What type of action, in your opinion, would not be pre-emptive?
Thats how it's done!
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
What type of action, in your opinion, would not be pre-emptive?
Our stated reason for invading Iraq was not to free the citizens, lug nut. It was the phony WMD excuse.
You guys keep talking "regime change" in Iraq as if that were our stated goal for the invasion.
It was the WMD claim.
Is there no honesty at all in righties about Iraq?
I keep explaining that. There is always a sort of collective amnesia on the right about Iraq, though...
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
That is a bit wrong.... there was not a massacre in Libya. The bulk of those that have died were those FIGHTING. There have only been (unless I have missed a report) a few hundred deaths in Libya. It was the coming massacre that led to the quick action to go in and stop the advancement of Gaddafi's troops.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
USS Cole is attacked, we then strike back
US Embassies bombed, we then strike back
Twin towers attacked, we then strike back
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Um Christie... the two went hand in hand.... The entire point was REGIME CHANGE DUE TO WMD's. We went in with the purpose of removing Saddam from power. To pretend otherwise is 100% dishonest. The WMD's were the major reason/excuse for WHY we wanted REGIME CHANGE. But the entire time regime change was the goal.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
The amnesia is clearly yours.
The Goal of Iraq : Regime Change
The Reason we had that Goal: WMD's was the primary reason focused on by the media and admin
You need to stop being so dishonest on this issue. The Iraq War never happens without WMD's - period. Iraq was an exercise of what is now known as the Bush Doctrine. We invaded Iraq because they were deemed to be a threat to the U.S. because of WMD programs and a possible alliance with Al Qaeda. The action was pre-emptive in that there was an unspecific threat to the U.S. because of WMD's, and we needed to strike before that threat even materialized.
With Libya, we became involved because of a very real & imminent threat of massacre, which was already ongoing.
If anyone wants to keep at it with "Iraq was pre-emptive, Libya was pre-emptive, so they're 2 peas in a pod," have at it - but you sound ridiculous....
With your presentation of the facts the pre-emtive action of Iraq was more inline with our Constitution then the rationale of pre-emptive involvement with Libya. In addition to that, there exists numerous dicator tyrants who slaughter their people who have not recived pre-emptive interference from the US and global community. The hypocrisy of saying one was good and the other is not good- one is worth interfering and the other is not- is no defense worth supporting. Saddam slaughtered hundreds of thousands of his own people and there is no doubt he would have done so again and again and again so long as he remained in power.
I'm against Libya. I just think the comparisons are absurd.
In general, Iraq was a whole different animal. Iraq was about the PNAC agenda for transforming the Middle East....
Iraq is much more complicated an issue then you wish to make it. PNAC was but one voice in the lead up to Iraq and not the first one by a long shot. I would also submit that Libya is a much more complicated issue then "we are noble and so we're gonna save some rebels from slaughter".
Everything we have done in the Middle East is ultimately about oil. At least Jim Baker was honest about it in the 1st Gulf War when he said it was about jobs....
Any way you slice Iraq, the narrative that was sold to the public was BS.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
HOW was I being dishonest?
Answer the following....
Was the goal of Iraq to remove the Saddam regime?
Just because you are too much of a hack to admit you are wrong, doesn't make me dishonest. As I stated, WMD's were the REASON we wanted regime change. So you are correct in stating that we would not have gone in without that reason. But again... what was the GOAL of the war? Was it to just go in and find whatever WMDs there were/weren't and then leave? Or was it regime change?
Do try to be honest when answering.
You sound a little confused....
YOU'RE saying Iraq was pre-emptive
and
YOU'RE saying Libya was pre-emptive
and then YOU'RE claiming anyone else that says that sounds ridiculous...
so you're not ridiculous but others are for saying the same thing ?
This is the history on Saddam
The New York Times described in its obituary how Saddam "murdered as many as a million of his people, many with poison gas. He tortured, maimed and imprisoned countless more. His unprovoked invasion of Iran is estimated to have left another million people dead. His seizure of Kuwait threw the Middle East into crisis. More insidious, arguably, was the psychological damage he inflicted on his own land. Hussein created a nation of informants — friends on friends, circles within circles — making an entire population complicit in his rule".] Others have estimated 800,000 deaths caused by Saddam not counting the Iran-Iraq war.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein#cite_note-37 Estimates as to the number of Iraqis executed by Saddam's regime vary from 300-500,000 to over 600,000http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein#cite_note-autogenerated1-39 estimates as to the number of Kurds he massacred vary from 70,000 to 300,000,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein#cite_note-40 and estimates as to the number killed in the put-down of the 1991 rebellion vary from 60,000http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein#cite_note-41 to 200,000.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein#cite_note-autogenerated1-39 Estimates for the number of dead in the Iran-Iraq war range upwards from 300,000.
How does that campare to Qaddafi ?.....What imminent threat are you imagining...? His defending himself from a civil war?
Last edited:
I disgree-the sale was WMD and Saddam is a ruthless murdering tyrant...all true. The WMD found was not the significant weapons thought to be there-but the rationale and narative was based on the intelligence at the time. Bush went to congress presented his case and was given the go ahead. Libya was left to hang longer then it should have been because Obama is not a leader he is a hand wringer. He made the statement that Qadafi had to go and should have already worked with the global community to coalesce a NFZ at that timebefore opening his presidential mouth-going to congress formerly and making his pitch to the American people...he did not....he wrung his his hands and flew off to RIO.