skippy

OK it's time to ask the Big question. As our fellow citizens die!

American Soldiers are dieing every day now. Have we done the correct thing by entering into a war with Saddam and Al Quaida?

Isn't this just like the Russian war in Afghanistan years ago. (Are we doing any better than they did?)

Should we even be involved in Iraq?

Please state your opinion and then tell us why you think so?

Remember to be respectful of others.

Skippy

anleja

I have mixed feelings about this. I don't think they should have rushed into war. However, I can't help feel it isn't a total lost cause, especially after reading about how they found that mass grave the other day.

I do think there were other countries which presented more of a threat than Iraq. I think they either chose to invade Iraq because the seemingly easy win would be good for our morale, or else they chose to invade because Iraq would be a good place for military bases to focus on other areas in the region.

I am now going to run out of this thread before it explodes.

*edit- I forgot to add that I think we are in there for reasons other than the reasons Bush gave. I'd feel better if he was upfront wih their intentions. Okay, I am going to run out of this thread again. I'm always a bit fearful to post in Politics. It gets really hot around here sometimes!

Mojo_PeiPei

Should we be there? Thats up in the air. The reality of the situation is that we are there, and we need to stay the course.

This war is nothing close to what Afganistan was either in intent or as far as the fighting goes. The only real similarity is that our presence there pisses of muslims, which is funny because the Iraqi's couldn't be happier that we are there. We did good by getting Saddam out, we are doing good because we are bringing peace and democracy to an area in the world that NEEDS a kick in the nuts to bring it in the right direction.

Personally I think we are justified by being in Iraq. Saddam was a douche. He disobeyed and spat in the face of the U.N. and the world for 12 years on more then a dozen resolutions. Iraq did harbor terrorism, yes people there are other terrorists groups out there besides Al Qeada. Saddam had weapons and just like before he wasn't about to give them up. If you think he didn't have weapons you are purposely turning your a blind eye.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

rogue49

Should we be there? Yes
Should it has been justified the way it was? Doubtful
Should we continue? Yes

I get sick of the media focusing on the negative because it sells headlines.
I want them to also focus on the benefits and positive.
We need a real perspective.

The media in this case are allied with the terrorists.
They are playing right into what the terrorists want.
Focus on the negative, demoralize and push out the Industrialized nations.

The real reason we are there in the first place,
is because they couldn't get their act together,
they were an instigator of instability in the region.

Same reason we went into Kosovo...the void of stability...triggers instability elsewhere...including broader wars.
We are investing into our future with this.
There will be some sacrifice as sanity comes to the region.

And as ruthless as it sounds...it's better to have a smaller sacrifice now,
than invest in dealing with a larger conflict in the future.

As unstable as it seems now...it will become moreso in the future.
Unfortunately...that seems difficult with a short-term perspective.

We have to be firm, fair and consistent.
No wishy-washyness is allowed...we need to followthrough now.

anleja

I agree with the two previous posts that we owe it to the people of Iraq to stay our course, regardless of what got us there in the first place. If we left now, things could very well get worse than they were very quickly.

Phaenx

There is no should haves now, we are where we are and that's what we need to deal with.

No, it's not like Russia vs. Afghanistan. We are doing much better then they did in Afghanistan, and by comparison we're still doing much better in Iraq. We've accomplished a lot in terms of commerce and getting their economy back on its feet and establishing a ruling system, I don't think Russia even managed to defeat the Taliban in the first place let alone focus on rebuilding.

Iraq is likely going to be a key piece of land in our fight against terrorism and our ability to quickly mobilize forces worldwide, it will allow us to replace our military base in Saudi Arabia and relieve some of the cultural pressure surrounding it's prescense there, and if Iran starts acting up we can have a large fighting force on them very quickly, and as we've seen, when you've got the most powerful military in the world standing on your doorstep, you change your tone quickly enough. So yes, Iraq is important to us.

__________________
"I went shopping last night at like 1am. The place was empty and this old woman just making polite conversation said to me, 'where is everyone??' I replied, 'In bed, same place you and I should be!' Took me ten minutes to figure out why she gave me a dirty look." --Some guy

Moskie

I'm also somewhere in the middle. I don't categorically believe that going into Iraq was a bad idea, but I also don't think that Bush handled the situation very well. I think there were a lot of negative consequences resulting from the war that were not neccessary.

Yes, the world is a better place without Saddam in power. Yes, the Iraqi people will end up having better lives in the end. But there are a number of bad things that I think could have been avoided if Bush were a better leader. Things like having the issue polarize not only citizens of the U.S., but of the entire world (something that should have been damn near impossible post 9/11). Insulting and belittling the UN, making it even more insignificant than it previously was. Not to mention using faulty intel to justify the war... I'm not trying to start a big argument here, so I digress.

__________________
Greetings and salutations.

james t kirk

Two things come to mind...


1. The guy who runs Kazakhstan is a murdering prick supposedly. In fact, he is supposed to make Saddam look like an amateur. Yet he is backed financially, politically, and god knows how else by the USA. Why is that?


2. The americans have interviewed over 800 Iraqi scientists, politicians, etc. They have all said the same thing independent of each other. There were no biological or chemical weapons or any program to develope the same. You would think that if there "were" such weapons, ONE Of them, just ONE would have said so.

This does not appear to be the case.

I always thought that there "might" turn out to be such weapons etc.

It now appears that there never were. Either the americans have the shittiest intelligence in the world, or, you have been lied to.

Take your pick.

james t kirk

One thing my friend that you seem to have overlooked.

Kosovo was a UN / NATO action.

Iraq was not.

There is a HUGE difference.

Kosovo was / is a slaughterhouse with ethnic waring and murdering going on at the civil war level.

Iraq was not.

Your comparison, though I understand it, is not quite the same.

james t kirk

The taliban were not in power at the time the Russians were in Afghanistan. They only came to power about 3 or so years ago.

Do you really know what is going on in Afghanistan? I don't. Depends who you listen to. The big media has pulled out of Afghanistan because that is not where the ratings generating action is now. But the fact of the matter is that Afghanistan hasn't really changed one bit. The country remains a very dangerous lawless place, run by fanatics and war lords. The taliban / whoever was ever in control before, are still doing what they always did wherever they did it.


Oh man, that is unreal.

How many of the 911 terrorists were Iraqis?

Answer - 0

How many of the 911 terrorists were Iranian?

Answer - 0

How many of the 911 terrorists were Saudis?

Answer 15 of 19.

The US was based in Saudi Arabia. As you say, "the world's most powerful military standing "inside" your doorstep"

Didn't seem to deter the Saudis now did it. In fact, it is what pissed them off in the first place.

It would appear that the Americans have not learned from the first time.

I don't think a long term american presence in Iraq will guarantee you the security you think it will. If anything, it will do the reverse and serve to enflame and already insane region of the world.

In my eyes, the solution to preventing future terrorism is not to hire more police, but to change the mindset that created the forces that made the terrorists in the first place.

Easier said then done I realize, but the big stick idea won't work.

thejoker130

I feel that the conflict in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq are perhaps justifiable in their own ways.

The Taliban government knowingly harbored known terrorist groups, Al Quida for example, and funded many other groups. They persecuted their own people to great excess and were all-round not nice people. That conflict I support.

The war in Iraq is a great deal less justified in my opinion. It is true that Saddam will most likely never win any awards for his humanitarian contributions. But I think our methods of getting into the war were dubious at best.

I do not like Bush, the reason for this is because of his circumvention of international law involving Iraq, his declaring the war 'over' while soldiers were, and still are, dying.

That aside, the war in Iraq may be justified if only there were some proof that Saddam had, or was planning to have nuclear or biological weapons, like our dear president said he had. But as it stands according to UN inspectors, Saddam never had or was planning to have theses weapons.

I for one feel that I, as a citizen of the United States, have been lied to by my government. On that basis I would say that the conflict in Iraq should not be going on.

__________________
WHAT MORE CAN THE HARVEST HOPE FOR IF NOT FOR THE CARE OF THE REAPER MAN?
-------------------------------------
I like you. When the world is mine your death will be quick and painless.

rogue49

Despite some people desires otherwise neither UN nor NATO is the end all/be all in global or international decisions.
The Iraq action was taken on by mostly the US & UK, but there were other nations included in this.
Although, personally I would prefer getting a larger consensus,
(this is always best for global politics)
In the end, the US "can" stand on it's own, if it thinks that it's the best course of action.

And how can you say Iraq was not?
Aren't they digging up mass graves to this day filled with the bodies of the "enemy" or "undesirables" of the ex-regime?
If you are going to use an arguing point, better make a different one than that.

Simply...IMHO...the action was correct...the rationalization & diplomacy could have been MUCH better.
But..for better or worse...we are in there...let's make the best of it.

Sparhawk

I think this is a question that should have been asked 2 years ago, when the administration decided to go after the bogeyman in the closet (saddam), when there were 5 homicidal maniacs right outside the front door (bin laden, kim, etc).

Wow. That first line, I mean... Wow.

As for the rest, it's hard for the media to focus on the good stories in Iraq (and most news shows I've seen DO, in fact, carry stories about the rebuilding- the good stories) when we have soldiers dying every day (although it's a little easier not to cover *those* stories now that camera crews are denied access to Dover).

__________________
"In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."

rogue49

Please do not take my statement...too literally.

It was an analogy to describe how the media harps on whatever will grab the most controversy to catch peoples attention.
This IS what the terrorists want.
And this IS what the media does everday with almost every topic (Iraq or non-Iraq)
I've become extremely frustrated with the lack of perspective and the emphasis on "the thrill" that is in the news today.

I want to know overall, how the projects are doing,
where is there waste, how can we make it better?

Even though the war is officially "finished",
we need to be realistic and understand that our people are still in the middle of stablizing this nation
and ousting the more violent groups.
The war is NOT really finished, this will be a "long-term" mission,
despite what the administration would have you think otherwise.

But it would help if the media used some common-sense,
and not help those (on either side) who are mucking up the whole thing.

Mojo_PeiPei

Two things

1. I don't know anything about the leader of kazakhstan. But I do know is that the U.N. doesn't infringe on soverignity, so aslong as he keeps to himself, sadly nothing will be done. Saddam fucked himself over by attacking other nations, he made it the worlds business. At which point there were several U.N. resolutions that he knowingly disobeyed.

2. Have you heard of the Kay document? Basically what it says is yes there is no "smoking gun", but there is proof of on going WMD programs in Iraq.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Phaenx

Someone beat the Russians there, it doesn't really matter if it was the Taliban or not.

There was a news report on the progress in Afghanistan not long ago on CNN I think, you're making some big assumptions there coming from someone who admits they don't really know what's going on over there. They've got most of the cities linked with paved roads and it actually isn't as lawless as you think. Most of the cities are patrolled by american/foreign soldiers and is according to the news anchor usually fairly peaceful, make no doubt about it, we're in charge. No doubt there are a few isolated incidents, but by that logic Los Angeles a god forsaken wasteland as well.


The carrot didn't really help either.

I don't think you understood clearly what I was expressing. I didn't say Iraq was behind the WTC attack. Read it again in the context that the doorstep statement was meant to be applied to organized government officials, not terrorists. I think maybe then you'll see what I mean. If not, feel free to disagree.

__________________
"I went shopping last night at like 1am. The place was empty and this old woman just making polite conversation said to me, 'where is everyone??' I replied, 'In bed, same place you and I should be!' Took me ten minutes to figure out why she gave me a dirty look." --Some guy

SLM3

The only legitimate overthrow of a government comes from within the state, by the people. Outside help is of course good, as long as it isn't self-serving and hypocritical. The US could have done this after GW1, but instead it chose to backout and allow Saddam to slaughter the Shiites in the South and the Kurds in the North.

The US will never allow a bottom-up reformation in Iraq as it would not have any control over it. Thus the massacres it allowed after GW1. It will, however, install a new regime from the top down, under the guise of "democartizing" the state.

Even in Afghanistan, local actors were advocating for an internal revolution to overthrow the Taliban. Of course this did not happen, it could not happen.

Considering the exiles and foreign nationalists the US has brought back to create this Iraqi council, I have to question how sincere they are concerning the people of Iraq.

I am definitely against the war in Iraq as I believe it is just another notch on the US bedpost, along the lines of its actions in South and Central America, as well as many other places.

SLM3

SLM3

james t kirk

Well, the endorsement of the UN would have added a certain legitimacy to the conflict that it never had, nor will it ever have. If any weapons of mass destruction were in fact found, or will ever be found, again, it would have added legitimacy. But I don't think they will ever find a thing.

Anyway, in 91, Bush Sr. had the backing of the UN.

This time round, that wasn't going to happen ever.

Bottom line from an international point of view, Iraq attacked no-one to prompt this war. How in all honesty could the UN sanction a war against Iraq? Based on what?

In the end, as much as you might not believe it, the UN did it's job and adhered to international law.

This war was part personal, part oil driven, part politically driven. I don't think it was ever driven by the noble intention of ridding the world of an evil dictator cause there are lots of them around. While I am happy that Saddam is gone (he was a murdering scumbag), there is no precident for attacking an independent country simply because you think that they might harm you in the future.

Yes, Australia, but most Australians, like most Brittons, can't for the life of them understand why. After that you are into Poland and Spain, and down from there. (Often called the coalition of the co-erced.)

Interestingly enough, only Chile in North or South America backed the US action, but Chile is heavily indebted to the USA and is high on the US foreign aid list. So why not. No other nation of the Americas backed this war.

Not really, if so, George Bush would have not gone to the UN on his knees looking for an international bail out. 1 year ago, the UN was "irrelevant". This year, we're all friends.

But i do agree with you on one point. America can NOT pull out now. It's too late for that. You started it, you better finish it.

One thing i sometimes wonder about. When WW2 ended, did the Germans continue killing Allied soldiers for 8 months after hostilities ended????

I don't think so, but i could be wrong.

james t kirk

What carrot was that?

Phaenx

Didn't we stop Iraq from reaming them? That's a carrot, though you'd pretty much have to be Allah for those people to care.

You go talk to them about their feelings all you want, I don't think it'll work though. I suggest we keep fighting them the way we have been.

__________________
"I went shopping last night at like 1am. The place was empty and this old woman just making polite conversation said to me, 'where is everyone??' I replied, 'In bed, same place you and I should be!' Took me ten minutes to figure out why she gave me a dirty look." --Some guy

Ustwo

I surely hope that no one thinks that the Iraqi people would be better off if this were all left to the UN. If you want to argue if the US should be there, thats fine and dandy, but I dont' know how many mass graves it takes to convince you that the average Iraqi is better off today then it was under Saddam.

If you do not think that is true, I dont' think there is anything to talk about.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

rogue49

I'm sure there were situations, however there were MANY different circumstances.
One, we left MUCH less intact during the war with them,
damn...we bombed the bejeezus out of them.
And two, we pushed in an incredible force to occupy them,
many more men.
And three...I doubt at that time, explosives were as easy to distribute or build

This is a totally different equation, totally different world,
totally different culture.

It's probably better to compare this with Vietnam than WWII,
however, this time...there is a total commitment and subdual of the area. (at least in terms of scale involvement)
But again, we better be in for the long-haul and understand that we will lose good people while stablizing the area.
I only can hope they have the long-term spine and be realistic about it.

kandayin

Actually I think the situation in Baghdad is probably closer to Beyrouth than what it was in Vietnam.
Especially since most attacks are in a relatively small area (Tikrit Baghdad Faloudjah).

As for the main question, I still think that the Bush administration should have come clear on their goals and their reasons if they wanted anything more than a personnal benefit.
They prepared fake reasons to go to war, hoping their economic, military and politic weight would grant them the support of the UN, Europe and most of the rest of the world but it did not work out as they intended and they got stuck in their rethoric.
If they wanted to set the Iraqi people free, why not telling everyone the truth, flat out, I'm sure they would have gained more support from both the states and the populations.
If it was to fight terrorism ( which is a nonsense in itself, curing symptoms is stupid in my opinion ) then why attack Iraq with so little evidence.
Iraq was certainly no threat to the US, then why choose that particular point to try and gather support for that war.

There's something completely obscure in this, and I think Bush should come clear with it if he wants to stabilize the situation in Iraq.

To sum it up, Saddam should have been gone back in 91. Since it has not been done, he deserved to get kicked but within the boundaries of international law and with the support the US should have been getting if they had come clear with it.
And certainly not in such a hurry, I fail to see the emergency with that war in Iraq.

Mojo_PeiPei

To add to this, we aren't fighting regulars in Iraq, they are guerillas and Arab insurgents.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

nirol

I think liberating Iraq was the right thing. I know that the given reasons, WMD and threat to our security seem weak in retrospect.
The real reason for the invasion was that Iraq was a pain in the ass and our policy for dealing with it was unsustainable. How long do you think sanctions and No Fly zones were going to take to cause positive change?
Our priorities changed on 9/11. We no longer needed to tolerate the Iraqi regime. We had the means to remove him, so we did. It is the old saw about why does a dog lick himself. We do not have the luxury to tolerate rogue regimes, and no one can say we cant do anything about it. As Bush stated in his speech on Democracy in the Middle East, we do not have to feel bound by the premises that have guided US foreign policy for 40 yrs. We can change the world and we must for our own long term security.

__________________
'Tis better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than open one's mouth and remove all doubt.
Samuel Johnson (1709 - 1784)

kandayin

Do you realize the potential great danger of this declaration ?

We, the rest of the world, would like to protect our long term security as well.

Food Eater Lad

As long as you live in part of the rest of the world that does not harbor terrorists, nor attack neighbors, then you dont have anything to feel. We are not fighting against France, Canada, or Switzerland. Why? They are stable, sane places.

MeshMan2000

i'm totally against the war on Iraq; ofcourse there are things worth fighting for, but then again, there are wars that should never have been started. Vietnam for instance.

I think you'll find that in 10 years time, when the Americans get sick of seeing their soldiers get killed on a daily basis and pull troops out, Iraq will be in the same place it was 5 years ago.

Don't forget, that it was meddling by the US that placed Saddam in such a powerful position in Iraq in the first place; so the lesson is: Don't meddle!

Mojo_PeiPei

Thats false, the U.S. didn't put Saddam in power, he assumed it in 1979.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Conclamo Ludus

Here is a good link for information on the Iraq Timeline, from 3500 BC to May 1 2003 for those interested:

http://www.worldhistory.com/iraq.htm

I think that Iraq will be a mess for a while but history will prove this a worth while cause for stability and peace in the region and eventually worldwide. Its going to take a lot of time and a lot of pain before it will ever be considered anything close to a success. I don't see this as a Vietnam. I certainly hope its not. To call the post-war Iraq a failure, is to simply doom it as a failure. It isn't over yet, and its far too early to judge this event. I've posted it before and I'll post it in this thread because I think that it is very poignant to the discussion: It is unfortunate that the rebuilding of Iraq has become so political. The democrat hardliners see any success in Iraq as a success for Bush, and the republican hardliners see any criticism whatsoever as criticism against Bush. Its become so politicized and it will only get worse the closer we get to the election. This is to the detriment of our troops and the Iraqis. Criticism must be constructive. Its not too late to make the best of the region, even if you were anti-war to start. We pick up the pieces, do what we can, and move on. What we don't do is throw in the towel, or point fingers, or spin the facts to win an election. Okay, well a fella can dream can't he?

__________________
Lord, have mercy on my wicked soul
I wouldn't mistreat you baby, for my weight in gold.
-Son House, Death Letter Blues

Macheath

The consensus is for reconstruction but the timetable is tight. Tighter than it would have been if Bush had gotten the rest of the world onside before the war.

There are enemies within Iraq but there are allies too. Even the Iraqi allies do not have an infinite capacity for patience. If the reconstruction goes on for too long without tangible improvement in security, they too will lose patience with the US. It will be catastrophic if that happens. The clock is ticking.

I'm also curious about this idea of Iraq being a staging ground for a US military presence in the region. What if the people of Iraq do not actually want this?

james t kirk

Well that is true, BUT.....

As a canadian, I can tell you that the current administration hates all foreign countries (Except Britain). The level of condescednding hatred that comes out of Washington towards us is palpable.

Politically speaking, I can not EVER remember relations between our nations being so low. (But I am too young to remember when Lyndon B Johnson grabbed our Prime Minister Pearson by the suit lapels and physically shook him because Pearson (a noble peace prize winner) would not support Vietnam.

But on a personal level, I must admit that I find Americans to be both an interesting curiousity, some of the most generous people you will ever meet, and like you guys just fine.

salut

james t kirk

Interesting thought, here's a similar sort of quote / ideal from the past....

"Germany does not think of attacking but only acquiring security."
- Adolf Hitler (1933)

Ustwo

Mmmmmm I think this requires the invoking of Goodwins Law.

http://info.astrian.net/jargon/terms...win_s_law.html

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

smooth

Quit being Godwinuous.

http://stommel.tamu.edu/~baum/ethel/...ictionary.html

---------

The main difference I see between the Russian/Afghanistan war and our current situation is that our forces aren't being confronted by a force that is trained by an opposing superpower.

If a developed nation steps in to aid Iraq resistance (as we did in the Afghanistan war), we will likely have serious problems. Currently, however, we will keep engaging in relatively minor skirmishes until the public gets tired of persistent deaths--or forgets (a la Afghanistan).

__________________
"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

nirol

Sorry, I was not clear, and thus provoked the tired Hitler accusation. When I stated that we needed to change the world for our longterm security, I was challenging the people who defend the status quo belief that the Middle East should not be meddled with, they should be left to their own devices.
I argue that the political situation in the M.E. affects us directly and we can no longer turn a blind eye to ocurrences there. The "head in sand" strategy has failed. We should not take a patrician view of this either (the white man's burden), but we should use our resources and influence, be that the carrot or the really BIG STICK. Personally, I think the stick could use some more work.

james t kirk

He he, yeah, i was just having a little fun with you.

Your comment made me think of a quote from hitler one time where he said something like, "we need breathing room, or breeding room," I wasn't quite sure, so i went with this one. You can always find some good hitler quote somewhere, or Stalin quote to accentuate your point.

cheers

eple

The term used by Hitler was "Lebensraum" - which translates roughly into "room to live". It was used to justify expantion eastwards, where he hoped to aquire the natural resources needed to foundate the third reich.

On issue: I am tired of all the people quoting their politicians talking about peace and prosperity in our time. They all want more power and money. Live with it. Don't try convincing me any of the great leaders of the world does any good in this world.

SLM3

Sad but true. We live in a world driven by realist principles. Society didn't burst forth from the eye of Zeus, however. We created it, and we can change it.

SLM3