AP Reporter Reviews Powell's Case For War

[Doc]

So you like being the bully of the block?

No, not particularly, but it seems to be the role we have ot take. When we were doing nothing to broker peace between Israel and Palistine, people said where is America. When we refused to acknowledge the attempt at blackmail by North Korea, people asked why America was turning its back. It's a simple fact that we are now expected to come in and help, and then when we do we get blamed for trying to impose a uni-polar force on the rest of the world. I'm not a big fan of being a giant thrashing around in chains no one else can see, but that's the way it is right now.

I'd always subscribed to the idea that inaction is more dangerous than action...but then again, think the Delorian was a good car, so my sensibilities are not the best.

[Ken'sPen]

I agree with much of what you are saying.
I just don't like rhetoric. Nor do I care for Bush being deemed a straight shooter, when his policy is anything but straight. I think that Bush shot himself in the foot with Iraq. Before and during the "diplomatic process" we were spending tons of money to amass our troops in battle mode on the Iraq border. NOBODY believed that we really sought a diplomatic solution. so the world sensed we were lying to them.
I do believe we will find weapons in Iraq. But I also believe that Bush and his administration stretched how much they had. Stretched how much of a danger those weapons actually presented. and stretched the ties Iraq had to Al Queda. He stretched the truth too often at a time when he didn't have to.

[Doc]

Bush really did seem to have the red ass for Saddam, didn't he?

I actually like Bush's foreign policy, it's a almost a paradigm shift from our previous policy of sticking our fingers in our collective ears and saying La-La-La-La-I-Cant-Hear-You-La-La-La-La. It's essentially do what we think is right or pay. The only hangup is the Saudis, because we can't think of a way to make them get in line that won't get thousands of innocent Saudis killed. I agree that it is a little stupid of Bush to favour (regards crx) them over everyone else, but we'll see where this goes in time. History is the greatest judge of character

[Ken'sPen]

I agree with "do what we think is right or pay"
only when I think we are right....
or if I agree with decision.

Granted being a Democrat I am sure I will carry a biased feeling against any Republican in office. I just don't care for the way Bush has presented his case. Prior to the war. I watched Blair adress Parliament, and he presented the case point by point. He did NOT use fear, he did NOT use 9-11, he did NOT in my opinion stretch the facts. Just presented what Sadaam had done, and why he felt diplomatic negotiations were no longer viable. I agreed with MUCH of what he said. He swayed me over. I would much rather be won with reason that lied to, or have my emotional heartstrings pulled.

[Keyser Soze]

blair has to face his opponents head on in british parliment. i think we should have something similar. theres nothing like watching blair take on the whole house like they're in tavern calling each other out.

[Sir O]

I actually like Bush's foreign policy, it's a almost a paradigm shift from our previous policy of sticking our fingers in our collective ears and saying La-La-La-La-I-Cant-Hear-You-La-La-La-La. It's essentially do what we think is right or pay. The only hangup is the Saudis, because we can't think of a way to make them get in line that won't get thousands of innocent Saudis killed. I agree that it is a little stupid of Bush to favour (regards crx) them over everyone else, but we'll see where this goes in time. History is the greatest judge of character

And I think history will show that George W. Bush is one of our worst presidents ever.

Yes, action is necessary when there is a genuine threat to our country. 9/11 proved that there are threats out there. But while Afghanistan is still in ruins, why focus our troops on the maybe, possibly, might-be-a-threat-if-we-reeeeeeeeeally-stretch-the-truth Iraq? And in doing so, we pissed off our allies, gave the real terrorists more ammunition against us, and pretty much ignored Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Forgotten. Now we've got an occupation that's getting our soldiers killed on a daily basis, costing us billions of dollars while our economy is very weak, and now we have to deal with Islamic militants flooding back into Iraq.

Not to mention that this war was planned out in 1998 - 3 years before the 9/11 attacks. Link

It was never about weapons or terrorist connections - that was just the excuse given by our government, because people are still scared shitless so anything done in the name of fighting terrorism is automatically justified, whether or not it really IS fighting terrorism.

[Doc]

Wow, it looks like someone got completely brainwashed by the media

Try thinking with your own mind instead of regurgitating what Lou Dobbs said last night, OK bucko.

And by the way, I love the excuse "If we do this, it will just give the terrorists more likely to attack us". Do you honestly think that people who hate America that much NEED an excuse? Please, I'd rather fight for what I know is right than sit back and hope that no one does anything naughty. I think a proactive foreign policy is exactly what the 21st century calls for

[Sir O]

Try thinking with your own mind instead of regurgitating what Lou Dobbs said last night

Who's that?

And I came to these conclusions on my own. I was one of those who said that our government was acting recklessly while everyone else was waiving their flags marching lockstep with the Bush administration and branding anyone who didn't fall in line as terrorist supporters and Saddam lovers. So far, all signs point to me being right.

[Doc]

So far, all signs point to me being right.

I wouldn't be so quick to pat yourself on the back there pal.

The war in Iraq was for a number or reasons, the largest being the threat posed by a regime who defied international law and was pursuing weapons of mass destruction. Now if you don't think that at some time in the future, these weapons would have been sold to or stolen by people wishing to do us harm, you are as naive as they come. Yes, it is a great side benefit that the Iraqi people can be free - in time - but this was about eliminating a potential threat.

And don't give me this "Our troops are dieing every day" crap. You think that doesn't affect the people in power, the people who signed the order to put them in harms way? This is a military of volunteers, ask someone who's served what 'Charlie-Mike' means, and you'll understand that they have to get the job done, because that is what they need to do to protect you.

Oh, one more thing on top of that...this war was not to deflect attention away from the economy, the economy is not that bad. Yes, unemployment is high (Hi Gooch), but the economy has been growing at an average of 2% a year. Compound 2% over 30 years, every Eauropean country would die to have that. The economy is fine, it's people like you that cause panic

[HedCold]

it's people like you that cause panic

and this guy
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.jvim.com/qotw/index.html">http://www.jvim.com/qotw/index.html</a><!-- m -->

[Doc]

Now that is a jive turkey

[I steal watermelons]

Overthrowing the Iraqi regime was kinda of a subtle way of sticking it to the Saudis.

We now control a country with second largest oil reserves in the world that needs money in a bad way. Do you think they are going to give a shit about their OPEC quotos. If the Saudis don't get serious about the extremist elements in there country, we will destory their economy ( and the Saudi royal family loves their money)

[Mad]

it's people like you that cause panic

and this guy
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.jvim.com/qotw/index.html">http://www.jvim.com/qotw/index.html</a><!-- m -->

God Damn that's some scary shit.

So Bush is waging a 'Holy' war?

[The Jays]

Not to mention that this war was planned out in 1998 - 3 years before the 9/11 attacks

Well, at least a war was planned after Saddam decided to wipe his ass with the ceasefire completely and kick weapons inspectors out of Iraq. Unfortunate that a certain former president didn't do anything about it.

Can you explain that reasoning , please? Why would we let an enemy of ours just break a ceasefire and not do anything about it? Sure, Iraq invaded Kuwait, and was a threat to the region until we knocked them out, but it's not like we needed to check up on them, right? So, I guess we could just let a lil thing like that slide.

Now, Bush has said that he knows we will find WMDs. Remains to be seen, but WMDs weren't even necessary to wage this conflict. Saddam was suppose to prove himself to the world that he was not building an arsonal, that he was not pursuing weapons programs, and that he had destroyed all stockpiles.

He never proved himself. And he had ten years to do it. And he was given so many chances. All he had to do was prove that he wasn't doing shit, and he could have merrily killed, raped, and maimed his own people till he was old and grey and jerking it while Uday carried on the family business.

But he didn't. And we were not about to take the chance that he has them.

[Hoon]

I agree.

The Hussien regime brought this on themselves and they depended on the small minds giving them credit for their too little, too late actions.
Even if no WMD's are found is it still not Saddam's ignorance that brought this on?

[I steal watermelons]

What would have happened if the Nazis hightailed it back to Berlin one day before D-day.

This was started in 1991, finished 2003

[Sir O]

The war in Iraq was for a number or reasons, the largest being the threat posed by a regime who defied international law and was pursuing weapons of mass destruction. Now if you don't think that at some time in the future, these weapons would have been sold to or stolen by people wishing to do us harm, you are as naive as they come. Yes, it is a great side benefit that the Iraqi people can be free - in time - but this was about eliminating a potential threat.

There was no threat. It was all fabricated. Real threats do exist...but not in Iraq.

And don't give me this "Our troops are dieing every day" crap. You think that doesn't affect the people in power, the people who signed the order to put them in harms way? This is a military of volunteers, ask someone who's served what 'Charlie-Mike' means, and you'll understand that they have to get the job done, because that is what they need to do to protect you.

Yes, anyone who serves in the military knows that their lives may be put on the line at some point. That still doesn't give government free license to put their lives on the line without proper justification.

Oh, one more thing on top of that...this war was not to deflect attention away from the economy, the economy is not that bad. Yes, unemployment is high (Hi Gooch), but the economy has been growing at an average of 2% a year. Compound 2% over 30 years, every Eauropean country would die to have that. The economy is fine, it's people like you that cause panic

The state of the economy deserves another thread if you really want to get into it. But saying "it's growing by 2% a year, it's just dandy" is not accurate.

Well, at least a war was planned after Saddam decided to wipe his ass with the ceasefire completely and kick weapons inspectors out of Iraq. Unfortunate that a certain former president didn't do anything about it.

You can say his name. I dislike Clinton about as much as I dislike Bush. But this war was not planned because Iraq was in violation of UN sanctions.

"To preserve a military stronghold in the Middle East"

Can you explain that reasoning , please? Why would we let an enemy of ours just break a ceasefire and not do anything about it? Sure, Iraq invaded Kuwait, and was a threat to the region until we knocked them out, but it's not like we needed to check up on them, right? So, I guess we could just let a lil thing like that slide.

A: We have bigger fish to fry. Where is Bin Laden?

B: Inspections were working. The fact that Hussein had no arsenal left to defend his country should support this. It's not like we were "doing nothing", UN inspectors were there and taking care of whatever weapons were left. But you'll probably tell me that the UN is meaningless...

Now, Bush has said that he knows we will find WMDs. Remains to be seen, but WMDs weren't even necessary to wage this conflict. Saddam was suppose to prove himself to the world that he was not building an arsonal, that he was not pursuing weapons programs, and that he had destroyed all stockpiles.

He never proved himself. And he had ten years to do it. And he was given so many chances. All he had to do was prove that he wasn't doing shit, and he could have merrily killed, raped, and maimed his own people till he was old and grey and jerking it while Uday carried on the family business.

But he didn't. And we were not about to take the chance that he has them.

So we divert our attention from Al Qaeda, the real threat, and focus on a petty dictator who may or may not be a threat, but could easily be taken care of after the imminent threat, the PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY ATTACKED US, is removed. How many hijackers on the 9/11 flights were Iraqis? And how many were Saudis?

Maybe it all comes down to what Doc said earlier in this thread...something about giving the government the benefit of the doubt. I refuse to give government the benefit of the doubt. I expect evidence when they say there is a threat, I expect accountability for their actions, and I expect honesty in their words.

I suppose not everyone holds government to such high standards.

[Galt]

Pure and simple. If my military does it; they're right. If they say it; I believe it. You may call me naive. I call you unpatriotic.

[Sir O]

And I can't imagine such blind patriotism...

Especially in a country that was founded by anti-government patriots

Were the Red-Coats right?

[Galt]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
S-A-R-C-A-S-M