Are pro-Iraq War people "Bush loyalists"?

It seems everyone in Iraq who opposes US occupation is a "
Saddam loyalist". Regradless whether or not your father, mother, son, daughter was killed by US forces and you are seeking revenge.

would all the right-wingers, who would certainly take up arms against the invaders, be "Clinton loyalists"?


I got a nice response of dead silence last time I used that one :evilgrin:

And to say so is being VERY divisive.

I supported the war, I'm no Bush loyalist.

if it made any difference that our invasion of Iraq was based on false premise (Uranium? WMDs?) or do they thonk the US has the right to depose any dictator we see fit? Just curious...

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Those who believe that democracy can be imposed on a country, particularly a country with no history of representative government, by way of a bayonet make me despair for the future of my country.

This is complete insanity and idiocy. There is no other way to describe it.

In our microwave/internet world, we expect immediate results. I hate the fact that violence in Iraq happened. Don't hate it for the Iraq Olympic team, though. But damn, did Japan turn around overnight. Maybe Democracy won't last in Iraq. But how f**king elitist is it of many posters on here to assume that Democracy can't work in Iraq, or that they can't handle it. Please. Why, because its a Middle East country? Hmmm, I wonder if it was a European country with a drastic demographic make-up if that would be the belief? Very sadly, I suspect that the belief would not be the same. I bet once upon a time not too long ago that belief was held about many countries in Asia and Africa.

The war is done. I for one hope that Democracy works there.

that the Bush regime has no intention of creating one, and even if they did, you don't do it at the point of a gun. Every move they make, both here and abroad, betrays their contempt for populism.

When you talk about post-war Germany and Japan, you're bringing up a whole set of debatable issues. I'd say that the United States that helped those countries to rebuild was a very different country from the war machine we've got today.

Can you name one country since then that the U.S. has assisted in building a truly representative government? Sadly, Chile is more represtative of the modern US approach.

1) The stated threat to our survival was Nuclear not just Bio or Chem weaps. The fatc that none of any have been found, even by the Bush lacky David Kay, is evidence that the UN sanctions and inspection regime was working. Newsflash..David Kay is leaving Iraq empty-handed. I thought all you rightwing nutjobs hated Clinton, now you embrace his policies to justify your own F**k-ups? How convenient.

2) Sounds like your grabbing at straws here. Where is the proof? There isn't any proof connecting Iraq to Al-Qaedal. Don't you know your history? WHo did the US support during the Iran-Iraq War? Here's a hint, his initials are SH. Iraq was holding back the "flood" of Islamic Fundalmentalism in fighting Iran during the '80's. That would be the same as fighting Osama Bin Laden. The same as fighting Al-qaeda. Iraq was a secular state and Saddam Hussein is viewed by Osama Bin Laden as an infidel and a socialist, an enemy. But you would never know that from watching Fox News Channel.

3) How about a vibrant democracy in the US first? How about a vibrant democracy being instituted in our so-called allies where we have influence without having to invade them Kuwait, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia...it's not about installing democracy anywhere. That's a propaganda line to throw at gullible people like you to swallow to okay this kind of nonsense. At what point did Saddam Hussein become a threat to the US or his neighbors in the last 12 years? He certainly was not a threat to us and his neighbors didn't fear him. They didn't like him but they didn't fear him.

It seems you must continually change the reasons, ever so subtlety, to justify an unjustifiable aggression for which others have gone to military tribunals for in the past.

If you had a problem with Saddam Hussein, then your beef is with US foreign policy that supports such throw-away characters.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I can understand saying that the war was unwise, because of the lack of WMD's, or an iminent (sp?) threat to the U.S, but I can't see how anyone can find the liberation of Iraq from 35 years of terror unjust. Saddam was a threat to world peace, and we never really dealt with him at the end of the first Gulf War. Call me a warmonger if you wish, but I think we we're right to take him out.

As far as the UN goes, 1441 gave us the right to use force if Saddam didn't comply (after 17 other resolutions and 12 years). How many more resolutions do you want? We shouldn't start wars, but we should sure finish the ones we're in. The terms of the cease-fire was disarmament. He didn't comply.

As far as the misleading info, or false justifications for war, you're not alone in being concerned. However, despite the lopsided way the Adminstration handled diplomacy, or the overarching agenda the Bush crew may have, Saddam's removal was just, and Iraq is safer.

I sure wouldn't have wanted to go fight and possibly die for the Iraqi people. Wait.. oops.. I did! Doh! :shrug:

laying down their lives for their country.

our country?????

Other than attempting to keep gas prices low so that SUV's can rule the earth?

I'm serious.

Tell me.

HOW????

Do you really think we'd be better off with Saddam still in power? Let's just forget about the Rumsfield handshake and the Regan connections for a sec. Do you think Saddam could have been reasoned with? Come on, you know better than that.

I would love to have an answer from you on that.

It might help explain how people who supported this invasion are deluded into thinking things are "better" in IraqNam than before the invasion.

Not directed at any poster in particular. Just feels like Faux and Friends in here tonight.

Egads.

just a liberal who isn't anti-war (a hell of a lot of us).

Does that mean whatever the war, you're for it?

My remark is largely facetious, but seriously now, most of us who opposed this war are not pacifists. Most of us believe in such a thing as a just war. But we saw this one as illegal, unprovoked, founded on lies and a blantant resource grab. And you know what? We were right.

threats to world peace threaten America as well. Heck, even before then. Did you support the war in Kosovo? What about Desert Storm? Milosevic didn't pose a direct threat either, but he was a threat to world peace. Heck, maybe I'm wrong, but I always thought we were supposed to stand up against threats to the world.

Not to badger, but how would you have handled Iraq? I'm really trying to understand. I'm not one who wants to rule the world with our militray might, I just think we should stand up to tyrants, and when diplomacy fails, sometimes war is necessary.

policeman to the world. Containment worked in Iraq as a bad solution to a problem made worse by invasion.

Since when did Iraq attempt to invade America in this "post 9/11" world.

Excuse me but that is Bush Horseshit and is a lame attempt to justify any action no matter how deluded.

It seems you just can't get past your hatred of Bush. I can't change your mind, so I'm through trying. Just remember these things:

Saddam was a threat long before 9-11, and long before George W. Bush decided to make him one.

Who do you think supports alot of these anti-democratic dictators? Just look in Cenral America. Its about economics and power.

All of them are bad. You're right. Saddam was a bad man, just like all the others.

How was he any more of a threat than Saddam? Yet the U.S. certainly interevened in Bosnia. Why do posters on here almost never ever never question our involvement in the former Yugoslavia, especially with Clark now seen as a vaible threat to Dean's nomination. Just curious.

You obviously don't know what your talking about.

as well as his connections to terrorists. How long are you willing to wait?

Saddam and Al Qaeda. German, French and Israeli Intelligence Sources-among the best in the world at ferreting out terrorists-could never establish a link wither.

You're talking out your ass. You need to do some reading.

The intelligence services dened that there was a connection from Saddam to 9/11. Not that there was a connection from Saddam to Al Queda

Don't let the silly verifiable FACTS cloud your spin.

that those facts don't make Saddam any less evil, nor the war to depose him any less just.

North Korea?
China?
Israel?
Any number of African nations.

All those reasons apply.

Why do you have a hard time admitting we are there to steal their oil?

Besides, putting Israel on that list is pretty silly. Look, I hear what you're saying, but we've been dealing with Saddam for years, and the diplomacy well has dried up. Let me repeat:

It's not about the oil
It's not about PNAC.
It's not even about Halliburton.
It's about Saddam's brutal regime toppling down.

Flame away..

You support the invasion of Iraq ONLY for the same reasons you don't support the invasion of other similarly situated countries.

BTW, for your information, Israel has tons of nukes, constantly invades, threatens and bombs its neighbors, represses the Palestinians it stole land from, and is now buying submarines to weild its power on a global scale.

They scare the crap out of me.

Why are they different from the other "evil doing" nations? Huh?

One last time. Iraq is a peculiar threat because Saddam has proven himself unwilling to be reasonable. North Korea is a threat, but we're trying diplomacy there, if that fails (like it did in Iraq), then I guess we'll send troops there. The fact is that Saddam's Iraq was a BIGGER threat than all the others.

The idea that Israel is a threat is ridiculous. I'm not getting into a debate over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict right now. I'll never be able to convince you.

"unwilling to be reasonable?"

WTF does that mean?

He gave up his WMD obviously. That's all we were asking, but our real motive was his oil. Which we are having trouble getting.

When did that Saddam boogey man ever try to come get you?

If you don't know yet, turn off the television.

sad, another brainwashing complete, mr rove

this is why im beginning to be ashamed of my country

not just because of its disastrous leadership

but because sooo many ppl blindly support falsities in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

.

If you claim that Iraq should be invaded because SH ignored the United Nations, please look up the number of UN resolutions that the Israel continues to ignore while the US turns a blind eye...

www.mideastfacts.com/resolutions.html

65 resolutions passed and 30 vetoed by the USA. I support the existance of Israel but if the reason to invade Iraq is because of reolutions than Israel is as much a target as Iraq.

I lied about the threat to your son Mrs. Smith. Saddam really didn't pose a dire threat to our survival, I just needed to say that to scare you all into allowing me to send your kid to invade Iraq like the Nazi's did Poland in 1939 to get rid of this guy getting in the way of my supporters ability to make a huge-ass profit. As you lower your son's coffin into the ground, here is your folded American flag as a parting gift. God Bless America.

The UN sanctions were working. It's obvious considering the aftermath of the fascist invasion. You can choose to ignore the facts and spew what you hear on Fox News or you can think for yourself.

and what I'm saying is that Saddam was a threat.

drugged up in a hole in the ground, defenseless outdated military, no weapons of mass destruction to be found ANYWHERE. EWvery excuse for invasion a proven lie. The outing of a CIA agent in retaliation for dispelling the lies.

You would have made a perfect German citizen in 1939

Do you think he just decided on a whim to hang out like a hermit in a hole? You don't think the U.S military's capturing of Baghdadhad something to do with that?

Well? He was a threat because of the WMD's he didn't have?

saddam ever could be

containing saddam was the best method of dealing with him, and it was working well until bush fucked it up

as for the UN, you just made the case for us to invade Isreal, as they have violated more UN resolutions than any other country, especially Iraq

How do you reconcile violating the UN Charter to punish a country for violating a UN resolution?

And, if you really believe Iraq is safer since Saddam was ousted, I got a bridge or 2 for sale.

As for 1441, if the other members of the Security Council didn't see the need to immediately enforce the resolution, why did we? You can't go against the Security Council and then claim that you are enforcing it's resolutions. That makes no sense. The UN inspectors wanted 90 days while we have had 9 months. Please tell me that you have read O'Henry's "The Ransom of Red Chief."

if the other members of the Security Council didn't see the need to immediately enforce the resolution, why did we?

Because they had vested economic interests with Iraq.

You can't go against the Security Council and then claim that you are enforcing it's resolutions. That makes no sense.

The weakness of the UN is that one solitary nation can veto measures that don't suit their self-interest.

You gotta be kidding. How, Why, When, Where.

It's funny that you cite the UN, given they were against the war.

Saddam was a threat to no one. The kllings of the Kurds took place with our tacit approval...and with US weapons, years ago. Even his neighbors were against the war. He was a brute...but no moreso than others we befreinded or installed. Pinochet, the Shah..the Saudi ruling famkly, Sukarno, Marcos....should I go on?
This war was planned by PNAC in the mid ninetines.....understand that. Saddam was the key to the oil pipelines and to the vital oil reserves in his area...nothing else. Iraq is not safer...they NEVER had terrorists, insurgency, bombings, constant death, not to mention the thousands of deaths from our bombings....until now. The embrago cost them hundreds of thousands of lives. WE...the US. are the danger to the region, not Saddam...who was a toothless tiger. The need to justify a pre-emptive strike against a nation that did not threaten us amazes me. But then again, so does almost everything happening in this country.

I'm more and more amazed at some of the posts here....sorry, I just am.

In the event that someone else does, those folks will be very surprised to learn that Iraqis have the same objection to being killed regardless of who commands the crusade.

I CALL 'EM AS I SEE 'EM

"fucking moron".

I won't even dignify that any further. God forbid that people can actually support the removal of tyrnats without being called "fucking morons."

If you don't mind being lied to, if you don't mind letting 500 of your brothers and sisters die for that lie, if you don't mind trampling all over international relations... you're a fucking moron.

And being uninformed is no excuse, either. If you can't be bothered to educate yourself on an issue like this before you decide to wave your flag and cheer for it, you're a fucking moron.

And people who conveniently know nothing about Iraq's history.

What portion of Iraq's history were the anti-war people denying?

I'd say American supporters of the invasion were the ones denying obvious facts.

Have you personally visited Iraq?

before the invasion.

Time has proven the administration's arguments to be completely false. That's the truth. Unless you have some evidence of a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda, or some proof of WMD's recently in Iraq, of course. I'm sorry if reality is proving distasteful for you.

So what part of Iraq's history were the anti-war people denying, anyway?

I have a nephew over there. Do tell us your vast personal experience ferreting out Saddam Loyalists, or impart your stellar credentials with regard to Iraqi history or US Foreign policy. You have yet to provide ONE LINK to back up any of your mindless assertions.

:-)

He has yet to back up any of his ideas with facts. C'est la vie.

I'll wait with you... dum de dum... :bounce:

So therefore like President Clinton said I rely on the analysis of intelligence officials. You guys are the ones ignoring analysis by the experts, not me.

Some people, particularly RushBots believe that might makes right and that the oil under the sand of IraqNam belongs to us because we are a Christian nation and we need it.

Not morons, these folks. Just sociopaths.

But most of the people I know who supported the war support Bush.

And they have yet to call me a Saddam loyalist for being against the war, but they tried. Then I just bring up our cozy relationship with China and Bush's little gift to Taiwan (i.e. no democracy for you!) and they shut up.

:(

Most of my RW friends are Catholic, not fundie. Fundies don't really like me. :)

But while they might shut up for a bit, they still say I will "grow up" and "become Republican one day." I remind them that I am 33 so I don't think that will happen.

I supported going into Iraq but am not a Bush supporter. To be fair, no war supporter has said everyone attacking US soldiers are Saddam loyalists.

maybe they just want to kill brown people.

oops, make that "send poor kids to die while killing brown people."

Either:

1) You support the PNAC contention that world domination (and the expansion of "the American Way") are dependent on conquest and control of the Middle East. Thus you are a neocon.

2) You subscribe to the Bush contention that Saddam was either a military threat to the U.S. or such a despicable character that he had to be removed immediately by the application of unilateral force. That would make you a Bush loyalist since you accept his (widely discredited/based on lies) invasion rationale.

What else is there?

You support the contention Clinton, Gore, David Kay, Scott Ritter, and many Democrats in 1998 that Saddam wasn't being upfront about weapons programs. This didn't start with Bush.

didn't think so. They supported UN monitoring and inspection rather than invasion. Bush is the one who insisted that war, and war right now was the only resolution. If you agree with Bush on that point, you run the risk of being considered a Bush loyalist.

I think most DUers don't get the point of inspections.

the WMD evidence and imminent threat rationale to sell the war both to Congress and to the citizenry. Remember the yellow cake lie, the implied ties between Iraq and the 9/11 terrorists, and all of the rest. The mere potential existence of chemical and biological weapons is hardly sufficient justification for invasion. Nuclear weapons were far in the future - a huge processing infrastructure is required to weaponize uranium and everything that Saddam had was destroyed in the wake of the 1991 Gulf war.

I believe that anyone who still supports the Iraq War is loyal to either Bush or the neacons.

Is he a Bush loyalist?

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/23/clinton.iraq.sotu/

"So I thought it was prudent for the president to go to the U.N. and for the U.N. to say, 'You got to let these inspectors in, and this time if you don't cooperate the penalty could be regime change, not just continued sanctions.'"

"People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons."