I think that's unfair 94. I thought the invasion was at best unwise, at worse, wrong. I didn't dislike Bush until I realized that he was anything but a fiscal conservative and was in bed with the Mexican government. The UN is nothing but a bunch of busy bodies. If they told us to turn over all of our nukes to them, I'm sure we'd tell them where we could arm and stuff our nukes.

 

 

Those are all reasons to dislike his policy. However, I don't feel like this war was nearly as unjust and out of our interest as the majority of Bush haters would claim it to be. I also do not like the fact that he is in bed with the Saudi royal family either, but it does not change the fact that the war was a descisive move that I still do not believe was wrong. I think that Clinton's lack of leadership cost Amercian lives both when he was president, and after he was out. I do not think this is an unfair assessment.

If you have warned a country to do something, under the power of the U.N., and you think they have not done it, that seems to be a threat to our security. The WMD's were not there. However, it was a proactive move rather than a sit on your butt and hope things are going to be all right move.

 

How was Iraq a threat to our security? Even if Saddam had had WMD, there was no evidence he would have used them against the United States or supplied them to terrorists. Saddam Hussein was a lot of things but he wasn't crazy enough to attack the U.S. with chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons.

If you have warned a country to do something, under the power of the U.N., and you think they have not done it, that seems to be a threat to our security. The WMD's were not there. However, it was a proactive move rather than a sit on your butt and hope things are going to be all right move. Don't worry. You will never have to acuse Bill Clinton of having made a poor descision. He avoided every descision as a president that he possibly could. There is a difference, I agree.

Proactive? Yeah, right. The Bush administration wanted to go into Iraq long before they did ... they just used 9/11 to make it happen.

 

I'd rather have a president who is little less cavalier with our troops than this one.

Proactive? Yeah, right. The Bush administration wanted to go into Iraq long before they did ... they just used 9/11 to make it happen.

 

I'd rather have a president who is little less cavalier with our troops than this one.

I don't think there is any proof or even evidence of this being true. But it probably is.

I don't think there is any proof or even evidence of this being true. But it probably is.

Yes, there is evidence ... several key Pentagon players in the Iraq debacle (Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Abrams) were on record as wanting the USA to enforce "regime change" in Iraq during the Clinton administration.

 

A former cabinet official (Paul O'Neill, I believe) said that Rumsfeld suggested taking action against Iraq on 9/11, even though was their no evidence of their involvement.

Yes, there is evidence ... several key Pentagon players in the Iraq debacle (Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Abrams) were on record as wanting the USA to enforce "regime change" in Iraq during the Clinton administration.

 

A former cabinet official (Paul O'Neill, I believe) said that Rumsfeld suggested taking action against Iraq on 9/11, even though was their no evidence of their involvement.

You said Bush administration, and your first paragraph doesn't describe the Bush Administration. I'll give you the Rumsfeld remark. He was an idiot.

 

I also think the Executive Order (by Reagan) forbidding assassination was stupid. One bullet is cheaper than 100,000 caskets.

You said Bush administration, and your first paragraph doesn't describe the Bush Administration. I'll give you the Rumsfeld remark. He was an idiot.

 

I also think the Executive Order (by Reagan) forbidding assassination was stupid. One bullet is cheaper than 100,000 caskets.

I couldn't edit my post to say "several key people in the Bush administration" before the opportunity expired. I do believe, however, that there was a desire to invade Iraq before 9/11.

I couldn't edit my post to say "several key people in the Bush administration" before the opportunity expired. I do believe, however, that there was a desire to invade Iraq before 9/11.

You're probably not wrong.

How was Iraq a threat to our security? Even if Saddam had had WMD, there was no evidence he would have used them against the United States or supplied them to terrorists. Saddam Hussein was a lot of things but he wasn't crazy enough to attack the U.S. with chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons.

 

He probably hadn't before he was removed. But can you be sure he wouldn't have done so in the future? Are you willing to take that chance? Honest question.

He probably hadn't before he was removed. But can you be sure he wouldn't have done so in the future? Are you willing to take that chance? Honest question.

LN, here's how I felt about it then and how I feel about it now. Our military forces should never be committed to battle unless an overt act has been committed against this nation by the opposing force; or, in order to protect a friendly nation from an aggressor who has committed an overt act against said friendly nation.

 

I don't have to like Iraq, Iran, Russia, the PRP, Venezuela, Saddam, Ahmadinejad, Putin, Chavez, Jintao or Jiabao. But as sovereign nations, I feel they have the same rights as the United States has, and that includes weapon development.

LN, here's how I felt about it then and how I feel about it now. Our military forces should never be committed to battle unless an overt act has been committed against this nation by the opposing force; or, in order to protect a friendly nation from an aggressor who has committed an overt act against said friendly nation.

 

I don't have to like Iraq, Iran, Russia, the PRP, Venezuela, Saddam, Ahmadinejad, Putin, Chavez, Jintao or Jiabao. But as sovereign nations, I feel they have the same rights as the United States has, and that includes weapon development.

 

 

Leave Pleasure Ridge Park out of this, why hatin' on a Louisville neighborhood bro? :flame:

Leave Pleasure Ridge Park out of this, why hatin' on a Louisville neighborhood bro? :flame:

I go pre-emptive in one thread, just to find out the Pep has struck elsewhere. :irked:

I go pre-emptive in one thread, just to find out the Pep has struck elsewhere. :irked:

 

 

Can't catch me, I have a network of tunnels in this forum. :jump:

I don't think there is any proof or even evidence of this being true. But it probably is.

 

Remember the Downing Street memo from July 2002? In the opinion of the British following their meetings with U.S. officials, "Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

He probably hadn't before he was removed. But can you be sure he wouldn't have done so in the future? Are you willing to take that chance? Honest question.

 

 

There is a huge difference between maintaining a belligerent and defiant posture on the world stage and enabling terrorism on colossal scale with weapons of mass destruction. Saddam Hussein was reckless, but he wasn't foolish enough to provide armaments that could be used to inflict mass casualties within the United States. He knew that this would have invited nuclear retaliation by the U.S. The doctrine of Mutually Assurred Destruction prevented a nuclear exchange between the Russians and the U.S. for over 40 years. The way you phrased your question implies that the risk of WMD was all on the side of the Americans, but in reality the greater risk was with the Iraqis.

 

One final point, if the Iraq war is justifiable on the basis of what a belligerent leader might do, where are the calls to invade and topple the leadership in North Korea, Iran, Syria, and even Venezuela?