This was the last article I had read on the subject:
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/...tml?ESRC=eb.nl
Apparently, that's quite dated and 2006 was a good year for recruitment. You're a recruiter, aren't you? Call it a hunch.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Greg700
That single defector may have claimed that Saddams chemical weapons were destroyed, but even Clinton has come forward to state that his administration (who was in power in 1995) honestly believed Saddam had his chemical weapons stockpile. Furthermore, we have sniffers to detect CW residue. Even if they were destroyed we would know about it (at least now after the war)....We even asked Saddam to simply take us to the locations where the weapons were destroyed and we would have been able to confirm their destruction...didn't happen.
|
A lot of people thought that they had weapons, but the problem was that if they didn't where was all this evidence coming from that he did?
"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons." George W. Bush September 12, 2002
"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent." George W. Bush January 28, 2003
"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have." George Bush February 8, 2003
"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." George Bush March 18, 2003
The office of the president either didn't fact check or lied about Iraq having these weapons. There was no proof of these claims as was made clear by the fact that no weapons existed. We were watching to borders, so they didn't move to Syria or anything. We are scouring the desert for some sign of anything, and we've found nothing.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Greg700
I need to clarify an Illegal order: A soldier may be ordered to do something 'Illegal' and be obligated to obey. For instance, if a general orders one of his subbordinates to attack a town and he refuses, his men are still under his command and obligated to obey him until the general relieves him of command. It may be 'illegal' to kick in the door to an Iraqi storefront, but if you are told to do it you are obligated to do so...it isn't your place to argue with everything. A good example is George S Patton, who on more than one occasion launched a 'reconnaissance in force' when ordered not to attack. He disobeyed his orders, but his men were still bound to obey him. He saved many lives as a result because he better understood the situation on the ground than his superiors.
|
I'm not asking soldiers to argue with everything, just to be aware that they have rules to follow. Our treaties and laws are not contradicted by the UCMJ. I don't remember reading anywhere in the UCMJ that the UN Charter doesn't apply. Specitically on the subject of preemptive strike against a soverign nation, there is no rule in the UCMJ that overrules the UN Charter.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Greg700
Claiming that congress and the president are responsible for our troops in time of war is partially accurate....They are responsible for the decision to send them into harms way. However, suggesting that they are in the unfortunate situation of having to decide whether a particular action is worth the potential cost in american lives. They are ultimately people operating in an uncertain world who have to make hard decisions....It is possible that somewhere bad decisions were made, but that doesn't mean they were criminal, just incorrect.
|
Yes, they have hard decisions to make and yes the world can be a scary place, but part of how we, as a spesices, have dealt with difficulties is by agreeing on rules by which to live. We have laws over soverign countries and treaties between countries and organizations in order to regulate safety and freedom so that we can try to make our world a little less scary and a little more fair. If, however, we begin to allow ourselves to break these rules because they might be in our way, then why bother with them? The criminality is in breaking our agreement, and yes, I do think that when the ultimate decision was made to go to war that a crime was committed. I find it horribly ironic and hypocritical how we are punishing Iraq for breaking the rulings of the UN by breaking the agreement we made with the UN.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Greg700
Your neighbor analogy is flawed. We took action in Iraq because nobody else would.
|
I think it was obvious that my analogy only mentioned 3 parties: you, your neighbor and your neighbor's kids. No one else was mentioned, therefore my analogy was fine. Police were not mentioned. Other neighbors were not mentioned.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Greg700
The United Nations is ineffective, cumberson, and corrupt.
|
Can't you see that's the pot calling the kettle black?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Greg700
Yet this is the organization to whom you would have the United States submit?
|
No one forced us to sign the Charter. We did, though, and unless we're willing to drop out of the UN, we are committing a breach of that treaty when we invade. I think that the UN and US should be reorganized completely, but that doesn't mean that I get to ignore their rules. That's not low the laws work. You change the laws through the proper channels, you don't just break them. You do it legally.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Greg700
When I said I don't care what should have been done I mean in the context of this argument and our path forward. Mistakes were made, and now we find ourselves in a situation where we either honor the commitments we made, or make the situation worse by flat out betraying hundreds of thousands of people and abandoning them. History has taught me that the principle failing of liberal democracies is their lack of resolve...we go to war strong and then peter out when the public becomes divided and demonstrates it's lack of backbone.
|
Ask your general if he or she thinks we can actually win the war over there. Does he or she think that, realisticaly, we can bring peace to Iraq, end the civil war, and leave them in a peaceful democracy? I don't like to put words in people's mouths, but I can bet that the answer is no. Iraq lacks the resolve to be a democracy because we fought for their independance instead of allowing their hunger lead to rebelion and eventually independance from the corrupt state. America would have fought the British with or without the aid of the French. Would Iraq have fought Saddam with or without the US?
We lack the manpower and resolve to force democracy and peace on Iraq.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Greg700
Whether you like or dislike Bush, he wasn't a draft dodger. He served. Which is more than most people can say. He may have been given a job as a pilot because of who his father is, but he could just as easily have been flying over vietnam. If you don't think it took guts to sign up and train to be a pilot then read a thing or two about what happenned to John McCain when he was shot down and the events that transpired afterwards due to his father being a senator.
|
The reality is that Bush didn't fly over Vietnam, he defended Texas from the Viet-Cong at home, away from harm. He was never going to be in any danger. It would have taken guts to allow himself to be drafted, like my father's generation (my uncle was over there, and lost a lot of good friends). 12 days before his draft, Bush signed up for the National Guard, behind thousands of men, and he scored a 25/100 on his aptitude test (1 more than failure), but he got in because of his father. I may not respect McCain as a politican, but at least he was willing to fight and die for his country.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Greg700
If he simply wanted to avoid the war there were plenty of other, less honorable options. However, he stood up and vounteered which is hardly dodging the draft. Not all military jobs are dangerous (most are very safe) and to suggest that soldiers who volunteer to fill a need are somehow 'dodging the draft' is to suggest that everyone who isn't infantry, deployed, and getting shot at is a coward.
|
Had W. Bush run, then there would have been consequences for his father, H.W. Bush, who was already poltically important. It could have ruined the family's reputation, something W. Bush wouldn't do until he stole the election decades later. His father was the real guilty party in his being accepted into the Texas Air National Guard, but Bush went right along with it, and now he pretends like he knows the first thing about war.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Greg700
Being a pilot took a lot more guts than volunteering to become a cook, or a water purification specialist. Etc. Our Navy was almost unchallenged during Vietnam and would have been far safer than flying. Were all sailors draft dodgers?
|
The sailors were not on the oposite side of the world from the war. Bush was. He never left Texas. Had the Viet Cong invaded Texas, then we would be having a different conversation.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Greg700
What would you do if you were drafted for this Iraq war? Would you go? You believe that American Soldiers are obligated to refuse to participate in this illegal war, and you draw analogies between this one and vietnam, yet you criticize Bush for his service claiming he was 'dodging the draft.' Aren't you basically telling me to do that?
|
I can't be drafted because of a severe heart condition, but if that were not the case I would have to fight. While I would make it abundantly clear that we were in an illegal war, and I would do what I could to hold those responsible for going to war responsible for their actions, but I would fight none the less. It's my responsibility as a citizen. I would not torture, murder in cold blood, rape, etc., though. If I was given an order to waterboard someone, I would need to be relieved of my duties.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Greg700
There is a big difference between the US recorded death toll after our invasion and Saddams reported death toll when he simply made things dissappear and claimed that everything was just peachy.
|
The US doesn't have a recorded death toll for Iraqis. Other organizations had to step in and do it, then the government begrudgingly put out a very low number. The estimates are between 50,000 and 200,000+ Iraqi deaths since the invasion in 2003. Do you really think that the dissapearances by Saddam can compare to that number?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Greg700
Oh, and for the record, we had most power and infastructure up and running after the war. It is really amazing how much damage a bunch of bad guys who are willing to kill their own people (or their neighbors since most come from outside Iraq) can do to prevent progress.
|
We weren't ready to rebuild Iraq. One of the biggest mistakes the government made was not having a feasable rebuilding or exit strategy.
As to the 20,000 troops thing, yes the 25,000 number does not mean that we are short 25,000 troops. It's closer to 16,000. Still, how is 20,000 more troops really going to change the tide? Violence and attack numbers continue to increase, not just in Baghdad, but all over the country. Attacks are becoming more complex (example: Iraqi insurgents in US military uniforms, which is f**king scary).