What will the new justification be?

I am truly leaning to the "tried to kill my Daddy" and "launder money to Haliburton" reasons.

One of the few remaining reasons proposed before the war was the firing upon coalition airplanes. However, this hardly justifies the invasion of a country with the resulting scores of civilian deaths.

During the Bay of Pigs crisis an U2 spy plane was actually shot down and diplomatic efforts were not spared to prevent the loss of life.

 

I think what we're going to hear is various repetitions of what we've already heard:

• Saddam was a bad man
• The world is better off without Saddam
• Saddam could have had WMDs
• Stay the course

lather, rinse, repeat

 

If you'll recall back that far, bush had, less than a year before, been the reciepient of a coup d'etat. The nation was very fractured, and the rumbling was getting louder. He was losing all control. This was his opportunity to attempt to get us to forget his escapades by bombing poor brown skinned people in a foreign land. Besides, Houssain had made a fool out of his father and this was a chance to get back at him while engaging the military industrial complex thereby enabling a select few to make a lot of money by war profiteering. It looked like a win win, but he bungled it grossly.

 

Maybe the new excuse will be that Hussein was trying to use mind control to get Americans to switch from corn flakes to falafel as their prefered breakfast food.

 

To give the Extreme Left more gravy to wallow in .. :lol: :lol:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TonyPSchaefer @ Sep 9 2006, 07:41 PM) [snapback]317128[/snapback]</div>

:lol: :lol: :lol: Gee Tony your not from South Florida are you?

 

Often been repeated by the administration -- we are fighting them "there" before we have to fight them "here." And of course, Saddam was a very, very, VERY bad man.

Even though it's just been determined that there was no link between Saddam and Al Qaida, they will still insist that there was a link to other terrorists and that Saddam recruited suicide bombers.

An aside...has anybody read or listened to "Naked in Baghdad" by NPR correspondent Anne Garrels? It's an excellent book on Iraqi people's thoughts and fears during the time leading up to and during the invasion. Many of their fears (that there would be sectarian violence and chaos) proved true, and three years later a despot has been removed but things are much worse for the average person.

 

Careful Godiva posting this type of satrical polls will draw the ire of the Mods/Admins! Oops I see one has already posted and no ire. Imagine that! Why do you think that is? [attachmentid=4945] Hmmmmm, their Lefties? All in lockstep as far as Political POV, or just plain everyday Bias? The list is endless. Maybe one of them could respond?

Inquiring minds want to know.


[attachmentid=4946]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(PriusRos @ Sep 9 2006, 04:49 PM) [snapback]317132[/snapback]</div>

Your solution please?

Wildkow

 

Because the CIA must squash every puppet nation that turns against them.

 

One provication for the current Iraq War was the escalation of violence in the "no-fly" zone by Iraq. The "no-fly" zone was put in place as part of the cease fire deal with Iraq after the first Gulf War to protect the religious minorities in Iraq, the Kurds (who had already been gassed via WMDs) and the Shiite Muslims (who had been rounded up and killed in large numbers). After 9/11, Iraq, enboldened by the success of the terrorist attack against the US, delcared the "no-fly" zone illegal and began daily attacks on the coalition aircraft enforcing the "no-fly" zone which meant per the deal they signed that the war was back on. The UN passed more resolutions about the attacks and the inspections that were not recognized by Iraq. I believe that in the fear frenzy post 9/11 it was thought that Iraq's weapons of all types would end up in the hands of terrorists and used to attack us. That made sense since Iraq had already attacked its neighbors (Kuwait, Iran) and its own people resulting in killing at least a million (1 million in the Iran War alone).

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Karnac @ Sep 10 2006, 11:47 AM) [snapback]317371[/snapback]</div>

Hardly enough reason for invasion. In the past this has been handled diplomatically or by taking out the anti-aircraft guns. Regarding protection for the Kurds, what Saddam did was unfortunate and cruel, but hardly and excuse for unilateral US invasion since it did not translate into a security issue for the US.

 

Or in Wildkow's case, on a post-by-post basis. Funny that he's constantly trolling and still acts like he's being treated unfairly. Wildkow, take a look at the poll options and you'll see that there are just about all the standard real-life republican answers to the question, not just joke answers making fun of GWB. I'd like to know what you think the valid (revised) reason for invading Iraq is/should be. And there's even the ultimately fair "other" response which is winning out right now.

As for the poll, if we're tlaking about what the administration will actually say, not the real reasons, I'm with Proco: they'll "stay the course." If there's a new line, it will be a variant of an old one.

 

Do we need a justification?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Starfall @ Sep 10 2006, 01:48 PM) [snapback]317393[/snapback]</div>

"We" don't but I think Bush and the Republicans do if they're going to stay afloat politically because the question will be asked again and again in debates around the country in the coming months.

 

Directed polls aside, people tend to have short memories. Prior to the invasion, the nation had a healthy and vigorous debate regarding a "doctrine of pre-emption" to take out enemies where intelligence showed us they had designs on killing us, especially with weapons of mass destruction. After seeing that one of the poorest nations on earth, the Taliban - led Afghanistan, could actively support terror that would produce the worst disaster and attack in American history, the President gave his famous "Axis of Evil" State of the Union speech:

Of the three nations specifically mentioned in the quote above, Iraq is the most strategically situated, bordering Iran and Afghanistan, and weaker than Iran. If we are going to pre-empt action by these nations, who are pledged to destroy us, then it makes sense to take them on one at a time.

After three months of announcing we would invade, and months of negotiation, we didn't find any *new* weapons of mass destruction. We don't know if they were moved into Syria, one of Iraq's uneasy allies, or if the Saddam regime and the defectors were simply lying about their abilities in a kind of "WMD brinkmanship".

From the left's perspective, we went in too early, and should have waited until it was proven Iraq had WMD. By that same logic, we should do the same with Iran, because even though they say they want to destroy us and Isreal and the world's experts say they are gaining the ability to create nuclear weapons, they could be lying just like Saddam did. The thing I'm trying to figure out is when it is acceptable to the left to intervene? Do we wait for a mushroom cloud over Rome or Tel Aviv?

Perhaps that's what we should do.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Sep 10 2006, 01:03 PM) [snapback]317400[/snapback]</div>

It's acceptable as long as the evidence supports the threat. Its unacceptable when you make up the evidence, or only look at the evidence that suits your intent.

The methods are another issue. If you are incompetent, like the current administration, then maybe you should not be allowed to play with lives.