Why are cities "blue" and rural areas "red"?

All of the things our forefathers faught so hard to maintain, and a lot of us just won't appreciate it until it's gone, and by then it will be too late.

IMO, you are the one putting are country's future in danger. You are the one who's afraid of defending ourselves 'cause it might get messy. You are the one looking for any excuse, any conspiacy, to believe we need to back down until we are attacked again.

All the evidance for going into Iraq is in the 9/11 Report and the Duelfur Report andyou refuse to read it.

IMO, guys like you are the reason we waited too long to respond to the terrorists declairing war on us. It is because of your line of thinking that 9/11 happened in the first place.

Now if you want to stand on the sidelines and not piss anyone off, that is your opinion. But the rest of us are finaly responding to the war that was declaired on us in '93.

And if you continue to fight this war with the courts and law enforcement, as we used to believe it should be faught you will have another 9/11. If you can't see that then thank God you aren't the President!

 

Wow.

 

Wow.

Care to expand on your point?

 

We didn't defend ourselves. We invaded a soverign country without provocation.

 

The fact that you can't see that what we are doing is defence is disturbing to me.

What would you have us do?

EDIT: A broken cease fire agreement isn't provocation?

 

Did you know that they more recently declassified infromation that says our government knew about Pearl Harbor but decided to allow it to hapen so our country would get behind our entering the war?

It's just interesting that some people in this forum appear to think it's okay for the president to lie to the American people.

That invading another country is okay simply because we have succombed to fear.

It was a great man who said the only thing we have to fear, is fear itself.

 

You have not answered either of my questions.

 

I would have given it more time so we could find out whether or not they had weapons before we invaded them based on fearful rumors.

If they did attack us, then nobody would have a problem with us defending ourselves, just like nobody had a problem with us going into Afganistan after 9/11.

 

If they did attack us, then nobody would have a problem with us defending ourselves, just like nobody had a problem with us going into Afganistan after 9/11.

Alright then. Like I said, it is thinking like yours that caused 9/11 in the first place.

Purfect example. Thank you.

 

So, a nation is justified in taking military action against potential future threats?

 

If they did attack us, then nobody would have a problem with us defending ourselves, just like nobody had a problem with us going into Afganistan after 9/11.

Alright then. Like I said, it is thinking like yours that caused 9/11 in the first place.

Don't you think that invading a sovereign nation without sufficient provocation might piss a lot of people off and might-- just might-- breed more terrorists than we "take care of"?

 

Alright, let's get some things clear as I believe you are confused.

The broken cease fire agreement was enough. But we also had the last UN resolution. Two signed documents that gave us the right to remove Saddam.

Second, the UN voted against going in as they were bribed! Doesn't that mean anything to you guys? Notice how they've not taken any action against us, because they knew it was the right thing to do.

So, now I've shown evidence that we had:

1) The right to go in.

2) The UN was not against it as they had to be bribed to vote against it.

 

---

[b]J-Rod:[/b] IMO, you are the one putting are country's future in danger. You are the one who's afraid of defending ourselves 'cause it might get messy. You are the one looking for any excuse, any conspiacy, to believe we need to back down until we are attacked again.

All the evidance for going into Iraq is in the 9/11 Report and the Duelfur Report andyou refuse to read it.

IMO, guys like you are the reason we waited too long to respond to the terrorists declairing war on us. It is because of your line of thinking that 9/11 happened in the first place.

Now if you want to stand on the sidelines and not piss anyone off, that is your opinion. But the rest of us are finaly responding to the war that was declaired on us in '93.

And if you continue to fight this war with the courts and law enforcement, as we used to believe it should be faught you will have another 9/11. If you can't see that then thank God you aren't the President![hr][/blockquote]Hey, 9-11 happened on Bush's watch.

Osama is still at large making video tapes talking about their next 9-11.

I know I don't feel very 'secure' right now.

 

Please explain why Iraqis breaking the ceasefire agreement by firing on foreign aircraft patrolling the "no-fly zone" over Iraq is a threat to the security of the United States.

 

17 resoultions...17 Darth Guy. And each one of them were broken many times before the wussy UN would decide to rewrite them in a way they hoped Saddam would follow.

Also, every time they fired on our planes, they broke the cease fire agreement and we were allowed to resume hostilities, up to and including all out war.

Saddam had been lucky that we usually just shot the anti-air missile launcher.

Again, these are the 2 reason's we had legal justification, backed up by the fact that the UN had to be bribed to vote against us taking action. Further backed up by the UN supporting us by not taking action against us.

 

I would like to say that I do believe that the US invasion of Iraq was justified according to the decrees that the UN has made over the years, and it has definitely been tacitly endorsed by the UN.



But, my question is still open: is a nation is justified in taking military action against potential future threats?

 

is a nation is justified in taking military action against potential future threats?

If you've read the Duelfur Report, you'll see they were a current threat, not a future threat.

Saddam was actively bribing the UN to lift sactions and stashing away billions of dollars for the expressed purpose of restarting his WMD programs as soon as those sanctions were lifted.

 

"As soon as" = "at some point in the future." What made him a more current threat than Kim Jong-il, who actually has the bomb, and loves to tell us about it?

If all we're talking about is legalistic distinctions, then we had a better chance of drumming up support for going after Saddam than Kim, since the UN had sanctions against Saddam anyway. However, I don't know that this translates into "moral justification," especially if Saddam was the lesser threat, and we ignored a greater one.

The problem here is: if Saddam Hussein represents the lowest level of threat that can justify a pre-emptive attack, what do we do about dictators who are more dangerous than he is? Do we ignore them and risk having an inconsistent foreign policy in a major area of national security, or do we go after each and every one of the suckers, bomb or no bomb?

 

"As soon as" = "at some point in the future."

Yes, but the plan was being implemented now. As is current.

 

Saddam was actively bribing the UN to lift sactions and stashing away billions of dollars for the expressed purpose of restarting his WMD programs as soon as those sanctions were lifted.

Wouldn't cleaning up the UN a) involved invading 100% fewer countries and b) had other direct positive spin-offs?

 

Sure it would, and if I were Bush it would be on my adjenda.

But had we not gone into Iraq we would not know about the Oil-For-Food scandle. Many had suspicians, but no hard evidence. We would have been chastized and laughed out of the meeting.

 

But had we not gone into Iraq we would not know about the Oil-For-Food scandle.

Maybe I'm misremembering, but I recall talking about it after a history class with my professor and a couple of grad students a few days before the invasion.


In any case, if a nation is justified in taking military action against potential future threats, then given recent US actions (i.e. the invasion of Iraq), does that mean that Iraq would have been justified in using WOMD (or any other kind of attacks) against the US before the US invaded?

 

does that mean that Iraq would have been justified in using WOMD (or any other kind of attacks) against the US before the US invaded?

That is the danger...If they could've, do you believe they would've?

I do. I believe we had no choice but to make sure they couldn't, and with the way Saddam was messing with the weapons inspecters we had, IMO, no way of knowing when he could've struck.

Maybe I'm misremembering, but I recall talking about it after a history class with my professor and a couple of grad students a few days before the invasion.

You are not misremembering. We knew something was not right, but had no hard evidence. Hell, even now the UN is trying to brush it off. Before we had any of the documents we now have, they would have not taken us seriously, IMO.

 

In any case, if a nation is justified in taking military action against potential future threats, then given recent US actions (i.e. the invasion of Iraq), does that mean that Iraq would have been justified in using WOMD (or any other kind of attacks) against the US before the US invaded?

Or we can put it another way: Let's say, J-Rod, that you and I know each other outside of here, and we do NOT get along. In fact, we've had fights before. I am pretty sure you just went and bought a gun, and I am afraid you might use it. So I go over to your house and blow you away with my gun. Unfortunately in the process I accidently kill you some members of your family. Is that justified? Not according to our laws here.

If I was Iran right now, I would seriously be worried about the possibility of the US attacking. Does that give them the right to attack us right now??

J-Rod, Ophelia made mention of North Korea, and you did not respond to her. It seems that North Korea is way beyond where Iraq was in regards to WMDs, and their leader is a nutjob who has threatened us with attack. Why haven't we gone after him? Is he next?

Many people bring up that Saddam was a terrible leader and he deserved to be taken out. There are LOTS of terrible leaders who do all kinds of bad things to their people. Should we invade all those countries next?

You bring up all the times that Iraq fired upon our planes patrolling the no-fire zone. They attacked us, so they brought about this war. Many of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis. Just recently I have read of Saudi Imans telling their followers to take up the fight against the US soldiers in Iraq. Should we invade Saudi Arabia next?

One of my biggest problems with Bush's doctrine of pre-emptive strike (disregarding the fact that in my life time that is generally what the "bad guys" do) is how do you know how far to push it?

 

That is the danger...If they could've, do you believe they would've?

I do. I believe we had no choice but to make sure they couldn't, and with the way Saddam was messing with the weapons inspecters we had, IMO, no way of knowing when he could've struck.

You know, they might have, but I don't think they would ever fire a missle at us. We would turn Iraq, or any other country, into a wasteland.

I think the way a rogue state might nuke us is to pass one on to terrorists who would have to then smuggle it into the US. I am sorry I don't have the link to this article, but I remember reading about a billboard in New York that is keeping track of the dollar amount spent on Iraq. The responsible group also wrote up a report on an alternative way to spend that money, ways to make us much safer back here at home. I read this and thought "Wow, we haven't done any of this stuff yet???"

Nope, instead we haul our resources away from hunting those that DID attack us and go after someone who MIGHT. I believe in the process we have created a breeding ground for al Qaeda or other like-minded groups.