Posted on 05/29/2003 9:33:31 AM PDT by Brian S
Try the fact that Bush declared that countries that sponsored terrorism either must stop or be dealt with. No direct link. But 9/11 changed this country's approach towards terror-sponsoring states. And Iraq was one of the worst of such countries (oh, and that was another violation of the 1991 cease-fire. Look it up).
Yes but you are trying to argue that "the case must be weak if he did publicly XYZ". I'm just reminding you that the "case" you saw on CNN is not necessarily the same "case" which was given to Congress. That case, evidently, convinced Congress.
You'd have a hard time convincing me that Congress' "approval" made Clinton's foray in Kosovo morally right.
My memory is fuzzy about Kosovo, to be honest. Because, I seem to recall that Clinton went in there under NATO, without even going to Congress first, and there was a danger he would run up against the 90-day limit (for wars w/o prior approval) imposed by the War Powers act, but the whole thing was basically retroactively "approved" by Congress eventually. Is that correct? If so, we're talking about apples and oranges here.
In any event I agree with you that Congress passing a War Powers resolution doesn't make a war "moral". But since when was that what we were talking about? You sure seem to shift your points around a lot.
Clancy's novels are built around intricate, fascinating military-related story lines with lots of intrigue and misleading angles. If he wrote one using the sequence of events that have unfolded in Iraq over the last 12 years, his publisher would have printed about 50 copies and put them right on the $2 discount rack.
Gotcha. I'll take your word for it. Still don't know what you think this is supposed to prove. Anything?
Because I was never sold on the need for the first Gulf War to begin with.
That's a reasonable answer. The problem is, once done, such things can't be undone. Given that there was a '91 Gulf War which left Saddam in power in a uneasy situation (sanctions, "500000 dying Iraqi babies", no fly zones, etc) for 12 years, escalating the war and ousting him once and for all is not necessarily a worse option for anybody than continuing the damn thing.
LOL. As if I would otherwise be a "dove?" I am "playing the hawk" to point out a clear inconsistency here.
Something to note here: If the U.S. secured Saddam Hussein's "cooperation" in 1991 by agreeing to leave him in power, then what price do you think we paid to secure his "cooperation" in 2003?
Since we didn't attack Iraq based on the 9/14/01 authorization of force, I don't see that a direct link to the crime of 9/11 was needed. A separate authorization of force against Iraq was sought by President Bush and obtained.
Saddam Hussein was clearly unfinished business in the Arab world, which contributed to their correct observations of the USA as a "paper tiger" until Op. Iraqi Freedom came along and blew that belief away.
What is your ideological perspective on the matter? You seem to be clearly against the War in Iraq (and maybe even the War on Terror). What's your beef with President Bush and the actions of the United States?
For what reason? So we could wait 12 years before taking Saddam out? Why not just take him out in 1991?
This is just silly and insulting. You're telling me that US soldiers in 1991 never were under any threat from WMDs all along?
Which means those WMDs could not possibly have been a legitimate reason for the war, and therefore any argument on this point is meaningless.
Argument on this point is meaningless, but only because your statements are ridiculous.
Something to note here: If the U.S. secured Saddam Hussein's "cooperation" in 1991 by agreeing to leave him in power, then what price do you think we paid to secure his "cooperation" in 2003?
I have no idea what you're getting at.
Wrong logic again, dude. The primary position of Bush about these weapons was NOT that the weapons were a major threat to US troops. The point was that the weapons were a threat, were they to land in the hands of terrorists, against US CIVILIANS - just as four civilian 767s were not a threat against a fighter plane, but killed thousands of civilians.
What a weasel.
I agree with you 100%. But this also means that the "case" that was given to Congress may have had absolutely nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction.
Which is really the point here, isn't it?
Were they?
I'm not giving him a "free pass". I just happen to agree with him, and it just seems like all the anti-war FReepers are all-of-the-sudden becoming quite vocal again, when it was quite clear before the war that 90-95% of us were for Op. Iraqi Freedom. What is there to discuss?
I believe that Saddam Hussein moved, hid, or destroyed the weapons before Op. Iraqi Freedom to make us look stupid.
You believe that Bush misled us.
What does that say about your beliefs, other than the fact that you don't even trust conservative politicians? And if that is the case, what is your goal here? Do you vote? Did you vote for Bush? If not, why? If so, how is it that you think he (and not Saddam) is the one who misled you?
Because President Bush 41 was a complete wussy, and didn't want to offend the UN?
Did you vote for them in 2000?
Ask yourself that question. If the U.S. effectively negated the threat of Saddam Hussein's WMDs in 1991 by agreeing to leave him in power (why else would he refrain from using them? -- he had to know that there was an up--side), and you stated that the U.S. could have negated the threat of Saddam Hussein's WMDs in a similar manner in 2003, then we would have had to offer him something in return. Clearly we didn't offer to let him stay in power, so what was it?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.