The enemy within

HomeLAN said:
Those took 5 minutes to find. chcr, if you don;t see open financial support for terrorists as a threat to national security, I'd submit that you're willingly blind. As such, we were justified in going in.

I'm pissed that we were lied to about WMD's as well (assuming we were), but we were justified in removing this guy.
Click to expand...

Whose national security? I missed the part where Israel asked for our help. Again, no one laments his passing from power. I resent the way the administration turned away from the real enemy in it's zeal to "get Saddam." They were always going to attack Iraq, and now they have. As I said before, getting out will be ugly. War was not justified.
 
freako104 said:
I had been getting they thought there was one but it wasnt definite. Nobody said we werent justified in removing him from power. but not by means of war.
Click to expand...

What other means, precisely, do you think would've worked? Research his background before you answer.
 
chcr, if you don;t see open financial support for terrorists as a threat to national security, I'd submit that you're willingly blind.
Click to expand...

Nothing I can do to cure that condition.
 
freako104 said:
I had been getting they thought there was one but it wasnt definite. Nobody said we werent justified in removing him from power. but not by means of war.
Click to expand...

So how would you suggest we remove someone from power if it becomes necessary, freako? And don't say 'sanctions' because sanctions don't work.
 
HomeLAN said:
What other means, precisely, do you think would've worked? Research his background before you answer.
Click to expand...





been discussed before. I have said negotiations, sanctions on him, assassinate him specifically.


according to Squiggs the sanctions were working.



EDIT: sorry didnt see your post before I made this post Gato
 
sorry for the double post but as far as Sadam funding the terrorists, once again I wonder about that. they said he helped them then said there wasnt a clear connection if one at all.
 
He doesn't negotiate in good faith (left behind a string of broken UN areements), uses sanctions to his own benefit (see how the food for oil program was raped) and assisination of leaders is generally beyond the pale. I'd have gone for that plan, but we'd take just as much heat on the world stage for it as we are on the war.
 
freako104 said:
sorry for the double post but as far as Sadam funding the terrorists, once again I wonder about that. they said he helped them then said there wasnt a clear connection if one at all.
Click to expand...

How many more sources do I need to track down for you, freako? Take a look for yourself. The information is out there.
 
why? we would have gotten him out of power. I thought we had everyone on our case because of the reasons we gave for invading.not because we got him out of power
 
freako104 said:
why? we would have gotten him out of power. I thought we had everyone on our case because of the reasons we gave for invading.not because we got him out of power
Click to expand...


1. Most of those who were on our case were there because they lost lucrative deals with the Hussein government when we removed him from power.

2. We do not, as a nation, use assassination of other world leaders because it makes our leaders fair game. It's a moose nobody wants to tickle.
 
I submit again, the war in Iraq has nothing to do with United States national security. The war in Afghanistan did. Hussein offering bribes to palestinian suicide bombers (I really don't think they do it for money anyway, do you?) did not threaten us. There were many good reasons for wanting him out of power, for intensifying the effort to remove him. I simply don't believe we were justified in going to war to achieve that end. The end does not always justify the means.

I brought this up a long time ago, but maybe it bears repeating. In attacking Iraq I feel like we distracted the muslim terrorists by giving them exactly what they wanted. They were split, but they will unite (maybe) against us, and a lot of the rest of the world will be on their side, not ours.
 
Do you really think that Saddam was going to stop with funding Palestinean terrorism? Seriously, do you?

And Eric... so the sanctions were working, according to squiggy. How did he say they were working?
 
Inkara1 said:
Do you really think that Saddam was going to stop with funding Palestinean terrorism? Seriously, do you?
Click to expand...

Moreover, how do you think he might have reacted to being asked to finance a terror campaign on US soil? I think he'd have jumped for fucking joy.

This guy was the poster child for threat to US national security, and I'm frankly stunned that I have to continue to make a case for that. Were you listening when Bush said that nations who fund terror were targets? Did you agree? If you didn't agree, why was Afganistan an acceptable target? Can't have that one both ways.
 
chcr said:
Sorry, cat, but I don't think you're getting the same thing out of the news that I am. Unless we put our boot firmly on their throats and keep it there, what has been happening will continue to happen more and more. :shrug: I for one am against the whole boot on the throat thing which is one of the reasons I was against the war from the beginning.

The war in Vietnam was so messed up because it was wrong in the first place, IMO. There are reasons to go to war, neither Vietnam or Iraq (or Korea for that matter) met those requirements.
Click to expand...

All I'm saying is that comparison is wrong between the two.
Certain aspects might be comparable, but overall there are
too many differences to just say "this is another Vietnam".
 
freako104 said:
been discussed before. I have said negotiations, sanctions on him, assassinate him specifically.


according to Squiggs the sanctions were working.



EDIT: sorry didnt see your post before I made this post Gato
Click to expand...

According to Squiggy, sanctions would've worked given enough time...but how much time is enough? 12, 13, 14 years? Sorry, but that's too much time to wait for any kind of response.
 
catocom said:
All I'm saying is that comparison is wrong between the two.
Certain aspects might be comparable, but overall there are
too many differences to just say "this is another Vietnam".
Click to expand...

Oh, sorry, then we agree. They aren't really comparable.
 
Gato_Solo said:
According to Squiggy, sanctions would've worked given enough time...but how much time is enough? 12, 13, 14 years? Sorry, but that's too much time to wait for any kind of response.
Click to expand...

I'm just saying that we should have turned up the heat, not simply invaded. We let him do that kind of shit for 40 years, then, when we were attcked by terrorists who were hiding in Afghanistan it suddenly became imperative to remove him from power? Sorry, the whole business just stretched my credulity well beyond the breaking point.

I don't think I agree with your timetable, they were already running out of money. How many lives would make it worth the wait?
 
chcr said:
I'm just saying that we should have turned up the heat, not simply invaded. We let him do that kind of shit for 40 years, then, when we were attcked by terrorists who were hiding in Afghanistan it suddenly became imperative to remove him from power? Sorry, the whole business just stretched my credulity well beyond the breaking point.

I don't think I agree with your timetable, they were already running out of money. How many lives would make it worth the wait?
Click to expand...

They seemed to be running out of money. Saddam had plenty and, thanks to the French and the Germans, it was coming in by the billions. Now how would you 'turn up the heat'? It's easy to critisize, when you don't have to make decisions. Don't give rhetoric, give solid steps. Don't just carp. Come up with a good, solid, workable plan. If you have that, then you might have something.
 
Sorry, Gato (and whoever else), but we're simply going to disagree about this one. I just don't think it was justified. What I think should have happened is that we should have gone after al-qaida and left Saddam for later. The main point to me is that we ignored the real enemy for the administrations personal vendetta.
According to Squiggy, sanctions would've worked given enough time...but how much time is enough? 12, 13, 14 years?
Click to expand...
As for a workable plan, the UN was working within the framework of such a plan, but "we're the Americans, we can't wait." When you (and several others) say it wasn't working, IMO what you're really saying is it wasn't working fast enough to suit you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top