What next..Bush to blame for S.E. Asian quake/Tsunami ? by AURaptor

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

What next..Bush to blame for S.E. Asian quake/Tsunami ?

POSTED BY: AURAPTOR
UPDATED: Friday, March 11, 2005 06:01
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 6458
PAGE 2 of 2

Thursday, March 10, 2005 11:00 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Still, wanting to ignore all those pesky U.N. resolutions and such might be called........

I never ignored them. I, just like the rest of the world, know that there were a number of resolutions and such.

BUT, what isn't admitted by people like you is that although the resolutions stated that non-compliance would result in consequences, they didn't state what those consequences were, nor how harsh they were to be.

So, given that the majority of the world was against the US's action because of the clearly, to put it lightly, WEAK "evidence" to what GW and friends were saying, I'd say, along with the rest of the world, that there was no actual justification to go to war.

Feel free to debate this... again amongst yourself. I have no time to debate against something that has already been proved in my favour.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

First of all, consequences WERE made known. Use of force was actually allowed for by the U.N. Read UN Resolutions 678, 687 and 1441. Read together these resolutions do the following:

1. Demand that Saddam Hussein leave Kuwait.
2. Demand that Saddam Hussein immediately dispose of all weapons of mass destruction
3. Require that Saddam Hussein provide ample proof to the United Nations that these weapons have been destroyed and that no active weapons program for such weapons exists.
4. Allow any member nation of the United Nations to take military action against Saddam Hussein if the provisions of these resolutions are not completely complied with.

Saddam didn't comply. The U.S. is a member nation of the United Nations. The U.S. compelled compliance through the use of military force, as authorized by these resolutions. End of story.

How 'severe' is a moot point, as use of force was dependant on what ever it took for Saddam to comply. Lobbing a few cruise missles wasn't enough.

Second of all, what exactly was proved in your favor ?

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 10, 2005 10:07 PM

SOUPCATCHER

So I'm guessing from this post, AURaptor, that you feel Iraq + al Qaeda was never part of the rationale for war presented by this administration to the American public.

My personal belief is that the rationale currently in favor (that we invaded Iraq to spread democracy) is the closest to the actual goals of the architects of the invasion (the PNAC crowd). I think it was Perle who stated, after the invasion, that they used the WMD et. al. rationale because they felt that would get the most support. If that's the case, I wish they would've trusted the American public enough to have been up front about that before we went in. Would there have been overwhelming support for democracy promotion beforehand? I don't know.

I remember when the domino theory was a bad thing. And we had to stop the Soviet Union because communinism needed to spread or it would die. And now we're talking up the benefits of spreading democracy to the middle east and working on our own domino theory.

And I'm having fun with my beer based potential straw man here

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 11, 2005 6:01 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
So I'm guessing from this post, AURaptor, that you feel Iraq + al Qaeda was never part of the rationale for war presented by this administration to the American public.

My personal belief is that the rationale currently in favor (that we invaded Iraq to spread democracy) is the closest to the actual goals of the architects of the invasion (the PNAC crowd). I think it was Perle who stated, after the invasion, that they used the WMD et. al. rationale because they felt that would get the most support. If that's the case, I wish they would've trusted the American public enough to have been up front about that before we went in. Would there have been overwhelming support for democracy promotion beforehand? I don't know.

I remember when the domino theory was a bad thing. And we had to stop the Soviet Union because communinism needed to spread or it would die. And now we're talking up the benefits of spreading democracy to the middle east and working on our own domino theory.

And I'm having fun with my beer based potential straw man here .

The world does not exist in a vacuum. One event is not isolated from all others ( see: Wonderfalls

)

Given that al Qaeda declared war on the U.S. back in 1998, and given the attacks they've done in the U.S. and abroad, it was a no brainer to invade Afghanistan. Meanwhile, events concerning Iraq had been going on for 12 years already. Iraq seems to have no clear connection w/ a.Q., with one tiny exception. Both wanted to take down the U.S. Given what was known in regards to a.Q. , and given that Iraq had indeed harbored known terrorist in ADDITION to its U.N. sanctions, the current Bush administration felt that we might as well take out 2 birds w/ one stone, instead of allowing things to go completely unchecked over in that part of the world. And once defeating Saddam was accomplished, the next logical step in returning Iraq to the world community would be to help set up its new Gov't, much like we did in Japan and Germany after WW2. No one could say that THOSE 2 countries are 'puppet states' of the U.S. , nor will be Iraq.

So, spreading democracy wasn't the primary goal for invading Iraq, but it sure was a result. Doing away w/ a crooked, evil tyrant who clearly had violated so many terms and agreements stemming back to the Gulf War was the main reason for war.
I guess it's fair to ask.... would the Iraq war have occured had there not been a 9/11 attack? Maybe,maybe not. But certaily W would have pushed the issue harder than the last administration. Beyond that, who can say ?

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE