Our nation pitched in once before...

Lets' see. The Iraq war would have been OK if Bush had invaded for the right reason; conversely, Bush is evil because he invaded Iraq for the wrong reason.

Heads I win, Tails you lose. The 'ole "Coin Toss" strategy. Too bad both arguments are empty.
 

jimbo4116

Retired Moderator
Your cut-n-paste response shows that I am correct. At the time of the incident the Republican administration did not protest. It was only years later when senior was building a case for war against Iraq (sound familiar?) that there was "concern."

As for your simplistic scenario, I said in an earlier post that caution would be prudent. Do you think I would be justified in whipping out my .44 and gunning you down on the street upon your approach?

I fail to see how the WWII events are at all analogous to Iraq. Iraq has never attacked us with any kind of weapons, much less WMD, and we had inspectors on the ground in Iraq that were in the process of confirming that Saddam had no WMD.
You missed the point of the Article. Reagan's administration considered the attack as part of the war between Iran and Iraq, laying blame at the feet of Iran.
Bush #1 did use the event as he layed out the Invasion of Iraq in the Gulf War.

Your assertion was no Republican blinked an eye.

I also pasted the entire article as it shows differing opinions of the event although no one disputes that it happened.

As for the IAEA's hunt for WMD's, everyone who kept up with that operation, at the time, knows that Saddam dictated pretty much what, where and when searches were allowed. There were Banned weaponry found by the UN inspectors but never the suspected WMD's other than some nerve gas I believe. Saddam nver coopertated with any inspectors, creating the suspicion of the UN and US he was hiding WMDs. This is why I ask the question "who was in charge?".

Ironically if he had cooperated and the WMDs never existed he would be alive today and proably still in charge of the Iraqi Government.

You are correct that in theory he never attack us but in reality he did. Saddams contiunously fired at American Jets patrolling the no-fly zone under the UN agreement.

Let me make this as simple as I can, if I approached you. You warned me that you were armed and presented your weapon and I continued to approach you in a threatning manner, at some point you must choose to stand your ground and fire. Or turn in run to live the realization that your bluff had been called. Looking around every corner would be a habit for you from that point, forever.

The WWII analogy is simple, when an opponent uses a powerful weapon, you can not assume they do not have another, and it would even more foolish to assume they would not use the powerful weapon again.

Truman by using the first and second bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasake put fear in the Japanese that the next target was Tokyo and the Emperor.
 
You missed the point of the Article. Reagan's administration considered the attack as part of the war between Iran and Iraq, laying blame at the feet of Iran.
Bush #1 did use the event as he layed out the Invasion of Iraq in the Gulf War.

Your assertion was no Republican blinked an eye.

I also pasted the entire article as it shows differing opinions of the event although no one disputes that it happened.

As for the IAEA's hunt for WMD's, everyone who kept up with that operation, at the time, knows that Saddam dictated pretty much what, where and when searches were allowed. There were Banned weaponry found by the UN inspectors but never the suspected WMD's other than some nerve gas I believe. Saddam nver coopertated with any inspectors, creating the suspicion of the UN and US he was hiding WMDs. This is why I ask the question "who was in charge?".

Ironically if he had cooperated and the WMDs never existed he would be alive today and proably still in charge of the Iraqi Government.

You are correct that in theory he never attack us but in reality he did. Saddams contiunously fired at American Jets patrolling the no-fly zone under the UN agreement.

Let me make this as simple as I can, if I approached you. You warned me that you were armed and presented your weapon and I continued to approach you in a threatning manner, at some point you must choose to stand your ground and fire. Or turn in run to live the realization that your bluff had been called. Looking around every corner would be a habit for you from that point, forever.

The WWII analogy is simple, when an opponent uses a powerful weapon, you can not assume they do not have another, and it would even more foolish to assume they would not use the powerful weapon again.

Truman by using the first and second bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasake put fear in the Japanese that the next target was Tokyo and the Emperor.
My assertion is correct that at the time it happened the Repubs could have cared less. I am well aware that they would use the incident later for their own purposes. What Reagan thought is irrelevant. Bush Sr. and the Repubs thought defferently in 1991 but shed nary a tear for the gassed Iraqis prior to then, a scene we saw repeated prior to the current war.

You are simply wrong about Saddan not cooperating with inspectors. The inspectors themselves said otherwise. He was reluctant initially, but by the time Bush suspended the process, the inspectors were saying he was cooperating and that they thought with more time to look they could finish the job.

You have now added the words "threatening manner" as well as some supposed dialogue to your scenario, in an attempt, I guess to move the goalpost. In reality it weakens your argument, becasue Saddam hadn't made any serious threats against us. (For that matter, what threats had he made against us prior to the Gulf War?) To continue your anlalogy, we shot an unarmed man who hadn't threatened us because....well, because he used to be a BAD man to other people.

Let's see. Had Japan gone to war against us a decade before and crippled our military? No. Had they institued severe sanctions against us? No. Were they patrolling parts of the US called no-fly zones and monitoring every move we made? No. Did they have weapons inspectors inside the US whose job it was to determine whether we had a third bomb? No.

Had Saddam EVER used WMD against the US? No. Had he ever done any military damage to Americans who weren't on his soil? No. Had he shown the capability to delive a devastating weapon on US soil? No.

But, by using WMD in 1988, followed by a war that crippled his military, sanctions that even Condi Rice and Colin Powell admitted had bottled up Saddam, and putting inspectors on the ground that found no WMD, still we were to believe that Saddam's next target was, what, DC?

I don't think so.
 

dixie

Senior Member
My assertion is correct that at the time it happened the Repubs could have cared less. I am well aware that they would use the incident later for their own purposes. What Reagan thought is irrelevant. Bush Sr. and the Repubs thought defferently in 1991 but shed nary a tear for the gassed Iraqis prior to then, a scene we saw repeated prior to the current war.

You are simply wrong about Saddan not cooperating with inspectors. The inspectors themselves said otherwise. He was reluctant initially, but by the time Bush suspended the process, the inspectors were saying he was cooperating and that they thought with more time to look they could finish the job.

You have now added the words "threatening manner" as well as some supposed dialogue to your scenario, in an attempt, I guess to move the goalpost. In reality it weakens your argument, becasue Saddam hadn't made any serious threats against us. (For that matter, what threats had he made against us prior to the Gulf War?) To continue your anlalogy, we shot an unarmed man who hadn't threatened us because....well, because he used to be a BAD man to other people.

Let's see. Had Japan gone to war against us a decade before and crippled our military? No. Had they institued severe sanctions against us? No. Were they patrolling parts of the US called no-fly zones and monitoring every move we made? No. Did they have weapons inspectors inside the US whose job it was to determine whether we had a third bomb? No.

Had Saddam EVER used WMD against the US? No. Had he ever done any military damage to Americans who weren't on his soil? No. Had he shown the capability to delive a devastating weapon on US soil? No.

But, by using WMD in 1988, followed by a war that crippled his military, sanctions that even Condi Rice and Colin Powell admitted had bottled up Saddam, and putting inspectors on the ground that found no WMD, still we were to believe that Saddam's next target was, what, DC?

I don't think so.
and as usual your wrong
 
6

60Grit

Guest
My assertion is correct that at the time it happened the Repubs could have cared less.
Camel Hooey Lin,

The Dems are now in control and I suppose you paint them as the great saviours of the world where Genocide is concerned????

Then where are the outcries from Palosi and her worker bees over the genocide currently taking place in Darfur and Rwanda????:huh:

Please, enough with the pick and choose memory and get on with life.
 

jimbo4116

Retired Moderator
My assertion is correct that at the time it happened the Repubs could have cared less. I am well aware that they would use the incident later for their own purposes. What Reagan thought is irrelevant. Bush Sr. and the Repubs thought defferently in 1991 but shed nary a tear for the gassed Iraqis prior to then, a scene we saw repeated prior to the current war.

You are simply wrong about Saddan not cooperating with inspectors. The inspectors themselves said otherwise. He was reluctant initially, but by the time Bush suspended the process, the inspectors were saying he was cooperating and that they thought with more time to look they could finish the job.

You have now added the words "threatening manner" as well as some supposed dialogue to your scenario, in an attempt, I guess to move the goalpost. In reality it weakens your argument, becasue Saddam hadn't made any serious threats against us. (For that matter, what threats had he made against us prior to the Gulf War?) To continue your anlalogy, we shot an unarmed man who hadn't threatened us because....well, because he used to be a BAD man to other people.

Let's see. Had Japan gone to war against us a decade before and crippled our military? No. Had they institued severe sanctions against us? No. Were they patrolling parts of the US called no-fly zones and monitoring every move we made? No. Did they have weapons inspectors inside the US whose job it was to determine whether we had a third bomb? No.

Had Saddam EVER used WMD against the US? No. Had he ever done any military damage to Americans who weren't on his soil? No. Had he shown the capability to delive a devastating weapon on US soil? No.

But, by using WMD in 1988, followed by a war that crippled his military, sanctions that even Condi Rice and Colin Powell admitted had bottled up Saddam, and putting inspectors on the ground that found no WMD, still we were to believe that Saddam's next target was, what, DC?

I don't think so.

In short you would turn and run, expecting the antagonist to slither away and never show his fangs again.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/etc/arsenal.html
 
In short you would turn and run, expecting the antagonist to slither away and never show his fangs again.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/etc/arsenal.html
No, Jimbo, there is a third option. I would keep doing what I was doing while being very cautious. And if I could verify that he had bad intentions toward me I would act, assuming that the potential reward for acting outwieghed the potential risks. After all, we wouldn't want innocent bystanders hurt, paritcularly if the action was unnecessary.
 

dixie

Senior Member
No, Jimbo, there is a third option. I would keep doing what I was doing while being very cautious. And if I could verify that he had bad intentions toward me I would act, assuming that the potential reward for acting outwieghed the potential risks. After all, we wouldn't want innocent bystanders hurt, paritcularly if the action was unnecessary.
and not wanting to have W get credit for having to clean up yet another clintax mess
 

jimbo4116

Retired Moderator
No, Jimbo, there is a third option. I would keep doing what I was doing while being very cautious. And if I could verify that he had bad intentions toward me I would act, assuming that the potential reward for acting outwieghed the potential risks. After all, we wouldn't want innocent bystanders hurt, paritcularly if the action was unnecessary.
And there lies the quandry, that ground known as "between a rock and a hard place". Where a Person in charge has to make a decision and live or die with it.

FDR could have easily shrank back from Japan, after all the attack on Pearl Harbor was not directed at the mainland.
The Japanese showed no signs of invading Hawaii or the Mainland. Millions of innocent lives could have been spared,
but then how would we justify going to war in Europe. Only a few merchant ships and passenger vessels had been attacked. Nothing worth risking American lives over.

We conceded on the first WTC attacks, the Cole and The African Embassies. Of course no innocent bystanders were injured there. We ran from Somalia within days of arriving, Our President set a precedent of American resolve.

The President went to war, mistakenly, not because of the lack of WMD's found, but of principle that American does not start wars without provocation. Of course this principle has cost us the lives of innocent bystanders. The President set a new precedent of American War policy which will stick in the minds of other enemies. Maybe it had to be done, time will tell.

But we went to war and were engaged by a unintended enemy, now we must see it through to a conclusions that allows us to leave with there being no doubt in that enemy and among our other enemies that we finish what we start.
 
But we went to war and were engaged by a unintended enemy, now we must see it through to a conclusions that allows us to leave with there being no doubt in that enemy and among our other enemies that we finish what we start.
Good point jimbo. I would settle for all our enemies being dead, even if that occurs before they realize we finish what we start.
 

Flash

Senior Member
Who was it that placed a bounty on Bush the elder's head??
 
And there lies the quandry, that ground known as "between a rock and a hard place". Where a Person in charge has to make a decision and live or die with it.

FDR could have easily shrank back from Japan, after all the attack on Pearl Harbor was not directed at the mainland.
The Japanese showed no signs of invading Hawaii or the Mainland. Millions of innocent lives could have been spared,
but then how would we justify going to war in Europe. Only a few merchant ships and passenger vessels had been attacked. Nothing worth risking American lives over.

We conceded on the first WTC attacks, the Cole and The African Embassies. Of course no innocent bystanders were injured there. We ran from Somalia within days of arriving, Our President set a precedent of American resolve.

The President went to war, mistakenly, not because of the lack of WMD's found, but of principle that American does not start wars without provocation. Of course this principle has cost us the lives of innocent bystanders. The President set a new precedent of American War policy which will stick in the minds of other enemies. Maybe it had to be done, time will tell.

But we went to war and were engaged by a unintended enemy, now we must see it through to a conclusions that allows us to leave with there being no doubt in that enemy and among our other enemies that we finish what we start.
We weren't between a rock and a hard place with Iraq. That has been proven. We went after an unarmed man who had not attacked or even threatened us. If it is true that it is unclear whether he was armed or not, it is also true that we stopped the search that could have and answered the question.

I have never said there was nothing worth risking American lives over. I, as did most Americans, supported the war in Afghanistan. That's where our enemy is. Just like in WWII it was clear that Japan was the enemy. Many of us can't figure out why we then went after an unarmed man who had nothing to do with the attack and had not threatened us. As we have seen, and as Bush was warned, the risk outweighed the reward. There is a reason Cheney said after the Gulf War that invading Iraq would lead to a quagmire. His words were prophetic. Pity he didn't heed them.

Unintended enemy?
 

dixie

Senior Member
We weren't between a rock and a hard place with Iraq. That has been proven. We went after an unarmed man who had not attacked or even threatened us. If it is true that it is unclear whether he was armed or not, it is also true that we stopped the search that could have and answered the question.

I have never said there was nothing worth risking American lives over. I, as did most Americans, supported the war in Afghanistan. That's where our enemy is. Just like in WWII it was clear that Japan was the enemy. Many of us can't figure out why we then went after an unarmed man who had nothing to do with the attack and had not threatened us. As we have seen, and as Bush was warned, the risk outweighed the reward. There is a reason Cheney said after the Gulf War that invading Iraq would lead to a quagmire. His words were prophetic. Pity he didn't heed them.

Unintended enemy?
so typical of the socialist party to totally ignore and try to bury all the info in the captured documents about just how deeply involved that madman was in terrorism against the US
 
Top