Why Iraq went wrong

Whether you  agree with the reasons we went into Iraq, once we were there there were few choices.  We can all talk about hindsight, but let’s look at who had the most resolve.  All I can remember coming out of the Democratic party was how our soldiers were murderers, and politicized every soldier’s death in a daily count.  Democratic leadership said the war could never be won, and did everything they could to suppress the surge.

I agree there was still a very strong cause for going into Iraq, both moral and militarily, and I agree the extremists in the Democratic party were being a bunch of douche bags in their opposition. The point I want to make is that the war was not entered into with an absolute focus on national security.



I agree that some of my points are based on hindsight - but that’s all I have. I’m not an expert on engaging in military exercises. But I have a curiosity in understanding these things, after the fact, and this is the conclusion I have drawn on the Iraq war.



As for your blind trust comment, it looks like you’ve run out of ways to defend your views so you’ve taken to insulting me. Very weak. But, rather than going into the ways that political power becomes money, let me just try to help you out…



One of the top reasons I thought we needed to overthrow Saddam Husein is that we helped put him into power and then he turned his back on us. You don’t do that to the USA.

[quote=Lawrence]I’d like to hear opinions from people who believe Iraq went well - I believe it was a total failure; here’s why:



1. Which Threat? - Iraq was no greater risk than other axis of evil countries as well as the terrorist breeding grounds of Afghanistan, Sudan and Somalia. So, why did we divert from Afghanistan and choose Iraq?
Even Clinton realized that Iraq had WMDs.  Worse, he had used them before.  His Army, while no match for ours was sophisticated and powerful compared to others in this region.


2. The spoils of war - Iraq was chosen for many reasons; but one of the main reasons was their vast oil reserves. We could turn a profit on the war - this reason has nothing to do with national security; but it was absolutely a reason to invade Iraq.  
You make assumptions that it was for oil simply because they have oil.  Correlation does not equal causation.  Any financial advisor should know that.



3. “Coalition of the Willing” - I am embarrassed that my country men and women allowed my president to call this a coalition. This was the US & GB vs. Iraq. Eighteen months after September 11 and seventeen months after Bush was able to put troops in Pakistan, this was the best he could do? FAIL! Untrue.  I fought alongside Pols, Russians, Austrailians, Germans, Canadians.  There were eighteen countries that actually committed COMBAT troops.


4. Coalition Building - Iraq has vast oil reserves; this war could easily turn a big profit. There isn’t a leader in the world today who would not participate in this, so called moral and just war, for an equivalent share of the oil profits. The reason Bush failed to get big players in his coalition was he insisted that only his people would control the Iraqi oil industry. We don’t control the Iraq oil industry.  Once again, making assumptions.  This is obviously a reason it did not fail.


5. I believe, if we had received full support from Russia and China (two countries with long histories of brutalizing Muslims), we would not have experienced any resistance. If Bush were a great leader, he would have gotten India in the coalition! (Rushmore Great!) Getting India in the coalition would have meant alienating Pakistan at a time when we couldn’t afford it.  A bit like inviting Israel to the party.  Where did you learn foreign policy?



I believe Bush/Cheney used September 11 to start the war which best served their constituents; and by constituents, I mean Halliburton, etc. (note: Halliburton is the poster child, but there’s many others).
Like rankstocks said, Cheney’s assets are in a blind trust.  Halliburton was one of the best equipped companies to handle the logistics of such an undertaking.


I first became suspicious when the “coalition of the willing” needed to be “padded” with countries that didn’t even have a standing military! Didn’t that make some of you, even die-hard Republicans, say WTF!  Once again, you don’t know what you are talking about.  There were plenty of other countries there.


Anyway, I trusted my president and supported his decision until about 9 months after the “Mission Accomplished” banner was unfurled - it was then I realized he had no idea what he was doing. [/quote]

You should have trusted him.  Now you have betrayed his efforts.  President Bush loves America, and did what he could to protect it.  Protect you.

He was perhaps the greatest war time president ever. 

Regardless of WHY the Iraq war was started (btw - first two weeks there, our unit uncovered a cache of mustard gas mortars, other units had similar experience.  WMDs), it has kept us safe, by creating a battlefield in which our soldiers, not our businessmen, women and our children fought the terrorists.

Post occupation was not handled very well, but no plan survives first contact.  None.

But I have personally captured any number of terrorists.  So, you can’t tell me it was a failure.  And you dishonor the work effort of our men and women in Iraq when you say such things.

Some light reading for you:

MYTH #1 - The war in Iraq was an invasion, not a liberation by the U.S.

REALITY: Under the rule of Saddam Hussein and the Arab Ba’ath Socialist Party, human rights conditions were virtually non-existent. According to numerous human rights organizations and government agencies including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the U.S. Department of State and the British Commission on Human Rights, the people of Iraq lived in perpetual fear of unusually cruel and humiliating torture practices. Numerous reports of arbitrary sadistic physical torture, imprisonment, suppression of civil rights and women’s rights were frequent and widespread. Victims of torture in Iraq were subjected to hand piercing, eye gouging, whippings, electric shock, amputation and perverse sexual abuse. In 2000, U.N. reports surfaced that tongue amputation was being used as a new, general practice against suspects who were accused of speaking out against the Ba’ath regime. Other methods such as burning skin with blowtorches, pulling back of fingernails, breaking of limbs, hanging people from suspension from ceilings and even acid baths have also been widely reported by numerous human rights organizations and government agency investigations.

Among Saddam Hussein’s most abominable forms of torture was the practice of state licensed rape against women. Evidence has proven that the Ba’ath regime actually employed “soldiers whose job it (was) to violate the honor of a woman.” Innocent women who were merely related or married to a man accused of defying Saddam Hussein were often taken to special prison cells where they were raped by soldiers as their relatives or husbands were forced to watch. The practice of state licensed rape was first confirmed by a former member of the Iraqi Intelligence service named Khalid Al-Janbi who reported that the Technical Operations Directorate of the Mukhabarat (intelligence service) used rape and sexual assault as a systematic practice to achieve political and interrogative purposes, especially to coerce family members into cooperation or submission.  As a general policy, prostitution was punished by public beheading, and women were often executed arbitrarily upon accusation without even having a trial. Despite the so-called constitutional rights women had, the female population in Iraq often lived at the mercy of what was actually a totalitarian, patriarchal society that ruled with a discriminatory, iron hand. Mass rapes against women were committed by Iraqi soldiers during the Al-Anfal campaign against the Kurds in 1988 and against Kuwaiti women when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990. The phenomenon of mass sexual crimes committed against women by Iraqi officials and soldiers is perhaps one of the most widespread and severe in modern history.

Even Iraqi celebrities were not above maltreatment. In May 2001, Saad Keis Naoman, an Iraqi soccer player who defected to Europe told reporters that he and his teammates were tortured personally by Saddam Hussein’s son, Uday Hussein for what he deemed were poor athletic performances. Naoman said he was flogged repeatedly until he bled, forcing him to sleep on his stomach in the cell in which he was jailed. Naoman’s report affirmed an earlier account by another Iraqi international soccer player, Sharar Haydar Mohamad Al-Hadithi, who said in August 1999 that he and his teammates were also tortured by Uday for not winning matches. In 2000, reports surfaced that three soccer players who lost an October game in the Asian cup quarter finals were detained and whipped repeatedly for three days. Uday Hussein was also infamous for personally, arbitrarily picking women off the streets of Iraq and sexually violating them. In 2003, Latif Yahia, an Iraqi who said he was coerced into serving as Uday’s body double said Uday made an implied threat to rape his sister if he did not cooperate. Yahia also confirmed reports about the ‘Red Room’ tiny, physically confining prison cells where inmates were unable to move, blinded with a red light to psychologically render them into submission where they were eventually subjected to physical torture. It is common knowledge that Saddam Hussein’s sons personally took sadistic pleasure in administering torture to many arbitrary victims.

Mass disappearances, genocide and retaliation against specific ethnic and political groups were not uncommon either under Saddam Hussein. Shi’a muslims who had Persian ancestry were expelled into Iran during the 1970’s and 1980’s and during the 1988 Anfal campaign led against the Kurds, an estimated 100,000 people ‘disappeared,’ but were believed to have been murdered. In November 1999, Amnesty International released a report titled, “Iraq: Victims of Systematic Repression,” that asserted thousands of people had been arbitrarily arrested and imprisoned by Saddam Hussein for merely being suspected of participating in opposition activities or because they were related to accused dissidents. In almost all cases, family members were never told where their loved ones are taken, but were forced to pay for their relatives’ execution afterward. In some cases, they were forced to retrieve the mutilated corpse of their tortured and murdered relatives.

Since the liberation of Iraq in 2003, all of these practices came to a halt with the fall of Saddam Hussein and the collapse of his Ba’ath regime. Although there has been continued violence in Iraq because of the continued war between coalition forces and the insurgency, the violence is not systematic or institutional and it being fought by the government as opposed to being condoned and practiced by it. Chapter III, Articles 19-36 of the new Constitution of Iraq passed in October 2005 guarantee a wide range of ‘fundamental rights’ that ensure that “citizens are equal under the law, without discrimination because of sex, blood, language, social origin or religion.” It is specifically unlawful for the government to practice any act that violates a person’s dignity or personal integrity. Private communications are protected, freedom of speech and association is guaranteed and public office is open to all members of the population. Although some Ba’ath party loyalists continue to denounce the liberation effort, the overwhelming population of Iraq is relieved and thankful that Saddam Hussein and his sons were removed from power and the Ba’ath regime was outlawed.

MYTH #2 - The war has not helped the Iraqi people.

REALITY: Since the commencement of Operation Iraqi Freedom, the United States, UNICEF and World Health Organization (WHO) have embarked upon numerous humanitarian ventures to help the Iraqi people. According to the US Agency for International Development (USAID), over 600 primary health care centers have been provided with equipment, 110 medical facilities have been renovated and 11,400 health care workers have been trained. In 2005 alone, 98% of children between the ages of 1-5 years old (3.62 million) were vaccinated against measles, mumps and rubella and 97% of children (4.56 million) were vaccinated against polio.  The U.S. has invested a total of more than $600 million in health programs to help the Iraqi people since 2003. Nearly 3,000 schools have been rehabilitated and 20 million textbooks have been issued to Iraqi school children. 84 primary and secondary schools are being established and accelerated educational programs are being implemented to help improve the literary rate among young boys and girls.

USAID has also refurbished 10 sewage treatment plants and given 3.1 million Iraqis access to clean water that did not have it prior to the liberation. USAID has also installed small water treatment systems giving almost 500,000 villagers access to clean water. More than 2.3 million Iraqis have had either restored or new water treatment  provided to them. USAID has contributed more than $425 million in food and cash to ensure the continued successful distribution of food to Iraqis and has also helped the new Iraqi Ministry of Trade develop a centralized database and ration card system to equally distribute rations among 26 million Iraqis while continuing to implement food security programs.

The U.S. has practically restored the electrical power that was available to Iraq before Operation Iraqi Freedom from the 4.5 megawatts (MW) available in April 2003 to 8.5 MW, repaired thermal units, replaced and added turbines, rehabilitated the transmission network. Throughout USAID’s 2.3 billion Iraq Infrastructure Reconstruction Program, an additional 1,292 MW were added to Iraq’s power grid, and more than 240 Ministry of Electricity officials, plant managers and engineers have all received training to safely operate Iraq’s power plants. Since 2003, telephone subscriptions in Iraq have increased almost four-fold from 1.2 million land lines to the use of 4.6 million land and cell phone lines, and USAID has installed a $51.8 million consolidated optic fiber network which allows Iraqi officials to protect and control the electrical grid from a central location.

Environmental conditions have improved as well in Iraq since the liberation effort started. USAID has helped restore the 8,000 square miles of the Mesopotamian Marshlands destroyed by Saddam Hussein and the Ba’athist regime during the  Shi’a insurrection of 1991. Hussein drained the marshlands as a way to punish the Shi’a population in that area after he decided they were disloyal to his regime. Draining the marshland was a sure way of drying out the region which in turn led to the collapse of the agrarian systems functioning there. After the Ba’athist regime raided settlements, they killed tens of thousands, destroyed livestock and burned houses. Hussein’s treatment of the marshlands also led to the death of countless wildlife that suffered terribly. As a result, more than 100,000 people were forced to relocate. USAID convened an international team and created a Marshlands Restoration Program by implementing a strategic re-flood of the area while also establishing new farms to revitalize the livestock in the region.

The United States has also helped create Volunteers for Economic Growth Alliance (VEGA) a consortium of 14 non-governmental organizations partnered with seven regional business centers to help train Iraqi citizens with business skills. More than 300 grants have helped support small and medium-sized business enterprises and the newly implemented Vocational Educational Program has offered vocational and technical training to more than 12,000 Iraqis, 34 percent of whom are women. The outreach programs have helped place more than 7,000 people in short-term jobs. Although infrastructure was destroyed when coalition forces liberated Iraq in 2003, much of that infrastructure has been rebuilt and more infrastructure continues to be built while numerous charitable, educational and humanitarian programs are being implemented to assist the Iraq people while their country transitions into a flourishing, democratic state.

MYTH #3- The doctrine of regime change and national liberation was developed by Neo-conservatives in recent history.

REALITY: Regime change and national liberation is an idea that stems from the Truman Doctrine that developed after the creation of the United Nations in 1945. That doctrine was implemented by Democratic President Harry S. Truman during the Marshall Plan in the wake of World War II when America democratized Europe in the post-Nazi era after the fall of the Third Reich. In fact, much of the democratic transitioning implemented by Paul Bremer, head of the Provisional Coalition Authority to de-Ba’athify Iraq was based on the Allies de-Nazification plan implemented in Europe after WWII. The U.S. also implemented programs to phase out the effects of Imperialism from Japan and Fascism from Italy. After WWII, the continued struggle for global democratization continued when Truman sent troops to defend South Korea from communist invasion as well as the attempts made by  Democratic Presidents Kennedy and Johnson when they deployed troops to Vietnam for the same reason. Democratic President Jimmy Carter instituted the Carter Doctrine in 1980 which made it the policy of the United States to take an aggressive stance in defending its national interests in the Middle East and gulf region. Presidents Reagan (Nicaragua, Panama), Bush (41) (Iraq, Kuwait) and Clinton (Bosnia, Iraq) all took military action against foreign countries either to challenge totalitarianism or preserve human rights.

MYTH #4 - The policy to liberate Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein from power was developed by the Bush 43 administration.

REALITY: It became the official policy of the United States of America under President Clinton in 1998 to support “regime change” in Iraq and support the removal of Saddam Hussein and the Ba’ath regime from power under the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-358, House Resolution 4655). After finding that Saddam Hussein was in violation of the cease fire conditions in U.N. Resolution 687, Congress and President Clinton also recognized that Iraq had denied weapons inspectors from the UN Special Commission on Iraq unfettered access to search for weapons of mass destruction. President Clinton and the Congress also recognized the many human rights violations that Saddam Hussein and the Ba’ath regime committed and decreed that “It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.” The Act’s stated purpose was “to establish a program to support a transition to democracy in Iraq.”

In February 1999, President Clinton selected 7 organizations that opposed Hussein to receive support from the Act including the Iraqi National Congress, Iraqi National Accord, Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, Movement for Constitutional Monarchy, Islamic Movement of Iraqi Kurdistan and the Kurdistan Democratic Party. The Act authorized the President to send humanitarian assistance and military assistance to train an army, but did not grant the President unilateral authority to send U.S. military force (President Bush did not act unilaterally in 2003 during Operation Iraqi Freedom since he had Congress’ approval to send troops). The Act also established that Congress and the President should call upon the U.N. to set up a war crimes tribunal to prosecute and punish Saddam Hussein and his Ba’ath regime and prepare a program to help Iraq transition to a democratic state after his removal.

In December 1998, only six weeks after the Act was passed, President Clinton and the United Kingdom launched Operation Desert Fox, a four day bombing campaign on Iraqi targets. Then US Secretary of State Madeline Albright justified the military attack, saying the US and UK were trying to “degrade” Hussein’s ability to use weapons of mass destruction. Albright explained that “The weapons of mass destruction are the threat of the future. I think the President [Clinton] explained very clearly that this is the threat of the 21st century.” The bombing campaign targeted Hussein’s elite Republican Guard, one of his royal palaces, air defense system command centers and weapons depots. Upon leaving office, President Clinton told incoming President Bush that he considered Hussein one of the most dangerous individuals in the world and warned that he would cause Bush “a world of problems.”

MYTH #5 - President Bush violated international law by starting a new war in Iraq in 2003.

REALITY: President Bush did not start a new war in 2003. The so-called 2003 Iraq War is actually a continuation of the original Gulf War that was authorized in 1990 by the United Nations. In Resolution 678, the UN authorized a coalition of the willing to use force against Iraq after it invaded Kuwait in 1990. In the wake of Operation Desert Storm in 1992, the UN suspended (not ended) the Gulf War by calling a cease fire in Resolution 687. Resolution 687 required Saddam Hussein to comply with conditions that included complete disarmament of weapons of mass destruction and allowing UN inspectors unlimited access to monitor Iraq’s weapons programs. Under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a party may suspend  a multilateral treaty (the effect of Resolution 687) if there has been a “material breach” of the terms of that treaty.

In 2002, the U.N. passed Resolution 1441 which determined that Iraq was not complying with the cease fire conditions and was in “material breach” of the terms of Resolution 687.  Resolution 1441 gave Iraq “a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations” and warned there would be “serious consequences” if it did not. During this time, UN weapons inspectors still faced obstacles and resistance from Iraqi officials to freely inspect for weapons of mass destruction, placing  Saddam Hussein in material breach of Resolution 687. As a result of  Iraq’s violation of Resolution 687,  the terms of  the cease fire no longer had to be honored by the U.N. Thus, any member state that felt threatened by this violation could act under two different theories of international law:

THEORY 1: THE GULF WAR NEVER  ENDED AND SADDAM HUSSEIN’S MATERIAL BREACH OF THE CEASE FIRE AGREEMENT REACTIVATED THE ORIGINAL WAR.

Once the cease fire prescribed in Resolution 687 came to an end, the original war authorized under Resolution 678 became active again. Since Resolution 1441 stated that nothing in the resolution was meant to “constrain any member state from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq,” it was once again legal for the United States and United Kingdom to initiate military action against Iraq (a number of other countries including Australia and Spain were also involved in the coalition of the willing). In other words, the only thing that suspended the war in U.N. Resolution 678 was the cease fire set out in U.N. Resolution 687. Once Saddam Hussein was deemed to be in “material breach” of Resolution 687, Resolution 678 was no longer suspended - nor was the war.

The U.N. Resolution chronology is as follows:

1990, Resolution 678: Authorization for the use of force against Iraq.

1992, Resolution 687: Cease fire of military action as long as Saddam Hussein complies with U.N. conditions.

2002, Resolution 1441: U.N. finds Saddam Hussein in ”material breach” of conditions in Resolution 687, thus reactivating Resolution 678, and authorizing the original use of force against Iraq.

THEORY 2: IRAQ PRESENTED AN IMMINENT THREAT TO OTHER MEMBER STATES UNDER ARTICLE 51 OF THE U.N. CHARTER.

Another theory of international law used by the U.S. that justified the use of force against Iraq came under Article 51 of the U.N. Charter that says that nothing in the U.N. Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self defense. This theory involves the ‘Caroline Doctrine’ which says a member state may use force against another members state if that state faces an imminent threat and other circumstances. These circumstances and elements are outlined in detail in MYTH 8.

MYTH #6 - President Bush violated domestic law and the U.S. Constitution by sending troops to Iraq in 2003.

REALITY: In October 2002 Congress passed the Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243) by a vote of 77-23 in the U.S. Senate. The resolution authorized the President to use whatever military force was necessary to “strictly enforce through the U.N. Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.” In 2003, the constitutionality of the Iraq Resolution and the President’s right to declare war was challenged in ruled in Doe v. Bush, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit dismissed the case. Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution authorizes Congress to declare war and Article II, Section 2 grants war powers to the President as commander and chief of the armed forces. In 1863, the U.S. Supreme Court actually ruled in the Prize cases that the President is actually “bound to resist force by force.” In the instance of Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003 however, Congress did authorize the President to use military force when they passed the Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.

MYTH #7 - President Bush lied about Saddam Hussein having the capability of building weapons of mass destruction.

REALITY: The actual reason as outlined in the Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 was to  “strictly enforce through the U.N. Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.” This decision came after the U.N. Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1441 which stated that Iraq was in “material breach” of the cease fire conditions prescribed in Resolution 687 and that there would be “serious consequences” if Iraq did not comply immediately. Iraq’s breach of Resolution 687 not only included the mandatory surrender of any weapons of mass destruction, but also prohibited the construction of prohibited missiles and attempted procurement of prohibited armaments while allowing U.N. weapons inspectors unfettered access to search for prohibited weapons and compensating Kuwait for the destruction and looting caused by Iraqi troops during the invasion of 1990.

During his 1998 State of the Union Address, President Clinton told the nation, “Together we must confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons, and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade and much of his nation’s wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. The United Nations weapons inspectors have done a truly remarkable job finding and destroying more of Iraq’s arsenal than was destroyed during the entire Gulf War. Now, Saddam Hussein wants to stop them from completing their mission. I know I speak for everyone in this chamber, Republicans and Democrats when I say to Saddam Hussein, you cannot defy the will of the world, and when I say to him, you have used weapons of mass destruction before - we are determined to deny you the use to use them again.”

In February 1998, several months before Congress and President Clinton passed the Iraq Liberation Act, President Clinton addressed the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff, and reported to them that Saddam Hussein had 2,000 gallons of anthrax, 25 biological-filled Scud warheads, 157 aerial bombs and 5,000 tons of botulinum, a nerve agent causing paralysis. Clinton accused Hussein of impeding UN weapons inspectors, saying:

“Over the past few months as [the weapons inspectors] have come 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 have not been inspected off limits. . .  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 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.”

Prior to Resolution 1441 being passed on Nov. 8, 2002, President Bush spoke before the U.N. General Assembly and specifically argued that in addition to concerns about Iraq’s armaments, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights had found “extremely grave” human rights violations in 2001 and that Iraq had violated economic sanctions as prescribed in U.N. Resolution 660. Concerns about Iraq illegally trying to acquire and build weapons of mass destruction stem from the fact that in 1990 Saddam Hussein stockpiled 550 tons of yellowcake uranium at the Tuwaitha nuclear complex, 12 miles south of Baghdad.

In 2002, evidence surfaced that Saddam Hussein was trying to acquire high-strength aluminum tubes which was also a violation of U.N. conditions. There were disputed viewpoints within the U.S. government as to what the tubes could be used for. The Department of Energy and Bureau of Intelligence Research did not believe that the tubes could be used to make enriched uranium for nuclear bombs, but the Bush administration had serious concerns. Many of the allegations made against the President for lying about Iraq stem from claims made by former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson. Wilson was sent by the CIA to Africa to investigate claims that Saddam Hussein was trying to acquire additional yellowcake uranium from Nigeria. After visiting Nigeria however, Wilson concluded that Hussein was not trying to buy uranium. Whether or not Saddam Hussein was trying to acquire more yellowcake uranium did not change the fact coalition allies already had intelligence that demonstrated he still possessed 550 tons of it before the 1990 Gulf War started.

Based on the already acquired yellowcake uranium from 1990, the unlawful attempt to procure aluminum tubes and the numerous violations of U.N. cease fire conditions prescribed in Resolution 687, coupled with the danger the U.S. faced in the wake of 9/11 from terrorist organizations that could have been in contact with Iraqi leadership, President Bush used the authorization granted to him by Congress and U.N. Resolution 678 to send troops back to Iraq. President Bush 41, President Clinton and President Bush 43 all had valid concerns based on intelligence reports that suggested Saddam Hussein had the capability of producing weapons of mass destruction. Hussein’s refusal to allow UN weapons inspectors full access to search for weapons of mass destruction coupled with his previous hostile and unpredictable actions, such as using weapons of mass destruction against his own people in Kurdistan during the genocidal al-Anfal campaign that killed up to 100,000 innocent civilians, the 1990 invasion of Kuwait and his suspected terrorist connections prompted both Democratic and Republican leaders to believe he was capable of building a sophisticated weapons program that could effectively be used against the United States or her allies.

It was unknown to the general public throughout most of President Bush’s presidency why Saddam Hussein obstructed UN weapons inspectors from having full access to search for weapons of mass destruction. Some analysts speculated the weapons are still there but have not been found while others suggest they were transported into Syria. The prevailing theory was that Hussein was trying to create the false impression he had weapons of mass destruction to intimidate Iran which had proven to be a dangerous enemy of Iraq’s during the 1980’s.

On July 5, 2008, the Associated Press reported that the 550 tons of yellowcake uranium Saddam Hussein acquired before the Gulf War was found and moved to energy processing plants in Ontario, Canada. Despite the criticism the President endured, the Bush administration kept the news of the yellowcake uranium secret until it was safely out of Iraq to prevent any of it from being seized by the insurgency. Since the Associated Press reported its confirmed discovery and transport however, there has been virtually no response from the national or international media to correct the historical record about the capabilities that Saddam Hussein actually had to build a program that was capable of producing weapons of mass destruction.

MYTH #8 - Since there were no weapons of mass destruction found, they never existed and thus Iraq did not present an imminent threat.

REALITY: As stated, Iraq already possessed 550 tons of yellowcake uranium at the Tuwaitha nuclear complex as well as the 2,000 gallons of anthrax, 25 biological-filled Scud warheads, 157 aerial bombs and 5,000 tons of botulinum that President Clinton briefed the Pentagon about in February 1998 prior to passing the Iraq Liberation Act. The question of whether or not Iraq presented an “imminent threat” is a theoretical one based on the interpretation of what’s known as the “Caroline Doctrine” under international case law stemming from Article 51 of the U.N. Charter.

Under Article 51, the International Court of Justice has ruled that a member state may use force or launch an attack on another member state if the other state presents a (1) grave threat (2) the primary purpose of using force is to avert that threat (3) the attack is the last resort (4) the means of force are proportional (under case law interpretation, this means a member state cannot use nuclear weapons unless they are being threatened with nuclear weapons) and (5) there must be a reasonable chance the use of force will succeed without calamitous consequences.

The first element requiring a “grave threat” is the part that refers to “imminence.” Did Iraq present a “grave threat?” Were they an imminent danger? What the Bush Doctrine is arguing is that the landscape of the Caroline Doctrine has changed in the age of terrorism. The technological sophistication of weapons of mass destruction and the willingness of rogue states (states that sponsor terrorism or illegally acquire weapons of mass destruction) or pariah states (states that engage in severe human rights abuse) to aid and arm terrorists with such weapons places legitimate, sovereign member states that are terrorist targets in a perpetual phase of facing imminent threat. (1) Based on the representations made by UN weapons inspectors, President Clinton and the intelligence obtained under President Bush 43 about yellowcake uranium, it was clear Iraq was capable of building a program to build weapons of mass destruction and therefore presented an imminent threat to other member states.

The primary purpose as prescribed by Congress’ 2002 Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution was to (2) avert that threat and under U.N. Resolution 1441, the world had (3) reached its last resort to compel Saddam Hussein to fully cooperate with weapons inspectors (U.N. Resolution 1441). Nuclear weapons were not used against Iraq, and therefore (4) the force was proportional. Saddam Hussein’s Ba’ath regime was removed from power within six weeks (March 20-April 30).  At this stage, the U.S. had lost 130 troops, the U.K. had lost 33 troops, coupled with the loss of 9,200 Iraqi soldiers and 7,299 civilians. Although these deaths are tragic, and there has been chaos and continued fighting launched by numerous insurgency movements, the consequences (5) have not fit the definition of “calamitous,” under international law.  Compare the following: Since Operation Iraqi Freedom was launched in 2003,  approximately 4,200 U.S. troops have been killed and approximately 1,000,000 Iraqi civilians have lost their lives. In the Korean War initiated by President Truman, nearly 40,000 U.S. troops were killed and an estimated 2,000,000 civilians died. During the Vietnam War initiated by President Kennedy and continued by President Johnson, 60,000 American troops were killed and over 5,000,000 civilians died.

MYTH #9 - The War on Terror was only about al-Qaeda and Afghanistan because Saddam Hussein did not present a terrorist threat.

REALITY: Iraq has engaged in acts of terrorism against the United States and also helped support and fund terrorists who have acted against Israel. In April 1993, Saddam Hussein attempted to have to have President Bush (41) assassinated while he was visiting Kuwait. President Clinton retaliated in June by firing 24 cruise missiles at the headquarters for the Iraqi intelligence service located in Baghdad’s Al Mansur district and destroying it. The assassination attempt only heightened concerns that Iraq was somehow tied to the February 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Iraqi affairs expert Laurie Mylorie and former CIA Director James Woolsey both professed their belief that the Ramzi Yousef, the architect of the 1993 bombing was tied to Iraqi intelligence service, but the connection was not proven and the allegation remains a highly controversial one. Although there is no evidence of an actual operational relationship between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence determined that members of Saddam Hussein’s Ba’athist regime met with al-Qaeda operatives in Sudan in 1995  and the 9/11 Commission Report makes mention of a non-aggression pact brokered between al-Qaeda and Iraq by a Sudanese terrorist operative. Saddam Hussein has also helped train and fund members of the Islamic Jihad Movement in Palestine, a terrorist organization that has received funding from Hezbollah, and is responsible for more than 30 suicide bombings to date.

MYTH #10 - The United States invaded Iraq to steal her oil.

REALITY: Ever since the commencement of Operation Iraqi Freedom in March 2003, there have been rumors and false accusations that President Bush used U.S. military forces to imperialistically invade Iraq to illegally seize her oil wells. Although this inference has become a popular urban legend throughout the world, there has never been any evidence or even any explanation how this fictitious scheme would work. The reality of what is happening with Iraq’s oil is under debate right now in the Iraqi Council of Representatives and the ultimate effect of the plan they’re considering will not be much different than what it was before.

Iraq’s oil was once under the control of the Iraq Petroleum Company with had partnerships with foreign oil companies such as BP, Chevron, Exxon, Mobil and Shell. However, in 1961 Iraq passed Public Law No. 80 which allowed Iraq to expropriate 95 percent of the Iraq Petroleum Company’s contracts. In 1964, Iraq created the Iraq National Oil Company and in 1967 signed the Iraq-Soviet Protocol in which the USSR committed financial and technical aid to the nationalized company. In 1972, Iraq’s entire oil supply was nationalized and was placed under direct control of President Saddam Hussein and the Arab Ba’ath Socialist Party through the Iraq National Oil Company. Unlike National Iranian Oil Company, the Iraq National Oil Company was prohibited from entering into any ‘production sharing agreements’ (PSAs) with western, private oil companies. Instead, they entered into an exclusive PSA with the Soviet Union giving the communist regime exclusive trade option over the second most plenary oil supply in the world (Saudi Arabia has the first). Production Sharing Agreements are a special contract entered into between a private corporate enterprise and a state government in which the government grants the company the right to extract natural resources at the company’s cost while splitting profits that come from the harvesting and sales of that resource. PSA’s were first used in Bolivia in the 1950’s and then Indonesia in the 1960’s. In PSAs, the company is allowed to recover expenses from what is called “cost oil” and is then typically allowed to keep a low percentage of “profit oil” with the remaining amount going to the government.

During the 1990’s, Saddam Hussein gave PSA’s to both Russian companies and Chinese enterprises with a profit percentage of less than 10 percent. In 2004, the Bush administration began working with the Iraqi cabinet and Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki to develop what is now being termed the Draft Oil Law. The Draft Oil Law will set up new PSA’s with foreign, private oil enterprises with 17 of Iraq’s 80 oil fields remaining under the control of the Iraq National Oil Company and the remaining 63 being open to private development. Under the new PSA, profit shares up to 12.5 percent will be available and contracts will be awarded by local provinces and governates with veto power held by the Iraqi national government. This will allow local areas to decide which oil companies, if any, they want to allow to develop oil in their province with the profit revenue being funneled through the country on a per capita basis. This simply means that a similar type of arrangement will be established as before, except that private oil companies instead of (the now defunct) Soviet Union or enterprises exclusively in China and Russia will be able to enter into PSAs. However, most of the profit will still go to the Iraqi people.

Good stuff. I don’t think I ever really understood the Iraq war, that was very helpful.

Sometimes - most people don’t.  It’s easy to take what the media says and what lawmakers with an agenda say and not dig deeper.

For instance, if the Iraq war were considered a success by the Democrats, do you really think that they would have had the sweeping majorities that they did?

Morean - Thank you. Lawrence - F*ck you.

Morean - Thank you. Lawrence - F*ck you.

Morean - Thank you. Lawrence - F*ck you.

How the hell am I liberal ? Wow you are an idiot.

I’m pretty sure Ron is not even close to being a liberal.

How the hell am I liberal ? Wow you are an idiot.

Got to love a snow day - got like 3 feet outside and there’s nowhere to put it. So, I have time to read through all of morean’s post and I agree with most of it…with a few exceptions:



1. WMD is the media term used to strike fear into the public by implying nuclear - We knew he had chemical & biological weapons because we were his supplier. He had them for 30 years and only used them when he was losing a war.



What’s ironic is we probably wouldn’t have attacked if we believed he did have a viable chemical and biological arsenal. He could have killed tens of thousands of our troops if he still had some of the stuff he used against Iran. Once we were sure he didn’t have “WMDs”, that’s when we invaded.



2. Iraq once had a sophisticated and powerful military. But we knew they didn’t in 2003. I wouldn’t be surprised if they started lobbing corpses with small pox when we invaded.



3. If you really believe oil did not play a role, then you must also be on your soap box rallying for us to invade Somalia and Sudan for the same reasons you rally for the invasion of Iraq. I’ve never been to their rape rooms, but I hear they are not nice.



4. The US & GB provided almost 300,000 troops. The rest of the world provided 20,000, mostly non-combat troops. They probably passed those international troops around like a black at the RNC convention to give the spirit of an international coalition. f***ing Iceland sent two chicks! (I hope they were whores!)



5. I know about India/Pakistan - that’s why I said it would be monumental. Imagine this, if Bush had India, China and Russia in the coalition, Iraq would be fighting with one half of the world. Makes shock & awe look like child’s play. I believe a heroic leader would have found a way to pull this off.



6. I think saying I “betrayed his efforts” is unfair. I’m not betraying anyone. I’m just holding my elected officials to a high standard. Somewhere between 25-50% of my income tax goes to support our military. I expect perfection!



7. I don’t know the source of your information; but I’m going to call BS on the line that we found yellow cake uranium in Iraq in 2008 and decided to keep it a secret until it was moved to Canada.



The worst thing George W. Bush did is ruin our standing in the world (and ruin our economy). Finding uranium and proving to the world that our invasion was honest and just would have been a crowning achievement in his presidency. FAIL!

Got to love a snow day - got like 3 feet outside and there’s nowhere to put it. So, I have time to read through all of morean’s post and I agree with most of it…with a few exceptions:

1. WMD is the media term used to strike fear into the public by implying nuclear - We knew he had chemical & biological weapons because we were his supplier. He had them for 30 years and only used them when he was losing a war.

What’s ironic is we probably wouldn’t have attacked if we believed he did have a viable chemical and biological arsenal. He could have killed tens of thousands of our troops if he still had some of the stuff he used against Iran. Once we were sure he didn’t have “WMDs”, that’s when we invaded.

2. Iraq once had a sophisticated and powerful military. But we knew they didn’t in 2003. I wouldn’t be surprised if they started lobbing corpses with small pox when we invaded.

3. If you really believe oil did not play a role, then you must also be on your soap box rallying for us to invade Somalia and Sudan for the same reasons you rally for the invasion of Iraq. I’ve never been to their rape rooms, but I hear they are not nice.

4. The US & GB provided almost 300,000 troops. The rest of the world provided 20,000, mostly non-combat troops. They probably passed those international troops around like a black at the RNC convention to give the spirit of an international coalition. f***ing Iceland sent two chicks! (I hope they were whores!)

5. I know about India/Pakistan - that’s why I said it would be monumental. Imagine this, if Bush had India, China and Russia in the coalition, Iraq would be fighting with one half of the world. Makes shock & awe look like child’s play. I believe a heroic leader would have found a way to pull this off.

6. I think saying I “betrayed his efforts” is unfair. I’m not betraying anyone. I’m just holding my elected officials to a high standard. Somewhere between 25-50% of my income tax goes to support our military. I expect perfection!

7. I don’t know the source of your information; but I’m going to call BS on the line that we found yellow cake uranium in Iraq in 2008 and decided to keep it a secret until it was moved to Canada.

The worst thing George W. Bush did is ruin our standing in the world (and ruin our economy). Finding uranium and proving to the world that our invasion was honest and just would have been a crowning achievement in his presidency. FAIL!

[quote=Lawrence]Got to love a snow day - got like 3 feet outside and there’s nowhere to put it. So, I have time to read through all of morean’s post and I agree with most of it…with a few exceptions: 1. WMD is the media term used to strike fear into the public by implying nuclear - We knew he had chemical & biological weapons because we were his supplier. He had them for 30 years and only used them when he was losing a war. What’s ironic is we probably wouldn’t have attacked if we believed he did have a viable chemical and biological arsenal. He could have killed tens of thousands of our troops if he still had some of the stuff he used against Iran. Once we were sure he didn’t have “WMDs”, that’s when we invaded. 2. Iraq once had a sophisticated and powerful military. But we knew they didn’t in 2003. I wouldn’t be surprised if they started lobbing corpses with small pox when we invaded. 3. If you really believe oil did not play a role, then you must also be on your soap box rallying for us to invade Somalia and Sudan for the same reasons you rally for the invasion of Iraq. I’ve never been to their rape rooms, but I hear they are not nice. 4. The US & GB provided almost 300,000 troops. The rest of the world provided 20,000, mostly non-combat troops. They probably passed those international troops around like a black at the RNC convention to give the spirit of an international coalition. f***ing Iceland sent two chicks! (I hope they were whores!) 5. I know about India/Pakistan - that’s why I said it would be monumental. Imagine this, if Bush had India, China and Russia in the coalition, Iraq would be fighting with one half of the world. Makes shock & awe look like child’s play. I believe a heroic leader would have found a way to pull this off. 6. I think saying I “betrayed his efforts” is unfair. I’m not betraying anyone. I’m just holding my elected officials to a high standard. Somewhere between 25-50% of my income tax goes to support our military. I expect perfection! 7. I don’t know the source of your information; but I’m going to call BS on the line that we found yellow cake uranium in Iraq in 2008 and decided to keep it a secret until it was moved to Canada. The worst thing George W. Bush did is ruin our standing in the world (and ruin our economy). Finding uranium and proving to the world that our invasion was honest and just would have been a crowning achievement in his presidency. FAIL!

[quote=Lawrence]Got to love a snow day - got like 3 feet outside and there’s nowhere to put it. So, I have time to read through all of morean’s post and I agree with most of it…with a few exceptions:



1. WMD is the media term used to strike fear into the public by implying nuclear - We knew he had chemical & biological weapons because we were his supplier. He had them for 30 years and only used them when he was losing a war.



What’s ironic is we probably wouldn’t have attacked if we believed he did have a viable chemical and biological arsenal. He could have killed tens of thousands of our troops if he still had some of the stuff he used against Iran. Once we were sure he didn’t have “WMDs”, that’s when we invaded.   
Our soldiers are trained in countermeasures for biological and chemical weapons.  The fact that I saw with my own eyes thousands of mortar rounds with mustard gas in them is proof.  Or you can ask Marcus Lutrell, who was actually tasked with it.


2. Iraq once had a sophisticated and powerful military. But we knew they didn’t in 2003. I wouldn’t be surprised if they started lobbing corpses with small pox when we invaded.
Totally untrue.  By our standards, yes.  But if you went in there like John Wayne, you would gotten your a$$ destroyed.


3. If you really believe oil did not play a role, then you must also be on your soap box rallying for us to invade Somalia and Sudan for the same reasons you rally for the invasion of Iraq. I’ve never been to their rape rooms, but I hear they are not nice.
Once again, my belief is that Iraq was a better ground to stand upon and made more strategic sense than Sudan or Somalia.  Also, if you think we don’t have troops in Somalia and Sudan it is once again because you don’t know the facts.  My brother lost his life carrying Delta and STS into those areas in 2005. 


4. The US & GB provided almost 300,000 troops. The rest of the world provided 20,000, mostly non-combat troops. They probably passed those international troops around like a black at the RNC convention to give the spirit of an international coalition. f***ing Iceland sent two chicks! (I hope they were whores!)  
Of course we provided 300,000 troops.  We would be commanding the coalition.  For you to say that it wasn’t a coalition is wholly inaccurate.  Also, if you think women can’t fight, you aren’t married.  I saw a woman save a convoy by driving her HET through 7 houses to create an escape route out of a kill zone.


5. I know about India/Pakistan - that’s why I said it would be monumental. Imagine this, if Bush had India, China and Russia in the coalition, Iraq would be fighting with one half of the world. Makes shock & awe look like child’s play. I believe a heroic leader would have found a way to pull this off.
And I believe that doesn’t grasp the reality of the situation.


6. I think saying I “betrayed his efforts” is unfair. I’m not betraying anyone. I’m just holding my elected officials to a high standard. Somewhere between 25-50% of my income tax goes to support our military. I expect perfection!  
More than that goes to the military.  Expecting perfection?  Lawrence I don’t know your background, but our military is far from perfect.  But if you think you can do better, pick up a rifle and get on line.


7. I don’t know the source of your information; but I’m going to call BS on the line that we found yellow cake uranium in Iraq in 2008 and decided to keep it a secret until it was moved to Canada.  
Call as much B.S. as you want.  The truth hurts some time.


The worst thing George W. Bush did is ruin our standing in the world (and ruin our economy). Finding uranium and proving to the world that our invasion was honest and just would have been a crowning achievement in his presidency. FAIL!



[/quote]

Bush stood up for America is what he did.  Everybody hates the guy on top.  People hate Steve Jobs and Bill Gates because they are on top.  People hate Warren Buffet (Talib) because he’s on top.  Bush put America on top as a power. 

President Bush sacrificed his popularity for National Security.  

What I find odd is that I provided actual House Resolutions and historical facts to back up what I said.  And you just put out your opinion.

That’s a rather weak position to be in, I don’t think you can call Ron weak.

Bring some proof that doesn’t come from MSNBC or the Huffington post.

And it IS a betrayal of a man who worked hard to keep us safe.  I hate taking orders from anybody, but President Bush, despite his faults, will always be a hero to me.

He didn’t ruin the economy by the way.  Barney Frank did.

Here’s a source even a liberal should trust.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25546334/

[quote=Lawrence]Got to love a snow day - got like 3 feet outside and there’s nowhere to put it. So, I have time to read through all of morean’s post and I agree with most of it…with a few exceptions:

1. WMD is the media term used to strike fear into the public by implying nuclear - We knew he had chemical & biological weapons because we were his supplier. He had them for 30 years and only used them when he was losing a war.

What’s ironic is we probably wouldn’t have attacked if we believed he did have a viable chemical and biological arsenal. He could have killed tens of thousands of our troops if he still had some of the stuff he used against Iran. Once we were sure he didn’t have “WMDs”, that’s when we invaded.

2. Iraq once had a sophisticated and powerful military. But we knew they didn’t in 2003. I wouldn’t be surprised if they started lobbing corpses with small pox when we invaded.

3. If you really believe oil did not play a role, then you must also be on your soap box rallying for us to invade Somalia and Sudan for the same reasons you rally for the invasion of Iraq. I’ve never been to their rape rooms, but I hear they are not nice.

4. The US & GB provided almost 300,000 troops. The rest of the world provided 20,000, mostly non-combat troops. They probably passed those international troops around like a black at the RNC convention to give the spirit of an international coalition. f***ing Iceland sent two chicks! (I hope they were whores!)

5. I know about India/Pakistan - that’s why I said it would be monumental. Imagine this, if Bush had India, China and Russia in the coalition, Iraq would be fighting with one half of the world. Makes shock & awe look like child’s play. I believe a heroic leader would have found a way to pull this off.

6. I think saying I “betrayed his efforts” is unfair. I’m not betraying anyone. I’m just holding my elected officials to a high standard. Somewhere between 25-50% of my income tax goes to support our military. I expect perfection!

7. I don’t know the source of your information; but I’m going to call BS on the line that we found yellow cake uranium in Iraq in 2008 and decided to keep it a secret until it was moved to Canada.

The worst thing George W. Bush did is ruin our standing in the world (and ruin our economy). Finding uranium and proving to the world that our invasion was honest and just would have been a crowning achievement in his presidency. FAIL!

[quote=Moraen]

[quote=Lawrence]Got to love a snow day - got like 3 feet outside and there’s nowhere to put it. So, I have time to read through all of morean’s post and I agree with most of it…with a few exceptions:



1. WMD is the media term used to strike fear into the public by implying nuclear - We knew he had chemical & biological weapons because we were his supplier. He had them for 30 years and only used them when he was losing a war.



What’s ironic is we probably wouldn’t have attacked if we believed he did have a viable chemical and biological arsenal. He could have killed tens of thousands of our troops if he still had some of the stuff he used against Iran. Once we were sure he didn’t have “WMDs”, that’s when we invaded.    

Our soldiers are trained in countermeasures for biological and chemical weapons. The fact that I saw with my own eyes thousands of mortar rounds with mustard gas in them is proof. Or you can ask Marcus Lutrell, who was actually tasked with it.

2. Iraq once had a sophisticated and powerful military. But we knew they didn’t in 2003. I wouldn’t be surprised if they started lobbing corpses with small pox when we invaded.

Totally untrue. By our standards, yes. But if you went in there like John Wayne, you would gotten your a$$ destroyed.

3. If you really believe oil did not play a role, then you must also be on your soap box rallying for us to invade Somalia and Sudan for the same reasons you rally for the invasion of Iraq. I’ve never been to their rape rooms, but I hear they are not nice.

Once again, my belief is that Iraq was a better ground to stand upon and made more strategic sense than Sudan or Somalia. Also, if you think we don’t have troops in Somalia and Sudan it is once again because you don’t know the facts. My brother lost his life carrying Delta and STS into those areas in 2005.

4. The US & GB provided almost 300,000 troops. The rest of the world provided 20,000, mostly non-combat troops. They probably passed those international troops around like a black at the RNC convention to give the spirit of an international coalition. f***ing Iceland sent two chicks! (I hope they were whores!)

Of course we provided 300,000 troops. We would be commanding the coalition. For you to say that it wasn’t a coalition is wholly inaccurate. Also, if you think women can’t fight, you aren’t married. I saw a woman save a convoy by driving her HET through 7 houses to create an escape route out of a kill zone.

5. I know about India/Pakistan - that’s why I said it would be monumental. Imagine this, if Bush had India, China and Russia in the coalition, Iraq would be fighting with one half of the world. Makes shock & awe look like child’s play. I believe a heroic leader would have found a way to pull this off.

And I believe that doesn’t grasp the reality of the situation.

6. I think saying I “betrayed his efforts” is unfair. I’m not betraying anyone. I’m just holding my elected officials to a high standard. Somewhere between 25-50% of my income tax goes to support our military. I expect perfection!

More than that goes to the military. Expecting perfection? Lawrence I don’t know your background, but our military is far from perfect. But if you think you can do better, pick up a rifle and get on line.

7. I don’t know the source of your information; but I’m going to call BS on the line that we found yellow cake uranium in Iraq in 2008 and decided to keep it a secret until it was moved to Canada.

Call as much B.S. as you want. The truth hurts some time.

The worst thing George W. Bush did is ruin our standing in the world (and ruin our economy). Finding uranium and proving to the world that our invasion was honest and just would have been a crowning achievement in his presidency. FAIL!



[/quote]Bush stood up for America is what he did. Everybody hates the guy on top. People hate Steve Jobs and Bill Gates because they are on top. People hate Warren Buffet (Talib) because he’s on top. Bush put America on top as a power. President Bush sacrificed his popularity for National Security. What I find odd is that I provided actual House Resolutions and historical facts to back up what I said. And you just put out your opinion.That’s a rather weak position to be in, I don’t think you can call Ron weak.Bring some proof that doesn’t come from MSNBC or the Huffington post.And it IS a betrayal of a man who worked hard to keep us safe. I hate taking orders from anybody, but President Bush, despite his faults, will always be a hero to me.He didn’t ruin the economy by the way. Barney Frank did.[/quote]



For all that you and your family have gone through, I hope you are right.

I’m sorry to hear about your brother.

Thank you for the sentiments.  He died doing what he loved, for the country he loved, in a cause he believed in, for a President he believed in. 

If he had a choice that was how he wanted to go.  If I had a choice, he’d still be flying those missions.

My family and friends are centered around NYC. I have lived in this area my whole life. On 9/11 I was in Manhattan (on West 4th street). I missed the first plane, but caught the second, the jumpers and both collapses. You can’t imagine what that does in your mind. I was wondering if the city would be carpet-bombed - or if there was a nuclear device somewhere. So I hopped on a train to a friend’s house in CT. It wasn’t until I saw the F-14 fighters circling the city that I felt anything close to calm.



It turned out, I was lucky, everyone I am close to survived. I have 2 friends who survived by getting out of 1 WTC 74th floor before it collapsed, but everyone survived.



The day after I was back in the city. I wanted to volunteer with the recovery/rescue effort so I joined a group who were handing out food and drink to rescuers. NYC has over 35,000 rescue personnel, so it wasn’t necessary for me to climb on the pile - and I really am not qualified for that. I just handed out food and drink as the rescuers walked towards the west side highway to board buses to go home - I also had 2 cases of beer that I bought (a Pakistani cab driver gave me a free ride to pick up the beer); if anyone asked for a beer - they got a beer. The beer went quick.



By the evening of the 12th, everyone got moved above 14th street (away from the pile). For the next week, I went to Union Square every day and looked at the pictures which were posted of missing friends and family. I knew that at this point, anyone who was missing was most likely dead; but, whenever I was handed a flier, I would still say something positive like, “I will hold on to this and if I see him/her, I will give you a call.” There were so many people 20-35 years old walking around with fliers, banners, signs, etc. The look in their eyes is something I will never forget. Hundreds of people with pictures of their wives, husbands, brothers, sisters, friends. People who looked just like me - but had this terrible misfortune.



As the weeks went on, there were funerals…lots of funerals. I would say for a whole month, a day didn’t go by where someone I knew did not have to go to a funeral. And real sad sh*t too. A client who I worked with for a year had to cancel a meeting for his son’s funeral - two weeks earlier he was telling me about planning for his son’s wedding.



After going through this, every single ounce of my body wanted to do whatever was necessary to get back at the people who did this to us. We knew it was Bin Laden and we knew he was in Pakistan/Afghanistan. I wanted us to unleash the full fury and power of the US military on this area and bring him down. I wanted his head on a stake!



I thought everything was being handled perfectly and Bush clearly deserved more than his 90% approval rating. Then, I heard we were going to invade Iraq. I think I wouldn’t have been any more surprised if he announced we were going to the Moon. I was hoping that there was, somehow, a connection between Bin Laden and Iraq - but there just wasn’t.



And now, almost 9 years later, the person responsible for knocking down my favorite buildings is still free. And I don’t like it. So, when I say Bush failed, this is is what I really mean - and this is all that matters to me.

Afghanistan is very difficult terrain.  By putting the “full fury” of the U.S. there, you risk more lives.  Sometimes you have to be exposed for hours on cliff faces where your entire platoon could be destroyed by al Quaeda.  In this case, less is more. 

Bin Laden got away, but we have put a hurting on terror in the past nine years.  In part because so many were killed or captured in Iraq.  The problem is public opinion and the American people are fickle. 

And also, like those who overextended on credit because they couldn’t save up to buy the TV, Americans are impatient.

Good for you for what you did.  It needs to last beyond tragedies, but good for you nonetheless.

[quote=Moraen] Afghanistan is very difficult terrain. By putting the “full fury” of the U.S. there, you risk more lives. Sometimes you have to be exposed for hours on cliff faces where your entire platoon could be destroyed by al Quaeda. In this case, less is more. Bin Laden got away, but we have put a hurting on terror in the past nine years. In part because so many were killed or captured in Iraq. The problem is public opinion and the American people are fickle. And also, like those who overextended on credit because they couldn’t save up to buy the TV, Americans are impatient.Good for you for what you did. It needs to last beyond tragedies, but good for you nonetheless.

[/quote]



All valid points - but to me, these are the points that are expressed by people who make excuses.



I know it is difficult. Just get it done!

I’m a veteran and I supported GW up until the last two years of his presidency. I feel that we were misled by our leaders, who proved to be incompetent. I hoped that the mission in Iraq would stabilize the Middle East. If we knew that the war would last for eight years, and still have no real resolution in sight, nobody would have supported it. And I mean no disrespect on the military and the great job they have done. The real problem is the cowboy attitude we Americans have, and our complete lack of respect for and understanding of Islamic culture. It’s too easy to start a war like the two we’re fighting, and almost impossible to stop one. If there were a draft instead of volunteers, ther would be rioting in the streets just like during the Vietnam conflict(another war that we lost).

I notice that no one refutes the points I made.  That it was right and necessary to go into Iraq.  That even MSNBC can’t hide the fact that they pulled yellowcake uranium out of Iraq.

That story has been buried.  That of course, was when the election was going on, but you sure didn’t hear anybody, Democrat or Republican pointing it out.  Democrats would not give Bush credit for a single thing, and Republicans betrayed their leader by cowering and avoiding him like the plague.

Wars are not quick.  Especially a war on an idea.  Terrorism isn’t a state that can be invaded and taken over.  It’s an idea that needs to be dealt with where it exists.  And the fight may take my lifetime or my children’s.  I would rather that it take my lifetime though.

It is safe to say none of you were against the war at the outset. Now all of the sudden it was a terrible idea, AFTER THE FACT. Well done, be proud, I also knew the Saints would win the Super Bowl this year! That is the problem today. Everyone is a fricking Monday Morning Quarterback. Nobody has any opinion or stance, but then they hear the news, which is always critical and they pile on because that is the popular slant.

It is safe to say none of you were against the war at the outset. Now all of the sudden it was a terrible idea, AFTER THE FACT. Well done, be proud, I also knew the Saints would win the Super Bowl this year! That is the problem today. Everyone is a fricking Monday Morning Quarterback. Nobody has any opinion or stance, but then they hear the news, which is always critical and they pile on because that is the popular slant.

Nice story Larry, I'm sure there are 3,000 families out there who want the murderer who killed their sons, daughters, fathers, mothers and friends to finally be brought to justice.

[quote=Ron 14]It is safe to say none of you were against the war at the outset. Now all of the sudden it was a terrible idea, AFTER THE FACT. Well done, be proud, I also knew the Saints would win the Super Bowl this year! That is the problem today. Everyone is a fricking Monday Morning Quarterback. Nobody has any opinion or stance, but then they hear the news, which is always critical and they pile on because that is the popular slant.

Nice story Larry, I'm sure there are 3,000 families out there who want the murderer who killed their sons, daughters, fathers, mothers and friends to finally be brought to justice.

Over in a few weeks ? Yeah, ok.  He never said that. You are so far gone it isn’t even worth arguing with you.

March 4, Air Force Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, at a breakfast with reporters: "What you'd like to do is have it be a short, short conflict. . . . Iraq is much weaker than they were back in the '90s," when its forces were routed from Kuwait.

* March 11, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, in a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars: "The Iraqi people understand what this crisis is about. Like the people of France in the 1940s, they view us as their hoped-for liberator."

* March 16, Vice President Cheney, on NBC's Meet the Press: "I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. . . . I think it will go relatively quickly, . . . (in) weeks rather than months." He predicted that regular Iraqi soldiers would not "put up such a struggle" and that even "significant elements of the Republican Guard . . . are likely to step aside."

I say you left a lot of out of that quote.  That’s how it works, haters and wishy-washy people leave words out.

And we were greeted as liberators. 

I say you left a lot of out of that quote.  That’s how it works, haters and wishy-washy people leave words out.
And we were greeted as liberators. 

[quote=Billy Mays]We are trying to rape their homeland for the benefit of a few (look at history - this is the reality of every war). Our mission is not noble and they know this.

There's just no way around the fact that you're an imbecile, Billy.

[quote=Moraen]I say you left a lot of out of that quote.  That’s how it works, haters and wishy-washy people leave words out.
And we were greeted as liberators. 

I agree, everyone does what is in their best interest. Obama is doing what is in his best interest right now. The reason I like him is I believe his #1 concern, over any other, is to do great things for our country. He will always be remembered as the first black president; I believe he also wants to be remembered as one of our great presidents (for him, this is his best interest). Sure, we all will disagree with some of the steps he is taking - but I will never believe he is taking these steps to cater to a constituency. I believe his only goal is greatness.

By the way, Tim Russert's the dead guy. You are quoting Matthews with the stirring in his loins over Obama. (disturbing, in the least - and probably gay).

[quote=Billy Mays]

I agree, everyone does what is in their best interest. Obama is doing what is in his best interest right now. The reason I like him is I believe his #1 concern, over any other, is to do great things for our country. He will always be remembered as the first black president; I believe he also wants to be remembered as one of our great presidents (for him, this is his best interest). Sure, we all will disagree with some of the steps he is taking - but I will never believe he is taking these steps to cater to a constituency. I believe his only goal is greatness.

By the way, Tim Russert's the dead guy. You are quoting Matthews with the stirring in his loins over Obama. (disturbing, in the least - and probably gay).

I believe Bush/Cheney used September 11 to start the war which best served their constituents; and by constituents, I mean Halliburton, etc. (note: Halliburton is the poster child, but there’s many others). Like rankstocks said, Cheney’s assets are in a blind trust.  Halliburton was one of the best equipped companies to handle the logistics of such an undertaking.

[quote=Moraen] I believe Bush/Cheney used September 11 to start the war which best served their constituents; and by constituents, I mean Halliburton, etc. (note: Halliburton is the poster child, but there’s many others). Like rankstocks said, Cheney’s assets are in a blind trust.  Halliburton was one of the best equipped companies to handle the logistics of such an undertaking.

The point is the main culprit who caused 9/11 the taliban is still at large. Sure they have brought down a few of the main players, but the organization is still flourishing. Added to that the US had no real and credible reason to attack iraq ( i am not supporting iraq) without finishing off the talliban. I mean considering the cost of the war little has been achieved. Added to the US soldiers lost in the war , it has been a single handed disaster. Without totally running Taliban into the ground, i think fighting a war simultaneously in Iraq and Afghanistan has been the main reason of the failure. But that’s just my 2 cents