War Dead

[HeightsGuy]

TJones, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here. Why don't you show me proof where the justification of the war was to save the Kurds. In return, I'll give you a link to Colin Powell's speach to the UN discussing resolution 1441.

Transcript of Powell's U.N. presentation

Sorry TJones, you can talk all you want to of the goodness the US showed to the Iraqi people, but the facts are plain and simple, we were sold that the justification for going to war with Iraq was to capture and stop any and all WOMD's.

[TJones]

TJones, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here. Why don't you show me proof where the justification of the war was to save the Kurds. In return, I'll give you a link to Colin Powell's speach to the UN discussing resolution 1441.

Transcript of Powell's U.N. presentation

Sorry TJones, you can talk all you want to of the goodness the US showed to the Iraqi people, but the facts are plain and simple, we were sold that the justification for going to war with Iraq was to capture and stop any and all WOMD's.

I agree on the WMD claim,One point was to find the WMDs, once in Iraq, the whole scene changed, You liberals claimed "it was all for OIL !" "Bush wants to just steal all the OIL !" hmm, not one drop taken in 4 years. I have stated in another thread that it will probably succumb to that within a year or two. Were we given bad intelligence, probably, I didn't say, saving the Kurds, was the only reason for going, you wrote as if, Saddam never had any WMD, I asked you if you thought Saddam was a goodie two shoes, now you are giving me the benefit of the doubt, which I can only guess that means you agree that Saddam is a BAD MAN. I believe that Bush was given the info. about WMDs and consulted other Leaders of the free world as to what the best way to handle this, The U.N. went in ,how many times Heights, 13 or more, each time being turned away at some point and asked to leave, Saddam, not allowing them in to certain places, wonder why that was. While all this hmm hahing is going on with the U.N., what do you think was happening ? You can close your eyes to all that man has done to those people. You still didn't answer the question, do you think the Iraqi people are happier today, then they were 4 years ago ? The Iraq war wasn't solely about WMDs either, It is part of the "War on Terrorism", Saddam was harboring terrorist also, or did the Bush Administration make that up also Heights ?

[westguy]

I agree on the WMD claim,One point was to find the WMDs, once in Iraq, the whole scene changed, You liberals claimed "it was all for OIL !" "Bush wants to just steal all the OIL !" hmm, not one drop taken in 4 years.

But oil was supposed to pay for the war. It's not because they have failed to get the infrastructure online.

BTW, the UN inspectors had to leave because the war was imminent. They were not kicked out by the regime.

[RedScare]

It is part of the "War on Terrorism", Saddam was harboring terrorist also, or did the Bush Administration make that up also Heights ?

Funny you should ask. This article just showed up on the net today.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9831216/site/newsweek/

It seems the answer to your question is.....Yes.

[TJones]

Funny you should ask. This article just showed up on the net today.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9831216/site/newsweek/

It seems the answer to your question is.....Yes.

Red, that article only says that Zarqawi might have been there under an alias, and that Iraq officials "may not have known" doesn't say they didn't know.

[HeightsGuy]

Whoops, we were given bad intel just doesn't cut it. You can't have it both ways. We all agree that Saddam was a bad man, but if that was the justification for the war then you have to also agree that the war was pre-emptive. Let us take this one step further then. Saddam was a lot of things, but he was not a religous zelot, he was a Sunni. What we have now effectively done is taken the government out of his hands and given it with a big red bow to the Shiites. If memory serves, Shiites are in control of Iran. Does that at all alarm you??

[TJones]

Whoops, we were given bad intel just doesn't cut it. You can't have it both ways. We all agree that Saddam was a bad man, but if that was the justification for the war then you have to also agree that the war was pre-emptive. Let us take this one step further then. Saddam was a lot of things, but he was not a religous zelot, he was a Sunni. What we have now effectively done is taken the government out of his hands and given it with a big red bow to the Shiites. If memory serves, Shiites are in control of Iran. Does that at all alarm you??

That whole region bothers me ! We may very well have to go in there again someday, and do the dirty work again. We had to choose the lesser of 2 evils, leave a madman with chemical and biological capabilities, who kills his own people, in power, or go in and take him out of power, and try to restore some freedom to some people, and pray that the new government won't try the same thing. I think the weapons are still there, either buried or moved to a neighboring country. I still want to know if you guys and gals believe that Saddam never had these weapons ?

[dbigtex56]

You liberals claimed "it was all for OIL !" "Bush wants to just steal all the OIL !" hmm, not one drop taken in 4 years.

Funny you should mention that.

As a (gerrymandered, unwilling) constituent of Rep. John Culberson (R, Houston) I received a newsletter from him a few months ago expressing his support of the war. Can't quote it directly, but he explained that the US would be reimbursed for the expenses of the war in Iraq once the oil started flowing. 'The liberals' don't have to make this stuff up.

So, is war-for-oil OK if a conservative says so?

(edit)

You also might find the recent speech by Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, USA (Ret.) Former Chief of Staff, Department of State 2002-2005 informative and revealing.

We'll be hearing a lot more about this very soon. He was in a unique position to gauge and report on the incompetence and arrogance of the Bush administration's policies.

[HeightsGuy]

There you go again, talking about WOMD's. Yes, he had them at one time, but it now appears as if the UN weapons inspectors did the job after all. You can't hide WOMD's and WOMD facilities in suitcases. We had the country surrounded and all the major roads into and out of Iraq are guarded by satellites, how could they slip out the back door?

What has become obvious is that Saddam didn't have any WOMD's at the time of the war, and it also has become obvious in two wars with the guy that Iraq couldn't fight its way out of a paper bag. What threat was he to anyone? And if you bring up the sob story of his countrymen again, I'll give you about 45 countries that oppress their people.......

[TJones]

Funny you should mention that.

As a (gerrymandered, unwilling) constituent of Rep. John Culberson (R, Houston) I received a newsletter from him a few months ago expressing his support of the war. Can't quote it directly, but he explained that the US would be reimbursed for the expenses of the war in Iraq once the oil started flowing. 'The liberals' don't have to make this stuff up.

So, is war-for-oil OK if a conservative says so?

I'm sure it will "pay for the war" , but we didn't get into a war to "steal" some oil to pay for it ? If the amount of oil taken, starts to be greater than what the war cost, and we aren't paying for it, then tell me were in this war to "steal" oil, and I'll agree with you. Until then, you don't have a leg to stand on.

There you go again, talking about WOMD's. Yes, he had them at one time, but it now appears as if the UN weapons inspectors did the job after all. You can't hide WOMD's and WOMD facilities in suitcases. We had the country surrounded and all the major roads into and out of Iraq are guarded by satellites, how could they slip out the back door?

What has become obvious is that Saddam didn't have any WOMD's at the time of the war, and it also has become obvious in two wars with the guy that Iraq couldn't fight its way out of a paper bag. What threat was he to anyone? And if you bring up the sob story of his countrymen again, I'll give you about 45 countries that oppress their people.......

I agree, that oppression happens all over, Clinton tried to go to Solmalia, oy vey! What a mess. Saddam was just too blatant and too arrogant, for his own good. Look at him now, he still thinks he has done nothing wrong. There are still plenty of countries that we are eventually going to have to deal with. I hate the fact that The U.S. can't just take care of ourselves. If we respond we are Tyrants, if we don't we are insensitive to people's suffering. Catch 22 for our country at every turn. Would you have us just sit on our hands and do nothing. I thought liberals were the great defenders for human rights. If you don't know what a danger Saddam was, I can't help you. I respect your views, we just see things way too differently in this matter.

[westguy]

Well, we could've just looked at the evidence that said that Iraq was not a threat to the United States. Hans Blix was smeared by the Bushies because he could not find anything to back up their wild claims. Apparently they just hoped to conquer Iraq and then find the justification for their actions.

[HeightsGuy]

I agree, that oppression happens all over, Clinton tried to go to Solmalia, oy vey! What a mess. Saddam was just too blatant and too arrogant, for his own good. Look at him now, he still thinks he has done nothing wrong. There are still plenty of countries that we are eventually going to have to deal with. I hate the fact that The U.S. can't just take care of ourselves. If we respond we are Tyrants, if we don't we are insensitive to people's suffering. Catch 22 for our country at every turn. Would you have us just sit on our hands and do nothing. I thought liberals were the great defenders for human rights. If you don't know what a danger Saddam was, I can't help you. I respect your views, we just see things way too differently in this matter.

You will of course scoff at this notion, but you get out of the catch 22 by letting the UN do their job. The US went to Somolia and Bosnia with the full support of the UN. In 2003 the UN wouldn't support the US saying Iraq had not broken resolution 1441 yet, so we blew off the UN and went into Iraq. Maybe the UN knew something we didn't after all?

[TJones]

You will of course scoff at this notion, but you get out of the catch 22 by letting the UN do their job. The US went to Somolia and Bosnia with the full support of the UN. In 2003 the UN wouldn't support the US saying Iraq had not broken resolution 1441 yet, so we blew off the UN and went into Iraq. Maybe the UN knew something we didn't after all?

That is entirely possible. You and I both know the U.N. is a joke, way more corruption there, than in our own U.S. politics. You really believe the U.N. could have done a better than we have in Iraq ? C'mon chief .

[HeightsGuy]

I didn't say that the UN would do a better job, the point I am making is that you get out of the catch 22 by having the UN's blessing to do it.

[TJones]

I didn't say that the UN would do a better job, the point I am making is that you get out of the catch 22 by having the UN's blessing to do it.

AHHH HAAAA !, I gotcha , I'm with you on that. I think the haste to go to war, was the fact, that the intelligence suggested the WMDs were there now, and if you wait, they'll move'em, and the consensus was that we have to act now, and can't wait for U.N. blessing. I agree, it would have been the best way, but Clinton lobbed a few missiles into Iraq in '98 and didn't bother to ask for U.N. permission. I don't blame him for that, I think he should have finished what he started then, I would have backed him, but I think he was afraid of another Somalia.

[nmainguy]

OK, OK, OK...enough already. Sadam gone now. BAD man. Turns out there were no WMD. We were mislead or we mislead-which ever, we are there now for the foreseeable future. There were no nuclear weapons-thank god for that! I do remember Cheney saying before the war on Meet The Press that the oil would pay for the war. Maybe it will-maybe not. Hasn't yet. I never approved of going to war there but we did so let's figure a way out. My 2 cents about that.

This has always been my biggest fear-long before Iraq:

That whack job, Kim Jong Il of N. Korea has at his disposal Taep'o-dong-2B missiles with an estimated range of about 4200 miles [Alaska]with a 230lb nuclear payload and probably has the Taep'o-dong-4 with an estimated range of about 9300 miles [Portland, Oregon] with a 220lb nuclear payload.

He starves his people to pay for his life style and weapons program. Sure they can't even bake a loaf of bread or turn on there lights at night [ http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/wor...k/dprk-dark.htm ]but you can bet that nut-job has the above mentioned WMD's.

What'll we do, gang? He only has to lob one onto Ancohrage to rip the lid off hell.

I think if we were going to go after anyone, it should have been ol' Kim.

[gto250us]

OK, OK, OK...enough already. Sadam gone now. BAD man. Turns out there were no WMD. We were mislead or we mislead-which ever, we are there now for the foreseeable future. There were no nuclear weapons-thank god for that! I do remember Cheney saying before the war on Meet The Press that the oil would pay for the war. Maybe it will-maybe not. Hasn't yet. I never approved of going to war there but we did so let's figure a way out. My 2 cents about that.

This has always been my biggest fear-long before Iraq:

That whack job, Kim Jong Il of N. Korea has at his disposal Taep'o-dong-2B missiles with an estimated range of about 4200 miles [Alaska]with a 230lb nuclear payload and probably has the Taep'o-dong-4 with an estimated range of about 9300 miles [Portland, Oregon] with a 220lb nuclear payload.

He starves his people to pay for his life style and weapons program. Sure they can't even bake a loaf of bread or turn on there lights at night [ http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/wor...k/dprk-dark.htm ]but you can bet that nut-job has the above mentioned WMD's.

What'll we do, gang? He only has to lob one onto Ancohrage to rip the lid off hell.

I think if we were going to go after anyone, it should have been ol' Kim.

I agree about Korea. That guy is a wackjob and a half. They need to packup and get out of Iraq but Bush would rather kill Americans that admit that he is wrong. If they want to let off cruise missles they should look toward Korea not mideast.

[TJones]

Unfortunately, you have to have diplomacy with that particular "nut-job". He has Nukes ! Surgical strike on his Palace would be nice, but if you miss, WW3. Undercover operative for suicide mission? Kim Jong's inner circle has probably been with him for awhile so I don't see that happening either. Probably be a stalemate from here on out. All we can hope for is that he shrivels up and dies.

[Jeebus]

Undercover operative for suicide mission? Kim Jong's inner circle has probably been with him for awhile so I don't see that happening either.

Send in Miss Swan from MTV - that should annoy him to death!

Probably be a stalemate from here on out. All we can hope for is that he shrivels up and dies.

Unfortunately that won't work. He's brainwashed all those that are granted the ability to go to school to hate America, and blame us for the condition of their country. I've seen news reports where the reporter will ask a 10 year old child what they think of America, and they tell the reporter that its our fault they have no food, resourses, or wealth. They then praise Kim Jon Ill as if he will save them from their blinded life of tyrany.

It's really quite sad to watch.

[Parrothead]

oh wow...a lot like Iraq used to be when Saddam was in power.

[nmainguy]

oh wow...a lot like Iraq used to be when Saddam was in power.

Not really.

Far worse.

[editor]

Just as Tom DeLay was out of line when he made the remark, so too was the editor.

I made no remark. I merely put the numbers out there for everyone to see.

If you're going to flame someone, be sure you're attacking the right person.

[Jeebus]

Not really.

Far worse.

So if you think Hussein really was worse to his people than Kim Jong Ill is to his people, are you for or against a war with Iraq to overthrow Hussein and install a democratic government?

If you are for this war, then would you be for a war with North Korea? If you're not for this war, and you do feel that way about Hussein, what do you propose we as a nation do?

[RedScare]

I made no remark. I merely put the numbers out there for everyone to see.

If you're going to flame someone, be sure you're attacking the right person.

Quote from Tom DeLay:

"You know, if Houston, Texas, was held to the same standard as Iraq is held to, nobody'd go to Houston, because all this reporting coming out of the local press in Houston [would be about] violence, murders, robberies, deaths on the highways," - Houston Chronicle.

Quote from editor:

"I guess I can see their point. What I think is that with 2,000 dead since the beginning of the war Iraq is safer than Detroit, Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, or Washington, D.C."

[editor]

Quote from Tom DeLay:

"You know, if Houston, Texas, was held to the same standard as Iraq is held to, nobody'd go to Houston, because all this reporting coming out of the local press in Houston [would be about] violence, murders, robberies, deaths on the highways," - Houston Chronicle.

Quote from editor:

"I guess I can see their point. What I think is that with 2,000 dead since the beginning of the war Iraq is safer than Detroit, Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, or Washington, D.C."

Ah. Now I see your point. I was unaware of the DeLay comment.

[TJones]

Hey ,you know what, Our intelligence could be completely wrong about Kim Jon ILK ! Maybe he doesn't have any NUKES ! Just like Saddam didn't have any WMDs when we thought he did. Just a thought, maybe we go ahead and go take him out too. Hmmmmmmmmm!

[Parrothead]

nmainguy--I was trying to make a point, I think you might have missed it.