PDA

View Full Version : 56 Percent in Survey Say Iraq War Was A Mistake



Gayle in MD
12-21-2004, 12:18 PM
The Washington Post:
President Bush heads into his second term amid deep and growing public skepticism about the Iraq War, with a solid majority saying for the first time that the war was a mistake and most people believing that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld should lose his job, according to a new Washington Post ABC News poll.

While a slight majority believe the Iraq war contributed to the long term security of the United States, 70 percent of Americans think these gains have come at an "unacceptable" cost in military casualties. This led 56 percent to conclude that, given the cost, the conflict there was "not worth fighting" --an eight point increase from when the same question was asked this summer, and the first time a decisive mafority of people have reached this conclusion.

Fifty four percent are not confident elections will produce a stable government that can rule effectively.

49 percent disapprove of Bush's overall job performance. Byu contrast, Bill Clinton had an approval of 60 percent in a poll taken just before he began his second term.

The post-ABC results are consistant with other newly released surveys. Time magazine, which this week named Bush its "Person of the Year" found that 49 percent approve of his job performance, little changed from before the election. A Pew Research Center survey, meanwhile, showed that the angry divisions about Bush that marked the 2004 campaign were hardly bridged by the election's end -- nor were the sharply divergent appraisals of reality. By emphatic majorities, Bush voters were upbeat on whether things are going well in Iraq, and with the economy, while Kerry voters were negative.

The Post poll also showed such paritsan divides on many foreign policy and national security questions. In a potential trouble sign for the White House, Republicans' support for Bush on these questions is lower than the Democratic opposition. And majorities of independents side with the Democrats in their skepticism toward the administration's course.

Wally_in_Cincy
12-21-2004, 12:28 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> ....While a slight majority believe the Iraq war contributed to the long term security of the United States, 70 percent of Americans think these gains have come at an "unacceptable" cost in military casualties. This led 56 percent to conclude that, given the cost, the conflict there was "not worth fighting" --an eight point increase from when the same question was asked this summer,..... <hr /></blockquote>

Well I guess hindsight is still 20/20

Reminds me of when Diane Sawyer asked John Kerry if the war was a mistake and he answered "Depends on what happens" /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

It gonna be 58 percent after today.

Gayle in MD
12-21-2004, 12:31 PM
Yes, and he also said, wrong war, wrong place, wrong time, IIRC.
Gayle

Gayle in MD
12-21-2004, 12:53 PM
The report also sates that 7 in 10 Democrats and 5 in nine independents believe elections will not produce a stable government in Iraq, while more than two thirds of Republicans believe they will.

Gayle in Md.

sliprock
12-21-2004, 01:42 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> The report also sates that 7 in 10 Democrats and 5 in nine independents believe elections will not produce a stable government in Iraq, while more than two thirds of Republicans believe they will.

Gayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote>

This stat makes sense. I'd say that somewhere around 70% of the democrats that I know have this same doom and gloom outloook on most things. On the other hand, most of my republican friends believe in the power of freedom and the power of self-help and react to situatioins rather than complain about them. I truly feel that some of the great Democrats of the past are turning over in their graves.

"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and success of liberty."
-John F. Kennedy (JFK)

Wally_in_Cincy
12-21-2004, 01:45 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Yes, and he also said, wrong war, wrong place, wrong time, IIRC.
Gayle <hr /></blockquote>

Yep, nothing like a statement like that to boost the troops morale. I guess he didn't care about that, as long as he got elected.

He was for the war before he voted against it, or vice-versa, or something like that. Which way was the wind blowing?

Gayle in MD
12-21-2004, 02:41 PM
"oppose any foe" Iraq did not attack us.
Gayle in Md.

highsea
12-21-2004, 02:44 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Yes, and he also said, wrong war, wrong place, wrong time, IIRC.
Gayle <hr /></blockquote>Some other notable statements by Kerry...

"Governor Dean has no policy on Iraq evidently, except 'no.' 'No' is not a policy."

"I agree completely with this Administrationís goal of a regime change in Iraq, even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act."

"So I believe the Senate will make it clear, and the country will make it clear, that we will not be blackmailed or extorted by these weapons, and we will not permit the United Nations--an institution we have worked hard to nurture and create--to simply be ignored by this dictator."

"Should the resolve of our allies wane, the United States must not lose its resolve to take action."

"He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. Itís the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat"

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."

"I've had one position, one consistent position, that Saddam Hussein was a threat."

"We know we can't count on the French. We know we can't count on the Russians. We know that Iraq is a danger to the United States and we reserve the right to take pre-emptive action whenever we feel it's in our national interest."

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. He miscalculated an eight-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America's response to that act of naked aggression. He miscalculated the result of setting oilrigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending scuds into Israel and trying to assassinate an American President. He miscalculated his own military strength. He miscalculated the Arab worldís response to his misconduct. And now he is miscalculating Americaís response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction."

"The Iraqi Army is in such bad shape now, even the Italians could kick their butts."

"We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance."

"I think there has been an exaggeration of the terrorist threat."

"The truth, which is what elections are all about, is that the tax burden of the middle class has gone up while the tax burden of the middle class has gone down."

"Our democracy is a farce; it is not the best in the world."

"I'm an internationalist. I'd like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations."

"I will stand up and struggle, as others have, to try to get that right balance between violence, and sex, and things."

"I have confidence in my campaign. I have assembled a great team that is going to beat George W. Bush, and any rumors to the contrary are completely erroneous."

highsea
12-21-2004, 02:46 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> "oppose any foe" Iraq did not attack us.
Gayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote> This is your standard?

How many Luftwaffe pilots were there in the attack on Pearl Harbor?

Gayle in MD
12-21-2004, 04:45 PM
HighSea,
I am against going to war with a country that didn't attack us. I am against going to war with a country because they MIGHT have weapons of mass destruction. If you are for it, that is your right, but there are other countries with WMD's and they hate us also. Wy did we not go to war with them? There are other countries with evil mean men running them. There are other countries who punish and murder their own people. The world is, unfortunately full of dictatorships which have or desire to have weapons of mass destruction.

Tell me, what is your standard for going to war?


I do not think the world is quieter or safer. Nor do I beleive that this war was the right move to make at this time. I realize that half the people in this country may disagree, a proportion which is shrinking daily, but there are many many people in our country who do not think that this war was the right move.

We didn't jump into war with Japan, we didn't go to war with them until they attacked us on our own soil.

I think many who are disturbed about the war feel that way because as many have stated, including the former president Bush, if you go in, there is no way out.

Terrorism is a horrible thing. It has been around for a long long time, through many administrations. It is very hard to fight a sneaking, hooded enemy. I think we would all agree on that atleast. But, fighting a war in iraq without a sizable coalition of other nations, I think the British have something like eight thousand there, to our near hundred and fifty thousand, and going in there without enough troops to do the job right, was IMO a grave mistake.

Let's hope I am way off in my opinion, but this is America, and I have as much right to have an opinion about this war as any of you.

Gayle in Md.

highsea
12-21-2004, 04:56 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> We didn't jump into war with Japan, we didn't go to war with them until they attacked us on our own soil. <hr /></blockquote>Hence my question: How many Luftwaffe pilots attacked Pearl Harbor? The US went to war with Germany in WW2, yet they did not attack us on our own soil. Should the US have stayed out of the European theater and allowed Hitler to keep Europe?

nhp
12-22-2004, 04:29 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> We didn't jump into war with Japan, we didn't go to war with them until they attacked us on our own soil. <hr /></blockquote>Hence my question: How many Luftwaffe pilots attacked Pearl Harbor? The US went to war with Germany in WW2, yet they did not attack us on our own soil. Should the US have stayed out of the European theater and allowed Hitler to keep Europe? <hr /></blockquote>

We declared war on Germany because they were allied with Japan, the axis powers. It was also imminent that Germany would declare war on us if we didn't.

I don't really think the occupation in Iraq should be compared to the Last Great War. We got rid of Saddam for debatable reasons. We went to war with Germany and Japan to prevent world domination, tyranny, and oppression.

During World War II nearly our entire population was helping with the war effort, building armor, tanks, planes, etc. Today we are telling our soldiers to 'go to war with the army you've got' when they send out a distress call because of the lack of proper armor, and the feeling that they are being sent on basically suicide missions.

Please tell me, which do any of you think is worse for our troops moral, "Wrong war wrong place wrong time" or after being asked about a lack of proper armor, Rummy saying "You go to war with the army you've got" ---Translation: 'Tough luck buddy, you should have gone active duty instead of the NG or army reserve.' Gee, I wonder...

pooltchr
12-22-2004, 04:44 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> We didn't jump into war with Japan, we didn't go to war with them until they attacked us on our own soil. <hr /></blockquote>Hence my question: How many Luftwaffe pilots attacked Pearl Harbor? The US went to war with Germany in WW2, yet they did not attack us on our own soil. Should the US have stayed out of the European theater and allowed Hitler to keep Europe? <hr /></blockquote>

Maybe it depends on whether the president at the time is a Democrat or a Republican. I'm just glad we didn't act based on public opinion polls or what other countries thought we should do back in the '40s, or we might all be speaking German today. JFK (the FIRST one!)had it right!
(See, I can agree with some Democrats once in a while!) /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Gayle in MD
12-22-2004, 04:48 AM
I agree with you completely. I can't understand how anyone can compare this occupation in Iraq with any of our past war efforts, it's completely different. Former CIA agent
Edwin Black's book, Banking on Baghdad, offers the most comprehensive view of what we can expect from the Iraqi's. It isn't an encouraging report. Events since the occupation have unfolded in much the way which was expected by those life long CIA advisors who were pushed aside by this administration.
Gayle In Md.

hondo
12-22-2004, 06:11 AM
I think " depends on what happens" is a good answer.

hondo
12-22-2004, 06:15 AM
" doom and gloom" ? Is this a right wing byword now?
Left- Help me out. I can't come up with a word that
rhymes with f..k up.

hondo
12-22-2004, 06:17 AM
Great post, Gail. Give em hell.


<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> HighSea,
I am against going to war with a country that didn't attack us. I am against going to war with a country because they MIGHT have weapons of mass destruction. If you are for it, that is your right, but there are other countries with WMD's and they hate us also. Wy did we not go to war with them? There are other countries with evil mean men running them. There are other countries who punish and murder their own people. The world is, unfortunately full of dictatorships which have or desire to have weapons of mass destruction.

Tell me, what is your standard for going to war?


I do not think the world is quieter or safer. Nor do I beleive that this war was the right move to make at this time. I realize that half the people in this country may disagree, a proportion which is shrinking daily, but there are many many people in our country who do not think that this war was the right move.

We didn't jump into war with Japan, we didn't go to war with them until they attacked us on our own soil.

I think many who are disturbed about the war feel that way because as many have stated, including the former president Bush, if you go in, there is no way out.

Terrorism is a horrible thing. It has been around for a long long time, through many administrations. It is very hard to fight a sneaking, hooded enemy. I think we would all agree on that atleast. But, fighting a war in iraq without a sizable coalition of other nations, I think the British have something like eight thousand there, to our near hundred and fifty thousand, and going in there without enough troops to do the job right, was IMO a grave mistake.

Let's hope I am way off in my opinion, but this is America, and I have as much right to have an opinion about this war as any of you.

Gayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote>

eg8r
12-22-2004, 08:48 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Left- Help me out. I can't come up with a word that
rhymes with f..k up. <hr /></blockquote> Kerry Campaign. Ooops, sorry that does not rhyme. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

eg8r
12-22-2004, 08:59 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Rummy saying "You go to war with the army you've got" ---Translation: 'Tough luck buddy, you should have gone active duty instead of the NG or army reserve.' Gee, I wonder... <hr /></blockquote> That is the translation after being run the liberal BS filter.

eg8r

eg8r
12-22-2004, 09:07 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote gayle:</font><hr> "oppose any foe" Iraq did not attack us.
Gayle in Md.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea:</font><hr> This is your standard?

How many Luftwaffe pilots were there in the attack on Pearl Harbor?
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote gayle:</font><hr> HighSea,
I am against going to war with a country that didn't attack us. I am against going to war with a country because they MIGHT have weapons of mass destruction. If you are for it, that is your right, but there are other countries with WMD's and they hate us also. Wy did we not go to war with them? There are other countries with evil mean men running them. There are other countries who punish and murder their own people. The world is, unfortunately full of dictatorships which have or desire to have weapons of mass destruction. <font color="red"> This portion is complete mumble jumble and has nothing to do with highsea's post. One might refer to it as a rant. Please answer the question. </font color>

Tell me, what is your standard for going to war? <font color="red"> Answer a question with a question? </font color>...Let's hope I am way off in my opinion, but this is America, and I have as much right to have an opinion about this war as any of you. <font color="red"> What does this have to do with highsea's post. If you have no intention of actually answering his question say so, why all the wasted space? Highsea never ever ever ever said you do not have a right to your opinion, in complete contrast he was asking for your opinion. Only a liberal could twist that around. </font color>
<hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote> Don't hold your breath highsea.

eg8r &lt;~~~by the way, I have set up an account on the DT board /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

sliprock
12-22-2004, 10:23 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> HighSea,
I am against going to war with a country that didn't attack us. I am against going to war with a country because they MIGHT have weapons of mass destruction. If you are for it, that is your right, but there are other countries with WMD's and they hate us also. Wy did we not go to war with them? There are other countries with evil mean men running them. There are other countries who punish and murder their own people. The world is, unfortunately full of dictatorships which have or desire to have weapons of mass destruction.


<font color="blue"> Gayle, this is not just a war with Iraq. This is a global war against the terrorist Muslims and anyone who supports their mission to destroy the Infidels. I believe with all my heart that Saddam had the resources to help their cause and would use those resources. </font color>

Tell me, what is your standard for going to war?

<font color="blue">My standard is self-defense and pre-emption. We started in this because we were attacked. I hope that the U.S. and her allies have the backbone to finish it so that future generations can live in a peaceful world. </font color>


I do not think the world is quieter or safer. Nor do I beleive that this war was the right move to make at this time. I realize that half the people in this country may disagree, a proportion which is shrinking daily, but there are many many people in our country who do not think that this war was the right move.

<font color="blue">What do you consider the right move? I hope itís not sitting down with the terrorist to work out some kind of deal for peace. Their total reason for living is to kill the Infidels. If you ask me, Spain is in a huge trap. They pulled their troops out of Iraq after the terrorists blew up their train, who knows whatís going to happen the next time the terrorists make a demand. Spain will have to make a stand someday or theyíre done.
</font color>
We didn't jump into war with Japan, we didn't go to war with them until they attacked us on our own soil.

<font color="blue">We were attacked on our own soil. </font color>

I think many who are disturbed about the war feel that way because as many have stated, including the former president Bush, if you go in, there is no way out.

<font color="blue">Thereís not going to be an easy way out. These terrorists are fanatics. </font color>

Terrorism is a horrible thing. It has been around for a long long time, through many administrations. It is very hard to fight a sneaking, hooded enemy. I think we would all agree on that atleast. But, fighting a war in iraq without a sizable coalition of other nations, I think the British have something like eight thousand there, to our near hundred and fifty thousand, and going in there without enough troops to do the job right, was IMO a grave mistake.

<font color="blue">I donít know how many troops would be enough. I know of one thing we have enough of and thatís media people. We should load all the media people on a plane and send them to the Bahamas for a much needed 2 week vacation. After their 2 week rest, we could take them back to Iraq to report on the great progress made while they were gone. </font color>

Let's hope I am way off in my opinion, but this is America, and I have as much right to have an opinion about this war as any of you.

<font color="blue">Amen.
</font color>
Gayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote>

Gayle in MD
12-22-2004, 10:52 AM
You Know Ed, you really should stop reading my posts. You constantly jump into interchanges between myself and others just to tell me that you don't understand them.

Why bother reading them? You think my opinions are mumbo jumbo, okay, I got it, you don't need to repeat it over and over. That's fine with me.

You're only goal in posting to me is to try and irritate me, and truly Ed, it is all for nothing on your part. If there is anyone on here taking up wasted space, it is you with your deep rooted desire to argue just for the sake of arguing.

When someone asks me a question that I think is pertinent to the subject being discussed, I answer it. When it isn't, I don't. You write your posts your way and I'll write mine my way, who are YOU anyway, the post police?

Take a break already!
Gayle in Md.

highsea
12-22-2004, 12:01 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> You Know Ed, you really should stop reading my posts. You constantly jump into interchanges between myself and others just to tell me that you don't understand them. <hr /></blockquote>It's a forum, Gail, that's how they work. When you post, it's open to discussion. How many times have you jumped into a conversation between others? If you had your way, every thread would only be between the person who started it and the first preson who posted a reply!

Just in the last few days, I have been in a discussion with Ross, and every liberal on the board has injected a comment into it, even though none of those comments furthered the discussion. This is something that you do in practically every thread. You should go through the last few threads and look at your own remarks before criticizing others.

Pot+Kettle=Black

Anyway, you didn't answer my question. Germany didn't attack the US, yet we went to war to free Europe. Serbia didn't attack the US, yet Clinton bombed them continuously for 78 days, and there was no outcry from the liberals or the media. The US was not attacked by Korea or Vietnam either, yet we went to war in both cases, to protect US interests.

So your requirement that the US be attacked on her own soil has not been the standard for war, at least in the last hundred years.

Wally_in_Cincy
12-22-2004, 12:28 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea:</font><hr> ...your requirement that the US be attacked on her own soil has not been the standard for war, at least in the last hundred years. <hr /></blockquote>

and N Korea did not attack us on our own soil

and Germany did not attack us on our own soil in 1917

and Iraq did not attack us on our own soil in 1990

SPetty
12-22-2004, 12:41 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr>[ QUOTE ]
Rummy saying "You go to war with the army you've got" ---Translation: 'Tough luck buddy, you should have gone active duty instead of the NG or army reserve.' Gee, I wonder... <hr /></blockquote> That is the translation after being run the liberal BS filter. <hr /></blockquote>What does it sound like after being run through the conservative BS filter?

P.S. What's a DT board?

Wally_in_Cincy
12-22-2004, 12:53 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SPetty:</font><hr> P.S. What's a DT board? <hr /></blockquote>

Defense Talk. Highsea hangs out there. I've been meaning to check it out but the last thing I need is another forum to waste my time on /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

highsea
12-22-2004, 12:59 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SPetty:</font><hr> What does it sound like after being run through the conservative BS filter?<hr /></blockquote>Best thing, imo, is to eliminate the filters entirely. Here is the transcript of the meeting:

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2004/tr20041208-secdef1761.html

-CM

eg8r
12-22-2004, 09:07 PM
[ QUOTE ]
When someone asks me a question that I think is pertinent to the subject being discussed, I answer it. When it isn't, I don't. You write your posts your way and I'll write mine my way, who are YOU anyway, the post police? <hr /></blockquote> So are you saying the question was not pertinent? There must be some reason why you ignored it. I am not the police by any stretch of the imagination, but if you are going to hide from a question, should it not be mentioned?

eg8r

eg8r
12-22-2004, 09:09 PM
[ QUOTE ]
What does it sound like after being run through the conservative BS filter? <hr /></blockquote> Don't know, give it a shot.

DT = defensetalk

eg8r

eg8r
12-22-2004, 09:11 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Defense Talk. Highsea hangs out there. I've been meaning to check it out but the last thing I need is another forum to waste my time on <hr /></blockquote> I am pretty sure I will just be reading for quite awhile. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

Gayle in MD
12-22-2004, 11:46 PM
HighSea,

Since I have already stated that I don't think this war is comparable to WWII, and since I thought I took the time to detail my own feelings about this war, I didn't think your question was really pertinent. I'm not trying to be sarcastic, I just felt that I had already shown how that particular question wouldn't apply given that I don't see a true comparison between this war/occupation and our other war efforts.

The only war that remotely compares to this is Vietnam, IMO, and that one only because we were in a situation that we couldn't get out of effectivly, and fighting not knowing for sure who was friend and who was foe.

I know of no other time when we have occupied another country which did not attack us in order to impose our ideology and form of government upon them.

As regards my posts, generally speaking I post when I have something to add, a point of view, not to engage in arguing for the sake of arguing.

I asked you several questions in my first post, which you never answered, before you responded and asked one of me.

Here is another, what is your opinion of the efficacy of occupations in general?

I really don't think you could find a time when I took quotes out of someone's post to another person, and jumped on to berate them as regards how they responded to someone else. Maybe I have, but it certainly isn't my overall style, as it is with Ed.

Gayle in Md

eg8r
12-23-2004, 04:24 PM
Sorry you feel berated, that is not the intent. The reason for putting the quote in there is so that you have no question as to what I am referring to. There are many times your posts make no sense because you say, "well, on the other post that so and so said". I have found that on this board and others, if you show the person exactly what you are referring to, they cannot sit back and act dumb, like they don't know what I am referring to. I see that you take offense to this form of clarity, but I am not sure I will change.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
12-23-2004, 07:59 PM
That isn't what bothers me Ed, I just find it strange that you would tell me in one breath that my posts are mumbo jumbo rants, and then continue to read them. I wan't ranting back at HighSea, but often you try to put a slant on my intentions that really is not there when you read my posts. A good example of what I am talking about is your choice of the word "Hide" ....

As you said, "If you are going to hide from a question"

Now...
do you really think it fits my personality that I would hide from a question? By your use of that word you change the flavor into something that seems to me to be accusatory.

I assure you that when I don't answer a question it is usually either because I sense that the person asking has already made up their mind, and doesn't really want the facts or the answer, (I'm not saying this was the case with HighSea) or they are being rude, or just looking to argue.

Occasionally I don't answer a question right off because I need to think about it for a while, sometimes it is because I have forgotten, sometimes it is because the poster is too far away from my own take on the subject, and further discussion seems pointless to me.

There may be a whole range of reasons why I feel it best not to answer a question, some things are better left unsaid, and in my case probably a lot of things, LOL.

Anyway, I have never really thought that the purpose of discussion is agreement, and I enjoy a good debate, but lately I have broken some of my own standards regarding my posting style, and I am attempting to be more careful.

Gayle...

highsea
12-24-2004, 02:07 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr>Tell me, what is your standard for going to war?<hr /></blockquote>
"When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for. That is, at the end of the first Gulf War, we knew what he had. We knew what was destroyed in all the inspection processes and that was a lot. And then we bombed with the British for four days in 1998. We might have gotten it all; we might have gotten half of it; we might have gotten none of it. But we didn't know. So I thought it was prudent for the president to go to the U.N. and for the U.N. to say you got to let these inspectors in, and this time if you don't cooperate the penalty could be regime change, not just continued sanctions." --Bill Clinton, July 22, 2003

Shortly after the first Gulf War in 1991, U.N. inspectors discovered the existence of a surprisingly advanced Iraqi nuclear weapons program. In addition, by Iraq's own admission and U.N. inspection efforts, Saddam's regime possessed thousands of chemical weapons and tons of chemical weapon agents. Were it not for the 1995 defection of senior Iraqi officials, the U.N. would never have made the further discovery that Iraq had manufactured and equipped weapons with the deadly chemical nerve agent VX and had an extensive biological warfare program.

Here is what was known by 1998 based on Iraq's own admissions:

* That in the years immediately prior to the first Gulf War, Iraq produced at least 3.9 tons of VX, a deadly nerve gas, and acquired 805 tons of precursor ingredients for the production of more VX.

* That Iraq had produced or imported some 4,000 tons of ingredients to produce other types of poison gas.

* That Iraq had produced 8,500 liters of anthrax.

* That Iraq had produced 500 bombs fitted with parachutes for the purpose of delivering poison gas or germ payloads.

* That Iraq had produced 550 artillery shells filled with mustard gas.

* That Iraq had produced or imported 107,500 casings for chemical weapons.

* That Iraq had produced at least 157 aerial bombs filled with germ agents.

* That Iraq had produced 25 missile warheads containing germ agents (anthrax, aflatoxin, and botulinum).

Again, this list of weapons of mass destruction is not what the Iraqi government was suspected of producing. (That would be a longer list, including an Iraqi nuclear program that the German intelligence service had concluded in 2001 might produce a bomb within three years.) It was what the Iraqis admitted producing. And it is this list of weapons--not any CIA analysis under either the Clinton or Bush administrations--that has been at the heart of the Iraq crisis.

IN EARLY 1998, the Clinton administration prepared for war against Iraq. On February 17, President Clinton spoke on the steps of the Pentagon to explain to the American people why war was necessary. The speech is worth excerpting at length, because it was then and remains today the fundamental case for the invasion of Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein from power.

President Clinton declared that the great threat confronting the United States and its allies was a lethal and "unholy axis" of international terrorists and outlaw states. "They will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them." There was, Clinton declared, "no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq. His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region and the security of all the rest of us." Before the Gulf War of 1991, Clinton noted, "Saddam had built up a terrible arsenal, and he had used it. Not once, but many times in a decade-long war with Iran, he used chemical weapons against combatants, against civilians, against a foreign adversary and even against his own people." At the end of the Gulf War, Saddam had promised to reveal all his programs and disarm within 15 days. But instead, he had spent "the better part of the past decade trying to cheat on this solemn commitment." As Clinton explained:
[ QUOTE ]
Iraq repeatedly made false declarations about the weapons that it had left in its possession after the Gulf War. When UNSCOM would then uncover evidence that gave the lie to those declarations, Iraq would simply amend the reports. For example, Iraq revised its nuclear declarations four times within just 14 months, and it has submitted six different biological warfare declarations, each of which has been rejected by UNSCOM.

In 1995 Hussein Kamal, Saddam's son-in-law and the chief organizer of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program, defected to Jordan. He revealed that Iraq was continuing to conceal weapons and missiles and the capacity to build many more. Then and only then did Iraq admit to developing numbers of weapons in significant quantities--and weapons stocks. Previously it had vehemently denied the very thing it just simply admitted once Saddam's son-in-law defected to Jordan and told the truth.

Now listen to this: What did it admit? It admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability, notably, 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production. . . .

Next, throughout this entire process, Iraqi agents have undermined and undercut UNSCOM. They've harassed the inspectors, lied to them, disabled monitoring cameras, literally spirited evidence out of the back doors of suspect facilities as inspectors walked through the front door, and our people were there observing it and had the pictures to prove it. . . .

Over the past few months, as [the weapons inspectors] have come closer and closer to rooting out Iraq's remaining nuclear capacity, Saddam has undertaken yet another gambit to thwart their ambitions by imposing debilitating conditions on the inspectors and declaring key sites which have still not been inspected off limits, including, I might add, one palace in Baghdad more than 2,600 acres large. . . .

One of these presidential sites is about the size of Washington, D.C. . . .

It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the feed stocks necessary to produce them. The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons. . . .

Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction.

And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal. . . . In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now--a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers, or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.

If we fail to respond today, Saddam, and all those who would follow in his footsteps, will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council, and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program.<hr /></blockquote>
Read the rest here:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/003/236jmcbd.asp

Of course, Clinton didn't go to war. He allowed Kofi Annan to negotiate another agreement with Iraq, which Saddam didn't honor. That led to the airstrikes that Clinton referred to in his 2003 statement at the beginning of this post. (which he made 4 months after the US invasion began)

The US was not at peace with Iraq. We had spent over ten years trying in vain to enforce the terms of the cease fire agreement from the 1991 war. In the mean time, Saddam continued to shoot at US and UK aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones on nearly a daily basis. He attempted to assasinate a former US President. He supported terrorism and funded suicide bombers in Israel. He defied the 17 or 18 UN sanctions and continued to murder thousands of Iraqi civilians every year. Finally, he was given the option of going into exile to avoid war. He refused this also.

You ask what my standard for going to war is? This meets my standard for going to war.

Gayle in MD
12-24-2004, 07:56 AM
HighSea,
Thank you for posting this. Although it is from a neoconservative publication, and point of view, it does outline without a doubt a very good arguement for going to war with Iraq.

The problem of war, and discussions of war, is that war is always so complex, it can hardly be discussed at all with any thoroughness until long after it is over.

There is a documentary being shown presently on cable television entitled the FOG OF WAR, in which the point is made, regarding war, "Belief and seeing are both often wrong"

In this documentary former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara outlines many issues regarding war in general beginning with WWII, right through the end of the Vietnam War.

Many of his statements are enlightening to the human cause and nature of war, some are shocking and hair raising. On thing is made very clear, that we are never told the truth about war by our leaders, that we never know the whole truth about our enemy at the outset, and that often we are wrong in our decision making as regards the decision to go to war in the first place.

The business of politics in general is a dishonest sort of business, in which we are sold through advertisement tactics,like sound bites, on the viewpoints of the contenders, on both sides.

There is a book called, "Sleeping with the Enemy, How Washington sold our souls for oil" Bob Baer, former CIA Officer. When you read this book you get so angry over the situation we find ourselves in, it almost makes you feel that we have created for ourselves this mess we find ourselves in today.

When we can't persuade other nations on the merit of our going to war, no doubt, we are up against it in many ways. Even with the Vietnam War, our allies were against us, we had no allies.

Given that we are living in a time when we risk the destruction of the entire world as we know it, a circumstance which has never existed to the extent which it exists today, I guess I would say that the information presented regarding Saddam, and his weapons of mass destruction does not meet my criteria. In my opinion, now more than ever, the United States must.....

1. Never go to war without making every effort to first prove the merit of our cause to the world....
hence, we should have called for a series of world summits regarding Iraq, North Korea, China, etc.

2. The ultimate goal must be to exhaust diplomacy efforts before any decision to go to war is reached.

3. The element of "Proportion" must be a guidline, IOW, response equal to the infraction. WE needed to focus on the terrorists who attacked us, and respond proportionally to the terrorists.

There are a whole lot of ways of looking at any subject. My opinion is that Bush had an agenda, that he and others in his administration purposely mislead us for hidden undisclosed reasons, and that there were available to us other ways of skinning this cat, ways which would have been better for the world by and large ultimately.

What we Americans should all be discussing right now, and screaming about non stop, is the failure of our presidents over these last forty or more years to address our dependence on fossil fuel, and the disregard for our environment.

We have had to jump into bed with the worst of the worst for a long time just to get oil! We have had to compromise our integrity as a nation because of the politicians and their liasons with the oil industry, the automobile industry, recently the pharmetuetical industry, and the corruption of our leaders is astounding.

Okay, I am getting off the subject I realize, but I ask you this. If we had addressed our dependence on foreign energy supplies, would we be in this mess right now?

Yet, those who hold the environment up as the standard, those who stand for limits to special interest activity, those who endeavor to expose the corruption and deceit alive and well in our government, ie, the press for example, are demonized and persecuted by the conservative point of view.

There are no winners in war. The best of the best are those who find other ways to solve the pressing issues of the day. That is precisely what John Kennedy did in the Cuban Missle Crises, when we came inches away from nuclear war, and when we find ourselves in such circumstances, I would much rather have a man at the helm who has the ability to agonize over his decision, not one who decides in advance, with a preconcieved notion, liasons with the devils, and committments with peripheral agents who have a great deal to gain from war.

Gayle in Md.

highsea
12-24-2004, 12:27 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> HighSea,
Thank you for posting this. Although it is from a neoconservative publication, and point of view, it does outline without a doubt a very good arguement for going to war with Iraq....Gayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote>It may come from a conservative source, but the words were President Clinton's.
Well, here is what some other democrats were saying at the time...[ QUOTE ]
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003<hr /></blockquote>

Qtec
12-24-2004, 02:23 PM
Did any of the people quoted have proof to back up their claims?

I didnt think so.

Since when did the US base its foriegn policy and its decisions on the word of Sociopaths and confirmed mass murderers?

If Saddam said he had a death ray and he could wipe out US cities at will, would you have stopped the invasion?
You must have seen the B movies where the hood gets himself out of a fix by pretending to have a gun in his pocket?


When S said he had WMDs, you believe him. he,s tellling the truth.
When he says he doesnt have them[ which turns out to be true] you say he is lying!

Where is your logic?

Was'nt Saddam just woofing?

Didnt the US get EVERYTHING TOTALLY WRONG when it comes to Iraq??????

I,m sorry for the kids that have paid the price and those that will continue to do so.

I know one thing for sure, GW, Rumy, Dick etc etc wil survive this conflict- their kids too. If fact, they will get richer.

Wonder how many stock brockers, Yale/ Harvard graduates are on the ground in Baghdad? How many go out on patrol- at 60 miles per hour!

I,m sure this conflict would never have happened this way in Congress was leading from the front , instead of 5000 miles behind the lines. dont you think ?

Q

highsea
12-24-2004, 04:58 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>Was'nt Saddam just woofing? <hr /></blockquote>
You mean like you? Lol, you should run for EU president,Q. The world is in need of an all-knowing, all-seeing clairvoyant like yourself. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif