powerclown

Sorry, I disagree. There you go again with the condescension. You are presupposing that you know better than they do about what they are doing. You are implying that what they are doing is useless, meaningless. You are implying that what they are trying to do in Iraq is for nothing, in vain. You say all this, as they fight and die this very minute! This is support???

The time for dissent has passed. Congress has debated, and they have spoken. Our troops are in place and under fire. It is now (or was) the Public's job to express approval for the mission of the troops. It is the Public's job to support the mission with the intent of keeping troop morale high, so as to better insure a preferred outcome.

I've heard this once or twice. It might make sense in a vacuum, but not since 9/12/01. If Iraq behaved as Greenland I could agree, but alas. Now, it is about trying to establish an ally in a hostile land.

Slims

I am a soldier and I see it several different ways:

First, the phrase "I support our troops" and those like it are wielded by both sides as a weapon and I resent that. It is used to make the opponent look unpatriotic or unsupportive of "our great young men and women in uniform" and it is so patronizing it makes me feel ill.

I hear republicans say it in order to make it look like democrats who don't support the war are somehow betraying individual soldiers. I also hear democrats use it in the exact context: that yanking funding for troops and leaving a job half finished is being done out of a heartfelt desire to protect soldiers. Of course, if you yank out most of the soldiers life will be that much worse for the ones who are left.

I hear talk show hosts preface any criticism of the war effort with equally patronizing language and I really don't appreciate it. It seems like people use such phrases to legitimize anything war related.

However, I am very glad that the attitude is not the same as it was in years previous. I would much rather have to deal with some false support than real abuse.

Whether you agree with the war or not you have to respect that soldiers are willing to risk thier lives for their country and are trying to do the right thing. While some people here are willing to lead sheltered lives and pretend that without the US the world would be a very gentle place, many soldiers are tired and scared in other countries getting a very different first hand perspective.

__________________
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill

"All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence

Willravel

They are forced to do what they did not sign up for. I am supporting them by taking on their biggest enemy, the POTUS. He and his cronies have done more danage to the military than anyone else. I am supporting them by raising awareness that they don't belong there so that we, the people, can say in one voice to our "leadership" that our troops are coming home. We need to be united in our struggle to save the troops. That's how I have been and am serving the troops best interest. Also, more than half the troops in Iraq think we don't belong there. Did you know that? So even from your perspective I am supporting the troops because I am agreeing with them.
The time for dissent has passed? Dubbuyuh, is that you? Are you the decider now? It's the public's job to make sure that our government doesn't run amock, and we're not doing a good enough a job at that. Ther prefered outcome to this is to salvage the impossible mess, so that we stop losing lives. Congress was tricked and misled, and as a result the public has elected a Democratic majority Congress AND House. We've spoken. Bring 'em home and do it as fast as possible.
I need like 3 gallons of "what the hell are you talking about?!" for this one. I'm really certian you don't know what you're talking about any more. You connect Iraq to 9/11, and then when I prove how wrong you are, you talk about how Iraq isn't Greenland? What in god's name are you trying to communicate? What is your point?


Edit: Maybe I should make this more blunt. To all those brave soldiers here on TFP, did you sign up to protect your country from dangers both foreign and domsetic, or did you sign up to invade a country that could not harm us?

Elphaba

First hand experience is what blowhards like me greatly appreciate. Thank you for your post.

Slims

Willravel: Actually, Military enlistments are rarely for more than 4 years and are often for only 2. I can guarantee that everybody in the army today knew about the war when they signed up (or reenlisted).

Some national guard guys may have attempted to get easy money by signing up and hoping not to deploy, but they still signed on the dotted line knowing full well what conflict we were engaged in.

Also, an awareness that we don't belong in Iraq is very different entirely from an opinion that we shouldn't be fighting the war or that we are not needed. Of course we don't belong in the middle east. But an asshat of a dictator necessitated our return.

Whether you agree with the war or not, you should realize that the original war has been won...we kicked the crap out of saddam hussein, his army, and the bath party. We could have pulled out and left Iraq in ruins.

But that wouldn't be very nice. So we are trying to help get Iraq back up and running again. But since we displaced the ruling Sunni minority (basically like apartheid) and for the first time installed a predominately Shia government in the arab league of nations we are facing a lot of opposition from the Sunni radicals in Iraq who had it good living under Saddam and extorting people.

We have made some committments in that part of the world that require us to either 1: finish the job or 2: leave and betray all the people who stood up and have been working with the US to get their country up and running again...they will most likely be slaughtered if we leave. Not to mention Kuwait (one of our allies) will probably get taken over (again) during the resulting civil war. Democracy in the middle east is considered a threat by many neighboring countries (*Cough* *Iran* *Cough*) and they are actively working to undermine US interests as well. To pull out now is to simply hand them (and all others working against the US) the ball game.

Even if you were against the war you shouldn't be against reconstruction and the honoring of our national committments. Could you sleep at night if you had all our troops pull out only to have all former Interpreters, Interim Government members, Iraqi Police, and all their families tortured and killed? Not to mention the bloodbath that ensue from the civil war. What would you do when Kuwait gets sacked, again?

It is far easier to fight and win wars when you adopt a scorched earth policy. If we wanted to simply crush Iraq and leave the country in ruins we would have been home years ago. Instead we have a broader goal...helping people escape tyranny. Which, if I recall, is the reason we fought our war of independance and I can think of none better to fight a war over.

__________________
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill

"All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence

powerclown

I wonder if you see the issue in black & white. That is, if individual civilians claim not to support the war effort, they also, by default, do not support the troops. Do you agreee that the success of a given mission is in large part based upon public opinion? I think this is especially relevant now, when you have so many prominent media outlets weighing in on the subject pro and con in an effort to shape and manipulate opinion.

I guess that's life in the real world.

What annoys me is how some people talk as if soldiers don't understand what they've gotten themselves into, as if they are mindless pawns on a chessboard. I'm simply saying that I think they deserve more respect than they are getting for trying to do something positive.

It is good to hear from a soldier on the matter.
What branch of service are you in? Have you served in Iraq?

--

willravel, you are apparently invested in seeing the whole thing as simply a hostile invasion with malicious, underlying intentions. I do not see it as such. Agree to disagree...as usual, eh?

Willravel

That's a good point, but enlistment is down and people are being required to extend their tours now more than ever.
That actually just reminded me of a discussion I had about this with a military friend back in 2003. He said that even though it was probably wrong to invade Iraq, it wasn't illegal and he had to follow orders. He gave me the "Saddam must be stopped" line. I'm afraid it's not that simple.

I'm going to summerize my answer as I talked at him for like 3 hours. When you take the oath to join the military, you swear to obey lawful orders, yes? And you can't obey unlawful orders, yes? 'Members of the military have an obligation to disobey unlawful orders.' The idea was coined most prominantly at the Nuremberg trials, when the "I was just following orders" defence was finally and totally forbidden. So, if I can prove the invasion of Iraq is illegal, then you have a legal obligation to refuse the order?

The United States Constitution makes treaties that are signed by the government equivalent to the "law of the land" itself, Article VI, para. 2. The Nuremberg Principles, which define as a crime against peace, "planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements, or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for accomplishment of any of the forgoing." specifically names a war of aggression as a crime. Also, under the UN charter, which the US has signed in good faith, there are only two circumstances in which the use of force is allowed: in collective or individual self-defence against and actual or imminent armed attack, or when the Security Council has allowed the use of force to maintain or restore international peace and security. Neither of the circumstances existed in 2003, therefore the action of invading was unlawful. Read Article 51 of the UN Charter for yourself. It's really cut and dry. While Bush used the language in 2003 of a "preemptive" strike, the reality of the situation is better described as a preventive strike. There was no claim made or evidence produced before the war to prove that Iraq was supplying WMDs to terrorists or that they even possesed them. The "regime change" excuse used by the administration is specifically and clearly barred under Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which forbids "the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state." Even former House Majority Leader, and Republican Dick Armey said that an unprovoked attack against Iraq would violate international law.

As you are, judging by your post, an honorable and loyal military officer, isn't it possible that it's your duty to refuse an illegal order?

We could have continued to work with the UN. Obviously the inspectors and sanctions were a success, as he had no weapons of mass destruction.
That is, of course, the problem. We should have seen an insurgency coming and we should have done the entire thing differently. Even if the war weren't illegal, the war was waged wrong. We should ahve worked with members of both parties together in order to remove Saddam from power. The idea is to empower both sects and allow them to see that they can work together for a common goal. We didn't do that. We dropped bombs on crowded cities and there was a great deal of collateral damage. To them, this was more of the same. More American bombs killing civilians while targeting political figures. That's a big part of why we're hated over there. We should have learned from Korea that we need to understand a potential enemy before entering into a potential conflict situation. The North Koreans to this day think that the US was trying to invade, not to protect the South. Watch Fog of War, as it sheds amazing light on that.
What if we're just making it worse? We obviously don't have the manpower to stop the civil war, and our soldiers are targets out there. The real question to ask is: are we making it better or worse? I don't have an answer for that, and I doubt there are more than a hanful of military commanders on the ground who could answer that. The president can't answer it. Stephen Colbert can't answer it.
What if they get sacked again while we're there? Who's to say we're preventing that?

I can agree to disagree with you on the intent, but I'd really apprecaite it if you were to reevaluate your thoughts on the connections between Iraq and 9/11. I think that if you were to really step back and look at this thing, you'll see that the only connection between 9/11 and Iraq was in the words of our president.

powerclown

I prefer not to get caught up in the whole Bush cult-of-personality thing. He's too banal to be as evil as people give him credit for. America will go on long after George W. Bush. What is past is past. I mentioned above my feelings about the invasion of Iraq. It is now time to get on with trying to establish an ally in the region.

Willravel

I'm not talking avbout the personality of the president, I'm just refering to the facts. I do know, based on evidence, that there were and are no known links between Iraq and 9/11. While links were ascerted time and agiain, we now know that no link exists. I'm concerned because you seem to believe differently, and it's effected your whole take on the current situation.

Slims

I will try to respond, though I am tired and a bit rushed now.

First: Enlistments are not down: The army exceeded it's recruiting goal for 2006 and the national guard (or reserves, not sure) hit 99.6%. People are not being required to extend their tours. Sometimes soldiers get stoplossed, which sucks, but it is only temporary and they automatically get discharged from the army as soon as they return home (unless they reenlist, which most do). Meeting the enlistment goals will go a long way towards making stoploss unecessary.

Soldiers are required to obey lawful orders, however, no international law will superseed the constitution for as long as our government continues to exist. There is absolutely no way we should allow potential enemies to decide the fate of US soldiers or the justness of US actions. To do so would be to totally surrender our national Sovereignty. There is a big difference between participating in a military action that many people feel shouldn't have been undertaken and committing genocide. Also, since you brought nuremburg into the discussion I would like to point out that saddam hussein has, like those who were tried originally, committed genocide. Why would you accuse the soldiers who took him out of power and liberated his people of committing war crimes? I am in a crash Arabic course right now and one of my teachers was on the Iraqi soccer team and you can see the burns Uday left on his hands for losing games. Another fled Iraq in 1994 and his family was tortured and jailed to punish him and were not released until US forces let them out. But we are the bad guys?

Yes, it is my duty to refuse an illegal or unjust order. But it's also my duty to not be retarded. There is a big distinction between an unjust war and a war that is perfectly just but not quite in our national best interest.

The UN inspectors did nothing. It seems that Saddam sabatoged himself by killing everybody who brought him bad news. He really honestly thought he had a strong chemical weapons program because nobody was willing to tell him the bad news... We made the mistake of believing him when he told us he had them. He disclosed his chemical weapons and agreed to destroy them but never destroyed anything. It followed that he still had them. Also, he purchased chemical weapons suits and atropine injections for his army and issued them to troops surrounding baghdad shortly before our invasion. Why would he do that if he wasn't honestly planning on using chemical weapons he thought he had?

I really don't care what we should have done. I don't want to get into a protracted debate about justification as I don't think either of us are going to turn 180 and switch sides. So regardless of what we should have done, what is done is done and now we have a country to either rebuild or abandon. Pulling out is equal to abandonment regardless of any excuses or 'aid' that would be offered. Lots of people would die.

We are hated over there because we exist. It really has nothing to do with Iraq perse. Most of the insurgents are coming from other countries because now, for the first time, do they have the opportunity to kill some americans without coming to the US. Also, have you noticed that most of the insurgent attacks are not aimed at Americans but at other muslims? They are not so concerned about where our bombs hit so much as how many people they can kill with theirs. We preach tolerance, they (insurgents, not all muslims) want to get along with everybody by eradicating everyone who dares to disagree with them, even other muslims. Look at Somalia for a perfect example of this: Radical Wahabis (Sunni extremists) tried to convert the country at the point of a sword. They even went so far as to execute people for the immoral offense of watching soccer games. Do you really think we can teach them to hold hands and sing songs with us? How often did you get beat up as a kid? Did explaining your feelings afterwards ever keep you from getting beat up again?

"empowering both sects" would mean arming the Shia against the Sunni's who were already very empowered. It was tried, lots of people died in the Shia rebellion following the first gulf war. Saddam had an absolute stranglehold on his country and ruled through sheer terror and ruthfulness.

There is absolutely no way we are making the situation in Iraq worse. Things are better now than they were under saddam. There are dozens of cities on Iraqi maps that were wiped of the face of the earth because saddam considered them to be...less than completely loyal. He would have all the men and children killed (sometimes buried alive to save bullets) and dumped in mass graves, the women taken off and raped before joining their husbands, and would then bulldoze the entire city to totally erase it. He had honest to god card carrying rapists who were tasked of raping the family members of men who spoke badly of saddam. Saddam gassed his own people. The Iran Iraq war cost over a million lives. The Shi rebellion ended very badly for the Shia. Were you an Iraqi speaking about Saddam the way you now speak about Bush you would have been tortured and your family would suffer as well.

We do have the manpower to stop the civil war and our general in charge (who has some experience with army matters, being a general and all) has requested 20,000 troops to put the matter to rest. Who are you or I to question him considering that we know comparatively little about the subject?

Our soldiers are targets, but we are fighting those who would do us harm on their side of the world rather than ours. Also, we are keeping millions of Iraqis safe (relatively speaking) by our presence. Kuwait has no real ability to defend itself against anything and it is a very rich country. If it weren't for us, they would have been sacked long ago. And we are preventing that because they are an ally, which means we are willing to help defend them.

That's all for tonight, hope it is at least mostly coherent. Will check back in tommorrow to clarify or repost.

Edit: I was never under the impression that we established a link betwen 911 and Iraq (aside from Saddam paying the families of the hijackers 20,000 dollars each, of course). I just figured we had had enough with saddam and in light of current events decided to go ahead and get rid of him before he had the opportunity to do more damage.

__________________
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill

"All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence

smooth

Lembke addresses these stories in his book, I wish people would read the damn thing. It's so short, hardly take more time than slogging through any number of posts based on supposition on this board...

in any case, I'm not sure if he tackles this specific incident, but I wouldn't be surprised, and he points out a few things...one being the date of this incident...coupled with the dates of returning vets...who some of you may remember were the original agitators of anti-war protests and no love was shown to them by supporters of the war, including various administrations.

but the point is, and that news story itself gives no refutation to this claim so you'll actually have to watch the damn footage for yourself, but that the incidents as Jerry saw the raw footage turned out to be people for the war spitting on war vets! hmm, support for the troops indeed. this gets twisted in our collective conscious into peace activists spitting on vets. which is pretty much horseshit for anyone who can put two and two together and would realize that while vets and peacniks who were lying down in front of buses coming to drop recruits off, and that in reality war supporters were the ones who unkindly greeted soldiers returning because they were failures.

now, it's true that college students took it upon themselves to chant at LBJ, hey how many babies did you kill today, and the irony is marked in Lembke's book as a matter of fact for reasons a number of you SHOULD be aware of...but that in no way transposed to the soldiers who were by and large IN COMMUNICATION AND ALLEGIANCE with the anti-war movements.

fuck man, ignorance may be bliss, but why does it take a rocket scientist to remember that the earliest and for a time the only protestors were VETS THEMSELVES....oh primarily because no one even knew were at "war" for a the first few years of the conflict? but oh yes, our soldiers were on a rotation system that was bringing them stateside after a year so obviously large numbers were "in circulation" before the nation even had the realities plastered up on their tellies. that came much later...and THEN moved the populace slowly and kicking and screaming to the realization that our nation had fucked up and that our government had pulled some dasterdly shit...that there really wasn't any good way out. then on to the scapegoating...who to blame...well, not the poor poor mentally scarred vets...who have little rationality left after their sights and sounds (later to blossom into PTSD in the DSM) to be listened to about what they thought of the situation...and surely not the peaceniks who couldn't even have the respect to have love for the brave vets (although, like now, they were the ones making sure the damaged bodies and psyches of their relatives and friends were met with love, support, and flowers at the VA...when even vets from previous wars couldn't find it in themselves to do so)...

I never met Jerry personally, but he is a personal friend of my friend and advisor and chair of the soc dept. from my undergrad education. he's a vet, for what it's worth, and I think I recall he may have been decorated.

he deserves your time of the read, if nothing else. and especially if you are concerned with hearing an actual researched account of this wound on our nation's collective conscious. not that you have to agree with it, but you ought to at least contend with the points he raises.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

powerclown

willravel, as I mentioned, I see the Iraq invasion as reprisal for 9/11. I do not believe Sadaam Hussein had anything to do with planning or executing 9/11. I do believe he was guilty of being a threat to the region, and by extension, beyond. I fully understand the difficulty people have with taking the existential leap of faith in connecting the validity of invading Iraq to the occurrence of 9/11. And I blame the Bush Administration for cocking up the explanation so badly. Again, I do not believe Sadaam Hussein had anything to do with 9/11 occurring. I do believe he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. He wore out his welcome as a counterbalance to regional Iranian theocracy, and sought to re-invent (arm) himself into champion of the arab-muslim world and sworn enemy of the US. That was obviously his final mistake. He took the fall for 9/11, and good riddance. The job now is to establish an ally in the region. It is obviously a gamble. The troops involved (and politicians) have my support to this end, for whatever thats worth.

Willravel

I appreciate your time and efforts.

The total number of recruits has dropped off, and goals have been reduced to compensate. They have reached the reduced goals, so we're both right.
Our Constitution neither forbids or allows preemtive invasions of soverign countries, so then the law falls to our international treaties. No law I mentioned has superceeded the Constitution.
Neither Saddam nor any of his fellow Iraqis had any ability to decide the fate of US soldiers. It was first the office of the President, and then Congress who are ultimately responsible for the lives of our soldiers in time of war.
The idea is that it's the law, and the prescedent for the law is Nuremberg. I'm not suggesting that the US is comparable to Nazi Germany in my case. The Nazi war of aggression, WWII, made evident that laws about justifications for following orderes were necessary. It was deemed necessary by the court that a soldier was required to do more than follow and order, and was responsible for determining if the order given was lawful. If the order was found to be unlawful, the soldier was required to disobey the order.
I made my case. I'm not suggesting that Saddam was not guity of war crimes (he was, and was executed). I was simply stating that the act of invading a soverign country that was not an immediate threat to the US was an illegal action. Those who would be heald responsible if this ever reaches a high court would most likely be high ranking members of the administration, not the troops. The point is that it should be the responsibility of every free thinking individual to stop him or herself from breaking the law.
This thread is about the troops, not Saddam or the Iraqi government. In another thread, I'll be glad to agree that Saddam Hussain was a dispicable murderer and his government commited unspeakable acts of cruelty.

Let's say that your neighbor is abusive to his 4 year old son. One day you go over there and stab him. You are arrested. While your intent was noble, you have still broken the law. While I'm sure the intent of removing Saddam from power is noble, it is still against the law.
I agre that there is a marked difference between the two, but take a look at the aftermath. Compare the death toll of Iraqi citizens between 2003-2007 versus the death toll from 1998-2002.
That's not true. According to intel from a defector in 1995, most if not al of Saddam's chemical weapons were destroyed in the early 90s after Desert Storm. That information had been circulating for 8 years before Iraqi Freedom. Isn't it likely that the suits were there in case Iraq was attacked with chemical weapons? He knew we were going to invade.
It would be nice to learn from history. We obviously didn't learn from NK or Vietnam, as we're right back in the thick of it again.

How do you expect that we can rebuild Iraq during a civil war?
So Iraqi's were born hating us, for no rational reason? I'm very glad to hear you're learning Arabic. If you are deployed to Iraq, I invite you to speak with some of the civilians over there. Ask them where the animosoity comes for the west, and let them explain. Let them explain how many starved because of UN sanctions that the US supported (yes, Clinton was wrong). Ask them about the Iraq Iran war and what role the US played. Ask them about when the US supported the Israeli bombing of the Iraqi nuclear power plant in 1981. Ask them about Saddam meeting with former Ambasador April Glaspie, who said the US wouldn't interfere if he wanted to attack the Kurds for being suspected of cross drilling. Ask them how often they have lost power, water, food, medicine, family or friends in US bombings. Aks them how it was to endure a 120 degree summer without power because it's not a priority. Ask them about group punishments and airstrikes instead of trying to catch individual terrorists or insurgents.

Again, I'm not calling our troops bad or evil or anything of the sort. I'm not saying they are ever justified for firing on you or planting bombs or anything of the sort. I'm simply letting you know that from the perspective of these people you are not saints.
I'm not a military tactician. I do my best to try and think of a solution, but I am not a seasoned general. I'll bet you $5 that if I were to allow any one general or admiral control the policy on rebuilding Iraq, it'd stand an honest chance of being done. The problem is with the commander in cheif of the armed forces, who's military experience is draft dodging and pretending to fly a plane in Texas while his generation was forced to go to war.

In a perfect world, there would be an admiralty or staff of generals that worked in conjunction with an ethics comitee in order to wage and control war. We have to work with what we've got, and we've got laws. We can't just break the law when we feel like it.
Read what I wrote about the death toll.
20,000 troops won't even cover the number that's been injured or killed, right (wounded: 22,834 + killed: 2,089 = 24,923)? So we're back to square one. Also the general that was just replaced disagrees and thinks that 20,000 troops is a mistake.
Refer back to the story of the stabbed neighbor.
It's coherent. I look forward to your response.

Powerclown thinks that Iraq was somehow tied in with 9/11, and he's making me kinda worried. I can understand why he'd be confused when Bush said, "The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda: because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda," but times have changed and it was made clear when he said "...we've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th...". We live in a confusing world.

Seaver

Let's say that your neighbor has severely abused/tortured 2 of his 5 kids. He had 2 favorite kids which ate lavishly and were never harmed. The fifth kid he killed. While knowing full well what's going on, you repeatedly call the Police. The Police tell him to stop, come over 7 times and each time give him lots of warnings. One day you find out that the Police are getting paid by the neighbor, who happens to be rich. You know full well that the neighbor will never stop, and after he dies the kids will go to his even sicker siblings. Your other neighbors keep asking you why you don't help, his remaining kids keep asking you why you don't help. One day you attempt to put an end to it, and the paid Policeman says what you did was illegal and that you should have gone to him to stop what was going on.

Sorry, fixed.

__________________
"Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

smooth

how about we not say any of that and keep the discussion on topic...

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

powerclown

Hope Rides Alone
USA Sgt. Eddie Jeffers, USA (Iraq)
February 1, 2007

I stare out into the darkness from my post, and I watch the city burn to the ground. I smell the familiar smells, I walk through the familiar rubble, and I look at the frightened faces that watch me pass down the streets of their neighborhoods. My nerves hardly rest; my hands are steady on a device that has been given to me from my government for the purpose of taking the lives of others.

I sweat, and I am tired. My back aches from the loads I carry. Young American boys look to me to direct them in a manner that will someday allow them to see their families again...and yet, I too, am just a boy....my age not but a few years more than that of the ones I lead. I am stressed, I am scared, and I am paranoid...because death is everywhere. It waits for me, it calls to me from around street corners and windows, and it is always there.

There are the demons that follow me, and tempt me into thoughts and actions that are not my own...but that are necessary for survival. I've made compromises with my humanity. And I am not alone in this. Miles from me are my brethren in this world, who walk in the same streets...who feel the same things, whether they admit to it or not.

And to think, I volunteered for this...

And I am ignorant to the rest of the world...or so I thought.

But even thousands of miles away, in Ramadi, Iraq, the cries and screams and complaints of the ungrateful reach me. In a year, I will be thrust back into society from a life and mentality that doesn't fit your average man. And then, I will be alone. And then, I will walk down the streets of America, and see the yellow ribbon stickers on the cars of the same people who compare our President to Hitler.

I will watch the television and watch the Cindy Sheehans, and the Al Frankens, and the rest of the ignorant sheep of America spout off their mouths about a subject they know nothing about. It is their right, however, and it is a right that is defended by hundreds of thousands of boys and girls scattered across the world, far from home. I use the word boys and girls, because that's what they are. In the Army, the average age of the infantryman is nineteen years old. The average rank of soldiers killed in action is Private First Class.

People like Cindy Sheehan are ignorant. Not just to this war, but to the results of their idiotic ramblings, or at least I hope they are. They don't realize its effects on this war. In this war, there are no Geneva Conventions, no cease fires. Medics and Chaplains are not spared from the enemy's brutality because it's against the rules. I can only imagine the horrors a military Chaplain would experience at the hands of the enemy. The enemy slinks in the shadows and fights a coward’s war against us. It is effective though, as many men and women have died since the start of this war. And the memory of their service to America is tainted by the inconsiderate remarks on our nation's news outlets. And every day, the enemy changes...only now, the enemy is becoming something new. The enemy is transitioning from the Muslim extremists to Americans. The enemy is becoming the very people whom we defend with our lives. And they do not realize it. But in denouncing our actions, denouncing our leaders, denouncing the war we live and fight, they are isolating the military from society...and they are becoming our enemy.

Democrats and peace activists like to toss the word "quagmire" around and compare this war to Vietnam. In a way they are right, this war is becoming like Vietnam. Not the actual war, but in the isolation of country and military. America is not a nation at war; they are a nation with its military at war. Like it or not, we are here, some of us for our second, or third times; some even for their fourth and so on. Americans are so concerned now with politics, that it is interfering with our war.

Terrorists cut the heads off of American citizens on the internet...and there is no outrage, but an American soldier kills an Iraqi in the midst of battle, and there are investigations, and sometimes soldiers are even jailed...for doing their job.

It is absolutely sickening to me to think our country has come to this. Why are we so obsessed with the bad news? Why will people stop at nothing to be against this war, no matter how much evidence of the good we've done is thrown in their face? When is the last time CNN or MSNBC or CBS reported the opening of schools and hospitals in Iraq? Or the leaders of terror cells being detained or killed? It's all happening, but people will not let up their hatred of President Bush. They will ignore the good news, because it just might show people that Bush was right.

America has lost its will to fight. It has lost its will to defend what is right and just in the world. The crazy thing of it all is that the American people have not even been asked to sacrifice a single thing. It’s not like World War II, where people rationed food and turned in cars to be made into metal for tanks. The American people have not been asked to sacrifice anything. Unless you are in the military or the family member of a servicemember, its life as usual...the war doesn't affect you.

But it affects us. And when it is over and the troops come home and they try to piece together what's left of them after their service...where will the detractors be then? Where will the Cindy Sheehans be to comfort and talk to soldiers and help them sort out the last couple years of their lives, most of which have been spent dodging death and wading through the deaths of their friends? They will be where they always are, somewhere far away, where the horrors of the world can't touch them. Somewhere where they can complain about things they will never experience in their lifetime; things that the young men and women of America have willingly taken upon their shoulders.

We are the hope of the Iraqi people. They want what everyone else wants in life: safety, security, somewhere to call home. They want a country that is safe to raise their children in. Not a place where their children will be abducted, raped and murdered if they do not comply with the terrorists demands. They want to live on, rebuild and prosper. And America has given them the opportunity, but only if we stay true to the cause and see it to its end. But the country must unite in this endeavor...we cannot place the burden on our military alone. We must all stand up and fight, whether in uniform or not. And supporting us is more than sticking yellow ribbon stickers on your cars. It's supporting our President, our troops and our cause.

Right now, the burden is all on the American soldiers. Right now, hope rides alone. But it can change, it must change. Because there is only failure and darkness ahead for us as a country, as a people, if it doesn't.

Let's stop all the political nonsense, let's stop all the bickering, let's stop all the bad news and let's stand and fight!

Isn't that what America is about anyway?

Sergeant Eddie Jeffers is a US Army Infantryman serving in Ramadi, Iraq.

--

What is to be made of a story like this? It appears to have been written in some amount of anger by an American soldier in Iraq. So he too is pissed off. Another young, scared, pissed off American, this time a soldier, looking for answers to ever deeper questions. When you think about it, there is a certain madness to it all. No doubt there are vestiges of recognizable humanity on both sides, yet they both are trying simultaneously to kill eachother, sometimes in the most horrific, depraved ways. Ethics and morality seem to vanish, and all we're left to ponder - as spectators - is the utter barbarity of it all, barbarity and violence that we sometimes recognize deep within ourselves in moments of introspection and acute emotion. Reason inevitably forces us, like walking a plank, to try and make sense out of madness, and we use reason truly or falsely to distract ourselves for the time being.

At other times, waves of certainty flow and the choices seem to narrow. Uncertainty is replaced by a sort of benign acceptance and understanding of human nature. Repetition of experience solidifies the certainty and replaces the fear of unknown, internal locales with an incomplete familiarity. Why would one leave the comforts of home - friends and family - to play violent games of life and death with strangers? Is it the pack instinct, the comfort of brotherhood? Then why not join a poker club? Is it the promise of friendship forged in blood, a deeper, truer kind of friendship? Is it the personal search for the dissolution of paternal/maternal anger or disappointment? They say it is noble to fight for a friend. They say it is noble to fight for peace. They say it is noble to die for a cause. They say it is noble to fight for one's country. What is a person, if not a member of something larger than himself? Is there such thing as an individual? Or is there only an individual in the context of fitting in to a larger group of individuals. What would happen if we didn't care about the group? Would it cease to exist? Would one be liberated from the gravitational pull of the group? Is an individual anything more than the manifestation of like-minded individuals? Freud might say no. That we are simply animals that choose to behave for the benefit of the group. I happen to believe this is true. Reason then forces us into symbol recognition. It makes all the sense in the world to love one's group. It makes all the sense in the world to despise one's group. One is simultaneously trapped, liberated, identified, characterized, formed, described, and judged by other groups based on the identity of their own group. Narcissism and dissolution happening simultaneously...one wonders if it was designed to be this way.

host

I've read that Joshua Sparling rec'd a "hate card" in Dec., 2005 and displayed it on the wall next to his bed at Walter Reed Army hospital. Along came Ollie North & Brian K. from Fox News, Brian's reporting was seen by Malkin. Malkin posted the report and appealed to the public to send Sparling cards. Malkin sez he got 20,000. The White House invited Sparling to sit next to cheney's wife at last years SOTU address. Hannity promised him a trip to NYC.

Sparling's father, in "letter" below, claimed Sparling was verbally abused at airport by anti Iraq war folks. NY Times reporter Ian Urbina who wrote the Sparling spit "reporting", also wrote this article, 5 years ago,
http://www.villagevoice.com/generic/...kwNDcsMS5odG1s
Will Sparling's supporters as eagerly embrace Urbina's "psyops" reporting, as they seized upon his reporting of a spitting incident against oft "victimized" Cpl. Josh Sparling?

Sparling is reported to have been in the company of a group of freerepublic.com counter-protestors when spit "flew" in his direction.

A few days after the spitting reporting, I watched a video of Sparling proposing marriage on Fox & friends to his girlfriend, as he discussed the "incident". The video also cut away to a clip of Sparling's father, who mentioned that his son is having a tough financial time.

<b>Links to Sparling reports and the Fox & Friends video here:</b>
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/20...off.html#links
<b>Lightening does not often strike twice, but I am starting to believe that the folks who believed Reagan, and now Josh Sparling, but ignored Cronkite, Ellsberg, and the 'Winter soldiers" are going to:</b>
<b>If Reagan's purpose was to make a factual speech, the following, 35 days after his 1981 inauguration, was available in FBI records, from the mid-1970's:</b>
<b>Read the previous line and then try to persuade me that it isn't necessary, given the slim democratic party senate majority, to provide extra bodyguards to all democrats and independents in the US senate from states with republican governors....</b>
On sunday,Sept. 10, 2006, Cheney was saying this, during a prominent news program, telecast:

<b>Cheney was saying it, even though this was reported, just two days before:</b>
powerclown, the Reagan "view" and the compartmentalized propaganda that brands critics of the war as "troop hating" "liberals" (a small number were...) is no more accurate or fair as branding all Vietnam vets as "baby killers" (a small number were...) would be.....

Your dimissal of the Iraq war as a legal "problem" iis contradicted by the deliberate duplicity of Bush and Cheney, et al. Why would they need to be so slimey if it is as you say? You're mindset strands the principled stand of Lt. Watada. Why dismiss the opiinion of Ben Ferencz and so much iinformation that you and the rest of the remaining 30 percent try to ignore?

<b>You folks have never stopped "dogging us", have you?</b>

Willravel

Please don't stretch my analogies. Mine was apt, yours is silly.

The bottom line is that we had no legal right to invade Iraq and, even though we all agree that Saddam was a horrible monster, we did the wrong thing. We broke a treaty the US signed in good faith and we have done more damage (see: death toll) in the past 4 years than Saddam could have possibly done in the rest of his lifetime had we not invaded.

Seaver

How is it silly? Are any of the analogies less true than yours?

And yes, we had legal right to invade Iraq. 7 UN Resolutions all pronounced a threat of military action if he did not comply. Or are you talking about our Constitution? The Tonkin Gulf Resolution pretty much takes care of the legal ground for that argument, which is why the President keeps having to ask Congress for more money.

__________________
"Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

Willravel

TFPolitics is infamous for overblown analogies. I was using the analogy to explain that while intent may be noble, action was illegal. You analogy proved what? That my analogy was simple? That's what analogies are for. They cimplify concepts in order to try and clarify them. Now read yor analogy. It doesn't simplify anything. Also, if you're going to get into more direct detailed comparisons, we have to also make clear that, in this analogy that grows, you told your bneighbor that if he attacked his children that you wouldn't call the police or interferem in any way, and when he did finally attack his kid, then you came over and beat the living crap out of him. You also failed to mention that when he attacked his kid, the neighborhood decided to boycot selling him stuff at the grocery store and one of his kids starved to death and he lost a lot of his power over his household. When we finally did go over to shank him, he had lost almost all his ability to hurt his children.

You see how silly this can get? The analogy had a job to do, and it was done. Stretching it too much makes the analogy itself leave reality, and then what purpous does it serve?
We're not the UN. The UN has to decide as a whole body if it wants to take action against someone or something. The US is a soverign nation and does not have legal authority over Iraq. As I stated clearly above:
As for the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, well guess what, we're right back in Vietnam again. Maybe we can learn from history next time, though I don't hold out much hope. We signed the UN Charter in 1945 and by so doing agreed to all rules included in said charter. One very important rule has been broken and as such, we have breached our agreement with the UN.

host

Seaver, please share some examples of links to "political sites" in my posts that are not more than not, representing the opposite POV from my own.
I'm the "MSM news outlets are not of a "liberal bias"", guy. I cite mainly their reporting and many refenences to pages from federal government webpages.

I suspeect that you label as "political sites", links to pages from sites that feature news and commentary that you disagree with. I don't think that talkingpointsmemo.com , for example, is a "political site", any more than Matt Drudge's site would be fairly called a "political sites".

The differennce, IMO, is that the reports emphasized by Drudge have a less reliable record of accuracy than what appears on talkingpointsmemo.com .
Surely you aren't arguing that the quality and reliability of Malkin's "work", rises to the level of Marshall's on talkingpointsmemo.com ?

Here is a link to info about Michael Crook, the first "attacker'" of Malkin's favorite troop, Joshua Sparling. Is Michael supposed to be an example of an anti Iraq war "liberal'. C'mon you can do better than that.....and you'll have to do better than Sparling as a contemporary equivalent of the mythical "spit on" Vietnam vet. I detail Sparling and his father and the severa Sparling "victim stories" at the top of my last post.....

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&s...ng&btnG=Search

powerclown, near the bottom of my last post, I displayed a result from a year old Zogby poll of uS troops that indicates that 90 percent of them thought that Iraq was linked to the 9/11 attacks.

I also show in that area of ny post, that Cheney on 9/10/06, was still claiming that Saddam 's iraq had ties to Zaraqawi and his poison camp at 'Krmal", two days after the Senate intel committee issued a long delayed report segment that stated clearly that this wasn't true.

.....and today, there is also, this:
How can you say that "the troops knew what they were getting into", when it turns out that Cheney never stopped his deceptiion campaign and the republican house majority leader admits that he didn't look closely enough at the resolution to authorize the POTUS to use force against Iraq, if the POTUS deemed it absolutely necessary to do so?

Slims

Here goes once again:

Army recruiting goals are not down. In fact, in 2006 the army successfully recruited the most soldiers since 1999. I have to post a link for this as otherwise I would just be blowing steam: http://www.army.mil/recruitingandretention/ I post this reluctantly because I don't want to start a link war, but I think the numbers, in this instance, are appropriate. In addition, the active endstrength is up to the largest number since 1995 (clinton was cutting back the military at that time). The recruiting goals were not reduced, but rather were raised to 80,000 active army and similar numbers for the other services.

My actions are not governend by international treaties... Rather the uniform code of military justice reflects our interpretation of those treaties.

For example: The military's decision to avoid the use of hollowpoint bullets. This is done because of an agreement aimed at preventing 'unecessary pain and suffering.' As a soldier I am held responsible by my own government (not anybody elses!) should I use non-approved ammunition. However, our government has interpreted 'unecessary' differently from other governments and allows, in some cases, the use of hollowpoint bullets.

Example 1: Our snipers use HPBT bullets because the hollow point causes an air vortex that greatly increases the accuracy of the ammunition....this is considered entirely necessary and is not done to cause additional suffering.

Example 2: Law of Land Warfare provides against the mistreatment and/or execution of prisioners and injured on the battlefield. The US Interpretation of this binds soldiers uner UCMJ. But it is our interpretation because at the end of the day fights are down and dirty and sometimes you have to be brutal to survive: Other countries don't always agree with our interpretation. I am not talking here about torture, but rather when you risk your life to take a combatant prisioner verses simply shooting him again so you can continue to fight. Sometimes it's justified, sometimes it's murder.

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.

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.

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.

Ok, we both agree that saddam was a bad guy and he isn't the focal point of this discussion. However, though America may have broken international law, that is something for the international community to decide and to act upon...it in no way absolves the American soldier from his responsiblity to enforce the will of the United States. America is a very polarized country...always has been and probably always will be. The only reason the military manages to win anything is because it works as a unified entity. After the decision has been made you have to proceed in unison. Had we made the decisoin to enter WW2 earlier, we could have ended the war quicker and saved millions of lives. However, we were divided as a country and the decison was made, in this case, to stay out of the war. If those who thought war was justified all took up arms they would have been held accountable just as those who disagree with war and refuse to fight are held accountable.

Your neighbor analogy is flawed. We took action in Iraq because nobody else would. We played the role of police while all of Saddams neighbors stood around and watched. The United Nations is ineffective, cumberson, and corrupt. We had a ceasefire agreement with Saddam from the first war. We agreed to leave him in power provided he met certain conditions. He systematically broke every single one of those conditions so we were justified in continuing the war. However, first, we tried to resolve things diplomatically and through the UN, which was done out of the goodness of our hearts and a desire to be 'liked' by other countries. We got plenty of resolutions passed, but the UN refused to enforce them. The actions of the UN are tainted by politics (like everything else in the world) and the UN was perfectly happy to frustrate the united states in any way possible. Several UN member nations were also receiving oil at rock bottom prices for the first time due to the oil-for-food program and Koffi Annon (via his sun) was accepting huge payments directly from Saddam Hussein. Yet this is the organization to whom you would have the United States submit?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?


We can't just break the law when we feel like it. That is why we have the UCMJ. We also have JAG oversight and ethics play a large role. However, you can't have a lawyer standing behind every soldier or nothing will ever get done for fear of the consequences if a wrong decision is made. The other side plays brilliantly against our cheif weaknesses...our media and our desire to 'see things their way.'

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.

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.

You say more than 20,000 have been injured or killed and imply that we are now short more than 20,000 troops as a result. It doesn't work that way. First off, most of the injuries are not career ending...Soldiers heal up and go back. Second, the hurt or wounded are replaced. Units don't remain shorthanded because someone got shot three years ago. The addional 20,000 troops are to augment the current number in Iraq. The current number was decided upon and held constant despite injuries.

And here's what that 20,000 could accomplish: 80 percent of all US Casualties in Iraq occur in Baghdad now. It is a divided city between Sunni and Shia. There are armed insurgents and militia on both sides. Neither side is willing to disarm out of fears of an impending civil war (largely because continued US involvement is uncertain now, thank you). President Malaki talks big, but being Shia really wants to retain the Maudi (spelled wrong, almost positive) army controlled by Al-Sadr and is doing nothing to disarm them. So the Iraqi Police forces in this issue are nearly useless. They won't disarm the poeple in their own neighborhoods and if you sent a bunch of Sunni's to go disarm the Shia or vice versa you would have a bloodbath.

Baghdad is also the nexus for foreign fighters. Not to mention Haifa street, which is all bad. Saddam built haifa and offered it to palestinians and baath loyalists for free...and they have remained loyal.

Our 20,000 troops are supposed to go into baghdad and disarm by force the major militias and warlords. We did not do so previously due to political concerns (we didn't want to dig Al-Sadr out of the mosque he took refuge in) and since moved many soldiers to other hot spots around the country. It is believed that 20,000 will be able to lock baghdad down, strip away the weapons and the ability of the insurgents to fight, remove the foreighn instigators, and restore order to the city. At least for a little while. During that period of respite we should be able to restore and harden the infrastructure in the city and really get the Iraqi police on their feet. After we get baghdad locked down our job should mostly consist of oversight and supporting the Iraqi military and national police and securing the border so more radicals cannot enter the country. Once that is done we can leave.

That's all for now.

__________________
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill

"All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence

roachboy

greg: welcome, first of all.

this business that runs through your post about the "lack of resolve" in a democracy seems to me close to an old argument for dictatorship.
do you mean that?

how does this notion of "will" that seems to be presupposed by this argument function?
do you really believe that there is a direct connection between the "will" of the people and military actions?
how does that work?
do you imagine the american people sitting around radios and televisions thinking really hard about iraq? do you see a linkage between that collective thinking really hard and outcomes, such that you can effectively link "division of the will" to problematic outcomes on the ground in the context of a particular military operation? how does that work? i understand that abstract argument, but think it goofy: i want to know how you imagine this theory to operate in fact.

i dont think it does operate in fact.
i think it is an element of authoritarian mythology the primary function of which is to demonize dissent.
it is ideological dreaming. ideology here is in the marxist sense: an argument rooted entirely in the class interests of a particular faction of the dominant order that is presented as if it were general. in this case, it seems like you have an ideological expression of the authoritarian dreamworld of a hyper-conservative faction within the military apparatus.
but whatever: maybe if you can explain to me how this business of the unity of a "national will"--whatever the hell that is--is operationalized in the world that other people know about (and not just in the ideological fantasyworld of the authoritarian right) and we'll go from there.

your understanding of the run-up to the iraq war seems to me surreal. where did you get that information? is this the kind of "history" that you are fed in the context of the military? what happens to it if your introduce more complex factual material into the mix? i ask because all i see in reading your post is a justification for the invasion of iraq that distorts history nearly to the point of replacing it with a conservative dreamscape. i am particularly amused by the erasure of the un sanctions regime and your apparent assumption--which follows from the erasure of the un from your "history"---that the americans "had to act" because no=one else would.

this leads you straight into a wholly fictional scenario that justifies american actions in iraq. maybe this sort of stuff is psychologically necessary to persuade folk whose ambivalent fortune it is to be facing having to go to iraq that there is some rationale behind it--but if that is the case, you should perhaps be up front about it. say: i accept this because, given my position, i see no alternative.

because that at least provides a rationale for floating the arguments that you do which are from any other angle empirically false.

there's more but i'll hold off for the time being.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Willravel

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.
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.
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.
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.

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.
Can't you see that's the pot calling the kettle black?
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.
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.

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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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).

powerclown

So willravel, you don't subscribe to the Sadaam as fallguy for 9/11 theory of invasion? Why/why not?

Willravel

Lies and double talk about 9/11 were used as part of the justification for the invasion of Iraq. The reality, of course, is that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. That's what I subscribe to.

powerclown

Right, but if you look past the lies and double talk, do you see the logic of it?

Willravel

Logic of attacking Iraq? There was none.

9/11 happened, and the next logical step would be to take the power from those who attacked us and rally support to that end. The world moruned with us after the attacks, and it seemed for one fleeting moment that we could rally a superior, miltilateral operation to disable terrorist networks around the world. What did we do? We f**ked up Afghanistan in a way that the Taliban coulnd't even acheive, and we attacked a country that had no links whatsoever to 9/11. We fumbled the ball, to use Super Bowl day appropriate language, and a lot of people died needlessly and global terrorism has increased several fold.

There was no logic in attacking Iraq in 2003.

powerclown

You would have acted unilaterally? And gone after whom? Who would you have gone after? What if the UN said "no" once again? Can you remove a terror network - an movement - from power? Are they in power anywhere, officially? It seems to me that Iraq was as good place to start as any. I wonder if its a coincidence that there have been so few major acts of terrorism anywhere, now that the jihadis have congregated in Iraq? Even Israel has had only 1 suicide bomber in the last 8 months. Coincidence, or the GWOT in full effect?

Question: are people on the left more angry about being perceived as lied to, or are they more angry at the invasion? Is the issue Bush's sales pitch, or is it the concept of revenge?

Willravel

Did you miss the word "multilateral" in my post? I think you did.
Collect evidence on who was responsible, then release it publicly and then, with the assistence of other nations who are also plagued by terrorism, we go out and stop the attackers.
Dude, we were attcked by someone on 9/11 and we have permission, since we were attacked, to defend ourselves from further attacks. Iraq has NEVER attacked the US. There is a massive and fundamental difference between the two logically, morally, and legally. Under that same UN Charter, we had permission to go after who attacked us on 9/11.
You coulnd't possibly be more wrong, and it scares the shit out of me. Saddam didn't like the al Qaeda and did what he could to keep them out of Iraq. Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 and was not a theat to the US in any way. Staring there was actually an attack on a soverign nation that had not attacked us. It was an act of war, and it was illegal.


Do you even read the news? Remember Madrid? London? This conversation is going nowhere, and it's clear that you don't know what you're talking about.
I'm pissed as hell that Bush was allowed to stay in the oval office after losing to Gore in 200. I'm dissapointed that he was on vacation 60% of the time and then 9/11 happened. I'm livid that no evidence was provided about the actual 9/11 attack's connection to the al Qaeda, as Condi promised. I'm enraged that we attacked Iraq instead of doing what makes an iota of sense and no one could stop it. I'm confused as to how people that still think Iraq wasn't a mistake can walk and breathe at the same time.

powerclown

Right, but who attacked us? Who is to be held officially responsible? I'm not aware of another country's army being responsible for the attack. Therefore, perhaps an alternate approach seems in order. Again, how does one attack a movement? Who is responsible for fueling that movement? Who are allies, and who are enemies? Who is part of the problem, who is part of the solution? Who are the victims of terrrorism? Who is involved in movements of religious extremism and who is sympathetic to them? I'm sure you are aware of Hussein's past support of suicide bombing an American ally.

It seems to me that the Iraq War is a continuing salvo in some sort of struggle against the forces that shaped 9/11. No, Iraq didn't directly attack the US, but they were part of the bigger problem that led to 9/11. No, Iraq wasn't a religious theocracy, but it was sympathetic to religious causes when politically expedient, and when it went against western interests. I would submit that Sadaam Hussein was one of the biggest fomenters of anti-western sentiment in the entire world. IMO and many others smarter than myself, he was most definitely an existential threat to the west in general, and America specifically. He deliberately and boastfully put himself square in the crosshairs of an angry, bloodied post-9/11 America and he paid the price. SOMEBODY had to.

Apparently, you think otherwise.
We seem to disagree on even the most fundamental issues of the scenario, such as terrorism and geopolitics.
Not unlike the current state of the rest of the country, eh?
While I understand where you're coming from, I have to, again, respectfully disagree.

Willravel

Honestly? Well I can't really go into that here. The general concensus is that members of the al Qaeda, under the leadership of OBL, were responsible for 9/11. They borded planes and hijacked them in order to crash them in to military and economic targets of opportunity.
OBL and the al Qaeda terrorist network.
So only countries are capable of attacks?
By attacking the movement. Hitting the training camps (check), and tracking down leadership (check).
Do you mean who is responsible for funding? Saudis. Or do you mean who is responsible for throwing fuel on the fire? That would be the US.
Allies were, before 2003: Germany, France, Turkey. Then we invaded Iraq for no reason and everyone got rightfully pissed.
The oil industry and corrup corporations are part of the problem, and the soultion would be in allying ourselves with those who share our goals.
Anyone who has ever died, injured, or frightened by acts of a country, organization, or individual that intend to control through fear is a victim of terrorism.
Do you want a list?
Seems to me as if you don't understand what Iraq was willing and/or able of doing. I'm sure you're aware that Iraq was not even threat to Israel, that has one of the most powerful militaries in the region and could probably attack Iraq, Iran, Jordan, Lebanon and Egypt at once without breaking a sweat.
Of course this isn't based on any facts, but simply on ascertion and baseless inuendo. Did we attack China after Pearl Harbor was bombed?
So you're saying that because some Islamic arabs attacked the US, they all deserve to be lumped together and killed? Wow.
Ah, the war on Islam. At last the true colors are revealed.
He was, but not in 2003. In 2003 he wasn't even a blip on the radar. OBL was much more prominant. Oh yeah, and he was behind 9/11.
Don't assume people are smarter than you. Make them prove it through their words and actions. I think you'll find that those who you are assuming to be smarter than you actually have their collective heads up their asses. Iraq was not a threat to the west.

powerclown

edit: Ok, I agree that the construction of evidence given to the people was miserably poor. I have a huge beef about this as well. If Bush would have taken the time to explain it honestly, I don't think he would have had a problem getting it to stick. People wanted answers...and there were good, solid answers, a bit complex perhaps, but there nonetheless. I think he was in too much of a hurry that the window of opportunity to act would close. Got caught up in all the pressure to do something and fast. He underestimated the intelligence of the American people, and this was a huge mistake.
Why not? I'm always interested in learning something new. Please feel free to explain who you think attacked America on 9/11. It might lead to new understandings, and prove enlightening. As far as exacting revenge on an ideology, it's difficult on such a scale, don't you agree? Asymmetric warfare and all that. The question then becomes how does a formal state operating with a formal army get access to guerilla training camps and radical madrassas fueling religious fundamentalism? It seems to me the only way is with the help of whoever's government those targets are found on.
Not sure I follow. Do you mean that the American oil industry, and corrupt American corporations are part of the problem of religious extremism in the world? Any other countries involved here possibly?
Not only financially, but spiritually, militarily, technically, morally, emotionally supporting religious extremism and anti-western sentiment. Unfortunately, it ain't just the Saudis. Before Hussein was removed, can there be any doubt that he was vehemently anti-western and intent on dominating the region militarily? Can there be any doubt that if and when he took over the region - even if it was by military proxy - that the world over would be that much more unstable? Can you imagine how China and India would feel with Sadaam Hussein as ruler of the Middle East? Or at minimum, continuing to destabilize the region through hostility? Do you think maybe with such a hegemony, Hussein would have become a moderate leader seeking to re-establish good relations with the rest of the world? Maybe once he was finished conquering the region, he would have mellowed out and became a friendier guy. It's a thought.
More than that I would say. There were many, many countries - dozens - allied with the US against Hussein (at least publically), much before Gulf War 1 and stretching back decades. I think that even after the Iraq War, out allies will still be our allies, and our enemies will still be our enemies. It seems we have too many cultural similarities and international arrangements for everyone stay angry at America for ever. Hopefully, America will have fewer enemies in the future. Wouldn't it be beautiful if we can put Iraq back together? What an inspiration...just what the world could use right?
Come on now, isn't that just silly? How many Scud missiles did Iraq fire into Israel during GW1...are you saying Iraq didn't fire them? Can you imagine what would have happened to Israel if one of those missiles were tipped with a chemical or worse agent? You want to talk about the Dead Sea overflowing. If Iraq wasn't a threat to Israel than I swear I must be living on another planet. Do you see what you are doing here? You are playing the kill-all-arabs race card. That's not a good sign...it means you are not thinking clearly. Go back 10 spaces, lose a turn, pay $500. Did I ever say anything about lumping arabs together and killing them? Did I even imply it? Why are people so sensitive about discussing religious extremism? Are you willing to at least acknowledge that there is a problem with religious extremism in this part of the world? I've said it here many times, there is a combination of over-reliance on oil, no religious separation in politics, and the wrong kinds of govermental systems that is primarily to blame for fostering the type of environment that caused 9/11. Iraq was of that environment. Why would you say "War on Islam" instead of War on Extremism and Terrorism? Or is the world actually devoid of this thing called 'terrorism'? Have I fallen into an alternate universe again?

"He was..."
Man, I think you're just arguing to argue now. Not a blip on the radar? A true friend and trusted ally of the West was he?
Am I on the wrong planet again?

Willravel

That's what spies are for. A formal state has the foresight to not make dumb mistakes that end up having what could be peaceful people turn into violent radicals, and to have a consistant intelligence program.

The other thing isn't relevant to this thread.
Funding for 9/11 came from Saudi Arabia, the country of orgin of all those who are suspects. Training can be chalked up to the CIA who trained Bin Laden and his religious zealots once upon a time. Morally? I'm not sure how relevant that is, but moral support came from all over in small doses. There are people who hate America all over the world, and want to see it's destruction (though it's not as cut and dry as an episode of 24). If we're going to attack an entire government because some of it's members want to see the US attacked, then Iraq was hardly the biggest target. France would probably be higher on that list than Iraq. That, of course, is quite moot. Sadam didn't have any weapons of mass destruction. They were to weak to hope to attack Iran, Israel, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and yes, even Kuwait. Any thoughts otherwise suggest a fundamental misestimation of the military power of Iraq. A lot of people are basing their opinions on outdated information. It's not 1997 anymore. We all knew that Iraq wasn't a threat.
It'd be nice, but it's not going to happen at this rate. The US has only stopped one civil war in our history, and it was our own. We screwed the pooch in Korea, and this war is being waged in a very similar way to Korea. As long as W. Bush is in office, it will be difficult to get any kind of support from most counrties in Europe and Asia (or the UN).
You're living in 1992, not another planet. This is 2007 now, and we invaded in 2003. In 2003, Iraq was not a threat to anyone. Why is that so complicated? Did you forget that there was a time period between the Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom of over 10 years? Are you aware of what happened in Iraq over that span of time? I am.
Here is the logic you are putting down on the page: 9/11 happened, and Iraq gives moral support to terrorism, therefore we should invade Iraq. Tha is an alternate universe of thought.

Only the sith deal in absolutes. Saddam was in a place between what you're saying (a real threat to the west) and what you sarcastically made my stance (a friend to the west). Saddam was not a threat. That's really all that matters. It doesn't matter if he sent kind thoughts to terrorists or whatever. He lacked the means in 2003 of attacking anyone with anything. All he was capable of at that time was kidnapping some of his own citizens and torturing them to death. While it's obvious that's horrible and wrong, we have no right to destroy the government because of it, and there are much bigger things to deal with.

Slims

Ok, Roachboy: How about you give me the more complex 'factual' history about the runup to the war in Iraq?

I wasn't trying to be thorough or entirely rigorous. I am currently engaged in a debate with Willravel about the war in Iraq and am attempting to provide a counterpoint to his views. Let me know where I went wrong as well as how I did so. So far, you have told me I am wrong without providing any 'right' explanation.

And no, I am not refering to a collective will of the people, at least not in the marxist sense.

I do not think that the average person sits down and puzzles the Iraq war. However, I do think that the average person is easily influenced by news about bodies and stories concerning the war. I also think that bad news almost always trumps good news, regardless of the context. The result is that with any endeavor (not just Iraq), even possible future wars, the American public will tend to support the action initially and then as the footage of dead bodies starts to stream across our TV's, people stop supporting that action. It is a broad generalization and by no means applies to everybody, but it holds true for enough people that professional politicians will take advantage of it and thus it will eventualy influence military strategy. Also, military planners recognize our fickelness and plan accordingly...short, quick actions, though as we see things don't pan out that way.

What does this even mean? I admit I have had a few beers and am a bit worn out, but I can't for the life of me make sense of this sentance. I have an ideological expression? authoritarian dreamworld?

Personally speaking, my politics are far from republican and I am certainly not authoritarian. I have also never said whether or not I personally supported the war. Some things are nobodies business and some opinions would be inappropriate for me to express (either way) considering my current employment.

This isn't a bigggest word contest. I am not an uneducated individual, but I am not interested in having to break out the thesaurus in order to have a debate.

My intent was never to justify the actions leading to war in Iraq (not saying I was against the war either). Rather, I was trying to pick apart what I felt were the flawed suppositions of Willravel and others on this sight. I think he was making flawed assertions and I was trying to address those, not make overarching statements about the entire situation. Likewise, he has been trying to do the same, near as I can tell.

You think my suppositions are wholy fictional? then detail how and maybe I will learn something.

If my arguments are empirically false then they are false, regardless of the point of view. But again, you have accused me without providing any alternative explanation.

I think my opinions are colored more by my being an inherently violent person. I am not inclined to sit around and talk to someone who is wronging me.

Willravel:

The CIA never trained Bin Laden, though I believe he did profit indirectly from efforts to fund and equip mujahadeen.

Iraq still had a large standing army, one of the largest in the middle east. It was largely ineffective against US technology, but it could still have put a hurting on it's neighbors should it have so chose.

I can't believe you used a star wars quote. That should be a corollary to Godwins law.

I sincerely doubt that there was a big conspiracy about WMD in Iraq. It would have been far easier for us to simply plant something and then 'find' it. Instead, we keep looking and eventually admitted failure. The military, our intelligence agencies, congress, and the president all believed WMD was a real problem. Whether it should have been used to justify a war is still a seperate issue.

Out of curiosity, did the UN ever sanction us for the war in Iraq? Because they sure sanctioned Iraq, several times. If what we did was really so bad where are the sanctions against our country?

As for your analogy, I got confused by powerclowns. But I am more than happy to readdress yours. If you have someone who is victimizing someone else and there is no other reasonable way to stop it, then you should be able to do whatever needs to be done in order to end it. Laws are imperfect. Something can be illegal and perfectly justified. For instance, it is illegal to give someone your prescription medicine. But if your best friend (who uses the same medicine as you) has a severe asthma attack and forgot his inhaler, you are doing the right (though illegal) thing by allowing him to use yours.


Sure, our government is flawed, cumbersom, and at times corrupt. But the UN takes it to a whole different level, and we are often the target of that corruption. So no, I don't think it is the pot calling the kettle black. Unlike the UN, we are not wholely ineffective.

We don't have to leave them in a democracy, just an elected representative government of some kind. They tried several times to rebel it always ended badly. Even though we may have been willing to fight our own revolution without French help, it would have failed. Just like every attempt by the Shia or Kurds to oust Saddam.

The idea that Iraq will instantly adopt a model, peaceful democratic government and everyone will get along is laughable and I don't believe it is our intention. However, they can make real progress, obtain a stable representative government, and rebuild the country (they have access to immense oil wealth so they have the resources).

Again with Bush, he served in the military when he could have avoided service through any number of means (including graduate school) or chosen a less risky path. Even though he never did deploy, he very easily could have. I am not claiming him to be a war hero, but he did serve, and you shouldn't trash that.

I absolutely guarantee that no US soldier is asked to torture, rape, or kill in cold blood. I can tell you for a fact that every single one of the soldiers I work with thinks the soldiers who were recently convicted of raping (and killing?) an Iraqi girl should be executed.

And yes, I do think that Saddam's dissappearances are at least that number. A lot of the Iraqi's that have died since our invasion deserved it...they took up arms against us and shouldn't be counted tragedies.

No, I am not a recruiter.

__________________
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill

"All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence

powerclown

Humint is of critical importance I agree. Allies are important too. The biggest problem facing the middle east isn't the west, it's the middle east. I think that solving internal domestic issues there should be the #1 priority. They need to get their house in order first and foremost. Religious extremism is a by-product of a failed state. Removing Hussein was a positive step in addressing the issue of failed states as breeding grounds for religious extremism. Iraq as an ally and productive country would be an extraordinary American foreign policy success and a major step in the right direction for the rest of the middle east and the rest of the world by extension. I'm not a huge fan of France right now either. Did you know they STILL mourn Arafat over there, those silly people. Chirac made an interesting comment the other day about Iranian intransigence, saying basically that Iran would be "razed" if they were to fire off a nuclear missile. I think something strange is in the water supply in France. Wait, why would you want to attack France?Did you ever see the pictures circulating the net of the missile murals they found in one of Sadaam's palaces...he had gigantic wall paintings of nuclear missiles aimed at Israel, painted in Iraqi national colors, with burning phoenixes, comet trails, victory symbols, with himself as Saladin riding a white horse in flamboyant military kit. He sure seemed like he had bad intentions...I don't know that he was the unarmed choirboy that he was made out to be. Haha, but you know South Korea isn't doing too badly nowadays. Throw a little free trade into the mix, and like magic you have prosperity, jobs, a sound economy, fiscal discipline, peaceful citizens, and an ally of the west. Sounds like a good formula for bringing about some desperately needed change in the middle east.
Well, we seem to be stuck on this. Each of us sees something the other doesn't. It is as if we are talking about apples and oranges. It's quite a conundrum. I saw no signs of reconciliation from Hussein in the 10 years between GW1 and OIP. He was as belligerent and defiant as ever. I don't understand claims of innocence as applied to Sadaam Hussein. More like this: 9/11 originated in the middle east, Iraq is in the middle east, Iraq is run by a virulently anti-westen dictator, attacked Kuwait, attacked Israel, attacked the Kurds, a major cause of instability in the region, supports terrorism against an American ally, ambitions of regional dominance, invade Iraq, take him out. Iran, while possibly more dangerous than Iraq, was keeping a low profile then, not yet chanting Death to America, and letting Iraq take all the heat from the world community. Iraq was the bully in the region, perhaps thats why he got spanked hardest.

I don't know too much about the sith, but I do know that Sadaam had ambitions to dominate the region and its resources with an iron fist. I don't think there is any middle ground about it. You say yes, he was maybe sorta a real threat, but not totally a threat, I'm not sure what this means. I'm not sure you're sure what this means. Then you say that this sorta threat really wasn't a threat, that sponsoring terrorism shouldn't be seen as a threat anyway, and it really doesn't matter anyway or whatever. He didn't do anything to anybody, he was perhaps busy growing dates in his orchard or something, somewhere, it doesn't matter anyway really. Yes Im being sarcastic because I don't know what the heck you mean that he was somewhere between a real threat and no threat.

Elphaba

Greg, in case you have come to think otherwise, willravel and roachboy are not making a personal attack. Will can get very heated in supporting his wish for peace and supporting the reasons that support it. If you remain open to his thoughts, you learn much more about him.

Roachboy, isn't trying to dismiss you or your experience, but he is honestly questioning how you came to have the opinion you have. His questions are sincere; as is his analyses of the thinking processes within a particular context; and he offers his thoughts within that context. He is asking for your clarification in a very honest way.

I pretend to know something about the intention of these two men, after two years of experience in reading the thoughts/observations/challenges that they bring to this forum. Either one of them may rightfully chuckle at making such a presumption on my part, but I do feel confident in saying that neither of them intended a personal attack on your views.

Please keep sharing your thoughts.

Pen

Willravel

My understanding of the situation: In 1978, the People's Democratic Part of Afghanistan took power against a very repressive government. The main goals of the new controling party was land development, trade union rights, better education and social services, and surprisingly equal rights for women and seperation of church and state. The problem was, of course, that these same people wanted to get into bed with the Soviet Union. This did two things: it really, really pissed off the rich landlords (basically warlords), the muslims, and the tribal cheifs, and it really, really pissed of Washington, which was still stuck in McCarthy mode (communism = the boogey man). A resistence was formed in Afghanistan, and the US offered support. This was the birth of the Mujahddin. In '79, Soviet troops poured into Afghanistan to protect the PDPA. This, of course, got the Mujahddin up in arms. The Mujaheddin won. Durring the fight, the US government spent at least $6b (unconfirmed reports say $20b) into arming, training, and funding the Mujahddin factions. One very prominant Mujaheddin fighter and funder was wealthy arab fanatic Osama bin Laden, who provided funds and training and even worked directly with the fighters.

I'm not sure how familair you are with John Cooley who was a very prominant journalist with ABC and an author, but he made it very clear that his sources provided documentation that showed how Mujaheddin fighters were sent to Camp Peary in Virginia (for those who don't know, Camp Peary is a CIA training camp) to be trained in "sabatoge skills". In November of 1998, The Independant reported on how one of the men charged with bombing the US embassy in Kenya (and I believe the embassy in Tanzania), named Ali Mohammed, had trained "bin Laden's operatives" in the late 80s. Ali Mohammed was a greet baret. I think the name of the program to recruit and train the operatives was called something like Operation Cyclone, but don't quote me on that.

Pakistan's Inter-Service Intelligence Directorate used an organization called Maktab al Khidamar in order to distribute money and equiptment to the Mujaheddin. The CIA and Saudis assisted the MAK unofficially, while OBL was one of three people who ran (and eventually took overall control over) the MAK.

The Independant also named Omar Abdel-Rahman (from the first WTC bombing in 1993) as a part of Operation Cyclone. Moving on...

OBL joined the Mujaheddin in 1980. He was in charge of things like recruiting, financing (obviously, the dude was loaded), and training mercinaries. In 1986, OBL was in charge of building and running training camps in collaboration with the ISI and the CIA. It is in these camps that the CIA armed and trained OBL and his fellow contra fighters. Fomer British SAS officer Tom Carew, who fought with the Mujaheddin was interviewed by the Observer in 2000, and explained that the Americans trained the Afghans urban terrorism (car bombing, etc.), so that tehy could hit the soviets in cities. The al Qaeda was actually formed to run the camps in 1987.

So when did Bin Laden go from CIA friend and freedom fighter to terrorist? OBL lost it when his family allowed 500,000 US troops to be stationed in Saudi Arabia leading into Desert Storm. The problem, and something OBL predicted, is that a great deal of US troops (I don't have a number beyond "many thousands") stayed behind long after the Gulf War. OBL made outrageous claims like the Saudi Government was a puppet government of the US (they really have more of an onofficial partership in reality, though many of their deals are somewhat...questionable), and called for the overthrow of Saudi Arabian and Egyptian governments. In 1994, his assets were finally frozen and he was thrown, kicking and screaming, out of Saudi Arabia.

The rest, as they say, is history, but the bottom line is that OBL was directly involved with and trained by, the CIA. Our dirty anti-Soviet deals, which were swept under the perverbial carpet, came back to haunt us when OBL revamped his private army and joined with the Taliban and started bombing and attacking people and places.
The thing is, Iran and Israel - I'd say those would be Iraq's main enemies - are technologically advanced, maybe not as much so as the US (no one is), but I'm sure they are enough so to deal quickly and easily with a standing army with outdated weaponry.
My horrible sense of humor. The point I was trying to make is that the world is not black and white, and when you make an argument where the only two options are absolutes, you're probably exaggerating to try and make a point.
I'm not sure how far we can go back into the history of TFP, but I remember discissions back in 2003 about how Iraq probably didn't ahve weapons of mass destruction or links to al Qaeda. It didn't make sense. Yes, the inspectors were kicked out a few times (Saddam was often his own worst enemy), but leading up to the war it was the opinion of those at the UN who were responsible for monitoring Saddam that he did not have the ability to make war with any kind of weapon of chemical, nuclear, or other powerful nature. We constantly had spy planes and such monitoring the deserts of Iraq for places where he might be illegally manufacturing these weapons, and they never whitnessed anything damning. It was also clear that Bush had alrterrior motives, as not just anti-war or anti-Bush Americans were aginst the war, but most the the rest of the world was against it. Even the UN strongly suggested we don't invade.
The UN can be effective against smaller, less powerful countries, but when it comes to the US, we have no one to answer to. If the UN wanted to do anything to us, it would put them in a pickle, as we are massively powerful and also influential in the UN itself. If the UN had the power to do so, it's possible they may have taken action to either deter or stop us from invading.
Laws are imperfect, but so is intel. The problem was that this was an agressive violent move, so I had to have an aggressive, violent move in my analogy (so the asthma thing may not be apt). Saddam was a horrible man, and it was illegal for us to stop him. We also had more pressing matters to attend to. It's clear now that we lowered the priority of finding OBL when we turned out attentions on Iraq. The man who is generally accepted as being responsible for most of the terrorist attacks over the past 10 years, everything from 9/11 to Madrid to London. It's clear that the terrorist networks of the world are a much, much bigger threat than Iraq, and deserve more of our attention. How many troops are in Iraq right now? I think it's something like 90,000 active troops and 60,000 reserve. Can you imagine them in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and all the areas where we know there to be terrorist activity? Is it possible that, if the U had not invaded Iraq in 2003, we might have prevented the Madrid and London bombings? I can't answer that, but I can say that they would be less likely.
The UN is not wholely inneffective either. They are working vigilantly to meeet the 'millennium goals' (end extreme poverty and hunger; universal primary education; gender equality; reduce child mortality; inprove maternal health; fight hiv/aids; environmental sustainability; and developing a global partership for development). At the end of 2006, they reported a great deal of progress on each front listed. You can find more information on them on their website, www.un.org, and there are plenty of articles about them from news sources.
The Shia or Kurds should have asked for our help. The thing is, I don't think they wanted our help...but we went in anyway.
Yes, the idea is laughable. That is, however, exactly what the administration was expecting. Do you remember when Cheney said the Iraqi's would "welcome us with open arms as liberators"? They were expecting everything to go perfectly, and it's lunacy.
Buhs isn't what you call a thinking man. He would have flunked out of graduate school, and he couldn't run because of his family's reputation. The air national guard was a perfect option for him.
Are you 100% sure it's only the CIA that waterboards POWs? I'm pretty sure the Army has their hand in that.
You think Saddam killed 60,000-200,000 people in 4 years?! Don't you think we'd know about that? Where are you getting your information?

I count any death as a tragety, but that's just me. I'm what you might call anti-war.
You have the tenacity of a recruiter. It was just a guess.
K, I'm going to try and make it clear: yes! Saddam did want to take over the Middle East. Yes, he wanted to take out Israel and even attack the US. The problem was, all he had was an outdated military with no real weapons, and paintings of missles that really couldn't do any harm. I have ambitions to have my daughter take over the world, but we lack the means so I don't think that any government will consider us a threat. Do you see? Had Iraq utilized it's only strength, a large number of soldiers, they would have been descimated from the air by missles and bombs. The Soviets are arming China now and have their own oil, so they don't care about Iraq enough to sell them weapons. The US isn't going to sell Iraq weapons. France wouldn't dare because if they were caught, they'd be in a shitload of trouble with it's friends the UK, Germany, Spain, and Italy.

So in review: Saddam never changed his outlook. He still wanted to kill everyone and dominate everything. He lacked the means. He was not innocent, he was not dangerous. There is a difference.

Iraq lacked the means to endanger the US, therefore attacking them was not an act of protection. Protection is the only legal excuse for invading and ovethroing a government. Saddam's intent won't change that fact. Saddam was not a threat to the US. Saddam was only a minor threat to his neighbors. Saddam was a threat to the Iraqis.

powerclown

Alright willravel sir, have it your way. Iraq wasn't a threat to anyone. Or it was a minor threat (not a major threat) but no danger to America. But Sadaam was a danger to Israel, and to his own people. He was not dangerous, but he wanted to kill everyone and dominate everything. But he wasn't a threat to anyone outside of his people in Iraq. But he wanted to take over the Middle East, and attack the US if only he somehow had the means (paging Dr. AQ Khan!). But he could never get the means, so he could only kill his people and try to dominate the Middle East by killing everyone. I'm so confused.

host

powerclown, you might us well be trying to get us to believe in the tooth fairy, the easter bunny, or in santa claus.....

There was no logic to a strategy of invading Iraq, for your stated reasons, powerclown, the M.E. country with the most secular regime....the regime that had the greatest incentive and a proven trackrecord of "discouraging" the Iranian/Iraqi, fundamentalist Islamic connection and associated ambitions....in early 2003, or back in 1920, where a study of history would have yielded the Churchill/Bell strategy of sunni rule of Iraq, precisely because of the lack of religious influence and ambitions for control of sunni secular politics:
I have quotes from DIA (March, 2002) and CIA (March, 2001) directors, Powell,(Feb. thru May, 2001) Rice,(July, 2001) and Cheney,(5 days after 9/11 attacks) that are consistent in the opinion that Saddam was "bottled up", was "no threat to his neighbors", "had not rebuilt his military", and UN sanctions and "no fly zones" "are working" to keep him from rebuilding pre-1991 WMD capabilities.

<b>Can you share how you "know" what you know? What date did the Bush admin's and the DIA/CIA threat assessment of Saddam's WMD capabilities change, and what was discovered to support the new alarmist communications of Cheney, and then Bush, et al, in view of the consistent contrary determinations, as recently as on March 19, 2002, by DIA director, Vice Admiral Thomas R. Wilson ?:</b>
powerclown, let's hop into Professor Peabody's "wayback machine" and compare the points in your post with what was reported between Feb., 2001, through 2006:
(I think that it is important to note that then French foreign minister, and now prime minister, Dominique de Villepin, was not persuaded by Powell's extensive presentation to the UN, shortly before this excerpted Villepin UN speech, that Zaraqawi, Ansar al-Islam, and the "poison camp" at Khurmal were evidence of links between Saddam's Iraq and al Qaeda

Former Senate Intel. Committee chair, Sen. Pat Roberts, worked to block the release of confirmation of what Villepin knew about Powell's presentation, 3-1/2 years before:

I'm making a sincere and thorough effort to demonstrate, and document, why I believe that the Bush administration had no basis for pre-emptive invasion and occupation of Iraq, for the justifications that you maintain are valid and legal. Kindly respond with some references that explain what triggered the "About Face", that changed the threat that Saddam's Iraq posed to the US, considering the comments of Powell, Rice, and DIA chief Thomas R. Wilson, in 2001, before 9/11, and Cheney's 9/16/01 statment that we had Saddam Hussein, "bottled up".

I would think that you would perceive a motivation to defend your justification for the invasion, since the record strongly indicates that Saddam posed no threat, in Cheney's own opinion, as late as on 9/16/01, Powell said that the sanctions against Iraq had been reformed to keep Saddam from obtaining WMD, Duelfer reported that there was no program to obtain or rebuild the WMD capability, and ten days before the invasion, the WMD inspection program was back in place in Iraq, and the French Foreign Minister, Villepin, made a speech before the UN, stating that:
I'm documenting that Powell said he had worked to "reform" the sanctions, and right after the 9/11 attacks, Cheney said that Saddam was "bottled up". Rice had the same opinion, six weeks before 9/11. When the US invaded Iraq, Villepin had said in his speech, ten days before that the WMD inspectors were back in Iraq, and making serious progress for "a month". I will credit the Bush policy of assembling a threat of use of military force, under the resolution of the UN, for restoring the inspections teams that "were making progress".

<b>The scenario to keep Saddam from restarting WMD development or obtaining and holding WMD, was in place, by all accounts, before Bush ordered the military invasion. To order invasion, in spite of that, is a war crime, similar to shooting a disarmed "suspect". Your stance IMO, reduced to unsubstantiated and it follows...unjustified, pre-emptive war.....is one that both Bush and Cheney failed to justify, in new attempts in the last few days, probably because of the huge, contrary body of evidence that hangs over this. A strong case, IMO, can also be made that the invasion of Iraq was not justified to the point that arguments that it was an illegal war of aggression, must be respected, and without any more valid justification than Bush and Cheney can now come up with, may end up prevailing.</b>
Powell, Rice, Cheney, Tenet, and Adm. Wilson were on record, contradicting the later case made for "war".
Finally, they thought it necessary to legislate a CYA for anticipated later war crimes investigations: