neither a huge fan of Republican or Democratic domestic actions and adjenda. As a general rule I dislike government welfare, be it toward people or coorperations. Unfortunatly I would have a tendancy to answer your question with a question. Why is it that you feel any administration should "do something for us" on the domestic side, beyond infrastructure and basic public services? I see it not as a problem between what the left or right will or will not do for us via social programs or monkeying with the economy, I see it as a problem that either side thinks the answers lay in more government.

While I'm a hawk, I also like a lot of the DNC social agenda, personally. I do not like a lot of what the GOP does in its domestic agenda.

Government SHOULD ensure it's citizens are taken care of, if they can't take care of themselves. That's not asking what the government can do for one, but moreso ensuring that people are not trampled on or subjugated to substandard living based on corporate greed and a lack of regulation and fairness.

Unfortunately, your post makes it appear all too much like you favor a pure libertarian approach, which is essentially survival of the fittest, with little regulation or support.

I favor a Mazlow's Pyramid approach to every citizen of our country. Everyone is entitled to the basics: Food, Shelter, Basic Health Care.
Those at the bottom of the pyramid in salary should recieve the most from the government. Those at the top, the imillionaires should recieve the least. Corporations need to be readdressed taxwise to remove the many loopholes and to pay their fair share. For the record, I like the Flat Tax. I despiseThe Fair Tax.

Right now the problem is the GOP does too little for the people at the bottom, and the DNC crushes the people in the middle, while neither addresses the real problems: Job Outsourcing, Health Care costs, and the ridiculousness of the legal/lawsuit system. It'd be fairly easy to fix these problems, but unfortunately both parties are in the hands of special interests. The GOP certain big business elements. The DNC, unions and lawyers

I do agree that many milk the system for what it's worth, and we certainly need a two way door of accountability for things. However, this needs to be done at the local level.

[Minrott]

Right now the problem is the GOP does too little for the people at the bottom, and the DNC crushes the people in the middle, while neither addresses the real problems: Job Outsourcing, Health Care costs, and the ridiculousness of the legal/lawsuit system. It'd be fairly easy to fix these problems, but unfortunately both parties are in the hands of special interests. The GOP certain big business elements. The DNC, unions and lawyers

I agree with that whole heartedly.

As for Lueyens question:

Why is it that you feel any administration should "do something for us" on the domestic side, beyond infrastructure and basic public services?

I don't feel that Bush and the GOP Congress is doing anything for me or this countries citizens domestically. However, by "do something for us" I don't mean scholarships for black asian parapalegic horse monkeys, or any other entitlement program. What I want my government to do is reform itself and the laws of this country. Our legal system has become over legislated and been taken grossly out of context with the original intended purpose. They GOP, the "less government is better party" is doing absolutely nothing to reform junk laws, to reform federal agency's, to protect citizens rights, and in many cases hindering that ideal every bit as well as the Democrats did for their 50 year reign.

I want them to "do something" other than what's been accepted practice of modern times. They would be doing something exponentially more valuable than any social entitlement program could ever be, by reforming and limiting their intrusion on the lives of their constituency.

[Harrison]

1. Clinton NEVER in his entire presidency made any decisions so bad that thousands of lives were lost.

Oh how thick the veil is...

and how blind the believers are...


Harrison i read that link and still do not see where Cliniton lied about anything more the getting a blow job and it costing thousands of lives.

The statement says nothing about lies that have. He certainly has made decisions that have though. Which completely invalidates that statement.

[Arlos]

When he said "Thousands of Lives" the codecil of it being "US Lives" was unspoken, but intended. Yes, airstrikes in the balkans killed lots of people. Then again, it helped stop an ongoing genocide as well, so it certainly wasn't done on a whim. Also, they were manifestly NOT americans. So, the argument still stands: What did Clinton lie about that cost thousands of US citizens and/or soldiers their lives.

Yes, as I said, I believe Bush lied in the lead up to war. We *KNOW* he and his cronies lied every time they tied Saddam and/or Iraq to 9/11. The initial article for this thread shows that. Hell, Bush was *STILL* trying to tie 9/11 to Saddam in the speech he MADE on 9/11 this year. I also believed he lied about WMD being the reason for war. EVEN IF the CIA (and other agencies) really were convinced that Iraq had them, which I am still not sold on, That STILL doesn't mean that that was ACTUALLY his reason for going to war. WMD was his excuse, his REAL reasons were other.

-Arlos

[Agrajag]

Regardless if Bush didn't know whether Saddam had WMDs or not, Saddam wouldn't let inspectors in to find out. He was given over 10 years to let the inspectors in with the ultimatum that we would take action. He didn't let them in so we made good on our word. Plain and simple.

All you hippies that think we went to war in Iraq for oil are morons.

[Gidan]

All you hippies that think we went to war in Iraq for oil are morons.

All of you conservativs who think we went to war in Iraq because we thought they had WMD's are morons.

[Harrison]

Am I the only one who doesn't care why we went into Iraq?

Left to his devices I can just imagine what Saddam would have done over the years if we hadn't removed him.

[Zanchief]

Am I the only one who doesn't care why we went into Iraq?

Left to his devices I can just imagine what Saddam would have done over the years if we hadn't removed him.

Speculation. The new reason the US invaded Iraq.

Quick tell the White House, it's better then the last few they came up with.

[Agrajag]

All you hippies that think we went to war in Iraq for oil are morons.

All of you conservativs who think we went to war in Iraq because we thought they had WMD's are morons.

If you read my whole post I never said we did go to war because they had WMDs. I said that Saddam didn't let inspectors in to, well, inspect. That is the reason we went. It just so happens that 9-11 happened at about the same time as the deadline. Kill two birds with one stone.

I'm also not saying it was expressed to the public correctly. It was wrong of Bush advisors to say that there was evidence and lie to the public. But, if you had been paying attention to the news coverage of the inspections, you'd have seen that the U.S. had put a deadline of when we would take matters into our own hands if the inspectors weren't allowed in.

[Gidan]

I was just making a general statement to match your general statement. Actually very few people KNOW the reason we invaded. I would say the Bush and a hand picked group of people KNOW the reason. Everyone else knows what they were told or what they guess. To call people morons because they have a belief that is different then your own is moronic.

I have no idea why we went into Iraq. I do not believe it was because of WMD's and do believe that Bush was planning to invade from the day he was elected and just needed an excuse. I could be wrong, I could be right, we will probably never know.

I personally have not decided if what was done in Iraq will turn out to be good or bad for this country. The reason why we went is very important. We invaded a country; the people of the world have a right to know why we invaded that country. When our president changes his mind as to why we have gone over and over, it makes you really start to question if we went for the good of the people or to meet his agenda.

[Agrajag]

But, we will never really know why. Its all speculation as of right now. You also have to think about this; Bush's term will be over soon. What does he really have to gain from ousting Saddam? He doesn't own any of the oil wells in Iraq, now. They still belong to Iraq. How would he, himself profit?

[Arlos]

The time to remove Saddam, if we were going to do it, was either the FIRST gulf war (though I can understand why Bush Sr. didn't do it as part of the initial military invasion). The other time would have been when both the Kurds and the Shiites in the south rose up in rebellion against Saddam in 1991, after both having been promised American aid if they did so. They revolted, expecting American aid, but Bush Sr. ignored their calls for help, and Saddam slaughtered large numbers of both groups putting down the rebellion.

Is it really any wonder that the "word" of the US isn't trusted much in Iraq after we reneged on our promise of aid at that time?

Oh, and I don't buy the "Saddam is an evil dictator and we thus needed to remove him from power" argument for war either. Not after the number of evil dictators this country has helped put into power, or propped up in power when it suited our needs. (Hell, see Saddam himself in the 80s.) Especially not when you consider the numbers of other dictators just as evil or worse that exist around the world, and we're not dropping everything to invade there, too. No, there were other, very specific reasons we went to Iraq, and yes, Oil was a VERY large part of it. Not, of course, to ensure low prices for the average citizen, but those record profits for every single oil company out there since the invasion aren't exactly a coincidence...

-Arlos

[Agrajag]

And you don't think the large profits of the oil companies could coincide with the HIGH gas prices? You don't think that the oil companies are exploiting this war and using it as an excuse for jacking up prices to gain revenue?

[Arlos]

Of course they are. You don't think that giving the oil companies he's been in bed with for the last 20+ years a chance to make windfall profits WASN'T part of why he went to war? I would be stupified if it was not...

-Arlos

[Agrajag]

Of course they are. You don't think that giving the oil companies he's been in bed with for the last 20+ years a chance to make windfall profits WASN'T part of why he went to war? I would be stupified if it was not...

-Arlos

So, what you are insinuating is that Bush is stealing oil from Iraq and giving it to the U.S. oil companies so they can make a profit? Can anyone else say conspiracy theory wacko?

[Zanchief]

No, he's saying that the invasion in Iraq scared up oil prices so oil company's could make record profits.

[Lueyen]

When he said "Thousands of Lives" the codecil of it being "US Lives" was unspoken, but intended.

1. Clinton NEVER in his entire presidency made any decisions so bad that thousands of lives were lost. ( on both sides)

The on both sides part was originally chopped off by Harrison when he first quoted Evermore and responded to it.

[Narrock]

Regardless if Bush didn't know whether Saddam had WMDs or not, Saddam wouldn't let inspectors in to find out. He was given over 10 years to let the inspectors in with the ultimatum that we would take action. He didn't let them in so we made good on our word. Plain and simple.

All you hippies that think we went to war in Iraq for oil are morons.

QFT

[Hound]

I don't believe oil was the sole reason, no.

But I do believe that oil (and the greater socio-political-economic ramifications
of its procurement and disbursement in that region) played a role in deliberately
choosing to engage in war at that particular point in time, yes.

Was the reason mainly so that American companies could create jobs (Haliburton, etc.),
realize record profits (Exxon-Mobile, Conoco Phillips, etc.) and so on? No, I don't
believe that. But I'm sure those companies aren't exactly crying themselves
to sleep at night over the fact that the war happened, either.

Maybe the president didn't consider all of the different kinds of benefits from
ousting Sadaam, but I'm pretty certain that others in the administration did. Some
of those individuals, I'm sure, are very persuasive, and their reasons for wanting
war don't have to coincide with the President's reasons.

[Lueyen]

Well said Hound. In truth as a nearly universal rule you will find two reasons for every war, the economic and the social/political reasons. Quite frankly I would hope any US leader when considering the question of war would look at both and the balance between the two, although as a general rule I would hope positive economic effects were looked at as a non factor and the economic impact would only be taken into consideration if it were of a negative nature.. not that I believe this to be the mindset of everyone in government, but I wish that were the case.

And yes Lyion from a domestic stand point I feel myself leaning toward more and more of a Libertarian mindset, but I think it's more reactionary to and increasingly bloated, less effective and quite frankly in some cases detrimental government set of programs. While I do recognize the need for government beyond the basics, and a safety net for citizens and by extension businesses, I think we are already at an extreme that seems to have no end. Give people a hand up, not a hand out, and don't create government programs that foster a dependancy on government programs.


When it comes to foreign affairs however, I don't believe pacification, concession or isolationism are effective as a general rule, and are often times dangerous. That pretty much eliminates both the Libertarian and the Democratic platforms for foreign affairs.

[Arlos]

And I cannot countenance naked aggression and imperialism, which is what I regard the war in Iraq to be. The entire list of horrible offenses could be translated whole to other dictators over the course of time, yet I don't see us fighting in, say, North Korea right now, do you?

Iraq was seen as weak and easily conquered, a source of oil that could be tied tightly to the US, etc. The complete utter lack of post-war planning and how far they missed the mark in their expectations of results is terrifying. I remember Wolfowitz going before Congress and saying that the war wouldn't cost the US taxpayer one dollar. How about the promises that we'd be greeted with cheers and flowers, and everything would be wine & roses?

You could tell that what the administration's priorities were immediately after the war. Did any US troops move to secure the museums? The power infrastructure? The water infrastructure? Hell, ANY socially important infrastructure to the average citizen? Nope. Guess where they DID go secure though... That's right, anything to do with oil. The looting and rampant destruction of infrastructure immediately following the end of phase 1 made us look like idiots, and quite thoroughly showed the average citizen that we weren't interested in their day-to-day welfare, nor that we were capable of keeping order.

Besides which, I consider Iraq to be a complete distraction from the real war on terror, and indeed, to create far more anti-US sentiment and more recruiting draw for terrorists than would have been the case if we'd never gone. Look at what's happening now in Afghanistan, which we WERE right to go to: Taliban is slowly taking back the country piece by piece, it now produces 80% of the world's opium and heroin, we never got any of the senior Taliban leadership, nor Osama, etc. How much better would we have succeeded in there if we'd sent 50,000 troops instead of the initial 10,000 or the current 20ish thousand? The fact that they knew they were going to invade Iraq in advance prevented the administration from agreeing to send a REAL force into Afghanistan from the beginning.

As for Saddam, yes, he was a psycho, but what he wasn't is COMPLETELY stupid. Even if he DID end up developing a WMD, the odds of him using it on the US or Israel is effectively zero, as he would know damn well either one of us would turn the country into radioactive glass in retaliation, even were it a terrorist doing it, as we'd immediately assume he'd given it to them. This war was sold at least partially based on the stricture that Saddam was an imminent threat. He was nothing of the kind.

Yes, war is sometimes necessary. Afghanistan is and was necessary. Iraq was NOT. It badly damaged our standing around the world, and has done nothing but serve as a giant recruiting poster for Osama and his ilk. One of the worst blunders of foreign policy ever.

-Arlos

[Harrison]

And I cannot countenance naked aggression and imperialism, which is what I regard the war in Iraq to be. The entire list of horrible offenses could be translated whole to other dictators over the course of time, yet I don't see us fighting in, say, North Korea right now, do you?

Curious, would you rather us fight in both Iraq AND N.K.? (China wouldn't be too happy about this, at all.)

As much as I would love to see the Asian population in my games drop off dramatically, N.K. isn't something we could treat as a "side war" with Iraq being our focus now.

You could tell that what the administration's priorities were immediately after the war. Did any US troops move to secure the museums? The power infrastructure? The water infrastructure? Hell, ANY socially important infrastructure to the average citizen? Nope. Guess where they DID go secure though... That's right, anything to do with oil. The looting and rampant destruction of infrastructure immediately following the end of phase 1 made us look like idiots, and quite thoroughly showed the average citizen that we weren't interested in their day-to-day welfare, nor that we were capable of keeping order.

Remember what happened last time? They set the oil fields on fire. Oil is just as much important to the Iraqi people as their "social infrastructure" key points are.

It does however make a completely false and conveniently used argument piece for conspiracy theories.