Strange turn of events...

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by kach22i

Failure to follow the Constitution of the United States of America.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/warandtreaty.htm


We need to return to the Constitution NOW!

Does that mean every military conflict we've been involved in since WWII has been unconstitutional? I doubt it. All major conflicts we've been involved with had Congressional approval. None (since WWII) were formal declarations of war. It ain't so clean cut anymore. How do you declare war on non-state actors? Does not being able to do so in strict constitutionally-correct terms mean we ignore al Qaeda?

[nostatic]

Originally Posted by lendaddy

I am just saying that our motivation ran much deeper than oil

I totally disagree. This was/is all about oil and money. 9/11 was a convenient rallying cry to get people on-board.

[frogger]

Originally Posted by Chocaholic

Perhaps you are too young to remember Viet Nam? 50,000+ of our people. Makes Iraq look like a walk in the park.

You're absolutely correct. What was I thinking?

[lendaddy]

Originally Posted by nostatic

I totally disagree. This was/is all about oil and money. 9/11 was a convenient rallying cry to get people on-board.

OK, if Bush and clan are so sinister as to sacrifice (nay murder) thousands upon thousands of innocents to acquire a better angle on the areas oil, why did they balk at planting a few WMDs and thus solidifying the "hero" Neocons rule of the US for decades? Why the sudden conscience?

Like I said, oil was a factor in that the free trade of oil is very important to a stable global economy but it was only a factor.

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by lendaddy

OK, if Bush and clan are so sinister as to sacrifice (nay murder) thousands upon thousands of innocents to acquire a better angle on the areas oil, why did they balk at planting a few WMDs and thus solidifying the "hero" Neocons rule of the US for decades? Why the sudden conscience?

I sure as hell would have. When you get accused of and blamed for every ill of the world, why not at least do some of those things? I had a crazy gf once who accused me of doing all kinds of outrageous stuff I never even thought about doing. After a while I figured, "Why not do it?" I get the blame, I might as well enjoy it.

[Moneyguy1]

There are factors and then there are FACTORS.

Simply a matter of how much emphasis is given to a specific factor.

[kach22i]

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

Does that mean every military conflict we've been involved in since WWII has been unconstitutional? I doubt it.

According to people like Ron Paul, yes.

[Moneyguy1]

If it is unconstitutional, then we should change the constitution...

That sounds about right....

[lendaddy]

Originally Posted by Moneyguy1

There are factors and then there are FACTORS.

Simply a matter of how much emphasis is given to a specific factor.

Absolutely true, but I really think people overlook the the main drive behind it which was really just to keep our pimp hand strong.

I think Bush was a big enough dreamer that he thought he really could do it. In the end it appears to have had the opposite effect by showing we really are pushovers.

It's all about getting back to "Speak softly and carry a big stick", but that's hard to do if our stick cracks on the first ass it hits. We needed to make an example of Iraq in order that we could be more hands off with the rest.

[Moneyguy1]

len

While I agree (and always have) with the big stick foreign policy because if the stick is big enough and strong enough it never has to be used, I would question the "dreamer" aspect of our president. Dreaming requires some degree of imagination.

Further, a dream is only a beginning, like an idea. Edison had it right when he said that invention (and it could be any project) is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration. Perhaps that would in part explain how things went so wrong.....no long term planning.

[lendaddy]

Originally Posted by Moneyguy1

len

While I agree (and always have) with the big stick foreign policy because if the stick is big enough and strong enough it never has to be used, I would question the "dreamer" aspect of our president. Dreaming requires some degree of imagination.

Further, a dream is only a beginning, like an idea. Edison had it right when he said that invention (and it could be any project) is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration. Perhaps that would in part explain how things went so wrong.....no long term planning.

I accept that I'm in the minority with my opinion on Bush, but I don't see the slightest bit of villain in him. If anything he is Pollyannic.

[Moneyguy1]

len..I do not see villain in him either. I see very little in him, however. Take that any way you wish; I just see him as, well, "limited" in the sense of being able to look at the consequences of present actions on the future.

[lendaddy]

Originally Posted by Moneyguy1

len..I do not see villain in him either. I see very little in him, however. Take that any way you wish; I just see him as, well, "limited" in the sense of being able to look at the consequences of present actions on the future.

I think that might fall under Pollyannic.

[Moneyguy1]

OK..You lost me on that one!!

[surflvr911sc]

It amasses me that people have forgotten that we probably spent more than 20 Billion dollars on Iraq between the Gulf War in 1991 and Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003. That is not counting the wars themselves, that’s just Operations Northern and Southern Watch.

We didn’t just flip a switch on Saddam and Iraq after 9-11, Saddam switched it when he invaded Kuwait. He continued to defy the world and destabilize the region for the next 12 years and now military operations have been ongoing for almost 17 years.

Regardless of your feelings on the war you cannot pretend that this was all thought up as a response to 9-11 w/ drum beats to WMDs, and that nothing else was taken into account.

[WI wide body]

Originally Posted by lendaddy

It always amazes me how quickly everyone forgets what Iraq was even about. I don't even see it mentioned in this thread. WMD's were a factor, they were not the reason. Spreading freedom and democracy were factors( more so side effects), they were not the reason. Oil was a factor, it was not the reason.

We invaded Iraq because we made the very bold and IMHO proper statement after 9/11 that the US was done fukcing around when it came to our national security. That when we say something or give an ultimatum by god we mean it.

We were lost after 9/11 wondering how we got to a point that this could happen and our image as a paper tiger/pushover was a huge factor. Saddam called what he thought was a bluff and there we stood before the world...do we continue with our empty threats that have emboldened our enemies or do we seize the opportunity to show them we're serious again?

Now we can argue tactics, strategy or even if we should have rebuilt them at all but the above was what it was really about. We did the right thing in taking Saddam down, the rest is certainly debatable.

In the future I would like to see us involved much much much less in world affairs like this, but the ball was rolling on this one before Bush even took office(UN resolutions).

I can see why you might be "amazed." First you said that our invasion of Iraq was because after "9/11" we (read that as Bush/Cheney/Wolfowitz/Pearle, etc) decided that to battle terrorism we needed to invade Iraq. Then at the end you said it was because of "UN resolutions." So which was it?

Neither is correct. According to reports from Bush's own people (those who have quit his admin) there was much talk from the guys mentioned above about attacking Iraq long before 9/11 or the UN bull***** and 9/11 simply provided a good excuse if they could convince most Americans that 9/11 and Saddam were related...which even Team Bush now admits is not true.

Besides, if we really wanted to go after the 9/11 bad guys we would have invaded Pakistan and Saudi Arabia even before Afghanistan!

[WI wide body]

Originally Posted by surflvr911sc

It amasses me that people have forgotten that we probably spent more than 20 Billion dollars on Iraq between the Gulf War in 1991 and Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003. That is not counting the wars themselves, that’s just Operations Northern and Southern Watch.

We didn’t just flip a switch on Saddam and Iraq after 9-11, Saddam switched it when he invaded Kuwait. He continued to defy the world and destabilize the region for the next 12 years and now military operations have been ongoing for almost 17 years.

Regardless of your feelings on the war you cannot pretend that this was all thought up as a response to 9-11 w/ drum beats to WMDs, and that nothing else was taken into account.

So you ARE saying that President Bush did indeed lie when he gave us his reasons for requesting the authorization from Congress to take action?

[Rick Lee]

WI, is there any other topic you can talk about? Is playing gotcha with those who hate Bush less than you do all you have? No one is gonna change your mind and no one but you can cure your BDS. I know I'm only feeding the troll by responding, but seriously....we hashed out all the am too - am not, Bush is Satan stuff years before you came here.

[WI wide body]

Originally Posted by lendaddy

OK, if Bush and clan are so sinister as to sacrifice (nay murder) thousands upon thousands of innocents to acquire a better angle on the areas oil, why did they balk at planting a few WMDs and thus solidifying the "hero" Neocons rule of the US for decades? Why the sudden conscience?

Like I said, oil was a factor in that the free trade of oil is very important to a stable global economy but it was only a factor.

If not oil, then what do you think are the "factors" that caused President Bush to stay in Iraq after the WMD's were proved false and Saddam and his regime were toppled?

That is when it began to make no sense. We accomplished all of the goals given by Team Bush and then for whatever "factor" we stayed and it has cost us at least 24,000 additional casualties and hundreds of billions of dollars with no end yet in sight.

WHY???

[lendaddy]

Originally Posted by WI wide body

I can see why you might be "amazed." First you said that our invasion of Iraq was because after "9/11" we (read that as Bush/Cheney/Wolfowitz/Pearle, etc) decided that to battle terrorism we needed to invade Iraq. Then at the end you said it was because of "UN resolutions." So which was it?

Actually I never mentioned terrorism, are you sure you read my post? I did not say we invaded solely because of UN resolutions, only that those resolutions presented us a crossroads. Again, did you read my post?

Originally Posted by WI wide body

Neither is correct. According to reports from Bush's own people (those who have quit his admin) there was much talk from the guys mentioned above about attacking Iraq long before 9/11 or the UN bull***** and 9/11 simply provided a good excuse if they could convince most Americans that 9/11 and Saddam were related...which even Team Bush now admits is not true.

Now that's interesting since "the UN bull****" started 8-10 years before Bush took office. You really have to keep up on this stuff if you're going to try to get smarmy about it.

Originally Posted by WI wide body

Besides, if we really wanted to go after the 9/11 bad guys we would have invaded Pakistan and Saudi Arabia even before Afghanistan!

Again, I said nothing about Iraq having any involvement in 9/11 whatsoever. I enjoy a spirited discussion as much as the next guy but if you're not even going to pay attention and just make **** up I'd rather watch the Orange Bowl.