US to declare war on Syria and Iran?

[bimshire]

Oh please!!!!!

We are occupying the country now. We have scoured it from end to end and have found NO WMD. What could Saddam do to us with nothing?

 

[TheDoctor]

The War in Iraq was related to, and began with, Sept 11. That is a FACT. Whether Iraq had anything specifically to do with Sept 11 may debated but the Iraq war was, and is, considered by Bush to be part of the “war on terrorism” which came straight out of 9/11. How you could not associate the two in your “WW III” is beyond me…

You are completely wrong. Again bush tried to confuse people that the war in Iraq was related to Sept. 11 and bush was successful for some time period. Luckily, the American people (at least most of them) are smart and have now realized that bush lied about the reasons for the war in Iraq. One of the lies told by bush relates to the linkage of the war in Iraq to Sept. 11. Again, there is no link. I will be happy to cut and paste the entire Senate Intelligence Committee report on this issue if I have to.

 

[ButchJohnson]

Oh please!!!!!

We are occupying the country now. We have scoured it from end to end and have found NO WMD. What could Saddam do to us with nothing?

Oh boy, not this one again. So I guess the Isrealis (who arguably has one of the best intelligence services in the world) really didn't bomb the nuclear development facility? That mission to bomb that facility I guess was just bombing Iraq's version of Toys-R-Us????

And I guess Saddam never dropped mustard gas on his own people, and those dead bodies in those news reals were all fake right?

And I'm not even going to go down the road of talking about the WMD that WERE found and reported on but people like you seem to want to completely ignore.

 

[jocon]

Again, if you are calling it WWIII, one big war, there is no question about when it began. September 11, 2001.

The war in Iraq was in it's planning stages on or before January 20, 2001. September 11th was a bittersweet aside for this administration as it built fear and anger. They were counting on building a case over a few years and winning a stunning victory like in 1991 just in time for the 04 elections. The war in Afganistan was a distraction for the Administration.

This President and Vice-President are very dangerous and the problems they created by their actions and reactions will be around for generations to come. Great leaders are judged by how they handled the problems presented to them. These men will be judged harshly by history.

 

[pansmermaidzlagoon]

The war in Iraq was in it's planning stages on or before January 20, 2001. September 11th was a bittersweet aside for this administration as it built fear and anger. They were counting on building a case over a few years and winning a stunning victory like in 1991 just in time for the 04 elections. The war in Afganistan was a distraction for the Administration.

This President and Vice-President are very dangerous and the problems they created by their actions and reactions will be around for generations to come. Great leaders are judged by how they handled the problems presented to them. These men will judged harshly by history.

so true - many knew before he was elected - that if elected - he would get us into a war there at his first chance - 9/11 just provided a handy excuse! Not a good one, but an excuse!

 

[TheDoctor]

Oh boy, not this one again. So I guess the Isrealis (who arguably has one of the best intelligence services in the world) really didn't bomb the nuclear development facility? That mission to bomb that facility I guess was just bombing Iraq's version of Toys-R-Us????

And I guess Saddam never dropped mustard gas on his own people, and those dead bodies in those news reals were all fake right?

And I'm not even going to go down the road of talking about the WMD that WERE found and reported on but people like you seem to want to completely ignore.

Since the end of the first Gulf War, Saddam destroyed all of his chemical and biological weapons. The UN weapons inspectors confirmed that Saddam did not have a nuclear weapon program just before we invade (bush ignored the reports of the UN inspectors) since the invasion of Iraq was not due to WMDs. The bombing Israel was in the early 1980s and other incidents mentioned were before inspections by the UN.

At the time of the invasion of Iraq, Saddam was not a threat and had not WMDs. The UN inspectors were telling us this but bush refused to listen As noted in the Downing Street Memo, the war in Iraq was based on fixed facts and intelligence which is why bush would not wait until the UN inspectors completed their jobs. I can provide a ton of links here if you want.

 

[billythefish]

I agree that its time to get out of Iraq, and the current direction is not the way to go (fighting a prolonged guerrilla style war with terrorists), but the job of getting rid of Saddam and that regime was accomplished, and I think that was a very good thing. There was no doubt Saddam was plotting and may have eventually orchestrated a terrorist attack on us, possibly eventually with nuclear weapons if he was allowed to develop them, which they were working on. (Why else would have Isreal bombed his nuke sites?)

Saying it was silly is going to far. If we did nothing and left him alone and he was allowed to develop nukes, or even if he utilized more conventional WMD to give to terrorists to hit the mainland US or even US territories, many of you would be screaming from the roof tops that "Bush knew the threat Saddam posed and stood by and did nothing."

What evidence do you have for that statement? It's just pure speculation.

It seems now, you can just attack another country if you think that sometime in the future they may pose you a threat. On that basis, I assume that you'd have no problem if Syria, Iran or N. Korea attacked America? Although you might not agree with it, you'd have to defend their right to do so.

 

[ButchJohnson]

What evidence do you have for that statement? It's just pure speculation.

It seems now, you can just attack another country if you think that sometime in the future they may pose you a threat. On that basis, I assume that you'd have no problem if Syria, Iran or N. Korea attacked America? Although you might not agree with it, you'd have to defend their right to do so.

I'm not going to go down this road. For one thing anything I say or produce you are still going to maintain your opinion anyway.

No I don't think we should attack anyone on a whim, and I have already said that I strongly disagree with where the Iraq policy is headed. But making Saddam out to be some innocent little dictator that the mean ole US had no right to take out is misguided. Saddam was a threat, if not in 2003 (which I think he was) certainly further down the road.

Not to mention that regime was one of the most brutal in all of human history. Mass genocide, mass graves of innocent people, putting people in wood chippers for amusement, torturing innocent political disodents, on and on and on. But this is America so you have the right to be misguided if thats what you want to be. Go ahead and defend Saddam all you want. That is the equivalent of defending Hitler, no ands ifs or buts about that, if you want to defend tyrants like that go ahead. I guess its a shame you missed his hanging, I heard it was a heckof a show.

 

[LuvDuke]

Oh boy, not this one again. So I guess the Isrealis (who arguably has one of the best intelligence services in the world) really didn't bomb the nuclear development facility? That mission to bomb that facility I guess was just bombing Iraq's version of Toys-R-Us????

And I guess Saddam never dropped mustard gas on his own people, and those dead bodies in those news reals were all fake right?

And I'm not even going to go down the road of talking about the WMD that WERE found and reported on but people like you seem to want to completely ignore.

27% Alert!

 

[billythefish]

I'm not going to go down this road. For one thing anything I say or produce you are still going to maintain your opinion anyway.

No I don't think we should attack anyone on a whim, and I have already said that I strongly disagree with where the Iraq policy is headed. But making Saddam out to be some innocent little dictator that the mean ole US had no right to take out is misguided. Saddam was a threat, if not in 2003 (which I think he was) certainly further down the road.

Not to mention that regime was one of the most brutal in all of human history. Mass genocide, mass graves of innocent people, putting people in wood chippers for amusement, torturing innocent political disodents, on and on and on. But this is America so you have the right to be misguided if thats what you want to be. Go ahead and defend Saddam all you want. That is the equivalent of defending Hitler, no ands ifs or buts about that, if you want to defend tyrants like that go ahead. I guess its a shame you missed his hanging, I heard it was a heckof a show.

I'm not defending Saddam and I didn't defend him when he was armed and backed to the hilt by the US, Britain etc, when he carried out his genocide against his own people and the Iranians. Where do you think he got his chemical weapons from? And there are plenty of other dictators around the world who I don't support that our governments do or have. But that doesn't mean I think we have the right to go in and overthrow them and kill tens or hundreds of thousands of their innocent civilians and leave their country's in chaos.

 

[Crankyshank]

Not to mention that regime was one of the most brutal in all of human history. Mass genocide, mass graves of innocent people, putting people in wood chippers for amusement, torturing innocent political disodents, on and on and on. But this is America so you have the right to be misguided if thats what you want to be. Go ahead and defend Saddam all you want. That is the equivalent of defending Hitler, no ands ifs or buts about that, if you want to defend tyrants like that go ahead. I guess its a shame you missed his hanging, I heard it was a heckof a show.

Oh spare us please - no one is defending Saddam here. And if this is all about saving the people of Iraq from a genocide happy dictator, then where's the clamor to take over the Sudan?

And we were hardly hands off on how Saddam got into power in the first place. Where do you think he got part of his weapons from? Hardly Iraqi technology and ingenuity there.

 

[Fitswimmer]

Why do all these discussions always end up the same way??? It's not like the left people are going to convince the right people or visa versa.

 

[ButchJohnson]

I'm not left or right, and I see merit to both sides of the argument.

In my opinion the bottom line is, we need to get out if not now, soon, but I'm glad we got rid of Saddam. Maybe because he was partially our creature is all the more reason to have gotten rid of him.

And what does a 27% alert mean?

 

[LuvDuke]

I'm not left or right, and I see merit to both sides of the argument.

In my opinion the bottom line is, we need to get out if not now, soon, but I'm glad we got rid of Saddam. Maybe because he was partially our creature is all the more reason to have gotten rid of him.

And what does a 27% alert mean?

27% is what still supports Bush and his war. Whether you support this war now or not, you are still making the same phony case for war as was made 4years ago. Not one blessed bit of that case for war has proven to be accurate, and in some cases, a downright lie.

 

[LakeAriel]

No it is you who are wrong. She was talking about going to war with Syria and Iran (and I guess the rest of the Muslim world). The war in Iraq was not related to Sept. 11 in any way other than through the PR attempts by bush to get the American people to support this silly war by causing them to believe that Saddam was behind the attacks on Sept 11. The bushies and the few who still support this war still believe that Saddam was responsible for Sept. 11 despite all evidence to the contrary. The war in Iraq was based on lies and a good PR campaign but is in no way related to the attacks on Sept. 11

Thanks Doctor. This is just the same ole, same ole. Just spin right out of the Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Perle, Rice, Powell BS. Indeed GWB was itching to attack Iraq long before 9/11 and exploited all the victims of that horrific attack to advance his own agenda. What a disgrace!

 

[LuvDuke]

Why do all these discussions always end up the same way??? It's not like the left people are going to convince the right people or visa versa.

Why? Because none of it has ever been settled. That's why people are able to make the same phony case for war as they did 4 years ago. The truth has never been 100% revealed.

This war is like an open, festering sore for the American people. We know we were lied to, but we don't know how much. We know the intelligence was cherrypicked but we don't know to what degree. And until this is settled and the questions are answered, this will go on.

 

[LakeAriel]

Here is one take of Bush's speech from a Repubican Senator.

"I think this speech given last night by this president represents the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam if it's carried out"

Chuck Hagel
Republican senator

 

[Snowysmom]

At this point in Iraq, it is not about winning or losing the war. We need to get the Iraqi troops and police trained, give the government a time table for this, and tell them, after that, we are out of here. We were "supposed" to go in and "free" the Iraqis from Saddam. That is done. There is a democratically elected government in place which needs to do it's job. I also thought that they were going to pay for the war and rebuilding by selling Iraqi oil What has happened to that? I do believe that Bush has more "tricks" up his sleeve and it won't be for the better. The war on terror began on Sept. 11 but the war on Iraq began later. Actually, I believe that Bush had it planned from day 1 but just needed an excuse. Just my opinion, nothing else.

 

[TheDoctor]

Back to the topic. Does anyone care that the US may have committed an act of war under international law against Iran?http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,459083,00.html

As US President George W. Bush was promising to stem Iranian support for the Iraqi insurgency, US soldiers were raiding the Iranian consulate in Irbil, Iraq. The Iranians aren't happy.

Just hours after United States President George W. Bush presented his new strategy for Iraq to the American public, US forces raided the Iranian consulate in the northern Iraq city of Irbil and arrested five employees, according to a report by the Iranian news agency IRNA.

The soldiers raided the building in the wee hours of Thursday morning local time and confiscated computers and documents in addition to the detentions. The US military issued a statement indicating that it had arrested six people in the Irbil region, but did not specifically mention the consulate raid. But a Shiite official in Baghdad confirmed the raid to AP, though he requested anonymity due to the sensitivity of the information.

"Around 5:00 a.m., after disarming the guards, they broke into the office without giving any explanation and arrested five employees," IRNA reported. Iran has sent a letter of protest to the Iraqi Foreign Ministry according to the report.

I have seen reports that our troops took down the Iranian flag from the consulate and may be claiming that this office was not a consular office. Under international law, violation of another countries consular office is an act of war.

 

[basas]

Whatever. This thread has just gotten beyond ridiculous. It's quite obvious that Bush and the Republicans could do anything in world and many of you would still find a way to call him "the devil who walks among men'. Time to get real...