# A Letter to Senator Bob Smith - September 2002



## michaeledward (Apr 23, 2004)

I sent this letter to Senator Smith prior to the election of 2002. Senator Smith lost the election .... Anyhow ... here it is.



			
				A letter to Senator Bob Smith - September 2002 said:
			
		

> Dear Mr. Smith,
> 
> I am writing to request that you vote against the upcoming action authorizing military force against the sovereign nation of Iraq.
> 
> ...


----------



## Cameron (Apr 23, 2004)

Interesting letter.  I am curious, would you also be against using force against the sovereign nation of Germany in 1939?  Were you against the use of force against the sovereign nation of Somalia in 1993?  Or the sovereign nation of Hati in 1994?  Or the sovereign nation of Bosnia in 1995?  Or the sovereign nation of Serbia in 1999?



The reason I ask is that over the past few years I have seen many people who were conspicuously quiet during the Clinton administration speak out against war now.  I would be interested in seeing your letters to Senators during the Clinton administration voicing your concerns for the sovereignty of the above mentioned nations.





And dont get mad, you started it :wink1:


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 23, 2004)

Cameron said:
			
		

> Interesting letter.  I am curious, would you also be against using force against the sovereign nation of Germany in 1939?  Were you against the use of force against the sovereign nation of Somalia in 1993?  Or the sovereign nation of Hati in 1994?  Or the sovereign nation of Bosnia in 1995?  Or the sovereign nation of Serbia in 1999?



It is fallacious on your part to connect the actions of a superpower like Germany in 1939 to current military actions taken durning the Clinton administration.  Those situations have distinct historical differences.  Also, the situations in which Clinton presided over were not "pre-emptive".  This doctrine of "pre-emption" is something wholley intruduced by the Bush administration.  This doctrine was created in a Neo-Conservative think tank called the Plan for the New American Century.  Which means that the Bush administration is completely responsible for EVERYTHING that subsequently occurs regarding this new doctrine.  And it is very important for the history books to note this.


----------



## OULobo (Apr 23, 2004)

Cameron said:
			
		

> Interesting letter.  I am curious, would you also be against using force against the sovereign nation of Germany in 1939?  Were you against the use of force against the sovereign nation of Somalia in 1993?  Or the sovereign nation of Hati in 1994?  Or the sovereign nation of Bosnia in 1995?  Or the sovereign nation of Serbia in 1999?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Many of the examples you give are situations that involved the invasion of other sovereign nations (Germany, Bosnia, Serbia). I won't argue that Somalia was a clusterf*** and a bad choice in use of force. Hati like current issues in Dom. Rep. is a door step issue. Americans hate unrest in their front yard, which is why I'm amazed we haven't jumped on Cuba harder. The other issue here is one of humanitarian cause, which is valid in all the above examples. The problem I think that Micheal has is in the inconsistancy of our decisions to get involved. Why haven't we charged into Korea, Cuba, all the small unstable African nations, ect.? Why instead did we choose Iraq? Was it mabey other less noble reasons, like a personal grudge, oil demands, the distraction that a war can cause, military profiteering, ect. It's hard to voice concern about the Clinton era war actions when there very few significant ones.


----------



## Cameron (Apr 23, 2004)

Our attack against Germany was in fact pre-emptive. Japan attacked the US and we declared war on Germany. It was not until years after the war started did we fully grasp the horrors Germany inflicted on not only the Jews but many others as well.


What threat to the United States was Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia or Serbia? Im not saying I am for or against the war in Iraq but if your going to pull the sovereignty card, they explain what the differences are between Iraq and the nations I just mentioned? If it was okay for Clinton to attack, why not Bush? 


Iraq violated more then 17 UN resolutions before we attacked them. When Clinton bombed Iraq, where was the outrage from the Left? 


Its okay to be against the war. Its okay to protest. All I ask is dont be a hypocrite about it (Im not saying you are).


Again, I am not saying I am for or against. All I am saying is that many people I hear protesting the war in Iraq were silent when Clinton was bombing them and when we were in the other nations I mentions. Further, I am not saying Clinton made a bad choice in going into these countries.


OULobo says ___It's hard to voice concern about the Clinton era war actions when there very few significant ones._ Define significant? One could easily cite humanitarian reasons for us being in Iraq. Is that good enough? Probably not. Is it that we have so many troops there? If thats it, what is the cutoff? Would 100,000 troops be okay? 20,000? 100? Ya see my point?Why was it okay to go into Bosnia and not Iraq?


I guess the question I am trying to ask is, when is it okay to invade a country? Is it every okay if that country is not an imminent threat to the US ?

I hope I am not offending anyone. I truly respect your opinions and enjoy these types of discussions. I feel, if we can discuss these things like adults, we can all grow just a little.


----------



## loki09789 (Apr 23, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> This doctrine of "pre-emption" is something wholley intruduced by the Bush administration.  This doctrine was created in a Neo-Conservative think tank called the Plan for the New American Century.  Which means that the Bush administration is completely responsible for EVERYTHING that subsequently occurs regarding this new doctrine.  And it is very important for the history books to note this.



As voters and citizens, aren't we carrying some of the 'blame' since we are one nation?  Who sat back and let things get to this state.  If it is a government of/for/by the people, we all are contributing in someway to the problems as well as the future reforms.

On the issue of 'pre - emptive' practices, the Bay of Pigs/CIA planted protestors in CUBA and such were not 'pre-emptive' actions.  Though not out right war, it was actively sparking the events.  Of course the Bay of Pigs was initiated with the assumption that there would be US support....oops.


Even on a personal level of self defense, most state penal codes don't require you to wait for the Bad guy to throw the first strike, you just have to be able to reasonably percieve a threat in order to be justified (of course you better know what it takes to make sure your ducks are in a row on this point).  
In this day and age, with the pace of technology, do we really have to wait until N.Korea drops a nuc before we are justified to take action?  Should we wait for another 9/11 (well Spain already got theirs) to happen in order to be justified?

As far as proof of terrorist links in Iraq/WMD.  I agree that the findings in evidence are woefully thin right now, but SHussein had a hell of a long stretch to get rid of stuff to show that link. And BTW if you really examin the current tactic of hostage taking, none of these Iraq based hostage holding terrorists are trying to leverage for the release of SHussein with their civilian/military hostages... but are focusing on the US standing down or releasing their own.  THey are in Iraq, operating as usual.  It might not be a PDB, but it smacks of some proof of terrorist/Iraqi relations to me.


----------



## OULobo (Apr 23, 2004)

Cameron said:
			
		

> Our attack against Germany was in fact pre-emptive. Japan attacked the US and we declared war on Germany. It was not until years after the war started did we fully grasp the horrors Germany inflicted on not only the Jews but many others as well.



Still we attacked Germany during Germany's drive of invasion that included and threatened allies of the US. 



			
				Cameron said:
			
		

> What threat to the United States was Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia or Serbia? Im not saying I am for or against the war in Iraq but if your going to pull the sovereignty card, they explain what the differences are between Iraq and the nations I just mentioned? If it was okay for Clinton to attack, why not Bush?



Let's also remember that we do take many actions with motivation from the UN. 



			
				Cameron said:
			
		

> Iraq violated more then 17 UN resolutions before we attacked them. When Clinton bombed Iraq, where was the outrage from the Left?



I may be a little ignorant here but, Clinton bombed Iraq?

I personally liked the idea of hitting Iraq, I just don't like the method. I am for the most part an all or nothing man. I have no problem going into Iraq for humanitarian reasons, but there are greater threats and more vile dictators to attack if we are going to take that policy. N. Korea is ramping up nuclear production and bold faced in telling us that they are pointing thier weapons directly at us. They outright threaten our well being everyday and verbalize these unveiled threats at every opportunity. If Bush is all about humanitarian causes, then go to Korea; if he is about WMD, then go to Korea; if he is about threats against our sovereignty, then go to Korea. All arrows point to actions against N. Korea and Kim, but he chooses to attack someone who took a pot shot a papa and has a good chunk of the world's oil, all the while claiming terroistic ties and WMDs that never materialized. Hmmmmm.



			
				Cameron said:
			
		

> OULobo says "It's hard to voice concern about the Clinton era war actions when there very few significant ones. Define significant? One could easily cite humanitarian reasons for us being in Iraq. Is that good enough? Probably not. Is it that we have so many troops there? If thats it, what is the cutoff? Would 100,000 troops be okay? 20,000? 100? Ya see my point? Why was it okay to go into Bosnia and not Iraq?



The only action of Clinton's I can think of, and again I may be a little ignorant here, that didn't have UN backing was the Osama missile fiasco. 



			
				Cameron said:
			
		

> I guess the question I am trying to ask is, when is it okay to invade a country? Is it every okay if that country is not an imminent threat to the US.



Indeed, and that is a good question.


----------



## Ender (Apr 23, 2004)

Cameron,

You've made some very points and I agree with you. We KNOW Hussein had terrorist training camps in his country, we KNOW he had WMD with biological agents and chemicals, we KNOW he used them on his own people, we KNOW he threatened to use them on Israel, and we KNOW he brushed off 17 UN resolutions. It was only a matter of time before a major catastrophe occured. Either we fight them on their land or on US soil.

And I can respect if people protest the war. that is our right, But I cannot respect them if they were for the "military action" in Bosnia, Serbia, and Yugoslavia and against the war in Iraq. That is hypocritical. Milosevich was a boy scout compared to Hussein. And now they are complaining the war is costing too much, yet I bet they have NO IDEA how much we spent in the Balkans. at best that is hypocritical, at least, selective posturing. 

And don't worry about offending anyone, someone will undoubtedly be offended anyway.*L


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 23, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> As voters and citizens, aren't we carrying some of the 'blame' since we are one nation?  Who sat back and let things get to this state.  If it is a government of/for/by the people, we all are contributing in someway to the problems as well as the future reforms.



I agree that we ARE one nation.  This nation is a democracy, though.  The Bush administration only needs to convince 51% of the voters that their policies are correct.  The rest of us are drug along just as Goering said we should be.  I think that if we really ARE one nation and that if we really DO share a brotherhood because of that, perhaps our president should take a little more head to the voice of the dissent.

Regardless, people against the war in Iraq, I believe, are engaging in a pointless protest.  The point is moot.  We are there and we need to make the best of it before it totally goes FUBAR.  On the same note, we need to hold the Bush Administration accountable for the actions that occur in Iraq.  We need to give accolades where appropriate and criticize when needed.  I am of the opinion that there is much to criticize.  The handling of this situation could have been much better in the following ways...

1.  Allowing weapons inspectors the time they were BEGGING for.
2.  Compromising to build a stronger coalition.
3.  Working through the UN (this does not mean handing over control)
4.  Planning the reconstruction phase more

A recent pole was given out.  Its results stated that most people feel that the war in Iraq has made the War on Terror more difficult.  And if you look at the information released by the Fed (through the press) regarding terrorist recruiting - it has only gotten worse since the war started.  Basically we gave them a huge target to attack all of the time.  Perhaps the War on Terror could have been won through a tactical knowledge of geography...


----------



## loki09789 (Apr 23, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> 1.  Allowing weapons inspectors the time they were BEGGING for.
> 2.  Compromising to build a stronger coalition.
> 3.  Working through the UN (this does not mean handing over control)
> 4.  Planning the reconstruction phase more
> ...


----------



## CanuckMA (Apr 23, 2004)

Cameron said:
			
		

> Our attack against Germany was in fact pre-emptive. Japan attacked the US and we declared war on Germany. It was not until years after the war started did we fully grasp the horrors Germany inflicted on not only the Jews but many others as well.



Japan and Germany were allies. By declaring war in Japan, Germany was involved. Also, walking into Europe 2 years after Germany declared war on US allies hardly qualifies as pre-emptive.




> What threat to the United States was Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia or Serbia? Im not saying I am for or against the war in Iraq but if your going to pull the sovereignty card, they explain what the differences are between Iraq and the nations I just mentioned? If it was okay for Clinton to attack, why not Bush?



Somalia, Bosnia and Serbia where humanitarian, peace making/keeping efforts under the banner of either the UN or NATO. Haiti is a neighbourood kind of thing, and the US didn't exactly invade Haiti.




> Iraq violated more then 17 UN resolutions before we attacked them. When Clinton bombed Iraq, where was the outrage from the Left?



The first Gulf war was fought under authority of the UN. The ceasefire was under authority of the UN. If the US wanted to invade Iraq because of those violation, they should have asked the UN permission to do so.




> I guess the question I am trying to ask is, when is it okay to invade a country? Is it every okay if that country is not an imminent threat to the US ?



When that country is an imminent theat to you, or you are asked by a third country that is under imminent threat. Pre-emptive invasion because a country MAY be a threat is setting a dangerous precedent.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 23, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Funny thing about information though.  Here at school kids are raising money for charity work to help support the construction and institution of schools and other humanitarian efforts in Afg.  There are students refusing because they don't want to support Afg. or they say 'my money will be stolen and used to buy rockets and bombs, no way.'  In another year or two for some of these guys and gals, they will be eligible to vote.....



I see the same thing at my school.  What this indicates to me is the rise of a new political movement.  The best label I can put on it is Liberal Libertarian.  These guys do not want large government interfering in their lives and taking their money to things they disagree with.  I think these guys have grown up surrounded with the abuses of big government enough to recognize the solution.  The other part of this is the general liberal attitude among this new group.  As one, they believe in equal rights for everyone (this list of rights includes education and health care by the way).  They believe in protecting the environment.  And when it comes right down to the matter of actually fighting a war, they would rather have peace.  If I were to rank the functions of government in order of importance, it would come out something like this...

1.  Safety - the government is responsible for keeping it's citizens safe at home.  (implications - the current state of the military is overkill)
2.  Health - the government is responsible for keeping the populace healthy and productive.
3.  Education - the government is responsible for providing a basic education for its citizens which will allow them to be productive.  (In todays time, this includes college)
4.  Environment - the government is responsible for stewardship of the countries natural resources.  This includes the usage, preservation, and regulation of said resources.  
5.  Human Rights - the government is responsible for making sure its citizens practice humane principals in their dealings inside and outside the country.  

I guess we'll see where this is all heading in about 30 years...


----------



## Cameron (Apr 23, 2004)

The UN authorized the use of force if any part of the cease fire was violated. Iraq violated the rules of the cease fire countless times. The US allowed the UN to submit to Iraq 17 different resolutions over 8 years in order to find a peaceful resolution. Again, the US was authorized under the UN cease fire to begin hostilities in Iraq.

It is a fact that Saddam was a ruthless dictator that killed and / tortured hundreds of thousands if not millions. 

It is a fact that he used chemical weapons (AKA WMD) on his own people. 
It is a fact that Saddam attempted to assassinate George H. W. Bush. To any other country, this alone would be an act of war. Not to Clinton though.
It is a fact that Saddam had attempted to gain nuclear weapons (with the help of the French mind you) as far back as the 80s.
It is a fact that Hezbollah blew up the Marine barracks in Beirut killing 200.
It is a fact that Libyan terrorists blew up Pan Am flight 103
It is a fact Khobar Towers in Dahran were bombed
It is a fact the U.S.S. Cole was attacked by Arab terrorists
It is a fact that Saddam not only authorized al Qaeda training camps in Iraq, he encouraged it.
It is a fact that after Clinton took office, many Democrats criticized Bush Sr. for not having finished the job.


It was imperative that we take Saddam out before he could obtain the nuclear weapons that even Clinton and until just a few months ago, John Kerry said he was trying to get.   Seriously, what does a dictator have to do to make it okay to take him out of power?  You speak of humanitarian missions. Tell me that freeing millions of people that have endured this ruthless dictator for decades is not a humanitarian cause.
The reason (quite possibly) that we have not found WMD in Iraq is because, thanks to the UNs inability to enforce their own mandates, Saddam had plenty of time to send them off to other countries.

I know this is a very emotional subject for people. I just find it interesting that the same people who are quick to criticize the war on Iraq are the same people who say when Clinton attacked (Fill in the blank with one of several sovereign nations) that was different.

I would simply like to know the difference. And, if all the things that Saddam did were not reason enough to go to war with him, what is?


----------



## CanuckMA (Apr 23, 2004)

Cameron[font=Times New Roman said:
			
		

> I would simply like to know the difference. And, if all the things that Saddam did were not reason enough to go to war with him, what is?[/font]




Imminent threat to your country. Saddam was not an imminent threat to the US. You wanted to call him on the breaking of the UN resolution, you go to the UN and argue that case. It's their resolution.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 23, 2004)

Cameron said:
			
		

> It is a fact that Saddam not only authorized al Qaeda training camps in Iraq, he encouraged it.



Wrong.  Even the CIA Director Geoge Tenet says so.  There is no link between Iraq and 911 and there is no link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda.


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 23, 2004)

Cameron said:
			
		

> Interesting letter. I am curious, would you also be against using force against the sovereign nation of Germany in 1939?



No. The use of force was validated because of the Axis allience. When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, the United States had the responsibility to defend the territory. The Japanese / German / Italian alliance made a responce against Germany appropriate. And, lest we forget, Germany, by 1941, had invaded many other nation states in Europe. Defending and repelling that invasion was an appropriate action.




			
				Cameron said:
			
		

> Were you against the use of force against the sovereign nation of Somalia in 1993?


In 1992, the United States entered the nation state of Somalia to distribute food as part of a humanitarian effort. The United States was there because we were able to act much quicker than the United Nations. It was anticipated that the United Nations would take over the humanitarian effort after 6 months of US service. 
The United States military action in Somalia was apparently the result of an effort to capture one of the tribal warlords; one Farah Aideed, after he killed 24 Pakistanit troops who were operating under the UN command. And, incidentally, the actions by the US military in Mogadishu could have been completed by the Delta force as a covert operation; which were requested by Admiral Howe (retired) by not approved by the Pentagon.




			
				Cameron said:
			
		

> Or the sovereign nation of Hati in 1994?


I have less knowledge of Haiti, however, I do not think the US military should have been used to bring an ousted leader back to power (Aristide). 
I do think the United States should respond to humanitarian crises. Please note, that is not now, nor has it ever been the policy of the United States.




			
				Cameron said:
			
		

> Or the sovereign nation of Bosnia in 1995?


Recall that Bosnia, in 1994 and 1995 was in a military confrontation with Serbia and Montenegro. As I recall, the United States, through the United Nations got all of the parties to sign the Dayton Peace Accords. If this peace agreement came about because the United States choose a side in the conflict, I think it is a supportable position. 




			
				Cameron said:
			
		

> Or the sovereign nation of Serbia in 1999?


The bombing of Serbia is an unjustified action on foreign soil. The actions were taken for the right reason; to prevent ethinc atrocities. 
Under US policy, however, this is not a justified reason to take action.





			
				Cameron said:
			
		

> The reason I ask is that over the past few years I have seen many people who were conspicuously quiet during the Clinton administration speak out against war now. I would be interested in seeing your letters to Senators during the Clinton administration voicing your concerns for the sovereignty of the above mentioned nations.





			
				Cameron said:
			
		

> And dont get mad, you started it :wink1:


Truthfully, I probably did spend less time fretting over Clinton's military choices, because I was so outraged by the 70 million dollar witch hunt headed by Ken Star. I kinda thought the attack on the factory in Sudan didn't make sense at the time, but I think the 'Wag the Dog' theory drowned out any protest I may have made. 

Also, after reading Clarke's book, I understand why the Sudan attack took place.

Mike


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 23, 2004)

Cameron said:
			
		

> When Clinton bombed Iraq, where was the outrage from the Left?



Less outrage because the attack-counter attack of the no-fly zones was an ongoing, below the news threshold type of thing. 
The more heavy duty strikes in Iraq by Clinton, were in response to the assassination attempt on President Bush, during his visit to Kuwait. As such, I think it was justified, and it stopped similar actions from Baghdad. 




			
				Cameron said:
			
		

> I guess the question I am trying to ask is, when is it okay to invade a country? Is it every okay if that country is not an imminent threat to the US ?
> I hope I am not offending anyone. I truly respect your opinions and enjoy these types of discussions. I feel, if we can discuss these things like adults, we can all grow just a little.


No offense taken. I don't know if it is ever justified to invade a country 'pre-emptively'; which is a different method than 'preventatively'. I guess this goes to the idea of an imminent threat.

If Mexico is massing its soldiers along the Arizona border, then it might be justified to invade Mexico. Of course, if Mexico was massing its soldiers along the Arizona border, invading Brazil would not be justified.

Concerning Iraq: the Iraqi military was not a threat to its neighboring states, the United States or its allies. Despite statements to the contrary in this thread, there were no established terrorist training camps under the protection of Saddam Hussein's government (yes Isla Al Jamiah did have a camp in the Kurdish controlled - US No Fly Zone protected - area of Northern Iraq). The best knowledge of the world experts could not prove the existance of biological, chemical or nuclear weapons in Iraq immediately preceeding the US invasion (of course, it is very difficult to prove the negative: that the weapons did not exist).

Thanks for the input all ... I was really quite surprised to see all the responses. Mike


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 23, 2004)

Okay, my last sequential post (I hope).

Paul, thanks for your thoughts here. Quite valid, I think



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> As voters and citizens, aren't we carrying some of the 'blame' since we are one nation? Who sat back and let things get to this state. If it is a government of/for/by the people, we all are contributing in someway to the problems as well as the future reforms.


 I think that 'We the People' get a pass on this issue, because we have not really had an election since 911 (at least not a presidential election, and the administration drives foreign policy). Certainly, those who voted for candidate Bush might also have an arguement that he campaigned as a centrist; I believe his phrase was "a uniter, not a divider". 
 And yet, two examples of his leadership certainly do not qualify as the actions of a 'uniter'. 1 - the policy of pre-emptive war. 2 - the abandonment of the Palestinian refugee right of return.
 Certainly, both actions are those of the post 911 adminstration. But, if one watched candidate Bush, they certainly could not have expected such actions from president Bush.



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> On the issue of 'pre - emptive' practices, the Bay of Pigs/CIA planted protestors in CUBA and such were not 'pre-emptive' actions. Though not out right war, it was actively sparking the events. Of course the Bay of Pigs was initiated with the assumption that there would be US support....oops.


 I think the United States, in its self-interest should have a strong and deep intelligence operation world wide. To exercise force through covert actions can be justified, as long as there is proper oversight in the elected bodies of our government. The struggle between the congress and the intelligence community should be vigorous at all times, to ensure protections where deserved, and actions where justified.
 Of course, we can look much closer for the 'assumption' of 'US support'; the Shi-ite Iraqi's in 1991.




			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> Even on a personal level of self defense, most state penal codes don't require you to wait for the Bad guy to throw the first strike, you just have to be able to reasonably percieve a threat in order to be justified (of course you better know what it takes to make sure your ducks are in a row on this point).
> In this day and age, with the pace of technology, do we really have to wait until N.Korea drops a nuc before we are justified to take action? Should we wait for another 9/11 (well Spain already got theirs) to happen in order to be justified?


 To defend against these actions* before* they occur is the domain of Law Enforcement, not the military. This, of course, requires a vigorous law enforcement capabilities, which, by its very nature, pinches against the civil liberties of the citizens. The struggle between Law Enforcement and Civil Liberties should be on-going and open. To hide an investigation into my library reading materials (aka PATRIOT Act), I believe, puts too much faith in the best intentions of Law Enforcement. But, if the citizens can not have a discussion about the reach of the long arm of the law (have you tried to read the USA PATRIOT act?) then the oversight can not be appropriately balanced.
 Of course, after an action like the Spanish bombings ... it may be appropriate to take military action (as the actions in Afghanistan were justified). 
 Unfortuneately, sometimes you just have to take a sucker punch. And, concerning North Korea, they have not yet launched, or even tested a nuclear weapon. We should do our best to ensure our intelligence is monitoring the situation. If the threat becomes imminent, then action could be justified. I am not certain that the existance of a nuclear weapon constitutes an imminent threat (hello India ... hello Pakistan)



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> As far as proof of terrorist links in Iraq/WMD. I agree that the findings in evidence are woefully thin right now, but SHussein had a hell of a long stretch to get rid of stuff to show that link. And BTW if you really examin the current tactic of hostage taking, none of these Iraq based hostage holding terrorists are trying to leverage for the release of SHussein with their civilian/military hostages... but are focusing on the US standing down or releasing their own. THey are in Iraq, operating as usual. It might not be a PDB, but it smacks of some proof of terrorist/Iraqi relations to me.


I think here, the logic fails to prove the existence of terrorist elements in Iraq prior to the downfall of Baghdad Bob ... oh, OK ... the Saddam Hussein government. When Saddam was in power, the terrorist elements were not in Iraq. Of course, the authoritarian nature of the Iraqi regime could be said to be terroristic, but is it really any different than Castro's Cuba?
Nature, (and terrorists) however, abhors a vacuum. With the downfall of a government, there was a great sucking sound as terrorists dislocated from Afghanistan (and Pakistan) moved into Iraq.

OK .. it is bedtime ... good night all.

Mike


----------



## loki09789 (Apr 24, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Okay, my last sequential post (I hope).
> 
> To defend against these actions* before* they occur is the domain of Law Enforcement, not the military.[quote/=]
> 
> ...


----------



## TonyM. (Apr 24, 2004)

Actually terrorist cells(God I hate that word as I'm not terrified in the least) are organized in a pyramid plan pretty much like real CIA operatives.
P.S. Bob Smith never answered questions live at town meetings so I wouldn't expect him to respond to a letter.


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 24, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> I agree that there is no evidence, but if you observe the pattern of terrorist cell tactics, imbedding takes place well in advance of upheavals. The risk of moving into Iraq during a major military campaign (yes I know that it wasn't a surround and drown campaign so there were huge gaps), just so they can harass some patrols with IED and take a few hostages isn't strategically sound. Terrorists WANT credit and clear advertising on who they are associated with so that their cause comes to the forefront. I am working with the theory that they were there already because SHussein was a bribable (is that a word?) leader, who generally didn't have the most solid domestic system. So, even if they moved into key locations and bought off the local leader, or were even invited by him, it makes sense to have way stations/rest points/safe houses that these groups would be operating quietly to suppor other operations. When the war in Iraq blew up, they were stuck there, decided that if they ran, they might get caught (either in a cross fire, or detained) and decided to go to ground. Now much like the pockets of air borne troops that were disorganized but motivated after the Normandy drops, they are executing harassing operations to at least try and do something.
> 
> I am also working from the theory that terrorist cells are usually blind operations that don't know where the other cells are. They are basically cut off from support and intelligence. They could have even assumed that they were the Target of the American campaign and that SHussein sold them out... who knows. Cells are like infantry squads, only without the mutual support so they have to make so many decisions without higher up coordination.


I wonder if you realize how much this argument sounds like a 'Conspiracy Theory'; the kind the 'right' often rail against the 'left' for. I don't think this is a very plausible hypothesis, because the lack of control the power structure can influence over those in hiding.

Do you think that North Korea would allow terrorists to move in, knowingly? Or is the regime paranoid enough, and authoritarian enough to squash any such person or group.

I think Udai & Kudai (?) would have had Fedayyeen (?) eliminate any (other) terrorists in Iraq. - Mike


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 24, 2004)

TonyM. said:
			
		

> P.S. Bob Smith never answered questions live at town meetings so I wouldn't expect him to respond to a letter.


This letter did not receive a response. But I did receive one or two responses from him prior to this letter.


----------



## Cameron (Apr 27, 2004)

Looks like Im out numbered on this forum.  



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Wrong. Even the CIA Director Geoge Tenet says so. There is no link between Iraq and 911 and there is no link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda.


As this is one of those discussions (debates) that can go on forever, I thought I would throw some links up that you, when (and if) you have the inclination to look beyond what Dan Rather tells you, may prove to be enlightening information. 

This is an interesting piece about the al Qaeda / Iraq connection that Democrats refuse to believe exists:
http://www.techcentralstation.com/092503F.html

This is a BBC web site reviewing Saddams timeline.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_iraq_timeline/html/default.stm

Here is a news article discussing how a captured al Qaeda chief admits a connection to Iraq:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20040426/wl_mideast_afp/iraq_us_basra_oil_claim_040426224317

And another article about a terrorist admitting connections (and funding) by Saddam:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040426/ap_on_re_mi_ea/jordan_terror_suspects_1

I can not get past how Democrats justify every military action ever taken by Democrats and denounce every such action when taken by Republicans. 

You say it was okay for Clinton to bomb Iraq because they violated a no-fly zone but it is not okay for Bush to bomb Iraq if they violated not only the no-fly zone but 17+ cease fire resolutions? Come on! Seriously. I know you guys are bitter about losing the election. Hell, there are southerners still bitter about the civil war. But just as an FYI, Clinton never got more then 48% of the votes. So, 52% of this country didnt want him in office either. So I know where youre coming from. It just strikes my as hypocritical that you condemn a Republican for doing the very thing you praise a Democrat for doing. Im not saying Republicans dont do the same. Both sides of the isle are guilty of that.

Here are a few more links if you care to read on:
Now of course you need to take this information with a grain of salt (as it were). I present these facts as a counterweight to the nightly barrage of liberally biased media coverage that we are so quick to digest as the gospel.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/014odbgq.asp
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030210fa_fact
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/824263/posts
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0402/p01s03-wome.html


----------



## loki09789 (Apr 27, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I wonder if you realize how much this argument sounds like a 'Conspiracy Theory'; the kind the 'right' often rail against the 'left' for. I don't think this is a very plausible hypothesis, because the lack of control the power structure can influence over those in hiding.
> 
> Do you think that North Korea would allow terrorists to move in, knowingly? Or is the regime paranoid enough, and authoritarian enough to squash any such person or group.
> 
> I think Udai & Kudai (?) would have had Fedayyeen (?) eliminate any (other) terrorists in Iraq. - Mike



I am laying down what I think, not trying to talk about secret societies or some major behind the scenes puppet master explanation.  This is Hypothesis, I don't expect anyone else to buy it just because I say it.  I just know that, based on the info I have, this doesn't seem as far fetched to me as it does to you.  It is purely personal theory.  If that means that it resembles 'conspiracy theory' and isn't credible to you because of that resemblence..... maybe you should reconsider which 'conspiracy theories' you do find credible 
Call it 'conspiracy theory' logic, but it is based partly on some of the anti-terrorist training that you recieve in the military and partly on other research/stuff I have caught along the way, and a healthy dose of military operational logic.  I did draw analogies to US Paratroops that were operating independent of direct orders, but within the intent of the mission, during WWII Normandy drops.... talking about military stuff here, not 'who shot JFK'

The point about lack of direct control is what I mean.  They were there, are cut off, and are running - as best they can - harassing operations, or possibly are still being directed again through the cell phone stuff that was SOP for communication for the Serbs/Bos in Bos/Hz during that war.

As far as the over structure as a pyramid.... isn't that everywhere there is a ranking structure?  The point I was making was that, unlike a conventional military squad -which has mutual/coordinated support from other squads and direct/shared communication and intell, terrorist cells operate in minimal or 'blind' intelligence/missions of operation.

As far as the allowance/involvement of The Husseins, would is seem so far fetched that, much like some of the 'militia' units in American Rev. history, they would do the bidding of the Husseins as an internal terror squad to pay their way to get done what they wanted as well?  There is a pattern of militia units, for the sake of survival, who have switched allegiances or multiple allegiances for reasons of personal survival/goals.  Hell, even the CIA has recruited from this type of group where allegiance really meant "okay, I will do these wet work jobs for you, if you turn a blind eye from what I do over here and here [including operating intelligence/safe houses...] and, I would even be willing to share the intell that we get with you too"  Sort of a "the enemy of my enemy is my Ally" logic...


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 27, 2004)

Cameron said:
			
		

> Come on! Seriously. I know you guys are bitter about losing the election. Hell, there are southerners still bitter about the civil war. But just as an FYI, Clinton never got more then 48% of the votes. So, 52% of this country didnt want him in office either. So I know where youre coming from. It just strikes my as hypocritical that you condemn a Republican for doing the very thing you praise a Democrat for doing. Im not saying Republicans dont do the same. Both sides of the isle are guilty of that.


To turn this discussion into an election debate is foolish, and disengages from the questions at hand.

And, sorry, but many of the links you post to are not supported by any facts.

The first link you posted states that Bin Laden met with Iraqi agents 8 times .. however, other than Powell's statements, (which are not sourced) ... no one else is able to report this as fact. Further, it has been widely documented that none Powell's statements to the United Nations have proven to be accurate.

Mike


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 27, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> I am laying down what I think, not trying to talk about secret societies or some major behind the scenes puppet master explanation. This is Hypothesis, I don't expect anyone else to buy it just because I say it. I just know that, based on the info I have, this doesn't seem as far fetched to me as it does to you. It is purely personal theory. If that means that it resembles 'conspiracy theory' and isn't credible to you because of that resemblence..... maybe you should reconsider which 'conspiracy theories' you do find credible


Well, I do hope that you noticed that I did not call your hypothesis a 'Consiracy Theory'. 

And in truth, on the surface it seems a pretty plausible theory; two organizations that share a common enemy turning a blind eye to each other. That certainly makes sense to those of us in the Western World, raised on alliences and common battlefields.

I think, however, when we look at the juxtaposition of the secular and sacred communities in the middle east, the theory becomes harder to reconcile. al Qaeda is a religious based organization with a long view of dominating the world with Islam. Iraq was a secular society. I believe that if the Iraqi government structure allowed the al Qaeda religous fundamentalism to get too much of a foot hold in the state, it could jeapordize the power structure. If the Iraqi people started being less afraid of the Fedayeen (I really got to learn to spell that word), and started being empowered by the idea of martyrdom, there would be a significant weakening of the government control.

Probably, Paul, the truth lies somewhere between our two points of view. And quite possibly, we will never know the truth. Certainly, we won't know it for a long time to come.

Did you see the legal paperwork filed about fullfilling the Presidential Records Act this week? (Some of the papers from the Reagan Administration are supposed to be released to the public, but this has been stopped by an Executive Order of the Reagan Administration's Vice President's son.)

Mike


----------



## Cameron (Apr 28, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> To turn this discussion into an election debate is foolish, and disengages from the questions at hand.





			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> And, sorry, but many of the links you post to are not supported by any facts.






I can tell we are not going to get anywhere here.

I did not turn this into an election debate.  I pointed out how partisan your views are.  Youre the one who justifies every military action taken by a democrat at the same time you protest every action by a Republican. 

You say many of the links I posted are not supported by facts.  What are your requirements and I will try and meet them.  The web sites I post state names, dates and places.  Where do you get your facts? Im not saying you should take what these web sites say as the gospel.  In fact, my exact words were Now of course you need to take this information with a grain of salt.  Hell, I know most of the things coming out of the White House are BS.  It was BS under Clinton and its BS under Bush.  All I am saying is dont be a hypocrite.  If your for humanitarian aid in places like Somalia why not Iraq.  

You agree that the military action in Somalia was in an effort to capture Farah Aideed after he killed 24 Pakistani troops but its not okay to capture Saddam after he killed hundreds of thousands of civilians?  Do you not believe Saddam used chemical weapons on the Kurds?  THAT is why I am saying you are being political.  Again, I ask you, where do you get YOUR facts?  Just because you may not like the answer is no reason to not ask the question.


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 28, 2004)

Cameron said:
			
		

> I can tell we are not going to get anywhere here.



Perhaps




			
				Cameron said:
			
		

> You agree that the military action in Somalia was in an effort to capture Farah Aideed after he killed 24 Pakistani troops but its not okay to capture Saddam after he killed hundreds of thousands of civilians?





			
				Cameron said:
			
		

> Do you not believe Saddam used chemical weapons on the Kurds? THAT is why I am saying you are being political. Again, I ask you, where do you get YOUR facts? Just because you may not like the answer is no reason to not ask the question.


Aideed, in *Somalia*, killed 24 *Pakistani* troops. Saddam Hussein killed 'hundreds of thousands' of the citizens of his country. There is a difference. Please note, that I am not arguing whether we should or should not retaliate against actions of a government against its own citizens; just pointing out that actions against foreign nationals is different than not. (See Supreme Court Case of today 4-28-04)

I do believe that Saddam used chemical weapons against the Kurds. But those Kurds were citizens of his own country. 

Should we invade Cuba for Castro's dealing with his citizens? North Korea? Personally, I am in favor of developing a humanitarian basis for intervention, but that is not now the policy of our country. 

Where I get my facts, are from widely reported news stories. And then I look for verification. The Bush Administration would desperately like to tie Iraq to al Qaeda, and President Bush himself has stated that there is no involvment in Iraq in the most prominent al Qaeda attack on the United States.

Mike


----------



## Cameron (Apr 28, 2004)

Mike, Im enjoying this.  Although I disagree with you, I can tell you put thought into your comments and I respect that.






			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> [/size]





			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> [/font]





			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> Aideed, in *Somalia*, killed 24 *Pakistani* troops. Saddam Hussein killed 'hundreds of thousands' of the citizens of his country. There is a difference. Please note, that I am not arguing whether we should or should not retaliate against actions of a government against its own citizens; just pointing out that actions against foreign nationals is different than not. (See Supreme Court Case of today 4-28-04)
> 
> 
> 
> ...






I think that we should either protect the defenseless or we should ignore them.  We can not (or should not) be selective.  Yes, I think we should remove Castro.  Should have done it decades ago.  I think that we should kick the crap out of North Koreas dictator too.  Any country that is imprisoned by a dictator is not a sovereign nation. I think a fundamental right of any human being is to not be owned.  To have the right to stand up and speak their mind.  Just as we are doing here.  We disagree but I respect not only your right to disagree but I respect your position.  As wrong as it is  I think it is an inherent right of every person on this earth to not be gassed by its government. To not be tortured.  To not be poisoned because they have a different belief.  



If your neighbor was beating his children would you ignore it because he is within his own home and those are his children?  Of course not.  Why?  Because, assuming your normal, you would feel a moral obligation to defend those who can not defend themselves.  In my mind, the leap is not so great between defending the children next door and defending the children across the sea.






> Where I get my facts, are from widely reported news stories. And then I look for verification.





Me too!  But I also look at not-so-widely reported news stories because as we all know, the major news outlets (ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN) are very much liberally biased.  Case in point:



http://secure.mediaresearch.org/news/MediaBiasBasics.html





> The Bush Administration would desperately like to tie Iraq to al Qaeda, and President Bush himself has stated that there is no involvment in Iraq in the most prominent al Qaeda attack on the United States.






I think the Bush administration has already made the connection between Iraq and al Qaeda.  Unfortunately you refuse to look beyond the widely reported news stories



I think before the year is out many o democrats will be backpedaling.



Peace.


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 29, 2004)

OK, a couple of points, if I may. 

http://www.claimvfact.org

Yes, I know its from the 'Center for American Progress' ... which means 48% of US citizens will believe that the 'Liberal Media' is demonstrating its bias. However, I think it might be interesting, even for them, to spend 10 or 15 minutes looking at some of the claims, and compare them with the facts.

Secondly, don't you think we are now struggling against the question I asked Senator Smith ... "What to change to" ?

Despite statements from the President that the 'Iraqi people can decide how best to run their country', doesn't it seem that the US and the UN can't seem to get out of the way to let the Iraqi people decide ... especially, when we are concerned that our proper 'client' (Ahmed Chalabi) is not going to be the one in power?

Mike


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 29, 2004)

NPR reports while covering the 911 commission live..."We have no substantiated evidence that there was EVER a connection between Al-Qaeda and Iraq."  This was said by George Tenet himself.  It's right from the horses mouth.  No conjecture involved, broadcast LIVE on public radio.  For someone who lives 1000 miles away, that is about as factual as you get.


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 29, 2004)

I'm wondering if *you* read any of these articles?



			
				Cameron said:
			
		

> Looks like Im out numbered on this forum.
> 
> Here is a news article discussing how a captured al Qaeda chief admits a connection to Iraq:
> http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20040426/wl_mideast_afp/iraq_us_basra_oil_claim_040426224317


This article does not claim that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is 'captured'. This text does not admit a connection to Saddam Hussein's Iraq. This article reports that al-Zarqawi is currently involved in terrorist activities in *POST-SADDAM* Iraq. Are you saying we should blame the United States for sponsoring terrorism? After all, at this point in time, the United States is in control of Iraq.

Here is the text. 


DUBAI (AFP) - Jordanian Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the alleged mastermind of Al-Qaeda operations in Iraq (news - web sites), has claimed the suicide bombings on Iraqi oil terminals, an Islamist website reported late Monday. 




AFP/HO/File Photo 


"With their attacks, our brothers hit the oil installations in the Al-Amiq and Al-Bakr terminals... just like their brothers, the Al-Qaeda lions, who (in 2000) attacked the destroyer USS Cole (news - web sites) in the port of Aden" in Yemen, the statement, published by the site www.qal3ati.net said. 



It was impossible to independently verify the claim. 



The Saturday bombings by speedboats of Iraq's crucial oil installations near Basra cost the lives of three US sailors and wounded four others, while temporarily interrupting oil exports. 



Messages attributed to Zarqawi have repeatedly surfaced in recent months -- the United States has a ten-million-dollar bounty on his head. 



Most recently on April 6, he threatened in a taped message new attacks on both coalition forces and Shiites in Iraq, whom he described as "allies of the Jews and the Americans." 



"We are saying to the enemies of God, the thieves of oil and riches, the sellers of drugs ... we will pursue you on earth, in the sea and in the sky," said the latest statement, which was dated Sunday and was signed "Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, emir of the group al-Tawhid and al-Jihad (Unification and the Holy war). 

The statement also rejected "the remarks of apostates (referring to Arab governments allied with the United States) amd their masters, according to which the Mujahideen are killing innocents." 

​ 




			
				Cameron said:
			
		

> And another article about a terrorist admitting connections (and funding) by Saddam:





			
				Cameron said:
			
		

> http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040426/ap_on_re_mi_ea/jordan_terror_suspects_1


Once again, it appears you didn't read the article that you are using to defend your claim. While this article does mention a person named 'Hussein', that person is a car mechanic, *not the former leader of Iraq*. 

The report also shows that the *funding* involved is from a *Jordanian* (not an Iraqi). The report also shows the *target* of the terrorism is in *Jordan*.

Again, here is the text.




AMMAN, Jordan - Al-Qaida plotted bombings and poison gas attacks against the U.S. Embassy and other targets in Jordan, two conspirators said in a confession aired Monday on Jordanian state television. 




AFP/JORDANIAN TV Photo 


Azmi al-Jayousi, identified as the head of the Jordanian cell of al-Qaida, appeared Monday in a 20-minute taped program and described meeting Jordanian militant Abu-Musab al-Zarqawi in neighboring Iraq (news - web sites) to plan the foiled plot. 



A commentator said the plotters wanted to kill "80,000" Jordanians and had targeted the prime minister's office, intelligence headquarters and the U.S. Embassy. 



Another Jordanian suspect, car mechanic Hussein Sharif Hussein, was shown saying al-Jayousi asked him to buy vehicles and modify them so that they could crash through gates and walls. 



U.S. officials have offered a $10 million reward for al-Zarqawi's capture, saying he is a close associate of al-Qaida chief Osama bin Laden (news - web sites) and is trying to build a network of foreign militants in neighboring Iraq to work on al-Qaida's behalf. His whereabouts are unknown. 



A Web site known for publicizing messages from Muslim extremists on Monday carried a purported claim of responsibility from al-Zarqawi for suicide boat attacks against Gulf oil terminals Saturday that killed three Americans and disabled Iraq's biggest terminal for more than 24 hours. 



"I have pledged loyalty to Abu-Musab to fully be obedient and listen to him without discussion," al-Jayousi said in the Jordanian television segment. He said he first met al-Zarqawi in Afghanistan (news - web sites), where al-Jayousi said he studied explosives, "before Afghanistan fell." He said he later met al-Zarqawi in Iraq, but was not specific about when. 



The videotape also showed still photographs of al-Jayousi and nine other suspects. The commentator said four of those pictured had been killed in clashes with security forces. 



Al-Jayousi said he received about $170,000 from al-Zarqawi to finance the plot and used part of it to buy 20 tons of chemicals. He did not identify the chemicals, but said they "were enough for all the operations in the Jordanian arena." 



Images of what the commentator said were vans filled with blue jugs of chemical explosives were included in the broadcast. 



Hussein, the car mechanic, said he met al-Jayousi in 1999 but did not clearly say when the terror plans were laid out. 



The bearded Hussein, looking anxious, said al-Jayousi told him the aim was "carrying out the first suicide attack to be launched by al-Qaida using chemicals" and "striking at Jordan, its Hashemite (royal family) and launching war on the Crusaders and nonbelievers. 



Officials said they had arrested the suspects in two raids in late March and early April. Last week, officials said four other terror suspects believed linked to the same conspiracy were killed in a shootout with police in Amman. 



Government officials have said the suspects plotted to detonate a powerful bomb targeting Jordan's secret service and use poison gas against the prime minister's office, the U.S. Embassy and other diplomatic missions. Had the bomb exploded, it could have killed at least 20,000 people and wrecked buildings within a half-mile radius, the officials have said. 



No trial date has been set in the case. 



Airing suspects' confessions before their trial is unusual in Jordan. In 1998, six men accused of affiliation with a militant group confessed on television to planting a bomb that exploded outside an Amman hotel. Five years later, a court found them innocent. 

The unusual move may be an attempt to answer critics who claim the government has exaggerated the terror danger to justify tightening security. Officials in Jordan, a moderate Arab nation with close ties to the United States and a peace treaty with Israel, say the kingdom has been repeatedly targeted by al-Qaida and other militant groups. 

​


----------



## Cameron (Apr 30, 2004)

Interesting web site.  Just goes to show you that we need to look beyond the major media outlets for information.  I would take what that web site says and also look at other information sources and come to a conclusion.  Thats what its all about.  Not relying on CNN to tell you what to think.  Thanks for the link.



We have only been fighting in Iraq for a year.  It takes time.  People today want immediate gratification and if they dont get it they start throwing out words like quagmire.  These things take time.  It is a difficult task to install a democracy into a region that has been at war for thousands of years.  And although I dont want to belittle the sacrifices made by our soldiers, the media is blowing the deaths out of proportion (relatively speaking).  There have been approximately 700 (including non-combat related deaths) US casualties in Iraq.



Vietnam War = 58,152 (we were there for about 6 years) = 10000 killed per year

Korean War = 36,516 (we were there for about 6 years) = 6,000 killed per year

WW 2 = 405,399 (we were there for about 4 years) = 100,000 killed per year.

WW1 = 116,516 (we were there for about 4 years) = 29,000 killed per year

September 11th = almost 3000 (one day)



Now Im not saying 700 deaths is no big deal. It is.  As person who served in the US Army for 5 years I can tell you first hand, nobody wishes for peace more then a soldier and nobody is wiling to die for peace like a soldier. All I am trying to illustrate with these numbers is what an awesome job our military and military leadership is doing in Iraq to keep the casualty so low relative to other major conflicts we have been in.



Whether you think we should have gone to war with Iraq or not, the fact remains that we are there.  We have two choices now, pull out and let those who wish for freedom fend for themselves or stay there and give them the help they need.



And yes, I agree with you that we are indeed struggling in Iraq.   Freedom and democracy is not cheep or easy to come by.  It takes time and sacrifice.


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 30, 2004)

Cameron said:
			
		

> We have only been fighting in Iraq for a year. It takes time. People today want immediate gratification and if they dont get it they start throwing out words like quagmire. These things take time.




Those of us who were paying attention prior to the invasion were led to believe that we would have a very quick invasion and decapitation of the Iraqi leadership (Shock & Awe) and that we would be welcomed as liberators, with flowers thrown on the streets in front of our soldiers. We were led to believe this because those in authority were saying it.
*Speaker:*  Cheney, Dick - Vice President 
*Date:*  3/16/2003 
*Quote/Claim:*
"We will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. . . . I think it will go relatively quickly, . . . (in) weeks rather than months." ​*Speaker:*  Wolfowitz, Paul - Deputy Secretary of Defense 
*Date:*  3/11/2003 
*Quote/Claim:*
"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." 

*Speaker:*  Myers, Richard - Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff 
*Date:*  3/4/2003 
*Quote/Claim:*
"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.]" 

*Speaker:*  Rumsfeld, Donald - Secretary of Defense 
*Date:*  2/7/2003 
*Quote/Claim:*
"It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months." 
​


			
				Cameron said:
			
		

> Whether you think we should have gone to war with Iraq or not, the fact remains that we are there. We have two choices now, pull out and let those who wish for freedom fend for themselves or stay there and give them the help they need.





			
				Cameron said:
			
		

> And yes, I agree with you that we are indeed struggling in Iraq. Freedom and democracy is not cheep or easy to come by. It takes time and sacrifice.


"those who wish for freedom" (as you describe the Iraqi people) should work for it: they should struggle for it: they should fight for it: and yes, they should die for it. That is how the colonial revolutionary army won its indepdendence from England. That is how the French earned their freedom. It is how all most free societies achieved freedom. Very seldom has freedom ever been imposed by a invasion force.

I am on the record that we should withdraw from the country as soon as feasible, which unfortuneately will be much too long a time. We have our responsibilities to International Law that we must uphold. We, as the invading nation, are responsible for the security and safety of the land we have conquered. Therefore, we should work closely with International Coalitions (the UN - NATO) to get a stabilization force in place and then we should get out.

Even better would be an immediate withdrawl - although this would violate international law (which the Bush Administration seems to do at will anyhow). 

Mike


----------



## Cameron (Apr 30, 2004)

So are you saying we should not help those who can not help themselves?  Help the strong and disregard the weak?  Nice.  If a democrat was in office you would be cheering this as a humanitarian effort.

I got some quotes too:
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."*
   - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source*

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
*   - President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source*

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
*   - Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source*

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
*   - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source*

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
*   - (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source*

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
*   - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source*

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
*   - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 | Source*

"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 mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
*   - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 | Source*

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

"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 | Source*

"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 | Source*

"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 | Source*

"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 | Source*

"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 | Source*

"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 | Source*

"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 | Source*

"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 | Source*


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 30, 2004)

Cameron said:
			
		

> So are you saying we should not help those who can not help themselves?


 
That is not exactly what I am saying. I am saying that we can not bring 'freedom' and 'democracy' to a people who are not willing to fight for it, themselves. 
Can we help those who can not help themselves? Sure, short term assistance could be direct. We could fly food into a country that is suffering through famine or medical assistance to a country that suffers a natural disaster, such as an earthquake. Longer term assistance could be provided through Non-Governmental Organizations, such as Unicef, the Red Cross, Doctors without Borders. We could pump money into the country to rebuild infrastructure. 
Trying to bring a concept such as 'freedom' is a very different thing from drilling wells for clean water.




			
				Cameron said:
			
		

> Help the strong and disregard the weak? Nice.


I guess it is a question of how you define 'help'. And I am not arguing that the United States should disregard the weak. I will point out, that the United States does not currently have a humanitarian provision for intervention. (Again, I think this is wrong, but it is the US Policy). 




			
				Cameron said:
			
		

> If a democrat was in office you would be cheering this as a humanitarian effort.


 
I don't know if you noticed, but the US Military is not a humanitarian organization. The US Military is an organization that is designed to destroy people and places. If there are 130,000 soldiers deployed anywhere in the world, they are not there as a humanitarian outfit ... regardless of the politics of the administration that deployed them.

As for the quotes you cited, some are relevant, but most are not, because the speakers of those quotes did not authorize this invasion (yes, we can talk about the Congress's abdication of its responsibility to declare war). Yes, many of the statements talk of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass desctruction, but in the past year, (and as one of your quotes points out) we did not have any intelligence agents on the ground in Iraq for four years prior to the invasion. Those that were there consistantly stated they can not find any evidence of the aforementioned weapons.

President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, National Security Advisor Rice, Secretary of State Powell, Assistant Secretary of Defense Wolfowitz did make repeated claims about the Iraqi government, its weapons, and the threat it posed to the United States in the months leading up to the invasion. Their actions need to be examined in the light of the current costs; 700+ US soldiers dead, greater than 8,000 US soldiers severly wounded, greater than 10,000 Iraqi non-combatants dead, 200 Billion dollars and counting.

Mike


----------



## Cameron (Apr 30, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, National Security Advisor Rice, Secretary of State Powell, Assistant Secretary of Defense Wolfowitz did make repeated claims about the Iraqi government, its weapons, and the threat it posed to the United States in the months leading up to the invasion. Their actions need to be examined in the light of the current costs; 700+ US soldiers dead, greater than 8,000 US soldiers severly wounded, greater than 10,000 Iraqi non-combatants dead, 200 Billion dollars and counting.
> 
> Mike








YES! Thats my point. If your going to hold the current administration accountable for their claims (and we damn well should), would it not be fitting to review the entire history of our governments thought processes as to whether Iraq had WMD or not? You can not say that it is okay for the Clinton administration as well as democrats in general to pound their fists on the table with claims of Iraq WMD and than command that the Republicans prove such an outlandish claim. If you do that, youre being partisan. I think the Bush administration needs to show where they got their information. Could it be in part from the Clinton administration? Yes! Could it be in part from the heads of the CIA and FBI that were Clinton appointees that Bush kept on staff? Yes? Could it be that Bush was looking for any reason to kick Saddams butt? Sure could. All I am saying is that Democrats and Republicans alike thought there were WMD (and 5 will get you 20 they will prove it) long before Congress authorized the use of force in Iraq. Congress! The quotes I posted shows that long before Bush said lets do this thing, Democrats were crying for Saddams head on a plate. Now that Bush has the wan-tons (spelling?) Democrats are damming up. 



And why do you quote 10,000 Iraqi civilians killed? I tell you Saddam killed hundreds of thousands of civilians and you say so. I assume you posts how many people have been killed (and your number includes non-combat deaths) because you care about preventing deaths? Hell, more people were killed by drug dealers in Washington last year. There were almost 600 murders in Chicago last year. More then 13,000 Americans are killed annually on our roads by drunk drivers. If you want to save lives, join MAD.



I just dont get your position.


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 30, 2004)

Cameron, I put this quote in your response first, because I feel it is the most important.



			
				Cameron said:
			
		

> I assume you posts how many people have been killed (*and your number includes non-combat deaths*) because you care about preventing deaths?


I post how many people have been killed in Iraq, because there is a cost to this private little war that Bush has launched, to defend his fathers' honor, and his buddies in Saudi Arabia.

As of today ... 739 American Soldiers have been killed in Iraq.
Of those, some 221 were labelled as 'Non-Hostile' fatalities by the Department of Defense.

_And what would you say to the parents of Sgt. Landis Garrison? He died a 'Non-Hostile' death in Iraq on April 29th, 2004. He served in the 333rd National Guard Police Force. He will not be returning to Rapids City, Illinois. He was 23 years old when he died serving his country._

I assume you would tell his friends and family that his death doesn't really matter in this war ... because it was Non-Hostile.





			
				Cameron said:
			
		

> If your going to hold the current administration accountable for their claims (and we damn well should), would it not be fitting to review the entire history of our governments thought processes as to whether Iraq had WMD or not?


*No*, it would not be fitting.There is a difference between "thought processes" and actions. Clinton did not conquer Iraq.




			
				Cameron said:
			
		

> You can not say that it is okay for the Clinton administration as well as democrats in general to pound their fists on the table with claims of Iraq WMD and than command that the Republicans prove such an outlandish claim.


Again, Clinton did not conquer Iraq. And 'pounding fists on the table' is a bit different than sending in 135,000 US soldiers.




			
				Cameron said:
			
		

> If you do that, youre being partisan. I think the Bush administration needs to show where they got their information. Could it be in part from the Clinton administration? Yes! Could it be in part from the heads of the CIA and FBI that were Clinton appointees that Bush kept on staff? Yes?


That's right, blame Clinton. And, no doubt, there is still something fishy about Whitewater ... and what about Vince Fosters's "Suicide". Yeah ... Right.




			
				Cameron said:
			
		

> Could it be that Bush was looking for any reason to kick Saddams butt? Sure could. All I am saying is that Democrats and Republicans alike thought there were WMD (and 5 will get you 20 they will prove it) long before Congress authorized the use of force in Iraq. Congress!


How many times have I ranted against Congress's abdication of responsibility on this issue, on this message board.... More than once. And you're dreaming if you think they are going to find Weapons. Very handsome bribes have been offered to all of captured high officials of the Iraqi government, and not a one of them needs to be loyal to Saddam any longer.




			
				Cameron said:
			
		

> And why do you quote 10,000 Iraqi civilians killed?


Because those 10,000 Iraqi civilians would be alive today, if GWBush had not conquered the nation in an unprovoked manner.
http://www.iraqbodycount.net​


			
				Cameron said:
			
		

> I tell you Saddam killed hundreds of thousands of civilians and you say so.


So, now you are arguing for a humanitarian interventionist policy for the United States? Please expand on this. How do you propose we deal with Castro?




			
				Cameron said:
			
		

> Hell, more people were killed by drug dealers in Washington last year. There were almost 600 murders in Chicago last year. More then 13,000 Americans are killed annually on our roads by drunk drivers. If you want to save lives, join MAD.





			
				Cameron said:
			
		

> I just dont get your position.



Yeah, I get that.


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 30, 2004)

Cameron said:
			
		

> I just dont get your position.


OK .. perhaps I should tone it down a bit. Cameron, this thread in particular shows that I am not like those 'Democrats' you refer to in your posts. In September 2002, I wrote a letter to my senator telling him why I oppose an action against Iraq; and asking him to vote against authorizing any such action. To quote 'Democrats' who believe this or that about the government of Saddam Hussein, and who supported the war, and call them hypocritical may be OK... but please note that I am not one of those people.

My position has always been that if the United States invades another country, we become thugs; no better than those we are deposing.

There is a time and place for the US Military to take action. Afghanistan is a good example. But, Iraq is not a good example. And my position has been consistent on this. Regardless of what Clinton, Gore, Bush, or Cheney have said.

In this instance ... I'm right, they're wrong. (all of 'em).


----------

