sdstud and I have had a spirited debate going on regarding a topic which is now back several pages. He just posted this response and I felt the whole board should have an opportunity to read this one.


Quote...

Bush justified this war based on WMDs that represented an IMMINENT THREAT to US.  Not to Iraqis.  That was the ONLY justification he used.  EVERYTHING ELSE is revisionist history, and insufficient to justify 800+ and counting deaths of Brave Americans, and $200 Billion + of American treasury.

If Shrub made the case you make NOW, 18 months ago, he would NEVER have gotten Congressional approval to go to war.  The fact is, the case he made was bogus.  The case you make now is entirely inadequate revisionism.

BTW, the Iraqi No Fly Zone is THIER sovereign airspace, imposed on them by us.  Why shouldn't they fire on us when we overfly their nation?

The fact is, Saddam support of Hamas is an entirely inadequate justification for our overthrowing them.  Hamas may be terrorists in YOUR mind, but to the Palestinians, and MOST of the Arab world, they are freedom fighters.  It is entirely different than Al Qaida, who is OUR sworn enemy, and has attacked US, inflicting great harm on us.  We desire to be a fair broker of peace between the Israel and the Palestinians, we cannot crush Hammas.  It completely removes our legitimacy to the Palastinians.  You need to come up with a better rationale to justify attacking Saddam, because THIS ONE is specifically NOT in our national interest.

End Quote...

I will post my response when the administrator puts this on the board.

What is so hard for you to understand about that fact?  

The fact that Saddam encouraged Hamas suicide bombers with $10K bounties is NOT sufficient rational for losing 800+ Brave American Troops, and wasting $200+ Billion Dollars of American funds.  It IS and was sufficient to justify things like trade sanctions against him, and other efforts to keep Saddam contained - Which he WAS, prior to our invasion.

And, BTW, WHEN, EXACTLY, did Bush SPECIFICALLY SAY that he was overthrowing Saddam Hussein because Hussein supported Hamas?  I don't recall Bush EVER making that case to the Congress, or the American people PRIOR to our invasion.

First I just wanted to note that you failed to justify your comment condoning Iraq firing on our aircraft. I must admit that I was stunned that you thought that was ok. As much as we differ, I never imagined you would have no problem with people take pot shots at our folks in uniform (even after Iraq signed a surrender document allowing us to patrol those very areas).

In regards to Hamas, you pretty muched summed up the two camps, those who want to appease and go along to get along. Those who are willing to give terrorist organization what they want and reward that type of behavior.

The other camp wants to take on terrorist organizations (NOT JUST ALQUIDA). If we used your mentality we would have fought the Japanese in WWII in response to Pearl Harbor but not the Nazis.

BTW, Bush never said he was attacking because of Saddam's support for Hammas, he said we were declaring war on terrorism. Saddam was supporting terrorist organizations. Perhaps this might help you understand. This seems pretty logical to me.
Whether you think it is justified really doesn't matter. We are a Representative Republic and the people we elected for this representation have voted to pursue this course (including the congress, despite how they compalin now, go back and see how they actually voted). I know how my representative voted, do you?

and because of the fact that the Arab world considers Hamas to be freedom fighters, WE can't go after Hamas if WE would like to be a peace broker in the middle east.   If Bush wanted to go after Saddam because Saddam supported Hamas, he should have said so.  But, in fact, that would have been a disaster for U.S. foreign policy, because it would have forced our Arab allies to repudiate what we are doing.  Are you contending that Bush is actually in Iraq because of Saddam's support for Hamas, but in fact, he felt the need to lie about it and cook up a WMD justification instead, so as not to piss off our Arab neighbors?
That actually would not surprise me, because EVERYTHING about Bush's justification of this Iraq invasion has been intellectually dishonest.

Also, as for the no-fly zones, What I said was, WE are flying over THEIR airspace.  It is understandable that they would view that as a violation of THEIR sovereignty, and fire at us when we did so.  This goes with the territory whenever you violate another sovereign nation's borders, they have a right to defend them.  Imagine if Iraq's airforce were flying over OUR borders because they perceived a threat to THEIR interests (which would have been a VALID perception, obviously).  Would YOU deny US the right to shoot at THEIR warplanes flying over U.S. Airspace?  this is the EXACT same situation, btw, that exists here, except WE are the ones who are flying over them.  And surely, you cannot justify what WE did on the basis of UN Sanctions against Iraq, because it would be hypocritical and intellectually dishonest to ONLY hold up UN decisions as justification and guidance for our actions when they happen to agree with what we want.

When responding to this post, be sure to explain how you would justify Iraqi warplanes overflying U.S. airspace without US firing upon them?  I am curious as to why you think that would be valid.

The simple fact is, if we want to play police force for the entire world, we need to apply EQUAL JUSTICE in all situations, or else we would be viewed, rightly, as hypocrites acting unilaterally in our own personal interest - i.e. an international bully.   And in fact, that is EXACTLY how we are now viewed worldwide, because of George W. Bush's Iraq invasion.

-- Modified on 6/9/2004 5:42:27 PM

If YOU consider our maintainting a position of honest brokerage of peace in the Middle East to be Appeasement, so be it.  But realize that Egypt and especially Saudi Arabia ALSO support Hamas, although not as publicly as Saddam does.  And certainly, MOST of Al Qaida's financial support also comes from Egypt and Saudi Arabia.  Are you suggesting that Bush invade those countries as well, or are you suggesting that hypocrisy would be better.  Because I cannot see how Bush could fail to attack Saudi Arabia without being a complete hypocrite, given the justifications that you make for attacking Iraq.

Have you seen any roundups of cops in South Boston?  San Francisco?

New York?   Have there been any high profile cases where US supporter of the IRA are put in jail for their work getting guns, ammo and explosives to the provos?

It is all a PR campaign.  This is a war on whoever the bushies think is bad this week!   I was amazed that there WERE a couple of arrests of Jewish exremists, but they apparently had gone pretty far to blow up a mosque.  Their finaincial supporters got away.

Right now we are fighing the 5th Afghannistan War in that country, and the 3rd Gulf war in Iraq.   THERE IS NO WAR ON TERROR!  There are only campaigns in different places with different aims.

Stop watching Fox- find a real NEWS organization to follow, I suggest BBC, ITN or Deutche Velle(Sp?)

BTW- remember that I DO support the Afghan ops, and I do think the Iraq adventure was not the worst idea. But how we have managed and fought these actions is a disaster of huge size.

I do more research for a date on TER than it seems the admin did on ANY of these issues.  Their tragic misunderstanding of what terrorism is about is the root cause for all this muddy activity.

In a war of philosophies, we appear to be unarmed.

-- Modified on 6/9/2004 6:20:42 PM

The No-Fly-Zone was part of Sadaam's surrender to the United Nations and was being enforced by a United Nations decree, not by the United States as sdstud falsely mentioned.  However, sdstud's desire to make this a US issue is demonstrative of his desire to always blame America first.

I sleep better at night with the knowledge that those of sdstud's ilk  (i.e. Biden, Leahy, Kennedy, Kerry, et al.) are not, and God willing will never be in charge of America's foreign policy.  The very thought gives me "deja vu all over again" with bad memories (nightmares) of Jimmah Carter!

It's all tied together, if you can't see the big picture that's your problem.
Why is it that the left loves free speech unless it is something they disagree with.



-- Modified on 6/9/2004 6:21:06 PM

And now, we are prepared to CONSISTENTLY hold you to that view that working through the U.N. is the way to go.  

-- Modified on 6/9/2004 6:50:53 PM

I'm not attacking you personally.  I think you call it a sense of humor ?

Also, please forgive some of us if we can't see the big picture.  Afterall, you are Mens[trual]a and I'm sure you don't have the time to explain everything to us - That would be like saying to Pavoratti ``Teach me to sing'' (George slays me - No, not the war hero fighter pilot).

Try re-reading his post. Telling someone to "Shut the F**K up" is one odd sense of humor.

Although I do admit, once people get this fired up, it generally means they are out of rational arguments, as the rest of his post proved.

BTW, if you can't see the big picture, that is an issue you must deal with. Most of the country can which is why your party continues to me in the minority in all branches of government and out at the White House. BTW, if what I am seeing on this board is any indication of the attack plan from the left, you will lose in 2004...

A task you make easier and easier with each post you make...

I knew damn well, and said in another reply, that the fact that this was a UN sanction was not a valid justification, since Bush gave no credence to the UN when determining to attack Iraq.

What he didn't prove, and YOU ALSO didn't prove, is that Saddam actually represented a threat to the U.S.  Certainly his support of Hamas was no more a threat to us than Saudi Arabia's support of Hamas is.  So will Bush be overthrowing Saudi Arabia next?  By YOUR rationale, he certainly should, if he values consistency over hypocrisy in his Middle Eastern policy.

I looked for the STFU quote-  where did I put it?

Or did I get (gulp!) Moderated?

Hey-  keep it coming with the commentary from the Sith side- we actually like the sparring- just know the Jedi Side will not rest either.

I like how you think, if not what you think and welcome the dialogue.

I too learn for the days of "My learned collegue..." preceding all atacks- it was nicer!

SULLY, sorry about that!!!

I was told that but it was by another poster on another topic, That is what I get for posting so late at night...

I actually tried to find it again, but it is gone (perhaps moderated?)

BTW, this is for llcar & sdstud...

        "NO, I AM YOUR FATHER!!"

But where would you stand on this. I have pointed out the support Saddam gave terrorists and you still feel the attack unjustified.  

BTW, do not misunderstand me, I personally believe Saudi Arabia to be no friend of the U.S. This is one of the f**ked up political marriages, but unless you can PROVE it is state sanctioned, then it is hard to go in and take action.