The "Why We're In Iraq" Checklist

[vyo476]

Following this will be enumerated the various reasons for the American-led multinational intervention in Iraq, along with further analysis concerning the legitimacy of those reasons and the current stances both sides of the debate have taken in regards to those reasons.

1. Weapons of Mass Destruction

Popularly regarded as the single largest reason the Bush Administration committed American forces to Iraq. Colin Powell summarized the Bush Administration's claims on WMDs in Iraq in a February 2003 speech, stating that "the facts and Iraq's behavior show that Saddam Hussein and his regime are concealing their efforts to produce more weapons of mass destruction." These facts have undergone heavy scrutiny - the revelation of the Downing Street Memo, which stated that American politicians were manipulating intelligence to justify a war, is in glaring contrast to the findings of two non-partisan Congressional committees which have declared that there was no political pressure put on intelligence analysts to provide certain results. While active WMDs were not found in Iraq, degraded chemical weapons from the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s were discovered, as well as significant amounts of evidence that Iraq was fully capable of the production of WMD - admittedly all circumstantial evidence.

The left points to the lack of actual WMDs in Iraq and says that the Bush Administration "lied" about whether or not Iraq had WMDs. They point to the Downing Street Memo as evidence that this was so. They point to the lack of stockpiles of actual WMDs as evidence as well that the main reason for the invasion of Iraq was false.

The right points to the large amounts of evidence that Iraq was capable of producing WMDs and the opinion of the head of the Iraq Survey Group, David Kay, that Iraq probably had chemical and biological weapons but that they were moved to Syria prior to the 2003 invasion.

2. Links to Terrorist Organizations

The other large justification for the Iraq War was that Saddam Hussein maintained links with al Qaeda, and that an invasion of Iraq would be a part of the broader War on Terror. Members of the Bush Administration centered this argument around the purported fact that Iraq was harboring Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, an alleged bin Laden supporter. While evidence of al-Zarqawi's links to al Qaeda are quite prevalent, proving a link beteween al-Zarqawi and Saddam Hussein has proven difficult. The American intelligence community has universally concluded that there was no such link.

The left points to the fact that the entire intelligence community has disavowed that Saddam Hussein had any connection to al-Zarqawi and al Qaeda. They say that connecting the War on Terror to the War in Iraq isn't just because the War in Iraq, the stated goal of which was to remove Saddam Hussein from power, was not initially fighting terrorist forces.

The right points to the fact that terrorists such as al-Zarqawi were able to move about fairly freely in Iraq, irregardless of whether or not they were in bed with Saddam Hussein. They say that the Iraq War was a justifiable extension of the War on Terror as it was targeted at improving Iraq's ability to combat it's own terrorist population - which both sides acknowledge did exist prior to the 2003 invasion.

3. Human Rights Violations

During his more than twenty-year rule, Hussein killed and tortured thousands of Iraqi citizens, including gassing and killing thousands of Kurds in northern Iraq during the mid 1980s, brutally repressing Shia and Kurdish uprisings following the 1991 Gulf War, and a fifteen year campaign of repression and displacement of the Marsh Arabs in Southern Iraq. Neither side disputes these facts.

The left points to the fact that there was little discussion of human rights violations preceding the invasion as evidence that it wasn't really a motivating factor in entrance into Iraq. They also give voice to the opinions of international human rights organizations, including Amnesty International, which have concluded that the violence in Iraq prior to the 2003 invasion was not of a level justifiable for an armed invasion.

The right points to the fact that Saddam Hussein has proven to be one of the most brutal dictators of the late twentieth century, on par in ruthlessness with such leaders as Idi Amin and Pol Pot. They say that any human rights violation, especially on the scale of those committed by Saddam Hussein and his government, are worthy of an intervention.

4. Oil

Many left pundits have claimed that the Iraq War wasn't about any of the above, but was instead over oil, using comments made by Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz to back up this claim. They cite the changeover from dollars to Euros is standard oil dealings in Iraq as being a direct cause of the war (the changeover hurt the dollar), and that America's quick change back to "petrodollars" during the interim American rule directly following the invasion is evidence that oil was a motivating factor in the invasion.

The left points to the above facts as circumstantial evidence that one of the reasons the Bush Administration took the USA to Iraq was oil.

The right denies these claims, stating that control of Iraq's oil resources was an affect of the war, not a cause - that, for example, it was natural for America to assume control over Iraq's oil exports during the interim period, because America was running Iraq - and was attempting to do so as efficiently as possible. To not do so would have a been a dereliction of Iraq's single greatest resource - a loss of efficiency and profits in which would have hurt all the Iraqi citizens who were employed by the oil industry.

In addition to these main reasons, there are several smaller reasons used only occasionally by the Bush Administration to justify the war. These include spreading democracy to the Middle East, establishing a permanent military presence in the Middle East (cited by General Jay Gardner), encouraging other Middle Eastern countries (namely Libya) to abandon WMD programs, preemption of further terrorist ties, preemption of Iranian ambitions on Iraq should Saddam Hussein die or be deposed by anyone other than the USA, and the application of political pressure on Saudi Arabia. None of these has ever been claimed by a member of the Bush Administration to be a major cause of the war.

So, in conclusion...do you think we ought to have gone to Iraq?

[9sublime]

3. Human Rights Violations

During his more than twenty-year rule, Hussein killed and tortured thousands of Iraqi citizens, including gassing and killing thousands of Kurds in northern Iraq during the mid 1980s, brutally repressing Shia and Kurdish uprisings following the 1991 Gulf War, and a fifteen year campaign of repression and displacement of the Marsh Arabs in Southern Iraq. Neither side disputes these facts.

The left points to the fact that there was little discussion of human rights violations preceding the invasion as evidence that it wasn't really a motivating factor in entrance into Iraq. They also give voice to the opinions of international human rights organizations, including Amnesty International, which have concluded that the violence in Iraq prior to the 2003 invasion was not of a level justifiable for an armed invasion.

The right points to the fact that Saddam Hussein has proven to be one of the most brutal dictators of the late twentieth century, on par in ruthlessness with such leaders as Idi Amin and Pol Pot. They say that any human rights violation, especially on the scale of those committed by Saddam Hussein and his government, are worthy of an intervention.



But its fine for America to ignore the Geneva Convention and Human Rights laws and build Guantanamo bay. And its OK for the CIA to torture people. It was never a reason, and if it had been a true reason, the hypocrisy would have been unbelievable.

[Napoleon]

The left points to the lack of actual WMDs in Iraq and says that the Bush Administration "lied" about whether or not Iraq had WMDs. They point to the Downing Street Memo as evidence that this was so. They point to the lack of stockpiles of actual WMDs as evidence as well that the main reason for the invasion of Iraq was false.

What we do know is that the Bush administration actively sought out sources which it knew were unreliable at best but would tell them what they wanted to hear.....for a price. Ahmed Chalabi, for example, was paid more per month than the Vice President of the United States makes in an entire year and was placed in a cushy government position for services rendered. (Isn't interesting that he was accused of being an Iranian spy and ousted from power after pressure started mounting regarding the faulty intelligence?) Then we have "Curveball"; a source which the German government repeatedly told the CIA was "crazy", a "drunk", a "fabricator", and that nothing he said could be verified, yet Colin Powell's entire address to the UN was based on information from him and the Administration presented everything he had to say as undeniable fact.

The right points to the large amounts of evidence that Iraq was capable of producing WMDs and the opinion of the head of the Iraq Survey Group, David Kay, that Iraq probably had chemical and biological weapons but that they were moved to Syria prior to the 2003 invasion.

Which, of course, is a complete distortion of what the report actually says:


"Based on the evidence available at present, ISG judged that it was unlikely that an official transfer of WMD material from Iraq to Syria took place. However, ISG was unable to rule out unofficial movement of limited WMD-related materials." (https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/iraq_wmd_2004/addenda.pdf)


The right points to the fact that terrorists such as al-Zarqawi were able to move about fairly freely in Iraq, irregardless of whether or not they were in bed with Saddam Hussein. They say that the Iraq War was a justifiable extension of the War on Terror as it was targeted at improving Iraq's ability to combat it's own terrorist population - which both sides acknowledge did exist prior to the 2003 invasion.

What the right always manages to omit is that Zarqawi was operating within Kurdish territory, outside of Saddam's scope of control, and that he was wanted by Saddam's regime for a bombing in Baghdad.


Neither side disputes these facts.

Actually, our intelligence agencies have been waffling back and forth, between Iran and Iraq, for decades regarding who gassed the Kurds. Generally, the finger of blame is pointed at whoever the United States hates the most at the time. No one really knows who did it. The interesting thing about Saddam's trial was that none of the witnesses or documents produced by the prosecution pointed a finger at Saddam. In fact, many of them demonstrated that his henchmen had disobeyed direct orders from him when committing those crimes and, in some cases, were punished for it.

They say that any human rights violation, especially on the scale of those committed by Saddam Hussein and his government, are worthy of an intervention.

So, it's fine to ignore genocide in the present to punish someone for allegedly committing genocide 20 + years ago? If they really cared about human rights violations then they wouldn't have turned a blind eye to what was/is going on in Dafur.

So, in conclusion...do you think we ought to have gone to Iraq?

I didn't then and I don't now.

[drippinhun]

The entire runup to our invasion was surreal. Bush would go on television, read a script stating the Saddam hasn't done this, Saddam would comply and Bush's next appearance would move the ball. Again Saddam would comply and Bush would declare that he hadn't even though all observers would say he had. Then Bush would throw out another marker and so on and so forth. Many of us sunk in our hearts as we knew no matter what, many people were about to be slaughtered. Bush had made up his mind and REAL evidence points that he was planning this from the first month he captured the office of the Presidency. What we allowed him to do as a nation was wrong. As wrong as anything any other historical event that have committed. We are the bad guys in this scenario. I don't believe we can ever rectify what we have done.

[Sadistic Savior]

But its fine for America to ignore the Geneva Convention and Human Rights laws and build Guantanamo bay.

Irrelevant even if true. It doesnt make Saddam LESS guilty either way.

The basic fact is that without Saddam's interferrence with weapons inspectors, we would have had no excuse to invade. He could have prevented the invasion by simply cooperating.

[9sublime]

Did you ever find the weapons though?

[drippinhun]

Bush sent our military into Iraq to secure oil for U.S. and British oil corporations and garner control. It also gives us a forward base in the oil producing region. All the other reasons, if you remember, were bantered about until one - bringing democracy - resonated with the U.S. public. But that's a crock of pigeon droppings and not the truth.

[OPGhostdog]

But its fine for America to ignore the Geneva Convention and Human Rights laws and build Guantanamo bay. And its OK for the CIA to torture people. It was never a reason, and if it had been a true reason, the hypocrisy would have been unbelievable.

9Sub, I support your above statement 100%, and the reason I
support it is due to the cat that America needs to take a good
look at itself. Because it seems that America is always pointing
the finger at others, and yet the American government is the one
violating other countries Human Rights.

Another issue is most of you posters is always barking about
what Saddam did, but how many of you can say that Bush is
any better?, and the ones who would make such a claim is the
Republician party (aka Bush Supporters).

That so-called checklist is the same items that is in need to
be looked at, and handled here in America. Can't the weapons
we have developed be considered as Weapon that can do
massive damage to other countries?

Under links to terrorism, I am reading everything about other
countries being involved in terrorism, but I have not read where
the CIA, Secret Service, and other US Government agencies
commit certain acts of terrorism.

Yet we seem to think that we have such of a unique intervention
program going, but where is the proof that its working in Iraq?,
and why this intervention program isn't working here in the USA?

[jb_1430]

Another issue is most of you posters is always barking about
what Saddam did, but how many of you can say that Bush is
any better?,

I can. But Im not a muslim like you. I have different standards of morality.
MARK

[Sadistic Savior]

Did you ever find the weapons though?

Whether we did or not is irrelevant, since we were correct not to simply take Saddam's word for it either way. It was reasonable to assume he was probably lying, given his continual interference with inspectors.

Bush sent our military into Iraq to secure oil for U.S.

If so, we rubber stamped it. Bush is not a dictator...he could not have done anything without our consent. Congress CHOSE to give him war powers, and we elected Congress.

So do you believe that Americans voted to allow the war because they wanted oil?

Another issue is most of you posters is always barking about
what Saddam did, but how many of you can say that Bush is
any better?,

It is obvious to everyone that Bush is better. Thats why statements such as this are ridiculed so much. It shows how completely out of touch you people are.

Yes, you and your tiny minority are the only ones who believe that Bush is not better than Saddam.

Can't the weapons we have developed be considered as Weapon that can do massive damage to other countries?

Yes. There is a double standard. Democracies are allowed to have such weapons. Non-democracies are not.

No, it's not fair. nor should it be.

Under links to terrorism, I am reading everything about other countries being involved in terrorism, but I have not read where the CIA, Secret Service, and other US Government agencies commit certain acts of terrorism.

Can you give a specific example?

Give me an example where any of the above organizations deliberately targeted civilians with the intention of spreading terror.

[9sublime]

We aren't talking about terrrorism, we are talking about going against the Geneva convention.

As for the Muslim comment, thats blatant racism Mark. Its not called for, not all Muslims are the ones that blow each other up, just like every Christian is not part of Rev. Phelps church.

George Bush isn't as bad as Saddam, but Americas presence has made the country much more terroriszed that it was before.

[Sadistic Savior]

We aren't talking about terrrorism, we are talking about going against the Geneva convention.

Then why did you bring up the WMDs?

George Bush isn't as bad as Saddam, but Americas presence has made the country much more terroriszed that it was before.

The condition is temporary. The insurgents do not represent most Iraqis. The polls I have seen indicate that many more people in Iraq want democracy than dont. The terrorists are exploiting the current chaos, but that chaeo wont last forever. Eventually the democracy will become entrenched.

Even conservative estimates say that the insurgents and their supporters combined number less than 200,000 (US military estimates are only a fraction of that...the 200,000 figure comes from the Iraqi government)...that is less than 1% of the population of Iraq. These people do not represent the Iraqi masses. They are a tiny obnoxious minority.

[9sublime]

Then why did you bring up the WMDs?

Because someone else bought them up, and I just said we never found them. The issue I wanted to discuss was Americas willingness to tell other countries to be free, humane and 'Western' but they go against the Geneva convention and Human rights act with Guantanamo and the less than secret torturing by the CIA.

The condition is temporary. The insurgents do not represent most Iraqis. The polls I have seen indicate that many more people in Iraq want democracy than dont. The terrorists are exploiting the current chaos, but that chaeo wont last forever. Eventually the democracy will become entrenched.

And how long do you expect the American troops to maintain such a presence as they have now? Who do you think is more determined? Entrenched, I like it, its a watered down version of 'American Brand Freedom© Forced Upon Them."

Even conservative estimates say that the insurgents and their supporters combined number less than 200,000 (US military estimates are only a fraction of that...the 200,000 figure comes from the Iraqi government)...that is less than 1% of the population of Iraq. These people do not represent the Iraqi masses. They are a tiny obnoxious minority.


Just like how Mark is so willing to accuse someone of having different moral standards because they are Muslim. The ones who actually have a different set of Morals are only minute fraction of the Muslim community.

And 200,000 is a hell of a lot, more than the number of American troops which is around 90,000 with about 50,000 in reserve.

[Sadistic Savior]

The issue I wanted to discuss was Americas willingness to tell other countries to be free, humane and 'Western' but they go against the Geneva convention and Human rights act with Guantanamo and the less than secret torturing by the CIA.

So you believe it is impossible to be free and humane if you go against the Geneva Convention?

And how long do you expect the American troops to maintain such a presence as they have now?

Probably several years. But as long as it takes. the alternatives are worse.

Who do you think is more determined?

Look at America's track record...look at what it took for us to finally withdraw from vietnam. This is a walk in the aprk compared to that.

Entrenched, I like it, its a watered down version of 'American Brand Freedom© Forced Upon Them."

They freely elected their own leaders...so how is anything being forced upon them?

If you have the option of saying "no" you are not being forced.

Just like how Mark is so willing to accuse someone of having different moral standards because they are Muslim.

Whether or not they are Muslim is irrelevant. They want to overthrow a government that was elected by the Iraqi People. They want to impose their will on an unwilling majority. That is what makes them anti-democracy. They are not any different from the Aryan Nations or the KKK in the US.

And 200,000 is a hell of a lot

Not compared to 26 million.

more than the number of American troops which is around 90,000 with about 50,000 in reserve.

With a fraction of the technology, funding, and without the support of the elected Iraqi government.

And keep in mind, that is the HIGH estimate. US military estimates are in the 20,000 to 30,000 range.

[Dave]

But its fine for America to ignore the Geneva Convention and Human Rights laws and build Guantanamo bay. And its OK for the CIA to torture people. It was never a reason, and if it had been a true reason, the hypocrisy would have been unbelievable.

It's pretty offensive that you would compare a strip search, or disrespecting someone's religion to the horrors that took place in under Saddam. What is going on in Guantamo Bay, or the stuff that happened at Abu Ghraib cannot, under any definition of the word, be classified as torture. Plain and simple. Humiliation maybe, but certainly not torture.

[Sadistic Savior]

I agree. Their definition of torture is unreasonably broad, as well as being demeaning to real torture victims.

[9sublime]

I know that Guantanamo bay is not real tortue, but its stilll highly illegal. Being held without trial is one of the worst violations and it goes against everything the consitution stands for, but as these people are outside the constitution the conservatives don't care. Even though Christianity teaches a message of treating others how you in turn would like to be treated, as well as various others that are ignored by the right.

The places where torture by the CIA (or CIA associates/people hired by the CIA) is not in somewhere like Guantanmo, but somewhere much more secret and remote.

If waterboarding is a method they publicly admit to using, then what they don't let the media know/tell people or get foreign agencies to do must be far worse.

[Dave]

I know that Guantanamo bay is not real tortue, but its stilll highly illegal. Being held without trial is one of the worst violations and it goes against everything the consitution stands for, but as these people are outside the constitution the conservatives don't care. Even though Christianity teaches a message of treating others how you in turn would like to be treated, as well as various others that are ignored by the right.

The places where torture by the CIA (or CIA associates/people hired by the CIA) is not in somewhere like Guantanmo, but somewhere much more secret and remote.

If waterboarding is a method they publicly admit to using, then what they don't let the media know/tell people or get foreign agencies to do must be far worse.

I've discussed this whole issue of trials on here before, but to recap, this is not a violation of anyone's rights. The people we are fighting in Iraq don't fit into any of the clear definitions made out when the Geneva Convention was written. They never were legitimate soldiers, so that doesn't make them POW's. They aren't civilians, so a civilian trial doesn't fit the situation. They are something in between the two. They need to be removed from the battlefield, but there really isn't anything to charge them with, so a trial doesn't fit the situation.

Again, like I've said on this board before, during my time in the military I got to meet a ton of military interrogators. They are certainly not taught to violate the Geneva Convention. What the public thinks our interrogators do is a gross misconception of what is really being taught. I can't speak for the CIA, but I have no problem with waterboarding, and if that is what is actually going on I say more power to them. If you have any proof that any actual "torture" is going on, please provide it.

[9sublime]

Well you can find thousands of articles about the Boeing case etc. where the CIA fly suspects to countries where torture is known to be done by the government.

It doesn't matter wether they are civillians or soldiers, they still need a trial. If they are proper terrorists, they don't really deserve one, but they should still get one because once they are denied one the government will only build upon it.

[Sadistic Savior]

I know that Guantanamo bay is not real tortue, but its stilll highly illegal.

I do not recognize foreign law anyway. So if we are violating it, that can only be a good thing. Ideally, I would like to see us withdraw from it alltogether.

Being held without trial is one of the worst violations and it goes against everything the consitution stands for

The Constitution applies to US citizens. Not to foreign nationals.

as these people are outside the constitution the conservatives don't care

Correct. Both legally and morally, they are not entitled to the same rights as US citizens.

Even though Christianity teaches a message of treating others how you in turn would like to be treated, as well as various others that are ignored by the right.

I am a gay atheist. The Bible means nothing to me personally.

If waterboarding is a method they publicly admit to using, then what they don't let the media know/tell people or get foreign agencies to do must be far worse.

Do you have any actual evidence or is this simply an assumption you are making?

You want to apply "innocent until proven guilty" to the prisoners suspected of terrorism, but not to the CIA? Sounds a bit inconsistent dont you think?

It doesn't matter wether they are civillians or soldiers, they still need a trial.

I disagree. Enemy soldiers do not require a trial IMO.

If they are proper terrorists, they don't really deserve one, but they should still get one because once they are denied one the government will only build upon it.

I am willing to take that risk.

[Dave]

Well you can find thousands of articles about the Boeing case etc. where the CIA fly suspects to countries where torture is known to be done by the government.

It doesn't matter wether they are civillians or soldiers, they still need a trial. If they are proper terrorists, they don't really deserve one, but they should still get one because once they are denied one the government will only build upon it.

Soldier's don't get trials. They never have unless its some war crimes trial under international law. If you think of them as soldiers, then how could you try German soldier's captured in WWII? You can't because there is nothing to charge a soldier with. You simply hold them until the fighting is over in order to get them off the battlefield, or do a prisoner exchange. But like I said, they aren't soldiers. They aren't civilians either. There is no classification for what insurgents are. There is no legal document that says what their rights are. You can't violate human rights if there is nothing that says what these rights are.

As for the CIA flights, all of the documents I've seen say that the CIA approved 6 methods of interrogation. The worst of which was slapping and waterboarding. None of these documents could be verified, but even if they were authentic, its hardly what I would consider torture.

[9sublime]

I do not recognize foreign law anyway. So if we are violating it, that can only be a good thing. Ideally, I would like to see us withdraw from it alltogether.

You are very, very arrogant then. Imagine you are in a country and they arrest you and torture you, and you try and complain, and they say that they don't recognize foreign law.


The Constitution applies to US citizens. Not to foreign nationals.

Yes, but it should really shouldn't it, if it applies to you. Its only fair and in the spirit of America.

Correct. Both legally and morally, they are not entitled to the same rights as US citizens.

Morally? You really are a cruel person.

I am a gay atheist. The Bible means nothing to me personally.

I hate organized religion. But America follows Christianity in its government, and if it forces it upon their citizens, they should at least follow the positive teaching accordingly.
Do you have any actual evidence or is this simply an assumption you are making?

You want to apply "innocent until proven guilty" to the prisoners suspected of terrorism, but not to the CIA? Sounds a bit inconsistent dont you think?

No, because the CIA are the government, and should always be trusted as guilty in todays world. If you don't believe the CIA does things behind your peoples backs, you are naive.

I disagree. Enemy soldiers do not require a trial IMO.

I disagree, they should. You would expect your troops to have a trial too.



Look at the Boeing cases for evidence of the CIA taking people abroad for torture.

[Sadistic Savior]

You are very, very arrogant then.

Oh boy am I.

I am likely the most unapologetically arrogant neocon you are ever going to meet.

Imagine you are in a country and they arrest you and torture you, and you try and complain, and they say that they don't recognize foreign law.

I should have clarified; I was speaking of so-called "international law"...not the domestic laws of other democracies.

I do not recognize our Constitution as subordinate to any other law.

Morally? You really are a cruel person.

I am not saying they should be enslaved or anything. I am not saying our troops should not act morally. I am saying they should not be entitled to due process. They should not be permitted to exploit technicallities in the law.

America follows Christianity in its government, and if it forces it upon their citizens

I do not feel that religion is forced on me. I have the option not to worship. I have the freedom to criticize the church openly. I even have the freedom to engage in acts specifically punishable by death in the the Bible.

That would not be true if Christianity were being forced upon me.

No, because the CIA are the government, and should always be trusted as guilty in todays world.

I disagree that the government is guilty by default.

Your position seems to be that if you accuse the government of something, we should automatically assume your accusation is correct unless the government can disprove it. That is absurd IMO.

If you don't believe the CIA does things behind your peoples backs, you are naive.

They may or may not be. But I am unwilling to simply take your word for it. Sorry.

[Truth-Bringer]

Oh boy am I.

I am likely the most unapologetically arrogant neocon you are ever going to meet.


You're also a complete and total moron who has convinced himself he's a genius. LOL

I've dealt with this fraud before folks. If you thought palerider was on crack, just wait til you get a load of this Neocon nutcase.

palerider might not like the addition too much when he realizes Sadistic Savior is a gay Republican...

[top gun]

Some of the posts on this thread are extremely disturbing. :eek:

I read a person who doesn't believe that The United States of America should abide by the rules set forth in the Geneva Convention. WOW! The thing that sets us apart from the other side is our ability to be above torture. Granted the terrorist are not going to stop because we do but that completely misses the entire point.

When we officially or by our publicized acts throw out things like the rules set forth in the Geneva Convention we are saying to every government from then on... You may now torture our soldiers and civilians if you (only you) deem them as "enemy combatants". Be careful what you throw out there my friends because other countries are watching. I seriously doubt when Russia of China or any country that we cannot easily make demands on does this back at us you will still say... throw it out.

I read that same person saying things like... they don't know that the government sometimes misleads it citizens during war time. That he'll take the word of the CIA that they only act appropriately.

This is some very scary stuff my friends. Vietnam is a great and highly publicized example of the government lying about how a war was going... have you not listened to the Nixon/Kissinger tapes! And the events in Iraq aren't even a secret. It's a Civil War between the Shiite & the Sunni with some insurgents thrown in on the side. And we will NEVER stabilize it. We can run it like a prison camp in certain sections but eventually we will leave and they will create their own destiny.

As far as the CIA. We need the CIA. But to say that they play by any honest set of rules is ridiculous. They're called SPOOKS for Christ sake! I implore everyone to be patriotic but NEVER just take what you are being told as the absolute truth by any administration... especially the current one!

[Sadistic Savior]

You're also a complete and total moron who has convinced himself he's a genius. LOL

I've dealt with this fraud before folks. If you thought palerider was on crack, just wait til you get a load of this Neocon nutcase.

I had no idea I intimidated you enough to merit a disclaimer. I guess I'm flattered that you feel so threatened by my posts.

When we officially or by our publicized acts throw out things like the rules set forth in the Geneva Convention we are saying to every government from then on... You may now torture our soldiers and civilians if you (only you) deem them as "enemy combatants".

An empty threat, since they will do so anyway. Whether we adhere to the Geneva Convention rules or not.

Be careful what you throw out there my friends because other countries are watching. I seriously doubt when Russia of China or any country that we cannot easily make demands on does this back at us you will still say... throw it out.

Watch me.

It is pointless to abide by rules that cannot be enforced.

This is some very scary stuff my friends.

Assuming that accusations are true by default is more disturbing.

This is some very scary stuff my friends. Vietnam is a great and highly publicized example of the government lying about how a war was going... have you not listened to the Nixon/Kissinger tapes! And the events in Iraq aren't even a secret.

The problem with that is, where does it stop? What accusation is too ridiculius to believe?

As far as the CIA. We need the CIA.

As a catch-all scapegoat apparently.

[Truth-Bringer]

Some of the posts on this thread are extremely disturbing. :eek:

Tell me about it...


This is some very scary stuff my friends. Vietnam is a great and highly publicized example of the government lying about how a war was going... have you not listened to the Nixon/Kissinger tapes!

Exactly, check out my post at the bottom of the page here:

http://houseofpolitics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=882&page=4

[Truth-Bringer]

I had no idea I intimidated you enough to merit a disclaimer. I guess I'm flattered that you feel so threatened by my posts.


Oh, I'm not threatened at all, Captain Nutcase. You're a sophist who relies solely on obfuscation and deception. I'm simply warning people who don't know you as well as I do, that you not only drink the Kool-Aid, but you take it intravenously as well.

[Sadistic Savior]

Oh, I'm not threatened at all, Captain Nutcase.

Are you sure? This is the second post I have seen from you complaining about me in the last five minutes. Do you do that for everyone? heh heh

I'm simply warning people who don't know you as well as I do

If it is so obvious, wont they see it for themselves?

[9sublime]

You said on the 2nd page you were willing to take the risk of allowing the government to slowly steal your freedoms by putting in place more and more terror laws. Can't you see, these terror laws are not just for abroad, they are for your homeland. They're to restrict you and what you do so that the government can have an easy ride when it comes to disobedient citizens in the future.

By the way, I hate conspiracy theories, they are always so ridiculous in general. However, two I do believe in is that

1. The CIA is commiting deeds against what America stands for and what the peaceful public would want, and it is sinking to the level of the terrorists in terms of torture.

2. Slowly but surely, we are having our freedoms taken away from us, for the greater good. Thats not even a conspiracy, thats fact. The question is, how far will they take it, how soon will we be in a 1984-style world? What we need is for the world to run out of oil and pull everything back three or four decades to a time when we had a bit more freedom.

[Truth-Bringer]

This is the second post I have seen from you complaining about me in the last five minutes. Do you do that for everyone?

No, just for the trolls I've encountered in other forums. I'm just giving them the low down.



If it is so obvious, wont they see it for themselves?

Absolutely. As I said, I'm just trying to save them some time.

[Sadistic Savior]

You said on the 2nd page you were willing to take the risk of allowing the government to slowly steal your freedoms by putting in place more and more terror laws. Can't you see, these terror laws are not just for abroad, they are for your homeland. They're to restrict you and what you do so that the government can have an easy ride when it comes to disobedient citizens in the future.

There is not a single law in the US that cannot be altered. Not one. Not even the Constitution.

If we decide to remove the terror laws, there is not a damn thing the government can do to stop us. All we have to do is elect politicians into office that share our views. The power is entirely our's.

Slowly but surely, we are having our freedoms taken away from us, for the greater good.

...and with our consent, because the alternatives are worse.

We can regain those "freedoms" any time we choose.

The question is, how far will they take it, how soon will we be in a 1984-style world?

When it gets to the point where we have given up power we cannot regain, that is when we enter a 1984-style world. So far that has not happened, and it is extremely unlikely to happen in the future. Liberals grossly exaggerate the situation.

Exactly what freedoms have you lost that are irreplacable?

What we need is for the world to run out of oil and pull everything back three or four decades to a time when we had a bit more freedom.

The trade-offs we would have to make would be unacceptable IMO. I prefer what we have now. And I think the vast majority of Americans would as well.

The good old days werent always good and tomorrow isnt as bad as it seems.

[OPGhostdog]

I can. But Im not a muslim like you. I have different standards of morality. MARK

Mark!!!! What does being a Muslim have to do with today's reality?,
and the only reason why you can is because you're a Bush supporter.
That's the problem now...you Bush people seem to think that Bush is
some kinda GOD, and I am thinking in a completely different direction.

I can tell by your hate that you are not a Muslim...Mark, and you are
like your political partners who believe in different standards of moral-
ity. Which to me is a plain simple case of Religious discrimination, and
yes I am a member of the Muslim faith, and do believe in our traditions.

Now This is a reply to Sadistic Savior's post # 10. You need to re-edit
that entire post, due to the fact that you is one of these individuals
with a mindset of their own, and you are trying to quote everything I
have said in your own words.

[Sadistic Savior]

Now This is a reply to Sadistic Savior's post # 10. You need to re-edit that entire post, due to the fact that you is one of these individuals with a mindset of their own, and you are trying to quote everything I have said in your own words.

All of your quotes are verbatum. I did not modify them. If you believe I misinterpreted your words, feel free to clarify.

Since I believe my itnerpretation was accurate, I have no intention of editing my post further.

[OPGhostdog]

Whether we did or not is irrelevant,
since we were correct not to simply take Saddam's word for it either way.
It was reasonable to assume he was probably lying, given his continual
interference with inspectors.

If so, we rubber stamped it. Bush is not a dictator...he could not have done
anything without our consent. Congress CHOSE to give him war powers,
and we elected Congress.

So do you believe that Americans voted to allow the war because they wanted oil?
It is obvious to everyone that Bush is better. Thats why statements such as this
are ridiculed so much. It shows how completely out of touch you people are.

Yes, you and your tiny minority are the only ones who believe that Bush is not
better than Saddam.

Yes. There is a double standard. Democracies are allowed to have such weapons. Non-democracies are not.

No, it's not fair. nor should it be.

Can you give a specific example?

Give me an example where any of the above organizations deliberately
targeted civilians with the intention of spreading terror.


So you're telling me that Bush don't lie? and why should non-Bushers
believe his lying ass? If so, we rubber stamped it.
Bush is not a dictator...he could not have done anything without our consent.
Congress CHOSE to give him war powers, and we elected Congress.

At the time Congress was majority of Republicians, and they are the
ones who voted...have you forgot the majority rules?

[quote=Sadistic Savior] It is obvious to everyone that Bush is better.

Who is everybody? Everybody isn't kissing Bush's butt or is thinking
that he is doing a great job by killing innocent people in the Middle East.

[quote=Sadistic Savior] your tiny minority are the only ones who believe
that Bush is not better than Saddam.

Again, Who said Saddam was a great leader?, and I know damn well
that Bush was never a leader with his vote steal ass.

[quote=Sadistic Savior] Give me an example where any of the above organizations
deliberately targeted civilians with the intention of spreading terror.

In Closing, You must be drunk off of Mountain Dew, or are you just
stuck on being ignorant? Look at the last quote of yours where you
asked me to give you an example. Whereas if you understand my
post it is mentioned in there. The agencies I named is in on whatever
the President orders.

[Sadistic Savior]

So you're telling me that Bush don't lie?

I have been debating a long time on forums like this. To date not a single person has been able to prove that Bush lied about anything.

Being wrong is not the same as lying. Having a strong opinion is not the same as lying.

and why should non-Bushers believe his lying ass?

No one says you have to. But it is only your opinion that he has lied...it hasnt been objectively proven.

At the time Congress was majority of Republicians, and they are the ones who voted...

It was not only republicans that voted to give him war powers. At least two Democrat Presidential candidates did as well. No one forced them to do that.

have you forgot the majority rules?

Not all majorities are the same. Some of our laws require a 2/3 majority.

Me: It is obvious to everyone that Bush is better.

Who is everybody?

In this context, "everybody" is the vast majority of the American population.

Everybody isn't kissing Bush's butt or is thinking
that he is doing a great job by killing innocent people in the Middle East.

Please post your evidence that Bush has ordered the deliberate killing of innocent people in the Middle East.

You: Another issue is most of you posters is always barking about what Saddam did, but how many of you can say that Bush is any better?

Me: your tiny minority are the only ones who believe that Bush is not better than Saddam.

Again, Who said Saddam was a great leader?,

That is called a Strawman (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/straw%20man).

I was not countering the claim that someone said Saddam was a great leader. I was countering the implication by you that Bush is as bad or worse than Saddam. He obviously is not to most people.

and I know damn well
that Bush was never a leader with his vote steal ass.

If you have evidence, feel free to present it.

Under our system, the Presidential election is determined by the electoral college, not popular vote.

In any event, he won both in the second election anyway...which means that he gained support over his first term.

Me: Give me an example where any of the above organizations deliberately targeted civilians with the intention of spreading terror.

In Closing, You must be drunk off of Mountain Dew, or are you just stuck on being ignorant?

Is that an admission that you cannot provide an example where any of the above organizations deliberately targeted civilians with the intention of spreading terror?

Whereas if you understand my post it is mentioned in there.

Can you quote it? I did not see an actual example.

The agencies I named is in on whatever the President orders.

You did not provide specific example, just accusations. They are not guilty simply because you accuse them.

[jb_1430]

We aren't talking about terrrorism, we are talking about going against the Geneva convention.

As for the Muslim comment, thats blatant racism Mark.

Muslim isnt a race and I dont even know what race ghostdog belongs to. My comment had nothing to do with race, let alone racism. MARK

[OPGhostdog]

I have been debating a long time on forums
like this. To date not a single person has been able to prove that Bush lied
about anything.

Damn Sadistic, You don't believe a damn thing anyone say, but your
mouth is a pray book? Your ignorances is pissing me off. Who really
care about how long you been on the internet forums? A single person
has given the reply that you wanna hear. Bush lied when he gave the
reason for going into Iraq, and bringing Saddam down...that's 1 of his lies.


[quote=Sadistic Savior] being wrong is not the same as lying.
Having a strong opinion is not the same as lying.
This statement makes you a Joke.

[quote=Sadistic Savior] But it is only your opinion that he has lied...
it hasnt been objectively proven.
It was not only republicans that voted to give him war powers.
At least two Democrat Presidential candidates did as well.
No one forced them to do that.

That's why they did not win their candidancy.


Not all majorities are the same. Some of our laws require a 2/3
majority. In this context, "everybody" is the vast majority of the
American population. Sadistic Savior, you must be a true Bush
fan? It seems to me you are a confused individual who like to shift
things on other peoples opinions and thoughts.

Please post your evidence that Bush has ordered the deliberate killing
of innocent people in the Middle East. Damn Sadistic, you need help badly
Listen, Bush is the one who ordered the invasion of Iraq in the beginning,
without really realizing the innocent lifes that would be taken, and once
he did realize the fact he has done NOTHING to stop it. Now its so bad
until we have losted thousands and thousands of our Troopers lifes,
and Bush still havn't had enough yet.


I was not countering the claim that someone said Saddam was a great leader.
I was countering the implication by you that Bush is as bad or
worse than Saddam. He obviously is not to most people. Again Sadistic,
you are calling me out about my opinion, and like I said Bush is the
worse President United States ever had.

[Sadistic Savior] Under our system, the Presidential election is determined
by the electoral college, not popular vote. In any event, he won both
in the second election anyway...which means that he gained
support over his first term.

[quote=Sadistic Savior] Is that an admission that you cannot provide
an example where any of the above organizations deliberately targeted
civilians with the intention of spreading terror?

Sadistic ..Have you ever served in any branch of the Arm Services?
Don't lie by claiming you served anywhere, and why I said that is
because IF you have ever experienced any kind of War contact you
wouldn't be posting that garbage you posting.

You did not provide specific example, just accusations. They are
not guilty simply because you accuse them. I have accused
them based on past performance in Viet Nam, Somalia,Desert Storm,
and where ever else that the United States government wanted
interest.

What you need to do is to update yourself concerning foreign affairs,
and look at the facts about how many cold wars have we won? Plus
common senses will show you that most conflicts would have died
down if the American government agencies did not keep confusion
going.

I am pulling myself back from this paragenda bs you are trying to
run on me, and it won't work on me. So going play with your
toy duck. Again, like I have posted many times I am a Black, and
I am a Muslim.

[Sadistic Savior]

Damn Sadistic, You don't believe a damn thing anyone say

Look whose talking, heh heh

No, I am not going to assume someone is guilty merely because they are accused.

but your mouth is a pray book?

Um...when have I asked you to take my word for anything? I dont project my opinions as if they are fact.

Bush lied when he gave the reason for going into Iraq

What did he lie about? Can you quote him?

Me: being wrong is not the same as lying. Having a strong opinion is not the same as lying.

This statement makes you a Joke.

So you believe that if someone is wrong, that they are also lying?

If it makes you feel better to believe that, go right ahead. But most people do not define a lie as being wrong or having a strong opinion. I think your are in the minority.

Me: It was not only republicans that voted to give him war powers. At least two Democrat Presidential candidates did as well. No one forced them to do that.

That's why they did not win their candidancy.

The "why" is irrelevant. The fact is that they did it. They gave their consent to the war by doing that. No one forced them to do it.

Bush does not have the power to override Congress. The reverse is not true however.

Me: You did not provide specific example, just accusations. They are not guilty simply because you accuse them.

I have accused them based on past performance in Viet Nam, Somalia,Desert Storm, and where ever else that the United States government wanted interest.

That is an assumption, not proof. You gave reasons why you hold your opinion, but you have not given actual evidence that they have done what you accuse them of doing.

In America you are expected to provide evidence when accusing someone. They are not guilty by default.

What you need to do is to update yourself concerning foreign affairs

And I can only do that by adopting your point of view, is that what you are saying?

look at the facts about how many cold wars have we won?

What does that have to do with anything? Please clarify.

(The answer is: at least one)

I am pulling myself back from this paragenda bs you are trying to run on me, and it won't work on me.

You should do what makes you feel better. No one is forcing you to respond to my posts. I am perfectly happy to simply comment on your's.

Again, like I have posted many times I am a Black, and I am a Muslim.

Irrelevant even if true. On an anonymous forum, credentials mean nothing. only the argument (and the evidence or logic used to support it) matters.

[OPGhostdog]

[quoted=Sadistic Savior] Irrelevant even if true. On an anonymous
forum, credentials mean nothing. only the argument.

Anonymous!!!! Hahahaha That's another joke. Why should any
one hide or conceal their ID if they have nothing to hide? Believe
me I have NOTHING to hide, and I do stand behind anything that
I will say or do.

Or is it hard for many of you blue eyed devils to accept the truth
from a well educated Black Brother? This has been the problem with
the Anglo-Saxons (whites here in America). They have always wanted
to be the ones who is always right, and everyone else is always wrong.

Sadistic Savior, To live a life as a Muslim, and to be looking from the
outside in is two different means of education. AKA Know What You
Are Talking About.

[Sadistic Savior]

Me: Irrelevant even if true. On an anonymous forum, credentials mean nothing. Only the argument.

Anonymous!!!!

Did I stutter?

Hahahaha That's another joke.

No. This is my serious face.

Why should any one hide or conceal their ID if they have nothing to hide?

Because their argument has no merit without credentials to back it up. That seems obvious to me. There are many reasons people would lie on an anonymous forum. Egos run rampant here.

Believe me I have NOTHING to hide, and I do stand behind anything that I will say or do.

Maybe. But I dont know you. So I am unwilling to simply take your word for it.

Or is it hard for many of you blue eyed devils to accept the truth from a well educated Black Brother?

Would you just accept my claims without evidence too? Dont be a hypocrite.

This has been the problem with the Anglo-Saxons (whites here in America). They have always wanted to be the ones who is always right, and everyone else is always wrong.

I am not asking you to take my word for anything though. By contrast, you ARE asking me to assume you are correct.

Sadistic Savior, To live a life as a Muslim, and to be looking from the outside in is two different means of education. AKA Know What You Are Talking About.

I have not seen evidence that you know more than I do. What makes you so special that you should be held to a different standard than everyone else?

[palerider]

I've dealt with this fraud before folks. If you thought palerider was on crack, just wait til you get a load of this Neocon nutcase.

You say that like you beleive you have actually won an argument with me. Talk about being on crack.:cool:

[OPGhostdog]

[QUOTE=Sadistic Savior;12453]Did I stutter?

No. This is my serious face.

Because their argument has no merit without credentials to back it up. That seems obvious to me. There are many reasons people would lie on an anonymous forum. Egos run rampant here.

Would you just accept my claims without evidence too?....

[Ghostdog...Reply]
The answer would depend on how much merit your statement
have, and if I can be one who accept that you posted a simple
reply or answer.

I have not seen evidence that you know more than I do.
What makes you so special that you should be held to a
different standard than everyone else?

Sadistic, I do not and will not try to impress you or anyone else
by reply with a bunch of political BS. These debate forums was
designed for level minded individuals to sign onto to exchange
political viewpoints, and not for the purpose to tell someone
that their wrong for expressing their opinions or thoughts a
certain way.

In closing, I am going to use your exact words as an example.
[quote=Sadistic Savior] I have not seen evidence that you know
more than I do. What makes you so special that you should be
held to a different standard than everyone else?

You're questioning me in a indirect way, due to the fact that you
have become defensive, and it shows where you're on here to
argue issues instead of contributing to seeking out a solution.
Standards?? We all have certain standards that we live by, and
its not the point about one having standards...its about solving
the problem.

[Sadistic Savior]

Me: Would you just accept my claims without evidence too?....

The answer would depend on how much merit your statement have

Translation: No. Not unless my evidence supported your conclusion.

Sadistic, I do not and will not try to impress you or anyone else by reply with a bunch of political BS.

It is not necessary to impress me in order to support your argument with objective evidence.

These debate forums was designed for level minded individuals to sign onto to exchange political viewpoints, and not for the purpose to tell someone that their wrong for expressing their opinions or thoughts a certain way.

As far as I can tell you are not an administrator on this forum. So you cannot really know the motive for creating it any more than I can.

"Level headed" is an ambiguous and subjective term, which in my experience really means "people who agree with me".

In closing, I am going to use your exact words as an example."I have not seen evidence that you know more than I do. What makes you so special that you should be held to a different standard than everyone else?"

How am I holding you to a different standard than myself?

You're questioning me in a indirect way, due to the fact that you have become defensive, and it shows where you're on here to
argue issues instead of contributing to seeking out a solution.

if you really believe that, why do you respond to my posts at all?

We all have certain standards that we live by, and
its not the point about one having standards...its about solving the problem.

Before the problem can be solved we have to agree on what the variables are. You are expecting me to take your word for it what certain variables are. I am unwilling to do that. I suspect I am not the only one.

[OPGhostdog]

Quote=PoliticalGhostdog] Sadistic, I do not and will not try to impress you
or anyone else by reply with a bunch of political BS.

[qoute=PoliticialGhostdog] These debate forums was designed for level minded individuals to sign onto to exchange political viewpoints, and
not for the purpose to tell someone that their wrong for expressing their opinions or thoughts a certain way.

Sadistic Savior said..It is not necessary to impress me in order to support your argument with objective evidence. As far as I can tell you are not an administrator on this forum. So you cannot really know the motive for creating it any more than I can.

Asshole who said I was, and if I was I banned your a88 for being
ignorant. Why do you twist **** up to suit your benefits?
Where in my above quote sentences do you read where I said
that I am this site's administrator?

You are showing me just how self-centered,ignorant, and selfish you
are, and I bet you did not read this sites Terms of Service agreement.
Because if you did you would not have posted a pre-school statement
concerning me being the administrator.

Common senses would tell anyone who enter this site what the motive
was behind the creation of this site. Plus you must not have completed
the fifth grade, due to the fact that your reading comprehension is
way down. Anytime you can't see or realize the motive that this site's
Creator or Administrator used to develop this site.

Sadistic Savior, I suggest that you go play with someone else on this
site that believes in your childish bull****. Now I have came to you
in a nicely matter, and if you continue your childplay I shall submit a
complaint against you to the Administrator on the grounds of harrassment,
and on the violations of the terms of service agreement.

[9sublime]

Unless he's sending you PM's or something, then hes not harrasing you. Just ignore his posts. I don't like his views very much, but I don't think he should be banned.

[OPGhostdog]

Unless he's sending you PM's or something, then hes not harrasing you. Just ignore his posts. I don't like his views very much, but I don't think he should be banned.

What is something? 9Sub? I have just as much rights to sign on to
any one of these threads without every post I submit being put in
check by a nobody. Ignore? Why should I have to ignore anyone on
this site? When all they have to do is to abide by the TOS?

I am going to say this about the situation. Just like you moderators
seem to overlook people like Sadistic Savior. People like Sadistic can
get the same treatment back or made even worse.

I do not believe in ignoring someone ignorant, and when I get enough I am
attacking back. Plain & Simple.

[Sadistic Savior]

Asshole who said I was

I am curious, do all Muslims resort to petty vulgar insults, or is it just you?

The Muslims on the Al-Qassam (http://www.alqassam.ps/vb3/) forums didnt resort to vulgar insults, even though most of them violently disagreed with me.

You: These debate forums was designed for level minded individuals to sign onto to exchange political viewpoints, and not for the purpose to tell someone that their wrong for expressing their opinions or thoughts a certain way.

Me: As far as I can tell you are not an administrator on this forum. So you cannot really know the motive for creating it any more than I can.

Where in my above quote sentences do you read where I said
that I am this site's administrator?

You were making a claim (quoted above) as to what these forums were designed for. My point was that the person who created the site would know what he designed these forums for. Not you.

You are showing me just how self-centered,ignorant, and selfish you are, and I bet you did not read this sites Terms of Service agreement.

Nope. If I violate the TOS they can always ban me. I am prepared to take that risk.

Common senses would tell anyone who enter this site what the motive was behind the creation of this site.

Once again you make an assumption and then proceed as if it were fact. You have no way of knowing why the administrator created this site.

btw - What ever happened to your threat not to argue with me anymore? Did you change your mind?

Sadistic Savior, I suggest that you go play with someone else on this site that believes in your childish bull****.

Who says I'm not already? You're not the only person I've responded to.

Now I have came to you in a nicely matter

Heh heh...you called me an asshole multiple times. Thats "nicely" to you? Are you for real? heh heh

if you continue your childplay I shall submit a complaint against you to the Administrator

Why wait? You should do it right now. There are some admins in this very thread.

Ignore? Why should I have to ignore anyone on this site?

You dont. You can respond to my posts if you want to.

Can you post which part of the TOS you think I violated?

I do not believe in ignoring someone ignorant, and when I get enough I am attacking back. Plain & Simple.

You should do whatever makes you feel better.

[USMC the Almighty]

Guys -- take your petty little arguing elsewhere. Candidly, nobody really cares. You're just two guys in front of their computers who came to this forum to talk about politics, not bring up old grudges. Back to the Iraq War checklist...

[drippinhun]

Now that is all done, let's get back to the reason we are in Iraq and why will be doing surgical air strikes on Iran before the end of this year. Control of Oil. We are a petroleum junkie. Our economy and livelihoods depend on it. And it would take at least 25 years to wean ourselves off of it IF our government were to start enacting a balls-to-the-wall shift to conservation and alternative energies today's technology that are realistic in costs. And our government isn't.

[Beetle Bailey]

Guys -- take your petty little arguing elsewhere. Candidly, nobody really cares. You're just two guys in front of their computers who came to this forum to talk about politics, not bring up old grudges. Back to the Iraq War checklist...

Thank you. I'm new here. So I am just observing for now. I was beginning to think that this was like so many other internet political discussion forums. You know, where important issues devolve into pompous pissing matches. I am glad the moderators are paying attention.

[Sadistic Savior]

Now that is all done, let's get back to the reason we are in Iraq and why will be doing surgical air strikes on Iran before the end of this year. Control of Oil.

How do you know we really dont feel threatened by Iran and Iraq for military reasons?

We are a petroleum junkie. Our economy and livelihoods depend on it.

We get more oil from Canada than we do from any Middle-Eastern nation. - http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbbl_m.htm - More than the entire Persian Gulf combined.

No, we dont absolutely need it. It's a convenience.

Dont believe me? Look up the current driving statistics for Americans...we are not driving less, despite higher gas prices.

And it would take at least 25 years to wean ourselves off of it IF our government were to start enacting a balls-to-the-wall shift to conservation and alternative energies today's technology that are realistic in costs. And our government isn't.

What do you base that estimate on?

[palerider]

We aren't talking about terrrorism, we are talking about going against the Geneva convention.

The Geneva conventions were written for soldiers at war. They apply to enemy combattants. The people who were sent to the camp in cuba were unlawful combattants. They wore no insignia. They were answerable to no responsible officer, and the list goes on. They have no rights under the geneva conventions.

[palerider]

By the way. This is why we are in iraq. Any reasons listed that are not found here are nothing more than hyperbole.

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in "material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations" and urged the President "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations" (Public Law 105-235);

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;

Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677";

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1)," that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and "constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region," and that Congress, "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688";

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to "work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge" posed by Iraq and to "work for the necessary resolutions," while also making clear that "the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable";

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region;

Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq".

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS

(continued)

[palerider]

(continuation)

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(b) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to


(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.

In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and

(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS. --


(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION. -- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS. -- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS

(a) The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 2 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of Public Law 105-338 (the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998).

(b) To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of Public Law 93-148 (the War Powers Resolution), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

(c) To the extent that the information required by section 3 of Public Law 102-1 is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of Public Law 102-1.

[Sadistic Savior]

I skip over cut-and-paste posts.

[palerider]

I skip over cut-and-paste posts.

You expect for me to type out the entire Iraq resolution? It was nice of you to inform me that you very well might be misinformed or completely uninformed because you skipped over important material because it was from another source; simply skipping over material because of its nature is shortsighted and stupid. Information is either correct, or it is not. The iraq resolution outlines exactly why we are in iraq. Reasons quoted that are not found in the resolution are lies.

[Sadistic Savior]

You expect for me to type out the entire Iraq resolution?

You could always link to it and quote the parts relevant to your post. Why does the entire thing have to be replicated here?

It was nice of you to inform me that you very well might be misinformed or completely uninformed because you skipped over important material because it was from another source; simply skipping over material because of its nature is shortsighted and stupid. Information is either correct, or it is not.

I dont waste time scanning irrelevant data. Sorry.

What point were you trying to make with your post?

The iraq resolution outlines exactly why we are in iraq.

However many people on here might interpret it differently than you do. Thats why we need to know your position first, and what part of the resolution you are refrencing specifically to support your position.

[palerider]

You could always link to it and quote the parts relevant to your post. Why does the entire thing have to be replicated here?

Because the title of this thread is "The "Why We're in Iraq" Checklist" and every part of that resolution is relavent as it outlines explicitly the reasons we are in Iraq.

I dont waste time scanning irrelevant data. Sorry.

Why we are in Iraq is irrelavent data? I see.:rolleyes:

What point were you trying to make with your post?

That we are in Iraq for very specific reasons that were outlined and voted on by our representatives. There are many out there who are making up reasons that simply are not true. One can look at the list and see the actual reasons we are in iraq.

However many people on here might interpret it differently than you do. Thats why we need to know your position first, and what part of the resolution you are refrencing specifically to support your position.

What my position is is COMPLETELY irrelavent to the facts of why we are in Iraq. It doesn't matter a whit whether I am for the war or against the war. The resolution outlines exactly why we are there. The subject of this thread demanded an actual check list of why we are there and the resolution is the only factual checklist.

[Sadistic Savior]

Why we are in Iraq is irrelavent data?

Cutting and pasting reasons without comment is irrelevant data, yes.

I am kinda glad Politicalforum.com is finally working again. A lot of the users on this forum seem really lazy. It was fun while it lasted.

[Napoleon]

The Geneva conventions were written for soldiers at war. They apply to enemy combattants. The people who were sent to the camp in cuba were unlawful combattants. They wore no insignia. They were answerable to no responsible officer, and the list goes on. They have no rights under the geneva conventions.

The Geneva Conventions grant even the so called "illegal" combatants basic rights. Article 5 states:

"Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.

Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be." (http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/380?OpenDocument)

In addition, the United States ratified the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/h_cat39.htm) on October 21, 1994. This Convention protects ALL persons regardless of combat status.

[palerider]

I don't see the detention camp in Cuba as a violation of this provision. How exactly is it that you do?

[Napoleon]

I don't see the detention camp in Cuba as a violation of this provision. How exactly is it that you do?

There have been MANY violations of the provisions of the Geneva Conventions and the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. There have been many documented instances of inhumane and/or degrading treatment of the detainees despite the fact that even those determined to be "illegal" combatants are granted the right to humane treatment under the Conventions. In addition, persons which have been determined not to be enemy combatants by a military tribunal are still being detained there and denied their rights under the Conventions.

[top gun]

There have been MANY violations of the provisions of the Geneva Conventions and the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. There have been many documented instances of inhumane and/or degrading treatment of the detainees despite the fact that even those determined to be "illegal" combatants are granted the right to humane treatment under the Conventions. In addition, persons which have been determined not to be enemy combatants by a military tribunal are still being detained there and denied their rights under the Conventions.

I just heard tonight on the news that leaks from within the administration are now saying that due to tremendous public pressure it is very likely Guantanamo will be shut down in the near future and the detainees will be transfered to US jails here in the states and stand trial if there is any evidence against them.

I guess better late than never.:confused:

[USMC the Almighty]

I just heard tonight on the news that leaks from within the administration are now saying that due to tremendous public pressure it is very likely Guantanamo will be shut down in the near future and the detainees will be transfered to US jails here in the states and stand trial if there is any evidence against them.

I guess better late than never.:confused:

Just like Clinton. Caving in to public pressure to the detriment of American national security.

[vyo476]

Just like Clinton. Caving in to public pressure to the detriment of American national security.

Isn't there something...I don't know, contradictory about stating that an elected official "caved" to public pressure? If the President is elected to reflect the will of the people, wasn't Clinton just doing his job?

[USMC the Almighty]

Isn't there something...I don't know, contradictory about stating that an elected official "caved" to public pressure? If the President is elected to reflect the will of the people, wasn't Clinton just doing his job?

A President is elected to lead the people, not follow the polls. Think about what would have happened throughout history of all Presidents caved to public pressure. Washington/Adams would've been forced to go to war against the French in the late 1790s, ruining the fledgling republic still reeling in debt (some $80 million) from the Revolution. Lincoln would've surrendered to Lee in 1864, and on and on.

A President is elected lead.

[drippinhun]

Guantanamo is an illegally occupied territory. The conservative Supreme Court has held that the trials at Guantanemo are illegal and Clinton doesn't enter into this (though some are obsessed with injecting him in every thread dealing with George W.). I wouldn't define implementing illegal actions concerning our nation, leading.

When did our morals slide this far into the toilet? These cavalier actions concern too many other facets of this administration, ignoring Congress's will with signing statements or issuing Presidential directives that usurp the other branches of government's Constitutition authority. Someone or a group of people in the White House feel the the adminstrative branch is a monarchy to do as they please.

This is not a case where rebuking is adaquate. This Adminstration needs to be punished. We can't allow this type of power play in OUR government. I wouldn't expect Bush's sycophants to understand. Their blind allegiance and defense of all things reprehensible to the existance of a democracy is expected. But for those patriots who love our country, we need to become more vocal.

[USMC the Almighty]

Guantanamo is an illegally occupied territory.

Platt Amendment.

The conservative Supreme Court has held that the trials at Guantanemo are illegal

I hate the whole notion that the Supreme Court is infallible. The Founders actually intended for the judicial branch to be the weakest of the three branches because they are not elected.

I wouldn't define implementing illegal actions concerning our nation, leading.

Mr. Lincoln would disagree.

[top gun]

Just like Clinton. Caving in to public pressure to the detriment of American national security.

Maybe Bush is just trying to do better... I don't know?

[top gun]

A President is elected to lead the people, not follow the polls. Think about what would have happened throughout history of all Presidents caved to public pressure. Washington/Adams would've been forced to go to war against the French in the late 1790s, ruining the fledgling republic still reeling in debt (some $80 million) from the Revolution. Lincoln would've surrendered to Lee in 1864, and on and on.

A President is elected lead.

That is just ridiculous. To believe that you have to believe EVERY president was always RIGHT! Strong and wrong is worse than listening to the people any day.

Now if you're right (which Bush doesn't appear to be in this present case) then that's another story all together.

[USMC the Almighty]

That is just ridiculous. To believe that you have to believe EVERY president was always RIGHT! Strong and wrong is worse than listening to the people any day.

Now if you're right (which Bush doesn't appear to be in this present case) then that's another story all together.

Of course. But I was just using a little historical evidence to support my contention that Presidents should govern by following the polls. Washington, Adams, Lincoln, Truman. All great presidents who resisted strong public pressure for the ultimate benefit of the nation.

[Beetle Bailey]

Because the title of this thread is "The "Why We're in Iraq" Checklist" and every part of that resolution is relavent as it outlines explicitly the reasons we are in Iraq.



Why we are in Iraq is irrelavent data? I see.:rolleyes:



That we are in Iraq for very specific reasons that were outlined and voted on by our representatives. There are many out there who are making up reasons that simply are not true. One can look at the list and see the actual reasons we are in iraq.



What my position is is COMPLETELY irrelavent to the facts of why we are in Iraq. It doesn't matter a whit whether I am for the war or against the war. The resolution outlines exactly why we are there. The subject of this thread demanded an actual check list of why we are there and the resolution is the only factual checklist.

You completely ignore the intent of the OP. You attempt to frame the argument within the limited context of congressional resolutions. Suites your purpose but doesn't really address the issue. You have define the argument to control the conditions of the debate. Effective within the confines of your little world I'm sure. A crude rhetorical device non the less.

[palerider]

You completely ignore the intent of the OP. You attempt to frame the argument within the limited context of congressional resolutions. Suites your purpose but doesn't really address the issue. You have define the argument to control the conditions of the debate. Effective within the confines of your little world I'm sure. A crude rhetorical device non the less.

Reasons other than those outlined by congress are fiction. If you,m or anyone else suggests that we are there for a reason not found in the iraq resolution, then you are simply fabricating for purposes known only to you.

[Beetle Bailey]

Reasons other than those outlined by congress are fiction. If you,m or anyone else suggests that we are there for a reason not found in the iraq resolution, then you are simply fabricating for purposes known only to you.

Thank you for your tireless efforts to make my point for me. Although you really need not have bothered as it was already so obvious. But thanks any way for another demonstration of your trite attempts to control the conditions of the debate.

[palerider]

Thank you for your tireless efforts to make my point for me. Although you really need not have bothered as it was already so obvious. But thanks any way for another demonstration of your trite attempts to control the conditions of the debate.

The title of this thread is "the why we are in iraq checklist"

Any reasons listed, that are not found in the iraq resolution are fabrications.

[Beetle Bailey]

The title of this thread is "the why we are in iraq checklist"

Any reasons listed, that are not found in the iraq resolution are fabrications.

Just keep repeating the same mantra over and over. Maybe someone will actually believe it. Maybe even you.

[palerider]

Just keep repeating the same mantra over and over. Maybe someone will actually believe it. Maybe even you.

Are you just upset because you think that we are in iraq for reasons that aren't found in the iraq resolution and simply can't prove it? Does the iraq resolution frustrate you?

[Beetle Bailey]

Are you just upset because you think that we are in iraq for reasons that aren't found in the iraq resolution and simply can't prove it? Does the iraq resolution frustrate you?

Amazing that you don't see the falacy of your position. Your entire argument is premised on your statement that any reasons outside congressional resolution are simply untrue. As if the mere fact that you have made a declaration comfirms it's validity. More of the same kind of crude tactics designed to control the conditions of the debate. Painfully transparent.

[palerider]

The reasons we are there were stated by and voted on by the congress. Any claim of other reasons is without merit and simply unprovable. What is your unmerited and unprovable suspicion of why we are there?

[vyo476]

The reasons we are there were stated by and voted on by the congress. Any claim of other reasons is without merit and simply unprovable. What is your unmerited and unprovable suspicion of why we are there?

I'm surprised at you pale rider. You're usually so cynically analytical about everything groups decide and yet you accept at face value a Congressional Resolution - a statement of purpose made by a group of politicians.

I'm just surprised is all.

[palerider]

I'm surprised at you pale rider. You're usually so cynically analytical about everything groups decide and yet you accept at face value a Congressional Resolution - a statement of purpose made by a group of politicians.

I'm just surprised is all.


Not just a group of politicians, nearly every single member voted for that resolution.

And exactly what is to be gained by engaging in conspiracy theories, seeking reasons outside of the resolution? You think we went there to grab their oil for ourselves? Have you looked at the commodities market lately? If that is why we went, it sure isn't reflected there? Most of the reasons the tin foil hat crowd believe we went there for are easily proved false.

The iraq resolution is quite comprehensive and reason enough to be there. Personally, I favor being in iraq for reasons that are not listed on the resolution, but should I be an idiot and protest the war because they aren't there for the reasons I wanted to see us there?

[Napoleon]

Mr. Lincoln would disagree.

Thats because he was a dictator.

[USMC the Almighty]

Thats because he was a dictator.

and FDR?

[bokile]

To kill innocent Arabs :eek: :( We should leave them alone and mind our own business:rolleyes: :cool:

[Napoleon]

and FDR?

Lets do a comparison shall we?

Lincoln:

1. Ordered the arrest of the United States Supreme Court Chief Justice when he didn't like his ruling.

2. Ordered the arrest and detainment without trial of his political opponents.

3. Nationalized the railroad and banking industries.

4. Censored the press and communications of the general public.

5. Deported Ohio Congressman Clement Vallandigham for not adhering to his political agenda.

6. Ordered federal troops to commit voter intimidation, sometimes threatening voters with imprisonment if they did not vote for Republican candidates.

7. Suspended Habeas Corpus

etc etc

FDR:

1. Japanese-American internment

2. Gold Confiscation Act

3. Suspended Habeas Corpus

[Beetle Bailey]

Not just a group of politicians, nearly every single member voted for that resolution.

And exactly what is to be gained by engaging in conspiracy theories, seeking reasons outside of the resolution? You think we went there to grab their oil for ourselves? Have you looked at the commodities market lately? If that is why we went, it sure isn't reflected there? Most of the reasons the tin foil hat crowd believe we went there for are easily proved false.

The iraq resolution is quite comprehensive and reason enough to be there. Personally, I favor being in iraq for reasons that are not listed on the resolution, but should I be an idiot and protest the war because they aren't there for the reasons I wanted to see us there?

Hilarious. Plently of entertainment value here. The way he clings to his slender thread of reasoning. It's even possible he actually believes his own nonsense. If he says that congressional resolutions define every aspect of political reality, then it must be true. If he says that his one demensional context explains everything, who can question that? It doesn't even matter who believes what. It's the fact that he try's so hard to pretend that he doesn't see the obvious falacy of his argument. That's what makes it so darn funny.

[ArmChair General]

Hilarious. Plently of entertainment value here. The way he clings to his slender thread of reasoning. It's even possible he actually believes his own nonsense. If he says that congressional resolutions define every aspect of political reality, then it must be true. If he says that his one demensional context explains everything, who can question that? It doesn't even matter who believes what. It's the fact that he try's so hard to pretend that he doesn't see the obvious falacy of his argument. That's what makes it so darn funny.

It happens a lot with him.

[rmbarron]

Does anyone think anything of the Iran rationale? That is to say, before the war we supported - even propped up Saddam as a bulwark against the spread of the Iranian Revolution throughout the Middle East. Then Saddam proved to be a problem when a) Iraq failed to win the Iran-Iraq war, b) Iran failed to implode following the death of Kohmeini and c) Saddam tried to invade an ally of the U.S. In my opinion the U.S. simply got cocky. We knocked out Afganistan on Iran's Eastern border so we thought we could do the same in Iraq on it's Western and thereby box it in. The oil rationale can only go so far in explaining the conflict. After all, if we were so into the oil, why didn't George H.W. press his advantage when he had the chance. Obviously the old CIA man felt Saddam's value as a buffer against Iran outweighed the value of his oil. Any thoughts?

[rmbarron]

As a P.S. to my own post, personally, this is the only rationale that seems worth it to me. The last thing the U.S. needs is a unified hostile Middle East under Iranian influence. I just wonder why they wouldn't put such a rationale forth, even if it's not entirely correct. It certainly could have solved a few problems.

[rmbarron]

Lets do a comparison shall we?

That's a bit of an unfair comparison, don't you think? The rules can understandably change when it's a civil war you're fighting.

[Chip]

We did not invade Iraq for any of the WMD, terrorist, "evil" dictator, fight Muslim jihadists, spread democracy, etc. reasons Bush gave. Those were all red herring lies.

Nor did we invade Iraq for any of the left-wing cynical excuses such as jobs for Halliburton, profits for the oil industry, revenge for "Daddy" Bush, expand Christian missions, etc. Those were just denials from people who couldn't handle the truth.

The truth is that we invaded Iraq solely to steal Iraq's oil distribution rights.

We were so motivated in response to Saddam Hussein's promise in the fall of 2002 to divert our Iraqi crude to China as soon as the sanctions ended that prevented him from choosing new trading partners. And those sanctions were about to end ... when we invaded.

Had we not invaded, the loss of that essential, special, light, sweet Iraqi crude, for which there is no available compensational alternative supply anywhere in the world, would have spun us into a a severe economic depression and taken our "industrial" allies with us.

So we spent many billions on the invasion ... to prevent the loss of many trillions -- pure national economics, as usual.

In the process of stealing Iraq's oil distribution rights, we predictably slaughtered and contributed to the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, nearly half of whom were children with a median age of eight years old.

That makes us murderous thieves.

That makes our "troops" henchmen.

That makes Bush a crime boss.

This is the truth.

There was no other reason that caused us to invade.

Though the result of our invasion may appear to have accomplished some "goals", those "goals" were not the intent of the invasion -- they are merely functions that appear to have occurred as a result. It is important not to mistake function for intent, or you succumb to the liars' brianwashing manipulation.

Also, the "goals" are fleeting. When we are forced to leave Iraq and give back what we stole, all those mirage intentions will simply vanish!

That's why Bush -- and his successors, be they Republican or Democrat! -- have no intention of ever leaving Iraq.

Iran knows this -- every world leader does.

And our continued presence there is just as unpalatable to Iran as a Chinese invasion of Mexico would be to the U.S. :eek: ... :cool:

[rmbarron]

The truth is that we invaded Iraq solely to steal Iraq's oil distribution rights.


Although I take exception to your portrayal of troops as "henchmen" I am curious in your hypothesis. What are your sources?

[palerider]

It happens a lot with him.

Still sniping from the side rather than engaging me head on? Typical.

[palerider]

Although I take exception to your portrayal of troops as "henchmen" I am curious in your hypothesis. What are your sources?


I am curious as well. Oil is sold on the commodities market to the highest bidder. We have no claim on anyone's oil but our own unless we are the highest bidder.

[Napoleon]

That's a bit of an unfair comparison, don't you think? The rules can understandably change when it's a civil war you're fighting.

I consider Nazi Germany to have been a bigger threat to the UNITED States than the Old South. Don't you? Anyway, which portion of the Constitution allows the President to become a dictator when the going gets tough?

[Chip]

Although I take exception to your portrayal of troops as "henchmen"
I'm not "portraying" them at all.

They are what they are by definition.


I am curious in your hypothesis.
It was in all the papers and news webs in the summer and fall of 2002, just as I've presented ... until the White House gag order silenced them ... and after the public memory faded ... we invaded.


What are your sources?
Like I said, the news media back then ... subsequently confirmed ... by a SSC leak.

But no leak was really necessary.

The reasons were obvious ... just as it was obvious that the social reason of slavery as an abomination wasn't the reason for the Civil War, but the North's inability to compete economically against slave labor was.

Nation-level politics are obvious, especially when oil is involved.

When people remove their ideological blinders, the truth is easy to see.

Sadly, many actually choose to keep their blinders on ... because to remove them would then require the courage to take remedial action ... such as to impeach our President and try him for crimes against humanity ... and the fear of what that would entail makes cowards of many.

[palerider]

It was in all the papers and news webs in the summer and fall of 2002, just as I've presented ... until the White House gag order silenced them ... and after the public memory faded ... we invaded.


The papers and news webs have been known to put their own spin on things and no white house gag order has deleted dated material from the net. I would be interested in seeing some of the old news reports with credible sources beyond "unnamed government sources".

[Beetle Bailey]

The papers and news webs have been known to put their own spin on things and no white house gag order has deleted dated material from the net. I would be interested in seeing some of the old news reports with credible sources beyond "unnamed government sources".

Presumes that the news media are all lying and people in the white house always tell the truth. Gosh, what could be wrong with that theory? No agenda there, huh?

[Chip]

The papers and news webs have been known to put their own spin on things and no white house gag order has deleted dated material from t