The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 5 of 24 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 231

Thread: Why did the US "really" invade Iraq?

  1. #41
    Senior Member GaryJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    659

    Default

    From another thread and I don't recall anyone calling Hillary a liar. The first paragraph has her reasoning and the last gives her approval.



    October 10, 2002
    Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
    on S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use of
    United States Armed Forces Against Iraq


    As Delivered


    Today we are asked whether to give the President of the United States authority to use force in Iraq should diplomatic efforts fail to dismantle Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons and his nuclear program.


    I am honored to represent nearly 19 million New Yorkers, a thoughtful democracy of voices and opinions who make themselves heard on the great issues of our day especially this one. Many have contacted my office about this resolution, both in support of and in opposition to it, and I am grateful to all who have expressed an opinion.


    I also greatly respect the differing opinions within this body. The debate they engender will aid our search for a wise, effective policy. Therefore, on no account should dissent be discouraged or disparaged. It is central to our freedom and to our progress, for on more than one occasion, history has proven our great dissenters to be right.


    Now, I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt. Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who has tortured and killed his own people, even his own family members, to maintain his iron grip on power. He used chemical weapons on Iraqi Kurds and on Iranians, killing over 20 thousand people. Unfortunately, during the 1980's, while he engaged in such horrific activity, he enjoyed the support of the American government, because he had oil and was seen as a counterweight to the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran.


    In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change and began to examine options to effect such a change, including support for Iraqi opposition leaders within the country and abroad.


    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, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.


    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. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.


    Now this much is undisputed. The open questions are: what should we do about it? How, when, and with whom?


    Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster, in the belief that one more round of weapons inspections would not produce the required disarmament, and that deposing Saddam would be a positive good for the Iraqi people and would create the possibility of a secular democratic state in the Middle East, one which could perhaps move the entire region toward democratic reform.


    This view has appeal to some, because it would assure disarmament; because it would right old wrongs after our abandonment of the Shiites and Kurds in 1991, and our support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980's when he was using chemical weapons and terrorizing his people; and because it would give the Iraqi people a chance to build a future in freedom.


    However, this course is fraught with danger. We and our NATO allies did not depose Mr. Milosevic, who was responsible for more than a quarter of a million people being killed in the 1990s. Instead, by stopping his aggression in Bosnia and Kosovo, and keeping on the tough sanctions, we created the conditions in which his own people threw him out and led to his being in the dock being tried for war crimes as we speak.


    If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan?


    So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option.


    Others argue that we should work through the United Nations and should only resort to force if and when the United Nations Security Council approves it. This too has great appeal for different reasons. The UN deserves our support. Whenever possible we should work through it and strengthen it, for it enables the world to share the risks and burdens of global security and when it acts, it confers a legitimacy that increases the likelihood of long-term success. The UN can help lead the world into a new era of global cooperation and the United States should support that goal.


    But there are problems with this approach as well. The United Nations is an organization that is still growing and maturing. It often lacks the cohesion to enforce its own mandates. And when Security Council members use the veto, on occasion, for reasons of narrow-minded interests, it cannot act. In Kosovo, the Russians did not approve NATO military action because of political, ethnic, and religious ties to the Serbs. The United States therefore could not obtain a Security Council resolution in favor of the action necessary to stop the dislocation and ethnic cleansing of more than a million Kosovar Albanians. However, most of the world was with us because there was a genuine emergency with thousands dead and a million driven from their homes. As soon as the American-led conflict was over, Russia joined the peacekeeping effort that is still underway.


    In the case of Iraq, recent comments indicate that one or two Security Council members might never approve force against Saddam Hussein until he has actually used chemical, biological, or God forbid, nuclear weapons.


    So, Mr. President, the question is how do we do our best to both defuse the real threat that Saddam Hussein poses to his people, to the region, including Israel, to the United States, to the world, and at the same time, work to maximize our international support and strengthen the United Nations?


    While there is no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma, and while people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposed conclusions, I believe the best course is to go to the UN for a strong resolution that scraps the 1998 restrictions on inspections and calls for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq. I know that the Administration wants more, including an explicit authorization to use force, but we may not be able to secure that now, perhaps even later. But if we get a clear requirement for unfettered inspections, I believe the authority to use force to enforce that mandate is inherent in the original 1991 UN resolution, as President Clinton recognized when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998.


    If we get the resolution that President Bush seeks, and if Saddam complies, disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. Regime change will, of course, take longer but we must still work for it, nurturing all reasonable forces of opposition.


    If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, then we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.


    If we try and fail to get a resolution that simply, but forcefully, calls for Saddam's compliance with unlimited inspections, those who oppose even that will be in an indefensible position. And, we will still have more support and legitimacy than if we insist now on a resolution that includes authorizing military action and other requirements giving some nations superficially legitimate reasons to oppose any Security Council action. They will say we never wanted a resolution at all and that we only support the United Nations when it does exactly what we want.


    I believe international support and legitimacy are crucial. After shots are fired and bombs are dropped, not all consequences are predictable. While the military outcome is not in doubt, should we put troops on the ground, there is still the matter of Saddam Hussein's biological and chemical weapons. Today he has maximum incentive not to use them or give them away. If he did either, the world would demand his immediate removal. Once the battle is joined, however, with the outcome certain, he will have maximum incentive to use weapons of mass destruction and to give what he can't use to terrorists who can torment us with them long after he is gone. We cannot be paralyzed by this possibility, but we would be foolish to ignore it. And according to recent reports, the CIA agrees with this analysis. A world united in sharing the risk at least would make this occurrence less likely and more bearable and would be far more likely to share with us the considerable burden of rebuilding a secure and peaceful post-Saddam Iraq.






    So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed.


    Thank you, Mr. President.
    Hebrews 11:3 By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.

    What if all we have today is what we gave thanks for yesterday?

  2. #42
    Senior Member JDogger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    MRGV New Mexico
    Posts
    3,306

    Default

    Why....??? It's kinda like having a film production come to your small town for 3,4 months. Anyone with a lick of sense stands to make a buck.
    Another thread asked what has the fed done good or efficiently....(remember when the troops in Iraq were begging for armored vehicles) well now every small town police force has one or two. Very efficient....
    Good?
    Time will tell.
    One cannot reason someone out of something they were not reasoned into. - Jonathan Swift

  3. #43
    Senior Member MooseGooser's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    7,239
    It is far easier to spit on the work of others than it is to produce something better yourself.
    Brynmoors Prairie Sage JH ​(Sage) Just a dang fool huntin Dawg
    HRCH Calypso Seven Bales High SH (Bailey)
    HR Calypso Zoomin Loosies Mad Hader (Maddi) We loved you baby. R.I.P.
    FlatLanders Broken Pistol Ricochet SH (Flinch)


    My Christian Name is Michael Baker..
    I have gone by "Gooser" since I was a "gossling"

  4. #44
    Senior Member Franco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Lafayette, La.
    Posts
    10,657

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mngundog View Post
    The fact that Junior was a known lier and fabricated WMD is the reason he got approval. Follow the blood money...





    "We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories"-junior
    Not sure if it was so much Bush being the liar as much as Rumsfeld pushing faulty intelligence. GW may not have been the sharpest pencil in the stack and it was Cheney and Rummy working his strings.
    It's such a shame that in the USA, defending Liberty has become such a heroic deed.

  5. #45
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    N.E. Oklahoma
    Posts
    2,084

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Matt McKenzie View Post
    Did you ever get the feeling after reading one of these threads that you've become dumber from the experience? My head is numb.
    Yes !!!!!!!!! .................................................. .................................................. ............
    charly

    There ought to be one day -- just one -- when there is open season on Congressmen.
    ~Will Rogers~

  6. #46
    Senior Member JDogger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    MRGV New Mexico
    Posts
    3,306

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Matt McKenzie View Post
    Did you ever get the feeling after reading one of these threads that you've become dumber from the experience? My head is numb.
    I get that feeling sometimes too Hookset. Real names did nothing to give us a genuine highbrow intellectual political sub-forum.
    If your head is numb... the relief is clear... DON'T CLICK...
    but if you want to play.... expect occasional numbness...
    Many oldtime poster's are gone. Perhaps they experienced numbness, and decided against it. Or chose it. I don't know...
    JD
    One cannot reason someone out of something they were not reasoned into. - Jonathan Swift

  7. #47
    Senior Member dback's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    arizona
    Posts
    952

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JDogger View Post
    Many oldtime poster's are gone. Perhaps they experienced numbness, and decided against it. Or chose it. I don't know...
    JD
    Not much the Dogger and I have agreed on through the years but this one is funny and true. I have kept in touch with a couple of those "old-timers" and, in both cases the 'numbness' just plain wore 'em out………
    "What a difference a week makes. This week I feel like a football coach. Last week I felt like Britney Spears' choreographer."
    Coach Bob Green, Montana Tech

  8. #48
    Senior Member swampcollielover's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    MO
    Posts
    1,706

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MooseGooser View Post
    This regime change was necessary because Saddam was an international outlaw. He had violated the 1991 Gulf War truce and all the arms control agreements it embodied, including UN resolutions 687 and 689, and the 15 subsequent UN resolutions designed to enforce them. The last of these, UN Security Council Resolution 1441, was itself a war ultimatum to Saddam giving him “one final opportunity” to disarm – or else. The ultimatum expired on December 7, 2002, and America went to war three months later.
    Good post, now that is two of us the "get it"! I am amazed how the propaganda machine in this country can take an event like the two wars with Iraq, and spin it into something, that it was not! If it was Bush, Rumsfeld, etc. telling lies, as some suggest, you have to assume that the Majority of our Senators were fooled, by this, which of course is not true. One can say that the world had bad intelligence or you can say that Saddam had time to destroy and/or move the WMD to an Allie...those possibilities are believable, but that Rumsfeld fooled them all? REALLY!!??
    Last edited by swampcollielover; 05-26-2014 at 09:05 AM.

  9. #49
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    SW Minnesota
    Posts
    2,045

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by swampcollielover View Post
    Good post, now that is two of us the "get it"! I am amazed how the propaganda machine in this country can take an event like the two wars with Iraq, and spin it into something, that it was not! If it was Bush, Rumsfeld, etc. telling lies, as some suggest, you have to assume that the Majority of our Senators were fooled, by this, which of course is not true. One can say that the world had bad intelligence or you can say that Saddam had time to destroy and/or move the WMD to an Allie...those possibilities are believable, but that Rumsfeld fooled them all? REALLY!!??
    As stated that post is false and all evidence has been presented proving so. The ones who truly don't get it are the ones that rely on bloggers to give a accurate information. If it suits their needs they could careless if it is true.

  10. #50
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    622

    Default

    Yes with all variety of sources, double-speak , ignorance , I yearn for the old days of Napoleon who knew how to do things right until Spain/Waterloo and that was to establish a Ministry of Propaganda. Now that was far reaching long before the internet. Agents of the government , veterans , civic-minded people , patriots were to daily descend on the village/town squares to enliven/support patriotic Napoleonic causes. Now that is calling it what it is - propaganda ! Humor , if anybody does not get.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •