EPTYes. By a much slimmer margin, mind you, and without all the support of the international community. But I sincerely believe that military action in one form or another against Iraq could have, and hopefully, would have taken place, 9/11 or not. Downgraded? Perhaps. Longer inspections? Probably. Maybe it would've been limited to Special Forces action, or maybe it wouldn't be much different than it is now. The fact is we will never know.
9-11 - Page 18
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
ObsoleteLogic
United States3676 Posts
Yes. By a much slimmer margin, mind you, and without all the support of the international community. But I sincerely believe that military action in one form or another against Iraq could have, and hopefully, would have taken place, 9/11 or not. Downgraded? Perhaps. Longer inspections? Probably. Maybe it would've been limited to Special Forces action, or maybe it wouldn't be much different than it is now. The fact is we will never know. | ||
|
TeCh)PsylO
United States3552 Posts
there official website. PNAC letter to clinton by the PNAC, urging him to act on iraq: letter to clinton notice who signed it the pearl harbor quote is on the beginning of page 51: pearl harbor quote to put it in context for u, the pnac believes in using the military to secure the US as a global power. consequently, they beleive in increasing the milirary budget(pnac requested an increase from 3% to 3.8%, in which bush did, once again showing the pnac influence). the increase in military power is discussed as a transformation, hence the quote..(pdf wont alloy me copy paste quote). there is also much commentary about the pnac from both perspectives on the web, in which a simple google search will show u. | ||
|
Elsi
United Kingdom8173 Posts
| ||
|
TeCh)PsylO
United States3552 Posts
On September 04 2003 18:00 ObsoleteLogic wrote: Hypothetical situations raised in debate are pointless. In light of that, I would like this to be an unofficial opinion, unrelated to the debate. I would like to keep that to facts only. Yes. By a much slimmer margin, mind you, and without all the support of the international community. But I sincerely believe that military action in one form or another against Iraq could have, and hopefully, would have taken place, 9/11 or not. Downgraded? Perhaps. Longer inspections? Probably. Maybe it would've been limited to Special Forces action, or maybe it wouldn't be much different than it is now. The fact is we will never know. the question is only hypothetical at the moment. i obviously plan on going somewhere with it. in response to your answer, bush sr's administration disagreed. james baker disagrees i shall quote bush sr from a a book he co-wrote in 1998: "I firmly believed that we should not march into Baghdad. Our stated mission, as codified in UN resolutions, was a simple one - end the aggression, knock Iraq's forces out of Kuwait, and restore Kuwait's leaders. To occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab world against us and make a broken tyrant into a latter-day Arab hero. It would have taken us way beyond the imprimatur of international law bestowed by the resolutions of the Security Council, Assigning young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning them to fight in what would be an unwinnable urban guerilla war. It could only plunge that part of the world into even greater instability and destroy the credibility we were working so hard to reestablish." "Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. apprehending him was probably impossible. we had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, there was no viable 'exit strategy' we could see, violating another set of our principles. Furthermore, we had been selfconsciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceedinging the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different - and perhaps barren - outcome." ""In our operations during the war itself, we were as well attempting to establish a pattern and precedent for the future. We had sought, and succeeded, to obtain the mandate of the world community to liberate Kuwait. Unilaterally going significantly beyond that mandate, we might have undermined the confidence of the United Nations to make future grants of such deadly authority." the book is here: A world transformed so.. according to bush sr, this could not have been done without support, and doing it, would shatter world alliances and put our soldiers in a horrible situation. clintons policy towards iraq was similiar to bush sr's. he also was interested in taking out saddam, shown by the iraq liberatin act, which established the objective of overthrowing the saddam regime. and operatino dessert fox which bombed iraq's military infrastructure(and also interupted the un inspections, clinton pulled them out as illustrated by scott ritter). obviously, he did not launch a full war on iraq. we were much more economically capable of doing it at the time, and there were attacks by al queda that could have just as easily been used as a reason to go to war with iraq. uss cole? embassy bombings? so actually, this is not hypothetical. this is a question about politics, and the records show that politically this was not wise. now, even WITH 9-11, the support is extremely dismall. we had the largest organized protest in the history of the world. we have damaged many important long standing alliances. we only had 3 countries offering military support, vs a hole host of countries in the first iraq war. most of the other support, was quite simply directly connected to either financial aid, or the threads of ending it.. so with 9-11, this was difficult enough(bush is dropping in the polls mind u), just imagine what it would be like without 9-11. so i ask the question again.. | ||
|
iGgs
Russian Federation772 Posts
 | ||
|
ObsoleteLogic
United States3676 Posts
1) That the PNAC is a group of right-wing extremists, looking to grasp at American world domination -or- 2) That the PNAC was right, and that they should've been listened to all along. Fact of the matter is, that question is at present, with my yet limited knowledge, unanswerable. I will make this a significant part of my weekend research. It could just as easily work from both ends, and is very much indeed worthy of a comprehensive investigation. I might actually take a few weekends to do this, because there certainly is a lot. | ||
|
ObsoleteLogic
United States3676 Posts
On September 04 2003 18:37 TeCh)PsylO wrote: the question is only hypothetical at the moment. i obviously plan on going somewhere with it. in response to your answer, bush sr's administration disagreed. james baker disagrees This is totally irrelevant to your point. We did not go it alone in Iraq. Over 40 nations were supporting us in some fashion another (be it troop presence, air-space permissions, etc). i shall quote bush sr from a a book he co-wrote in 1998: "I firmly believed that we should not march into Baghdad. Our stated mission, as codified in UN resolutions, was a simple one - end the aggression, knock Iraq's forces out of Kuwait, and restore Kuwait's leaders. To occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab world against us and make a broken tyrant into a latter-day Arab hero. It would have taken us way beyond the imprimatur of international law bestowed by the resolutions of the Security Council, Assigning young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning them to fight in what would be an unwinnable urban guerilla war. It could only plunge that part of the world into even greater instability and destroy the credibility we were working so hard to reestablish." "Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. apprehending him was probably impossible. we had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, there was no viable 'exit strategy' we could see, violating another set of our principles. Furthermore, we had been selfconsciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceedinging the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different - and perhaps barren - outcome." ""In our operations during the war itself, we were as well attempting to establish a pattern and precedent for the future. We had sought, and succeeded, to obtain the mandate of the world community to liberate Kuwait. Unilaterally going significantly beyond that mandate, we might have undermined the confidence of the United Nations to make future grants of such deadly authority." the book is here: A world transformed so.. according to bush sr, this could not have been done without support, and doing it, would shatter world alliances and put our soldiers in a horrible situation. Again, irrelevant. Firstly, this was written 5 years ago. The world was a different place. Our military was half of what it was 7 years prior to that. And no, then we did not have the support of the international community. The only major opposition the U.S. faces from the internationl community comes from France, Russia (both with some very interesting ties to Iraq... I'll dig those up sometime soon), and China. clintons policy towards iraq was similiar to bush sr's. he also was interested in taking out saddam, shown by the iraq liberatin act, which established the objective of overthrowing the saddam regime. and operatino dessert fox which bombed iraq's military infrastructure(and also interupted the un inspections, clinton pulled them out as illustrated by scott ritter). obviously, he did not launch a full war on iraq. we were much more economically capable of doing it at the time, Economically, yes, militarily, no. and there were attacks by al queda that could have just as easily been used as a reason to go to war with iraq. uss cole? Done late (10/12) in 2000, the end of Clinton's term, in foreign seas. embassy bombings? Done on foreign soil. so actually, this is not hypothetical. this is a question about politics, and the records show that politically this was not wise. now, even WITH 9-11, the support is extremely dismall. we had the largest organized protest in the history of the world. we have damaged many important long standing alliances. we only had 3 countries offering military support, vs a hole host of countries in the first iraq war. most of the other support, was quite simply directly connected to either financial aid, or the threads of ending it.. so with 9-11, this was difficult enough(bush is dropping in the polls mind u), just imagine what it would be like without 9-11. so i ask the question again.. First of all, I know of at least 4 nations providing military support, and thats off the top of my head. Unless you don't count the Netherlands? Wisdom is a matter of opinion. | ||
|
badteeth
Netherlands1416 Posts
ok you just eloborated on bullshit you said earlier, which only leads me to repeat myself. You didn't respond to anything i said. You are an idiot, and i firmly believe you'll always be one. Sound reasoning is obviously beyond you. | ||
|
ObsoleteLogic
United States3676 Posts
| ||
|
TeCh)PsylO
United States3552 Posts
1) That the PNAC is a group of right-wing extremists, looking to grasp at American world domination -or- 2) That the PNAC was right, and that they should've been listened to all along. actually there is no "or". both are correct in some fashion. the PNAC is correct in the sense that using the military as a tool to secure our power, is effective. it will secure the US as a unilateral super power, especially in the face of an increasingly stong EU. what is called into question is not there logic, but there legitimacy and right. there idealogy is in conflict with that of the founding fathers and our constitution. u may say "so what, that was writtin 100's of years ago", but quite frankly that is a weak argument. it is what our country is founded on today. emperialism is what we fought against, not what we should be fighting for. as to the irrelevance of my quotes.. what has changed in the past 5 years? has iraq's capabilites significantly changed? no, apparently not. in fact, they were tremendoulsy weaker after 9-11, then they were beore the first gulf war, in which is what bush sr is refering too. is the terror threat more severe? no. there has always been a terrorist issue, it has just not been pumped thruogh the main stream media. if anything, terrorism was less of a problem pre-gulf war 2/post 9-11. the idea that "the world is differant now" is rediculous propaganda repeatedly pushed by the bush administration. its the same damn world, with the same influences and powers as there was 5 years ago.i remind u that it was a political question, mostly relevant to public opinion. as to the uss cole and embassy bombings being irrelevant becuase they were not done in america... what did iraq do in america? nothing. a completly unrelated attack(911) was used to push towards war in iraq. this could have been done with another terror attack. now, if u say that it could not have, that only leads to my main point, that we NEEDED it to happen, in order to proceed with the bush agenda. and lets not forget that war is not always fought in defense(as the constitution outlines). cambodia? chile? east timor? vietnam? as to our supprt for this war, it has been wildly been acclaimed as a political failure. im not sure how u can refute this. wheater 3 or 4 nations helped in iraq, is a minor technicality that does not effect the point, but i am unaware of any help from the netherlands _During_ the initial attacks. britian, australia, US. since then, we have recieved some support from various countries, and are currently asking the UN for help(how ironic), but that is after the fact. | ||
|
ObsoleteLogic
United States3676 Posts
On September 04 2003 20:55 TeCh)PsylO wrote: actually there is no "or". both are correct in some fashion. the PNAC is correct in the sense that using the military as a tool to secure our power, is effective. it will secure the US as a unilateral super power, especially in the face of an increasingly stong EU. what is called into question is not there logic, but there legitimacy and right. there idealogy is in conflict with that of the founding fathers and our constitution. u may say "so what, that was writtin 100's of years ago", but quite frankly that is a weak argument. it is what our country is founded on today. emperialism is what we fought against, not what we should be fighting for. Ok, first of all, let me say something, and this goes for a lot of people - Just because the Constitution says so does not make it right (I am not defending imperialism, I'm just making a point). People tell me my beliefs in God and following the laws of my religion is stupid, when they themselves hold the Constitution on the very same pedastal. But this would digress into a relativism/aboslutism argument again, and although I am certainly ready to be in one, lets stay on track. You seem to be greatly misinterpreting the PNAC's Statement of Principles - by "global" or "world leadership", they mean by example; not as some sort of dictorial force driving the rest of the world. Let's face it: an injustice is an injustice whether it is committed in the United States, Taiwan, Russia, France, or anywhere! as to the irrelevance of my quotes.. what has changed in the past 5 years? has iraq's capabilites significantly changed? no, apparently not. in fact, they were tremendoulsy weaker after 9-11, then they were beore the first gulf war, in which is what bush sr is refering too. is the terror threat more severe? no. there has always been a terrorist issue, it has just not been pumped thruogh the main stream media. if anything, terrorism was less of a problem pre-gulf war 2/post 9-11. the idea that "the world is differant now" is rediculous propaganda repeatedly pushed by the bush administration. its the same damn world, with the same influences and powers as there was 5 years ago.i remind u that it was a political question, mostly relevant to public opinion. Was it just me, or didn't you point out our raise in military spending? Our capabilities are significantly advanced in the last 5 years. Scott Ritter himself, one of the people you are using as a source, stated that "within months" Iraq could reestablish biological and chemical weapons production facilities, back in 1998. Maybe the world isn't significantly different, but the Iraq situation is; I don't have the resources to hand (yet), but I will find the archived news articles of the US finding potential, although cleaned, facilities which may have been used to produce CW/BW. as to the uss cole and embassy bombings being irrelevant becuase they were not done in america... what did iraq do in america? nothing. a completly unrelated attack(911) was used to push towards war in iraq. this could have been done with another terror attack. now, if u say that it could not have, that only leads to my main point, that we NEEDED it to happen, in order to proceed with the bush agenda. and lets not forget that war is not always fought in defense(as the constitution outlines). cambodia? chile? east timor? vietnam? Iraq-al Qaida links Furthermore, where in the Constitution is that outlined? as to our supprt for this war, it has been wildly been acclaimed as a political failure. im not sure how u can refute this. wheater 3 or 4 nations helped in iraq, is a minor technicality that does not effect the point, but i am unaware of any help from the netherlands _During_ the initial attacks. britian, australia, US. since then, we have recieved some support from various countries, and are currently asking the US for help(how ironic), but that is after the fact. A political failure only on the level of compromising ourselves in order to appease the morally bankrupt societies of Europe. | ||
|
DeMoNiC
United States294 Posts
 | ||
|
badteeth
Netherlands1416 Posts
| ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
On September 04 2003 17:46 TeCh)PsylO wrote: i dont think the russians had anything to do with it. the rest i will take as a compliment. bingo. i have been waiting for you, before i continue to explain my point. i want u to address the same question. could the bush administration do what it is doing now, if there was no 9-11? Maybe we should nuke ourselves and than blame it on Korea so we can go to war with them too | ||
|
doctorerotica
United States1 Post
| ||
|
ObsoleteLogic
United States3676 Posts
 | ||
|
pyogenes
Brazil1401 Posts
| ||
|
SoLsiTO
United States573 Posts
On September 05 2003 00:05 doctorerotica wrote: I just hope idiot propogandists such as yourself who are in essence worse than tree hugging anti american hippies that lived in the vietnam era are taken along with the blast that is sure to claim many innocents. people like you are the reason this country is falling apart. and one more thing, if i ever saw you in real life, I would beat the shit out of you regardless where we were at. All this hate and you call him anti american, but you who apparently wants a bunch of americans dead is mr patriot himself. whats wrong with hippies, a little bit of love never hurt anyone? and how is this country falling apart, unless you are referring to idiots like you. | ||
|
pyogenes
Brazil1401 Posts
On September 05 2003 00:28 ObsoleteLogic wrote: yea i was thinking the same thing... iggs also does stuff like that =\Admins, this is uncalled for... actually, 90% of this the posters on this thread do that, albeit they have not done any research  | ||
|
pyogenes
Brazil1401 Posts
On September 04 2003 00:07 BlackJack wrote: The 2 airplane crashes caused the towers to collapse indirectly. Indirectly simply because the towers didn't collapse just from the sheer force and explosion. The heat the planes gave off melted the steel and the building couldn't support itself. hmm dont pass it off as a fact, state IMO beforehand.. so lemme get this straight, you believe that the heat melted the steel at the bottom ?? of the base of the towers, causing them to collapse, or what? elaborate pls. | ||
| ||
