When is war justified or when it is simply imperialism

[Vuk]

Yes, God Forbid we had another Iran. I cannot think of a worse fate for the universe.

And of course all of this justified rushing into a war, compeltely unprepared for the consequences, as all those resectable nations you speak of were begging us to wait a little while longer, and people like you were calling people like me a coward, or unpatriotic, and talking about freedom fries....

So totally worth thousands of American deaths, thousands more wounded, and enormous civilian casualties and helping to bankrupt the nation. Yes, more of this please.

An Iraq with WMD would have been disasterous to the region. When we were going after terrorists in the Middle East, and we have a dictator on friendly terms with them who has worked with them in the past, how is them gaining WMDs not a threat? Sure, Iraq was careful to never let any links be proven, but again, Western intelligence was almost certain they were involved with terrorists, and just covered up their tracks. You really think that if they got WMDs they would not end up being used against us or our allies in a terrorists attack?
Also, you are wrong, those respectable nations who shared our interests did help us. The French who were making big bucks off of Saddam would never help us, and of course that was not part of Russia's foriegn policy either. Those who did not help us did not have our interests at heart. Did we really need 100% of world nations to give us the ok before we took pre-emptive action to protect ourselves.
If Bush had not done what he had done, and a chemical, biological, or nuclear weapon was deployed by terrorists on American soil, you and all the liberals out there would be tearing Bush for being a weak leader and not taking the initiative to stop the threat before it was realized. Since he avoided that future, you now criticize it because it never happened.

I talked about freedom fries? I called you a coward? I called you unpatriotic? Please show me where!
I will call you a liar, based on the above post though. I will also say that I think you are wrong about the war. No, I don't like everything about it and how it was conducted, but it is probably better that it happened than it didn't.

[Major Robert Dump]

An Iraq with WMD would have been disasterous to the region. When we were going after terrorists in the Middle East, and we have a dictator on friendly terms with them who has worked with them in the past, how is them gaining WMDs not a threat? Sure, Iraq was careful to never let any links be proven, but again, Western intelligence was almost certain they were involved with terrorists, and just covered up their tracks. You really think that if they got WMDs they would not end up being used against us or our allies in a terrorists attack?
Also, you are wrong, those respectable nations who shared our interests did help us. The French who were making big bucks off of Saddam would never help us, and of course that was not part of Russia's foriegn policy either. Those who did not help us did not have our interests at heart. Did we really need 100% of world nations to give us the ok before we took pre-emptive action to protect ourselves.
If Bush had not done what he had done, and a chemical, biological, or nuclear weapon was deployed by terrorists on American soil, you and all the liberals out there would be tearing Bush for being a weak leader and not taking the initiative to stop the threat before it was realized. Since he avoided that future, you now criticize it because it never happened.

I talked about freedom fries? I called you a coward? I called you unpatriotic? Please show me where!
I will call you a liar, based on the above post though. I will also say that I think you are wrong about the war. No, I don't like everything about it and how it was conducted, but it is probably better that it happened than it didn't.

Learn to read. I said "people like you."

I love how WMDs becomes "chemical and biological" weapons when we delve into the debate. We knew he had chems and bios, because we freaking gave them to him. The war was sold to the public as if Saddaam had big NUKILLER missiles pointed at the united states. When that fell through we started getting talk of "Dirty Bombs" which further demonstrates the average american knows nothing about how wepaons grade nuclear materials work, and that dirty bombs are eseentially impossible in the scope of which they are advertised. We found some trailers and some empty storage facilites. We went to war over mustard gas.

And even if he did have nuclear weapons and anything less than a warhead pointed at us, the idea that we can walk unprepared into a country and bomb it into oblivion while sacrificng thousands of troops over an abstract political idea is quite frankly disgusting. Even more disgusting are the civ cas coverups, which you should not have to cover up if, you know, your war is justified. Even more disgusting were the war profiteers and the substandard "Services" they rendered our troops while making billions of dollars for them and their cronies in DC.

Everything about Iraq was wrong. EVERYTHING. It was not worth the cost, not now, not ever.

Ironic that Iran and Iraq were enemies. Maybe if saddam got his nukes we wouldn't be having this Iran Issue right now, OMGUS

[Strike For The South]

Learn to read. I said "people like you."

I love how WMDs becomes "chemical and biological" weapons when we delve into the debate. We knew he had chems and bios, because we freaking gave them to him. The war was sold to the public as if Saddaam had big NUKILLER missiles pointed at the united states. When that fell through we started getting talk of "Dirty Bombs" which further demonstrates the average american knows nothing about how wepaons grade nuclear materials work, and that dirty bombs are eseentially impossible in the scope of which they are advertised. We found some trailers and some empty storage facilites. We went to war over mustard gas.

And even if he did have nuclear weapons and anything less than a warhead pointed at us, the idea that we can walk unprepared into a country and bomb it into oblivion while sacrificng thousands of troops over an abstract political idea is quite frankly disgusting. Even more disgusting are the civ cas coverups, which you should not have to cover up if, you know, your war is justified. Even more disgusting were the war profiteers and the substandard "Services" they rendered our troops while making billions of dollars for them and their cronies in DC.

Everything about Iraq was wrong. EVERYTHING. It was not worth the cost, not now, not ever.

Ironic that Iran and Iraq were enemies. Maybe if saddam got his nukes we wouldn't be having this Iran Issue right now, OMGUS

USA USA USA USA

[Vuk]

Learn to read. I said "people like you."

I love how WMDs becomes "chemical and biological" weapons when we delve into the debate. We knew he had chems and bios, because we freaking gave them to him. The war was sold to the public as if Saddaam had big NUKILLER missiles pointed at the united states. When that fell through we started getting talk of "Dirty Bombs" which further demonstrates the average american knows nothing about how wepaons grade nuclear materials work, and that dirty bombs are eseentially impossible in the scope of which they are advertised. We found some trailers and some empty storage facilites. We went to war over mustard gas.

And even if he did have nuclear weapons and anything less than a warhead pointed at us, the idea that we can walk unprepared into a country and bomb it into oblivion while sacrificng thousands of troops over an abstract political idea is quite frankly disgusting. Even more disgusting are the civ cas coverups, which you should not have to cover up if, you know, your war is justified. Even more disgusting were the war profiteers and the substandard "Services" they rendered our troops while making billions of dollars for them and their cronies in DC.

Everything about Iraq was wrong. EVERYTHING. It was not worth the cost, not now, not ever.

Ironic that Iran and Iraq were enemies. Maybe if saddam got his nukes we wouldn't be having this Iran Issue right now, OMGUS

You insinuated that people were like me in that respect though. If not, then what exactly did you mean?
WMDs include chemical and biological weapons MRD, as I am sure you know. As far as nukes go, there was pretty good evidence that Saddam was pursuing them. Isn't it better that we stopped him before he got them (and possibly used them against Israel or let nuclear matierial get into terrorist hands)?
I agree, that there was tons of corruptions, but that is a seperate issue all of its own, and has nothing to do with whether or not we should have went to war with Iraq.

[Major Robert Dump]

You insinuated that people were like me in that respect though. If not, then what exactly did you mean?
WMDs include chemical and biological weapons MRD, as I am sure you know. As far as nukes go, there was pretty good evidence that Saddam was pursuing them. Isn't it better that we stopped him before he got them (and possibly used them against Israel or let nuclear matierial get into terrorist hands)?
I agree, that there was tons of corruptions, but that is a seperate issue all of its own, and has nothing to do with whether or not we should have went to war with Iraq.

WMDs are not biological and chemical. Again, we knew he had those because we gave them to him. WMDs, and as they were advertised in the buildup to the war, are nuclear weapons capable of long range attack to level a city. Had we been chasing chems and bio, then why didnt Bush say "they have chemical and bio weapons"?? He didn't, instead he played into the whole American guilt about nuclear weapons, and knew that the general public would take it that way. Believe me, they knew what they were doing and chose their words carefully.

In 1992, We did not finish Saddam off because, as the current Sec of defense Dick Cheney said, we were not prepared for an urban occupation and insurgency. I am at a loss as to where that assessment went 10 years later, when we had virtually all the same equipment and strategy and the SOD was now the VP.

Saddaam was a bad person. His sons were evil, as was he. Removing him was not worth thousands of american deaths and tens of thousands wounded. There are other ways to handle this. I am not an anti-Isreal person, but Israel is not worth thousands of american lives considering they have never lifted a finger to hurt us. What-ifs are not worth what we spent. Billions dude, billions

[Vuk]

WMDs are not biological and chemical. Again, we knew he had those because we gave them to him. WMDs, and as they were advertised in the buildup to the war, are nuclear weapons capable of long range attack to level a city. Had we been chasing chems and bio, then why didnt Bush say "they have chemical and bio weapons"?? He didn't, instead he played into the whole American guilt about nuclear weapons, and knew that the general public would take it that way. Believe me, they knew what they were doing and chose their words carefully.

In 1992, We did not finish Saddam off because, as the current Sec of defense Dick Cheney said, we were not prepared for an urban occupation and insurgency. I am at a loss as to where that assessment went 10 years later, when we had virtually all the same equipment and strategy and the SOD was now the VP.

Saddaam was a bad person. His sons were evil, as was he. Removing him was not worth thousands of american deaths and tens of thousands wounded. There are other ways to handle this. I am not an anti-Isreal person, but Israel is not worth thousands of american lives considering they have never lifted a finger to hurt us. What-ifs are not worth what we spent. Billions dude, billions

Certain biological and chemical weapons are indeed considered WMDs. When the phrase was first termed nuclear weapons had not yet been invented, and it was in reference only to bio and chem weapons. Wiki Article
Even the Demorats who later objected to the war and claimed that because nukes were not found WMDs were not found had earlier referred to chem and bio weapons as WMDs.

And I can't find the video tonight, but I have seen vids where Bush referred to chem and bio weapons as WMDs. Yeah, nuclear weapons were one of the big threats, but not the only threat. What we found was that he had the intent and ability to create them. How then is the justification for the war untrue?
You didn't answer me the first time MRD, so I will ask you again: If we had ignored the potential threat Iraq could have been, and terrorist got hold of nuclear material and detonated a nuclear weapon on US soil, would you be blaming Bush now for ignoring the lessons of 911 and not going in and defeating Saddam before he was that big of a threat?
I cannot say I really like the way the war was waged, but that is not the same as not thinking that we should have attacked Iraq. When we were done, we should have seized control of enough of their oil reserves to make up for the money we spent on the war. Call it their price for freedom.

I have flip-flopped several times in my life between supporting the War in Iraq and not supporting, seeing new evidence and hearing new arguments. I really cannot say for 100% sure if it was right, or I will always think so. However, based on what I know about it now, I think it was probably the right choice.

You say there were other ways to stop them from being a threat to us though. Mind sharing what those are?

[Major Robert Dump]

Certain biological and chemical weapons are indeed considered WMDs. When the phrase was first termed nuclear weapons had not yet been invented, and it was in reference only to bio and chem weapons. Wiki Article
Even the Demorats who later objected to the war and claimed that because nukes were not found WMDs were not found had earlier referred to chem and bio weapons as WMDs.

And I can't find the video tonight, but I have seen vids where Bush referred to chem and bio weapons as WMDs. Yeah, nuclear weapons were one of the big threats, but not the only threat. What we found was that he had the intent and ability to create them. How then is the justification for the war untrue?
You didn't answer me the first time MRD, so I will ask you again: If we had ignored the potential threat Iraq could have been, and terrorist got hold of nuclear material and detonated a nuclear weapon on US soil, would you be blaming Bush now for ignoring the lessons of 911 and not going in and defeating Saddam before he was that big of a threat?
I cannot say I really like the way the war was waged, but that is not the same as not thinking that we should have attacked Iraq. When we were done, we should have seized control of enough of their oil reserves to make up for the money we spent on the war. Call it their price for freedom.

I have flip-flopped several times in my life between supporting the War in Iraq and not supporting, seeing new evidence and hearing new arguments. I really cannot say for 100% sure if it was right, or I will always think so. However, based on what I know about it now, I think it was probably the right choice.

You say there were other ways to stop them from being a threat to us though. Mind sharing what those are?

IRAQ DID NOT HAVE THE CAPABILITY TO DETONATE A NUCLEAR BOMB ON US SOIL

Surely you are not suggesting they would have launched a nuclear missle, which they didnt have and we would have shot down.

And surely you are not falling into the ruse of the "suitcase bomb". Newsflash!!!! A suitcase bomb would kill like a busload of people with a little fallout that would disiipate in a few minuites. There entire concept of a suitcase bomb blowing up NYC is not based in fact. IT is an impossibility. The amount of carry space to transport a devastating nuclear payload by land or sea without melting anyone within a 100m radius would make ti impossible to move without detection, much less move thousands of miles over the open sea and through a us port.

I didn't answer your question because it is irrelevant. You are suggesting that wasting tens of thousand of US lives was worth a "what-if", your what-if being that had not Bush not acted and Iraq used an imaginary super bomb to blow up a US City they had no chances of reaching, then would we blame him? Yeah, sure, I suppose we would, because thats how politics works, and saving a presidents ratings in the public opinion polls is still not worth tens of thousand of ruined lives. Take your rhetorical questions elsewhere.

Iraq was a waste of human lives and American resources, it was an utter circus, and it drew huge amounts of resources away from the legitimate, honorable war in afghanistan. Afghanistan was brished under the rug and Bush pretended we won, when all we did was tutrle inside of giant FOBs and let the Taliban regroup and reap huge poppy profits, all of which the CIA warned us about. By the time we got to focus on Afghanistan again, the battle was already lost. That is Iraq's legacy. It wasted our time, and may very well go down as the stupidest war in American history

[Major Robert Dump]

Certain biological and chemical weapons are indeed considered WMDs. When the phrase was first termed nuclear weapons had not yet been invented, and it was in reference only to bio and chem weapons. Wiki Article
Even the Demorats who later objected to the war and claimed that because nukes were not found WMDs were not found had earlier referred to chem and bio weapons as WMDs.

And I can't find the video tonight, but I have seen vids where Bush referred to chem and bio weapons as WMDs. Yeah, nuclear weapons were one of the big threats, but not the only threat. What we found was that he had the intent and ability to create them. How then is the justification for the war untrue?
You didn't answer me the first time MRD, so I will ask you again: If we had ignored the potential threat Iraq could have been, and terrorist got hold of nuclear material and detonated a nuclear weapon on US soil, would you be blaming Bush now for ignoring the lessons of 911 and not going in and defeating Saddam before he was that big of a threat?
I cannot say I really like the way the war was waged, but that is not the same as not thinking that we should have attacked Iraq. When we were done, we should have seized control of enough of their oil reserves to make up for the money we spent on the war. Call it their price for freedom.

I have flip-flopped several times in my life between supporting the War in Iraq and not supporting, seeing new evidence and hearing new arguments. I really cannot say for 100% sure if it was right, or I will always think so. However, based on what I know about it now, I think it was probably the right choice.

You say there were other ways to stop them from being a threat to us though. Mind sharing what those are?

There is no point in arguing other ways to stop him from being a threat because I never believed he was a threat. That being said, we could have maintained the status quo like we have with that one country who is a real threat, RONK. Our embargos and bombings adversely affected the Iraqi poor, and I cared not for that policy either, but it is still better than engagin on fool hardy adventure that risks other peoiples lives. Furthermore, another 2 months of planning may have worked wonders for our take-and-hold strategy. We did not launch a surprise attack, we did not have the initiative. We did not have to remove Saddam Hussein that very moment. It was not an emergency.

Perhaps you were too young, or to busy wrapped up in the flag, to remember how legitimate debate on this issue was virtually stifled under the ruse that dissenters were not only unpatriotic, but that they were somehow harming our troops. The public bought it hook, line and sinker, and it was disgusting. You attempts to point to Democrats who supported the war does nothing for me. It changes nothing. They were asses, too, for agreeing to go into war based on secret *evidence* the administration would not even share with life long, career senators. This is not a black and white issue. This was not a situation where we only had two choices.

[Vladimir]

There is no point in arguing other ways to stop him from being a threat because I never believed he was a threat. That being said, we could have maintained the status quo like we have with that one country who is a real threat, RONK. Our embargos and bombings adversely affected the Iraqi poor, and I cared not for that policy either, but it is still better than engagin on fool hardy adventure that risks other peoiples lives. Furthermore, another 2 months of planning may have worked wonders for our take-and-hold strategy. We did not launch a surprise attack, we did not have the initiative. We did not have to remove Saddam Hussein that very moment. It was not an emergency.

Perhaps you were too young, or to busy wrapped up in the flag, to remember how legitimate debate on this issue was virtually stifled under the ruse that dissenters were not only unpatriotic, but that they were somehow harming our troops. The public bought it hook, line and sinker, and it was disgusting. You attempts to point to Democrats who supported the war does nothing for me. It changes nothing. They were asses, too, for agreeing to go into war based on secret *evidence* the administration would not even share with life long, career senators. This is not a black and white issue. This was not a situation where we only had two choices.

Now that we're onto Iraq: The fault wasn't in taking her but in not knowing what do do once we had her.

[Vuk]

EDIT: oops, double post.