Iron Rod,If he had them 10 years earlier, and he said he still has them,
and people from his administration say they still have them, how do you come up
with the brilliant deduction that they used their last chemical bomb on the
Kurds and now they don't have any more??They had an active
nuclear weapons program. That's why the UN Nuclear Weapons Inspectors
were required to be on site to monitor their progress. So when he kicks out
the inspectors and says he has the weapons and will use them on people in the
region and anybody who dares attack him... you kinda have to play it safe and
reduce his ability to continue to develop or use those weapons. Pretty much
the same logic that Obama is using to insist that we must attack to diminish his
ability to continue what he's doing.I think Bush made mistakes.
He should have got out after the military victory instead of trying to occupy
and play peacemaker.But it bugs me when people who questioned the
reasons for Iraq think we have MORE reason in Syria. We don't.
RE WRZPhoenixThanks for the response.I am
intersted in your ideas.When you say "Evidence showed Saddam
did have WMD." does that mean at the time of the invasion or ten years
earlier?Any idea of what they had operationally at the time of the
invasion?Did Saddam actually have the capacity as President Bush and
the British government said to field battle ready WMD in 40 minutes."As Bush said did Saddam "try to buy yellow care uranium from
Africa?" Who went to the time and effort to produce these papers?At the time of the invasion did Saddam really have an active nuclear program?
I remember the often repeated quote" the only warning we will have would be
a mushroom cloud."Were the mobile WMD labs that Sec. Powell
talked about real or were they a figment of "Curveballs' imaginationInterested in your response. Say dry in Phonix
The case for military action in Iraq was not one thing. It was not only WMDs.
There was a long ilst of reasons and the international community backed us
up.That said... in hid sight there may have been a better way to
deal with Saddam Hussein, but the US tried many times, the UN tried many times,
his own people tried and were slaughtered. I think President Bush thought he
had tried everything he could (much as President Obama is feeling now).But the American people and the Congress did not stand up and say "NO"
when Bush proposed military in Iraq. Support was almost Unanimous in Congress,
and the vast majority of the American people were for it (at the time). That
has changed since. But don't use what we know today to judge the
decisions he had to make back then. Our understanding of what would/could
result in Iraq has changed drastically since 2003.
I'm going to cherry pick a couple of facts here. First that Russia will
hoodwink us by running a scam and turn a blind eye to Asaad's chemical
weapons. Sorry, but Russia "needs" those weapons gone much worse than
we want or need them gone. That's why they're involved. They need
them gone. Secondly this re-occurring claim that it was reasonable
to think Iraq had chemical weapons because they used them on their own people.
They used them in 1988. Fifteen years later, two wars later, and ten years of
crippling sanctions(over a million people died because of the sanctions), no it
was not reasonable to think they still had those weapons.
"This thread isn't a poll or popularity contest to see who agrees with
whom; it is a forum where we can discuss the principles which should guide this
nation." Actually I agree 100% with this. I think there are at
least three points here with opposing views.1) America is not the
worlds policeman, and should never use military force against another nation
unless attacked.2)If we interfere in one atrocity why not them all
or at least how do we choose?3) The US cannot take any military
action without the consent of Congress.Personally I think point one
and two merge, and point one is poorly stated (I know I wrote it).The US
is not the worlds enforcer, however the world does have the opportunity and
obligation to come together and set some standards of behavior. Standards that
can and should be enforced when broken. I also think the US has a unique
position in the world. A position that allows and even demands leadership from
us. So to be out front in the enforcement of world standards is not wrong. Point 3, later.
1) America has been the world's policeman. People look to us to deal with
the bad guys. Now that we have not attacked Syria, we are ceding that position.
(I am not saying we should attack Syria.). A lot of people are going to think,
"Hey we have to do this ourselves." So we will have a Mid-East arms
race. This may not end up good. 2) Obama can retaliate with words.
Iran and Hezbollah support Syria's murderous regime. Obama can simply
call a press conference and say, "I don't want to talk about Syria.
But this is on my mind. In the early 1950's the US's CIA organized a
coup against Iran's democratically elected leader. The coup put the Shah
into power who the US supported for over 20 years despite his gross violation of
human rights. It was a despicable thing for us to do to support this evil
dictator. We sincerely apologize to the Iranian people for our terrible
acts." Hopefully they'll read between the lines and consider what
their government is doing.We should point out Iran's and
Hezbollah's support as much as possible.
@Iron Rod:"Could you please explain your comment? What does Kuwait
have to do with it?"George H. W. Bush went to Kuwait to kick
Saddam out. A no-fly zone was established to keep Saddam hemmed and prevent
harassment of Kurds in the north and Shii in the south. He violated the NFZ so
George W. Bush put him in his place with invasion in 2003. The excuse of WMD
was supposed to get the Congress, the American people, and the world behind the
effort. That's how I see it. Evidence shows that Saddam did had WMD (used
earlier on Kurds)."Does this mean that if the government no
longer gives handouts the problem will go away?"Why get a job
and go to work if Uncle Sugar supplies everything? "What does
that have to do with 'I think many are now reevaluating their past support
for him and the preemptive attack on Iraq?'"It simply means
the decision to invade Iraq in 2003 included a significant number of Democrat
leaders in Congress.
wrz: you've mistaken me for someone else, apparently. I never supported
Clinton's, Bush's or anyone else's interventions. Their actions
were unconstitutional as well, but the constitution has been a dead letter for
at least 150 years now. It's just a nuisance to presidents anymore.
RE WIZ Phonix, AX"The war was a continuation of the military
action to kick Saddam out of Kuwait"Could you please explain your
comment? What does Kuwait have to do with it?"we will continue
to have homeless as long as the government keeps givinhg handouts"Does
this mean that if the government nolonger gives handouts the problem will go
away?"...and guess wo voted for it? Hilary Clinton, John Kery
and Joe Biden, that's who" What does that have to do with "I
think many are now reevaluating their past support for him and the preemp[tive
attack on Iraq?
Open Minded Mormon,I'm not WRZ, but he made some good points about
President Clinton's wars.I didn't bring up Clinton and
Kosavo but let's go there. No UN Security Council backing for that one
either. Same goes for Clinton's war in Somalia. Don't forget that
Clinton was the first President to start the hunt for BinLaden the first
American President to send cruise missiles into Afghanistan (kinda the start of
our involvement there).So let's not pretend that only
Republicans start wars. Or that only Bush used our military against countries
that never attacked us, or that Bush was the first US President to act
unilaterally or think America had to be the World's police and involve our
military in countries that hadn't attacked us (because Clinton also thought
there was a moral imperative to attack these countries that had not attacked
us).I'm glad you are consistent and denounce them all.
That's better than most people who seem to approve or disapprove depending
on the party of the President making the decision to use our military overseas
to enforce America's sense of moral superiority.
@LDS Liberal:"BTW - I know about changing one's mind. Many years
ago, I used to be a Republican."So, what are you now... a
Democrat? May God somehow look after and help you."I've
been in an actual war -- I've seen death, and disparity. I've seen
starvation and disease. That made me have a Change of Heart. and now it's
Bleeding..."Remember, Democrats have caused their share of
death, disparity, starvation, and disease from war as any Republican has.
BadgerbadgerMurray, UTI read what 2bits said -- He
brought up ex-Pres Clinton,He dragged Kosovo into this now.For
the record - I opposed Clinton then,I opposed Obama now.I also
opposed both Bushs for the exact same reasons.As a Veteran, and one who
has put skin in the game -- I do so with All POLITICS aside.Hakuna
matata.I oppose intervention in Syria. It is nice that we agree on
this.I take that position based on the facts regardless of blind political
party leanings. I challenge Ditto-headed Tea-Partiers to show that
same level of integrity likewise.I am 100% comfortable that I oppose
going to Syria based on the facts of this case for the same reasons I opposed
Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan and evey other political shenannigan...I am an
American -- we all should be.regardless of Party.
Thank you 2 bits. So well stated.LDSLibIt is really hard
to talk sensibly with someone obsessed with recruiting the world to hate their
ex. Seriously try to read what 2 bits said, but read it as though you were not
someone else, not you.I will not participate in your war on the
ex-president. Hakuna matata.I oppose intervention in Syria. It is
nice that we agree on this.I take that position based on the facts
of this case. I respect that you have done the same, and as such the challenges
pitched to those who blindly follow Obama, you may disregard, or get bent out of
shape, whichever works for you.Romney??? Uh, he is not the
president. Don't care what he says or thinks. It doesn't matter, at
this point, one iota. I am 100% comfortable that I oppose going to
Syria based on the facts of this case, which I outlined nicely for you, even
though you don't appreciate it."You guys" is also
snarky and offensive, BTW. TTFNLast post
@SEY:"There is no constitutional power to attack a nation that is not
threatening us in any way."Tell that to Clinton who bombed the
heck out of Kosovo even though there was no national threat to the US.@Baron Scarpia:"No question that the potential Russian diplomatic
intervention to take control of Syria's chemical weapons was in direct
response to America's willingness to use military force."What Russia plans to do with the chemical WMD is unclear. Russia will likely
just leave them intact in Syria and none will be the wiser.@LDS
Liberal:"He [Mitt] promised over and over again if elected he WOULD
invade Syria and Iran."Not without congressional approval."And I'm still waiting for the Congress and the GOP to fund
their last $3 Trillion boondoggle."I'm still waiting to
hear how Obama raised the national debt by more than all the past presidents
added together."...be consistent and attack Syria for the same
reasons you did last time."Did you mean to say: 'Be
consistent and attack Syria for the same reasons Clinton attacked Kosovo?'
@Iron Rod:"I realize Utah returned George W Bush back to Washington
with the highest approval rating in the nation but I think many are now
reevaluating their past support for him and the preemptive attack on
Iraq."Remember, Bush was given approval by Congress to go to war
with Iraq. And guess who voted for it? Hilary Clinton, John K\erry and Joe
Biden, that's who."Many now realize that we went to war
under false premises."The war was a continuation of the military
action to kick Saddam out of Kuwait."As long as we have one
homeless or hungry American we have no right to give borrowed money away to
other countries."We will continue to have homeless as long as
the government keeps giving handouts.
@2 bitsCottonwood Heights, UTWell then -- same question:Would you still be singing the same tune IF Mitt Romney were President?Y/N ?========== BTW - I know about changing
one's mind.Many years ago, I used to be a Republican.I've been in an actual war -- I've see death, and
disparity.I've seen starvation and disease.That made me
have a Change of Heart.and now it's Bleeding...
LDS Liberal,#1. I think there was as much reason to stop what Saddam
Hussein was doing in Iraq.#2. Unlike you... I have no problem with
people changing their mind, as long as they can point to when and why they
changed their mind.I'm not one of those who thinks, "You
can never change your mind", "You have to stick consistently to the
political narrative", "If you ever change your mind, EVER.. it's a
Flip-Flop".It's OK to change your mind. And
no... you can't always ASSUME that it's just because Obama's a
Democrat. For some that may be true, but you can't just assume it knowing
nothing about the person.Blanket group judgements are rarely
correct. Basing your every thought on political narrative is not right.
Judging everyone based on your political stereotypes is bogus.We
need to be able to discuss things and not be instantly judged (based on
stereotypes), and even change our mind as we learn lessons.This will
probably be blocked, but if it's not... I agree with you on this one (just
not your prejudiced assumption that anybody who disagrees with Obama is
The U.S. Constitution, the President, and Congress have no jurisdiction over
another country. That jurisdiction, if there is any, belongs to the United
Nations. Love 'em or hate 'em, they're the only entity with
jurisdiction to interfere in Syria. The U.S. doesn't have a dog in this
What obligation do we owe to the world?To fight WMDs? To fight
bad guys?To fight oppressive dictators?In that case, America
will ALWAYS be at war. Always. A perpetual state of war awaits us, our children,
and grandchildren. There will always be someone who has WMDs. There
will always be a mean dictator out there. There will always be oppressed
peoples. Just look at our own middle east adventures. For over 20
years we have been at a state of perpetual war there and look at the results!Trillions have been wasted and thousands of Americans have perished. Is
the Middle-East any more safe today than it was 20 years ago? Is it any less
unstable? Any more free?Lets focus on America or there won't be
an America left to help save the world.
@BadgerbadgerMurray, UTYou dodged, spun, and skirted every
issue -- Let me boil it down to this -- and ANSWER the
question honestly and truthfully:Would you still be singing the same
tune IF Mitt Romney were President?[Hint & reminder: He promised over
and over again if elected he WOULD invade Syria and Iran. And that was
BEFORE the chemical WMDs.]Y/N ?And I'm still
waiting for the Congress and the GOP to fund their last $3 Trillion
boondoggle.I oppose the President's call to Syria.That's called integrity.I'm waiting for you guys to
either:1. Admit you were wrong supporting GW Bushor2. be
consistent and attack Syria for the same reasons you did last time.REGADLESS who's in the WhiteHouse.That should prove who is
supporting the truth and what is right, and who's being duped as a
political hack and a lemming.
Tell us Mr. President, are we trying to:Punish with an "unbelievably
small" strike those who use poisonous gas.Contain Syria's WMD.
Where did they get them?Weaken the Assad regime without knowing what will
follow.Help the rebels and which ones.Prevent Syrian children from
dying, just by gas or with bombs, rockets, guns, etc. also. They are tragically
dead either way. Prevent anyone from being slaughtered in Syria. Adults
count, too. Show the world that we are strong and decisive. The clock is
running. Show the US that we are strong and decisive. Time's up.
This thread isn't a poll or popularity contest to see who agrees with whom;
it is a forum where we can discuss the principles which should guide this
nation.The United States is not the world's policeman. The United States has no authority to involve itself in the affairs of a
sovereign nation, unless that sovereign nation has attacked the United
States.If action is required by the world community because of
actions within a sovereign nation (civil war), then the United Nations is the
proper venue to discuss what actions need to be taken and which nations should
be involved.Obama has no right bomb Syria without the consent of
Congress and Congress has no right to declare war on Syria unless Syria has
attacked the United States or a nation that has allied itself with the United
States.Obama is using the public stage to perform his song and dance
about Syria. He would destroy innocent lives to retaliate against those he
claims destroyed innocent lives. His logic is faulty.
There would be no debate, no name calling, no claiming this president did this
and that one did that, if we but followed the Constitution of the United States
of America in all branches of government....presidential, legislative, and
judicial. Just follow the Rule of Law....not men and women, as is our present
practice.Other countries are sovereign and need to solve their own
problems, live their own lives. If we have not been attacked, it's none of
our business to attack them. Would we like it if another country decided we
were out of line in the US in some way, so they have the right to attack us?
Don't think so.By the way....I heard this morning that some
recently released European journalists in the middle east reported that they
overheard their captures discussing how the rebels in Syria set off the gas
attack to force the US to attack Assad. And another point. 1500 were gassed.
What about the other 100,000 killed by conventional weapons. Guess that's
If this person wants to bomb Syria they should go over there and take part in
it. The war on terror is a total scam designed to take away freedoms and
destabilize other nations. I'm sure the administration needs all the help
they can get from people like you. I'm glad there are some in the military
that are finally beginning to realize what a scam these wars truly are by
refusing to report for duty if they are deployed. It's time to try Bush and
Obama for WAR CRIMES.
LDSLibI disagree that it is the same situation. There are a lot of
parameters that are very different.Then: Recent terrorist
attack IN the USBin Ladin alive and leading his terrorist organizationThe strong terrorist cells were concentratedThe belief that Iraqis were
so tired of an oppressive dictator that they would embrace democracy.Our
military leaders favored going in.The blessing from many countries for
going in.The hope that a successful democracy in the Middle East would
inspire other countries to follow.Now:Bin Ladin dead The
terrorist 'boil has burst' spreading the terrorist infection all over
a much larger area encompassing many countries.Our own military leaders
oppose going to Syria.No backing from any other country, none!Far
less indication in Syria that any party is interested in a solution that shares
the power. They are just fighting to be the sect in power.The well
intentioned experiment of an example democracy has failed. They just don't
want it. Almost 17 trillion in US debt, can't afford it.World of difference, not a flip-flop (offensive, BTW).
@BadgerbadgerMurray, UTOh WOW! I agree with LDS Lib!I oppose all those who want to take our military and do something stupid with
it, including the above mentioned from both parties. There is a large block of
democrats who are staying true to their non-intervention stand.But I
do seriously question those who have long opposed having our military actively
involved in the middle east, but now think this is a good idea? And anyone who
opposes the idea on any ground is really just out to get Obama??? Sounds like
paranoia. The deluded Obama worshipers are making themselves known.8:18
a.m. Sept. 12, 2013====== Thanks, But I
gotta ask it -- Why the about face, 180, diametrically flip-flop now?It's the SAME situation, maybe even more evident -- and suddenly there is
complete turnabout.Seriously, What changed, besides "political
party"?I have been 1,000% consistent for 12 years now.Through all the snarky - "unAmerican", "unPatriotic" garbage I
put up DAILY for 12 years.I just want to know why NOW guys like you
are singing such a different tune?And would you still be singing it IF
Mitt Romney were President?
Oh WOW! I agree with LDS Lib!Making strikes against Syria would make
us the Hitleresk aggressor. They haven't done anything to us.I
am not surprised that John McCain wants us to intervene, but I am surprised
Lindsey Graham, John Boehner, Nancy Pelosi, and the president want to. The
democrats have been so verbally opposed to the foreign military actions in the
last decade, that I just didn't think they would be for it. What
happened?My opposition has nothing to do with Obama. I oppose all
those who want to take our military and do something stupid with it, including
the above mentioned from both parties. There is a large block of democrats who
are staying true to their non-intervention stand.But I do seriously
question those who have long opposed having our military actively involved in
the middle east, but now think this is a good idea? And anyone who opposes the
idea on any ground is really just out to get Obama??? Sounds like paranoia. The
deluded Obama worshipers are making themselves known.
I realize Utah returned George W Bush back to Washington with the highest
approval rating in the nation but I think many are now reevaluating their past
support for him and the preemptive attack on Iraq. It was a total embarassment
to me.The residual anger over Iraq's war orgins will continue
to haunt the American populace.Many now realize that we went to war under
false premises. Does any one not understand them? Would you like me to list
them? They do not want a repeat of it.I for one am weary with
America military entangements in the middle east.We can not afford
to be the world's policeman.We can not afford any longer to
give foreign aid to Israel and Egypt with borrowed money.As long as we
have one homeless or hungry American we have no right to give borrowed money
away to other countries. I realize that a lot of pressure groups
lean on congress to continue this aid but the time comes when we need to think
of Americans and American interests first. We need to stop
"flushing our borrowed money" down the middle east.
It's an International treaty that was broken, let the International
community deal with it.Syria did not attack America, our families or
our freedoms, once again -- we have no issue to get involved.And Republicans only agree with me this time because they are pre-programed to
reject all things Obama.
Putin's public relations team realizes that the tea party right hates Obama
so bad that he can score points for Russia. What did Romney say about Russia?
No question that the potential Russian diplomatic intervention to take control
of Syria's chemical weapons was in direct response to America's
willingness to use military force. While I'm not happy about the prospect
of another war, I thought Obama was quite compelling in his remarks that if
America allowed chemical weapons to be used, they'd proliferate in use and
among terrorists against Americans.Though seemingly messy in
execution, I think Obama's moves (deployment of military, delays to bring
Congress along, allowing the Russian diplomacy emerge) have been quite savvy to
reach the end game of Syria admitting it has chemical weapons and its
willingness to given them up.
john,dictators cannot use gas to murder children, but it's OK to use:
starvation (north korea)?bullets (Syria, Egypt, Iran,
Zimbabwe, Burma, China)?collapsing buildings and sweathouses
(bangladesh and all of the third world)?please explain why we
don't go after all these guys as well in our righteous indignation.
There is no constitutional power to attack a nation that is not threatening us
in any way. An attack would establish a precedent that has no foundation in law,
even if Congress gives its permission to do so. This is a case of "might
makes right" and nothing else.
Is there just a reflex in Utah to support the opposite of Obama? We had a lot of
opposition to Syria strikes but now that Obama called for a delay in the vote to
see if the diplomatic solution will work I swear I'm seeing a lot more
calls for military strikes and assertions that removing chemical weapons
isn't enough since Assad will just kill people with conventional weapons.