Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 2/26/2006 4:31:25 PM EDT
ok so im a junior in college and it seems i dont go a day without hearing issues on iraq by other students. my campus is overwelmingly liberal who become liberals in the first place because they seen the MOVIE (not documentary) farenheight 911 and decide that has become their new bible. i seem to be the only person in all my classes that speaks up to give my conservative point of view.

just the other day in my foreign politics class we got into a discussion over whether or not the US should have gotten involved in the war with Iraq in the first place.

my stance on this issue in particular is based on a historical view. i argued that any/all able bodied countries should make it their priority prevent potential terroristic regimes in their tracks before they snowball into a larger problem.

i used pre WW II as an example stating actions and events that manifested from a man named Adolf Hitler. I basically reasoned that he gained power at an alarming rate amassing weapons and becoming an "evil" empire. i talked about the years between 1930's to early 1940's where attacks in countries such as Czechloslovakia, Poland, etc... occured with no intervention from other industrialized nations. Also how appeasement and "turned backs" to the events acted as a catalyist to the flame that turned into a forrest fire.

im actually glad this conversation took place because now i can use this topic in my public speaking class on my term topic.

what do you guys think of this matter? i know this has been discussed before but it would be great to hear your opinions and maybe some pointers as to what i could include in my speech.
Link Posted: 2/26/2006 6:41:24 PM EDT
First of all, gather all the primary documents from the white house from August 1990 to April 2003. Including all the things Bill Clinton had to say about Saddam and Iraq.

Print out all the major Presidential speeches post 9/11, as well as major documents laying out the administration's case for war.

Among other things you might want to reference foreign leaders' speaches and documents calling for an end to the UN embargo on Iraq based on their claim that "100,000 Iraqi children are dying each year from malnutrion and disease exclusively because of this embargo" (even though the UN 'oil for food' program was in place specifically to ALLOW food, medicines, etc to be sold to Iraq in exchange for oil).

Tuck that bit of info - as false as is was - away... it's very important.

Because if true....that 100,000 children were dying per year.... then obviously it's true that since our invasion far fewer have died, since the TOTAL death toll reported for ALL Iraqis - children, men of military age and women, civilian and military, terrorists and not... is about 30,000 in 3 years.

So IF the LEFT'S CLAIM WAS TRUE AND 100,000 CHILDREN DIED PER YEAR UNDER THE EMBARGO, we've already saved some 270,000 lives that otherwise would have died.

But you'll discover that there were lots of reasons for invading Iraq...that NOWHERE was it claimed by Bush that Iraq was aN imminent threat... indeed his whole point was to invade BEFORE they become an imminent threat.

NAZI GERMANY WASN'T AN IMMINENT THREAT TO THE USA IN 1942...but we declared war on them anyway.

Don't read the pundits and talking heads except to make your case against them.... they don't base their arguments against the war on any factual basis - like actual speeches, actual facts of real AQ links.... sure they maybe didn't help plan 9/11 but then neither did the Taliban!

The Left thinks if we ONLY ARRESTED, TRIED, AND CONVICTED JUST THE PEOPLE IN THE IMMEDIATE KNOW OF THE 9/11 ATTACK ALL WOULD BE HUNKY DORY.... NOT SO, that's what Bush gets... it was bigger, far bigger than a small group of guys.. It was war, a war not against a particular country but against groups who have influence in dozens of countries.

And if you are going to win in the whole region, you need to be based in the center of it all...which is Iraq.
Link Posted: 2/26/2006 8:15:22 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/26/2006 8:19:10 PM EDT by mytwocents]

But you'll discover that there were lots of reasons for invading Iraq...that NOWHERE was it claimed by Bush that Iraq was aN imminent threat... indeed his whole point was to invade BEFORE they become an imminent threat

For centuries, international law recognized that nations need not suffer an attack before they can lawfully take action to defend themselves against forces that present an imminent danger of attack. Legal scholars and international jurists often conditioned the legitimacy of preemption on the existence of an imminent threat—most often a visible mobilization of armies, navies, and air forces preparing to attack.

We must adapt the concept of imminent threat to the capabilities and objectives of today’s adversaries. Rogue states and terrorists do not seek to attack us using conventional means. They know such attacks would fail. Instead, they rely on acts of terror and, potentially, the use of weapons of mass destruction—weapons that can be easily concealed, delivered covertly, and used without warning.


Link Posted: 2/26/2006 8:19:22 PM EDT
You can't reason someone out of a position they did not reason themselves into.
Link Posted: 2/26/2006 8:20:42 PM EDT
I am not trying to take a jab at you in the least bit,
but college student's are about the dumbest and most clueless
bunch of people I have ever had the chance to talk with.
Link Posted: 2/26/2006 8:51:18 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/20/2006 11:31:44 PM EDT by IndianaDean]
I'd say the point is irrelevent because we're there now. It's done. I don't believe in going back and saying "what if". I was against going there, but we did, and now our folks are getting killed over there. I say we support them.
Link Posted: 2/26/2006 9:35:32 PM EDT
what school do you go to? sounds like my school
Link Posted: 2/27/2006 4:39:20 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/27/2006 2:03:33 PM EDT by gsu2720]
I feel your pain. I am a college student in Georgia, and I see this type of liberal attitude everywhere. IIRC, the legal justification came from a United Nations Resolution dealing with Saddam's compliance with weapons inspectors. I can't think of the number off the top of my head, I think it is 1440 or 1444, something like that.

The resolutions authorized any member nation to use their "police power" to compel Iraq to cooperate with inspectors. By most accounts he did not, so the U.S., Britain, and a few others were the only countries with the testicular fortitude to enforce the UN resolutions.

This may give you a direction for your research.

UN Security Council Resolution 687 -- Paragraphs 8-13 outline the requirement for Iraq to not only dispose of WMD, but to also submit to weapons inspections.

UN Security Council Resolution 1441 -- Recalls that resolution 678 authorizes any member State to use any means neccessary to implement resolutions against Iraq and to restore international peace.

List to all Security Council Resolutions from 1946-Present

Good Hunting
Link Posted: 2/27/2006 7:19:19 PM EDT
i got to temple university here in philadelphia.........im gonna use this topic as a term topic in my public speaking class. ( as noted earlier).

i do agree college kids are the dumbest people because i can see where you are coming from. thats how most of them take to farenheight 911, kanye west, eminem as their religion and believe everyword they say.

you guys have been a great help and i appreciate everying.
Link Posted: 2/27/2006 8:06:46 PM EDT
You are welcome, I hope some of this has helped.
Link Posted: 3/9/2006 7:35:41 PM EDT
There's a counter curse to Farenheit 911. It's called farenhype 911 and it exposes Michael Mooron for the America bashing phony he really is. It illustrates how he manipulated the information to get the uninformed to draw the conclusions HE wants them to. If you can get any of the "brainwashed" to watch it you might find some of them pissed off for being lied to. I was only in Jr high school when Reagan was shot. I found myself agreeing with those who called for more gun control. After all if no one could get hold of one of these deadly weapons this sort of thing could not happen. This was drummed at the public constantly. I was confused when after his recovery president Reagan was asked by a young school girl if he thought we should ban guns. his ansewer was NO. Years later, after some self educating on the subject, I was one irate individual. Those who would ban guns tell lies. Not just simple ones, great big whoppers! These "Lies" get repeated over and over. It's hell trying to explain the truth to somewon who has heard the lie so often and accepted it as fact. Good luck with the uninformed...Hog
Link Posted: 3/12/2006 7:06:03 PM EDT
The Left typically excells in a very sophisticated form of self-flattering propaganda - all is rosy and wonderful when they;re in charge type thing whereas the Right - since we don't control the Media don't control the 'bad news'; thus for the unwary, it seems as though all was roses and joy in the 1990's "booming economy" and no one ever lost their job.... whereas in the last 4 years of our current BOOM - across the board, the CONSTANT theme in the MSM is to point to all the bad news, drip drip drip, bitching and complaining, and twisting even good news into bad news.

So the 1980's was waved off as "the decade of greed" No need to look any further folks, move along, move along, all was 'greed' so nothing good happened until our savior, the man who could do nothing wrong, Klinton, was annointed with less than 50% of the vote with a MANDATE from heaven to bring love, peace, and lots of money to all the land....

In the Left's use, propaganda has us - most of us anyway - thinking that the spanish civil war was essentially a story about noble, wonderful, hip, cool, intellectually superior peace loving hipsters being meanspiritedly gang raped by bad old Franco.

And that's it. A photo of Quernica and a caption about how wondeful the Republic was...and absolutely nothing about the atrocities they committed which led to Franco's revolt.

In Nicaragua - same thing; absolutely zero news about any bad things happening under the Sandinistas, but lots of bad news or no news of what's happened since.

So the typical lefty will assume that since all good news happened when socialists are in charge, and all hell breaks loose (apparently) after they're overthrown by 'people' (but not "the people" oh no, never), it's unquestionably true that the Left is right and the right is evil.

But it's all smoke and mirrors. Compare apples to apples, run your stats, check and recheck the body counts and you invariably come up with lots of buried news stories and eye witness accounts of atrocities committed under the socialists in the name of some future utopia that far out weighs what the 'reactionary' forces did.

Link Posted: 3/14/2006 6:00:50 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/14/2006 6:09:51 PM EDT by James_Gang]
March 20 is the third anniversary of the Bush administrations invasion of Iraq. U.S. military casualties to date are approximately 20,000 killed, wounded, maimed, and disabled. Iraqi civilian casualties number in the tens of thousands. Iraq's infrastructure is in ruins. Tens of thousands of homes have been destroyed. Fallujah, a city of 300,000 people, had 36,000 of its 50,000 homes destroyed by the U.S. military. Half of the city's former population are displaced persons living in tents.

Thousands of Iraqis have been detained in prisons, and hundreds have been brutally tortured. America's reputation in the Muslim world is ruined.

The Bush administrations expected a short "cakewalk" war to be followed by the imposition of a puppet government and permanent U.S. military bases. Instead, U.S. military forces are confronted with an insurgency that has denied control over Iraq to the U.S. military. Chaos rules, and civil war may be coming on top of the insurgency.

On March 9, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, the man who has been totally wrong about Iraq, told Congress that if the unprecedented violence in Iraq breaks out in civil war, the U.S. will rely primarily on Iraq's security forces to put down civil war.

What Iraqi security forces? Iraq does not have a security force. The Shia have a security force, the Sunnis have a security force, and the Kurds have a security force. The sectarian militias control the streets, towns, and cities. If civil war breaks out, the "Iraqi security force" will dissolve into the sectarian militias, leaving the U.S. military in the middle of the melee.

Is this what "support the troops" means?

Is this victory?

I think the facts speak for themselves.

Iraq was not and is not an imminent threat to the U.S. Nor did they possess WMD's.

The Bush administrations invasion of Iraq had as much to do with protecting his friends and business interests in the region, such as the Saudi's, the Kuwaiti's, and the UAE and destabilizing OPEC as any other reason. And of course let's not forget the war profiteers.

Anyone that can't do a factual analysis of the current situation is either blind or a hopeless ideologue.

Ones political bias or slant has nothing to do with it.

The U.S. is a liberal country (women vote, wear bikinis, etc..). The Taliban was not.

Which do you prefer? Or have you simply been conditioned to attack yourself, your own country and your fellow countrymen? All for a corrupted ideology of any persuasion?

Same old song and dance.

I hear the Army and the Marines need a few more good men.
Link Posted: 3/14/2006 6:48:40 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/14/2006 6:52:54 PM EDT by Bladeswitcher]
I realize I'm going to be burnt toast after posting this. but . . .

Sorry, but I've got to side with the liberals on this one. Invading Iraq has to have been one of the dumbest moves in American foreign policy history ever.

Forget all the reasons stated for the invasion. Weapons of mass destruction and overturning a tyrant are just smoke screens. We invaded Iraq because Bush and those around them had a grand scheme to influence the rest of the Middle East. They believed that they could establish a democratic foothold in Iraq and create a pro-American stronghold in the center of a troubled region that is critical to American national interests.

Yeah, I know, it sounds like a great idea. But it's utopian social engineering at its most naive. They failed to adequately consider the difficulties of their grand plan. Sure, they brought down Saddam quickly but that's as far as they planned. They thought the aftermath of toppling the butcher of Baghdad was to pack up the hardware and come home. They figured the Iraqis would take over and run things just as soon as they got done showering us with flowers. That is seriously how far they thought this thing through.

Ultimately, the problem with their plan is that they can't pull it off. They have FAILED at their objective of establishing a place of temperance and democratic reason in the Middle East. Yes, they had elections but the Iraqi have so far proven incapable of governing, much less establishing any kind of stability. And there is no sign that any of the things Bush set out to do will be accomplished any time soon (maybe not in our life times!).

They set out to create a bastion of peace and have turned the region into worse of a hornet’s nest than it was before. In short, they bit off more than they were prepared to chew and now — for political reasons — aren't willing to do what it takes to win the war they started. The libs want to compare Iraq to Vietnam. They're right but not for the reasons they think. Iraq is like Vietnam in that political grand schemers got us into a mess but are now unwilling to do what's necessary to get us out.

The problem is there is no solution. Bush's daddy was the smart one. He knew better than to commit U.S. troops to trying to rule a country full of people who don't want to be ruled and only respond to brutality. This is a war we can't win. Unfortunately, Bush put us in a position where we can't afford to lose either.

Face it, Bush screwed up! He got WAY ahead of himself and we're going to be paying the price for a LONG, LONG time. It was a monumental mistake of the highest order.

BTW, this has nothing to do with supporting or not supporting the troops. I've got nothing but respect for the men and women of our armed forces. But they got handed the short end of the stick by their commander in chief. Powell had the right idea. Don't commit troops unless you know the end game. And if you commit troops do it with all you got. Instead, we've got management of a war that's reminiscent of McNamara and his ilk from the Kennedy/Johnson days. Bush talks tough but he's hanging the G.I. out to dry by giving them a mission they can't accomplish.

As someone else said, we're in it now. But let's not be idiots about this. Let's at least look at the situation honestly and admit that this whole adventure was one colossal mistake.
Link Posted: 3/14/2006 7:03:52 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/14/2006 7:06:34 PM EDT by James_Gang]
I'm with you Bladeswitcher.

USMC ('79-'84).

Felt this way since the beginning.

They had two choices, get in overthrow and capture Saddam find and destroy WMD's and get out, like they said (I had my suspicions they wouldn't do this. Success breeds ambition among politicians).

Or stay there and continuously raise the bar whenever they accomplished something (which is what they've done). With the ultimate goal of permanent bases in a friendly, democratically elected puppet government with the intent to control resources and unfriendly governments in the region.

Problem was Bush didn't bother to get international support, like his dad did during the 1st Gulf war. Had he done so, we could have gotten out immediately after the fall of Baghdad, and let the U.N. and other Muslim nations handle the occupation tea party.

It should have been quite simple. No international support, no invasion.

Unfortunately you're dealing with an administration that sees the world a little differently, and has very little or no military experience. Wolfowitz even said Iraqi oil would pay for the reconstruction. Yeah right.

To them war is some sort of football game, Hollywood Cowboy's and Indians movie, or something similar to the Olympics. You play or drop a few bombs for 60 minutes, kick the enemies tail, get up and shake hands, then you get your way.

And you Congress lacked any balls whatsoever, and didn't bother to ask the right questions. Too worried about their patriotism and the gravy train I suppose.

I can't say I would welcome a Muslim army into my country either.

Now what are they doing? Apparently planning an Iraq 2 in Iran.

In the end Bin Laden's gonna get exactly what he wanted in the first place. An economically and politically weak United States.

Our politicians seem content to give it to them. While continuously talking out of both sides of their mouths, neglecting the home front and stuffing their pockets.

Nothing new here.

Link Posted: 3/20/2006 6:21:27 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/20/2006 11:31:23 PM EDT by IndianaDean]
I don't know. It's just a big mess and there are no easy solutions.
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 9:39:22 AM EDT
So much for Bush being their Savior.

Iraq is more like his baby. His spoiled brat if you will.

Problem is, as usual we get to pay for it. In more ways than one.

This was predictable.
Link Posted: 3/22/2006 9:21:20 AM EDT
I keep hearing that Bush didn't secure 'international support' but when I look at the actual force structure between Gulf war 1 and 2 the only major difference as to boots on the ground is the following: 1 French armoured division, 1 Syrian, and 1 Saudi.

In other words, 3 nations we found untrustworthy as allies during the 1990's when it came to Iraq didn't join us in annihilating the iraqi regime. They were all OK with JUST going into Kuwait - as that didn't fundamentally change the status quo.... they were all in bed with Saddam in various capacities thanks to the oil-for-weapons, palaces and foreign-terrorist training center UN program.

Link Posted: 3/22/2006 1:37:18 PM EDT
Interesting analysis JusAdBellum.

Sounds alot like you've got this situation completely figure out. Sort of like the gay issue.
Link Posted: 3/22/2006 8:33:00 PM EDT

Originally Posted By JusAdBellum:
I keep hearing that Bush didn't secure 'international support' but when I look at the actual force structure between Gulf war 1 and 2 the only major difference as to boots on the ground is the following: 1 French armoured division, 1 Syrian, and 1 Saudi.

Just from a little browsing on Wikipedia, it looks like the difference between the forces is greater than that. There were 17 different nationalities of troops on the Coalition side in the first war. There were four in the 2003 Invasion. I'm no expert, so correct me if I'm wrong, but that looks like a big difference in "international support."
Link Posted: 4/1/2006 6:16:35 PM EDT
I'm not a liberal. Not in the least but I've got to side with Bladeswitcher and James_Gang.


While the advice you received on getting all the speeches together etc is good, you really need to take a broader historical perspective as well as a current events perspective.

Historically you need to go back to Britain's original occupation of Iraq as well as the Iraqi revolt against the British in the 40's as well as their support of Hitler.

Then you have to carry that forward looking at the formation of the Baath party in Iraq from it's Syrian origins. Not to mention the Baath party were fascist supporters. There actually was a communist mix there as well. However Saddam's rise was within the Baath party. Always hating the British, Americans, and Jews. Yet he did business with the US and we with him when it seemed convenient to work him against the Persians in Iran.

Then you need to move forward to current events and take an honest look at things. The southern border is wide open. Any country that wishes to can move men and materials into the US through the Mexican border. Iraq was in no position to threaten us. No more than Iran is one the brink of being a nuclear power. George Bush always intended to go to Iraq. Yet we've worked hard to declare Iraq was a threat to the peace of the World. Meanwhile North Korea is a threat. China is a MASSIVE threat to our security and yet we turn Long Beach and now the Bahamas over to them, as well as the Panama Canal being under their control.

The country is simply being looted at the same time pushing more and more of our manufacturing base (all but gone today) overseas. Now we're routing high tech jobs overseas at a steady clip. We're importing more food than ever as we slowly run the American farmer out of business.

So while our young men are getting blown to shit in Iraq for nothing. The Constitution is being gutted, the country is being gutted, the economoy is teetering on the brink, the Chinese grow in power (and work well with the friendly Russians), extremist hispanics want to toss the white people out of the southwest, and the list goes on.

It's time to return the Guard to their respective Governors to secure their States as was intended. It's time for those Governors to begin to question Washington and hold them accountable for their actions. It's time for the People to get it together and start voting out of office people like the 89 Senators that voted to renew and strengthen the Patriot Act.

I've changed a lot in the last year. There was a time when I said, "Hell yeah let's go kick the World's ass"

Now I am awake. Now I look at all angles. Now I see the truth.

Bring 'em home and let's clean our own house. Bring 'em home and prepare for the real threats that lurk just outside our vision. Before it's too late.
Link Posted: 4/1/2006 7:04:44 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/1/2006 7:11:16 PM EDT by James_Gang]
I'm not a liberal either 2FALable.

I'm an Independent, and former U.S. Marine.

It's my feeling that common sense isn't liberal or conservative. As there are plenty on both sides of the political debate that lack any.

We've done as much as we can for the Iraqi's. And did it all in 2003 by removing Saddam, etc.. Anything else is blind ambition and and political, economic and military power grab by the powers that be.

Simply not our piece of real estate. And I resent paying for it and sacrificing our service personel for some slick politicians legacy and family business dealings in the region.

We've been down this road before. The deeper the politicans dig the whole, the deeper the bullshyt beside it becomes.

I've felt this way since before the invasion. I knew full well defeating the Iraqi army would not be much of a challenge. But I also knew that the minute this was accomplish our politicians would quickly raise the bar.

And I knew the politicians orchestrating the situation were under many misconceptions about war and foreign policy itself and many other things. Heck none of them have military experience, just a bunch of nonesense about why we weren't successful in Vietnam and how they could fix it in Iraq.

Success breeds ambition.

Apparently since the breakup of the former Soviet Union, the Republican party has adopted their playbook. I can't support such policies, and will not. Nor will I support politicians that obviously do not have the best interest of our nation and our soldiers at heart. No matter what comes our of their mouths.

We face great problems within our own nation. It's wrong for any politician to put the welfare of any other nation or group of people ahead of our own.

And it's our patriotic duty as Americans to take action and speak out at a minimum when this occurs.

Certainly it's easier to allow them to pull your strings, especially when they control your purse strings. Having the courage and conviction to stand for something greater is the spirit upon what this country was founded upon. Just ask the founding fathers. The British would have surely hanged everyone of them if they had been able to capture them.

Top Top