Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq?

[chomerics]

Actually, it needs to be pointed out, we had a long-term base in the middle east, before we invaded.

Unfortunately, that base was in Saudi Arabia (remember them? the folks who actually were behind 9/11?). And the folks who were behind 9/11 didn't like us having a base in their country. And we always do what they want, right?

So true, I brought this up in another thread as well. You can't use this as a justification, a centralized base of operations, because we HAD bases in SA before we invaded. We only pulled out of SA after we invaded Iraq.

[nelms]

So true, I brought this up in another thread as well. You can't use this as a justification, a centralized base of operations, because we HAD bases in SA before we invaded. We only pulled out of SA after we invaded Iraq.

Saudi Arabia crumbled under the pressure from the extremists in their government, as well as from threats from Bin Laden. Over the last five or six years of our military presence in that country, the numbers had dwindled to a point that it was no longer really an effective fighing force that could be used in an event of another Iraqi type invasion of Kuwait. After the barracks in Dahran were bombed in 1996, our miltary forces were cut back. We did not voluntarily withdraw. Publicly it was presented as a mutal agreement. In reality the Saudis did not want us there because of the internal pressure and this was way before our invasion of Iraq.

In Iraq, we did 2 things. 1) We removed a future threat to the region. As soon as the U.N. gave Iraq as clean bill of heath, everyone knows Hussein would be back at it again 2) We established a long term miltiary presence right in the Middle East and brought the war on terrorism to the terrorists.

[Thiebear]

If i get asked if were keeping it really simple..

We removed a bad man that did really bad things to a LOT of people.. And if we stopped watching him/his sons they would have done A LOT more bad things to a lot more people...

One of the 5 reason we went in for has been proven wrong so far, but I think it was a good thing.. There are a couple of Countries in Africa I wish we would help also.

When you get to the age to drive a car I hope the entire region is 'republic' 'democratic' in some way shape or form.. but I'll be happy if just one is.

night night sweetie...

[Mad Mike]

We have more to worry about China invading Taiwan or, in desperation, starting a nuclear war with the U.S., then we did about Saddam in the future. Even the Powell and Rice had mentioned that Saddam wasn't viewed as an immediate threat.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/05/23/clinton.china/

GOP Keeps Up Heat On Possible Clinton-China Links

Thompson on CNN's 'Evans and Novak'

Thompson: Forgo China trip until 'big, ugly mess' cleared up

WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, May 23) -- Republicans are keeping up the pressure on President Bill Clinton to explain questions about possible links between 1996 Democratic campaign contributions and decisions to share U.S. satellite technology with the Chinese government.

In the weekly GOP radio address Saturday, Rep. Porter Goss, R-Fla., said "the administration needs to provide Americans with direct and full answers to important questions about all of this."

"How did it come about that highly sensitive technical information was given to the Chinese? Why did the president ignore the national security experts who counseled against this deal? What damage has been done to our national security?" Goss asked.

"We know that Chinese officials chose to invest hundreds of thousands of dollars in the 1996 re-election of the Clinton administration. What we don't know is what they expected to gain from that investment," Goss said.

Sen. Fred Thompson, R-Tenn., in an interview on CNN's "Evans and Novak," called the questions about transferring technology to China a "big, ugly mess," and he said Clinton should seriously reconsider his trip there, scheduled for next month.

"I'm more concerned that if he goes, he's going to ... make agreements to transfer additional technology. It's been reported that he's thinking in those terms," said Thompson, who chairs a Senate committee that has been investigating 1996 campaign fund-raising irregularities.

Thompson: White House should 'stop and reassess'

"You have a lot of troubling questions ... You have some significant policy matters being determined in the midst of some very questionable activity involving a foreign government -- involving the very government that he is planning on visiting. So I don't think it's bad to stop and reassess that at this point," Thompson said.

More than 150 House members also have called for Clinton to cancel the trip, but the White House has said that is not an option.

The Justice Department is investigating whether political contributions, from either the Chinese government or American business interests, influenced the administration's China policies.

Former Democratic fund-raiser Johnny Chung has told Justice investigators that he passed on to the Democratic Party more than $100,000 from Liu Chao Ying, an official of a Chinese aerospace company who is also an officer in the Chinese army and the daughter of a top official in the Beijing regime.

After the donation, Clinton approved a waiver that allowed Loral Space and Communications -- whose chief executive officer, Bernard Schwartz, is a leading Democratic Party donor -- to launch one of its satellites on top of a Chinese rocket.

Friday, Clinton defended the waiver, saying it "was in the national interest, and supportive of our national security."

"There was absolutely nothing done to transfer any technology inappropriately to the Chinese as a result of this decision," he said.

In Beijing, Liu issued a statement this week denying that she ever gave political donations to the Democrats through Chung. But Thompson said based on his committee's investigation, such a scenario "totally fits with everything that we know."

"[The Chinese] has lied consistently. Not only do they lie about such things as transfers of nuclear technology, they have lied to us about their involvement in our campaign," Thompson said. "I wouldn't believe anything any of them said."

[Mad Mike]

Actually, it needs to be pointed out, we had a long-term base in the middle east, before we invaded.

Unfortunately, that base was in Saudi Arabia (remember them? the folks who actually were behind 9/11?). And the folks who were behind 9/11 didn't like us having a base in their country. And we always do what they want, right?

Talk about a false premise. :doh:

[Mad Mike]

http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap1.html

Key Findings

Saddam Husayn so dominated the Iraqi Regime that its strategic intent was his alone. He wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when sanctions were lifted.

Saddam totally dominated the Regime’s strategic decision making. He initiated most of the strategic thinking upon which decisions were made, whether in matters of war and peace (such as invading Kuwait), maintaining WMD as a national strategic goal, or on how Iraq was to position itself in the international community. Loyal dissent was discouraged and constructive variations to the implementation of his wishes on strategic issues were rare. Saddam was the Regime in a strategic sense and his intent became Iraq’s strategic policy.

Saddam’s primary goal from 1991 to 2003 was to have UN sanctions lifted, while maintaining the security of the Regime. He sought to balance the need to cooperate with UN inspections—to gain support for lifting sanctions—with his intention to preserve Iraq’s intellectual capital for WMD with a minimum of foreign intrusiveness and loss of face. Indeed, this remained the goal to the end of the Regime, as the starting of any WMD program, conspicuous or otherwise, risked undoing the progress achieved in eroding sanctions and jeopardizing a political end to the embargo and international monitoring.

The introduction of the Oil-For-Food program (OFF) in late 1996 was a key turning point for the Regime. OFF rescued Baghdad’s economy from a terminal decline created by sanctions. The Regime quickly came to see that OFF could be corrupted to acquire foreign exchange both to further undermine sanctions and to provide the means to enhance dual-use infrastructure and potential WMD-related development.

By 2000-2001, Saddam had managed to mitigate many of the effects of sanctions and undermine their international support. Iraq was within striking distance of a de facto end to the sanctions regime, both in terms of oil exports and the trade embargo, by the end of 1999.

Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq’s WMD capability—which was essentially destroyed in 1991—after sanctions were removed and Iraq’s economy stabilized, but probably with a different mix of capabilities to that which previously existed. Saddam aspired to develop a nuclear capability—in an incremental fashion, irrespective of international pressure and the resulting economic risks—but he intended to focus on ballistic missile and tactical chemical warfare (CW) capabilities.

[heyholetsgogrant]

Saudi Arabia crumbled under the pressure from the extremists in their government, as well as from threats from Bin Laden. Over the last five or six years of our military presence in that country, the numbers had dwindled to a point that it was no longer really an effective fighing force that could be used in an event of another Iraqi type invasion of Kuwait. After the barracks in Dahran were bombed in 1996, our miltary forces were cut back. We did not voluntarily withdraw. Publicly it was presented as a mutal agreement. In reality the Saudis did not want us there because of the internal pressure and this was way before our invasion of Iraq.

In Iraq, we did 2 things. 1) We removed a future threat to the region. As soon as the U.N. gave Iraq as clean bill of heath, everyone knows Hussein would be back at it again 2) We established a long term miltiary presence right in the Middle East and brought the war on terrorism to the terrorists.

Ok lemme as you this...if the Uinted States presented its case with no WMD at all do you think they would be able to convice the American public to go to war??.....no way IMO....bottomline is the Bush administration used WMD as a reason to go to war

-Grant

[heyholetsgogrant]

http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap1.html

Im sure we can have a twice as large comprehensive book on china...

-Grant

[nelms]

Ok lemme as you this...if the Uinted States presented its case with no WMD at all do you think they would be able to convice the American public to go to war??.....no way IMO....bottomline is the Bush administration used WMD as a reason to go to war

-Grant

I agree with you, the American public would not have supported it. It would be very difficult to go to war on a potential future threat from Hussein or to establish a military presence in the Middle East.

But, if we had to use the excuse of WMDs to acheive those two objectives, then so be it. It was never exclusively about Hussein/Iraq. FDR had Pearl Harbor for WWII. GWB had Saddam Hussein for the war on terrorism.

[Mad Mike]

Im sure we can have a twice as large comprehensive book on china...

-Grant

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/congress/jan-june98/china_5-19.html

Justice Department investigators believe they have established such a link, based on testimony provided by California businessman Johnny Chung. Chung, who made hundreds of thousands of dollars in questionable contributions to the Democratic National Committee, began cooperating with the Justice Department after pleading guilty to campaign-related bank and tax fraud charges in March. Chung reportedly told investigators that a significant portion of his 1996 contributions came from China's People's Liberation Army by way of Liu Chao-Ying, a lieutenant colonel who also is a top executive of Beijing's state-owned aerospace company, China Aerospace. That same year, the Clinton administration was making it easier for American commercial satellites to be launched by Chinese rockets--a move that benefitted Liu's company. Such launchings had been tightly restricted in the past out of concern that they would give China access to technology that could be used for military purposes.

[heyholetsgogrant]

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/congress/jan-june98/china_5-19.html

Key word, "believes"

"Justice Department investigators believe they have established such a link"

[heyholetsgogrant]

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/congress/jan-june98/china_5-19.html

If the justice department did what they where doing 5-6 years ago today..imo Bush would be Impeached.

-Grant

[Larry]

I'm really enjoying the way people seem drawn to pointing fingers at Clinton.

I'd bet, if I were to bring "Bush Stole the Election" into this, it wouldn't be three posts before people were all over me for "living in the past".

Heck, bring up, say, the Downing Street memo, which was written, what, three years ago?, and "it's old news" (that Bush still won't admit to).

But heck, the folks who contributed to Clinton's campaign in '96, now that's relevant to a thread about a war we started in '03.

And on the subject of "Blame Clinton": Boy, I bet all you folks were really glad when Bush took over and eliminated all that exchange with China, right? Shure glad we're not involved with them any more. Heck, they're part of the Axis of Evil. Bush shure changed that.

-----

It's just like the folks who want to blame 9/11 on Clinton and his intel rules. Bush didn't change the rules, but it's just obvious that they were wrong. Heck, any idiot could see that those rules were a clear threat to the nation. (Make that "any idiot except Bush".)

[Mad Mike]

Key word, "believes"

"Justice Department investigators believe they have established such a link"

Bwaaaahahahaha. :laugh:

You so funny!

http://www.pulitzer.org/year/1999/national-reporting/works/121598.html

WASHINGTON -- After a two-year investigation of Chinese political contributions to the 1996 election, Federal authorities have unearthed new evidence that Beijing's efforts were part of a broader campaign to obtain access to American high technology, according to lawyers and investigators.

While still incomplete, the evidence provides a clearer understanding of China's motivations -- and one that differs substantially from the initial view of Federal investigators and a Senate committee that China intended to influence the outcome of particular races, including President Clinton's re-election.

[Mad Mike]

I'm really enjoying the way people seem drawn to pointing fingers at Clinton.

I'd bet, if I were to bring "Bush Stole the Election" into this, it wouldn't be three posts before people were all over me for "living in the past".

Heck, bring up, say, the Downing Street memo, which was written, what, three years ago?, and "it's old news" (that Bush still won't admit to).

But heck, the folks who contributed to Clinton's campaign in '96, now that's relevant to a thread about a war we started in '03.

And on the subject of "Blame Clinton": Boy, I bet all you folks were really glad when Bush took over and eliminated all that exchange with China, right? Shure glad we're not involved with them any more. Heck, they're part of the Axis of Evil. Bush shure changed that.

-----

It's just like the folks who want to blame 9/11 on Clinton and his intel rules. Bush didn't change the rules, but it's just obvious that they were wrong. Heck, any idiot could see that those rules were a clear threat to the nation. (Make that "any idiot except Bush".)

No. It's relevent to a discussion of the threat of china. Try to keep up.

[Larry]

No. It's relevent to a discussion of the threat of china. Try to keep up.

So, what you're saying is "Watch out! If we're not carefull, China might make some more soft-money campaign contributiuons"?

Frankly, if you're worried about the threat from China, then how about we stop borrowing money from them to finance election-buying giveaways? Or maybe stop passing tax laws that encourage american companies to move over there?

[Phat Hog]

OMG...another Iraq WMD discussion? :doh:

[Mr. Nostril]

That dialogue is awful. Basically, the point of it is to show that the hypocrisy of America is so obvious that even a child could recognize it. However, the character of the child speaks nothing like a child, and brings up tons of information that very few children would know. Really, the only signifiers that "Q" is a child is that he occasionally says "Daddy." Obviously, having the child speak like an adult seriouly undercuts the main point. I'm all for being creative in your writing, but if your creativity drives you to create characters, you should at least be true to your characters.

Rather than making me read a stupid dialogue, he could have just wrote a few short papragraphs of normal prose, and given me the same information. Of course then people would dismiss what he wrote as being boilerplate. The fact is, just because he packaged it in a dialogue doesn't make the information any less boilerplate. It's still cliche and unoriginal.

[dreamingwolf]

how do the cool people today say it "oh snap!". is that right?

[Mad Mike]

So, what you're saying is "Watch out! If we're not carefull, China might make some more soft-money campaign contributiuons"?

Frankly, if you're worried about the threat from China, then how about we stop borrowing money from them to finance election-buying giveaways? Or maybe stop passing tax laws that encourage american companies to move over there?

No What I'm saying is that I'm not the one who brought china into this YOU WERE. :doh: I'm just bringing up relivant facts so that both sides of the issue can be examined. I understand however that since your comment backfired Uou arent too thrilled with the direction it leads.

So please by all means, comment on the CIA report I referenced. And here are a few more things to chew on.

Saudi Arabia is an ally whether they like it or not because one of bin Laden's primary goals is to overthrow the monarchy because of it's relationship to the US. I sugget you read bin Laden's declaration of Jihad. here

Through its course of actions the

regime has torn off its legitimacy:

(1) Suspension of the Islamic Shari'ah law and exchanging it with

man made civil law. The regime entered into a bloody confrontation with

the truthful Ulamah and the righteous youths (we sanctify nobody; Allah

sanctify Whom He pleaseth).

(2) The inability of the regime to protect the country, and

allowing the enemy of the Ummah - the American crusader forces- to occupy the land for the longest of years. The crusader forces became the main cause of our disastrous condition, particularly in the economical aspect of it due to the unjustified heavy spending on these forces. As a result of the policy imposed on the country, especially in the field of oil

industry where production is restricted or expanded and prices are fixed

to suit the American economy ignoring the economy of the country.

Expensive deals were imposed on the country to purchase arms. People

asking what is the justification for the very existence of the regime

then?

Bush did not steal the election. That has been clearly proven to all but the most extreme wackos.

The Downing Street memo is NOT the silver bullet you think it is. It is a pre war assesment based uppon opinion and conjecture and it does not change anything. Here it is, prove me wrong.

The day after Saddam was pulled from his spider hole, Libia gave up it's WMD program. Coincidence my @ss. The negotiations were going on for years with no progress and suddenly Kadafi has a change of heart. I wonder why. So it mus be said that Bush not only removed a terible dictator who was a massive supporter of terrorism, there is also one less country in the region pursuing WMD.

Now as to the alternative to invasion... We could always have kept up the sanctions right? Again, from the declaration of jihad....

The youths hold you responsible for all of the killings and

evictions of the Muslims and the violation of the sanctities, carried out

by your Zionist brothers in Lebanon; you openly supplied them with arms

and finance. More than 600,000 Iraqi children have died due to lack of

food and medicine and as a result of the unjustifiable aggression

(sanction) imposed on Iraq and its nation. The children of Iraq are our

children. You, the USA, together with the Saudi regime are responsible for

the shedding of the blood of these innocent children. Due to all of that,

what ever treaty you have with our country is now null and void.

No. Saddam and bin Laden would NEVER cooperate right? :doh:

[Goodlifer]

No. Saddam and bin Laden would NEVER cooperate right? :doh:

I heard that they were building a summer home together.

[chomerics]

No What I'm saying is that I'm not the one who brought china into this YOU WERE. :doh: I'm just bringing up relivant facts so that both sides of the issue can be examined. I understand however that since your comment backfired Uou arent too thrilled with the direction it leads.

So please by all means, comment on the CIA report I referenced. And here are a few more things to chew on.

Saudi Arabia is an ally whether they like it or not because one of bin Laden's primary goals is to overthrow the monarchy because of it's relationship to the US. I sugget you read bin Laden's declaration of Jihad. here

Bush did not steal the election. That has been clearly proven to all but the most extreme wackos.

The Downing Street memo is NOT the silver bullet you think it is. It is a pre war assesment based uppon opinion and conjecture and it does not change anything. Here it is, prove me wrong.

The day after Saddam was pulled from his spider hole, Libia gave up it's WMD program. Coincidence my @ss. The negotiations were going on for years with no progress and suddenly Kadafi has a change of heart. I wonder why. So it mus be said that Bush not only removed a terible dictator who was a massive supporter of terrorism, there is also one less country in the region pursuing WMD.

Now as to the alternative to invasion... We could always have kept up the sanctions right? Again, from the declaration of jihad....

No. Saddam and bin Laden would NEVER cooperate right? :doh:

:koolaid:

:koolaid:

:koolaid:

:koolaid:

[Mad Mike]

:koolaid:

:koolaid:

:koolaid:

:koolaid:

:laugh: Boy you sure told me.