Sparhawk

Although I disagree with some of his reasoning, he makes a very good point regarding Iraq.

__________________
"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."

apechild

What point is that? And how can it be a "good point" if you don't even agree with his reasoning? After all, a "point" is nothing if it can't be supported by sound reasoning.

__________________
Skwerl. Its wuts fer dinner.

Ustwo

I think his point was he doesn't agree with Bush so Sparhawk thinks this is good.

__________________
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.

Evil Milkman

I saw this coming, from week one when we began this war. It just amazes me that we actually got into this in the first place. It's sick! Those soldiers should have never left our shores.

Ustwo

Saw what comming?

__________________
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.

Sparhawk

Wow, the trolls are out in force today.

I disagree with him when he says that the Persian Gulf War was a war of choice and the Vietnam War was a war of necessity.

I agree with him with the contention that "because this is a war of choice, Americans will not support it unless it is relatively short and cheap. This is why the administration has changed its policy and accelerated the timetable to hand over increasing political responsibility to Iraqis, even if it means reducing what it is trying to accomplish."

Now does anyone actually want to discuss the subject, or continue to troll like Ustwo and apechild?

__________________
"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."

redravin40

apechild

Thank you, Sparhawk. This, we can discuss.

I feel that many Americans believe this is indeed a war of necessity. Certainly the majority of those who supported the war felt that way. And their level of resolve should not be so easily dismissed.

Why the "necessity?" Iraq did not attack us on our soil. And to those among us who believe that military action can only be justified through direct self defense this war will never be considered an act of necessity. A great many others, however, contend that this war was necessary to preserve our global security. They argue that war was necessary because all diplomatic means had been exhausted.

The UN, through the empty rhetoric of 16 resolutions over the course of 12 years, proved itself unwilling or unable to enforce the will of the international community. It became irrelevant. As a result of this irrelevance, perhaps even in direct response to its proven inability to act, other nations became emboldened, audacious, and belligerent.

The order that exists when strong leaders have the conviction and fortitude to defend free nations from the threat of attack by tyrannical megalomaniacs had been deteriorating rapidly. The order that exists when people have reason to believe that their actions have consequences, that their wrongdoings will not go unnoticed, that their threats, provocations, and attacks will be resisted, was evaporating.

When Saddam Hussein first attacked Kuwait, he was quickly and soundly defeated. The Gulf War sent a very powerful message to others who might have entertained the thought of invading weaker nations to increase their wealth and power. And for many years we lived a relative peace.

But we allowed the internal squabbling of the UN member nations to weaken our resolve. Bill Clinton and Madeleine Albright specifically sought the avoidance of conflicts - not their resolution - no matter what the long-term costs. Saddam soon began to realize that without effective leadership among those who might resist him, he could get away with almost anything.

Others came to the same conclusion. 16 resolutions and 12 years and nothing had changed.

On September 11th, 2001, Osama bin Laden and his followers sought to take advantage of our perceived apathy and weakness. That morning we learned that a couple of cave-dwelling half-wits dressed in rags actually believed they could destroy America. Now we stand to witness the escalating belligerence of Kim Jong-Il.

What have we learned from this?

Order can not exist when there is no one around to defend it and tyrants remain in power.

I, for one, am thankful that we finally have a leader who leads, a defender who defends, and a protector who protects.

I also believe the war in Iraq was necessary.

{Note to redravin - engaging the poster to offer some original thought and support his opinion is hardly trolling, OK?}

__________________
Skwerl. Its wuts fer dinner.

Peetster

I would prefer more initial commentary and analysis on the part of the poster, less allowing the article to stand on its own merit. The originally quoted reference is very biased. As one example,

The quote suggests that the US invaded Iraq during the first Gulf conflict, yet passed the bulk of the cost to other countries. The terms "invade" and "fund" are used incorrectly and intended to mislead. The Iraqi army was repelled from Kuwait, in accordance with UN Resolutions. That does not constitute an invasion. The amount of financial support provided by alliance countries was fractional compared to the investment made by the US. That hardly merits the term "funded".

Posting to generate thoughtful dialog is encouraged. As Redravin indicated, posting to elicit a purely emotional response is not.

Sparhawk

You are right about the term invade in reference to the first conflict. As for funding, 90% of the $60 billion price tag for the 91 war was shouldered by other countries. I would hardly call that fractional.

__________________
"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."

Ustwo

When you start with nothing but an article and a single line, don't call me a troll for not discussing as you presented nothing to discuss.

Perhaps the constant attacks by the democrats and their attempt to erode support for the war also has something to do with it? I don't see us cutting and running anytime soon unless there is a change of presidents in 2004.

__________________
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.

james t kirk

Well, yeah, but the UN has this thing called a charter. It's sort of like the constitution in that it's supposed to be the law.

And the UN charter basically says that it can not attack a country that has not attacked another country.

Since Iraq had not attacked another country since 91, the UN couldn't very well disobey it's own rules and go in and take out Iraq. It doesn't work that way.

What luck for rulers, that men do not think.

Please list examples of how Iraq was a threat to the United States.

Tyrannical meglomaniacs. I like that. The current leader of Kazakhstan apparently makes Saddam look like your kindly grandfather type. But the USA backs this guy up all the way.

Why is that?

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2001/eur/8275.htm



Like what?


By the way, where is Osama these days?

And from what i have read, Osama and company weren't motivated by your perceived apathy, they were motivated by the US presence in the middle east, Saudi Arabia, etc.

Peetster

This has been discussed at length in other posts.