I am so sick of hearing it!

[dandave]

Since Saddam was not invading any other countries, I do have concerns that the world sees the US as waging a war of aggression.

 

[disneefamily]

Didney Dad Says................................dmadman43, surely you don't buy the lone gunman theory, at least the grassy knoll theory is possible. Most likely though, the fatal shot came from the storm drain located nearby, that is at a perfect angle to make Kennedy's head snap back, at the exact angle it did.
The point is people can have crazy ideas, you just don't post them in public forums to be ridiculed. I don't go around saying "I have this idea about how Kennedy died" even if it is much more likely than the "revenge" theory.

RM. Here is your problem. You need a theory that is plausible. Revenge is so improbable. Going back to debate days, thinking, and OH, NO ONE FLAME ME FOR WHAT I AM ABOUT TO SAY, I DON"T BELIEVE IT BUT RM NEEDS SOME IDEAS.

1. How about. After the victory, we won't put in the real effort to get a proper government into place and could end up with someone even worse.
2. It really is for the oil.
3. This is to divert attention from a mundane economy.
4. All the Arab governments, who have been mostly silent during this war, all decide to gang up on us.
5. W is just testing his weapons for the "real war"

6. Maybe, just maybe, a man who is responsible for a million deaths, used chemicals on his own people, kills people for not chearing for him loud enough, has his troops hide in civilian clothes and has them hide behind women and chldren, then kills them if they try to leave, bombs his own people, executes POW's and claims it is the other side that is doing it, leaves behind thousands of chemical suits and claims the other side will use chemicals, picked 24 people who he thought was a threat and killed them all when he first came into power, whose son rapes a woman and kills the husband, then the woman,steals billions from the country for his own use, COULD ACTUALLY BE A PRETTY COOL DUDE.

 

[ripleysmom]

"The point is people can have crazy ideas, you just don't post them in public forums to be ridiculed. I don't go around saying "I have this idea about how Kennedy died" even if it is much more likely than the "revenge" theory."

So I should cower in the corner not saying anything because you don't agree with me? Nope ain't gonna happen.

I would only be quiet about it if I actually cared what anyone (especially someone who speaks of himself in the 3rd person ) thinks about my opinion.



"1. How about. After the victory, we won't put in the real effort to get a proper government into place and could end up with someone even worse."

Um...how is this even a relevant theory?


"2. It really is for the oil."

Um.....did you happen to read all the words on this thread?


"3. This is to divert attention from a mundane economy."

No necessarily so outrageous however You'da thunk he would have learned his lesson from his dad wouldn't you....


"4. All the Arab governments, who have been mostly silent during this war, all decide to gang up on us."

You don't think that this could happen? I would also not overlook someone else besides the countries in the Middle East getting involved.


"5. W is just testing his weapons for the "real war""

????


"6. Maybe, just maybe, a man who is responsible for a million deaths, used chemicals on his own people, kills people for not chearing for him loud enough, has his troops hide in civilian clothes and has them hide behind women and chldren, then kills them if they try to leave, bombs his own people, executes POW's and claims it is the other side that is doing it, leaves behind thousands of chemical suits and claims the other side will use chemicals, picked 24 people who he thought was a threat and killed them all when he first came into power, whose son rapes a woman and kills the husband, then the woman,steals billions from the country for his own use, COULD ACTUALLY BE A PRETTY COOL DUDE."

Once again it would be nice if you read ALL of the words in the thread before typing. There are many other harsh rulers and dictators out there, why haven't we gone after them?

 

[ripleysmom]

"Once again...where is the proof to support the above statement?"

No proof...none....not a shred. Just as you have no proof that it is not the real reason.

 

[ripleysmom]

"Well, I'm not sure if you read the article or not. It doesn't appear you did. I understand the connotation Hitler carries. I am not equating Saddam to Hitler. I'm equating the situation today in the Middle East, particularly with someone like Saddam in charge of Iraq, with Germany's actions during the 30's."

I read the article. It states that they should have stopped Hitler at the beginning.


"Care to explain what his move to Kuwait was? You really believe if we sat around and did nothing he would not have made another move? Or work to better fund and support other Middle-East despots and rouge leaders? That's the type of naivete that got Europe in trouble. But, I guess history means nothing to some people."

Ah but he was stopped and removed from Kuwait. He has spent the last 12 years doing what? Taking over other countries? Nope...haven't seen that.


"C'mon RM. You're smarter than that. At least take a position that containment would have worked."

??? Containment of Saddam. I think it was working. He certainly hasn't invaded any other countries has he?


"You buy the Grassy Knoll theory, too? How about Elvis still being alive?"

No, you know better than that.

 

[TigH]

Thanks to everyone who sent hugs and support! I appreciate it. I was pretty emotionally charged when I wrote this and I should have calmed down before I posted.

While I might not see eye to eye with some people who responded to this thread, I am glad that we live in a country where we can all speak freely without fear of someone killing or torturing us for our beliefs. I'm lucky to have a computer at home and a cable modem that allows me to have fast access to the internet.

I suck at debating and I hate confrontation, so I apologize for stirring the pot.

 

[AllyandJack]

I can't believe people would think that a President of the United States of America would use the military and kill soldiers and civilians to get some kind of personal revenge. No doubt I'm sure deep down it feels good to finish the job his father wasn't allowed to finish, but to think that he would cost innocent lives of civilians and soldiers just to get revenge. I simply can't believe that he is that evil. I can't believe that enough people were duped by him to get him elected (somewhat).

As for Saddam not going after anymore countries.....could the possibility exist that he was piling these weapons in order to execute a better attack? I mean, he saw that he couldn't win with what he had, so he was getting the weapons for something. He kept those missles he wasn't supposed to have. There is evidence of bio and chem weapons. If he wasn't going to use them on us....and he wasn't going to use them to invade another country with better power behind him....what were they for? And, I'm sure you'll discount MY theory, but the theory that Saddam is gearing up for SOMEthing is just as plausible as the theory that the President of our country is murdering soldiers and civilians to get revenge. You don't have a guy like Saddam who failed in one attempt saying, "Oops, my bad. Won't happen again."

Plus, it's been almost a full term for Bush....wouldn't he have done something a bit earlier in his term?? You know....get in office, wait a few months, invent some reason to go over there and take out Saddam. Why the delay in getting revenge?

 

[Libbysmom2000]

"I can't believe people would think that a President of the United States of America would use the military and kill soldiers and civilians to get some kind of personal revenge. "

Why not, there are people on this board who think our former President didn't get SH because he was too busy watching a golf game!!

There are many people that believe revenge played a role in our going to war.

 

[AirForceRocks]

Originally posted by Libbysmom2000
"I can't believe people would think that a President of the United States of America would use the military and kill soldiers and civilians to get some kind of personal revenge. "

Why not, there are people on this board who think our former President didn't get SH because he was too busy watching a golf game!!

There are many people that believe revenge played a role in our going to war.

Perhaps people believe that about President Clinton because there is a person that was allegedly in the room saying that it happened.

Where is the person that has allegedly heard President Bush say that this war is for revenge against Hussein?

 

[AllyandJack]

Clinton may have been playing golf....but, he made his decision using the information he had available to him. Maybe he was told there was no hurry and there was no big threat involved....who knows? We can go around second-guessing the past because we're all great at saying what we would have done now that we have the benefit of years experience.

I don't doubt there are many people who think revenge played a part and I said that there is probably a part of him that thoroughly enjoys the idea of taking out Saddam, but to say that is his ONLY motivation....that's a terrible thing to say about someone with no real proof. If there was real proof of that, I would hope he would be impeached (wow...two in a row...that would be something!).

 

[Libbysmom2000]

Because someone says something happened doesn't mean it really did. I never implied that GB ever SAID he was out for revenge. I don't need to do that because his actions speak for themselves.

 

[AirForceRocks]

Originally posted by Libbysmom2000
Because someone says something happened doesn't mean it really did. I never implied that GB ever SAID he was out for revenge. I don't need to do that because his actions speak for themselves.

Hence the word "allegedly" in my post.

You asked why people would believe one thing but not the other, and I gave you a possible reason.

So which actions of President Bush's point to this war being about revenge? You've made the accusation - can you back it up with anything? At least ripleysmom openly says it is just her belief. What are the actions of which you are speaking?

 

[AllyandJack]

This gets me back to a question I posted. Why the delay? I would think that if he came into office with personal revenge motives, he would have acted sooner and not waited until his term was nearly over before acting.

You know...as an attorney, I've had to sue a few corporations that I don't like...certain places whose customer service leaves a lot to be desired. When I file suit, do I get some perverse pleasure out of sticking it to them? Of course. But, I don't set out to sue them because one of their telemarketers called me and was rude to me. That would be a horrible accusation against me as an attorney and as a person. And, unless someone had some evidence to back it up, I would hope that common decency would prevent them from spreading that kind of rumor.

I won't start Clinton bashing though...even though I think his administration should have spent less time hunting down Elian and sending him back to Cuba and more time getting the terrorists who were here illegally for his entire time in office plotting to kill us. Wait...I'm making the assumption that his administration KNEW about the terrorists...I have no way to back that up. Oh, well......

 

[betz]

Ok, while not 10 years ago, but this is the earlist I can find of plans to attack Iraq. William Kristol & Robert Kagan are in a 'think tank' that includes:
Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush

Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes

Aaron Friedberg Francis ***uyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle

Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz

Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen

Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz

Bombing Iraq Isn't Enough

William Kristol & Robert Kagan
The New York Times
January 30, 1998

Saddam Hussein must go. This imperative may seem too simple for some experts and too daunting for the Clinton Administration. But if the United States is committed, as the President said in his State of the Union Message, to insuring that the Iraqi leader never again uses weapons of mass destruction, the only way to achieve that goal is to remove Mr. Hussein and his regime from power. Any policy short of that will fail.

Mr. Hussein has obviously thought through this scenario, and he likes his chances. That is why he provoked the present crisis, fully aware that it could lead to American bombing strikes. He has survived them before, and he is confident he can survive them again. They will not succeed in forcing him to abandon his efforts to obtain weapons of mass destruction. The only way to remove the threat of those weapons is to remove him, and that means using air power and ground forces, and finishing the task left undone in 1991.

We can do this job. Mr. Hussein's army is much weaker than before the Persian Gulf war. He has no political support beyond his own bodyguards and generals. An effective military campaign combined with a political strategy to support the broad opposition forces in Iraq could well bring his regime down faster than many imagine. And Iraq's Arab neighbors are more likely to support a military effort to remove him than an ineffectual bombing raid that leaves a dangerous man in power.

This is not pre-emptive war; there is a crucial difference. Pre-emptive war has a meaning, it means that, for example, if planes are flying across the Atlantic to bomb the United States, the United States is permitted to shoot them down even before they bomb and may be permitted to attack the air bases from which they came. Pre-emptive war is a response to ongoing or imminent attack.

The doctrine of preventive war is totally different; it holds that the United States - alone, since nobody else has this right - has the right to attack any country that it claims to be a potential challenge to it. So if the United States claims, on whatever grounds, that someone may sometime threaten it, then it can attack them. The doctrine of preventive war was announced explicitly in the National Strategy Report last September.

Furthermore, about 50 per cent of the population now believes that Iraq was responsible for the attack on the World Trade Center. This has happened since September 2002. In fact, after the September 11 attack, the figure was about 3 per cent. Now if people genuinely believe that Iraq has carried out major terrorist attacks against the United States and is planning to do so again, well, in that case people will support the war.

AllyandJack This gets me back to a question I posted. Why the delay?

The Bush Administration would have been smashed in the election if social and economic issues had been in the forefront, but it managed to suppress those issues in favour of security issues - and people huddle under the umbrella of power.

 

[AllyandJack]

Wow...this was one heck of a conspiracy on Bush's part. Amazing that only about 2% of the population was smart enough to pick up on it.

There is only one problem.....we didn't know we had any security issues until AFTER the election. And we can play games to see who dropped the ball on that one since the plot was being hatched right here in this very country for about 5 years prior to the election.

 

[Libbysmom2000]

AirForceRocks -

Here's just one of many articles backing my statement:

Excerpt from ABC News.com story dated 3/18/02

Some Americans have wondered whether the president's determination to take on Saddam is a personal obsession — one born in the aftermath of the Gulf War his father launched, when Saddam was left in power. And last fall, in Texas, this president seemed to confirm the personal nature of this conflict.
"There's no doubt his hatred is mainly directed at us," Bush said. "There's no doubt he can't stand us. After all, this is a guy that tried to kill my dad at one time."

Many Americans — and many allies — say the administration has used the fear of terrorism as cover to achieve their goal of regime change in Iraq. Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., said, "The Bush administration was wrong to allow the anti-Iraq zealots in its ranks to exploit the 9/11 tragedy by using it to make war against Iraq a higher priority than the war against terrorism." And the collapse of diplomatic efforts at the United Nations has other critics charging that Bush's relentlessness on Iraq has alienated key allies.

 

[AirForceRocks]

Originally posted by Libbysmom2000
AirForceRocks -

Here's just one of many articles backing my statement:

Excerpt from ABC News.com story dated 3/18/02

Some Americans have wondered whether the president's determination to take on Saddam is a personal obsession — one born in the aftermath of the Gulf War his father launched, when Saddam was left in power. And last fall, in Texas, this president seemed to confirm the personal nature of this conflict.
"There's no doubt his hatred is mainly directed at us," Bush said. "There's no doubt he can't stand us. After all, this is a guy that tried to kill my dad at one time."

Many Americans — and many allies — say the administration has used the fear of terrorism as cover to achieve their goal of regime change in Iraq. Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., said, "The Bush administration was wrong to allow the anti-Iraq zealots in its ranks to exploit the 9/11 tragedy by using it to make war against Iraq a higher priority than the war against terrorism." And the collapse of diplomatic efforts at the United Nations has other critics charging that Bush's relentlessness on Iraq has alienated key allies.

I do hope you are kidding - that doesn't back up your statement at all. It is simply an example of the President saying something that we all knew. Perhaps you can explain to me how you make the leap from "This guy tried to kill my dad" to "I have to get rid of this guy BECAUSE he tried to kill my dad".

Nice try, but no cigar.

 

[Libbysmom2000]

AirForceRocks,

If you look back at my original post the statement I made was "There are many people that believe revenge played a role in our going to war." Do you understand what "many people" "believe" and "played a role" mean? I didn't say it was absolute fact and I didn't say it was the sole reason. However, fact that the President would even bring up the attempt on his father's life or talk about SH hating him is enough "proof" for me and obviously many others to indicate that the incident still affects him and quite possibly his judgement.

By the way, your THINKING that the information in the ABC News story is not enough to back up my statement is fine but remember it's just your OPINION. It's not a fact.

 

[AllyandJack]

Nobody has to use the fear of terrorism to cover up anything. There is a real threat of terrorism. It's not something manufactured to cover up personal motives. Next people will be saying that Bush planned 9/11 to use that as the jumping point for his grand attack of personal revenge.

But, I do think that he takes pleasure in sticking it to a guy who tried to kill his father. I know I would...but I wouldn't stage a massive conspiracy to do it and I just don't believe that Bush would either.

 

[AirForceRocks]

If you look back at my original post the statement I made was "There are many people that believe revenge played a role in our going to war."

I think looking at ALL of your statements would be a good idea. Like these for example:

I never implied that GB ever SAID he was out for revenge. I don't need to do that because his actions speak for themselves.

So, while discussing your allegation that the President is doing this for revenge, you state that his actions speak for themselves. That is clearly a statement of fact on your part. That you are completely unable to back up this allegation speaks for itself also.

By your logic, the fact that the President mentioned the attempt on his father's life means that revenge is the reason for the war. Fair enough - silly IMO, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Then using the same logic, the fact that the President has mentioned numerous other actions on the part of Saddam means that those are also reasons for the war.