0
storm1977

Why are we in Iraq - A different view.

By storm1977, in The Bonfire

Recommended Posts

storm1977    0

storm1977
I know a lot of people here don't like Bill O'reilly for many reasons. I don't really care, and I have seen many debate running over which way he leans. Again, I don't care. However, He has written an article which I though was pretty good, explaining in HIS opinion why we are in Iraq. His opinion in this case is much like my own.

I think a lot of people in this country and in others have their own views on the US and its current forign policy, that is understandable. I also feel a great deal of people think this president has no motive other than persaonal revenge or greed over oil, to be in Iraq.

This article was writen to put out there another view. If you think it is complimentary to Bush then you are wrong. O'Reilly believe it or not has been quite critical of the administration as of late, and though the article isn't Critical, it hints at a dissapointment in the Pres and his administration.

___________________________________________
IT'S THE WAR, STUPID
by: Bill O'Reilly
Wednesday Sept. 10, 2003


For a country smack in the middle of World War III, we are certainly a blasé bunch.
We're worried about how much fighting the people who want to kill us will cost and whether we have an "exit strategy" in Iraq.
Craven politicians and crazed columnists are second guessing President Bush who, at times, looks like he's first guessing the nation's foreign policy.
Since Mr. Bush, for some inexplicable reason, will not spell it out for you it falls on me to do so.
There are around the world thousands of Islamic fanatics who want to kill Americans because they believe Allah is down with that.
These people are taught from the time they are children that Jews and Americans are undeserving of life on this planet.
There is no negotiation with the most of these zealots; there is nothing one can say to dissuade them.
They want blood and they will use any and all means to get it.
A number of nations help these killers and allow the murderous anti-American indoctrination to continue generation after generation.
Iran, Indonesia, Syria, and Saudi Arabia are the most threatening to us, although the Saudis do have some pro-American government officials like Prince Bandar, its ambassador to the United States.
Iraq used to be a terrorist enabler primarily by helping the homicide bombers kill civilians in Israel but Saddam Hussein was open to causing trouble for the USA however he could.
The Islamic killers thrive on the Palestinian situation. As long as the Palestinians are denied a state of their own, the propaganda machine that demonizes Israel and America will roll along unchallenged in the Arab world.
So the only way to break down the hatred many Arabs have toward us is to forge a Palestinian-Israeli peace agreement that both sides can live with.
In order for Israel to cooperate in this effort fully, it needs to feel secure. Having the Americans in Iraq helps that effort.
Also, the USA needs a democratic outpost in the Middle East to put pressure on the terrorist states of Iran and Syria.
A foothold in that region makes it infinitely more difficult for Al Qaeda to carry out its evil doing.
Just the huge CIA presence in Iraq alone, gives the USA a major advantage in learning about terrorist operations before they hurt we the people.
This nonsense about the United Nations rescuing America in Iraq is something Aesop would have published.
The UN is a chaotic chamber with no sense of urgency about terrorism and no sympathy towards the USA.
Now some of that antipathy might be justified but not when American lives are at stake.
In a perfect world, all countries that aid and abet terrorism would be isolated and embargoed. But this is far from a perfect world.
The failure of France, Germany, Russia and China to aggressively help America neutralize terror states is an outrage of historic proportions. France is the worst.
The Chirac government lied to Secretary of State Colin Powell about enforcing the UN resolution demanding Saddam cooperate with the weapons inspectors.
Then France actively undermined both the war and the occupation. President Bush should level with the American people about the duplicity of France and, to a lesser extent, Germany.
I know this would cause an uproar but what the French have done to hurt America and Israel is unconscionable.
At the same time, the Bush administration must begin earnestly persuading nations that are not overtly hostile to us that we don't want to dominate the world, we want to make it safe for everyone.
Finally, World War III is unlike any war in history and mistakes will be made in the fighting of it.
The Bush administration has the correct global view regarding terrorism but poor communications skills both within the country and abroad.
The sad truth is that most people don't even know that World War III is underway and have little understanding of the strategies and stakes.
But believe me, you and your family are in danger. We must stop the partisan bickering and acknowledge that brain-washed fanatics have us in their sights.
And this time there's no Geneva Convention and no limits on deadly weaponry. This time there is no "exit strategy."
It's us or them.

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lefty    0

Lefty
Something tells me you won't be getting too many logical rebuttals on this one. These points are from an old Neal Boortz article:

1. Prior to the commencement of military action against Saddam Hussein America, Great Britain, France, Russia, Germany and the United Nations knew of the existence of large stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons in Iraq. In fact, this information was known prior to Saddam kicking the U.N. inspectors to the curb in 1998. Democrats should take note than none other than Sen. Tom Daschle spoke of our certain knowledge of the existence of these weapons and of the necessity of making sure they are destroyed.

2. Not only did we know that Saddam Hussein had these weapons, but Saddam himself had acknowledged their existence. Rather hard not to, really, when you're using them to kill tens of thousands of your own people.

3. Since we knew that Saddam had the weapons, and since Saddam knew that we knew, Saddam agreed with the United Nations that he would destroy his biological and chemical weapons arsenal, not because he wanted to, but because the alternative seemed unpleasant … for Saddam.

4. Not only did Saddam agree to destroy those weapons, but he also agreed to document that destruction and to present the evidence of that destruction to the United Nations Security Council.

5. Despite repeated demands and requests, Saddam steadfastly refused to provide even the most minimal evidence to the Security Council that he had destroyed those weapons. Finally, time ran out.

Don't forget, though, it's all about oil, isn't it?

- Lefty
Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nick    0

Nick
This article and it’s sentiments are unbelievably hypocritical!!!

Lets all have a look at the list of UN resolutions that are currently being violated by countries other than Iraq:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/1002resolutions.pdf

I found resolution 487 (1981) quite amusing.


I assume that the reference to the French was due to their veto to the attack on Iraq, if that is the case and you agree with that read these quotes that I have extracted from the text:

"Since the early 1970s, the United States has used its veto power nearly fifty times, more than all other permanent members during that same period combined. In the vast majority of these cases, the U.S. was the only dissenting vote."

"Furthermore, this list does not include resolutions that were also violated for a number of years that are now moot (such as those dealing with Indonesia’s occupation of East Timor, South Africa’s occupation of Namibia, and Israel’s occupation of southern Lebanon). If these were also included, the number of violations would double. In most of these cases, the United States played a key role in blocking enforcement of these resolutions as well."


It may appear that I’m having ago at some nations but my message is that these kinds of problems are not just restricted to Iraq and have been around for many years…

Nick
Gravity- It's not just a good idea, it's the LAW!

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lefty    0

Lefty
Hey, I have no problem with the U.S. using its veto power since its the muscle (and the brains) behind the U.N. anyway. The French, however, haven't been a major power for hundreds of years, yet liberals say their veto has some sort of weight to it. Without the U.N. they'd be nothing. That is why everyone is so frustrated with the likes of France. As for the U.S. selling Iraq weapons, well, times change don't they? If they become hostile towards us, is it really logical to let them keep the weapons we allowed them to have just because we sold them the weapons? And if anyone still thinks Bush lied about the weapons or whatever, read http://www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/demsonwmds.php.

- Lefty
Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

storm1977    0

storm1977
The comments about FRANCE are not due to the fact that the were going to VETO the Iraq war. The comments about France have to do with the fact that there is a new resolution to get the UN involed again in Iraq, and the French are determined to undermine that as well. Countries such as China and Germany currently BACK the new UN propsal which would bring the UN into Iraq, however, France again is threatening to veto if the UN doesn't have full control.

After the US, England, Poland, and the Australians did the dirty work, why would we give full control to the UN? No country in their right mind would.

Chris

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

mikkey    0

mikkey
Quote

Ok, that is your opinion (I told you mine), But why?
What do mean by short sighted, hypocritical and misguided? Examples...



Let me try....

You want to know why this is crap? Well, IMO it is this typical oversimplifying very complicated issues and it is filled wit “emotions” and the presentation of opinion as fact. Let me say that I actually applaud the removal of Saddam, BUT this campaign was done stupidly in a politically sense (upsetting alliances, weakening the UN, and further alienating the Arab world). It diminished peoples believe in politicians by the misuse of intelligence and the bending of the truth, and there is an apparent lack of strategy for post war and exit. This was done to a timetable, dictated by the weather, the troop deployment and maybe domestic political issues in the US – not by the need for smart international policies: Example:

Quote


For a country smack in the middle of World War III, we are certainly a blasé bunch.



So how is this WW3, i.e. this is very different from WW 1 / 2 or is the US to invade several more countries? The war on terror is (should) be a very different war to WW2. Stupid comment.

Quote


We're worried about how much fighting the people who want to kill us will cost and whether we have an "exit strategy" in Iraq.



Well you should be worried. Maybe Bill should talk to family members of the GI's being killed every day and also think about the lessons of Vietnam. Don’t go in without an exit strategy!

Quote


Craven politicians and crazed columnists are second guessing President Bush who, at times, looks like he's first guessing the nation's foreign policy.
Since Mr. Bush, for some inexplicable reason, will not spell it out for you it falls on me to do so.



So Bill lives in GWB’s brain? Or is the National Security Adviser?
Quote


There are around the world thousands of Islamic fanatics who want to kill Americans because they believe Allah is down with that.
These people are taught from the time they are children that Jews and Americans are undeserving of life on this planet.



A very simple explanation on a very complex issue. Try to search sources for people who have studied these issues – it is a little more complex then that.
Quote


There is no negotiation with the most of these zealots; there is nothing one can say to dissuade them.
They want blood and they will use any and all means to get it.
A number of nations help these killers and allow the murderous anti-American indoctrination to continue generation after generation.
Iran, Indonesia, Syria, and Saudi Arabia are the most threatening to us, although the Saudis do have some pro-American government officials like Prince Bandar, its ambassador to the United States.



Indonesia? That is probably new to many people. BTW they just sentenced the Bali bombers to death and they have a democratically elected government. There are issues in regard to Islamic radicalism and anti-west (not just anti-US) sentiment, but boy oh boy this is not this easy to explain.
Quote


Iraq used to be a terrorist enabler primarily by helping the homicide bombers kill civilians in Israel but Saddam Hussein was open to causing trouble for the USA however he could.



Yes Saddam encouraged suicide bombers in Israel, and he would have loved to “causing trouble for the USA” but is there any proof of Al Qaeda support by Saddam over the last 10 years? In spite of claims by certain parts of the US media – it has not. Even GWB has admitted that. Americas great “friend” with lots of US weapons and US bases – Saudi Arabia – was indirectly (and it was only indirectly) much more involved in 9/11 then Iraq. We have not seen the US remove the Saudi royal family yet.
Quote


The Islamic killers thrive on the Palestinian situation. As long as the Palestinians are denied a state of their own, the propaganda machine that demonizes Israel and America will roll along unchallenged in the Arab world.
So the only way to break down the hatred many Arabs have toward us is to forge a Palestinian-Israeli peace agreement that both sides can live with.


I agree with this (but is again more complex then described)
Quote


In order for Israel to cooperate in this effort fully, it needs to feel secure. Having the Americans in Iraq helps that effort.



Yes Israel needs to feel secure but a) having US troops in Iraq does not help any more then US troops in Saudi Arabia and b) the US should put some more “pressure” on the radicals in the Israeli government who do not seem to really want to compromise for peace.
Quote


Also, the USA needs a democratic outpost in the Middle East to put pressure on the terrorist states of Iran and Syria.



Does invading Iraq guarantee this? Iraq is a complex country with religious and ethnic conflicts. It has only kept together under dictatorships. It migt become a very weak democracy and how does that put pressure on Iran and Syria?
Quote


A foothold in that region makes it infinitely more difficult for Al Qaeda to carry out its evil doing.



It might make it easier – more US targets close by in an environment where people might be resentful to US occupation or influence. Also, Al Qaeda has “cells” all over the world and is quite loosely organized. They function even in countries that do work on suppressing them. A weak argument IMO.
Quote


Just the huge CIA presence in Iraq alone, gives the USA a major advantage in learning about terrorist operations before they hurt we the people.



A huge CIA presence in Afghanistan did not prevent the Bali bombing and has not helped capture OBL.
Quote


This nonsense about the United Nations rescuing America in Iraq is something Aesop would have published.
The UN is a chaotic chamber with no sense of urgency about terrorism and no sympathy towards the USA.
Now some of that antipathy might be justified but not when American lives are at stake.



Yes the UN is difficult, but saying that they have no urgency about terrorism is a bombastic statement. The last sentence makes no sense to me.
Quote


In a perfect world, all countries that aid and abet terrorism would be isolated and embargoed. But this is far from a perfect world.
The failure of France, Germany, Russia and China to aggressively help America neutralize terror states is an outrage of historic proportions. France is the worst.



Because these countries did not agree with the American strategy in Iraq they do not help fight terror? Give me a break. BTW the criticism by the French and others pre war has been justified : a) no clear and present (urgent) danger (WMD's) b) a difficult security situation post war and problems creating a new system. Just what the French used as argument against rushing in.
Quote


The Chirac government lied to Secretary of State Colin Powell about enforcing the UN resolution demanding Saddam cooperate with the weapons inspectors.



How? This is an opinion. Others think the US tried to “trick” the council with it tactics pre-war. Opinion is not fact.
Quote


Then France actively undermined both the war and the occupation. President Bush should level with the American people about the duplicity of France and, to a lesser extent, Germany.



That is a disgusting statement. Did the French fight the war against the US? They did not help, yes, but they had told the US why. Now where the US is running into exactly the problems the French warned against – they are asked to send troops and money to clean up the mess. I find this extraordinary to come with this statement.
Quote


I know this would cause an uproar but what the French have done to hurt America and Israel is unconscionable.



What, why? Explain? Did they bomb US troops? Oh, they sold weapons to Saddam in the past, well so did the US.
Quote


At the same time, the Bush administration must begin earnestly persuading nations that are not overtly hostile to us that we don't want to dominate the world, we want to make it safe for everyone.



Well then start using the international forums and organizations that are in place instead of kicking anybody who slightly disagrees….
Quote


Finally, World War III is unlike any war in history and mistakes will be made in the fighting of it.



Calling it WW3 is a bad term.
Quote


The Bush administration has the correct global view regarding terrorism but poor communications skills both within the country and abroad.



To a degree this is right, but they also use bad diplomatic skills and they do not listen to their friends.
Quote


The sad truth is that most people don't even know that World War III is underway and have little understanding of the strategies and stakes.



It is also new to me. I thought we were trying to fight Terror through international cooperation.
Quote


But believe me, you and your family are in danger. We must stop the partisan bickering and acknowledge that brain-washed fanatics have us in their sights.



So anybody who disagrees with the current strategy (that has not been very successful killing off Al Qaeda including its top leadership) is endangering American (and allied) families?
Quote


And this time there's no Geneva Convention and no limits on deadly weaponry. This time there is no "exit strategy."
It's us or them



What a tribe: “no Geneva Convention” etc. – yes torture prisoners, bomb civilians, i.e. let us behave the same way as the terrorists. Great way to victory – let us become what we fight. What a fool.
---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

PhillyKev    0

PhillyKev
I think it's pretty insightful, and does a fairly decent job of explaining the true motivations for the Iraq invasion. We invaded because we wanted to flex our muscles, and Iraq was the easiest to justify and easiest to implement.

I don't agree that it was the right thing to do, or that the administration isn't intent on world domination. In fact if you go to Wolfowitz's web site, you'll find out that's exactly what they want.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nick    0

Nick
Being able to have a personnal opinion is one of the mainstay of a democracy, by your comment I take it that you either don't live in one or you would be happier to live in a dictatorship (kinda like the way things were in Iraq).

Nick
Gravity- It's not just a good idea, it's the LAW!

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

SkydiverRick    0

SkydiverRick
Quote

Being able to have a personnal opinion is one of the mainstay of a democracy, by your comment I take it that you either don't live in one or you would be happier to live in a dictatorship (kinda like the way things were in Iraq).



How could you possibly get this from my comment? You said you didn't like ORelley's comments. I said that I did, thus cancelling your vote.



never pull low......unless you are

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

kiltboy    0

kiltboy
Quote

After the US, England, Poland, and the Australians did the dirty work, why would we give full control to the UN?

Chris

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


We owe it to the Iraqis not to turn them over to the UN. After all, haven't they suffered enough?



So why then is Tony Blair trying to build consent for UN involvement? Why is he talking to the French President trying to find common ground to assist in the post war rebuilding? Could it be that Tony understands why such involvement would be beneficial? Could it be that Tony understands that the UN needs to be reshaped and is taking an active role in reshaping it?

Hey just a thought but as the Brits lost a bunch of guys in the fighting can you throw some of the rebuilding work to some UK companies?

Thanks,

David

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

storm1977    0

storm1977
Mikkey,

I applaud you for actually responding to the question, many woud not/did not. I agree with some of what you are saying, but let me say a few things. Fist off, in my post I made it Perfectly clear that this was an "OPINION" piece by BillO'.

Now the point in this article was not to go into great detail on the fundimental problems with Islam, the middle east, the palistinian/isreali conflict. That has been done. The article assumes you know the complexities of the current conflicts of the world. We know they aren't as simple as they appear, however, this is an article not a 90 minute documentary.

The bit about France....
O'Reilly's argument is not about the pre-war argueing with France. (Talk about a complex issue) There are many reasons for the political turmoil w/France and the USA, but that is another story, and I have to say I side with the US. The issue at hand is this.

Passing the most recent UN resolution would only help to stabilize Iraq sooner which is what everyone wants. There is no exit strategy because we need to be there for the long haul. Hell, we still have troops in Germany and I hope in 50 years from now we still have some guys in Iraq. (I digress) German and China both Strongly against the war back the current UN resolution. They recognize the war is over, and they (ger & CHina) realize they can benefit both financially and politically by helping out where they can. If France wants to help out, the US has reached its hand out, and France spit on. Again threatening to Veto this resolution. US soldiers are dying there and France knows that. So, instead of not participating which they could do, they are undermining other coutries efforts to help the US and UN. And to me that is an Insult.

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nick    0

Nick
"Hey, I have no problem with the U.S. using its veto power since its the muscle (and the brains) behind the U.N. anyway" Interesting comment in light of the following articles I have found (link below) the appear to show that the US are trying to make the Un a worthless force:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/unitedstates/unpolicy/gen2003/0415moral.htm

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/UN/usvetoes.html

http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0303/S00085.htm

Nick
Gravity- It's not just a good idea, it's the LAW!

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

SkydiverRick    0

SkydiverRick
Quote

Quote

After the US, England, Poland, and the Australians did the dirty work, why would we give full control to the UN?

Chris

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


We owe it to the Iraqis not to turn them over to the UN. After all, haven't they suffered enough?



So why then is Tony Blair trying to build consent for UN involvement? Why is he talking to the French President trying to find common ground to assist in the post war rebuilding? Could it be that Tony understands why such involvement would be beneficial? Could it be that Tony understands that the UN needs to be reshaped and is taking an active role in reshaping it?

Hey just a thought but as the Brits lost a bunch of guys in the fighting can you throw some of the rebuilding work to some UK companies?

Thanks,

David



There is a difference between UN involvement and UN control. The UN does't seem to be able to act fast enough to give relief to the Iraqi peoples problems.



never pull low......unless you are

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

mikkey    0

mikkey
Quote

The bit about France....
O'Reilly's argument is not about the pre-war argueing with France. (Talk about a complex issue) There are many reasons for the political turmoil w/France and the USA, but that is another story, and I have to say I side with the US. The issue at hand is this.

Passing the most recent UN resolution would only help to stabilize Iraq sooner which is what everyone wants. There is no exit strategy because we need to be there for the long haul. Hell, we still have troops in Germany and I hope in 50 years from now we still have some guys in Iraq. (I digress) German and China both Strongly against the war back the current UN resolution. They recognize the war is over, and they (ger & CHina) realize they can benefit both financially and politically by helping out where they can. If France wants to help out, the US has reached its hand out, and France spit on. Again threatening to Veto this resolution. US soldiers are dying there and France knows that. So, instead of not participating which they could do, they are undermining other coutries efforts to help the US and UN. And to me that is an Insult.



Yes the French are difficult to work with (emotional bunch they are) - ask the guys in the European Union. However, the US really "pissed" on the French pre-war and they are really insulted (especially in light of their arguments pre-war look quite reasonable now in hindsight). Remember the antifrench "hate campaign" in the US media?

Now, if the roles were reversed, do you think the US would send troops?

But I agree that we need to put these things aside and try to solve the problem at hand. But the US can not just dictate the terms and they have to learn to be more diplomatic with their allies when there is a disagreement. It is problematic to kick people and then ask them to help.

BTW do you agree with Bill O's last paragraph regarding "no rules"? I find this the worst part of the article. You loose the moral high ground if you think/act like that.
---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

kiltboy    0

kiltboy
Quote

There is a difference between UN involvement and UN control. The UN does't seem to be able to act fast enough to give relief to the Iraqi peoples problems.



So what part of the control don't you agree with? I think the timetable idea is stupid myself but there is lots of experience in rebuilding democratic institutions, disaster relief and humanitarian aid in the UN that could be used in getting the country back on its feet.

It would also remove the suggestion of the existing coalition as an occupying power if the coalition was to release the rebuilding work to a nonmilitary organisation. Get the civilian/democtratically elected braches of government/ organisations in there and have them be seen to be taking an active role in reshaping the country.

David

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

storm1977    0

storm1977
Quote

Remember the antifrench "hate campaign" in the US media?

Now, if the roles were reversed, do you think the US would send troops?



I do remember that, and infact, I am still boycotting France and french products. I wouldn't call it a media Hate campaign as much as it was a "America wake up... realize for a minute what wee have done for these people, and ask yourself what they have done for us" campaign.

Now, if the roles were reversed, what would I do?
Personally I would tell them to Fuck themselves, however, politically I would help.

This would be good for both sides, and it would help to ease some of the tension between the 2 countries. But there is something strange going on in France right now. It is sorta like "little Mans" disease. France right now is trying to Identify itself in the world. I think they feel insignificant and are trying to show who they are, or at the very least trying to show they have power. From the outside looking in it is a bit sad, and a bit annoying. I have read about the difficulties in the EU and if anything this proves my point even further. I know us Americans can be childish too sometimes, but I equate Frances behavior as of late to that of a little child that can't get his/her way.

Quote

BTW do you agree with Bill O's last paragraph regarding "no rules"? I find this the worst part of the article. You loose the moral high ground if you think/act like that.



Here Bill shows he is no politician, but, to some degree I agree. If another 9/11 happens in the USA, I for one am a supporter of a no rules conflict. Terrorist do not follow rules, that is obvious, and if it is the only way to stop them, then I am onboard. Are we to that point yet? NO i don't think so. Could it get to that? Yes, IMO it could.

Chris

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
0
Go To Topic Listing