World Apologies

[garnet]

Originally Posted by alphageek31337

Why not make the effort to get as much of the world on our side as possible?

So many Americans think that we're invincible, ass-kickin' and the only worthwhile country on the planet that we can (and should) go it alone. It makes me very, very nervous.

[FloridaDragon]

Originally Posted by garnet

So many Americans think that we're invincible, ass-kickin' and the only worthwhile country on the planet that we can (and should) go it alone. It makes me very, very nervous.

I agree we can't think of ourselves in that extreme of a view but if we go the other extreme then we would still be trying to get UN approval just to use harsh language with Saddam in 20 years, meanwhile who knows what damage he could cause worldwide and how many of his own people he could gas.
Its all about compromise.

[garnet]

Originally Posted by FloridaDragon

Its all about compromise.

Yes it is--and Mr. Bush chose not to compromise. He wanted to invade Iraq, and was willing to do so regardless of what the UN, many of our allies, and millions of American citizens thought. He didn't compromise one iota.

[FloridaDragon]

but how long do you wait on the UN ? He did wait years ... I am not trying to say I agree with what has happened over there but it is not like he went to the UN on Monday, asked for a resolution, didn't get it, and then on Tuesday he declared war...if you go through all the resolutions and the failures of those agreements (especially the ones dealing with inspections) it is my *humble* opinion that they waited long enough...Saddam was stalling and you had to question his motives.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by FloridaDragon

Saddam was stalling and you had to question his motives.

Saddam said "we have no WMDs." And he was telling the truth.

How was he supposed to prove that he had no WMDs? How do you prove a negative? Each time the inspectors went into a facility and looked, they found no WMDs. Bush took this as evidence that he was hiding WMDs. Of course, if they found WMDs, Bush would also take that as evidence that they existed. Either way, Saddam was screwed.

Saddam didn't like the foreign weapons inspectors poking around HIS palaces, so he made it hard on them by making them wait a few hours before opening the gates to the buildings they wanted to see. Sure, he could have cooperated more, and maybe in hindsight he wishes that he had. But he did let the inspectors inspect even if his pride made him a little stubborn about it.

[FloridaDragon]

there were also several times when Saddam stopped all inspections for months on end, he also stalled inspections on facilities for weeks, meanwhile lines of trucks arrived, packed up something (we guess) and drove away.... kinda strikes you as someone who had something to hide.

WMD or not, he was an evil piece of crap who belonged in a jail cell (fon't think you can argue that point).

And have you seen the picture of the MIG-29 that they found out in the desert?...if they can successfully hide a fighter jet, don't you think they could hide other things as well?

garnet, "lickety split"? So the question is how long do you wait? The UN was going to be held up for a long time on Iraq simply due to money, France, Germany and Russia simply had too many contracts in place in Iraq to lose so they would never have voted to go. Not saying we would have been any different if it had been our contracts at stake.

[garnet]

Originally Posted by FloridaDragon

WMD or not, he was an evil piece of crap who belonged in a jail cell (fon't think you can argue that point).

I agree Saddam's a really bad guy, but there's a lot of people in other countries out there who think GWB is an "evil piece of crap" who belongs in a jail cell, too. Should they invade us without the support of the UN, too? It's all a matter of perspective.

Originally Posted by FloridaDragon

So the question is how long do you wait?

He should have waited FOREVER and never invaded Iraq, in my opinion.

Originally Posted by FloridaDragon

France, Germany and Russia simply had too many contracts in place in Iraq to lose so they would never have voted to go.

Not to mention the fact that those countries simply didn't believe that full-scale WAR was necessary or justified...

[glatt]

So you think there are hiddn WMDs somewhere in the desert? Bush himself has admitted that there were no WMDs after all.

No. Sadam was not a nice guy. But the Iraqis were better off under Saddam than under the US, and the US was better off before it invaded. This war was a bad idea all around.

Bush had a hard-on for Saddam and didn't listen to ANYONE who got between him and his prey. He alientated the world, and half his country. Our friends and allies were trying to save us from making a terrible mistake, and the Bush admin insulted them by calling them a bunch "chocolate making countries" and referring to the "freedom fries," etc.

I'm reminded of a mean drunk trying to leave a bar at the end of the night and fighting with his friends who try to take his car keys away from him. That's Bush in a nutshell.

[garnet]

Originally Posted by FloridaDragon

but how long do you wait on the UN ? He did wait years ... I am not trying to say I agree with what has happened over there but it is not like he went to the UN on Monday, asked for a resolution, didn't get it, and then on Tuesday he declared war...if you go through all the resolutions and the failures of those agreements (especially the ones dealing with inspections) it is my *humble* opinion that they waited long enough...Saddam was stalling and you had to question his motives.

So because he didn't get his way from the UN lickety split, it's OK for him to do whatever he wants? It doesn't matter how long he waited; he didn't have the support of the UN, and for good reason. There was no compromise on anything from his end. He didn't care what anybody else thought and he did what he wanted. Plain and simple.

As for Saddam's "motives," it's pretty clear the guy was on an ego trip and just wanted to stay in power. It seems like his ego was his motivation for a lot of things.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by FloridaDragon

I agree we can't think of ourselves in that extreme of a view but if we go the other extreme then we would still be trying to get UN approval just to use harsh language with Saddam in 20 years, meanwhile who knows what damage he could cause worldwide and how many of his own people he could gas.
Its all about compromise.

Do you really think we invaded Iraq to save the Iraqi people. Considering how many brutal regimes we don't invade, not even counting our refusal to interfere in cases of outright genocide, I would argue the reason for the Iraqi invasion was political or strategic.

As a result of the invasion, we have 200 billion less to deal with our own issues, not to mention 1000+ soldiers lives lost and thousands more injured for life. How much would it have cost to keep the pressure on Iraq?

[FloridaDragon]

Originally Posted by richlevy

...

never said we invaded Iraq for WMD...never said we did it to save the Iraqi people...so are you saying we SHOULD invade every country that has a brutal regime? As for the money, now you are putting a price on human life in Iraq (just making a point here).... now the US troops lost I agree is, in my mind, the mort horrific aspect of this whole thing. I think the war itself has been criminally mismanaged. I am not trying to defend Bush, just the US.

garnet, do you honestly think that you, or any of us, know what was found there and what was not? Be willing to bet we know 10% of the real details of what the hell is really going on. You want to think you know the truth when you have just read the same news stories that all of us have been fed, then that is your prerogative (and that is part of our freedom as well)

[garnet]

Originally Posted by FloridaDragon

do you honestly think that you, or any of us, know what was found there and what was not? Be willing to bet we know 10% of the real details of what the hell is really going on. You want to think you know the truth when you have just read the same news stories that all of us have been fed, then that is your prerogative (and that is part of our freedom as well)

No but I would think the President of the US would know what's going on in Iraq. What would be the point of him admitting to the American people he was wrong about WMDs? Do you think he lied to us? Sorry, I don't get your point.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by FloridaDragon

garnet, do you honestly think that you, or any of us, know what was found there and what was not? Be willing to bet we know 10% of the real details of what the hell is really going on. You want to think you know the truth when you have just read the same news stories that all of us have been fed, then that is your prerogative (and that is part of our freedom as well)

Are you saying that the adminstration found conclusive evidence, better than the aluminum tubes they trotted out, and deliberately suppressed that evidence, even when doing so cost them huge amounts of credibility and political capital?

If there was a shred of evidence supporting the invasion, this adminstration would be sending copies to every media outlet on the planet.