i don't mean to be kissing some asses in this thread, but outside of the personal attacks there were some excellents points made. and if no one minds i would like to point a few out.(lol).
bobbybluechip,
your last two posts were excellent. if i remember correctly you were opposed to the war, but as your last posts indicated, iraq is much more better off without saddam, then with him in power. i can see why there are posters here that respect you.
turfgrass,
eventhough i am confussed with you handle, your either grass or artificial turf, make up you mind. never the less some of the following post was very good & i couldn't agree with you more:
"Day after day we read new stories, columns and various opinion pieces trumpeting Bush?s failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. This presumably means that the entire Iraqi effort was illegitimate and, perhaps, that Bush out to be defeated in 2004, at best, or impeached, at worst for his failure.
OK, folks. One more time .. by the numbers ?
1) Both the UN and the United States had knowledge of Saddam?s WMDs.
2)The UN ordered Saddam to destroy his WMDs.
3)Saddam agreed to destroy his WMDs.
4)Saddam agreed to provide evidence of the destruction of his WMDs
5)Before destroying his WMDs Saddam kicked the UN inspectors out of Iraq.
6)After Saddam kicked out the inspectors there was evidence that he began a program to hide his WMDs
7)Saddam now claims that he destroyed his WMDs, after he kicked out the weapons inspectors.
8)Saddam has never failed any evidence that he destroyed the WMDs.
9)Three UN resolutions, Numbers 678, 687 and 1441 authorize either the UN or any member state to use force against Saddam Hussein if he fails to abide by his agreements to destroy his WMDs, and to document that destruction.
10)The United States, Great Britain, Australia, Spain and about 38 other nations banded together to act against Saddam in compliance with those three UN resolutions."
the reason why the un was not willing to enforce their own resolutions was because many on the security council were on saddam's payroll. there was too much money for them to lose to overthrow saddam. also these countries couldn't care less that our administration ( who i didn't vote for) felt that the us was being threatened. some of them probably secretely wish that some one would knock us down a few notches, so they didn't care.
shrimp,
"Furthermore, Turfgrass, if it's all so easy to justify with WMD, then why was it called "Operation Iraqi Freedom" instead of "Operation Option to use force against Saddam for defying the UN"? "
we all know politics & sales go hand in hand, so "operation iraqi freedom" is a catchier (sp?) title than the one you propose. eventhough there was a war involved, the bush administration knew that "operation iraqi freedom" is easier to market to the american public.
kosar,
"We are currently seeing the result of having no workable end-game, and as well the incoherent post-war policy being manifested in large part because of the great divide within our own government on how to proceed."
i remember you questioning this before the war started , & this is the only part of the war that disappoints me. after ww2, the us occupied japan for about 10 years & germany for about 7 years, so i expect for the us to occupy iraq for the similar amount of time. but i surely thought that this would have been better planned. hopefully, this will get better.
