Sourdoughman, I think we all get the point that you are pro-war in Iraq. Your attempts to justify it are greatly out of line though. To compare Husien with Hitler is laughable. Yes, Saddam was a bad man. He was a threat to his people. He was cruel and regime change was needed. That is not enough reason to go to war. Saddam is a bleeding heart liberal by standards of the dictators in sub saharan Africa. In our own hemisphere similar attrocities are occuring in Suth America, yet we are not liberating those people. Why Iraq? Some argue (laughably) that there are terrorist cells operating in Iraq. Well, there certainly are now. There weren't when we went in. And if terrorist camps are what we are after we should be scaling up our operations in the Phillipens, Indonesia, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia where terrorist camps are operating openly. Lastly assuming there ever were WMDs in Iraq, the fact that we haven't found them is very discomforting. We destabalized the whole region and have no idea where the goods are. That certainly diminishes the "threat." I just want the radical right, that so badly wanted this war, to admit we got ourselves into a bloddy hornet's nest. Admit that all is not well, but commit to finishing the job.
Still, NO ONE has actually answered anything I have said, so maybe you will answer thing backed up with eve. Even though you guyts don't back up what you say, so I will be happy to be the first to do so. He kicked them out after seven years. And the Un inspectors had taken out most of WMD program, you still haven't answered that fact. So, yes they were allowed back in with us on the door step and in 116 days of inspection, they found one illegal weapon system, which was destroyed. Here is the news flash for you, "Desert Storm, Desert Fox and UN inspectors destroyed his WMD program, as David Kay agrees." Look to my post above, Al Qaeda (i.e. Bin Ladden) called Saddam a moster and the type of illegit government Al Qeada should attack, they HATED each other and the expert is on my side on this one . 1. Most news sources are really bad and I will stand by that. 2. :dis: You don't even use news sources so why do you care. 3. Yes, the inspectors words do help me, but it was never posted on this thread, so I have no clue what you are talking about. 4. Journals and think tanks are the best news sources since they gove you in depth reporting and give cites unlike CNN, FOX News, MSNBC, Wa Post, NY Times, Boston Globe, CSM, I could go on. Now that I have used evedince from many sources (Every little number in the CATO report is a cit to a source by the way), now answer it, instead of finding a way around it. The Khaos Project
You make a case equating Saddam to Hitler and suggest that we had to stop him for the good of the world. So why didn't the world line up behind us as they did in WWII or in Kuwait? Saddam is a petty tyrant on the scale of Idi Amin, Mussolini, or Kim Il Sung--not on the scale of Hitler. We can't be the world's policeman unless the world wants us to be so. Saddam was no direct threat to the US. Al Quaida is the enemy and our president can't seem to focus on it. Conquering Iraq is a waste of resources and a distraction from the war on terrorism. Peace doesn't scare me, Sourdough, and Iraq never did. What scares me is more Islamic terrorism. The jihad is upon us and this president has made one damned blunder after another. Its a new kind of war and we can't fight it the old way.
You Win but answer this question. Do you think it would've happened sooner or later? Would we eventually have to deal with this issue? What would happen if Saddam died and his crazy sons came into power? The point is Saddam might not have been as bad as Hitler but there is no proof either way if Iraq could've turned into a Nazi Germany, I'll give you that. But do we want to wait around and find that out, Or maybe Iraq would've turned into the next Afghanistan with terrorist groups or Iran. I see people here are making lite of terrorist camps in Iraq so I would say that you didn't know anyone who died on Sept. 11, 2001. I would rather have the terrorists fight us in a conventional war in Iraq than fight us in an unconventional war in America when they kill alot more of us and less of them. In an unconventional war over here there almost invisible until its to late. How about you??
You obviously never read any of the posts I pointed you too or you would not have said I do not use news sources. I was also using all of Kay's words not just a few. How logical is it to say you only believe the news sources that you choose to quote and that everything else can be in error but not your sources? Your questions have been answered you just do not like the answer or they are not from one of your approved places for links. Homepages, blogs, message boards, and campaign sites or other obviously biased sites I could understand. Your post still does not answer your previous claims. “And agian we delt with the problem, sending in UN insepectors. They left in 1998, with most illegal weapons destroyed. It worked then and it worked before the war, when the UN got Saddam to destroy illegal missles, just as the US had asked.” “That is a warrentless claim. So show us on this forum and those in the US that he was openly developing a WMD program. Even David Kay, the man we sent into Iraq, said that there was no WMD program and so did Bush, this assumption is based off bad intel.” Heck even you own post admits that Kay “has discovered only ‘WMD-related program activities’.” The other issue was you saying that Osama and Saddam could never be linked simply based on their religious differences and that is incorrect. In the end you may be right, but your reasoning is flawed. You act like Saddam let the UN inspectors in even though he did not want too but wanted to be the better man. When the fact is he had to or face the resumption of war with the US. Clinton did not back this up after 1998 when saddam kicked them out. Bush did. Since you like think tanks: link link2
What blunders would that be when it comes to fighting terrorism? It is easy to say, but it is hard to back up. If you want to bring up anything before 9-11 go ahead, but that opens it up to get to go back 11 years. We are not fighting it the old way. Do you really believe otherwise? or it is a sound bite that you picked up from Kerry? Though I do not think he would even say this since most believe Bush has been fighting this differently.
YESS, Dallas, you used Heritage, my thrid favorit think tank, nice job :wink: . Now to my counter If you notice in the list of sources that aren't good, there are both liberal and conservitive sources. Second, I give alot of sources still, but these are the best, allowing you the best education on the topic. Nothing about Al Qeada link to Iraq has been answered, just WMD, which is only one reason in many. Here are a few: Now I have to ask, why wasn't there 32 countries, including middle eastern countries as there were in the first Iraq war? Who gave him those weapons agian? (Talking about WMD) Ok, this still is no warrent to goto war, if that were true, then we would forced to go into alomst every corrupt 3rd wrold country. So, I have to ask, is this a legit reason to goto war, in the long run. (Talking about how Saddam straved his people and was cruel to them) Yes, but he goes onto say, You have to look at all the things he says. How is my reasoning flawed? They had no links, becuase of religious and ideological reasons. No, he had to let them in, it wasn't like 1998 wasn't the only chance he had to kick them out. What I am saying is in that time, his WMD progam was destroyed, that is that. Rights Abuses: If that is a justification for war, alone, then we have to invade every 3rd wrold country. History of Aggeression: One war, we help them with, the other we delt with them, this doesn't seem to be much of a problem. Hiding Terrorists: This is bunk claim, no proof that it is true. Funding Terrorists: Ehhh, I can see how you get that, but they are anti-Isreali, it doesn't make it better, but that still means we have to go into 30 or more countires. Building WMDs: They never built any, past 1998, I think Kay proves that. There are the reasons for going to war. The Khaos Project
My biggest problem with Iraq is we are dealing with what was a possible threat in the future when real threats exist now. If the tens of thousands of soldiers in Iraq were in Afganistan and Pakistan maybe we would have the man responsible for Sept. 11th. Instead we have thrown over 100 billion dollars into a fight that has no signs of ending anytime soon. All the while Al-Queda is regrouping and other terorrist groups are growing. The Iraqi debackle will serve as a road block in the war on terror. We are losing ground and credibility. And why the hell are we allies with Saudi Arabia? That pisses me off to no end.
We can't have any troops in Pakistan, thier government won't allow it officially from what I've heard. I'm not saying we don't have special forces there. I don't agree with anyones analogy, the more troops we have in Afghanistan or anywhere else the most likely we would get the leaders of the Taliban and Al Quada. I would argue on the other hand that we need troops elsewhere other than chasing down a few individuals here and there. All that matters is we have them looking over thier shoulder and on the run, they have to be very careful about what they say and do. Heck, we could have millions of troops in Iraq looking for Saddam and never find him in a whole somewhere without the help we received. Bin Ladan could dress like a woman and no one would be suspicious because no one knows what they look like in that part of the world. I would even argue that maybe these leaders are in Iran, who knows? If these people are in Iran its a total waste of having more troops over there looking for them, wouldn't you agree? I will acknowledge that i think the strategy in Iraq has been flawed with all the pockets of resistance still remaining, then the terrorists coming into the country from Iran and other places. I would rather fight the terrorist in Iraq where you can see them coming at you however versus they coming to America and killing us when you don't always know who they are! I would argue that iraq isn't a road block for the reasons stated above. It is rather a fly trap for terrorists, they come into Iraq and they are killed.
