• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Wikileaks show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq-With Surprising Results

Goobieman said:
1: Its not supposed to be a parallel to what happened in Iraq- it addresses the ridiculous notion that stating what you think to be the truth as fact is a lie
2: Your anticipated avoidance is noted.
Click to expand...

And again, Bush didn't do that, so no one is arguing what you're claiming. Bush did more like the example I gave.
 
"There were state sponsors of terror. There were sworn enemies of America. There were hostile governments that threatened their neighbors. There were nations that violated international demands. There were dictators who repressed their people. And there were regimes that pursued WMD. Iraq combined all these threats. ... Before 9/11, Saddam was a problem America might have been able to manage. Through the lens of the post-9/11 world, my view changed. I had just witnessed the damage inflicted by nineteen fanatics armed with cutters. I could only imagine the destruction possible if an enemy dictator passed his WMD to terrorists."
~ GWB

The U.S. had been accepting risks from Saddam Hussein for more than a decade. Suddenly those risks were now intolerable. And for all the grief and cost of Saddam's removal, that particular risk now threatens the United States no longer.
 
scourge99 said:
"There were state sponsors of terror. There were sworn enemies of America. There were hostile governments that threatened their neighbors. There were nations that violated international demands. There were dictators who repressed their people. And there were regimes that pursued WMD. Iraq combined all these threats. ... Before 9/11, Saddam was a problem America might have been able to manage. Through the lens of the post-9/11 world, my view changed. I had just witnessed the damage inflicted by nineteen fanatics armed with cutters. I could only imagine the destruction possible if an enemy dictator passed his WMD to terrorists."
~ GWB

The U.S. had been accepting risks from Saddam Hussein for more than a decade. Suddenly those risks were now intolerable. And for all the grief and cost of Saddam's removal, that particular risk now threatens the United States no longer.
Click to expand...

No. There were minor. Kind of like the small time want-to-be thug. Saddam was contained. Unable to do anything of significance. Not involved in anything of significance, and by our own intel, not likley to use any wmds (the few he likely had) unless attacked, invaded.
 
scourge99 said:
"There were state sponsors of terror. There were sworn enemies of America. There were hostile governments that threatened their neighbors. There were nations that violated international demands. There were dictators who repressed their people. And there were regimes that pursued WMD. Iraq combined all these threats. ... Before 9/11, Saddam was a problem America might have been able to manage. Through the lens of the post-9/11 world, my view changed. I had just witnessed the damage inflicted by nineteen fanatics armed with cutters. I could only imagine the destruction possible if an enemy dictator passed his WMD to terrorists."
~ GWB

The U.S. had been accepting risks from Saddam Hussein for more than a decade. Suddenly those risks were now intolerable. And for all the grief and cost of Saddam's removal, that particular risk now threatens the United States no longer.
Click to expand...

That minor risk, a blustering blowhard of a pissant whose country couldn't fly an airplane unless we allowed them to, has been removed by an immensely costly war that wasn't necessary.

Ever hear of overkill? We swatted a mosquito with sledgehammer. And now we have to fix all the damage we caused. Can't fix the deaths though.
 
Boo Radley said:
No. There were minor. Kind of like the small time want-to-be thug. Saddam was contained. Unable to do anything of significance. Not involved in anything of significance, and by our own intel, not likley to use any wmds (the few he likely had) unless attacked, invaded.
Click to expand...

I recall hearing similar things about North Korea when Clinton was president and Carter was over negotiating with them. They were contained. Couldn't do anything. Just a want to be world player. Now he has nukes and has been sharing the tech. Obviously we need to repeat that wonderful policy with every country that is "contained".
 
buck said:
I recall hearing similar things about North Korea when Clinton was president and Carter was over negotiating with them. They were contained. Couldn't do anything. Just a want to be world player. Now he has nukes and has been sharing the tech. Obviously we need to repeat that wonderful policy with every country that is "contained".
Click to expand...

Have they done anything?
 
Boo Radley said:
Have they done anything?
Click to expand...

You mean the isolated and impotent North Korea? You mean besides sinking S.Korean Subs and provoking the s. Koreans at the border? Yes.

They are sharing material and tech with enemy nations around the world. Hopefully former pres. Clinton will make a statement about how isolated and impotent Syria and Iran are- so we don't have to worry about that anymore. Won't that be a relief.

N.Korea 'giving nuclear material to Iran, Syria' - Yahoo! News
 
Boo Radley said:
No. There were minor. Kind of like the small time want-to-be thug. Saddam was contained. Unable to do anything of significance. Not involved in anything of significance, and by our own intel, not likley to use any wmds (the few he likely had) unless attacked, invaded.
Click to expand...

How much time money and lives was it costing to keep Saddam "contained"? (Are you aware of operation provide comfort and others? Are you aware of the cost to Iraqi lives?)

What do you suppose would have happened had we NOT invaded? The saddam would play nice and we could bring all our troops home despite his repeated violations of UN resolutions?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: mpg
Boo Radley said:
Have they done anything?
Click to expand...

You mean other than develop and profilerate nuclear and ballistic missile technology. Other than constantly threaten to bring us into WW3 on the Korean Penninsula? You mean other than starve and brainwash its people in order to keep their military machine and regime in power?

No, nothing at all. :roll:
 
  • Like
Reactions: mpg
scourge99 said:
You mean other than develop and profilerate nuclear and ballistic missile technology. Other than constantly threaten to bring us into WW3 on the Korean Penninsula? You mean other than starve and brainwash its people in order to keep their military machine and regime in power?

No, nothing at all. :roll:
Click to expand...

And did so with Bush as president. But agian, have they done anything? Invaded anyone? We have. Bombed anyone? We have.
 
buck said:
You mean the isolated and impotent North Korea? You mean besides sinking S.Korean Subs and provoking the s. Koreans at the border? Yes.

They are sharing material and tech with enemy nations around the world. Hopefully former pres. Clinton will make a statement about how isolated and impotent Syria and Iran are- so we don't have to worry about that anymore. Won't that be a relief.

N.Korea 'giving nuclear material to Iran, Syria' - Yahoo! News
Click to expand...

Yes, the invasion of Iraq did promote and encourage nuclear proliferation. Remember, this was done under Bush. Just saying . . .
 
scourge99 said:
How much time money and lives was it costing to keep Saddam "contained"? (Are you aware of operation provide comfort and others? Are you aware of the cost to Iraqi lives?)

What do you suppose would have happened had we NOT invaded? The saddam would play nice and we could bring all our troops home despite his repeated violations of UN resolutions?
Click to expand...

Yep. And on top of that we added at least a 100,000 lives, and 4-6 million displaced and suffering. Had we not invaded, we could have pursuded a different less harmful approach. We had him pressured, the world was with us, time and options could have produced similar results without the high cost. What would not have happened would have been 4,000 plus American and colation deaths, billions spent (trillions), and any action by Saddam taken against us.
 
Boo Radley said:
You mean other than develop and profilerate nuclear and ballistic missile technology. Other than constantly threaten to bring us into WW3 on the Korean Penninsula? You mean other than starve and brainwash its people in order to keep their military machine and regime in power?
?
Click to expand...
And did so with Bush as president.
Click to expand...
the point isn't about which president did what. The point is that trying to contain an enemy can be more expensive and costly in lives, money, and power than removing them from power earlier.

Apathy has its own costs.

Boo Radley said:
But agian, have they done anything?
Click to expand...
YES! As stated above.

Boo Radley said:
Invaded anyone?
Click to expand...
so unless a tank rolls into our country or until there is a mushroom cloud with the countrys name on it, you propose that any military action is off the table?

If not, then at what point do you propose taking military action? 1) When the WMDs are being developed?
2) When the technology or weapons is sold to others (including stateless militias)?
3) When a bomb explodes on our soil or an allies?
 
scourge99 said:
the point isn't about which president did what. The point is that trying to contain an enemy can be more expensive and costly in lives, money, and power than removing them from power earlier.

Apathy has its own costs.
Click to expand...

No one has argued apathy, only wisdom and legal action, and maybe honesty.

YES! As stated above.
Click to expand...

Again, as stated above, nothing of of consequence. And we won't invade NK.

so unless a tank rolls into our country or until there is a mushroom cloud with the countrys name on it, you propose that any military action is off the table?

If not, then at what point do you propose taking military action? 1) When the WMDs are being developed?
2) When the technology or weapons is sold to others (including stateless militias)?
3) When a bomb explodes on our soil or an allies?
Click to expand...

You can't really pre-empt and avoid all risk. In fact, our last premptive effort likely made the world less safe, encouraging nuclear proliferation. Even if we conquored the wrold, the risk would still exist. So, you have to be smarter than recklessly swinging a hammer, and start thinking a little more strategically.

Miltary action is best left for imminent threats. It's like spanking a child. The threat of it is often more powerful than actually spanking them. The more you use the rod, the less power it actually has.
 
Boo Radley said:
Yep. And on top of that we added at least a 100,000 lives, and 4-6 million displaced and suffering. Had we not invaded, we could have pursuded a different less harmful approach. We had him pressured, the world was with us, time and options could have produced similar results without the high cost. What would not have happened would have been 4,000 plus American and colation deaths, billions spent (trillions), and any action by Saddam taken against us.
Click to expand...

Perhaps if we did NOT invade then in the long run less lives, money and power would be spent. And perhaps things would have been FAR worse such as the buildup and war the occurred following the great depression.

You are free to disagree. But the fact remains is that a majority of our leaders believed the risk was too great, thus they acted.
 
Boo Radley said:
Again, as stated above, nothing of of consequence.
Click to expand...
developing and proliferating ballistic and nuclear technology is "not of consequence????

Boo Radley said:
And we won't invade NK.
Click to expand...
probably not.


Boo Radley said:
You can't really pre-empt and avoid all risk.
Click to expand...
no one claims to prevent ALL risk. Do you believe I was claiming that it would eliminate ALL risk or are you just being obtuse?

Pre-emption, in particular circumstances, is a gamble to reduce risk. Just as NOT pre-empting is gamble believed to reduce risk. Do you understand?

Boo Radley said:
In fact, our last premptive effort likely made the world less safe, encouraging nuclear proliferation.
Click to expand...
How so?
How did the invasion of iraq encourage nuclear proliferation?

Boo Radley said:
Even if we conquored the wrold, the risk would still exist.
Click to expand...
I agree. Risk cannot be completely eliminated.

Do you believe I was claiming that it would eliminate ALL risk or are you just being obtuse?

Boo Radley said:
Miltary action is best left for imminent threats. It's like spanking a child. The threat of it is often more powerful than actually spanking them. The more you use the rod, the less power it actually has.
Click to expand...
This is your OPINION. An opinion that others disagree with.

Do you understand that others disagree with your opinion?

Do you claim your opinion is infallible truth?
 
scourge99 said:
Perhaps if we did NOT invade then in the long run less lives, money and power would be spent. And perhaps things would have been FAR worse such as the buildup and war the occurred following the great depression.

You are free to disagree. But the fact remains is that a majority of our leaders believed the risk was too great, thus they acted.
Click to expand...

I see nothing to support the position that things would be far worse. It would take a lot to match 100,000 deaths (and these don't count those who died due to the consequences of war) and some 4-6 million displaced. If we're objective and consider evidence over supposition, I think you would be hard pressed to support your position. And I don't accept that a majority believe it. Passing the buck doesn't equal belief.
 
Boo Radley said:
I see nothing to support the position that things would be far worse. It would take a lot to match 100,000 deaths (and these don't count those who died due to the consequences of war) and some 4-6 million displaced. If we're objective and consider evidence over supposition, I think you would be hard pressed to support your position. And I don't accept that a majority believe it. Passing the buck doesn't equal belief.
Click to expand...

So you claim that NOT invading Iraq would have, in the long run, absolutely, completely, without a doubt, cost less lives, money, and resources than what occurred?

How do you claim to know alternate futures in such complex things as world politics?
 
  • Like
Reactions: mpg
scourge99 said:
So you claim that NOT invading Iraq would have, in the long run, absolutely, completely, without a doubt, cost less lives, money, and resources than what occurred?

How do you claim to know alternate futures in such complex things as world politics?
Click to expand...

He has his head in the clouds of an ideal world that doesn't really exist. Where nuclear ambitions are curbed with just a declaration that "they are isolated" and Jimmy Carter actually has a clue about foreign policy. I can only assume that those clouds must choke off oxygen and act like a hallucinogenic.
 
Boo Radley said:
Yes, the invasion of Iraq did promote and encourage nuclear proliferation. Remember, this was done under Bush. Just saying . . .
Click to expand...

Yeah.. nothing occured under Clinton to cause the result. Clinton dealt wonderfully with N.K. and his policies regarding them were unmitigated successes. It's all bush's fault. What would I do without your wonderful pearls of wisdom?
 
scourge99 said:
So you claim that NOT invading Iraq would have, in the long run, absolutely, completely, without a doubt, cost less lives, money, and resources ?
Click to expand...

What you fail to realize, and NEOCON Cheney didn't want us to remember, was that Iraq endured years of sanctions where Saddam was only allowed a $billion a year from his oil sales, and when you divide that into 23 million Iraqis, it's $43 a year per person. That's the reason he had to disband his army and cut back on everything else.

In other words, Iraq was a helpless sitting duck when we invaded, not the military force it once was ten years before.

ricksfolly
 
ricksfolly said:
What you fail to realize, and NEOCON Cheney didn't want us to remember, was that Iraq endured years of sanctions where Saddam was only allowed a $billion a year from his oil sales, and when you divide that into 23 million Iraqis, it's $43 a year per person. That's the reason he had to disband his army and cut back on everything else.
Click to expand...
Dictators do NOT cut back on paying what they need to maintain their strangle hold on power. Komeneni, Castro, and Kim, are all perfect examples. The people will all starve to death before the dictators relinquish their power and lavish lifestyle.

ricksfolly said:
In other words, Iraq was a helpless sitting duck when we invaded, not the military force it once was ten years before.
Click to expand...
If you were under the impression that iraq was "the military force it once was ten years before" Then that is your own personal misunderstanding.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mpg
scourge99 said:
So you claim that NOT invading Iraq would have, in the long run, absolutely, completely, without a doubt, cost less lives, money, and resources than what occurred?

How do you claim to know alternate futures in such complex things as world politics?
Click to expand...

With reason and logic. We factually increased the death rate by invading. All the problems with the sanctions were magi nified with war, and those deaths are not counted in the current death totals. We certainly wouldn't have spent the billion, trillions we've spent. Hard to argue otherwise. Nor would we have spent as many resources, espeically in lives.

Yeah, I'm pretty comfortable with my claim being likely.
 
buck said:
Yeah.. nothing occured under Clinton to cause the result. Clinton dealt wonderfully with N.K. and his policies regarding them were unmitigated successes. It's all bush's fault. What would I do without your wonderful pearls of wisdom?
Click to expand...

NK's nuke was developed under Bush. And before you go with the NK was cheating under Clinton, there is a NYT's article I posted on WS some years ago showing the CIA merely said that, without actual proof. I won't look it up again, but you can if you want. Bush created a situation that said, if you want to deal with the US, you better have a nuke. because that is the only way you can be assured we won't invade.
 
Boo Radley said:
NK's nuke was developed under Bush. And before you go with the NK was cheating under Clinton, there is a NYT's article I posted on WS some years ago showing the CIA merely said that, without actual proof. I won't look it up again, but you can if you want. Bush created a situation that said, if you want to deal with the US, you better have a nuke. because that is the only way you can be assured we won't invade.
Click to expand...

I guess that's fine - as long as you completely ignore North Korea's histroy prior to the iraq war. You miust be one of those that believe history started with Bush and Iraq.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom