• 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!

How Do We End The War on Terror?

What Should We Do To End The Terror War?

  • The West is doing the right thing.

    Votes: 4 7.5%

  • We need more WAAAUGH! We need to bomb more! Boots on the ground!

    Votes: 6 11.3%

  • The West needs to change their foreign policy. Stop meddling in other countries.

    Votes: 30 56.6%

  • Other

    Votes: 13 24.5%
  • Total voters
    53
joG said:
There was a relatively wide and deep discussion in the policy media at the time and pretty much all angles were thoroughly vetted. I suspect that Powell distrusted the nuclear and mobile weapons systems stories, but that would be the extent of it. And everyone that was serious about wanting to knew that the crux was the red line Bush had drawn, when he said the UN should solve the problem or it would be irrelevant. Saddam had not corresponded to the SC Resolution and the UN was not willing or capable of making him. Everything else was immaterial.
Click to expand...

For me Iraq was the next liberation mission following Dardania in 1999. Plus Saddam and Milosevic and the Serbian government were and are still getting along better. Saddam supported Milosevic so he had it coming!

We are Muslim (shallow but Muslim nevertheless) by majority, while Serbia followed a dictatorship rule. Between such options Iraq choose the dictatorship regime of Serbia and choose to support it instead of us while we and Iraq share a similar religion.

Things should have changed after the dictatorship in Iraq and Serbia mellowed. Now both regimes do not share the same type of government (not officially at least). But Iraq has not recognized us still to this day.
 
You can't. You can only leave those people alone. At the same time, look at what their religion excepts. If we align ourselves with influential liberals within the muslim community, their ways will get more lax. The majority of muslims are more homophobic, ignorant of other cultures and anti-woman rights than any of the craziest conservatives in USA. If we can get them to be just as crazy as our conservatives with information rather than bombs, I think we did ok overall.
 
DDD said:
Well I think your President made the right choice in liberating Iraqi's from Saddam. If he had to lie to you guys on the real reasons why he had to do it just to back him up, then I think the ends justify the means.
Click to expand...

Wow, to you and the guy that liked such nonsense!! I suppose being where you're from you would neither understand or appreciate the American constitution. It is unique the world over, and there is no room in it for what you suggest, even though we've had our share of presidents that have thought of it as such.
 
DDD said:
For me Iraq was the next liberation mission following Dardania in 1999. Plus Saddam and Milosevic and the Serbian government were and are still getting along better. Saddam supported Milosevic so he had it coming!

We are Muslim (shallow but Muslim nevertheless) by majority, while Serbia followed a dictatorship rule. Between such options Iraq choose the dictatorship regime of Serbia and choose to support it instead of us while we and Iraq share a similar religion.

Things should have changed after the dictatorship in Iraq and Serbia mellowed. Now both regimes do not share the same type of government (not officially at least). But Iraq has not recognized us still to this day.
Click to expand...

Well, at least now I know why you think it perfectly ok for a president of the US to lie us into a war.
 
joG said:
To tell you the truth,I do not think he lied.
Click to expand...

"In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003," reads an overview of the examination, conducted by the Center for Public Integrity and its affiliated group, the Fund for Independence in Journalism.

According to the study, Bush and seven top officials -- including Vice President Dick Cheney, former Secretary of State Colin Powell and then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice -- made 935 false statements about Iraq during those two years.

The study was based on a searchable database compiled of primary sources, such as official government transcripts and speeches, and secondary sources -- mainly quotes from major media organizations. See CNN viewers' reactions to the study »

The study says Bush made 232 false statements about Iraq and former leader Saddam Hussein's possessing weapons of mass destruction, and 28 false statements about Iraq's links to al Qaeda.

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/23/bush.iraq/

While the Senate Intelligence Committee found in 2008 that his administration "misrepresented the intelligence and the threat from Iraq".[18] A key CIA informant in Iraq admitted that he lied about his allegations, "then watched in shock as it was used to justify the war".[19]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
 
Last edited:
Montecresto said:
"In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003," reads an overview of the examination, conducted by the Center for Public Integrity and its affiliated group, the Fund for Independence in Journalism.

According to the study, Bush and seven top officials -- including Vice President Dick Cheney, former Secretary of State Colin Powell and then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice -- made 935 false statements about Iraq during those two years.

The study was based on a searchable database compiled of primary sources, such as official government transcripts and speeches, and secondary sources -- mainly quotes from major media organizations. See CNN viewers' reactions to the study »

The study says Bush made 232 false statements about Iraq and former leader Saddam Hussein's possessing weapons of mass destruction, and 28 false statements about Iraq's links to al Qaeda.

Study: Bush, aides made 935 false statements in run-up to war - CNN.com
Click to expand...

Did you participate in the a priori discussions back then? It sounds as though you had not and did not follow both sides very closely.

As to the study, I cannot really tell, what it says. The CNN write up says that the statements were false but avoids saying that they were intentionally false, which would constitute a lie. There were certainly statements made that were incorrect. Nobody would say differently. But a lie is something altogether else.

Also it appears that the Study does not address the fact that the whereabouts of the WMD that had been identified by UN inspectors after the first expedition and not destroyed was not relieved though the dictator was faced by a lethal threat. That was actually the clincher. You see, had Saddam explained, where they had gone and let the inspectors run free in the country, he would still be in place. The Administration would never have been able to take him out only because he was at the time allowing tens of Thousands to die as reported by the UN. The allies would not have supported it and neither would the Senate or Congress have done so. But he did not comply with the Security Council Resolution.

I am sorry. I know that there are lots of people that would like Bush to have lied. But that is not substantiated and does not fit the logic of the situation back then. The idea is silly. There were too many people involved. Nobody could have kept that secret.
 
You fight it by starting at the top and make being a leader an automatic death sentence. Don't just take out a couple of top guys, but take out everyone who gives orders to more than a dozen or so people. Put bounties on their heads and let the people they are attacking/oppressing/leading(?) make some bank off this while we're at it. While you're doing that, you aggressively pursue the financiers. Actively and intentionally work towards bankrupting them using any means possible (short of killing/harming innocents - so we're not going to be bombing factories just to cut off the cash flow).
 
joG said:
Did you participate in the a priori discussions back then? It sounds as though you had not and did not follow both sides very closely.

As to the study, I cannot really tell, what it says. The CNN write up says that the statements were false but avoids saying that they were intentionally false, which would constitute a lie. There were certainly statements made that were incorrect. Nobody would say differently. But a lie is something altogether else.

Also it appears that the Study does not address the fact that the whereabouts of the WMD that had been identified by UN inspectors after the first expedition and not destroyed was not relieved though the dictator was faced by a lethal threat. That was actually the clincher. You see, had Saddam explained, where they had gone and let the inspectors run free in the country, he would still be in place. The Administration would never have been able to take him out only because he was at the time allowing tens of Thousands to die as reported by the UN. The allies would not have supported it and neither would the Senate or Congress have done so. But he did not comply with the Security Council Resolution.

I am sorry. I know that there are lots of people that would like Bush to have lied. But that is not substantiated and does not fit the logic of the situation back then. The idea is silly. There were too many people involved. Nobody could have kept that secret.
Click to expand...

You conveniently edited the second quote/link out. The senate intelligence committee found that the Bush administration misrepresented the intelligence!

mis·rep·re·sent
ˌmisˌreprəˈzent/
verb
past tense: misrepresented; past participle: misrepresented
give a false or misleading account of the nature of.
"you are misrepresenting the views of the government"


And who said it was kept secret? Hans Blix, Joe Wilson, Curvball, the Downing Street memo, and a plethora of evidence has been chronicled. But in the end, fear won. Do we have to wait for the smoking gun to come in the form of a mushroom cloud.
 
Last edited:
PoS said:
Thats what we are doing arent we?
Click to expand...

Last count I heard was 258 sorties over the past month. During Desert Storm we flee hundreds of sorties a day. We're nowhere close to unleashing hell.
 
faithful_servant said:
You fight it by starting at the top and make being a leader an automatic death sentence. Don't just take out a couple of top guys, but take out everyone who gives orders to more than a dozen or so people. Put bounties on their heads and let the people they are attacking/oppressing/leading(?) make some bank off this while we're at it. While you're doing that, you aggressively pursue the financiers. Actively and intentionally work towards bankrupting them using any means possible (short of killing/harming innocents - so we're not going to be bombing factories just to cut off the cash flow).
Click to expand...

There are many wealthy financiers in several Gulf States. Apparently, the Islamic State is beneficial to more than just the Islamic State.
 
Montecresto said:
You conveniently edited the second quote/link out. The senate intelligence committee found that the Bush administration misrepresented the intelligence!

mis·rep·re·sent
ˌmisˌreprəˈzent/
verb
past tense: misrepresented; past participle: misrepresented
give a false or misleading account of the nature of.
"you are misrepresenting the views of the government"


And who said it was kept secret? Hans Blix, Joe Wilson, Curvball, the Downing Street memo, and a plethora of evidence has been chronicled. But in the end, fear won. Do we have to wait for the smoking gun to come in the form of a mushroom cloud.
Click to expand...

I did not BTW edit the quote. It did not appear. Did you add it later?

In any event, misrepresentation of intelligence sounds bad until one understands the nature of intelligence information. The stuff is statistical and very much open to interpretation. But it would be interesting to see the whole paragraph to which you refer in the report.

The Wikipedia link is interesting in that it confirms finds of WMD including yellow cake and low grade refined Uranium. The reading you might really want to do is the analysis documents discussed in Foreign Affairs. I have posted the link here a few times and am not going to now look it up again. But if you are interested in facts, you should read it.

As for your witnesses I do not think Blix or Curveball are untainted. Especially seeing that Blix said in an interview that Blaire asked him, if he could guarantee that Iraq had no WMD and he had answered "No". Curveball, of course is another tale for another day.

Personally I have not received the feeling that you are open to the facts of the run up to the incursion, which is a pity, as it would really be helpful to you to understand what happened and why. But I doubt you will ever, so let us call it a day.
 
joG said:
I did not BTW edit the quote. It did not appear. Did you add it later?

In any event, misrepresentation of intelligence sounds bad until one understands the nature of intelligence information. The stuff is statistical and very much open to interpretation. But it would be interesting to see the whole paragraph to which you refer in the report.

The Wikipedia link is interesting in that it confirms finds of WMD including yellow cake and low grade refined Uranium. The reading you might really want to do is the analysis documents discussed in Foreign Affairs. I have posted the link here a few times and am not going to now look it up again. But if you are interested in facts, you should read it.

As for your witnesses I do not think Blix or Curveball are untainted. Especially seeing that Blix said in an interview that Blaire asked him, if he could guarantee that Iraq had no WMD and he had answered "No". Curveball, of course is another tale for another day.

Personally I have not received the feeling that you are open to the facts of the run up to the incursion, which is a pity, as it would really be helpful to you to understand what happened and why. But I doubt you will ever, so let us call it a day.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, it was added.

Shocker, Both that Blair would ask somebody to guarantee a negative and that Blix would decline to do so. As Clinton pointed out, the invasion of Iraq was an "error" and the inspection team should have been allowed to finish their job. Of course there wouldn't have been any WMD, certainly no WMD that could produce a mushroom cloud over a US city as BushCo ginned up fear of, and the impetus for the war Bush sought with Saddam Hussein since his days as governor of Texas would have been missed.
 
Montecresto said:
....

Shocker, Both that Blair would ask somebody to guarantee a negative and that Blix would decline to do so. ....
Click to expand...

Why? That was the man that was mandated by the Security Council to do so and the man that had accepted the job.
 
Montecresto said:
Well, at least now I know why you think it perfectly ok for a president of the US to lie us into a war.
Click to expand...

Yes, saying that it was just for liberation may not have done it. Dubya had to include more persuasive issues such as WMD's and "Oil."
 
DDD said:
Yes, saying that it was just for liberation may not have done it. Dubya had to include more persuasive issues such as WMD's and "Oil."
Click to expand...

Imminent threat no less, of mushroom clouds over US cities. And oil! Did he include oil?
 
joG said:
Why? That was the man that was mandated by the Security Council to do so and the man that had accepted the job.
Click to expand...

He was not "mandated" by the SC to produce a "guarantee" of no WMD. He was charged with inspections to locate such if they existed. And of course that was to see if there was credible evidence of both a weapons program and a delivery system to produce those scary mushroom clouds atop US cities. But he was ordered to stop inspecting, and leave the country, for bombing was to commence on March 20th and to hell with evidence.

On 16 March 2003, the U.S. government advised the U.N. inspectors to leave their unfinished work and exit from Iraq.[69] On 20 March[70] the American-led coalition conducted a surprise[71] military invasion of Iraq without declaring war.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War

"The mistake we made was not letting the inspections finish. If they had, there would have been no war. And I was always against doing it without the inspections. Bill clinton
 
Last edited:
Montecresto said:
Imminent threat no less, of mushroom clouds over US cities. And oil! Did he include oil?
Click to expand...

No he didn't - because we weren't there for the oil. As is obvious to anyone with the ability to notice that we did not subsequently take it.
 
cpwill said:
No he didn't - because we weren't there for the oil. As is obvious to anyone with the ability to notice that we did not subsequently take it.
Click to expand...

Oh, I know he didn't include oil, that would be silly. I just thought it amusing that DDD would have thought so.
 
Montecresto said:
You conveniently edited the second quote/link out. The senate intelligence committee found that the Bush administration misrepresented the intelligence!
Click to expand...


....your argument comes down to "Democrats in 2008 found it convenient to accuse Bush of being a big fat liar"?



:lol: nice.
 
cpwill said:
....your argument comes down to "Democrats in 2008 found it convenient to accuse Bush of being a big fat liar"?



:lol: nice.
Click to expand...

Sorry, Bush did in fact lie, and that's the history of the Iraq war, while I understand the difficulty in you particularly accepting that truth, it's irrelevant. And your simply wrong, that it was Democratic Party politics.

-- Two Bipartisan Reports Detail Administration Misstatements on Prewar Iraq Intelligence, and Inappropriate Intelligence Activities by Pentagon Policy Office --

U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
 
DDD said:
Well I think your President made the right choice in liberating Iraqi's from Saddam. If he had to lie to you guys on the real reasons why he had to do it just to back him up, then I think the ends justify the means.
Click to expand...

I think the results speak for themselves, and the result was/is as much or more misery as under Saddam.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom