The Observation Deck

Posted: **Thu Jul 26, 2007 8:25 pm**

ryan costa wrote:i don't understand what bringing Clinton into this is for. Clinton didn't get us into war. Iraq didn't attack us. Iraq didn't do any of the things you mentioned.
Nor did any of the things you mention justify a war. and if they did justify a war, it would only have been against Saudi Arabia.

Iraq will be in worse shape than before we invaded for a long time. It will be worse than before we invaded 1 year from now, 5 years from now, and 10 years from now. Because what we've exported there is Americanism. Americanism is what produced Los Angeles. Americanism is what turned Cleveland and Detroit from what they were before bussing, into what they are now. It is about spending a lot of money to "fix" things, and ending up worse off.

I never said that Clinton got us into the war in Iraq. Nor did I say that Iraq attacked the US. I pointed out that Bill Clinton neglected to respond to several terrorist attacks on the US and US interest. Bill Clinton neglected to see the threat that Al Qaeda posed to the US. As a result of Clintons negligence, Al Qaeda was encouraged to plan more attacks against the US (eg. 9-11). He also cut the CIA budget in Afghanistan at a critical point in Al Qaedas history in Afghanistan. Again, Iraq was under UN Resolution to disarm. Iraq had invaded Kuwait and became a threat to the region. After Coalition forces drove the Iraqi Army back to Baghdad. Saddam had agreed to "terms of surrender". One of the terms was to allow UN weapon inspectors in Iraq to verify that Iraq had disarmed. It is pretty simple.. Once Saddam did not allow weapon inspectors in Iraq, the military response was on the table. The Democrats in this country also believed that Saddam did have WMD's. That is until they made it into a political issue.

Proof:

CLINTON: Good evening.

Earlier today, I ordered AmericaÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack IraqÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors

.

[quote[b]]"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force Ã¢â‚¬â€

Posted: **Thu Jul 26, 2007 8:29 pm**

Americanism is what produced Los Angeles. Americanism is what turned Cleveland and Detroit from what they were before bussing, into what they are now. It is about spending a lot of money to "fix" things, and ending up worse off.

And all three cities are controlled by Democrats so maybe it is not about Americanism..

Posted: **Thu Jul 26, 2007 8:43 pm**

Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq,

4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and or 12 below;

9. Requests the Secretary General immediately to notify Iraq of this resolution, which is binding on Iraq; demands that Iraq confirm within seven days of that notification its intention to comply fully with this resolution; and demands further that Iraq cooperate immediately, unconditionally, and actively with UNMOVIC and the IAEA;

13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

Posted: **Thu Jul 26, 2007 8:52 pm**

Nor did any of the things you mention justify a war. and if they did justify a war, it would only have been against Saudi Arabia.

I am not sure that I quite follow you on this one. Could you please be more specific and list any UN Resolutions or actions taken by Saudi Arabia that put them in the same boat as Iraq. Thanks

Posted: **Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:10 pm**

Iraq will be in worse shape than before we invaded for a long time. It will be worse than before we invaded 1 year from now, 5 years from now, and 10 years from now. Because what we've exported there is Americanism.

What are you basing this opinion on? (specifically what conditons) Since the beginning of this war, Iraq has more hospitals, schools, water systems, electricity, consumer goods, Mosque and etc. The poor conditons in Iraq before this war were a result of the war between Iraq and Iran, the first Gulf War, and UN sanctions. The World Bank and Coalition forces have helped to improve conditions in Iraq. Yes, the conditons in Iraq are sad but they are not a result of the US lead war.

Posted: **Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:20 pm**

I hope that the next admin, dem or repub, does a better job managing this war. It is unfortunate that the media has taken such a one sided view on this war.

Posted: **Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:36 pm**

Stephen Eisel wrote:
Nor did any of the things you mention justify a war. and if they did justify a war, it would only have been against Saudi Arabia.
I am not sure that I quite follow you on this one. Could you please be more specific and list any UN Resolutions or actions taken by Saudi Arabia that put them in the same boat as Iraq. Thanks

I cannot explain how those UN resolutions indicated any threat of Iraq to the united states. I cannot explain why George Bush always said "9/11" and Iraq in the same sentence. I cannot explain why most of the 9/11 terrorists were saudis, and none were Iraqis.

Posted: **Fri Jul 27, 2007 4:20 pm**

ryan costa wrote:
Stephen Eisel wrote:
Nor did any of the things you mention justify a war. and if they did justify a war, it would only have been against Saudi Arabia.
I am not sure that I quite follow you on this one. Could you please be more specific and list any UN Resolutions or actions taken by Saudi Arabia that put them in the same boat as Iraq. Thanks

I cannot explain how those UN resolutions indicated any threat of Iraq to the united states. I cannot explain why George Bush always said "9/11" and Iraq in the same sentence. I cannot explain why most of the 9/11 terrorists were saudis, and none were Iraqis.

Iraq was a threat to the world not just the US (UN Resolution 1441 spells this out). Please give me some examples of Bush using the words 9-11 and and Iraq in the same sentence (more than once). I am not saying that he did not use these words together but showing several incedence of this might help your case. Al Qaeda is a terrorist group that is not loyal nor working for any one country. Yes, some countries have harbored and supported Al Qaeda. The origins of the 9-11 hi-jackers was not the reason for the Iraqi war. Saddams non compliance to the terms of surrender (from the first Gulf War) and not dis-arming as ordered by the UN Security Council was the reason for the second Iraqi war. Also, Saddam did agree to the terms of surrender.

Posted: **Fri Jul 27, 2007 6:07 pm**

Stephen my namesake albeit contrapole: quoting UN Resolutions is helpful, but do you think you could dig a bit deeper and quote the protocols for enforcement per the UN Charter?

I can give you a hint: there came a moment during a very potted White House news conference in 2003 during which President Bush "guaranteed," in effect, that the incipient US Military action would be in accordance with those protocols.

However, something dramatic happened three days later that led to that action, in fact, not being endorsed by the UN.

I'm just wondering if you recall this and can thus give me a smart read on the formal protocols and their importance to the enforcement of the Resolutions you handily quote.

Thanks in advance.

Posted: **Fri Jul 27, 2007 8:13 pm**

Stephen Calhoun wrote:Stephen my namesake albeit contrapole: quoting UN Resolutions is helpful, but do you think you could dig a bit deeper and quote the protocols for enforcement per the UN Charter?

I can give you a hint: there came a moment during a very potted White House news conference in 2003 during which President Bush "guaranteed," in effect, that the incipient US Military action would be in accordance with those protocols.

However, something dramatic happened three days later that led to that action, in fact, not being endorsed by the UN.

I'm just wondering if you recall this and can thus give me a smart read on the formal protocols and their importance to the enforcement of the Resolutions you handily quote.
Thanks in advance.

Please be my guest and educate me on UN Protocol general or specifically to the Security Council(seriously). I need a refresher. ( I have forgotten more then I can remeber) If you would like to change the direction of this thread then I am game. If you need more information on the UN then I would suggest visiting http://www.un.org/ It is very user friendly site. I spent a lot of time on the UN site after 9-11. (long story)

I am not sure why UN protocol matters in reference to the US invasion of Iraq (did I quote it?).. The UN Security Council did not authorize the US to take military action against Iraq. 3 of the 5 permanent members voted "No" (France, Russia and China) If my memory serves me correctly. I am sure that all three had the best interst of the world in mind when they voted "No" :wink:

. .. UN Resolution 1441 demonstrates to me that Iraq was a threat to the world. This was not just US opinion or GW manufacturing some propaganda via Fox News :wink:

. 1441 is an independent source verifying that Iraq (per the UN opinion) was threat to the world. Have you actually read through 1441 and all of the UN Resolutions that it quotes?? But please feel free to educate me on any other events that you feel counter the information that I have presented. I am very open to learning new facts this subject. I know that several UN inspectors (Ritter comes to mind) have given conflicting testimony on the WMD subject concerning Iraq. I prefer specific information and dislike half baked mantras that make unfactual suggestions.

Do you think that the Clinton invasion plan shows that regardless of 9-11 and who the next president was going to be (Dem or Repub) that the US was going to invade Iraq?

Posted: **Sat Jul 28, 2007 9:12 am**

If the U.N. sanctions Iraq, let the U.N. declare war on Iraq. Iraq is closer to Europe and Egypt and India than the U.S. is. Let the those member nations supply the initiative and the troops, should they so have chosen.

Iraq is a much more violent place today than it was before the U.S. occupation of Iraq. Iraq will remain a much more violent place than it was before our occupation of Iraq indefinitely.

It is sad that Saddam Hussein's sons abused their powers. But so what? the same stuff is going on in Saudi Arabia here and there. If it bothers you so much, you could have petitioned Congress to get John Wayne's grandsons to start a fist fight with Saddam Hussein's sons in some Disco or Country Club.

There are several ten thousand women in Japan who were kidnapped from neighboring countries and are held as sex slaves. The Philippines are essentially a whoring station for sailors, diplomats, and business leaders. Should we Invade them?

Posted: **Sat Jul 28, 2007 9:49 am**

If the U.N. sanctions Iraq, let the U.N. declare war on Iraq. Iraq is closer to Europe and Egypt and India than the U.S. is. Let the those member nations supply the initiative and the troops, should they so have chosen.

Today I am signing into law H.R. 4655, the Ã¢â‚¬Å“Iraq Liberation Act". This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers.

Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are: The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.

The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to IraqÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else. The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.

My Administration has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these objectives through active application of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership.

In the meantime, while the United States continues to look to the Security CouncilÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s efforts to keep the current regimeÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s behavior in check, we look forward to new leadership in Iraq that has the support of the Iraqi people. The United States is providing support to opposition groups from all sectors of the Iraqi community that could lead to a popularly supported government.

Posted: **Sat Jul 28, 2007 9:55 am**

Viva Iraq!

Here is irony. Iraq had pretty modern Womens Rights. Iraq had a modest amount of freedom of religion.

In..Saudi Arabia..there is not freedom of religion. There are not womens rights. that means half the population in Saudi Arabia is more repressed than a small fraction of the population in Iraq.

It is good for a president to have realistic goals. It is good for a president to be honest. I would have settled for only one of those. But all we got was none of those.

Posted: **Sat Jul 28, 2007 1:51 pm**

ryan costa wrote:Viva Iraq!

Here is irony. Iraq had pretty modern Womens Rights. Iraq had a modest amount of freedom of religion.

In..Saudi Arabia..there is not freedom of religion. There are not womens rights. that means half the population in Saudi Arabia is more repressed than a small fraction of the population in Iraq.

It is good for a president to have realistic goals. It is good for a president to be honest. I would have settled for only one of those. But all we got was none of those.

So what do you really know about the Ba'ath Party? lol

Posted: **Sat Jul 28, 2007 1:59 pm**

How about Afghanistan and Women's Rights?

The Observation Deck

Not safer, Mideast worst, what did we spend it on?

Re: swell

swell

viva Iraq!

Re: viva Iraq!