MARCH 19, 2011
OBAMA: 'Today we are part of a broad coalition. We are answering the calls of a threatened people. And we are acting in the interests of the United States and the world'...
MARCH 19, 2003
BUSH: 'American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger'...
At least Bush got approval and authorization from Congress before acting.
On the plus side, Obama is finally showing that he actually possesses a set of balls.....
The key difference here is Gaddafi, unlike the WMDs, exists.
The WMDs existed as well. What part of "Saddam used them on his own people" does the left fail to get? You cannot use what you do not have.
I would also go on to mention that the burden of proof was on Saddam to prove he had disarmed, as per UN resolutions. But I'd hate to bother you with such insignificant things as facts.....
1. He used them on his own people 20 years earlier.
2. What part of "the US sold him the WMDs he used on his own people" does the right fail to get?
3. Several UN investigations found no WMDs - what more proof did you want?
and supposingly even if he had WMD , he was going to threaten iran with it which anyways is enemy of usa...he wont have harmed israel , uk and usa...secondly usa has largest number of WMD...i hope 20 years done the line , chinese bush doesnot use same excuse to bomb usa...they have money right now and would have enough might 20 years down the line...
Chemical weapons are not WMD's is what you're saying? Just trying to clarify.
chemical , nuclear or any weapon which can cause deaths in high numbers is WMD according to me...it may be biological weapon too...but in that criteria there are 20 countries in the world which have disclosed/non disclosed WMDs...Iraq was not threat to usa...it was projected as one...WMD were not found and that is why tony is under firing lines in uk...Iraq was useless operation and it has left that region is problem...Iran , Iraq , Saudi and egpt ...these were four powers out there..Iraq is gone and now it is match between iran and saudi...bush should have known politics better than that...
I'm not agreeing with what Bush did. Was Saddam a threat? A threat to his own people and surrounding countries. A prime example- Kuwait, which needed protection from him.
well if we go by that logic usa would be busy with wars since many countries need protection from their neighbours...it is none of usa's business to go on protecting other countries...it is their business to protect themselves...for Iraqis?...well Iraq was better protected under saddam than what it is right now...just see what happens once usa goes....there is possibility of civil war and split of Iraq which would in turn benefit Iran...usa should stop interfering in things which it can not handle in longer run...
Well the Iraqi people were not protected from Saddam. He killed thousands of his own countrymen with mustard gas etc. He and his family were a cancer and needed to be removed. The Iraqi people should have done it themselves. If they become a satellite of Iran, they have no one to blame but themselves. The U.S. gave them the opportunity to become self governing, some peoples can not handle that and self destruct. If that is their destiny, whatever the U.S. has done has no affect on that. Just because a dictator kept them safe from Iran doesn't mean it was a good thing. It just means the inevitable was delayed.
i guess you dont know much about Iraq...Iraq is country divided into four ethnic groups...when usa attacked iraq , saddam was not killing his citizens...what you are saying was done by him long back...and if not protecting one's own citizen becomes right of foreign country to attack , we would have attacks done by usa in atleast half of the world...we can't judge other countries based on our standards and no country has any right to interfere in others matters...
Of course they're WMDs. But all we found in Iraq were a few scattered leftovers from the 80's, most of which were degraded. We found no evidence of imminent threat or any effort to rebuild his chemical weapons program.
He had one in the 80's. It got shut down. What's the question?
Never mind. Just the fact that you think it got shutdown and the UN provided the information is enough for me to not argue with you about it.
Seriously? You don't think if we'd ever found the slightest evidence that it wasn't shut down that Fox wouldn't be trumpeting it to the skies?
Instead they're stuck shouting about 500 weapons full of degraded nerve gas from before the first Gulf War.
Fox news/media reports what is given to them.
The government provides information based on what IT thinks the public truly needs to know and what the effects of that information can or will have on the public's perception.
A prime example: Kennedy assassination- the records are still sealed to this day, just so the public cannot know what truly happened.
So please... do try to think realistically and not only from what you are spoon feed from one specific media source.
Wow, tin hat much?
What's the logic behind making themselves look like war-mongering idiots who were dead wrong about Iraq's level of imminent threat, ties to terrorism, ease of invasion, cost of invasion, and virtually every other claim they made about the war in the months leading up to it? I'm curious.
You know, you lack the civility worth of conversation and that's truly sad. However, WMDs were NOT the only reason for the invasion. It was NOT the sole purpose. But, I don't expect you to understand that.
So, you keep thinking what you want. And, if you think what I said with regards to the government keeping information from people, I would suggest you pay closer attention to Julian Assange and what is transpiring in that particular situation.
If it's deemed National Security then guess what? YOU WILL NOT BE TOLD! Got it?
I've been arguing too long with Jim and LL. Also, I prefer people who provide evidence to back up their claims instead of making cryptic comments and informing me that I am "spoon fed" from "one specific media source" when I question them.
I've been arguing about the Iraq War since before we went in, so I understand the various justifications that the US offered (and didn't offer) to the public for the war pretty well, thanks. And I follow Wikileaks releases, so fire away.
"Several UN investigations found no WMDs - what more proof did you want?"
Oh yeah the UN, the nation members love the U.S.
They would certainly be unbiased.
Nevertheless, their conclusions were validated and the US's proved wrong, so what's your point?
How was the U.S. proved wrong?
Chemical weapons were found by your own admission so they were not wrong.
Right. Killing more than 4000 of our sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, husbands, and wives and wounding more than 30,000 more was totally worth finding a few scattered stashes of degraded chemical weapons from before the first Gulf War.
Degraded leftovers do not constitute an imminent threat or evidence of an ongoing weapons program, which were the claims the US used to justify the invasion.
Doesn't take much of a stretch of the imagination to think our world leaders are bowing to the will of Dr. Evil. Apparently, Dr. Evil has developed the capabilty to cause 8.0 or greater earth quakes. He also seems to own a lot of Exxon Mobile stock. Maybe there is some clue to his identity buried deep in the Wiki Leaks data base.
Doesn't matter too much. I think Libya will be the final nail in the coffin of this quasi Presidency. About the only thing I see Obama doing is using the office like he got a unlimited credit card. And Hillary should be bounced out on her large keister too. She got the ball rolling on this one.
On the minus side at least Bush had a clear mission! Obamas mission is anything but and already the coalition is falling apart amid confusion!
balls?well one doesnot go and fight himself/herself...so balls cannot be judged on basis of who goes for more wars...clinton had more hormone flow ...ask monica
on serious notes libya and iraq are poles apart...one has united nations sanction and backing of entire world...another was personal quest of arrogant man which had opposition of the world...libya is done because of movement of people of libya , iraq was done out of imaginary threat created by bush and his brother tony (who is facing the heat in his country and might end up being tried )...
Did anyone really think things were gonna change ? The name on the desk is the only change .
Old stockpiles of the stuff we know he had . what did he do with it? Its buried in the sand . I still think that. Of course i could be wrong , but i could also be right. I think its funny how if we did find one wmd everyone would be fine with the killing of so many people.
No offense taken or meant . Civil exchange of ideas. I respect contrary thinking .
I also think that if we did find w m d s there we wouldn't be told about them because the tag on them read made in the America.
lol i know that's a bit out there.
And Cagsil that gets me too . as a American it makes me feel ashamed at how we use our force these days. Still we don't have a kill order on Qudaffy .Something we should have had 30 years ago i think. id rather use one bullet . and no civilian deaths. To solve the problem . than lobbing missiles into neighborhoods killing everyone in sight except for the one guy that needs killing most.
Saddam agreed to a no fly zone as a condition for a cease fire in the first gulf war . he continually broke that agreement he harassed our jets enforcing it locking onto them daily. that alone was reason to resume conflict .
Let's see.......Iran invaded Iraq or was it the other way around, long before the US went in. Iraq invaded Kuwait just for the fun of it. The Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, and several other countries in the last 75 years. How many countries did Germany and Japan invade? Great Britain invaded how many? Spain, Portugal, France, the list goes on. Throughout history other countries have done a lot more invading than we have. For a lot worse reasons. We rebuild them if we go in. Yeah, I agree we should not go around invading willy nilly, but if a country, by its actions, poses a serious threat to the people of this country, then they will face the consequences. Don't threaten us, leave us and ours alone and we'll let you alone. That should be the standard.
Obama and Bush are the same. Gitmo's still open, we're attacking 4 countries now, instead of just 2. All of these wars were declared without a declaration of war from Congress.
Our country is dead.
Or be-holden to someone other than America...
I think we will find out with this Libya situation. The truth will be made clear.
Sad commentary from our citizens, apparently many of you have forgotten who we are?
WE are a Nation that has saved BILLIONS of lives around the world.
Americans have fed millions of people around the world.
Americans have freed millions of people around the world.
Americans are always the first to provide help assistance anywhere around the world.
Americans contribute more to charity than any other country in the world.
More American Soldiers have bled and died for others than any other nation in the world.
There are only two people in the world willing to fight and die for others, Jesus Christ and the American Soldier.
The United States is the greatest Nation the world has ever seen.
Have you forgotten who you are? You are an American. Remember it. Revel in it. And prove it every day.
Only we can pull us down, if we forget who we are.
The statement that only American soldiers are willing to die for others is the most arrogant and disrespectful thing I've heard today. Have you forgotten the countless other nations who have fought for freedom? The French, British, Italians and Russians in WWI? The Allies in WWII? The British, French and Italians in Libya right now? How can you sit there and ignore the brave men and women who have died for others simply because they were not American?
Let’s examine history then. Take for example WWI & WWII both of these wars were fought under the basic guise of conquest and expansion by the initial antagonists for European imperial and colonial rivalry for wealth, power and prestige. Millions of soldiers died on both sides, millions more civilians were killed.
While I will not disagree the soldiers of the countries you mentioned fought, they fought for the own country’s interest, whether it was for survival or for conquest, but not purely in defense of others.
The US soldier did. 4.4 million in WW1 and 16.1 million in WWII
This could easily be a very long and protracted debate into the historical causes, actions and reactions for the Wars, however one thing is very clear in both cases. The US had to be drawn into war and the US came to the rescue of the soon to be defeated allies.
Lets look at Libya today.
Whose interests are at stake? Europe’s, however I will acknowledge there are Geopolitical implications for all.
Is the US only involved because of our “unique military capabilities?” Yes.
Is the US involved for Vengeance? Perhaps.
When have any of the countries you mentioned, in modern history ever acted unilaterally on behalf of others and not for their own interests? None, that I can recall, yet I will acknowledge coalitions have become a Geopolitical necessity, yet you should concede the US is always at the forefront.
Are we acting because our allies need our assistance? Without doubt
You speak of individuals, all of which are valiant. I speak, quit loudly and proudly of the principle of the American resolve and altruism; our soldiers, our military and our government and our people, combined as indomitable and vigilant guardians.
Perhaps it is arrogant; then again have earned a certain amount of respect, we deserve it and demand it.
by lady_love158 9 years ago
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/04/0 … ep-the-oilI've said the same thing as Trump way before he went on Oreilly. I'm opposed to war unless it's in self defense and in that case to the victor go the spoils! If we're forced into war we should be compensated for it. So yes take Iraq make it...
by Ralph Deeds 8 years ago
How serious and immediate is a nuclear threat from Iran? What should we do about it? Some of the same hawks who helped talk us into invading Iraq are coming out of the woodwork and saying that a nuclear Iran is intolerable and something must be done to prevent it from happening. A timely and...
by Sooner28 7 years ago
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/0 … 99310.htmlOn the front page of the Huffington Post, the caption reads: George W. Obama. I find this to be refreshing, and I am glad the left is beginning to see Obama is just as bad as Bush on civil liberties. Now that the illusion based...
by cjhunsinger 6 years ago
Obama asserts that climate change is a larger threat than ISIS; do you agree?Obama is about to make a unilateral power grab, in the name of, Climate Change, in order to save the world from something that cannot be proven, and provides token resistance to ISIS, a known threat to the world.
by Barefootfae 7 years ago
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 … medium=RSSAccess is denied to the survivors.Now why can't they be interviewed?
by mortimerjackson 8 years ago
Despite what Obama's press secretary might tell you, the only reason that America is leaving Iraq is because of a declaration signed by George Bush saying that America will leave by 2011. Obama insisted upon staying in Iraq, but the Iraqi government has refused to grant US troops immunity for their...
Copyright © 2020 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|