No sh*t Sherlock...

[FM]

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

so much for that quote...

[djsethnichols]

America the laughing stock of the world

the quote line above just goes to prove the power of decieval within the perception & ideals that our government and it's leaders possess.
Everyone says it...it must be true. right?
sheep

it's all about oil & money. all the rest is just the spoon-fed excuse for their idiotic actions.

[Balanc3]

the quote line above just goes to prove the power of decieval within the perception & ideals that our government and it's leaders possess.
Everyone says it...it must be true. right?

somethin like that!

[Galapidate]

They may have supported disarming Iraq, but they DID NOT mention ANYTHING about invading Iraq. There is an option to invasion you know, and it's called diplomacy.

[dohturdima]

yeah...well....i think we did the right thing for the wrong reasons

And in the wrong way. They should've commited more ground troops and properly secured the country instead of trying to minimise U.S casualties and doing a half-job.

If you want to liberate people, you can't stand back while their heritage is being looted. For Bush, Cheney et al, liberation was always the 2nd goal. Not their main goal.

I can't believe anyone is buying this "liberate" crap. This war was never about liberation. Iraquis haven't experienced anything close to democracy, and it's a pipe dream to think that their future government would be a shining example of it. But, more likely than not, it ain't gonna be Saddam2 for a very long time. If it does ever happen, then it will be a while before the new dick-tater would/theocracy a-la Iran would be able to bulk up enough in order to be considered a serious potential threat again. "Liberation" is a selling poing, just like non-existent WMDs (although, to be fair, Saddam would have had WMD capabilities in under 10 years time if things were going the way they were).

This war was all about 1) wiping out a potential threat, 2) establishing a US presence in a region which constituents/supporters of terrorism were already a threat to its interests and 3) establishing a precedent for the mentioned supporters of terrorism in Middle East and beyond that, if they don't clean up their act, their shit may hit the fan.

Unfortunately, it is difficult to sell a preventive war to an electroate, even if history proves later on it was a necessary decision. Too many think that this was all about 1) giving a boost to ailing economy, 2) oil, and 3) feeding the bloodthirsty conservatives and Pentagon generals. But...

1) Economy was already at its nadir before the war started, and recessions happen often enough for most to know that eventually things would head toward recovery regardless of what president does - except, maybe lowering taxes (which Bush did somewhat) and not forcing Fed's hand to raise interest rates (which was a no-brainer for anybody at the time).
2) US is going to pull out of Iraq without funnelling the supply twd itself. If anything, the war's outcome results in passage of Iraqui oil to all western consumers of oil, not just US. Only the funds gained for the oil would not be used for intersts of Saddam and his kin, but (hopefully) for the needs of greater Iraq. OPEC is what really controls the prices of oil, and Iraq will too join OPEC within a year or two, by rough estimates. So arguing that this war was all about oil is shaky argument, to say the least.
3) The decision was made by the Bush administration, and they had to consider the consequences of a backlash if things did not go well. Considering this, to think that special interests had an overwhelming say in the decision is, to put it mildly, myopic.

[delirious]

So arguing that this war was all about oil is shaky argument, to say the least.

The US Deputy Defense Secretary, Paul Wolfowitz - who has already undermined Tony Blair's position over weapons of mass destruction (WMD) by describing them as a "bureaucratic" excuse for war - has now gone further by claiming the real motive was that Iraq is "swimming" in oil.

Asked why a nuclear power such as North Korea was being treated differently from Iraq, where hardly any weapons of mass destruction had been found, the deputy defense minister said: "Let's look at it simply. The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that economically, we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil."

[mixu]

This is well over a year old now but it details the neo-cons' (Wolfowitz, Perle et al) plans from the 90s - namely establishing a US powerbase in the Middle East. Make of it what you will...

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,914925,00.html

[Balanc3]

They may have supported disarming Iraq, but they DID NOT mention ANYTHING about invading Iraq. There is an option to invasion you know, and it's called diplomacy.

I'm sorry that you have forgotten history, but the Clinton administration did invade Iraq and failed as badly as George H.W. They also fought in serbia/ yugoslavia, somalia, and rowanda. Not all battles had U.N. approval. I think someone said it already... Jenks squashed this on the old MS. And the US powerbase in the middleeast is in Qatar... not Iraq. Look for satellite images of it, its designed to withstand a nuclear bomb being dropped on it. A pretty amazing structure.

[mixu]

They may have supported disarming Iraq, but they DID NOT mention ANYTHING about invading Iraq. There is an option to invasion you know, and it's called diplomacy.

I'm sorry that you have forgotten history, but the Clinton administration did invade Iraq and failed as badly as George H.W. They also fought in serbia/ yugoslavia, somalia, and rowanda. Not all battles had U.N. approval. I think someone said it already... Jenks squashed this on the old MS. And the US powerbase in the middleeast is in Qatar... not Iraq. Look for satellite images of it, its designed to withstand a nuclear bomb being dropped on it. A pretty amazing structure.

Come on... a powerbase isn't a single place in a single country - it's a presence across a region ie. bases in Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, etc.

[evangelion]

They may have supported disarming Iraq, but they DID NOT mention ANYTHING about invading Iraq. There is an option to invasion you know, and it's called diplomacy.

Another diplomacy post.

I've asked it once and I'll ask it again: 12 years and numerous resolutions isn't diplomacy? Maybe, just maybe, someday you Bush/Iraq War haters will understand that diplomacy doesn't work with these fucks. Do you honesly think that someone who hacks people's head off to prove a point is going to listen or want to hear a bunch of foreign politicians tell them they need to stop what they are doing. Not likely. So forceable removal is what it comes to.

[delirious]

They may have supported disarming Iraq, but they DID NOT mention ANYTHING about invading Iraq. There is an option to invasion you know, and it's called diplomacy.

Another diplomacy post.

I've asked it once and I'll ask it again: 12 years and numerous resolutions isn't diplomacy? Maybe, just maybe, someday you Bush/Iraq War haters will understand that diplomacy doesn't work with these fucks. Do you honesly think that someone who hacks people's head off to prove a point is going to listen or want to hear a bunch of foreign politicians tell them they need to stop what they are doing. Not likely. So forceable removal is what it comes to.

So do International Accords and the U.N Charter agreements mean nothing? Is the U.S somehow immune from the world's legal system?

[mylexicon]

"Let's look at it simply. The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that economically, we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil."

I've said this a million times but i'll say it again. For all the imbiciles who are
still insistent on posting this quote: STOP!!

I thought damn near the entire world knew that all the comments about
Iraqi oil have been taken grossly out of context, but obviously there are some
who still haven't gotten the memo. Everytime you here whitehouse officials
talk about Iraq and oil; they are always talking about rebuilding the country.
The Whitehouse has said over and over the reason they believed they could
destroy the infrastructure of the country and still expect prosperity is because
Iraq has plenty of oil. Next time put the elipses in and stop believing all the
dumb shit you read. They pay hundreds of people hundreds of thousands of
dollars each, to make sure that all Iraq statements; even off the cuff
remarks, are carefully scripted.

[Civic_Zen]

This is well over a year old now but it details the neo-cons' (Wolfowitz, Perle et al) plans from the 90s - namely establishing a US powerbase in the Middle East. Make of it what you will...

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/iraq/...914925,00.html

Oh ya, thanks for the great article.

The article is entitled "Deep roots of Bush's hatred for Saddam"

:ROFLMAO:

You people are just amazing. Now we need to get philisophical regarding why someone would want to hate someone who has killed MILLIONS. Ya. Why on earth would someone hate a man like that, we better do a psychoanalysis and figure this shit out.

Thanks! I feel dumber just reading that pile of trash.

[Yao]

I'm sorry that you have forgotten history, but the Clinton administration did invade Iraq and failed as badly as George H.W. They also fought in serbia/ yugoslavia, somalia, and rowanda. Not all battles had U.N. approval. I think someone said it already... Jenks squashed this on the old MS. And the US powerbase in the middleeast is in Qatar... not Iraq. Look for satellite images of it, its designed to withstand a nuclear bomb being dropped on it. A pretty amazing structure.

In Somalia they got their arses kicked (Mogadishu), so they didn't want in on the Rwanda thing. It wasn't until after the massacre of between 800.000 - 1 mln people that Spain and Portugal decided to send troops there, and that is when the USA decided to join. But they only wanted to do so on the condition that they would be in command.
And the U.N. refused that, so all they did was give material support.

Anyhow, try and study the Rwanda-case to learn how the UN and USA fucked up big time. They refused to condemn what was going on there as a genocide, because if it were, according to the Geneva Convention they would be mandated to take action. And now the same shit is happening in Sudan, Darfur region. And again, they are doing nothing. At this moment people are being killed and/or mutilated at a much higher rate than in Iraq. What's the reason for not taking action in Sudan? What was the reason for not taking action in Rwanda?

Try and find the answer to that.

[Balanc3]

They may have supported disarming Iraq, but they DID NOT mention ANYTHING about invading Iraq. There is an option to invasion you know, and it's called diplomacy.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

whatever

Sorry I did not provide pics and links before. I understand we have a string of bases throughout Persion Gulf region, but from what I understand the Al-udeid airbase is concidered a major "powerbase." It has 3 hardened underground/shelters strong enough to withstand a major airstrike and even nuclear strike. Here is what I found on it.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...d-imagery2.htm (has more satellite images)



AL-UDEID AIR BASE, QATAR (AP) ? The government of Qatar is spending millions of dollars to expand Al Udeid, a remote base in the central Persian Gulf. If President Bush were to order airstrikes on Iraq, this base, about 20 miles from the capital, Doha, would be a critical hub for US warplanes and their aerial pipeline of bombs and supplies.

In the past months, the US military quietly has moved munitions, equipment and communications gear to the base from Saudi Arabia, the control center for American air operations in the Gulf for more than a decade. About 3,300 American troops are in Qatar, mostly at Al Udeid, where the signs of an American military buildup are unmistakable:

"It is likely the most capable base in the Gulf region," says William Arkin, a private military analyst.

Soon after Sept. 11, Qatar granted permission for the US to send warplanes to Al Udeid. They flew attack missions over Afghanistan. Al Udeid also is host to Air Force Red Horse squadrons, rapid-response teams of civil engineers that can repair and build structures such as runways and roads in remote areas.

US officials will not discuss specifics, saying the Qatari government strictly limits what can be said about the American presence. There has been speculation that Al Udeid is being built up as an alternative to, or replacement for, the Combined Air Operations Center at Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia. The Saudis have made clear they do not favor a US invasion of Iraq.

Gen. Tommy Franks, commander of US forces in the Middle East, said this year he had no plans to move the air control center. But he added, "That does not mean that I don't have plans to replicate it." He also said early in the Afghanistan war that he was considering moving his Central Command headquarters from Tampa, Fla., to Qatar, although he eventually chose not to.

Al Udeid is among several US military bases in the Gulf area. Nearly 10,000 Army soldiers are at Camp Doha in Kuwait, and 4,200 troops are in Bahrain, headquarters for the Navy's Fifth Fleet. Several thousand are in Saudi Arabia and a few thousand in Oman.