• 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!

Cheney Says There Was No Iraq Link to 9/11 Attacks

ADK Forever,

It's not that anyone backed me down from my position - I do believe Bush-43 had "Iraqi payback" on the brian before he took office - but there's no clear evidence that he actually planned to go to war prior to taking office. So, here again I stand corrected. However, there is clear evidence that plans were conceived prior to 9/11.

Incidentally, I found the 2000 document, "Rebuilding America's Defenses," from the Project for the new American Century published in September 2000. On page 8 where Iraq is discussed, the commentary reads, in part, as follows:

The one constant of Pentagon force planning through the past decade has been the recognized need to retain sufficient combat forces to fight and win, as repidly and decisively as possible, multiple, nearly simultaneous major theater wars. This constant is based opon two important truths about the current international order. Once, the Cold-War standoff between America and its allies and the Soviet Union that made for caution and discouraged direct aggression against the major security interests of either side no longer exists. Two, conventional warefare remains a viable way for aggressive states to seek major changes in the international order.

Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait reflected both truths. The invasion would have been highly unlikely, if not impossible, within the context of the Cold War, and Iraq overran Kuwait in a matter of hours. These two truths revealed a third: maintaining or restoring a favorable order in vital regions in the world such as Europe, the Middle East and East Asia places a unique responsibility on U.S. armed forces. The Gulf War and indeed the subsequent lesser wars in the Balkans could hardly have been fought and won without the dominant role played by American military might.

Thus, the understanding that U.S. armed forces should be shaped by a "two-major-war" standard rightly has been accepted as the core of America's superpower status since the end of the Cold War."
Click to expand...

...WOW...:shock:

Cheney got his two-pronged war after all...
 
Last edited:
The one constant of Pentagon force planning through the past decade has been the recognized need to retain sufficient combat forces to fight and win, as repidly and decisively as possible, multiple, nearly simultaneous major theater wars. This constant is based opon two important truths about the current international order. Once, the Cold-War standoff between America and its allies and the Soviet Union that made for caution and discouraged direct aggression against the major security interests of either side no longer exists. Two, conventional warefare remains a viable way for aggressive states to seek major changes in the international order.

Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait reflected both truths. The invasion would have been highly unlikely, if not impossible, within the context of the Cold War, and Iraq overran Kuwait in a matter of hours. These two truths revealed a third: maintaining or restoring a favorable order in vital regions in the world such as Europe, the Middle East and East Asia places a unique responsibility on U.S. armed forces. The Gulf War and indeed the subsequent lesser wars in the Balkans could hardly have been fought and won without the dominant role played by American military might.

Thus, the understanding that U.S. armed forces should be shaped by a "two-major-war" standard rightly has been accepted as the core of America's superpower status since the end of the Cold War."
Click to expand...

Is there something about this which doesn't make sense?
 
Objective Voice said:
...WOW...:shock:
Cheney got his two-pronged war after all...
Click to expand...
I'm not sure how or why you're shocked by this, or why you think Cheney -wanted- a 2-pronged war...?
 
Objective Voice said:
ADK Forever,

It's not that anyone backed me down from my position - I do believe Bush-43 had "Iraqi payback" on the brian before he took office - but there's no clear evidence that he actually planned to go to war prior to taking office. So, here again I stand corrected.
Click to expand...

Most people here wouldn't do that -- good on you. :)


However, there is clear evidence that plans were conceived prior to 9/11.
Click to expand...

If you're referring to contingency plans drawn up by the Pentagon, then yes -- but they're also drawn up for any potential trouble spot in the entire world, if not every country in the entire world.

Having a plan is good due diligence, not evidence in and of itself of an intent to follow through on it.
 
Harshaw,

I understand the logic behind it, e.g., show that the U.S. can handle a two-pronged war and we, thus, retain our "superpower" image. In other words, might makes right. But that doesn't mean that we "create" a war just to prove ourselves.

The War on Terror being fought in Afghanistan remains a legit war, IMO. Al-Quaida w/the full support of the Taliban attacked the U.S. We are justified in fighting back. But the War in Iraq...no. Of course, few will ever believe that the Iraq war was and has been a trumped up war from the very beginning. So...

Let's move on shall we...
 
Objective Voice said:
Harshaw,

I understand the logic behind it, e.g., show that the U.S. can handle a two-pronged war and we, thus, retain our "superpower" image. In other words, might makes right. But that doesn't mean that we "create" a war just to prove ourselves.
Click to expand...

Who says we did that, and what in that entire PNAC report suggests that the INTENT is/was to do that?

The "logic" isn't to "show" we can "handle" it -- the "logic" is to be actually ABLE to do it.
 
Objective Voice said:
Harshaw,
I understand the logic behind it, e.g., show that the U.S. can handle a two-pronged war and we, thus, retain our "superpower" image.
Click to expand...
It doesnt have anything to do with 'image', it has everything to do with ability -- and it doesnt have anything to do with 'maintaining supwerpower status', it has everyhting to do with protecting the national interest.

In other words, might makes right.
Click to expand...
Not sure how you get that, as there's no statement of right/wrong in what you posted. The PNAC recognized that the post-cold-war world had changed and that the US military needed to be able to respond to different challenges than it did before the wall fell. This policy statement is nothing more than a description of how to do it when it becomes necessary, rather than some statement of predisposed intent to go to war (in Iraq or elsewhere).

But that doesn't mean that we "create" a war just to prove ourselves.
Click to expand...
Which we did not do.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
I wonder how long it will be before he admits the invasion was illegal.
Click to expand...

Are you referring to Iraq? No, but that's only because we had U.N. authorization to use military might. So, no, the invasion of Iraq by the U.S. was not illegal. Immoral, perhaps. Unnecessary...ditto, but illegal, no.

Harshaw,

In demonstrating that "'logic' to be actually ABLE to do it", fight a war on two-front, all this country's military had to do was change its war-time tactics. Our Armed Forces hold joint-tactical operations with between services and foreign nations all the time...usually with our allies. I'm a Navy vet. So, I know this to be true. There's nothing stopping us from holding war games in the Atlantic while also doing same in the Pacific with one objective in mind - secure a beachhead in both open waters. It's expesive, complex and would require multi-national involvement, but it could be done.

And BTW, anyone who doesn't believe that former VP isn't a war-crazed lune who didn't get is two-pronged war just has a hard time accepting the reality of the deception that was and IS the Iraq War.

Goodie,

Again, you're justifying something that really isn't justifyable, IMO. Sure, the U.S. didn't have to put forth the image that its military was capable of defending our national interest at home or abroad - we've proven that in wars/campaigns of the past. But the Iraqi situation (i.e., WMD), IMO, presented the Bush-43 administration with the perfect opportunity to put forth the idea of a "two-major-war standard". Why else would they have pushed to go to war w/Iraq with very little credible evidence to show that the Iraqi government was a viable and immediate threat to our national security? Every investigation on the merits of going to war w/Iraq - internal and external - have elude to this. None have come outright and said the war was un-ncessary - none that I've read anyway, but I think many Americans have already come to that conclusion with or w/o a details report.
 
Last edited:
Objective Voice said:
In demonstrating that "'logic' to be actually ABLE to do it", fight a war on two-front, all this country's military had to do was change its war-time tactics. Our Armed Forces hold joint-tactical operations with between services and foreign nations all the time...usually our allies. I'm a Navy vet. So, I know this to be true. There's nothing stopping us from holding war games in the Atlantic while also doing same in the Pacific with one objective in mind - secure a beachhead in both open waters. It's expesive, complex and would require multi-national involvement, but it could be done.
Click to expand...

You're hung up on this "demonstration" thing. That's not what the PNAC statement was about. It was about ABILITY.
 
Objective Voice said:
In demonstrating that "'logic' to be actually ABLE to do it", fight a war on two-front, all this country's military had to do was change its war-time tactics.
Click to expand...
Oh, there's far more to it than that.

The entire military needed to be reoganized, all of the logistical details revised, deployments changed, etc. The US military, as left at the end of the cold war, was unsuited for the post-cold-war world.

We see that change even now -- the army is evolving from a division-based to a brigade-based deployment in order to be more flexible with a smaller footprint, necessitated by the changing demands of war.

And BTW, anyone who doesn't believe that former VP isn't a war-crazed lune who didn't get is two-pronged war just has a hard time accepting the reality of the deception that was and IS the Iraq War.
Click to expand...
Interesting statement, given that you've been trying (and failing) to support this notion all afternoon.
 
Last edited:
Are you referring to Iraq? No, but that's only because we had U.N. authorization to use military might. So, no, the invasion of Iraq by the U.S. was not illegal. Immoral, perhaps. Unnecessary...ditto, but illegal, no.
Click to expand...

The Security Council never authorized the invasion.
 
No, I haven't. It was just something I noticed from the Sept. 2000 PNAC report. This debate just took one of three progressive turns...from "Iraq involved with 9/11" to "who wanted a war in Iraq" to "U.S. military's capability to fight a 2-pronged war".

So, allow me to bluntly state my position on all three in summary:

  1. I don't believe the Iraqi gov't had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks, but I do believe that the Bush-43 attempted to make a "reasonable" connection between the two early on and then backed off from their position when they couldn't find evidence to support same.
  2. I do believe that some within the Bush-43 administration wanted to go to war w/Iraq - some before G. W. Bush was elected president, he himself perhaps once he believed he had the presidency wrapped up.
  3. I do believe that the Bush Doctrine on the heels of the 2000 PNAC report called for a strong display of U.S. military might and the Iraq WMD situation provided the perfect timely vehicle to showcase that military power while already at arms against terrorist factions in Afghanistan.

Regardless on what you believe or how true or untrue you believe reports or one's arguments, the fact remains that the last time this country fought a 2-pronged war was WWII, and that was the most justified military action the world has ever seen. Somehow, I don't see Iraq on the same level of justified military superiority.
 
Last edited:
Show this to be true.
Click to expand...

The international legal rules governing the use of force take as their starting point Article 2(4) of the U.N. Charter, which prohibits any nation from using force against another. The charter allows for only two exceptions to this rule: when force is required in self-defense (Article 51) or when the Security Council authorizes the use of force to protect international peace and security (Chapter VII).

Let me also refer you to UN Resolution 687:

"6. Notes that as soon as the Secretary-General notifies the Security Council of the completion of the deployment of the United Nations observer unit, the conditions will be established for the Member States cooperating with Kuwait in accordance with resolution 678 (1990) to bring their military presence in Iraq to an end consistent with resolution 686 (1991);

...

33. Declares that, upon official notification by Iraq to the Secretary-General and to the Security Council of its acceptance of the provisions above, a formal cease-fire is effective between Iraq and Kuwait and the Member States cooperating with Kuwait in accordance with resolution 678 (1990);

34. Decides to remain seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the area."

Paragraph 6 clearly states that upon the "deployment of the United Nations observer unit" the Member States (including the US) must "bring their military presence in Iraq to an end consistent with resolution 686 (1991)." Paragraph 33 declares the cease-fire. Paragraph 34 states that the Security Council will "remain seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the area." This gives full authority to the Security Council with regards to the securement of "peace and security in the area". As a member of the UN, the US was obligated to comply with the Resolution and with the Charter as well, which states that the only use of force justifiable is in self-defense or with Security Council authorization. The US had neither.

EDIT: Fixed formatting.
 
Last edited:
Objective Voice said:
No, I haven't. It was just something I noticed from the Sept. 2000 PNAC report.
Click to expand...
Funny, how I read the same thing and reached no such conclusion.

Regardless on what you believe or how true or untrue you believe reports or one's arguments, the fact remains that last time this country fought a 2-pronged war was WWII, and that was the most justified military action the world has ever seen.
Click to expand...
Yes, and yes. Relevance?

Somehow, I don't see Iraq on the same level of justified military superiority.
Click to expand...
Let's hope there's NEVER a war as justified as WW2 --- but, understanding that, having said that, a war not need be as justified as WW2 in order to be justified.

Given the situation, going into Iraq was the right thing to do. As I stated before, it wasnt until it was clear that GWB was actually going to do something about Iraq was there ever any question about the threat posed by Iraq --- and so, the 'questions' raised once there was a significant chance of war indicate any number of things, not the least of which was a lack of REAL desire for people to actually DO something about the monsters they are so happy to otherwise complain about.

Consider, for a moment, had the international community been more serious about Iraq from 1993-2001, with a degree of backbone and an urgency of action regarding the threat that everyone agreed was present, there might not have been a war in 2003.
 
Last edited:
Khayembii Communique said:
Paragraph 6 clearly states that upon the "deployment of the United Nations observer unit" the Member States (including the US) must "bring their military presence in Iraq to an end consistent with resolution 686 (1991)." Paragraph 33 declares the cease-fire. Paragraph 34 states that the Security Council will "remain seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the area." This gives full authority to the Security Council with regards to the securement of "peace and security in the area". As a member of the UN, the US was obligated to comply with the Resolution and with the Charter as well, which states that the only use of force justifiable is in self-defense or with Security Council authorization. The US had neither.
Click to expand...
And so...?
How does that, in and of itself, make the war "illegal"?
 
Given the situation, going into Iraq was the right thing to do. As I stated before, it wasnt until it was clear that GWB was actually going to do something about Iraq was there ever any question about the threat posed by Iraq --- and so, the 'questions' raised once there was a significant chance of war indicate any number of things, not the least of which was a lack of REAL desire for people to actually DO something about the monsters they are so happy to otherwise complain about.

Consider, for a moment, had the international community been more serious about Iraq from 1993-2001, with a degree of backbone and an urgency of action regarding the threat that everyone agreed was present, there might not have been a war in 2003.
Click to expand...

Which threat was present?

How does that, in and of itself, make the war "illegal"?
Click to expand...

It was a violation of international law. But thank you for admitting that much.
 
Last edited:
Khayembii Communique said:
Which threat was present?
Click to expand...
As previously described, the threat posed by Saddam, his WMD,his WMD programs, and his desire to trhart and evade the international community.

See:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [the USA], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin,
Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,)
and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction.
... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003


It was a violation of international law.
Click to expand...
That's only true if there were no other provisions of international law that would 'allow' such a thing. Show that to be true.
 
As previously described, the threat posed by Saddam, his WMD,his WMD programs, and his desire to trhart and evade the international community.
Click to expand...

What WMD? What WMD programs? What desire to "trhart" [whatever that means] and evade the international community? You're going to have to be more specific. And posting a list of quotes doesn't formulate an argument - that's your job.

That's only true if there were no other provisions of international law that would 'allow' such a thing. Show that to be true.
Click to expand...

It actually works the other way around; until you can prove that there is another provision, we can assume that there isn't one. You cannot prove that something doesn't exist. Unless you want me to just link you to the UN website and you can trawl through every single resolution they ever passed as proof that none of them 'allow' such a thing.:roll:
 
Khayembii Communique said:
It actually works the other way around; until you can prove that there is another provision, we can assume that there isn't one:
Click to expand...

Iraq signed a cease-fire with the United States in 1991. Not a treaty, not a formal end to hostilities. And not with the UN, with the United States. Under its provisions (or under the mechanism of any cease-fire), if its terms were not honored, hostilities may resume. Iraq never honored those provisions.

Therefore, the resumption of hostilities was perfectly legal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom