The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Gibbs' Hog wrote:Here is where I see the partisanship over initiating the Iraq war.

Republican view:
Saddam = evil dictator that terrorized his own people and needed to be removed from power; no matter who else (as in foreign allies) agreed with us.

War initiated because:
Saddam is evil, and posed a threat to the U.S.

Democratic view:
Saddam = evil dictator that terrorized his own people and needed to be removed from power; only, with support from foreign allies, solid evidence of stockpiling WMDs, and solid evidence showing that he was linked to Al Qaeda and 9/11.

War initiated because:
False evidence of current WMD stockpile, false claim that Saddam was linked to Bin Ladin, false threat of Iraq attacking the U.S.

Reasons for democrats' objections to the way the war was initiated:
WMD, Al Qaeda link, and imminent threat of attack from Iraq claims were all proven to be false. Oil, oil, oil. Not enough support from foreign allies and the U.N. Revenge for Bush Sr.?



Personally speaking, I believe Saddam Hussein was evil. I believe he needed to be removed from power. But we needed more support from our allies, and if war was necessary, we needed to base it on reasons that the rest of the world could agree on (i.e. Saddam terrorizing his own people, Saddam unashamedly suppressing the Kurds, etc.).

Hindsight is 20/20, but the fact is, when we started this war, we had about 20/30. I will never agree with the reasons for which we went to war in Iraq (Afghanistan's a different story), and I hold the current administration accountable for creating this mess for us. But we are still at war now, and I will continue to support our troops and pray for their safety and conviction in bringing this conflict to an end.

Conservative view


Saddam was an evil that could no longer be tolerated. He was the overiding factor of Middle East instability. His support of terrorists ranging from Al Qeada to various Palestinian organizations along with the emotional boost given to these same groups due to his defiance of the Great Satan mandated action be taken.

His known stockpiles of WMD poised an imminent threat to national security. We may not be able to find them now, but the bigger question is what happened to them. There is no documentation that they were destroyed. My personal guess is large quantities were moved into the Baka Valley with the remainder dumped in the Tigris and Euphrates.


Liberal view

Bush is a moron. Anything this administration does is wrong and I'm against it. Besides, everyone but Americans are innocent.

His support of terrorists ranging from Al Qeada to various Palestinian organizations along with the emotional boost given to these same groups due to his defiance of the Great Satan mandated action be taken.

With all due respect, curveball, this statement is, in my opinion, misleading. Al-Qaeda and Sadaam Hussein were sworn enemies, and in fact, Al-Qaedas doctrine called for the assasination of Sadaam Hussein. He neither supported nor harbored (knowingly) members of Al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda and Iraq never supported each other.

Not until The United States invaded Iraq did Al-Qaeda associate themselves with Iraq. Then, and only then, did Al-Qaede ally themselves with any form of Government in Iraq. Specifically, notice the "branch" of Al-Qaeda that are currently operating in Iraq. They call themselves "Al-Qaeda in Iraq". In any of their statements, they NEVER advocate the support of Sadaam Hussein. They merely express their "jihad" against the United States. And even then, the only reason they associate with or even title themselves "Al-Qaeda in Iraq" is because our Soldiers are in Iraq. Al-Qaeda wanted Sadaam Hussein ousted as much as the United States did. But, since we invaded them, and our soldiers are in Iraq, the new "Al-Qaeda in Iraq" was formed to pursue "Jihad" against the United States and contrary to what appears to be your assertion, not to defend or support the Government of Sadaam Hussein.

JP, you're wrong in your assessment of AQ-Saddam links. Several mid-level AQ leaders passed through Iraq from the late 90's on. It's widely believed that several organizations affliated with if not direct members of AQ held meetings there.

Given the boderline paranoia of Saddam, it's highly unlikely that these did not meet his tacit approval.

Google the death of Abu Nidal. The possible motives are quite interesting.

I'm not one of the nuts that think Iraq played a role in 9/11, but dismissing the links that do exist is short sighted at best.

Curveball,

Again, respectfully, I must say that your assertion(s) are factually wrong. Here's why:

Several mid-level AQ leaders passed through Iraq from the late 90's on

While that's quite possible, but highly doubtful, it does not provide evidence of any kind that Sadaam Hussein was linked to Al-Qaeda. Where did you get your information about "mid-level" AQ operatives passing through Iraq? First of all, "passing through" Iraq does not constitute support for Al-Qaeda by the Government of Sadaam Hussein, just as numerous (and this number is in the hundreds) AQ operatives passing through the United States does not or did not constitute Bill Clintons or George Bush's support of Al-Qaeda. Similarly, several Al-Qaeda operatives not only passed through the United States, but actually legally obtained Non-Immigrant and in at least two cases Immigrant Visas from the United States Dept. of State. In addition to "passing through" the United States, they also "conducted meeteings" in the United States. Their reasons for "passing through" the United States, while not entirely similar to their reasons for "passing through" Iraq do have a common thread. Because they can!! The Iran/Iraq/Border with Syria/Kuwait/Saudi Arabia is an easy border to cross, or at least it was pre-March of 2003. What is well known is that Al-Qaeda operatives did enter Iraq during the late 90's as you suggest, but not for the purpose of conducting meetings to attack, hijack, kill, or otherwise use "terrorism" against the United States. Their reasons, while most definitely not acts which are condoned, but nevertheless they were not to seek or pursue any type of support from the Government of Sadaam Hussein. Any meetings with ANY terrorists in Iraq that was supported by Sadaam Hussein, with the exception of the plot to assasinate George Bush Sr., were entirely centered around the Palestinian conflict.

Given the boderline paranoia of Saddam, it's highly unlikely that these did not meet his tacit approval

In fact, I believe, it is quite the opposite. Sadaam Hussein was an enemy of Al-Qaeda, and the Al-Qaeda doctrine called for "martyrdom against" Sadaam Hussein. Hussein would NEVER provide even tacit approval to Al-Qaeda operations being conducted anywhere in Iraq. While he may have been aware of "operatives passing through Iraq", the same can be said about George Bush or Bill Clinton being aware of Mohammad Atta "passing through" the United States. Just because he knew it, doesn't mean it met with his approval. Al-Qaeda in Iraq will never issue any type of declaration supporting the Government of Sadaam Hussein. As I mentioned in my earlier post, they were enemies. "Al-Qaeda in Iraq" who should not be confused with "Al-Qaeda" are mostly Syrians, Kuwaitis, and Saudis who have entered Iraq in order to wage war with the United States simply because they can, and because the United States are there. Many people will argue that George Bush was right in taking the war to Iraq to fight them there, so they don't have to fight them in the United States. However, it is against International Law to invade one country with the specific intention of doing so to prevent certain hostilities in your own country.

Google the death of Abu Nidal. The possible motives are quite interesting

I can't speculate on "possible" motives, but if we google the death of Abu Nidal, there are several people we could also google who have died on U.S. soil while being wanted for terrorism. "Possible" motives doesn't cut it when you're dealing with terrorism. To use Abu Nidal, while a terrorist in every sense of the word, is really grasping at straws in my opinion. Abu Nidal was essentially living in Exile, and to the best of my knowledge, was not a member of Al-Qaeda. Any mention of Hussein providing support, or even assisting members of Al-Qaeda is speculative at best, and would perhaps better have been served when that information was known. Why is information about "possible motives" and AQ operatives "passing through" Iraq only coming to light now, as opposed to when they were occuring. George Bush did not mention Sadaam Husseins support for Al-Qaeda during his State of the Union Address where he said that Hussein is stockpiling WMD.

I'm not one of the nuts that think Iraq played a role in 9/11, but dismissing the links that do exist is short sighted at best

Of course Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. To say otherwise would be naive. But, dismissing the links? From an operational standpoint, no such links existed. Unless, of course, if you consider a "link" a person that "passes through" or speculate on whether or not a meeting took place with the possiblity of Husseins "tacit approval". In the words of Clara Peller from the 1980's, "Where's the BEEF"? I want a little bit more than "possible motives' AQ Operatives "passing through (note the use of the word through and not a word like "residing in or operating in" Iraq to convince me that our invasion of Iraq had anything to do with Al-Qaeda. The only thing it has to do with "Al-Qaeda" is that it created a new terrorist group by the name of "Al-Qaeda in Iraq" who have allied themselves with the larger and more well known "Al-Qaeda" terrorist group. People need to realize that "Al-Qaeda in Iraq" and "Al-Qaeda" are two seperate and distinct terrorist groups with two seperate doctrines. While the United States is the infidel in both, their missions are entirely different in nature. AQ in Iraq have a mission to rid the United States from Iraq. The larger and more well known group "Al-Qaeda" have a mission of causing terror in the United States and their allies around the world for providing support for Israel.

As is always the case, my disagreement is done in a respectfull manner. But, to go to the Mother of a 18 year old U.S. Marine and tell them that your Son was killed because we have proof that in the 1990's that "mid level" operatives passed through Iraq and might have even had a meeting is stretching it a bit.

I can assure you that Al-Qaeda have NEVER, not even ONCE, supported in ANY way the Government of Sadaam Hussein. That much I can guarantee you. And while I fully and without reservation support our troops in Iraq, and will continue to do so in any way necessary, I can not agree with our "reasons" for invading Iraq in 2003.

In reality, we needed to get rid of Hussein in 1991. George Bush Sr. made, according to Norman Schwartzkopf(sp), one of the most catastrophic errors in the history of modern warfar. My personal feeling is that George W. came back to finish the mistake that his Father made. To that end, he's done it. He's got rid of Sadaam Hussein. But NOW WHAT? Now an insurgency that he neither expected or thought of exists. Now is where the hard part comes in. A sustained campaign against insurgents will be the toughest battle Bush will face for the remainder of his term.

curveball wrote:JP, you're wrong in your assessment of AQ-Saddam links. Several mid-level AQ leaders passed through Iraq from the late 90's on. It's widely believed that several organizations affliated with if not direct members of AQ held meetings there.

The terrorists that highjacked the 9/11 airplanes passed through New Jersey during the late 90s/early aughts. We will attack Jersey at dawn!

It's widely believed that several organizations affliated with if not direct members of AQ held meetings there

Widely believed? affiliated with, if not direct memebers held meetings there? Not only are these statements wrong, but you think that's enough to pony up as a reason for going to war where over 1700 of our own young men and women have lost their lives, because it was "widely believed"? I'm sorry, but that's not enough in my book. I want a little more proof than that!!!

Yes, he "HAD" WMD

Then if you believe that he had them do you really believe that he would have just played nice from now on and not ever used them or tried to develop them again? I for one don't and I believe what we did was justified. It's good enough for me and I do sleep better at night. Does that mean we're free from other terrorist attacks in the future? No, but it's a pretty good start in my book.

If Sadaam Hussein is the "madman" that everyone says he is, and if he had "Weapons of Mass Destruction" when the United Stats invaded Iraq, why didn't he use them? The United Nations were in the procss of determining the extent of his capability to wage war with WMD when GEORGE BUSH, not the UN ordered the inspectors out of the country. The UN inspectors pleaded to be allowed a little more time to complete their job. In spite of the fact that Hussein may have mislead the inspectors, they did make some progress, and most if not all of them have subsequently gone on record as saying that they were convinced that NO WMD existed in Iraq from 1994. Husseins un-cooperation with UN inspectors was a tactic to make us think he had them. And we fell right into his trap! Well, not me personally, but George Bush did. What does it say about Bush when he lets a "madman" play right into his hands? What a foold Bush must feel like having to say to himself he let Hussein trick him!!

Now, if Bush was to say "No, Iraq has now WMD, but we need to get rid of him because of the fact that we neglected to do so in 1991" that would have been an easier pill to swallow.

curveball wrote:Liberal View
Bush is a moron. Anything this administration does is wrong and I'm against it. Besides, everyone but Americans are innocent.

This is exactly what I am referring to when I say that a lot of republicans are just plain ignorant.

You hit it on the nose, dude. That is exactly what I (and all other liberals) think.

Yes, he "HAD" WMD

I can't explain why he didn't use them... Is it because he dismantled some and shipped the rest to Syria? I don't know with 100% certainty and neither do you. However, we do both agree that he HAD WMD at a point in time and he DID use them. If he had and used them in the past then many folks, myself included, believe he would reconstitute that capability at some point in the future and use them or provide them to other nutcakes like Osama bin Laden for their use. We can't all put flowers in our hair and join hands and love this problem away. That's the liberal solution and it's a complete and utter failure. As for placing our trust in the hands of the UN and its inspectors I need point no further than the "oil for food" debacle as an example as to how trustworthy the UN is.

If Sadaam Hussein is the "madman" that everyone says he is...

"If"?

Let me share a few things regarding this "model citizen":

1) Saddam Hussein not only had weapons of mass destruction, but Iraq used them to kill tens of thousands of Iranians and Kurds.
2) Saddam Hussein refused to abide by multiple UN Resolutions concerning those weapons.
3) Saddam Hussein refused to abide by the agreements of the cease-fire he asked for in 1991.
4) Saddam Hussein attempted to assassinate a former president of the United States.
5) Saddam Hussein was clearly in contact with Al Qaeda, even offering medical care for their operatives in Baghdad.
6) Saddam Hussein was clearly supportive of terrorist efforts against Israel.
7) There was no reason NOT to believe that sooner, rather than later, Saddam Hussein would make some of his WMDs available to terrorist elements. Saddam Hussein was pursuing a war of terror, rape, pillage and murder against his own people.

That's reason enough for me.

Redskin Don wrote:If he had and used them in the past then many folks, myself included, believe he would reconstitute that capability at some point in the future and use them or provide them to other nutcakes like Osama bin Laden for their use.

...which is why we - and all of our foreign allies - were investigating the situation. Only, it was proventhat, not only did Iraq not have WMDs at the start of the war, but that traces found from past chemical weapons were only as recent as 1991.

Look, no one is arguing that Saddam wasn't a bad guy. All the democrats wanted was for a more thorough and comprehensive investigation. I have a hard time believing that you are better informed than nearly all of our major foreign allies. With more time, and cohesion with our allies, the right solution might have been to go to war - and it would have been a completely different scenario over the last two years.

What is unsettling is that we went to war by sidestepping the U.N. and ignoring those countries that could have offered the most help.

Redskin Don wrote:We can't all put flowers in our hair and join hands and love this problem away. That's the liberal solution and it's a complete and utter failure.

We can't? That is exactly what I thought we needed.

That's the liberal solution? Dude, get out of the 60's.

I guess ignorance really is bliss.

which is why we - and all of our foreign allies - were investigating the situation...

You mean the same allies, e.g. France, Russia, Germany, etc. who had their hands in the proverbial cookie jar during the "oil for food" scandal? No thanks. I'll place my trust in this American President.

I have a hard time believing that you are better informed than nearly all of our major foreign allies.

I never said I was better informed, you did. I simply stated the facts as I found them just as you believe your mindset is supported by truth and "enlightenment".

That's the liberal solution? Dude, get out of the 60's... I guess ignorance really is bliss.

It's the liberal democrat party that's still stuck in the mindset of the 60s. As soon as the leftists join the present maybe we can all work together for a change. One more thing: if liberalism equals intelligence then I'll remain stupid, miserable and conservative.

Redskin Don wrote:...your mindset is supported by truth and "enlightenment".

Thank you.

Redskin Don wrote:...if liberalism equals intelligence then I'll remain stupid, miserable and conservative.

To each his own.

curveball wrote:

Liberal View
Bush is a moron. Anything this administration does is wrong and I'm against it. Besides, everyone but Americans are innocent.

Well thats why you guys are the minority in this country. Bush must not have been to much of a Moron to be elected twice. But thankfully its majority rules so the moron liberals out there dont have much say at all. So everyone but America is innocent? If you wanna take up on there side so much then u should get the heck out of here. Trust me we wont miss one less liberal around town!

Bush is a moron. Anything this administration does is wrong and I'm against it. Besides, everyone but Americans are innocent.



This is exactly what I am referring to when I say that a lot of republicans are just plain ignorant.

You hit it on the nose, dude. That is exactly what I (and all other liberals) think.

My last comment was for Gibbs' Hog

skins#1fan wrote:Well thats why you guys are the minority in this country. Bush must not have been to much of a Moron to be elected twice. But thankfully its majority rules so the moron liberals out there dont have much say at all. So everyone but America is innocent? If you wanna take up on there side so much then u should get the heck out of here. Trust me we wont miss one less liberal around town!

Just when I thought you were becoming more respectful. How sad.

1) I don't know why you believe that HALF - 50% - is a minority. Have you seen Bush's approval ratings? It's what, 40-some percent, or less? Is that a minority, then?

2) Bush is not "to much of a Moron" to be elected twice? The incompetence shown in the Florida recount won him the first election - not Bush's intelligence. And he was re-elected with a SLIM margin of victory; which some would debate was just as questionable as the first one. and don't take that out of context...I accepted the defeat - not happy about the result - but I still accepted it.

3) "So everyone but America is innocent?" What does that mean?

Stop saying "majority", and LEARN something. You don't have to agree with me. And your posts are moronic - not the liberals.

Feel free to try and have the last word; it is what you want anyway.



I'm done.

If you wish to call me a liberal, fine. But, as for "loving" the enemy, I don't quite qualify, though I can think of somebody you Christian neocoms claim to respect who advised it. You see, big guy, when the towers came down, I sort of hoped we'd go after the guys who did it, not Iraq. I guess that was too much to ask-- that the great leader could keep his eye on the ball. Instead, he veered off to attack what he thought was an easier target and lied to get us to follow along. Result. 100,000 Iraqis dead, half of them children; seventeen hundred of our guys dead; ten thousands of our men wounded; years of death ahead. Prison camps, torture, huge debt, Iraq on the verge of a civil war, the U.S.hated internationally with a new intensity, neglect of problems in Iran, Korea, a genocide in Africa we don't have the means to do anything about. Your guy has screwed up royally and should be kicked out of office, the sooner the better, and it doesn't take a flower child to see it. Attilla the Hun could see it!

Just a note.

Many people believe that Bush would have won a recount in Florida if the Supreme court had allowed it to continue. That is both true and untrue

If the recount had continued in only the contested counties, Bush would have won.
If the recount had been made all over the state of Florida, Gore would have won.

The Supreme Court,then, did not cost Gore the election. Rather, election officials in Florida and other factors that obstructed a statewide recount cost Gore the election.

Nevertheless, Gore received not only more popular votes than Bush in 2000 but also should have received more electoral votes. Bush's victory was due to flaws in election machinery that allowed the election to be "stolen" legally, if not also illegally.

look im honestly ready to drop the whole thing. Ill make a few points and u can say what u want and call it a day. If everyone really saw Irag in the way the liberals did then Bush would have lost by a landslide. For you guys to say we went into Iraq alone is crazy. Go tell the soldiers families from Great Briain, Trukey, Poland, ect that there sons and daughters that died didnt do squat for us. That is what ur saying when u say we didnt have help right? Mabey they didnt do as much as us but they did something for the cause, but other people did die for this cause along with Americans.
Ps...lets all just agree the skins are the greatest team ever and cowboys suck! can we agree on that one?

Absolutely.

Dear Redskin Don,
I give you some credit. Saddam may have had a hand in terrorists attacks in Israel, and at one time (years ago) had WMD (if not when we attacked him.)
Your other points, however, have no basis in fact. Are you so certain you're right that making things up or arguing absurdities seems ok?

but I'm not making anything up. You seem pretty confident of your sources. So am I.

but I'm not making anything up. You seem pretty confident of your sources. So am I.

As am I. And, speaking of sources, I can guarantee you that I have the most knowledgable and well informed soucres, vis-a-vis Sadaam Hussein/Terrorism/Al-Qaeda/Iraq etc...