Either way, thank you bananajoe for keeping the debate civil. One of the only liberals on this forum who seems to know how decent people argue (if in fact you are a liberal -- if not, oh well so much for that lol).
"Once again, none of this was used as a REASON for going to war, it was part of the conversation that led up to the war, but the reasons were what I stated about." The reason why bush is in trouble with arguementations about this subject is that the CIA did also missinform him. But it was broadcasted around the world that one of the main points iraq get or got attacked was informations about WMD, links to alquaida .....its nice to see that you distinguish beween operational and none operational links to al quaida but that was not sold to the masses in the media. The media is and was full of these informations in every kind of release about the three main points why the US with their partner nations did start the war. That all did lead to the situation which the US is in at the moment, the world lost faith and that will hopefully change with the new president and a different foreign policy.
Sorry, that's just wrong. Links to al qeada were never stated as reasons for going to war, and nothing you say shows that.
"Once again, none of this was used as a REASON for going to war, it was part of the conversation that led up to the war, but the reasons were what I stated about." The reason why bush is in trouble with arguementations about this subject is that the CIA did also missinform him. But it was broadcasted around the world that one of the main points iraq get or got attacked was informations about WMD, links to alquaida .....its nice to see that you distinguish beween operational and none operational links to al quaida but that was not sold to the masses in the media. The media is and was full of these informations in every kind of release about the three main points why the US with their partner nations did start the war. That all did lead to the situation which the US is in at the moment, the world lost faith and that will hopefully change with the new president and a different foreign policy.
Sorry, that's just wrong. Links to al qeada were never stated as reasons for going to war, and nothing you say shows that.
Nowhere is a case successfully made that Bush said those links to Al Qaeda were the reasons we went to war. We don't have a single Bush quote anywhere where he is saying that.
"Once again, none of this was used as a REASON for going to war, it was part of the conversation that led up to the war, but the reasons were what I stated about." The reason why bush is in trouble with arguementations about this subject is that the CIA did also missinform him. But it was broadcasted around the world that one of the main points iraq get or got attacked was informations about WMD, links to alquaida .....its nice to see that you distinguish beween operational and none operational links to al quaida but that was not sold to the masses in the media. The media is and was full of these informations in every kind of release about the three main points why the US with their partner nations did start the war. That all did lead to the situation which the US is in at the moment, the world lost faith and that will hopefully change with the new president and a different foreign policy.
Sorry, that's just wrong. Links to al qeada were never stated as reasons for going to war, and nothing you say shows that.
Nowhere is a case successfully made that Bush said those links to Al Qaeda were the reasons we went to war. We don't have a single Bush quote anywhere where he is saying that.
Do you really deny facts from serious press releases about bush and his political team ? 911 and the start of the iraq war is not long ago, people dont forget what was broadcasted around the world and thats how the iraq war was sold to the masses.
"Once again, none of this was used as a REASON for going to war, it was part of the conversation that led up to the war, but the reasons were what I stated about." The reason why bush is in trouble with arguementations about this subject is that the CIA did also missinform him. But it was broadcasted around the world that one of the main points iraq get or got attacked was informations about WMD, links to alquaida .....its nice to see that you distinguish beween operational and none operational links to al quaida but that was not sold to the masses in the media. The media is and was full of these informations in every kind of release about the three main points why the US with their partner nations did start the war. That all did lead to the situation which the US is in at the moment, the world lost faith and that will hopefully change with the new president and a different foreign policy.
Sorry, that's just wrong. Links to al qeada were never stated as reasons for going to war, and nothing you say shows that.
Nowhere is a case successfully made that Bush said those links to Al Qaeda were the reasons we went to war. We don't have a single Bush quote anywhere where he is saying that.
Do you really deny facts from serious press releases about bush and his political team ? 911 and the start of the iraq war is not long ago, people dont forget what was broadcasted around the world and thats how the iraq war was sold to the masses.
What facts am I denying? Nowhere are those possible links to al queda used to justify the war.
I was there, I watched the whole thing very carefully. Nothing you have presented says what YOU are saying -- that links to al qaeda was one of the justifications for war. Show me where Bush said that, let alone where it was "broadcasted around the world."
Once again, here is what was broadcasted around the world:
"THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. American and coalition forces have begun a concerted campaign against the regime of Saddam Hussein. In this war, our coalition is broad, more than 40 countries from across the globe. Our cause is just, the security of the nations we serve and the peace of the world. And our mission is clear, to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people."
"Once again, none of this was used as a REASON for going to war, it was part of the conversation that led up to the war, but the reasons were what I stated about." The reason why bush is in trouble with arguementations about this subject is that the CIA did also missinform him. But it was broadcasted around the world that one of the main points iraq get or got attacked was informations about WMD, links to alquaida .....its nice to see that you distinguish beween operational and none operational links to al quaida but that was not sold to the masses in the media. The media is and was full of these informations in every kind of release about the three main points why the US with their partner nations did start the war. That all did lead to the situation which the US is in at the moment, the world lost faith and that will hopefully change with the new president and a different foreign policy.
Sorry, that's just wrong. Links to al qeada were never stated as reasons for going to war, and nothing you say shows that.
Nowhere is a case successfully made that Bush said those links to Al Qaeda were the reasons we went to war. We don't have a single Bush quote anywhere where he is saying that.
Do you really deny facts from serious press releases about bush and his political team ? 911 and the start of the iraq war is not long ago, people dont forget what was broadcasted around the world and thats how the iraq war was sold to the masses.
What facts am I denying? Nowhere are those possible links to al queda used to justify the war.
I was there, I watched the whole thing very carefully. Nothing you have presented says what YOU are saying -- that links to al qaeda was one of the justifications for war. Show me where Bush said that, let alone where it was "broadcasted around the world."
If you read carefully those press releases i posted, you will find in them and in houndreds of other press releases in the world that the bush administration did justify the iraq invasion with arguements that hussein probably has connections to the terrorism who did threatened the USA (al qaeda inclusive). You have problems with press releases probably cause you demand only bush quotes instead of the informations of the press . I understand, so you just want directly facts from speeches or stuff like that. Well i think this is hard in our discussions here and most people rely on press releases and informations. Thats also how people around the world get informed.
In your quote alone iraq get linked with terrorism and terrorism in this time short after 911 was descriped as terrorism which is a threat to the usa and connected to 911. This is arised from the proposal of the bush administration shortly after 911 to get green lights for attacking countries which are a terroristic thread to the states, al qaeda included.
Here is one bush quote about iraq and his connection to al qaeda, end of 2002.
"Once again, none of this was used as a REASON for going to war, it was part of the conversation that led up to the war, but the reasons were what I stated about." The reason why bush is in trouble with arguementations about this subject is that the CIA did also missinform him. But it was broadcasted around the world that one of the main points iraq get or got attacked was informations about WMD, links to alquaida .....its nice to see that you distinguish beween operational and none operational links to al quaida but that was not sold to the masses in the media. The media is and was full of these informations in every kind of release about the three main points why the US with their partner nations did start the war. That all did lead to the situation which the US is in at the moment, the world lost faith and that will hopefully change with the new president and a different foreign policy.
Sorry, that's just wrong. Links to al qeada were never stated as reasons for going to war, and nothing you say shows that.
Nowhere is a case successfully made that Bush said those links to Al Qaeda were the reasons we went to war. We don't have a single Bush quote anywhere where he is saying that.
Do you really deny facts from serious press releases about bush and his political team ? 911 and the start of the iraq war is not long ago, people dont forget what was broadcasted around the world and thats how the iraq war was sold to the masses.
What facts am I denying? Nowhere are those possible links to al queda used to justify the war.
I was there, I watched the whole thing very carefully. Nothing you have presented says what YOU are saying -- that links to al qaeda was one of the justifications for war. Show me where Bush said that, let alone where it was "broadcasted around the world."
If you read carefully those press releases i posted, you will find in them and in houndreds of other press releases in the world that the bush administration did justify the iraq invasion with arguements that hussein probably has connections to the terrorism who did threatened the USA (al qaeda inclusive). You have problems with press releases probably cause you demand only bush quotes instead of the informations of the press . I understand, so you just want directly facts from speeches or stuff like that. Well i think this is hard in our discussions here and most people rely on press releases and informations. Thats also how people around the world get informed.
In your quote alone iraq get linked with terrorism and terrorism in this time short after 911 was descriped as terrorism which is a threat to the usa and connected to 911. This is arised from the proposal of the bush administration shortly after 911 to get green lights for attacking countries which are a terroristic thread to the states, al qaeda included.
(iam sorry for my english but its getting hard now and last english lessons are longer ago)
I'm reading them VERY carefully. In all of the places where the war is being justified, Saddam's links to terrorism is mentioned, but NOT, in that context, is his links to al qaeda mentioned.
Just because the press says something does not make it true. I want to see real hard evidence of your claims, and you can't provide that, nor can I find it on my own, no matter how hard I search -- nor did I see it go down that way.
Iraq WAS linked with terrorism, and to a certain extent, to al qaeda, but the link to al qaeda was NOT used to justify the invasion. The idea was that Saddam was working on weapons of mass destruction (he was), and if he was allowed to continue he might transfer those weapons to terrorist organizations LIKE al qaeda. Sounds reasonable to me, and that argument still holds. To me, that wasn't the reason I found it morally justified, but it was another reasonable argument.
By the way, your English is fine, better than a lot of Americans I know lol.
Don't mean to jump in this love fest between you guys! But Saddam was giving 17 thousand dollars US currency for every Palestinian family that killed a Jew in the name of Jihad.Might be more I forget.
Indeed, there is no doubt taht he was connected to, and was in support of the Jihad, although he was a relatively secular member of that Jihad. He was still a militant, a muslim, and believed that someday Islam would rule the world and was justified in taking that world by force.
He was also a pan-arabist, a socialist, and a gangster. He was anything evil that benefited him. Like Hitler.
Don't mean to jump in this love fest between you guys! But Saddam was giving 17 thousand dollars US currency for every Palestinian family that killed a Jew in the name of Jihad.Might be more I forget.
Indeed, there is no doubt taht he was connected to, and was in support of the Jihad, although he was a relatively secular member of that Jihad. He was still a militant, a muslim, and believed that someday Islam would rule the world and was justified in taking that world by force.
He was also a pan-arabist, a socialist, and a gangster. He was anything evil that benefited him. Like Hitler.
That quote you made about Moral Justification,Really made my-day!!!
Frodus longs for the day when our troops go back to Baghdad for a Reunion in 10 yrs or 20 yrs but of course that depend if the Muslims don't burn down Europe first.Hey aren't you worried about what the Americans might think about what Europe didn't do when the Russians marched their way in Georgia.HA
Trade in material assumptions for spiritual facts and make permanent progress.
Hold on Snow Leopard, imma let you finish, but Windows had one of the best operating systems of all time.
If the Powerball lottery was like Lotro, nobody would win for 2 years, and then everyone in Nebraska would win on the same day. And then Nebraska would get nerfed.-pinkwood lotro fourms
AMD 4800 2.4ghz-3GB RAM 533mhz-EVGA 9500GT 512mb-320gb HD
...yes to find a quote about al qaeda and justifying the war is hard and you are probably right. Anyway since you show lots of interest into former quotes or content about the iraq war, here are two interesting links from the whitehouse:
The official start of the iraq invasion was 20. march 2003
I. Monday "Moment of Truth" for World on Iraq( 16. march 2003)
Bush:
...The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are a threat to the security of free nations. He is a danger to his neighbors. He's a sponsor of terrorism. He's an obstacle to progress in the Middle East. For decades he has been the cruel, cruel oppressor of the Iraq people. Action to remove the threat from Iraq would also allow the Iraqi people to build a better future for their society. And Iraq's liberation would be the beginning, not the end, of our commitment to its people....
....We're going to have to cooperate to cut the money of the terrorists, and the ability for nations, dictators who have weapons of mass destruction to provide training and perhaps weapons to terrorist organizations....
II. President Says Saddam Hussein Must Leave Iraq Within 48 Hours ( 17. march 2003 )
My fellow citizens, events in Iraq have now reached the final days of decision...
...The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a deep hatred of America and our friends. And it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda....
The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other.
The United States and other nations did nothing to deserve or invite this threat. But we will do everything to defeat it.
...Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict, commenced at a time of our choosing.If Saddam Hussein attempts to cling to power, he will remain a deadly foe until the end. In desperation, he and terrorists groups might try to conduct terrorist operations against the American people and our friends. These attacks are not inevitable. They are, however, possible. And this very fact underscores the reason we cannot live under the threat of blackmail. The terrorist threat to America and the world will be diminished the moment that Saddam Hussein is disarmed...
...With these capabilities, Saddam Hussein and his terrorist allies could choose the moment of deadly conflict when they are strongest...
Good night, and may God continue to bless America.
...yes to find a quote about al qaeda and justifying the war is hard and you are probably right in this case. Anyway since you show lots of interest into former quotes or content about the iraq war, here are two interesting links from the whitehouse:
The official start of the iraq invasion was 20. march 2003
I. Monday "Moment of Truth" for World on Iraq( 16. march 2003) Bush: ...The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are a threat to the security of free nations. He is a danger to his neighbors. He's a sponsor of terrorism. He's an obstacle to progress in the Middle East. For decades he has been the cruel, cruel oppressor of the Iraq people. Action to remove the threat from Iraq would also allow the Iraqi people to build a better future for their society. And Iraq's liberation would be the beginning, not the end, of our commitment to its people.... ....We're going to have to cooperate to cut the money of the terrorists, and the ability for nations, dictators who have weapons of mass destruction to provide training and perhaps weapons to terrorist organizations....
II. President Says Saddam Hussein Must Leave Iraq Within 48 Hours ( 17. march 2003 )
My fellow citizens, events in Iraq have now reached the final days of decision... ...The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a deep hatred of America and our friends. And it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda.... The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other. The United States and other nations did nothing to deserve or invite this threat. But we will do everything to defeat it. ...Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict, commenced at a time of our choosing.If Saddam Hussein attempts to cling to power, he will remain a deadly foe until the end. In desperation, he and terrorists groups might try to conduct terrorist operations against the American people and our friends. These attacks are not inevitable. They are, however, possible. And this very fact underscores the reason we cannot live under the threat of blackmail. The terrorist threat to America and the world will be diminished the moment that Saddam Hussein is disarmed... ...With these capabilities, Saddam Hussein and his terrorist allies could choose the moment of deadly conflict when they are strongest... Good night, and may God continue to bless America.
It's exactly as I said. Saddam Hussein was tied specifically to terrorists, and the potential for him giving weapons of mass destruction to those terrorists was also said, but there was no mention of al qeada. It was exactly as I was saying. I heard all these things at the time, and at no time was I under the impression, or felt the president was trying to falsely create the impression, that Saddam and Al Qaeda were known to be operationally linked.
It was discussed that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was in Iraq, and HE was a similar type of militnat to Al Qaeda, and may have been connected with them.
He did allow for the possibility, yet made clear that Saddam was harboring, financing, and certainly involved with terrorism at various levels. That was also true.
The reasons we went were the reasons I said. As I said I didn't care about the weapons of mass destruction issue, I cared more about how he was in clear violation of the cease-fire agreement, and what it means as a signal to other nations if the US is weak on those things -- especially when there are real enemies watching what we do in those areas.
Again I still say the only MORAL justification you need is that the dude was a particularly bad dictator and had abused his power for long enough.
The rest, for me, ties into the debate over whether it was a wise move or not, which is another debate entirely, and not something I am arguing about in the context of what was said earlier in this thread.
The war on terror is not confined strictly to the al Qaeda that we're chasing. The war on terror extends beyond just a shadowy terrorist network. The war on terror involves Saddam Hussein because of the nature of Saddam Hussein, the history of Saddam Hussein and his willingness to terrorize himself.
He is a danger not only to countries in the region, but as I explained last night,because of al Qaeda connections, because of his history, he's a danger to the American people. And we've got to deal with him. We've got to deal with him before it is too late. (Applause.)
Alright enough posts about quotes now from me ...anyway, yes i agree that it would be a different discussion if you would talk about if the political reaction and war engagement was wise or not. There is no question that saddam was a bad guy and he deserved what he got. Well for me the cease fire agreement is just the smaller part as a reason to invade the country, especially at this time after 911 shock and the war on terror. The biggest arguement going into war was probably still the WMD issue since this was the main issue with the UN institution, but bush didnt care about the UN after all anyway lol.
Iraqi's don't want American Freedom. They didn't ask for it. Enough with the delusions.
In fact ,en masse, they have violently attempted to resist. Thousands have given their lives to prevent this outcome. It's an extremely divided society, but that appears to be the one single thing that the entire country can agree upon. There is absolutely nothing moral about forcing "freedom" on people at gunpoint. That is not what freedom is. I cannot think of a more twisted morality than that which is able to label it so.
Best thing about the shoes thrown at Bush? The smug look on his face when he dodged them.
I agree with Baff. This whole notion of the morality of imposing our style of "freedom" on people of other cultures show how some people in this country are either totally ignorant to the culture of these countries or they just don't care that they are force feeding something they may not want or are ready to take on. It was that ignorance or indifference that got us in trouble in 20003 and in other times in the 20th Century. It didn't work as expected in Korea, it didn't work at all in Vietnam and it's probably not going to work in Iraq. One size does NOT fit all! It reminds me of a cover of an old National Lampoon magazine from the 70's. The picture is of a very nervous dalmatian dog looking at the gun that is jammed against his temple by a man. The caption says "Buy this magazine or the dog gets it!" The whole argument of our "moral obligation" to bring freedom feels forced. Like we're the one holding the gun to the dogs head. Except our notion of how your society should be or else!
Yes thats an interesting train of thoughts, i guess the best is always if freedom comes from changes inside the system. Just remember how the huge sovjetunion did collapse - if there would have been never any nuke weapons the collapse would be forced by war of course, how former east germany did change peacefully.
But this is of course not always possible and probably not the aim, especially if the change is needed fast and not after such a long time like the former communist countries did exist.
The problem is that nowadays in such countries like Iraq or similar countries around them, the way of life/freedom or democracy cant be just implemented like a stamp. Such countries live often in old traditional societies with different rules and habits. I think it is needed to have long term plans about what happens after military engagements. Well even in democratic societies really big shit did happen if we remember on the elections of A. Hitler, but thats ofcourse an extreme example.
If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude; greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. Samuel Adams
Lol Ekibiogami, That one was good, not as good as the Bush WoW Mob Boss, but good^^
wish i could claim credit for it but it was found on the internetz ;p
If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude; greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. Samuel Adams
I guess Bush has a Few Iraqi supporters after all....
If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude; greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. Samuel Adams
Yes Iraqis value their freedom so much that they beg the American army to invade their country and over throw Saddam.
The Iraqi soldiers killed while resisting must deserve it, how dare they resist the army of rightousness, the force that are here to liberate them?! Of course, that is a small price to pay and they are probably glad to die in order for Iraq to be free from Saddam anyway.
After being liberated, they love their new freedom so much that they freely allow the Americans to use their country as a "honey pot" to battle al Qaeda in their country, giving up more innocent lives and destroying more of their properties in the proccess. Instead of living in fear of being killed by Saddam, they are now living in fear of being killed by suicide bombers and American fire, but surely thats an improvement.
I am sure those suicide bombers are just poor misguided Iraqis that didn't know that the Americans are invited by their own countryman, once they find out they will happily welcome the Americans with open arms... Maybe someone will like to volunteer to go to Iraqi and tell them?
/remark
The callous atttude is revealing. On one hand, trying to justify an invasion that by claiming that it is for the good of the victim. On the other hand, blatantly state that fighting a war against the al Qaeda on another country's soil is the objective all along (never mind whether this is true or not), with utter disregard to the pain and suffered inflicted on another nation as a result.
All I want to know is if that guy can make me one of those picket signs. Too funny.
______________________________
What if Paul Revere was like the boy who cried wolf....?
Originally posted by Hazmal
What does he say when people ask what he did? "My mommy was irking me yo - I wanted to keep pwning nubs on my xbox, so I roughed her up with a hardshell. That is just how I roll."
Yes Iraqis value their freedom so much that they beg the American army to invade their country and over throw Saddam. The Iraqi soldiers killed while resisting must deserve it, how dare they resist the army of rightousness, the force that are here to liberate them?! Of course, that is a small price to pay and they are probably glad to die in order for Iraq to be free from Saddam anyway. After being liberated, they love their new freedom so much that they freely allow the Americans to use their country as a "honey pot" to battle al Qaeda in their country, giving up more innocent lives and destroying more of their properties in the proccess. Instead of living in fear of being killed by Saddam, they are now living in fear of being killed by suicide bombers and American fire, but surely thats an improvement. I am sure those suicide bombers are just poor misguided Iraqis that didn't know that the Americans are invited by their own countryman, once they find out they will happily welcome the Americans with open arms... Maybe someone will like to volunteer to go to Iraqi and tell them?
/remark The callous atttude is revealing. On one hand, trying to justify an invasion that by claiming that it is for the good of the victim. On the other hand, blatantly state that fighting a war against the al Qaeda on another country's soil is the objective all along (never mind whether this is true or not), with utter disregard to the pain and suffered inflicted on another nation as a result.
So if you see a woman being raped, it is inappropriate to use violence to stop the rape? If you come to an agreement with a certain party, and they willfully violate that agreement, are you entitled to use force to enforce the terms of that agreement?
There is nothing callous about it. It all depends on whether you believe evil ought to be stopped by those within whose power it is to do so, or if you should sit on the sidelines and allow evil to go unstopped.
Or that in between area, because given limited resources and ability, you do it when it is most neccessary in places and areas that you can find the MOST reasons to do so.
That is the position I feel we were and are in with Iraq.
The government of Iraq, under Saddam, was in violation of agreement -- it was also willfully guilty of great evil. Saddam was in the middle of raping his people, and we stopped him.
No callousness at all -- just a deep appreciation for justice and a philosophical disagreement. You are entitled to your view on good/evil and involvement in the affairs of others, but please don't call the people who disagree with you callous. That's just another example of demonizing the opponent.
To only people who are allowed to have a proper say on the "War in Iraq" to being a great idea, are the American soldiers who fought there, they're the ones who put their asses on line, not all you 'keyboard warriors.'
Note: I said American soldiers cause...obviously...no-one tends to give a f*ck about the Iraqis.
We're all Geniuses. Most of us just don't know it.
Comments
Either way, thank you bananajoe for keeping the debate civil. One of the only liberals on this forum who seems to know how decent people argue (if in fact you are a liberal -- if not, oh well so much for that lol).
Thanks again.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Sorry, that's just wrong. Links to al qeada were never stated as reasons for going to war, and nothing you say shows that.
Please show me where that was given.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html
www.cbc.ca/world/story/2003/03/19/bush030319.html
mediamatters.org/items/200808070010 (with video)
btw here is an interesting page about the Iraq War Justification Timeline
terrorism.about.com/od/wariniraq/a/IraqWaronTerror.htm
the list could go on, since thats what was happening ...
Sorry, that's just wrong. Links to al qeada were never stated as reasons for going to war, and nothing you say shows that.
Please show me where that was given.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html
www.cbc.ca/world/story/2003/03/19/bush030319.html
mediamatters.org/items/200808070010 (with video)
the list could go on....
Nowhere is a case successfully made that Bush said those links to Al Qaeda were the reasons we went to war. We don't have a single Bush quote anywhere where he is saying that.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Sorry, that's just wrong. Links to al qeada were never stated as reasons for going to war, and nothing you say shows that.
Please show me where that was given.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html
www.cbc.ca/world/story/2003/03/19/bush030319.html
mediamatters.org/items/200808070010 (with video)
the list could go on....
Nowhere is a case successfully made that Bush said those links to Al Qaeda were the reasons we went to war. We don't have a single Bush quote anywhere where he is saying that.
Do you really deny facts from serious press releases about bush and his political team ? 911 and the start of the iraq war is not long ago, people dont forget what was broadcasted around the world and thats how the iraq war was sold to the masses.
Sorry, that's just wrong. Links to al qeada were never stated as reasons for going to war, and nothing you say shows that.
Please show me where that was given.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html
www.cbc.ca/world/story/2003/03/19/bush030319.html
mediamatters.org/items/200808070010 (with video)
the list could go on....
Nowhere is a case successfully made that Bush said those links to Al Qaeda were the reasons we went to war. We don't have a single Bush quote anywhere where he is saying that.
Do you really deny facts from serious press releases about bush and his political team ? 911 and the start of the iraq war is not long ago, people dont forget what was broadcasted around the world and thats how the iraq war was sold to the masses.
What facts am I denying? Nowhere are those possible links to al queda used to justify the war.
I was there, I watched the whole thing very carefully. Nothing you have presented says what YOU are saying -- that links to al qaeda was one of the justifications for war. Show me where Bush said that, let alone where it was "broadcasted around the world."
fishermage.blogspot.com
Once again, here is what was broadcasted around the world:
"THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. American and coalition forces have begun a concerted campaign against the regime of Saddam Hussein. In this war, our coalition is broad, more than 40 countries from across the globe. Our cause is just, the security of the nations we serve and the peace of the world. And our mission is clear, to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people."
Nothing about al qaeda there.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Sorry, that's just wrong. Links to al qeada were never stated as reasons for going to war, and nothing you say shows that.
Please show me where that was given.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html
www.cbc.ca/world/story/2003/03/19/bush030319.html
mediamatters.org/items/200808070010 (with video)
the list could go on....
Nowhere is a case successfully made that Bush said those links to Al Qaeda were the reasons we went to war. We don't have a single Bush quote anywhere where he is saying that.
Do you really deny facts from serious press releases about bush and his political team ? 911 and the start of the iraq war is not long ago, people dont forget what was broadcasted around the world and thats how the iraq war was sold to the masses.
What facts am I denying? Nowhere are those possible links to al queda used to justify the war.
I was there, I watched the whole thing very carefully. Nothing you have presented says what YOU are saying -- that links to al qaeda was one of the justifications for war. Show me where Bush said that, let alone where it was "broadcasted around the world."
If you read carefully those press releases i posted, you will find in them and in houndreds of other press releases in the world that the bush administration did justify the iraq invasion with arguements that hussein probably has connections to the terrorism who did threatened the USA (al qaeda inclusive). You have problems with press releases probably cause you demand only bush quotes instead of the informations of the press . I understand, so you just want directly facts from speeches or stuff like that. Well i think this is hard in our discussions here and most people rely on press releases and informations. Thats also how people around the world get informed.
In your quote alone iraq get linked with terrorism and terrorism in this time short after 911 was descriped as terrorism which is a threat to the usa and connected to 911. This is arised from the proposal of the bush administration shortly after 911 to get green lights for attacking countries which are a terroristic thread to the states, al qaeda included.
Here is one bush quote about iraq and his connection to al qaeda, end of 2002.
www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html
you see that the iraq gets connected to al qaida and seen as a thread to the usa.
(iam sorry for my english but its getting hard now and last english lessons are longer ago)
Sorry, that's just wrong. Links to al qeada were never stated as reasons for going to war, and nothing you say shows that.
Please show me where that was given.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html
www.cbc.ca/world/story/2003/03/19/bush030319.html
mediamatters.org/items/200808070010 (with video)
the list could go on....
Nowhere is a case successfully made that Bush said those links to Al Qaeda were the reasons we went to war. We don't have a single Bush quote anywhere where he is saying that.
Do you really deny facts from serious press releases about bush and his political team ? 911 and the start of the iraq war is not long ago, people dont forget what was broadcasted around the world and thats how the iraq war was sold to the masses.
What facts am I denying? Nowhere are those possible links to al queda used to justify the war.
I was there, I watched the whole thing very carefully. Nothing you have presented says what YOU are saying -- that links to al qaeda was one of the justifications for war. Show me where Bush said that, let alone where it was "broadcasted around the world."
If you read carefully those press releases i posted, you will find in them and in houndreds of other press releases in the world that the bush administration did justify the iraq invasion with arguements that hussein probably has connections to the terrorism who did threatened the USA (al qaeda inclusive). You have problems with press releases probably cause you demand only bush quotes instead of the informations of the press . I understand, so you just want directly facts from speeches or stuff like that. Well i think this is hard in our discussions here and most people rely on press releases and informations. Thats also how people around the world get informed.
In your quote alone iraq get linked with terrorism and terrorism in this time short after 911 was descriped as terrorism which is a threat to the usa and connected to 911. This is arised from the proposal of the bush administration shortly after 911 to get green lights for attacking countries which are a terroristic thread to the states, al qaeda included.
(iam sorry for my english but its getting hard now and last english lessons are longer ago)
I'm reading them VERY carefully. In all of the places where the war is being justified, Saddam's links to terrorism is mentioned, but NOT, in that context, is his links to al qaeda mentioned.
Just because the press says something does not make it true. I want to see real hard evidence of your claims, and you can't provide that, nor can I find it on my own, no matter how hard I search -- nor did I see it go down that way.
Iraq WAS linked with terrorism, and to a certain extent, to al qaeda, but the link to al qaeda was NOT used to justify the invasion. The idea was that Saddam was working on weapons of mass destruction (he was), and if he was allowed to continue he might transfer those weapons to terrorist organizations LIKE al qaeda. Sounds reasonable to me, and that argument still holds. To me, that wasn't the reason I found it morally justified, but it was another reasonable argument.
By the way, your English is fine, better than a lot of Americans I know lol.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Don't mean to jump in this love fest between you guys!
But Saddam was giving 17 thousand dollars US currency for every Palestinian family that killed a Jew in the name of Jihad.Might be more I forget.
Trade in material assumptions for spiritual facts and make permanent progress.
Indeed, there is no doubt taht he was connected to, and was in support of the Jihad, although he was a relatively secular member of that Jihad. He was still a militant, a muslim, and believed that someday Islam would rule the world and was justified in taking that world by force.
He was also a pan-arabist, a socialist, and a gangster. He was anything evil that benefited him. Like Hitler.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Indeed, there is no doubt taht he was connected to, and was in support of the Jihad, although he was a relatively secular member of that Jihad. He was still a militant, a muslim, and believed that someday Islam would rule the world and was justified in taking that world by force.
He was also a pan-arabist, a socialist, and a gangster. He was anything evil that benefited him. Like Hitler.
That quote you made about Moral Justification,Really made my-day!!!
Frodus longs for the day when our troops go back to Baghdad for a Reunion in 10 yrs or 20 yrs but of course that depend if the Muslims don't burn down Europe first.Hey aren't you worried about what the Americans might think about what Europe didn't do when the Russians marched their way in Georgia.HA
Trade in material assumptions for spiritual facts and make permanent progress.
Well incase these havnt been posted yet
GWB and wow
Throw the shoe yourself
Hold on Snow Leopard, imma let you finish, but Windows had one of the best operating systems of all time.
If the Powerball lottery was like Lotro, nobody would win for 2 years, and then everyone in Nebraska would win on the same day.
And then Nebraska would get nerfed.-pinkwood lotro fourms
AMD 4800 2.4ghz-3GB RAM 533mhz-EVGA 9500GT 512mb-320gb HD
...yes to find a quote about al qaeda and justifying the war is hard and you are probably right. Anyway since you show lots of interest into former quotes or content about the iraq war, here are two interesting links from the whitehouse:
The official start of the iraq invasion was 20. march 2003
I. Monday "Moment of Truth" for World on Iraq( 16. march 2003)
Bush:
...The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are a threat to the security of free nations. He is a danger to his neighbors. He's a sponsor of terrorism. He's an obstacle to progress in the Middle East. For decades he has been the cruel, cruel oppressor of the Iraq people. Action to remove the threat from Iraq would also allow the Iraqi people to build a better future for their society. And Iraq's liberation would be the beginning, not the end, of our commitment to its people....
....We're going to have to cooperate to cut the money of the terrorists, and the ability for nations, dictators who have weapons of mass destruction to provide training and perhaps weapons to terrorist organizations....
II. President Says Saddam Hussein Must Leave Iraq Within 48 Hours ( 17. march 2003 )
My fellow citizens, events in Iraq have now reached the final days of decision...
...The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a deep hatred of America and our friends. And it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda....
The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other.
The United States and other nations did nothing to deserve or invite this threat. But we will do everything to defeat it.
...Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict, commenced at a time of our choosing.If Saddam Hussein attempts to cling to power, he will remain a deadly foe until the end. In desperation, he and terrorists groups might try to conduct terrorist operations against the American people and our friends. These attacks are not inevitable. They are, however, possible. And this very fact underscores the reason we cannot live under the threat of blackmail. The terrorist threat to America and the world will be diminished the moment that Saddam Hussein is disarmed...
...With these capabilities, Saddam Hussein and his terrorist allies could choose the moment of deadly conflict when they are strongest...
Good night, and may God continue to bless America.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030316-3.html
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030317-7.html
It's exactly as I said. Saddam Hussein was tied specifically to terrorists, and the potential for him giving weapons of mass destruction to those terrorists was also said, but there was no mention of al qeada. It was exactly as I was saying. I heard all these things at the time, and at no time was I under the impression, or felt the president was trying to falsely create the impression, that Saddam and Al Qaeda were known to be operationally linked.
It was discussed that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was in Iraq, and HE was a similar type of militnat to Al Qaeda, and may have been connected with them.
He did allow for the possibility, yet made clear that Saddam was harboring, financing, and certainly involved with terrorism at various levels. That was also true.
The reasons we went were the reasons I said. As I said I didn't care about the weapons of mass destruction issue, I cared more about how he was in clear violation of the cease-fire agreement, and what it means as a signal to other nations if the US is weak on those things -- especially when there are real enemies watching what we do in those areas.
Again I still say the only MORAL justification you need is that the dude was a particularly bad dictator and had abused his power for long enough.
The rest, for me, ties into the debate over whether it was a wise move or not, which is another debate entirely, and not something I am arguing about in the context of what was said earlier in this thread.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Wait...here it is even more explained...
The war on terror is not confined strictly to the al Qaeda that we're chasing. The war on terror extends beyond just a shadowy terrorist network. The war on terror involves Saddam Hussein because of the nature of Saddam Hussein, the history of Saddam Hussein and his willingness to terrorize himself.
He is a danger not only to countries in the region, but as I explained last night, because of al Qaeda connections, because of his history, he's a danger to the American people. And we've got to deal with him. We've got to deal with him before it is too late. (Applause.)
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030129-2.html
Alright enough posts about quotes now from me ...anyway, yes i agree that it would be a different discussion if you would talk about if the political reaction and war engagement was wise or not. There is no question that saddam was a bad guy and he deserved what he got. Well for me the cease fire agreement is just the smaller part as a reason to invade the country, especially at this time after 911 shock and the war on terror. The biggest arguement going into war was probably still the WMD issue since this was the main issue with the UN institution, but bush didnt care about the UN after all anyway lol.
I agree with Baff. This whole notion of the morality of imposing our style of "freedom" on people of other cultures show how some people in this country are either totally ignorant to the culture of these countries or they just don't care that they are force feeding something they may not want or are ready to take on. It was that ignorance or indifference that got us in trouble in 20003 and in other times in the 20th Century. It didn't work as expected in Korea, it didn't work at all in Vietnam and it's probably not going to work in Iraq. One size does NOT fit all! It reminds me of a cover of an old National Lampoon magazine from the 70's. The picture is of a very nervous dalmatian dog looking at the gun that is jammed against his temple by a man. The caption says "Buy this magazine or the dog gets it!" The whole argument of our "moral obligation" to bring freedom feels forced. Like we're the one holding the gun to the dogs head. Except our notion of how your society should be or else!
Yes thats an interesting train of thoughts, i guess the best is always if freedom comes from changes inside the system. Just remember how the huge sovjetunion did collapse - if there would have been never any nuke weapons the collapse would be forced by war of course, how former east germany did change peacefully.
But this is of course not always possible and probably not the aim, especially if the change is needed fast and not after such a long time like the former communist countries did exist.
The problem is that nowadays in such countries like Iraq or similar countries around them, the way of life/freedom or democracy cant be just implemented like a stamp. Such countries live often in old traditional societies with different rules and habits. I think it is needed to have long term plans about what happens after military engagements. Well even in democratic societies really big shit did happen if we remember on the elections of A. Hitler, but thats ofcourse an extreme example.
lol.
If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude; greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.
Samuel Adams
Lol Ekibiogami,
That one was good, not as good as the Bush WoW Mob Boss, but good^^
"TO MICHAEL!"
wish i could claim credit for it but it was found on the internetz ;p
If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude; greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.
Samuel Adams
Not a good posting but it made me lol.
I guess Bush has a Few Iraqi supporters after all....
If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude; greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.
Samuel Adams
Yes Iraqis value their freedom so much that they beg the American army to invade their country and over throw Saddam.
The Iraqi soldiers killed while resisting must deserve it, how dare they resist the army of rightousness, the force that are here to liberate them?! Of course, that is a small price to pay and they are probably glad to die in order for Iraq to be free from Saddam anyway.
After being liberated, they love their new freedom so much that they freely allow the Americans to use their country as a "honey pot" to battle al Qaeda in their country, giving up more innocent lives and destroying more of their properties in the proccess. Instead of living in fear of being killed by Saddam, they are now living in fear of being killed by suicide bombers and American fire, but surely thats an improvement.
I am sure those suicide bombers are just poor misguided Iraqis that didn't know that the Americans are invited by their own countryman, once they find out they will happily welcome the Americans with open arms... Maybe someone will like to volunteer to go to Iraqi and tell them?
/remark
The callous atttude is revealing. On one hand, trying to justify an invasion that by claiming that it is for the good of the victim. On the other hand, blatantly state that fighting a war against the al Qaeda on another country's soil is the objective all along (never mind whether this is true or not), with utter disregard to the pain and suffered inflicted on another nation as a result.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/12/22/iraq.shoe.thrower/index.html
All I want to know is if that guy can make me one of those picket signs. Too funny.
______________________________
What if Paul Revere was like the boy who cried wolf....?
Originally posted by Hazmal
What does he say when people ask what he did? "My mommy was irking me yo - I wanted to keep pwning nubs on my xbox, so I roughed her up with a hardshell. That is just how I roll."
So if you see a woman being raped, it is inappropriate to use violence to stop the rape? If you come to an agreement with a certain party, and they willfully violate that agreement, are you entitled to use force to enforce the terms of that agreement?
There is nothing callous about it. It all depends on whether you believe evil ought to be stopped by those within whose power it is to do so, or if you should sit on the sidelines and allow evil to go unstopped.
Or that in between area, because given limited resources and ability, you do it when it is most neccessary in places and areas that you can find the MOST reasons to do so.
That is the position I feel we were and are in with Iraq.
The government of Iraq, under Saddam, was in violation of agreement -- it was also willfully guilty of great evil. Saddam was in the middle of raping his people, and we stopped him.
No callousness at all -- just a deep appreciation for justice and a philosophical disagreement. You are entitled to your view on good/evil and involvement in the affairs of others, but please don't call the people who disagree with you callous. That's just another example of demonizing the opponent.
fishermage.blogspot.com
To only people who are allowed to have a proper say on the "War in Iraq" to being a great idea, are the American soldiers who fought there, they're the ones who put their asses on line, not all you 'keyboard warriors.'
Note: I said American soldiers cause...obviously...no-one tends to give a f*ck about the Iraqis.
We're all Geniuses. Most of us just don't know it.