Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Cigar_Guy]

I think you're overlooking a rather important fact. It's true that Bush made a point of disarming Saddam. However, he also made a ton of other points at the time (gassing his own people, supporting terrorism in other countries, invading other countries, thumbing his nose at the UN, starving his own people, acting in a rather shifty manner when it came to the full disclosure about his WMD program as was required by his agreement after the Gulf War, being the only world leader to praise the September 11 attacks, running a Stalinist police state where rape was a penalty listed under law, the unparalleled environmental damage done in his crusade against the marshlands hiding those opposed to his regime, amongst other points).

Did Bush talk about the WMDs as well? He sure did (as did Bill Clinton and any number of Democratic members of Congress on the Sunday morning shows during the 90s when Clinton was launching airstrikes on the country--though I forget exactly who it was that showed up with a bag of sugar as a representation of the amount of anthrax you'd need to kill countless thousands of Americans, I think it was the Secretary of Defense). There was also the congressional report (and darn it all if I can't remember the name of it) that came out during the election describing how Saddam was trying to game the UN inspectors just long enough to get a clean bill of health, at which point he'd kick everything back into high gear (including nuclear).

I know the question about what we said back in 2003 wasn't directed at me, but I'll answer it anyway. I was in college and, in fact, participated in a debate or two on the then-upcoming war. I'll tell you flat-out that the WMDs were way down on the list of reasons for going into Iraq (I'm still with Mark Steyn, who said that there aren't any bad reasons for going after someone like Saddam). I'll also point out that my fellow debaters didn't make a big point of the WMDs in the debates we had, and in private conversations it came up only as a secondary point (usually discussed within the legalities of going in--which, as I understand, is why Bush himself emphasized it, mostly as a nod to Powell and Blair and others who kept hounding for a UN resolution).

I'll go one step further: speaking only for myself, I can tell you that if I had known he had "no WMDs" back in 2003 I still would have supported action, and I still think that going in was the right thing to do.

[Nowhere Man]

Cigar Guy,

Thank you for your candid statements.

I'm glad that someone esle remembers that, at the time, it was NOT about wmd.

It was, rather, about pre-emptive war.

To return to that era, I'm not unequivocally anti-war.

Rather, war is a LAST RESORT in the case of SELF-DEFENSE.

That's the way it should be.

And I say that perhaps out of most respect for our troops.

They serve a clear purpose, and I believe they should be used when the purpose is clear.

I could say more, but I think that's what I wanted to say.

[Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee]

Saddam Hussein shot at US planes

He tried to kill a US president

In 1995 he threatened Kuwait by massing troops for an invasion.

His regime supported terror and incited violence.

It was not a neutral situation. It was war.


This is article fits in well here.

Because We Could

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/06/04/nyt.friedman/

[Cigar_Guy]

[Nowhere Man]

First and foremost, JOO,

I'm not answering this post if you're going to dance back to Saddam had WMD's.

Let's finish that one first.

[Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee]

[Nowhere Man]

[Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee]

IF that was true then why didn't Saddam just do like Khaddafy did.

Why did he continue to fight it out with the US?

Why did he threaten Kuwait way after the first gulf war?

as for the case of Iran I am not saying the US ought to attack Iran but lets be clear Iran has engaged in attacks against the US and others and not only in the middle east.

[nasigoreng]

[Cigar_Guy]

[Nowhere Man]

[bucheon bum]