Political Opinions

spc wrote:

Devil5052 wrote:Saddam Hussein was a very bad man, but had nothing to do with 9/11

You would agree Hussein had connections with al Qaeda?

No I wouldn't. Best info is that he hated & mistrusted al Qaeda as rivals to his power.

[quote="coalkirk"]Devil, Hopefully the length of this document won't guard against it being read. (Gotta love that Churchill)
Following are just some excerpts from a speech given to the joint chiefs of staff and the pentagon staff on 2/17/98, just about 10 years ago by B. Clinton regarding Iraq. Keep in mind the context of this speech is pre- 9/11. Would Bill Clinton have invaded Iraq were he still president after 9/11? That's one for the scholars but if you believe the man beleived what he said in this speech, I think he would have. I'm doing what you asked for which is top supply supporting documentation for the Iraq invasion and I'm doing it with only what I consider liberal sources. There are many others I can supply. Everybody in Washington likes to duck for cover when things don't go well so as not to be smeared with the mess.

Hi there Coalkirk. It is undisputable that Saddam Hussein was an evil man but I will let the following words, spoken by Sec. of Defense Dick Cheney in 1992, be my answer:

"And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam worth?" Cheney said then in response to a question.

"And the answer is not very damned many. So I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the president made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq."


Full trnascript here: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/ ... ney29.html

Devil5052 wrote:

spc wrote:

Devil5052 wrote:Saddam Hussein was a very bad man, but had nothing to do with 9/11

You would agree Hussein had connections with al Qaeda?

No I wouldn't. Best info is that he hated & mistrusted al Qaeda as rivals to his power.

They hated each other, that doesn't mean they didn't have contacts. Look to Pakistan, Bhutto (the father), Musharraff, Bhutto (the murdered daughter) and all the others have had contacts with their enemys. Hitler and Stalin had deals. Nothing new here.

[
I guess it's just the definitions that we are debating:

I have a "connection" with my mother

I have had "contacts" with the postman

Devil5052 wrote:

spc wrote:

Devil5052 wrote:Saddam Hussein was a very bad man, but had nothing to do with 9/11

You would agree Hussein had connections with al Qaeda?

No I wouldn't. Best info is that he hated & mistrusted al Qaeda as rivals to his power.

I will always give the benefit of doubt to our government when it comes to protecting us. I have read many articles showing a link between Hussein & al Qaeda. It won't be enough prove for the Bush hating left, in fact they hate President Bush so much they will do anything to disprove it. Do you need prove beyond a reasonable doubt?
After 9/11, if there was a photo of an al Qaeda punk crossing the street in Iraq that would be enough for me. (my opinion).

I have to apologize because I find it very hard to be completely clear on making a point. Lately it is take a quick break and come flying into what has become a very addictive website drop a line and away I go... (thanks Richard S...and everyone else...gonna have to start attending meetings)

Good post Kirk...where you find these things and how you have the time to do it is beyond me...that was a good read.

Devil...my long winded post of how long we've been in the Arabian Gulf is that so many times in my past 4 years I have talked to people that are so inscensed (I believe that is a word?? ) that we are still in Iraq that they blame our present administration and only our present administration. Yes he pushed the button...after he got the thumbs up from congress. The problem I have is that these people..including my family...tend to forget or not even know what type of presence we have had in the Arabian Gulf region for so long prior to Iraqi Freedom. When they give a dead count of soldiers in Iraqi Freedom they don't include those that have passed prior. They only give from a specific date. Those that accidently pass while training here in the states to go over there are not counted with those over there.
I'm getting long winded again!!

Maybe I can be a little clearer...We have been screaming to bring our people home only for the past couple years...why weren't we screaming to pull out of that region back in say...1998?
I left for Iraqi freedom in January 2003...I didn't want to go...hell, I just got back from Enduring freedom in August of 2002. Why wasn't America screaming "NO...DON'T YOU DARE SEND OUR PEOPLE TO IRAQ!!!" back then? Does anyone remember what the really BIG story was on CNN during January and February of 2003? There were 2 actually. Scott Peterson and Jessica Smart. I can tell you that I did not see any large American protests against us going over there...at least not on CNN.

If the amount of people that are totally against our involvement over there today would have been out protesting our deployment to go over there in the beginning...maybe our lawmakers would not have given GW the thumbs up to invade. Maybe we wouldn't "still" be there.

...underlying political motive. ( I disagree & believe that evrything they report has an underlying monetary motive.....They just want you to stay tuned & watch the next commercial)

I agree with your monetary motive...forgot that one...but in jest...CNN=Ted Turner...Ted Turner used to = Jane Fonda...It is definitely in my humorous opinion that Jane would not stand for Ted allowing CNN to report in specific ways that would be against their political ideals...I think I can say that is a political motive?

.....bad news will

Bad news makes me mad because I am also one of those that is interested in bad news but I want to see the other side also...there are 2 sides to every story. I asked one of my Marine counterparts when they got back to the ship about the media's coverage of the immediate post-war and all the anti-american protesters....his comment "for every anti-american protester, there were 5 pro-american protesters protesting the anti-american protesters. The pro-americans never made it on television."

the world is full of bad men. We can't kill them all

once again...twisted humor...yes we can kill them all...with a very accurate rifle from a very long distance...all we need is a clear shot!

Agreed but I don't get your point??

This is at the end of your post...was this meant for the absolute last comment I made about the media not knowing everything? If so my point is that there are secrets...we all know that...secrets that the public may never, ever be priviledged to...Today if I need info on what is going on over there I need to rely on the unclassified media available to me. This is the same media that is educating our public on what is going on over there with an

...underlying monetary motive

but I say both "monetary and political motive."

President George H.W. Bush was criticized for pulling out before U.S. forces could storm Baghdad, allowing Saddam to remain in power...


I didn't finish that article yet...seriously have to run...but I do want to add to this comment taken from that article...
Ever since 1991 I have criticized Bush for pulling us out...and everytime I did I had to remind myself that he did exactly what he said he was going to do. Expel them from Kuwait. Taking Baghdad was not an option in 91. It is my opinion that Cheney, being a politician, was protecting their decision to pull out from all of the critics back then.

BugsyR wrote:President George H.W. Bush was criticized for pulling out before U.S. forces could storm Baghdad, allowing Saddam to remain in power...


I didn't finish that article yet...seriously have to run...but I do want to add to this comment taken from that article...
Ever since 1991 I have criticized Bush for pulling us out...and everytime I did I had to remind myself that he did exactly what he said he was going to do. Expel them from Kuwait. Taking Baghdad was not an option in 91. It is my opinion that Cheney, being a politician, was protecting their decision to pull out from all of the critics back then.

The media running a video loop of the "Highway of Death" may have also pressured the administration to stop. IMO

This whole debate gets very frustrating for me. I'm a politcial and foreign relations junkie! I read large amounts of material daily from a wide variety of sources on these topics. I do that because every news organization has an agenda and I want to get information from all sides and then sort it out, forming my own opinions.

Here's the bottom line for me. Is Iraq a mess? Yes! But it is just the tip of the iceberg. The whole middle east is a mine field. Some will think I'm crazy with this next statement but here goes. I believe we in the opening skirmishes of WWIII. Things are going to get alot worse before they get better. Leaving Iraq now is like going down the basement and seeing that your coal stove has started a fire and then leaving because it's not easy, convenient or fun to deal with it. If we left Iraq now, it would plunge the whole region into chaos. The world has become a much smaller much more dangerous place. There's trouble brewing to the south of us in places like Venezula, France, England and several other European contries a huge problem with islamic radicals in their countries, al Queida is planning new attacks in the US (report just out today) and is recruiting and training westerners to help them. This is a determined, patient, devoted enemy who has been fighting against the west since the middle ages. Hell, they live and run their countries like they're still in the middle ages. They are unlike any foe the US has faced before. They mean to kill the infidels (that's us) and rule the world.

Crap, is it 5 o'clock yet? It is somewhere.

BugsyR wrote:President George H.W. Bush was criticized for pulling out before U.S. forces could storm Baghdad, allowing Saddam to remain in power...

It was the same moderate arab states that begged GWB to get rid of him in round two that prevented GHWB from going to Baghdad in the first place. If you want someone to blame, there is a good start. Friends/allies/vendors/whatever they are, they were afraid of having a democracy in the neighborhood. They aren't happy with it? To bad, they created the mess in the first place. Who do you think was supporting that murderer in the first place because THEY were afraid of Iran?

Spot on post Coalkirk.

Hey there BugsyR. I don't have alot of time right now but just a quick couple of points:


"Maybe I can be a little clearer...We have been screaming to bring our people home only for the past couple years...why weren't we screaming to pull out of that region back in say...1998?"



Because we were not having around 100 GI's killed & who knows how many others horribly wounded everfy month in 1998. I'll grant you that last month the figures were lowerf but they are rgoing right back up this month.

Agreed but I don't get your point??

This is at the end of your post...was this meant for the absolute last comment I made about the media not knowing everything? If so my point is that there are secrets...we all know that...secrets that the public may never, ever be priviledged to...Today if I need info on what is going on over there I need to rely on the unclassified media available to me. This is the same media that is educating our public on what is going on over there with an

...underlying monetary motive

but I say both "monetary and political motive." [/quote]

Yes, that was my question. As you know, we live in a democracy & obviously we citizens can only make decisions based on what we learn, either from a free press or from a hopefuly honest government. Surely you are not arguing that, since there are secrets only known to people within the government with classified security clearance, that we should just accept whatever they choose to tell us with a "Trust me......I know secrets that you dont ....statement? (if that is your position then we would live in a Dictatorship where no-one wouild have the right to question anything the government says.

Hiding lies & crimes behind a "Top Secret" classsifcations is an old tactic & the mark of a scoundrel.
(Remember the "Smoking Gun" against Nixon in Watergate was a tape of him & Halderman conspiring to stop the FBI's Watergate investigatilon by getting the CIA to claim it was a Top Secret, national security exercise & that the FBI should drop it)

Couldn't resist this suggestion for you to respond with:

When I say... "Surely you are not arguing that, since there are secrets only known to people within the government with classified security clearance, that we should just accept whatever they choose to tell us with a "Trust me......I know secrets that you dont ....statement? "

You should respond with Leslie Nielsen's line from the movie "Airplane".......That exactly what I am saying.....& dont call me shirley!

coalkirk wrote:This whole debate gets very frustrating for me. I'm a politcial and foreign relations junkie! I read large amounts of material daily from a wide variety of sources on these topics. I do that because every news organization has an agenda and I want to get information from all sides and then sort it out, forming my own opinions.

Here's the bottom line for me. Is Iraq a mess? Yes! But it is just the tip of the iceberg. The whole middle east is a mine field. Some will think I'm crazy with this next statement but here goes. I believe we in the opening skirmishes of WWIII. Things are going to get alot worse before they get better. Leaving Iraq now is like going down the basement and seeing that your coal stove has started a fire and then leaving because it's not easy, convenient or fun to deal with it. If we left Iraq now, it would plunge the whole region into chaos. The world has become a much smaller much more dangerous place. There's trouble brewing to the south of us in places like Venezula, France, England and several other European contries a huge problem with islamic radicals in their countries, al Queida is planning new attacks in the US (report just out today) and is recruiting and training westerners to help them. This is a determined, patient, devoted enemy who has been fighting against the west since the middle ages. Hell, they live and run their countries like they're still in the middle ages. They are unlike any foe the US has faced before. They mean to kill the infidels (that's us) and rule the world.

Crap, is it 5 o'clock yet? It is somewhere.

A very valid argument, but one I still disagree with.
I would argue that our mere presence in Iraq now is fueling the flames in that we are percieved as occupiers & that even the British have realized this & chosen to leave. I feel (to use you basemment fire analogy) that what we have done is run downstairs with a 5 gallon Jerry-can of gasoline & firmly believe we can douse the fire by throwning gasoline on it. The more gas we throw the worse the fire gets but, being steadfast, we persist....sure of our conviction that gasoline is the answer!
No-one is saying to run away from the region. What I am arguing is that our goals would be alot easier to achieve, it would be much less costly,(both in terms of GI lives & our sick economy) & we would not be creating as many anti-American terrorists if we just moved our base of operations from Iraq to a safer area.
Just a difference in opinions & choice of tactics. We have tried it your way for five years with poor results, in my opinion......Why not try it my way?

Hey guys......I am mostly retired now & consider this a good form of mental exercise! ( I watched a show on how keeping your mind active helps prevent/lesson dementia & alzhymers)
So, I have more time than you all do to play! (Nanananana)

BugsyR wrote:President George H.W. Bush was criticized for pulling out before U.S. forces could storm Baghdad, allowing Saddam to remain in power...


I didn't finish that article yet...seriously have to run...but I do want to add to this comment taken from that article...
Ever since 1991 I have criticized Bush for pulling us out...and everytime I did I had to remind myself that he did exactly what he said he was going to do. Expel them from Kuwait. Taking Baghdad was not an option in 91. It is my opinion that Cheney, being a politician, was protecting their decision to pull out from all of the critics back then.

I know I'm beating a dead horse here but I'm bored & just exercising my mind
I read this line ..."Cheney, being a politician, was protecting their decision to pull out from all of the critics back then.'.....
Are you saying that Cheney might not have been saying what he really believed but was simply protecting his President. If that is a fair reading (& I apolgize i it isn't) then I have to steal & adapt the great actor Charles Laughton's line in the classic trial law movie Witness For The Prosecution when, in a famous scene in which he is cross examining a witness (Marlenna Deitrich) who he knows is lying, in a very soft voice begins: " Tbe question is......Was he lying then....Is he lying now......or is he not, in fact. a chronic and habitual LIAR?!? (emphasis added because Laughton virtualy yells the word "liar")