He picked the worst country in the region. One in which the UN has had many years of problems with. He then gave that country an ultimatum. He also gave his word that if that country would not comply that he would do something about it. He also got the UN to go along with that thinking. The UN was hoping that Iraq would comply and it would be able to forget about the serious consequences and let the status quo as it had developed over the last 10 years prevail. Bush on the other hand wasn't going for the status quo any more because of the terrorist threat that was getting worse. So doing what any good President should, he kept his word, stuck to his guns and did something about it.
Of course this argument would be valid if Iraq was indeed a threat & had "real" WMDs & an nuclear program. However, we now know that it didn't.
In fact, Iraq had complied w/ the UN sanctions for the most part and Bush just rushed into this war because he'd planned it all along. When Bush invaded, there was nothing Iraq could comply to, because it already had. The only ultimatum that Saddam could have complied with was he & his sons leaving the country 24 hourse before Bush started bombing. Of course, why would Saddam do that when he hadn't done anything wrong (at that point)?
I agree that Bush did appear to Rush to war.
I disagree that he had planned it all along. There is conflicting information on that subject and it falls back on who do you believe.
I had my own misgivings about going to war with Iraq because I new there would be alot of casualties. In fact, I expected more in the first few months than we have had altogether at this point.
I know you don’t honestly believe that Saddam had done nothing wrong. I believe what you are saying is that Saddam had complied with the latest resolution. I also believed that to be true with one exeption. The information he provided concerning the location of WMD’s was not consistent with the information the UN had. That is why everyone believed he still had them. This is where the intelligence was flawed. What you have to try to understand is what decision the President was faced with and then decide if it was the right one.
His choices were based on facts known at the time. Saddam had WMD’s in the past. He was willing to use them. He attacked his neighboor. He allegedly made an attempt on the older President Bush. He was firing at our jets as they attempted to enforce the no-fly zone. The question is, do you wait and see what happens or do you become more proactive and eliminate the risk. The risk, based on lessons learned from 911, was no longer acceptable as far as the president was concerned and so he chose to eliminate it.
What concerns me is all the BS rhetoric that is surrounding this election and Iraq. You just can’t honestly believe that either candidate is stupid or incompetent. Both are well educated and both are greatly concerned with what happens to this country and the rest of the world. Anger and false acusations have no place in the decision making process.
If you think it was the wrong choice based on the facts and the truth then by all means proceed. If you think Bush’s vision for the future of the middle east is the wrong direction then by all means vote for Kerry. We all know that Bush will continue with his plan if reelected. Both of these men are capable and I believe Kerry showed promise in the debates that gave me confidence enough to believe he would do a good job as president. I don’t know if Kerry’s vision will work, but then again, I don’t know if Bush’s will either. I will vote for Bush because I believe his vision for the future makes more sense to me.
Your post indicates that you are indeed not a blind idealoque.
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| I agree that Bush did appear to Rush to war. |
We agree on something then!
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| I disagree that he had planned it all along. |
When I say this I mean on 9/12/2001 Bush wanted evidence to justify a war in Iraq. Clarke’s book indicates that he was ordered to review all the Iraq info. on 9/12.
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| I had my own misgivings about going to war with Iraq because I new there would be alot of casualties. |
I had very little misgivings based this because if a war is necessary then that’s what it’s all about - people dying.
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| I know you don’t honestly believe that Saddam had done nothing wrong. I believe what you are saying is that Saddam had complied with the latest resolution. |
Yes - that’s what I meant.
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| What you have to try to understand is what decision the President was faced with and then decide if it was the right one. |
I understand this exactly & if Bush hadn’t rushed to war, then I might have a different feeling about him & the war today.
No one disagrees that getting rid of Saddam is necessarily bad in & of itself. However, the issue is fighting terror
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| You just can’t honestly believe that either candidate is stupid or incompetent. |
I’m not so sure about this one. Bush does not seem very bright to me. He didn’t do very well in school & he’s businesses didn’t do well either. That’s an indication that he’s not very bright to me.
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| If you think it was the wrong choice based on the facts and the truth then by all means proceed. If you think Bush’s vision for the future of the middle east is the wrong direction then by all means vote for Kerry. We all know that Bush will continue with his plan if reelected. |
That’s exactly what bothers me about Bush, i.e., that he’s so sure about he’s middle east policy, when I’m not so condifent at all about it.
The rhetoric went over the top IMO when Cheney suggested that if Kerry gets elected that “we’ll get hit, we’ll get hit hard…”.
| Quote (gtr4him @ Oct. 22 2004,11:54) |
| True. It should also be noted that in God's eyes there are only two choices, RIGHT or WRONG. It is when we as human beings have problems distinguishing between right and wrong that problems arise Thats all I got to say 'bout that.......... TG |
Hmmmm..... I've heard this statement often from fundamental Christians. In my relationship with God, I have not seen that God is a black and white decision maker. I have seen this concept perpetrated by those religions that wish to scare their followers into certain beliefs.
The concept that there are only two ways, (my way or the highway) is what has gotten countrys into so much trouble in human history. Jesus welcomed sinners into his fold. Judge not lest ye be judged.
I believe this message is for those who would bring harm to others under their own judgements. So the concept that any human can then judge others in the name of God is flawed. I would love to see the passage in the Bible that states man is given the authority to judge other men in the name of God. And moreover that you (or President Bush) is that man.
This is dangerous thinking by religious conservatives and is the reason for terroristic action by all religions. After all, Muslim terrorists feel they are doing Gods bidding and so does President Bush. If both parties were humbled by God, we would not be at war.
Mike
OK Maybe I got a little more to say about that… 
Sorry if you took what I typed the wrong way Mike. Actually, I think we are in agreement.
God, by definition, is perfect. We have screwed things up! Fanaticism in any form is a bad thing.
TG
TG
| Quote (MidnightToker @ Oct. 22 2004,15:09) |
| Your post indicates that you are indeed not a blind idealoque. I agree that Bush did appear to Rush to war. |
We agree on something then!
I disagree that he had planned it all along.
When I say this I mean on 9/12/2001 Bush wanted evidence to justify a war in Iraq. Clarke's book indicates that he was ordered to review all the Iraq info. on 9/12.
I had my own misgivings about going to war with Iraq because I new there would be alot of casualties.
I had very little misgivings based this because if a war is necessary then that's what it's all about - people dying.
I know you don't honestly believe that Saddam had done nothing wrong. I believe what you are saying is that Saddam had complied with the latest resolution.
Yes - that's what I meant.
What you have to try to understand is what decision the President was faced with and then decide if it was the right one.
I understand this exactly & if Bush hadn't rushed to war, then I might have a different feeling about him & the war today.
No one disagrees that getting rid of Saddam is necessarily bad in & of itself. However, the issue is fighting terror
You just can't honestly believe that either candidate is stupid or incompetent.
I'm not so sure about this one. Bush does not seem very bright to me. He didn't do very well in school & he's businesses didn't do well either. That's an indication that he's not very bright to me.
If you think it was the wrong choice based on the facts and the truth then by all means proceed. If you think Bush's vision for the future of the middle east is the wrong direction then by all means vote for Kerry. We all know that Bush will continue with his plan if reelected.
That's exactly what bothers me about Bush, i.e., that he's so sure about he's middle east policy, when I'm not so condifent at all about it.
The rhetoric went over the top IMO when Cheney suggested that if Kerry gets elected that "we'll get hit, we'll get hit hard...".
I disagree that he had planned it all along.
When I say this I mean on 9/12/2001 Bush wanted evidence to justify a war in Iraq. Clarke's book indicates that he was ordered to review all the Iraq info. on 9/12.
Like I said it's all in who you believe. I'm not certain Clarke was someone without an agenda of his own. It certainly does create doubt, but not enough for me to vote against Bush.
I had my own misgivings about going to war with Iraq because I new there would be alot of casualties.
I had very little misgivings based this because if a war is necessary then that's what it's all about - people dying.
Yep, what I was talking about is do the benefits outweigh the costs.
I agree that Bush did appear to Rush to war.
We agree on something then!
Probably alot more than we disagree. (Ntrack for instance)
You just can't honestly believe that either candidate is stupid or incompetent.
I'm not so sure about this one. Bush does not seem very bright to me. He didn't do very well in school & he's businesses didn't do well either. That's an indication that he's not very bright to me.
Valid point, but like I said, nobody is perfect and we all have had plenty of successes and failures. Take Bush's alcohol addiction. He showed weakness by not being able to control himself, but he also showed great strength by overcoming to a point where he was elected governor of texas and president of the United States.
If you think it was the wrong choice based on the facts and the truth then by all means proceed. If you think Bush's vision for the future of the middle east is the wrong direction then by all means vote for Kerry. We all know that Bush will continue with his plan if reelected.
That's exactly what bothers me about Bush, i.e., that he's so sure about he's middle east policy, when I'm not so condifent at all about it.
Fair enough. This is where we diverge. I think he is not so inflexible that he can't or won't adjust his policies if necessary. I do believe what he is trying to convey is resolve. But we do agree about the confidence issue. I don't have much confidence in either party. Therefor I'm willing to give Bush the chance to finish what he started. Then we'll see if it is working or if another change of direction is necessary. I may be a little more concerned about the sudden change in leadership and policy at this time. But your opinion here is just as valid because we are all uncertain. It just depends on how you've weighed the evidence on which side you come out on. It's probably risky either way.
Hey guys.
Finally a thread that people can talk in, without adolecent slapping and stuff that’s been par for the course around here lately.
I really get discouraged when I hear my fellow Christians making statments they beleive to be rooted in God’s truth’s, when infact they are man’s truths. I agree in part with Dr.giutar on this one.
BTW, I have read the entire thread before spouting out. 
but I’m probably missing a couple of post as I type.
It’s always interesting to hear different angles on a problem from both Christians and athiest, rep. dem. all have their merits and potential to learn from.
I don’t have any interest at the moment in trying to persuade any of you to look at this the way I do–for some that’s a lost ‘cause.
I think this one fact is funny though.
Our government was able in the 70’s to kill our own president, frame Lee Harvey Oswald, and cover the whole thing up for years.
My question for our fellow trackers is this.
Why couldn’t we do something simular to there leader? Shurely this would have been a better solution, killing one man, rather than all who have died to date. I’m not condoning killing at by any means, but it’s not my descision to make. But we (Americans) certainly could have swept in while they were in disarey, and had alot fewer casualties on both sides.
It seems to me the human race is loosing it’s humanity to a war machine. Our government doesn’t seem interested in the quick fixes it used to use. Instead we prolong tings so they cost uneccesary money and lives. 
As far as Bin Laden goes…how hard can it be to kill one man? or are we going to go to war with a whole country for that one too? Is assasination no longer in our gov. vocabulary? After they spent half a century perfecting it?
I guess my theory is, least amount of harm for the greater good, not one backed by the Good Book but certainly a humanitarian thing to do.
No civilians get killed, no cities destryed, no oil lost, and the list goes on and on.
Maybe we don’t need to change leaders, persay. But strategies certainly could use improving.
It seem America needed this war to bounce back from the devistating blow 911 made to our economic structure. Without it, we would have slipped intothe greatest depression we’ve ever known. Our justification for this war hardly seems accurate at this point.
But is our economic situation really worth all of the lives lost on both sides? Who’s calculates these things? And what price have they put on a single life?-let alone thousands.
IMHO, we need to put the humanity back into human beings. Make descisions based on loss of life not money. Minimalize the amount of death regardless of any monitary loss.
Compassion, this is what my dear Lord teaches. Not hatred, greed, superiority.
In God we trust? -please! We have fallen so far from our origin it’s unreal. Americans should have Bibles that say,in money we trust, not the other way around.
Enough babblin’ I’m open for any comments, Enlighten me as to why war is right and how there is no other options…I’m listening…
| Quote (teryeah @ Oct. 22 2004,04:42) |
| (read: oil). |
No, you need to read oil-for-food program. That is the truth about power, oil and greed.
Subpoenas have been issued against Exxon/Mobil, Chevron and other BIG OIL companies. Read Story Here
Or this one
This is just the tip of the iceberg
Bush must be siding with the big oil companies again. If this is how he treats his friends......
| Quote (jeremysdemo @ Oct. 22 2004,16:33) |
| Why couldn't we do something simular to there leader? Shurely this would have been a better solution, killing one man, rather than all who have died to date. |
Jimmy Carter tried a similar tactic back when the Iran hostage crisis was going on (Small assault force that was easily thwarted). He was seen as weak, Reagen became President, etc...
Just knowing what I know about GW is that he did not want to appear weak.
Excellent point though and I believe it was debated alot in the press in the months leading up to the war. I think Saddam was in hiding along with his sons and finding him would have been extremely difficult. Perhaps if we hadn't gone to the UN as was so strongly recommended, and just killed the S.O.B. it probably could have been done.
As I'm sitting here thinking about it, I think the way it was done allowed the US to be there to control any WMD's and prevent their release to terrorists. However, since none were found then there either wasn't any, they got burried somewhere or the terrorists already have them. So, if they were there, that didn't work either.
Jimmy Carter tried a similar tactic back when the Iran hostage crisis was going on (Small assault force that was easily thwarted). He was seen as weak, Reagen became President, etc...
The small assault force never met resistance - it crashed in the desert. I've got new for you - if that mission had worked, Carter would have been re-elected & we've never have heard of the old gipper.
The small assault force never met resistance - it crashed in the desert. I've got new for you - if that mission had worked, Carter would have been re-elected & we've never have heard of the old gipper.
| Quote (CosmicCharlie @ Oct. 22 2004,21:39) |
| if that mission had worked, Carter would have been re-elected & we've never have heard of the old gipper. |
That's basically what I said, therefore we agree again.
The thing is, there’s more of them out there, Bin Ladens, and other militants who have set their scopes on us. I don’t think we need to destroy every country that harbors our enemy’s, ridiculous. Why? So we can bring that one man to a just and civil trial among his peers? Poppycock! We’re do us Americans come off, tryin to show the world we’re not barbaric like him, by affording him justic. And detroying a good part of his country in the process? Justic at what cost? We’re the justic for all the civilians that and soldiers that died on both sides?
Look at it this way, the terrisorist are taking extreme measures to succesfully attach our nation. And will continue to do so until they are eliminated,or some sort of truce or peace, is made. Which brings me to another question. I find it odd that no-one has come forward and tried to address the real isuess that are fueling this hatred of us. Working on an amlicable solution has not even been mentioned. I realize alot of these guys are totally fanatical, but they must have terms of some kind?
Has anyone ever heard a demand or request that would somehow sooth there bloodthirst?
And if they have no demands that anyone could possibly fulfill by reasonable means, and they insist on trying to terrorize our land, we must defend. By any means neccisary. Not detroy there whole country, just them. Put there unreasonable carcuses in a pine box with twelve nails one for every apostle, let them die heroe’s and martrs for there God as they so wish. They’re happy, we’re happy, and all the people who are still alive and have there homes in the regions are happy, it’s a win:win. IMHO of course…no offence bin gali
jeremy-
are you saying that becaue terrorists hate us…we need to look inward and see what we did to offend them?
To discuss terms with them?
Earlier you compared the assasination of kennedy (governmental) with the need to kill Bin Laden?
Wow…
How utterly ignorant, foolish, and immature
Read some history and maybe you’ll see that this is an ancient battle.
You speak of justice, but have no concept of the foundation.
I’m sure you mean well, but wow…
| Quote (pastorbrian @ Oct. 23 2004,11:34) |
| jeremy- are you saying that becaue terrorists hate us...we need to look inward and see what we did to offend them? To discuss terms with them? I'm sure you mean well, but wow... |
My guess is that you are actually a Pastor (from earlier posts of yours). I'm amazed at your hawkish stance on war. Do you not believe in the Bible? Doesn't the Bible state that when struck, turn the other cheek (offer the other cheek). Doesn't the Bible state to love thy neighbor, even those that would hate you.
Don't get me wrong, I am not a Bible scholar, so if the Bible states somewhere that we should kill those that don't believe as we do, I would like to see chapter and verse. Maybe it says somewhere in the Bible that we should hold ourselves as leaders of the world and kill all those that offend us or do harm to their own people. I'm sure it must state somewhere that we have the right to wage war in a country far from ours so that we don't have to deal with it in our own land.
I am sick of "people with morality" (read: extreme right-wing Conservatives) deciding what is moral for everyone else except themselves. You may believe that it is alright to invade another country and kill 10,000 people so that you can feel safer at night in your bed, but as we know, you are NOT safer. And you have killed 10,000 people. Not satisified yet? Vote Bush...
but please do not blame this on morality or the Bible, it is insulting to you, me, and God.
Are there other ways this terrorist attack (situation) could have been handled, yes, countless ways. And none of them needed to be a negotiation with them. It takes thinking to come up with an answer. If you want a different approach than "lets go kill terrorists (read: Commies)" then do not vote Bush....
Mike
I'm sure you mean well, but wow...
| Quote (jeremysdemo @ Oct. 22 2004,17:33) |
| I think this one fact is funny though. Our government was able in the 70's to kill our own president, frame Lee Harvey Oswald, and cover the whole thing up for years. |
First (and this may be a minor point - maybe not) the murder of JFK occurred in the early 60s (Nov 22 1963, to be exact) and not in the 70s.
Second (and this is certainly relevant) what you state as a "fact" isn't anywhere even close to being one. No matter how many people believe in a government conspiracy behind the murder there has never been anything beyond conjecture to support that belief.
I know that I am in the minority in believing that Oswald killed Kennedy, but even those who do not share my belief would have to agree that it is NOT a "fact" that he did not.
Not to get off-topic here - but since your entire position is predicated on this false premise I think it is relevant.
Not to get off-topic here - but since your entire position is predicated on this false premise I think it is relevant.
It's not any more off topic than basing the US bombing of Iraq was based on fact. Seems very relevant to me.
Like I said, based on the facts of today -- we took out the leaders Iraq to free the people of Iraq, not because of any of the reasons that were given before we attacked -- then there are a lot of leaders that should feel threatened and with good reason.
How many of you think we should start bombing North Korea ASAP? What about China? Iran? Saudi Arabia? Heck...Angola...etc.
It's not any more off topic than basing the US bombing of Iraq was based on fact. Seems very relevant to me.
Like I said, based on the facts of today -- we took out the leaders Iraq to free the people of Iraq, not because of any of the reasons that were given before we attacked -- then there are a lot of leaders that should feel threatened and with good reason.
How many of you think we should start bombing North Korea ASAP? What about China? Iran? Saudi Arabia? Heck...Angola...etc.
The list would be endless, and think about the opportunities for Haliburton et al, reserving the right to sell condoms to the raped.
| Quote (phoo @ Oct. 23 2004,14:55) |
| Like I said, based on the facts of today -- we took out the leaders Iraq to free the people of Iraq, not because of any of the reasons that were given before we attacked -- then there are a lot of leaders that should feel threatened and with good reason. How many of you think we should start bombing North Korea ASAP? What about China? Iran? Saudi Arabia? Heck...Angola...etc. |
We took them out for all the reasons that were given before. Everyone just assumed a chem or bio attack from was imminent. If you guys don't understand why Iraq was attacked by now, you're dumber than I thought.
No one in the current administration said Iraq was responsible for 9/11. No one ever said that Iraq was responsible for the anthrax mailings. No one ever said alot of things of which this administration has been accused.
For some reason everyone thinks because Saddam hid or destroyed all of WMD's that we were wrong for going. Iraq was harboring terrorists. Iraq was paying something like $10,000 to each suicide bomber's family. He was killing people in his own population. The real threat was the possibility that he would at some point start a terror campaign of his own. Granted there is also no evidence that he would. However, the potential was there, he was an #######, and the world is much better without him.
Forget the WMD's or nukes weren't there. It doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things. Just my opinion.
Also I don't think the fact that someone got a date wrong in his post or mentioned some sort of conspiracy theory. People keep mentioning Haliburton but there is no convictions or indictments handed out. Yet, it keeps coming up. Look at what was being said.
About bombing all these other countries. Look at it this way. We took out Iraq. Libya is now disarming and Pakistan has become a strong ally in the war on terror. As long as the pressure remains real and constant, other countries will see the light. China is already on the road to democracy. They just don't know it yet. A few more tv sets and the'll be as dumb and lazy as the rest of us. North Korea is a real threat whose day is coming. Same for Iran. Korea and Iran are early in the process. Hopefully these will end peacefully. So, one at a time big boy.
Hahahaha 
Truth Seeker, registered or unregistered, you’re a hoot
Too many people are talking about curing the symptoms while ignoring the underlying disease. It’s a little like discussing cough drops, debating which brand will cure your lung cancer.
Why are large parts of the world p*ssed off with the USA’s role in the middle east (and elsewhere) to begin with ?
Feel free to see things in a longer perspective than the last two Gulf incidents.
Discuss.
We took them out for all the reasons that were given before. Everyone just assumed a chem or bio attack from was imminent.
Exactly! You're saying assumptions are good enough reason to kill people? If those assumption turn out to be false then what? Still justified? How about "the assumptions were wrong and w rush to war". If we really wanted to get rid the bastard we didn't need to take the whole country down in the process. What's the CIA for anyway?
Why aren't we bombing these guys? http://www.korea-dpr.com/
No bucks for these guys by chance? http://www.halliburton.com
Exactly! You're saying assumptions are good enough reason to kill people? If those assumption turn out to be false then what? Still justified? How about "the assumptions were wrong and w rush to war". If we really wanted to get rid the bastard we didn't need to take the whole country down in the process. What's the CIA for anyway?
Why aren't we bombing these guys? http://www.korea-dpr.com/
No bucks for these guys by chance? http://www.halliburton.com