Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Will There Ever Be A Serious Inquiry Into The War?  
User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (11 years 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 1818 times:

With all that we know-and much that we don't-on what led up to the war in Iraq, when will there be a serious drive for an investigation by Congress in to what happened before the war? It is needed, in my opinion, for many reasons, and there are many questions that need to be asked:

-Did the Administration willfully mislead the American people, and the world, on it's assertions of a large abundance of WMD's in Iraq, or was the intel that the Administration was given so far removed from the reality that any administration would have believed what it said about WMD's?

-Why did the Administration tie Al Qaeda to Iraq, when there has never been ANY evidence linking the two? Indeed, Al Qaeda Chief Creep bin Laden has said-many times-that he hates Saddam Hussein, and considers him an infidel.

-As with the WMD question, why was the Adminstration so seemingly far off base when it came to a "reconstituted" nuclear program in Iraq? The evidence suggests this wasn't the truth. Was it a deliberate falsehood, or was the intel just plain wrong?

-Why wouldn't the US let inspectors have more time in Iraq? And why was their such a rush to go to war? Was it an urge to go to war, or was it, again, the intel that made it seem necessary to go to war?

Again, none of us knows the answer to these questions with any certainty. It is, in my view, imperative that Congress hold hearings to determine what happened, and how to correct mistakes that were made.

A personal note: I hope to God that any investigation turns up the fact that it was bad intel. Not that that's a good thing, but I'd take that-for the nation's sake, over leanring that the Administration outright lied to us.


25 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (11 years 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 1777 times:

or was the intel that the Administration was given so far removed from the reality that any administration would have believed what it said about WMD's?

The Clinton administration believed it, and most of the world seemed to also believe that Saddam had them, if you recall. The main point of contention was not this, but rather whether or not the U.S. should wait for the U.N..

Let's face it, on top of the evidence of unaccounted-for weapons, which was considerable, Saddam's behaviour supported the idea that he had something to hide. His behaviour was as if a cop knocks on your door (to ask you if you have seen a missing dog from around the corner), and you answer him by pointing guns out the window and screaming at him (in your best 1930's Jimmy Cagney voice), "You ain't gettin' me, copper! I ain't comin' out, sheee?" The cop can't help but be suspicious, especially when he knows that you have a history of being a homicidal maniac on a state scale.

To find that Saddam went through all this effort to piss off the entire world without actually having something to hide is almost beyond belief. I guess he is even madder than we thought.

-Why wouldn't the US let inspectors have more time in Iraq?

Summer was coming, and I still feel pity for those soldiers I saw standing on Baghdad streets wearing full kit and body armor in July heat. The idea of actually conducting large scale military action in such conditions would be very cruel to the volunteer soldiers who had to do it. Waiting until the next cool season was not a viable option due to the maintainance costs of keeping the troops in theater with limited training capabilities relative to their home base, dulling their edge, or the cost (financial and political) of retiring them and then re-inserting them 6 months later.

History will no doubt clarify what happened, but it might not be soon enough for the MTV/CNN generation. It might be 50 years before all the facts are out and presented by cool analysis by historians, rather than political commentators and internet jockies with an agenda to sell.

Charles


User currently offlineMt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6593 posts, RR: 6
Reply 2, posted (11 years 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 1767 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I dont think so. If anyone challenges things too much they can become "unamerican" and risk the next elections.

Some congress members may be a little more vocal than others but i think that the bottom line is the same.

It happened with the not famous $87 Billion.. Some shouted, but it was approved with no problem at the risk of being "unamerican"



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineBobrayner From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2003, 2227 posts, RR: 6
Reply 3, posted (11 years 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 1761 times:

Let's face it, on top of the evidence of unaccounted-for weapons, which was considerable, Saddam's behaviour supported the idea that he had something to hide.

Surely, Iraq was all too glad to cooperate with inspectors once it saw that Bush really wanted to invade?

And, contrary to Bush's claims, the inspectors were forced out by the impending invasion rather than by the Iraqi authorities.

History will no doubt clarify what happened, but it might not be soon enough for the MTV/CNN generation

The Bush administration claimed to have lots of specific evidence about types of WMDs, quantities, and locations - when Saddam Hussein was running the show. I'm quite surprised that they haven't been able to find any of these, given several months and several thousand people to wander round the country at will, and question whoever they want.

What happened to the satellite photographs? Did the claimed WMD facilities disappear overnight (fairly difficult, given that Iraq's communications and infrastructure were first to be hit), or did they turn out to be random harmless buildings?



Cunning linguist
User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (11 years 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 1751 times:

No question, this is a major, major intelligence Charlie-Foxtrot. I am quite satisfied in my own mind that Bush would not have willingly gone to war knowing that no such WMD's would be found, given the embarassment that it would cause, not to mention the strain on international relations, the monetary cost and the strong likelyhood that such an "Oops" will cost him his second term, which I think he would have easily achieved if Gulf War II had not happened.

No, he put far too much political capital into Gulf War II for him to have gone for it without a strong belief that there were WMDs there. So I think it was an honest mistake, at least on his part. He is not an intelligence analyst who digs through all the photos, ELINT and HUMINT himself - he depends on intelligence specialists to give him that. Whether those specialists made honest mistakes, or were guilty of, call it, "overpositive thinking" is another question. Whichever the case, I believe that GW Bush, as President, must shoulder the responsibility of those who he appointed or acted under his authority - like the captain of a ship. Whether or not the American public will forgive him for it is a question that will be answered next year.

But I call to people's attention that Iraq has not yet been fully searched. I don't know how much of Iraq has been searched, but it cannot be more than 10%. If there are in fact WMDs, and Saddam had them buried, it makes sense that he would bury them somewhere out in the middle of nowhere, with no markers, and with only a one or two people who know the GPS coordinates, if the work crews were eliminated. I see this as entirely possible.

Charles


User currently offlineDoorsToManual From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (11 years 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 1733 times:

Well, the "serious enquiry" that comes close to asking some questions about the use of intelligence in the production of the UK's "dossier" (the Hutton Enquiry), has now revealed some interesting facts.

Most interesting for me is the definition of "WMDs" according to the UK govt. Yesterday, the head of the international branch of the UK's secret intelligence service (aka "MI6") gave evidence from a secret location - he admits "with hindsight" that the claim that WMDs could be launched within 45 minutes was given "undue prominence". Not only this, but it seems there was some deliberate ambiguity with regards what the WMDs actually were...not weapons that could be directed & used to threaten population centres in Europe or Israel, but weapons that could only be deployed at battlefield range.....that doesn't really constitute an "immediate" threat to Europe or America's security in my mind.

At the moment, it looks to me like the UK government was pretty desperate to convince its people that war in Iraq was necessary...and in this desperation, they purposefully created ambiguous threats and claims, which could easily be interpreted in a variety of ways......

The UK might have had some good reasons for going to war (although I don't yet know the good ones); the argument that Saddam was evil/despotic/murderous doesn't wash with me - if that was the real reason, the US & UK would have by now invaded Saudi Arabia, Iran, Morocco, Syria, North Korea and god knows who else....there are clearly other factors at play here.


User currently offlineVonRichtofen From Canada, joined Nov 2000, 4627 posts, RR: 36
Reply 6, posted (11 years 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 1710 times:

Maybe the UN should do an inquiry....

Not good to have 2 of the most powerful members of the security council starting a war with either bad intel, or fabricated intel.



Word
User currently offline727LOVER From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 6437 posts, RR: 17
Reply 7, posted (11 years 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 1705 times:

With all that we know-and much that we don't-on what led up to the war in Iraq, when will there be a serious drive for an investigation by Congress in to what happened before the war?

The answer is NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO!

Why? It's this simple?

President is REPUBLICAN
Congress controlled by REPUBLICANS

See a link?????

That is the simple truth. And I DARE anyone to present facts to anything otherwise.



Listen Betty, don't start up with your 'White Zone' s*** again.
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29799 posts, RR: 58
Reply 8, posted (11 years 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1681 times:

Any attempt would just be partisan politics by the Democrats and would be seen as such.


Didn't Blair just get acquitted of allegedly, "sexing up" their intel?



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (11 years 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1674 times:

Any attempt would just be partisan politics by the Democrats and would be seen as such.

Real good, L-188, since the Democrats hold no power on Capitol Hill. Is it not purly partisian politics if the GOP leaders on The Hill ignore all of this? I think so. So play your little games about the Dems, they don't control the strings.


User currently offlineN6376m From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (11 years 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1664 times:

Sauce -

"Democrats hold no power on Capitol Hill" - come on now do you really believe this?

If so, why are there so many judicial nominees being held up?

If so, why is Sen. Clinton single handedly holding up the EPA nomination?

Come on - get real and get honest.


User currently offlineVonRichtofen From Canada, joined Nov 2000, 4627 posts, RR: 36
Reply 11, posted (11 years 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1662 times:

Sauce?




Word
User currently offlineB757300 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 4114 posts, RR: 22
Reply 12, posted (11 years 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1650 times:

I think people need to realize that Saddam's weapons of mass destruction were never the main reason why we removed him from power. They were just one of many reason why we did what was necessary

- Remove a continued threat to the stability of the entire region

- Remove a major source for terrorist funding, protection, and training (Saddam made it publicly known that he was supporting suicide bombers in Israel)

- Remove a brutal dictator from power (One who's favorite idol was Stalin)

I'll divide the WMD issue into two points

- Prevent Saddam from acquiring, reacquiring, producing, and/or providing any nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons to terrorists (According to Bill Clinton, who many people on this forum practically worship, Saddam never accounted for his NBC programs)

- Saddam still did not provide any significant account of his NBC programs as required by U.N. Resolution 1441 (If he had nothing to hide, why didn't he take the U.N. inspectors into every bunker and factory he had to show he was telling the truth?)

-Saddam was in violation of the cease-fire agreement and its related U.N. resolution he "accepted" following Desert Storm
___________________________________________
To talk just about the WMD issue since that is what the left and their media allies are still having fits over...

Are we going to find a building with a sign on it saying "WMD Hideout"? Of course not and anyone who expected it to be that easy is just plain stupid.

The most likely explanation is Saddam never had any weapons. What he possessed was all the materials and equipment necessary to produce them in a matter of hours before use. Its easy to hide drums of legal chemicals and if they're found; simply claim they're for agricultural or industrial production. When the time comes, mix the chemicals together and BOOM, Sarin, VX, etc. We know Saddam still had the equipment and personal necessary to make chemical weapons and it is quite possible he didn't mix them for fear of them being found and losing all support from his Euro-buddies. Its also a lot easier to get the inspectors to overlook a drum of pesticide rather than a pile of Sarin shells. Having this capability and the plans to use it would put Saddam in violation of the U.N. resolutions just as much as having a building full of VX rockets.

Also, don't forget Iraq is a large country and searching all of that sand will take a heck of a long time. It would be real easy for Saddam to simply dig a hole in the sand and bury his illegal weapons. Kinda hard to find them among the vast ocean of nothing but sand. (Remember the MIGs that we found, totally by accident, that had been buried out in the middle of no where.)

Another theory is Saddam shipped the weapons off to Syria for safe keeping or in return for supporting the terrorists that are now causing trouble in Iraq. Some suspect that the weapons are hidden in Lebanon's Bekaa Valley which is controlled by Syrian forces and Iranian backed Hezbollah terrorists.

Finally, it is also possible Saddam did destroy all the weapons of mass destruction just before or just as the war began. Since he knew he was going to lose, he decided that using them was too risky (U.S. had threatened nuclear retaliation if they were used) so in order to spite the U.S., he destroyed them so they could never be found.
_________________________________________________

I trust President Bush enough to give him the benefit of the doubt. Some people here and in the various leftist organizations never believed anything Bush said since he took office so why should this issue be any different.



"There is no victory at bargain basement prices."
User currently offlineBobrayner From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2003, 2227 posts, RR: 6
Reply 13, posted (11 years 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 1630 times:

I trust President Bush enough to give him the benefit of the doubt. Some people here and in the various leftist organizations never believed anything Bush said since he took office so why should this issue be any different.

Quite. The reasons you gave above are NOT the reasons that Bush gave for invading.

Remove a brutal dictator from power

Then why are so many other brutal dictators in power? What's so special about Iraq?

A little history...

Iraq had a similarly brutal dictator - Qasim - at the end of the 1950s; but he was a Good Guy as long as he was anti-communist. Then, one day in 1959, he began to buy arms from the Soviets too... strangely enough, the CIA arranged an assassination attempt on Qasim just after that. Guess who was on the hit squad?

Alas, the assassination attempt was bodged, and the young Mr Hussein was withdrawn to hideaways in Beirut and Cairo. He got training and money, and bided his time until some other way was found to remove Qasim and perhaps install a suitable replacement.

It would seem that Saddam first got his taste for mass killings just after the Ba'ath party came to power; they decided to get rid of the communists. Guess who egged them on, and provided lists of suspected communists?

So, where does the USA stand, vis a vis brutal dictators?

Anyway, back to WMD.

The UN record in Iraq was rather better than the record of US intervention. One provided Iraq with WMD to use against Iran, and gave hints and encouragement; the other was successfully disarming Iraq until just before the tanks rolled in. Which was which?

Personally, if that's the reason, then I'd rather see an embargo than an invasion.

Saddam still did not provide any significant account of his NBC programs as required by U.N. Resolution 1441

Then what were all the documents that Iraq provided to the UN just before the war? The main one - several thousand pages - apparently contained so such sensitive information that the security council had to withdraw it from circulation before non-WMD states learned anything from it.

This is hard to reconcile with claims that Iraq had WMD but never said anything about it.

The most likely explanation is Saddam never had any weapons.

Then why did the Bush regime say it had, over and over again, with various different evidence, and with great certainty?

losing all support from his Euro-buddies

I'm very surprised that you think Iraq got more help from Europe than the USA.



Cunning linguist
User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (11 years 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1612 times:

think people need to realize that Saddam's weapons of mass destruction were never the main reason why we removed him from power. They were just one of many reason why we did what was necessary.

B757300, again it's breathtaking to see how you just absolutely ignore what His Holiness The President said before the war-that was THE justification he gave,and the ONLY justification he gave for months-WMD's. He preached it; Cheney preached it, that Nazi Rumsfeld preached it; Colin Powell preached it. They preached it 24/7, and now, that it turns out your boy was either mislead, or lied to us, you try to say "well, that was never the reason".

Why don't you go research it a little? What you're saying is an absolute falsehood, insofar is that is THE justification that was given. It's amazing how you, like Bush, just want people to forget that thait's what he pushed in the UN, and to the American people for months. It's another reason why we need an investigaton, because the Administration just wants what they said for months forgotten.

- Remove a continued threat to the stability of the entire region.

The threat, obviously was overstated, when it was finally used as an excuse once we invaded. Looking at how poorly the Iraqi armed forces fought, they were hardly a threat to anyone, especially with the U.S. presence in the area. That one is another mirage.

- Remove a major source for terrorist funding, protection, and training (Saddam made it publicly known that he was supporting suicide bombers in Israel)

Most of the terrorists camps in Iraq were in the north, an area that Saddam had no control other, and an area that was tacitly "aligned" with the U.S. So much for that. It was, at best, a minor source for funding, which hasn't made one damn bit of difference in the war against terror.

- Remove a brutal dictator from power (One who's favorite idol was Stalin)

Then why don't we go remove Assad in Syria? They're as brutal as Saddam ever was? Or Kim Il Jung in North Korea, who is probably 10 times as bad? Or any number of brutal dictators in Africa? Why did we pick on THAT one, and no one else? I'll tell you why-because the war was, in part, revenge. And besides, what right to we have to tell ANY NATION who their leaders should be, B757300? Answer that one. So much for that. That was street-corner bully stuff, nothing more.

- Prevent Saddam from acquiring, reacquiring, producing, and/or providing any nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons to terrorists (According to Bill Clinton, who many people on this forum practically worship, Saddam never accounted for his NBC programs)

Ah, I guess Saddam is the only one in the world who wants to acquire those weapons. And, now in the almost-post-war Iraq, there's no evidence that he was acquiring or had plans to acquire any weapons. And it's so freakin' funny how you can quote Clinton, and not misuse his name when it suits your purposes. The truth is, either the intel was wrong, or we were misled by the Administration as to the status of these "programs". Again, where the hell are all these weapons, and why the hell don't the likes of you EVER answer that question?

- Saddam still did not provide any significant account of his NBC programs as required by U.N.

Stop patrionizing the UN. When do you care what the hell the UN does anyway? You hate that place! The fact is, WE threw out inspectors before they had a chance to really search anything. Yet now, when we've had CONTROL of Iraq for SIX MONTHS NOW, and haven't found a friggin' thing, you beg for everyone to give the U.S. more time. Well, the U.S. was unwilling to give the UN time, why the hell should we give the Administration a carte blanche on time in finding these weapons, that appraently didn't exist?

-Saddam was in violation of the cease-fire agreement and its related U.N. resolution he "accepted" following Desert Storm.

It was called the Gulf War, stop making it sound sexy. And if there are no weapons, how was he in violation of the cease-fire? Think about it! We said he had to destroy the weapons. Well, where the hell are they? If they aren't there, and most of them were destroyed either in The Gulf War, or when Saddam DID destroy some weapons, how was he in violation.

The most likely explanation is Saddam never had any weapons.

THEN WHY THE HELL DID WE GO TO WAR, FOR CHRIST SAKE! THE REASON given for the war before it started was WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. If he didn't have them, then Americans, Brits and Iraqi's DIED over a lie! How can you not say otherwise, for God's sake? Go back and READ what Bush and Cheney said for MONTHS! "IT'S THE WMD'S STUPID!", to paraphrase Clinton.

That is THE REASON we need an investigation, because we were led to believe there were weapons EVERYWHERE-Powell even put on that show, complete with photo's and intel that said it PROVED the weapons were there,and that the U.S., based on that intel, had a right to go to war! If it wasn't about WMD's, then why that heavy presentation in the UN-RIGHT BEFORE THE INVASION STARTED!!??

What you say is the most breathtaking thing of all. First you say he was in violation of the Cease-Fire, that dealt with WMD's, then you say he doesn't have any! Which one is it! You cannot have it both ways! Unbelievable!

What he possessed was all the materials and equipment necessary to produce them in a matter of hours before use.

 Laugh out loud  Laugh out loud  Laugh out loud

Bullshit. If those materials were there-right before the war-and could be used "in a matter of hours", don't you think we'd have found SOMETHING by now? Indeed, even the Brits now say that that 45- minute claim was incorrect. Truth is, B757300, is you are right: HE HAD NOTHING!! We haven't found squat in SIX MONTHS!!! When are you going to admint that we were simply either misled by the intel, or by the Adminstration. A year? Two years? Never, because it's Bush who said it? That makes you a hypocrite in the first degree. You and the Administration weren't willing to give the UN as much time as the U.S. has had, but you beg off for unlimited time, to maybe fine one tiny piece of a WMD, so you can say, disingenuously to the world "LOOK, WE FOUND IT!!" Sorry, but I'm not willing to give the Administration carte blanche on that. We've had enough time; nothing has been found, which means, in one way or another, the war was started on a lie.

I trust President Bush enough to give him the benefit of the doubt.

There's a headline-stopper. You're so far up Bush's butt that you'll never see the light of day again, B757300. If he were to nuke the world, you'd find a way to justify it, simply because it's His Holiness, and becuase he's a Republican. If it were a Democrats, you'd be looking for impeachment over this. You did when Clinton lied about Monica, but in a far more serious matter-when thousands of lives were lost-you want to stonewall to find out if the president lied to the people on this matter. That makes you a hypocrite, and makes your whole arguement credible not in the least.

Whether it takes place now, or somewhere in the future, there will be an investigation, I'll wager, and whatever is found, it won't paint a pretty picture of this "moral" and "honorable" administration.

I think we need to know the truth. If it indicts the intel community, so be it. If it indicts the Administration, so be it, but I think since a war took place, we need an investigation. I just want the truth. People like B757300 don't want the truth, they simply want to protect George W. Bush's ass.

[Edited 2003-09-17 14:48:57]

User currently offlineBobrayner From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2003, 2227 posts, RR: 6
Reply 15, posted (11 years 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1596 times:

B757300,

Prevent Saddam from acquiring, reacquiring, producing, and/or providing any nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons to terrorists (According to Bill Clinton, who many people on this forum practically worship, Saddam never accounted for his NBC programs)

Another little bit of history...

When Iraq was using WMD, the president of the UN Security Council, "speaking on behalf of the Security Council," said the Council was "profoundly concerned by the unanimous conclusion of the specialists that chemical weapons on many occasions have been used by Iraqi forces against Iranian troops ... the members of the Council strongly condemn this continued use of chemical weapons in clear violation of the Geneva Protocol of 1925 which prohibits the use in war of chemical weapons"

The USA vetoed this statement.
Can you explain why?



Cunning linguist
User currently offlineMt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6593 posts, RR: 6
Reply 16, posted (11 years 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1589 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

FYI..

"Rumsfeld Sees No Link Between Iraq, 9/11
Tue Sep 16, 8:29 PM ET

By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer

WASHINGTON - Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Tuesday he had no reason to believe that Iraq (news - web sites)'s Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) had a hand in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States. "

and further down:

"Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites) said on Sunday, for example, that success in stabilizing and democratizing Iraq would strike a major blow at the "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9-11." "

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030917/ap_on_re_mi_ea/rumsfeld_iraq_3



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineB757300 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 4114 posts, RR: 22
Reply 17, posted (11 years 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1575 times:

Ok, here is something. Several times during Klintoon's watch, our military bombed and then moved troops into the Balkans. Why did we do this? There wasn't any imminent threat from those people who were content to just exterminate one another. The official reason both in Bosnia and later Kosovo was to stop mass killings and genocide. (The real reasons were to help the Europeans clean up another mess that they couldn't handle themselves and to give Klintoon some positive press and take the media off his troubles.)

If committing forces to the Balkans simply to stop the killings of thousands of innocent people was a good enough reason in the 1990's, then removing Saddam (who had killed untold thousands in the last 20+ years) to prevent mass killings in Iraq was a good enough reason for what we just did.

I guess the only difference is now its a Republican in the White House. During the Balkans crap it was a Democrat.



"There is no victory at bargain basement prices."
User currently offlineMt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6593 posts, RR: 6
Reply 18, posted (11 years 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1569 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

"There wasn't any imminent threat from those people who were content to just exterminate one another."

Absolutely correct, but it was not implied or used to justify the action.



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (11 years 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 1555 times:

I guess the only difference is now its a Republican in the White House. During the Balkans crap it was a Democrat.

See, that's where someone narrow-minded like yourself differs with people who actually take time to THINK about something. I wouldn't give a shit WHO started this war, B757300. To you, it's freakin' everything. Had Clinton done it, you'd be lookiing to hang him-and don't say otherwise, because it's the absoulte truth. This war was WRONG, whether it was Clinton, Bush, or any other U.S. president who started it. Why can't you open your eyes and see that?

And Mt99 was correct-Bush used this "imminent threat" argument-which turns out to be nothing but lies, as a pretext to go to war. You're comparing apples and oranges now, and also comparing a conflict that had already begun, to one that began when we started it.

Again, it's breathtaking your removal from reality here.


User currently offlineBobrayner From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2003, 2227 posts, RR: 6
Reply 20, posted (11 years 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 1542 times:

You want to bring up Bosnia?

Outside powers (Europe, the USA, Russia...) took far too long in recognising the problem in Bosnia; they repeatedly tried to stand aside because it was a "civil war" or an "ethnic conflict". Intervention only came after it was thoroughly clear that Serbia (and Bosnian Serb proxies) were committing massacres and mass deportations on a day-to-day basis.

Armed forces were explicitly sent there to stop rival factions (but especially Serbs) killing civilians; they didn't go in to topple some scarecrow of international terrorism. Leaders didn't make made wild exaggerations about Serb WMDs, or Milošević's plans to bomb Rome and Vienna. Nobody posed for photos on a carrier in the Adriatic.

Bosnia is, therefore, not a good comparison.

[Edited 2003-09-17 23:12:55]


Cunning linguist
User currently offlineBobrayner From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2003, 2227 posts, RR: 6
Reply 21, posted (11 years 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 1528 times:

The real reasons were to help the Europeans clean up another mess that they couldn't handle themselves and to give Klintoon some positive press and take the media off his troubles

I'm hardly an authority on Klintoon (is politics really conducted with silly 1st-grade name-calling?) but the first half of this is impossible to reconcile with Bosnian history.

then removing Saddam (who had killed untold thousands in the last 20+ years)

And Bush is the first president to realise that Saddam was such a nasty guy? I'm surprised that nobody pointed it out earlier. Rumsfeld, for example.



Cunning linguist
User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (11 years 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1520 times:

Bobrayner,

Armed forces were explicitly sent there to stop rival factions (but especially Serbs) killing civilians; they didn't go in to topple some scarecrow of international terrorism.

Not exactly. There have been more and wider massacres elsewhere and nobody cares - look at Africa. The reason that Europe was so upset about ex-Yugoslavia is that it is right next door, and fleeing refugees end up in EU countries, the honest among them taking jobs from other europeans, and the dishonest among them causing an explosive increase in crime rates.

There was no altruism in the EU for taking notice of the wars in Bosnia. What got their attention was the fact that EU government leaders themselves had probably been robbed, carjacked, or had his kid's lunch money extorted out of him every day by a gang of yugoslav teens.

Charles


User currently offlineBobrayner From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2003, 2227 posts, RR: 6
Reply 23, posted (11 years 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 1502 times:

Not exactly. There have been more and wider massacres elsewhere and nobody cares - look at Africa. The reason that Europe was so upset about ex-Yugoslavia is that it is right next door, and fleeing refugees end up in EU countries, the honest among them taking jobs from other europeans, and the dishonest among them causing an explosive increase in crime rates.

There was no altruism in the EU for taking notice of the wars in Bosnia. What got their attention was the fact that EU government leaders themselves had probably been robbed, carjacked, or had his kid's lunch money extorted out of him every day by a gang of yugoslav teens.


Why do you say this? You can do better.

1. Browse through a few news archives. Almost none of the Bosnia coverage said anything about refugees coming to steal our jobs or cars; and what snippets you can find will be in those bastions of right-wing journalism that were simultaneously worrying about Russians, Turks, Moroccans, and a dozen other seditious criminal nationalities seeping in.

2. Setting aside internal refugees (those that moved to other parts of Bosnia)... Almost all Croat / Catholic refugees went towards Croatia; most Serb / Orthodox refugees went to Serbia or Montenegro; most Muslims went either to Croatia or to less hostile enclaves such as Kosovo.

3. Yes, some did come to Western Europe. However, there was no spike in crime statistics. Perhaps the refugees only committed unreported crimes.



Cunning linguist
User currently offlineBobrayner From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2003, 2227 posts, RR: 6
Reply 24, posted (11 years 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 1496 times:

In any case, I doubt anybody could prove the original point - that intervention in Bosnia was a vote-winning move by klintoon. Also, even if this were the case, it does not excuse similar action by any other president.

"Clinton did it first" or "Clinton did it more" doesn't deny or excuse whatever a current president might be doing wrong.



Cunning linguist
User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 25, posted (11 years 3 days ago) and read 1484 times:

Why do you say this? You can do better.

I say it because I lived it. My kids got roughed up in school by Kosovar refugees, who formed well-known gangs in schools. Crime rates soared in Switzerland with the arrival of these refugees, the reasons behind their behaviour being, on the whole understandable in a way, but still a fact. Within the space of 5 years, Geneva's crime rates went from virtually non-existant (you could leave a convertable with the top down in the middle of town over the weekend with the keys in the ignition and nobody would touch it - I did it) to one more typical of big cities. Geneva lost its innocence, if you like.

Charles


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Will There Ever Be A Coloured Leader? posted Mon Jun 3 2002 01:18:27 by Arsenal@LHR
Will There Ever Be Peace Between Taiwan And China? posted Fri May 25 2001 06:31:50 by Tupolev154B2
Will Smith Ever Be President posted Mon Aug 23 2004 15:27:59 by TwinPioneer
Will We Ever Be At Code Blue Or Green? posted Tue Dec 30 2003 18:26:51 by N6376m
Do I Have To Be For, Or Against The War? posted Thu Apr 3 2003 11:52:53 by JETPILOT
Why The War Will Be Over In Two Weeks Part 2 posted Thu Apr 3 2003 20:46:28 by TechRep
Will Nation-States Ever Be Abolished? posted Tue Nov 14 2006 21:48:33 by AerospaceFan
Will Gas Prices Ever Be Less Than $2.00/gal Again? posted Fri Jun 23 2006 06:41:15 by M&M
Will There Be Any More 9/11 Trials? posted Thu May 4 2006 01:06:53 by BristolFlyer
Billie-Jo. Will We Ever Know The Truth? posted Fri Feb 17 2006 19:50:42 by Cosec59
Why The War Will Be Over In Two Weeks Part 2 posted Thu Apr 3 2003 20:46:28 by TechRep
Will There Be A New Royal Yacht? posted Mon Dec 14 2009 19:31:16 by United Airline
Will There Be A Windows Vista Service Pack 3? posted Mon Oct 26 2009 18:23:43 by 1337Delta764
Should Nigeria Be The Focus Of The War On Terror? posted Tue Aug 4 2009 19:11:39 by StasisLAX
Will There Be A Saw 4 posted Thu Sep 13 2007 10:05:54 by Mal787