Why we went to war in Iraq - WSJ - Page 2

naffigator · 07-03-2008, 01:23 PM

Originally Posted by CaliforniaCowboy

yeah, and to think that somebody that was actually there (under secretary of the defense) would "revise history" by coming out with the FACTS, as they were at the time they were made by the people that were there.

Wow. The total nonsensical statements being made by the lefties in this thread are beyond comprehension.

And yet the left (in general not necessarily on this site) was strangely silent when Clinton went into Kosovo after Slobodan Milosevic with much less justification.

kaje · 07-03-2008, 01:25 PM

Originally Posted by CaliforniaCowboy

are you whack?

1) Hussien hasn't been in power for the past 6 years.. count any way that you want, but at least try to be sensible.

Not being in power for the past 6 years has nothing to do with the fact that his mass killings happened 17 years ago from THIS YEAR. And most of his killings were in the 80's prior to the Gulf War.

Originally Posted by CaliforniaCowboy

2) I wasn't aware that a Dictator needed a peace treaty WITH HIS OWN PEOPLE... Wow... just wow.

Wow...just wow... He doesn't. I was referring to him killing US citizens/soldiers in that section and I referred to his own people in the section below. Wow...just wow. Try to follow along.

Originally Posted by CaliforniaCowboy

3) ah, no... go read the WSJ thread... he was a problem for 30 years; he invaded Iran, he invaded Kuwait, he bombed Saudia Arabia, he bombed Isreal, he committed genocide against his own people, he brutally killed and repressed those opposed to him, he disregarded the UN sanctions and repeatedly attacked our airforce enforcing the UN no-fly zone, ten years after the fact, are you totally mental?

You can list all the terrible things that you want but it doesn't change the fact that no one thought any of that was a problem big enough to invade until we were attacked by terrorists from another country and needed a scapegoat.

naffigator · 07-03-2008, 01:32 PM

Originally Posted by kaje

Not being in power for the past 6 years has nothing to do with the fact that his mass killings happened 17 years ago from THIS YEAR. And most of his killings were in the 80's prior to the Gulf War.

Wow...just wow... He doesn't. I was referring to him killing US citizens/soldiers in that section and I referred to his own people in the section below. Wow...just wow. Try to follow along.

You can list all the terrible things that you want but it doesn't change the fact that no one thought any of that was a problem big enough to invade until we were attacked by terrorists from another country and needed a scapegoat.

Wow...just wow try to follow along. The original story said they were trying to figure out what to do about Saddam PRIOR to 9/11. We didn't attack Iraq because we needed a scapegoat, we did because they supported and harbored terrorist (among other reasons).

naffigator · 07-03-2008, 01:32 PM

Originally Posted by kaje

Not being in power for the past 6 years has nothing to do with the fact that his mass killings happened 17 years ago from THIS YEAR. And most of his killings were in the 80's prior to the Gulf War.

Wow...just wow... He doesn't. I was referring to him killing US citizens/soldiers in that section and I referred to his own people in the section below. Wow...just wow. Try to follow along.

You can list all the terrible things that you want but it doesn't change the fact that no one thought any of that was a problem big enough to invade until we were attacked by terrorists from another country and needed a scapegoat.

Wow...just wow try to follow along. The original story said they were trying to figure out what to do about Saddam PRIOR to 9/11. We didn't attack Iraq because we needed a scapegoat, we did because they supported and harbored terrorist (among other reasons).

naffigator · 07-03-2008, 01:32 PM

Originally Posted by kaje

Not being in power for the past 6 years has nothing to do with the fact that his mass killings happened 17 years ago from THIS YEAR. And most of his killings were in the 80's prior to the Gulf War.

Wow...just wow... He doesn't. I was referring to him killing US citizens/soldiers in that section and I referred to his own people in the section below. Wow...just wow. Try to follow along.

You can list all the terrible things that you want but it doesn't change the fact that no one thought any of that was a problem big enough to invade until we were attacked by terrorists from another country and needed a scapegoat.

Wow...just wow try to follow along. The original story said they were trying to figure out what to do about Saddam PRIOR to 9/11. We didn't attack Iraq because we needed a scapegoat, we did because they supported and harbored terrorist (among other reasons).

Roman Craig · 07-03-2008, 01:34 PM

Originally Posted by kaje

Not being in power for the past 6 years has nothing to do with the fact that his mass killings happened 17 years ago from THIS YEAR. And most of his killings were in the 80's prior to the Gulf War.

Wow...just wow... He doesn't. I was referring to him killing US citizens/soldiers in that section and I referred to his own people in the section below. Wow...just wow. Try to follow along.

You can list all the terrible things that you want but it doesn't change the fact that no one thought any of that was a problem big enough to invade until we were attacked by terrorists from another country and needed a scapegoat.

Bullcrap. Everyone knew it was a matter of when, not if.

Also Cali, some really important stuff is left out about weapons, wonder why. Why can't we cut and paste articles off the internet about them. Hmmmm. Oh yeah they are classified.

CaliforniaCowboy · 07-03-2008, 01:48 PM

Originally Posted by kaje

Not being in power for the past 6 years has nothing to do with the fact that his mass killings happened 17 years ago from THIS YEAR. And most of his killings were in the 80's prior to the Gulf War.

Wow...just wow... He doesn't. I was referring to him killing US citizens/soldiers in that section and I referred to his own people in the section below. Wow...just wow. Try to follow along.

You can list all the terrible things that you want but it doesn't change the fact that no one thought any of that was a problem big enough to invade until we were attacked by terrorists from another country and needed a scapegoat.

Kaje, I'm going to stop responding to you posts in this thread, since you are having so much trouble with simple timelines and your attempts to deflect the discussion form the topic aren't adding anything to the discussion.

1) the past 6 years has nothing to do with the mass killings of 17 years ago, except THAT IS THE DATE THAT YOU ARE USING IN YOUR DISCUSSION!!! How could he possibly kill more people when he wasn't even in power? Capiche? Please use timelines that actually affect HIM. Most of the "killings" now are by radical extremists, not by the US (although some are by the US). and, you have no proof that "most" of his killings were prior to the first war and not after. Please speak from fact. The facts are that we do not know how many he killed prior to 1990, and we don't know how many he killed after 1990; besides, the 20 years prior is certainly ample more opportinity than the 10 years after ther first war.

2) What are you talking about? YOU SAID, a dictator who was at war killed people from that country.... when we were talking about him killing his own people, with whom he was not at war. Are you "claiming" that he was "at war" with the Kurds? His own people? Are you "claiming" that he was "at war" with the non-Suni's? That was the inference.

3) Yes, it was a problem... please read the WSJ article, which is an excerpt from the book written by a guy that was actually there helping make the decisions....

I'm all for opinions, but please base them on some symbolance of fact.

Your opinions are not support by the actual fact of the situations. Your "opinions" are CONTRARY to the actual facts. You cannot simply ignore the facts because they pose some inconvenient truth to which you cannot speak.

Aviation09 · 07-03-2008, 01:57 PM

Originally Posted by CaliforniaCowboy

Kaje, I'm going to stop responding to you posts in this thread, since you are having so much trouble with simple timelines and your attempts to deflect the discussion form the topic aren't adding anything to the discussion.

1) the past 6 years has nothing to do with the mass killings of 17 years ago, except THAT IS THE DATE THAT YOU ARE USING IN YOUR DISCUSSION!!! How could he possibly kill more people when he wasn't even in power? Capiche? Please use timelines that actually affect HIM. Most of the "killings" now are by radical extremists, not by the US (although some are by the US). and, you have no proof that "most" of his killings were prior to the first war and not after. Please speak from fact. The facts are that we do not know how many he killed prior to 1990, and we don't know how many he killed after 1990; besides, the 20 years prior is certainly ample more opportinity than the 10 years after ther first war.

2) What are you talking about? YOU SAID, a dictator who was at war killed people from that country.... when we were talking about him killing his own people, with whom he was not at war. Are you "claiming" that he was "at war" with the Kurds? His own people? Are you "claiming" that he was "at war" with the non-Suni's? That was the inference.

3) Yes, it was a problem... please read the WSJ article, which is an excerpt from the book written by a guy that was actually there helping make the decisions....

I'm all for opinions, but please base them on some symbolance of fact.

Your opinions are not support by the actual fact of the situations. Your "opinions" are CONTRARY to the actual facts. You cannot simply ignore the facts because the pose some inconvenient truth to which you cannot speak.

kaje · 07-03-2008, 02:04 PM

Originally Posted by CaliforniaCowboy

Kaje, I'm going to stop responding to you posts in this thread

K. I won't bother responding back, then and save myself a lot of time. Thanks.

CaliforniaCowboy · 07-03-2008, 02:08 PM

Originally Posted by Aviation09

Exactly!!

Just like that, Aviation. Nothing to say about any of the topics.

Cannot disprove anything that I've said, so you throw out the old deflection topic.

Instead of "CLAIMING" that I'm a pot calling the kettle black, how about you join in and show me where I'm wrong? I'm open minded. I'm not locked into my positions, so long as there is credivble evidence that I may have missed something.

but no... you libs do the same thing every time.... can't carry any legitimate discussion so you start namecalling and trying to deflect the issues into something the you clam that "I" am...

Stop the deflections and present something credible... please.

Aviation09 · 07-03-2008, 02:17 PM

Originally Posted by CaliforniaCowboy

Exactly!!

Just like that, Aviation. Nothing to say about any of the topics.

Cannot disprove anything that I've said, so you throw out the old deflection topic.

Instead of "CLAIMING" that I'm a pot calling the kettle black, how about you join in and show me where I'm wrong? I'm open minded. I'm not locked into my positions, so long as there is credivble evidence that I may have missed something.

but no... you libs do the same thing every time.... can't carry any legitimate discussion so you start namecalling and trying to deflect the issues into something the you clam that "I" am...

Stop the deflections and present something credible... please.

I still can't get over the fact you called me ignorant on the Presidential candidate I support, while you still believe he is a Muslim, and that he attended a radical Muslim school. I gave you the facts on that, and you dodged it and went on attacking him personally. I don't have time for any type of "discussion" with someone like that. That's why I walked away from the other thread. The only reason I posted in this one is because I enjoy watching idiots get worked up.

If you consider yourself credible, I know that I'm more than credible enough, thanks.

CaliforniaCowboy · 07-03-2008, 02:42 PM

Originally Posted by Aviation09

I still can't get over the fact you called me ignorant on the Presidential candidate I support, while you still believe he is a Muslim, and that he attended a radical Muslim school. I gave you the facts on that, and you dodged it and went on attacking him personally. I don't have time for any type of "discussion" with someone like that. That's why I walked away from the other thread. The only reason I posted in this one is because I enjoy watching idiots get worked up.

If you consider yourself credible, I know that I'm more than credible enough, thanks.

I did not ignore your comments in the other thread, I did not see them... I'll go back and see what you had to say.

In the meantime... from June 14; by Haroon Siddiqui

http://www.thestar.com/printArticle/225233

July 3:
http://www.usvetdsp.com/dec06/obama_muslim.htm

In his autobiography, Dreams From My Father, he mentions his Qur’an studies ....

This merely raises another concern, beyond that of the controversial church he chose to baptize him. If Obama were ever Muslim, even as a youth, he would now be viewed as an apostate, which in radical Islam is punishable by death. As Mideast expert Daniel Pipes has noted, a President Obama could be the target of a fatwah.
http://www.dontvoteobama.net/abongo%20obama.htm

CaliforniaCowboy · 07-03-2008, 02:47 PM

I tried to do a search on your posts, and did not find anything that offers any evidence to the contrary... mind posting a link, or reposting..

Thaks.

Aviation09 · 07-03-2008, 03:51 PM

Originally Posted by CaliforniaCowboy

Obama was raised a muslim... no if's and's or but's. He has studied the Koran, and he did attend a radical muslim school, and he joined a "christian" church that is one of the few that do not require you to denounce your prior religion.

Obama did not attend a radical Muslim madrasah. He attended a Muslim madrasah, but you've yet to provide any evidence that it was radical. Do you think Obama was learning about jihad, honestly? As I stated in the other thread, madrasah simply means school. Of course, the Qur'an (try to remember how to spell it correctly) was taught there, the way the bible is taught in private schools around the U.S. At the age of 10 he moved back to Hawaii where he was taught in a school that required a weekly worship service. From what I can see there are contradictory reports as to what service he attended, but no proof. Regardless, I was required to attend bi-weekly church services during high school and I can assure you that I am not a Christian in any way.

Dictionary.com defines apostate as: 1. a person who forsakes his religion, cause, party, etc. Now, Obama wasn't required to denounce his prior religion to join his new church, right? So how can he possibly be an apostate? You can't have it both ways.

kaje · 07-03-2008, 03:55 PM

I attended church and Sunday school when I was a kid.

I'm not a Christian.

okstateguy987 · 07-03-2008, 06:45 PM

Originally Posted by Aviation09

Obama did not attend a radical Muslim madrasah. He attended a Muslim madrasah, but you've yet to provide any evidence that it was radical. Do you think Obama was learning about jihad, honestly? As I stated in the other thread, madrasah simply means school. Of course, the Qur'an (try to remember how to spell it correctly) was taught there, the way the bible is taught in private schools around the U.S. At the age of 10 he moved back to Hawaii where he was taught in a school that required a weekly worship service. From what I can see there are contradictory reports as to what service he attended, but no proof. Regardless, I was required to attend bi-weekly church services during high school and I can assure you that I am not a Christian in any way.

Dictionary.com defines apostate as: 1. a person who forsakes his religion, cause, party, etc. Now, Obama wasn't required to denounce his prior religion to join his new church, right? So how can he possibly be an apostate? You can't have it both ways.

Muslims see the fact that he is now attending a Christian church, as opposed to a mosque, as denouncing his old religion. I can't believe you missed that. It's what the Muslims think that matters when it comes to this, not what the Christian church thinks.

panhandler62 · 07-03-2008, 08:27 PM

I didn't realize the analogy was so murky.

I do not think it was a good idea to go to war in Iraq. I think it was a situation that was a long way from being an imediate threat and I think it was a big distraction from the more meaningful conflict in Afghanistan.

War, in general, never rises above "it sucks" but it should at least have some rational purpose.

That said; we did it. We invaded, we kicked butt and we blew the house down. Like it or lump it; it is our reposnsibility to rebuild the place and leave it in decent opperating condition, hopefully with a government that will take care of it's people.

I'm not ready to forgive GW Bush, I am not interested in revisionist apologetics and I don't really think that rude bumper stickers about the administration are going to help but am I ready to tell the Iraqi people, "Ooops, we screwed up, sorry for the mess .. see ya!"

Verb · 07-03-2008, 08:47 PM

I don't care what his religion is. My forefathers fought the Revolutionary War so that you, I and Obama could have freedom of religion. And the forefathers of this country and the framers of its constitution, by the way, were Deists themselves.

Only deeply, deeply ignorant people think that all Muslims are fundamentalists. There are nearly a billion Muslims in the world. In the same way that the vast majority of Christians don't handle snakes, the vast majority of Muslims are ordinary, everyday peaceful people. I am sick unto death of racist, sectarian propaganda being floated around this country as "righteousness." It's disgusting. And it certainly is NOT Christian. What would Jesus think?

Epperley28 · 07-03-2008, 09:12 PM

Couldn't have said it better myself, panhandler. It's done, we need to do the job right. That said, I think we need to begin to move out. Just like you'll never learn to ride a bike if you don't take off the training wheels, they will never learn to run their own country if we're always there doing it for them.

This withdrawal needs to be calculated and flexible, with the ability to raise troop levels again, if need be. When McCain says he's willing to stay in for 100 years, I cringe. One of the main reasons radical Muslims attacked us in the first place is our presence in their homeland. One of the main reasons it's easy for extremists to recruit over there today is our continued and unwelcome presence.

To do it wrong will mean this is all for naught. To not do it at all means the same.

naranjaynegro · 07-03-2008, 09:48 PM

Originally Posted by Epperley28

One of the main reasons radical Muslims attacked us in the first place is our presence in their homeland. One of the main reasons it's easy for extremists to recruit over there today is our continued and unwelcome presence.

Do you really think they need a reason to attack us? I don't. I think the reason is because we are the USA and what we stand for, period.

As for terrorist recruiting...I think recruits are easier to come by when they are successful against us. But when they are getting their asses handed to them on the battlefield, recruiting is a bit more difficult.

I, for one, hope we have a continued presence in Iraq for the forseeable future. I believe it's too valuable a place and area of the world to not have eyes and ears on the ground and intelligence gathering capabilities.