<p>I listened to Colin Powel's address to the UN, the President's address to the nation--both live---right from the horse's mouth. What they both said regarding the purpose for going into Iraq is indisputable. My perception of the mission had nothing to do with the press, it had to do with listening to our leaders. Maybe that is a mistake, we just need to trust them to always do the right thing no matter what they say and not worry about it....yeah, that makes a whole lot of sense.
Im not asking for "secrets" to be revealed, just intelligent decisions to be made, accountability to be acknowledged, and laws to be obeyed.</p>
<p>I have no dispute with you or what was said by the president or Mr. Powell. I was with the president then, and I for one, have no revisionist feelings on those decisions. They were good decisions and in reality, they were based on many factors beyond what was publicly revealed. Everyone seems to forget that Saddam had used WMD in the past. Not being able to prove he had them just before the war is not important to me especially considering his defiant, evasive, and unstable actions since 1991 when sanctions began.. I do believe that WMD was the one politically correct reason to headline the decision, and I do not believe for one minute that we were sure he did not have them before we went to war. Accountability will come in the end. Sometimes it takes 50+ years to get it, but it will come with history.</p>
<p>Any country that exhibits blatant aggressive behavior along with large scale human rights instability and/or extremist religious based atrocities or prophecy for such; and then expresses the desire to develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes; must be taken as terrorist sponsors or terrorists themselves. IMHO ;)</p>
<p>"large scale human rights instability."
dad2b'2010</p>
<p>are you active in Amnesty International?</p>
<p>Did we invite the Pearl Harbor attack? Is that what brought us to war in the European theater? Did Pearl Harbor motivate this country to join the war in earnest? Did miliions of lives ultimately get saved by the few thousand sacrifices in Pearl Harbor?</p>
<p>All serious questions...that we still don't have all the answers to. And you can bet that the answers that are missing would not have been beneficial if they were broadcast to the nations population prior to any key decisions that would be unpopular.</p>
<p>
[quote]
are you active in Amnesty International?
[/quote]
Hmmm??? LOL :)</p>
<p>tell me about WWII. My father flew B-17s, B-24s, PBYs, earned the Distinguished Flying Cross more than once, Silver Star, six bronze stars, etc. Saddam wasn't a threat to the US and he isn't Hitler; Iraq isn't WWII.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Saddam wasn't a threat to the US
[/quote]
You've got to be kidding! :D</p>
<p>So your father was privy to the discussions in the White House back then? Come on now! ;)</p>
<p>
[quote]
and he isn't Hitler
[/quote]
But...he was trying to be! The US public all but ignored Hitler prior to Pearl Harbor! And who are we to say that Saddam never could have started world war III. Well, at least we now can say...he won't.</p>
<p>somehow I don't think world domination was Saddam's objective, nonetheless, Saddam is gloating over Hamas' victory...remember he was their sugar daddy.</p>
<p>The use of WMD's to gas the Kurds occured in 1988, years BEFORE the FIRST Gulf War---- Bush 1 had the opportunity to set that score right and he did not take it back in 1991. For Bush 2 to use the gassing of the Kurds in 1988 as a reason to attack in 2003 is a bit much. Saddam was supposed to have had an active nuclear program and biological weapons in 2003 which, as it turns out he did not. Hence the myriad of other noble reasons we have conjured up since 2003.</p>
<p>It is extremely puzzling that Washington and London could claim with such confidence that they possessed secret knowledge about extensive WMD activities in Iraq and yet be completely unable to locate any evidence of this now that the war is over. Coalition forces have controlled all of Iraq for more than two years now and still, no proof.</p>
<p>We invaded Iraq because Saddam was supposed to be a nuclear or biological threat to the US---turns out that was incorrect---in fact, several countries which we have not gone to war with pose a much more real and VERIFIABLE threat to us today than Iraq did in 2003. Heck, we couldn't even manage to turn up an al-queda in Iraq until they came be-bopping over the border after the fall of the Saddam.</p>
<p>We didn't invite the Pearl Harbor attack, but that certainly wasn't what made us declare war on Germany---in fact, there are some who would argue that had Germany not declared war on the US days after Pearl Harbor, our government would have stayed at war just with Japan until she was defeated. Hitler's declaration of war on the US made the point mute, but if he hadn't, how long would our government have waited to join the war in Europe? </p>
<p>As far as Saddam being a threat to the United States---nope, he was way down on the list of potential threats. That fact has been bourne out---we have yet to turn up any proof of any al-queda connection, nuclear weapons program, or chemical weapons program that was active after 2001. If there had been such proof there is no doubt in anyones mind it would have been displayed to the world. </p>
<p>"Any country that exhibits blatant aggressive behavior along with large scale human rights instability and/or extremist religious based atrocities or prophecy for such; and then expresses the desire to develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes; must be taken as terrorist sponsors or terrorists themselves."</p>
<p>Annie git ur gun because Iran, Syria, North Korea, China, Vietnam, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Belarus, Libya, 2/3rds of Africa, etc etc etc., have been guilty of human rights abuses for decades. Some of these have nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, other WMD's, and some have murdered literally MILLIONS, making saddam look like a piker. Some of them have openly declared themselves enemies of the United States, some of them are run by absolute NUTCASES with the ability to start a major disaster. Some of them have been sponsoring terrorism for decades. We are not at war with any of them. </p>
<p>Iraq was a mis-calculation at best, at worst a major blunder. It's time to get back on target in the war on terror. Start combing the hills of Pakistan and Afganistan and find that murdering SOB, WHATEVER it takes.</p>
<p>Let him gloat for a while....then, Asta la Vista Baby. The same goes for anyone else like him or his.</p>
<p>I think Saddam's biggest focus was always on Israel, not the US. The most serious threat he ever posed was to his own people, his neighbors, and the state of Israel.</p>
<p>shogun,
thank you for taking the time to set the record straight. Gee, wonder where your cadet got her intense focus??? I've always believed that girls take after their dads, and boys take after their moms! :)</p>
<p>GO NAVY! BEAT ARMY!</p>
<p>Terrorists can not survive without lots of money and help. We also have no choice but to stop the countries who supply resources to them. Don't kid yourself...the war on terrorism only begins with Osama. There are much bigger fish to fry and the world will come together to keep the oil at temperature. The alternative is nukes going off here, there and everywhere.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Gee, wonder where your cadet got her killer instincts?
[/quote]
Officers of the armed forces have no business debating these things when it comes time to execute their orders. Their loyalty must lie with the president no matter what!</p>
<p>poverty and despair breeds terrorism. Everyone agrees that Iraq is a training ground for Muslim extremists throughout the world. Democracy needs a middle class to grow and develop. I don't see that happening in the near future in Iraq. Are we willing to sacrifice tens of thousands of American lives and $1 trillion dollars to replicate American democracy in Iraq?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Are we willing to sacrifice tens of thousands of American lives
[/quote]
I don't see how american lives are any more important that iraqi lives, especially in the end if we don't succeed in changing world course.</p>
<p>Iraqi democracy! We just have to let them smell the coffee for a while. They certainly have enough oil resources to fund their dreams, but they have to work for it...and they will once they get a good taste for freedom.</p>
<p>Gotta go sleep. Anyone got my back here?? ;)</p>
<p>"We also have no choice but to stop the countries who supply resources to them."</p>
<p>I suppose, then, that you would support an invasion, occupation, and wholesale removal of Saudi Arabia's leadership? </p>
<p>"I don't see how american lives are any more important that iraqi lives, especially in the end if we don't succeed in changing world course."</p>
<p>Wow! I for one DO consider American lives to be more important than Iraqi lives. Just out of principle if nothing else.</p>
<p>thanks bro'</p>
<p>Dad2B, your comments have left a sick feelings within me.</p>
<p>No matter how tough a guy is. If he goes around fighting every guy that argues with him at a bar, eventually one day that guy is going to meet someone that is going to kick his ass. </p>
<p>So you go ahead and fight your self-righteous wars and "free" the Iraqi people, spreading democracy all over that retched piece of dirt. So a few thousand Americans die in the process, thats alright because theyre just as important as us. We're doing it for good reasons, not because of any oil ties, personal vendettas, or not being able to admit that maybe we shouldnt have started this mess in the first place.</p>
<p>So while YOU go fight THAT war, I'm going to go over to the ****hole of the world, take care of my Joes, come back and make it my life mission to make sure that something like this doesnt happen again.</p>