dksuddeth

and we know why this was done, right? not that it should have been nor was it a very ethical thing to do.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Willravel

Who was it who said: "The flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag"?

aceventura3

I did not support Vietnam. If I had been old enough to have been drafted, I would have choose jail.

My point is that some wars have to be fought. I think the war on terror, the invasion of Iraq had to occur given the circumstances. I guess we will always disagree. I understand that, just like there are some who disagree with me regarding Vietnam.

During WWII there were many who wanted nothing to do with getting involved in the war in Europe, and Germany did not invade us. In the end I doubt there are many who thought that war was not worth the price. I don't use who invaded who first as the primary reason for war.

aceventura3

I think it was Sun Tzu. And I think he referred to the fact that soldiers will only following leaders who take care of them. Support of the flag requires resources and soldiers will follow where resources are available for provisions or something like that.

The Reagan twist on Tzu's Art of War; was compasion through strength, or out spending your enemy will lead to your enemies defeat without firing a single shot.

Reagan was a lot easier to understand than Tzu.

Willravel

I would have been right there with you.
I think the war on terror and the war on Iraq are very much different. The war on terrorism targets individuals linked with terrorism and planning terrorism, people and groups not necessarily associated with a country or government. For example: we want to catch and bring to justice those who were involved in the bombing of a US embasy, who happened to be Saudi. We do not want to go attack Saudi Arabia. The attack and invasion on Iraq on the other hand, has more to do with economic control, regional stability, vengence, and regional control than bringing people to justice.
The primary reason for war is defence. We were not in danger from Iraq (except for our planes flying over Iraq dropping bombs, those could be shot down, but I suspect you can see the difference).

Charlatan

Is your condescension neccessary? Why don't you act like an adult and just say what you are thinking rather than acting like a goof.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

shakran

You're right. Clinton should have gotten him, no matter what the idiots in congress said. And we as a nation should have been howling in rage over the fact that Clinton wasn't getting him. Unfortunately we were too busy howling in vicarious lust over the fact that Clinton got it on with a bimbo intern.



Oh, well great then. Let's treat all criminals like that. As long as we don't think they're in a position to commit crimes, don't bother capturing them. Ken Lay isn't head of Enron anymore so he can't pull that crap any more. Let's not punish him either.

Oh, and by the way, Pajhwok Afghan News is reporting they just received a bin Laden video. If that turns out to be true, it kinda blows your whole theory outa the water

That organization is Al Qaeda. Not Iraq. See, they're two different things. No matter how many times Bush says their names in the same sentence, that still won't connect them. Go after Al Qaeda. Not Iraq.

Gee, killing you or Halx or the guy down the street eliminates any potential threat you three might cause too. Of course, the fact that there is NO credible evidence that there's any such threat from any of you should cause your executioners to reconsider, shouldn't it?

Ahh I get it. We as the greatest democracy on earth, the country that believes in the freedom of choice, should be allowed to take out anyone we don't like, even if he doesn't pose a threat to us.

There's a word for that. It's called imperialism. Some would also call it barbarian.


Bull SHIT. That's a GREAT argument for you because it's one that, if we accept the premise, you can never lose. You go on the premise that pointing out someone died needlessly disrespects the person that died. That's not only wrong, it's stupid. If that's the case, Columbine should never have been reported, because in order to tell anyone about it you have to talk about needless deaths.

Saying that we've killed 2,000 soldiers is not disrespectful of those soldiers. It is not unsupportive of the troops to want to bring them home to their families where they are safe.

If you want to talk about not supporting the soldiers, how about not supplying them with the necessary equipment (erm. . .ARMOR?) or numbers to get the job done? How about forcing national guard soldiers, who signed up to defend the country and help out in natural disasters - not to fight optional foriegn wars, to stay in Iraq for far longer than their regular army counterpoints? How about bringing national guard units home and then sending them back out 3 months later?

If you want to accuse someone of not supporting our troops, look to the commander in chief.

pan6467

One thing I do question is what was the cost when Bin Laden was offered to us?

I do wonder if there were strings attached, plus at the time AL-Quida was at it heighth in "power" and Clinton could have feared that by taking him we'd see a lot of terrorism on US soil.

Or perhaps (and I am sure the Right will laugh and ridicule me for saying this) Clinton didn't because of what Bin Laden could say about his past dealings with the US and it would be more damaging than we may ever know. This very well could be the reason why Bush doesn't truly seek him out.

With Saddam, there isn't much that could come out that would harm us as much, if at all.

I don't think we'll ever truly know the truth, and maybe it is best we don't in some cases.

One thing I do give credit to Bush for is that Al Quida seems to have been weakened beyond repair. Key word "Seems". But he lacks the initiative to destroy it completely.... and sometimes if you do not destroy something, it comes back stronger than ever and you don't get the second chance to destroy it.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

dksuddeth

my apologies if my posts came across in a condescending manner. They were not meant to be. I simply asked so I knew where it was you were coming from and with what information you knew about it.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

cybersharp

Yet you realize that in all those wars you listed, it was AMERICANS fighting for AMERICAN freedom. Of course freedom is not free, but what makes it our duty to pay for the middle easts "freedom and stability" with American lives?

Is the cost worth chancing a "maybe" gain? A gain that would still probably be unlasting in that Iraq has been rather volatile for a VERY long time and while probably contunue to be so.

__________________
0PtIcAl

shakran

Someone's gonna jump on you for WWII since we fought the Japanese AND the Germans, and the Germans weren't attacking us. We must remember, though, that Germany DID declare war on us. That gave us more justification to fight than we ever had in the current situation.

Rekna

I think the main difference between Iraq and the other wars is who was the agressor. In the previous ones we were defending ourselfs or others against an agressor in this war we are the agressor. There is a huge difference between defending yourself or a nation that cannot defend itself and attacking a nation. Yes Saddam was bad but now we are fighting a war against Iraqi's. Iraqi's are targeting american's, our soldiers are escalting the problems.

There are a bunch of very interesting polls in this weeks Time.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...139829,00.html


Overall, how would you say things are going these days ...

... in your life? Very well .......... 22% Quite well .......... 49% Quite badly .......... 18% Very badly .......... 11%

... in Iraq overall? Very well .......... 14% Quite well .......... 30% Quite badly .......... 23% Very badly .......... 30%

•What is your expectation for how things will be a year from now ...

... in your life? Better .......... 64% Same .......... 14% Worse .......... 12%

... in Iraq overall? Better .......... 69% Same .......... 11% Worse .......... 11% ...

BUT WANT SECURITY TO BE RESTORED

•What is your main priority for Iraq over the next 12 months? (Top five answers) Regaining public security .......... 57% Getting U.S. forces out .......... 10% Rebuilding infrastructure .......... 9% Increasing oil production .......... 7% Having a stable government .......... 5%

63% said dealing with members of the Saddam Hussein regime is “no priority at all”

•How has the security situation changed since Iraq regained sovereignty in June 2004?

Those saying it's better Better: 41% Don't know: 10%

Who is responsible for the improvement? Iraqi police .......... 28% Government .......... 22% Iraqi army .......... 12% Security forces .......... 10%

Those saying it's worse Worse: 31% Same: 18%

Who is responsible for the deterioration? Americans .......... 34% Government .......... 30% Terrorists .......... 17% Iraqi police .......... 5%

•Do you think security will improve or worsen in a year? Improve .......... 70% Worsen .......... 12%

•How safe do you feel in your neighborhood? Very safe .......... 63% Not very safe ..........30%

OPTIMISM, BUT OLD DIVISIONS REMAIN Iraqi public opinion is remarkably upbeat, but behind the numbers are the ethnic rivalries that have long split the country. The Sunnis, who held power under Saddam Hussein, feel the most aggrieved

ENTIRE COUNTRY Life is better since the war .......... 51% U.S. was right to invade Iraq .......... 46% Feel very safe in neighborhood .......... 63% Approve of new constitution .......... 70% Oppose coalition forces .......... 64%

KURDISH AREA Life is better since the war .......... 73% U.S. was right to invade Iraq .......... 80% Feel very safe in neighborhood .......... 91% Approve of new constitution .......... 88% Oppose coalition forces .......... 22%

SHI’ITE AREA Life is better since the war .......... 59% U.S. was right to invade Iraq .......... 58% Feel very safe in neighborhood .......... 82% Approve of new constitution .......... 85% Oppose coalition forces .......... 59%

BAGHDAD AREA Life is better since the war .......... 59% U.S. was right to invade Iraq .......... 47% Feel very safe in neighborhood .......... 70% Approve of new constitution .......... 79% Oppose coalition forces .......... 72%

SUNNI AREA Life is better since the war .......... 25% U.S. was right to invade Iraq .......... 16% Feel very safe in neighborhood .......... 21% Approve of new constitution .......... 36% Oppose coalition forces .......... 85%

THEY WANT A STABLE DEMOCRACY ...

•Which of these systems would be best for Iraq ...

... now? A democracy .......... 57% A dictatorship .......... 26% An Islamic state .......... 14%

... in 5 years? A democracy .......... 64% A dictatorship .......... 18% An Islamic state .......... 12%

•How much confidence do you have that the elections planned for this month will create a stable Iraqi government? A great deal .......... 42% Quite a lot .......... 34% Not very much .......... 14% None .......... 5%

•Percentage who think women should be able to ... 99% ... vote 99% ... be a doctor 84% ... drive a car 80% ... run for national office 78% ... instruct men at work 77% ... run for local office 51% ... be Governor 46% ... be President

… BUT HAVE LITTLE PRAISE FOR THE U.S.

•Since the war, how do you feel about the way in which the U.S. and other coalition forces have carried out their responsibilities? Very good job .......... 10% Quite a good job .......... 27% Quite a bad job .......... 19% Very bad job .......... 40%

•Do you support or oppose the presence of coalition forces in Iraq? Strongly support .......... 13% Somewhat support .......... 19% Somewhat oppose .......... 21% Strongly oppose .......... 44%

•When should coalition forces leave Iraq? When security is restored .......... 31% Now .......... 26% After a new government is in place .......... 19% When Iraqi security forces are ready .......... 16%

This poll was conducted for TIME, ABC News, the BBC, NHK and Der Spiegel by Oxford Research International. Interviews were conducted in person from Oct. 8 to Nov. 13, in Arabic and Kurdish, among a random national sample of 1,711 Iraqis age 15 and older. Margin of error is +/- 2.5 percentage points.

The fact is many Iraqi's do not want us there, they don't want us there enough that they are attacking us. We are now the enemy.

Here is what we need to do. Withdraw our troops from every city. Hand control of the cities over to local forces but maintain our forces in rural areas outside of the cities. Stay there for a few months and if any cities errupt in violence then move into those cities and retake control. Cities that don't have problems maintain their soverignty. And eventually troops will get moved to trouble areas only. This will do so much good for us. 1) it moves our troops out of harms way 2) it stops the pooring of fule on the fire 3) it prepairs us for a with draw 4) it allows us to focus on trouble areas while leaving other areas alone. 5) It gives Iraqi's the impression that we are leaving and progress is being made. 6) we could start bringing troops home. I'm sure I could list many more points.

I challenge you all to come up with reasons that something like this would be a bad plan.

alpha phi

Rekna:
I say it's excellent
the only thing I'd say different is
seeing as how the Kurds are most stable
I'd move some troops north(into rural areas and accross the border)just in case
then pull out south city by city
If we go all at once.....chaos

__________________

stingc

Sorry to hijack a little, but that in itself was an empty justification. Germany was required by treaty (the Tripartite Pact) to declare war on us after we had done so on Japan. There is considerable evidence that this fact was actually one of the reasons that the American government "encouraged" Japan to start a war with us in the first place. The American public didn't want to get involved in the European war, but the government did. Getting Germany to declare war on us by default was a convenient way to change their minds.

Interestingly, the US had been committing acts of war (by most definitions) against Germany long before war was declared. Despite that, Hitler had given explicit orders that American shipping was not to be attacked if it could be at all avoided. America could have stayed out of WW2 for quite a while (indefinitely?) without being attacked, but I think we'd all agree that that would have been a bad idea.

ScottKuma

I'm seeing this discussion, as many other on this particular forum have, degrade into a Democrat/Republican shi*slinging fest.

What crap.

When we stop dealing with each other as labels such as "right-winger", "liberal", "neo-con", etc., we'll be able to more rationally discuss issues.

These labels are designed to take away our ability to talk with each other, aside from an "I hate the other side" perspective. They're also designed to polarize the politics in this country into two distinct groups. I think we'd be much better off scrapping the Dems/Reps and looking at some of the smaller parties who have some new, fresh ideas for government.

Oh, and so I'm not ENTIRELY thread-jacking...

I'm glad our gov't finally admitted that our intel was faulty. While I don't buy the argument that "we broke it, it's ours" -- Iraq was well and truly broken LONG before we ever stepped into the picture -- I do believe that we further de-stabilized the country and probably the region with our actions. Therefore, we should at least try to assist with re-stabilization. Then we should get the FUCK out.

__________________
A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take from you everything you have.

GoogleMap Me

shakran

Yeah, I know all that - but still, they DID declare war on us, and that means we did have more of an excuse to go to war with them than we did with Iraq.

Charlatan

Apology accepted.

What I was getting at is that I feel the US continues to swing at hornet's nests - sometimes with the best intentions (i.e. arming the mujahideen
in Afghanistan) and sometimes with more shady intentions (i.e. supporting various dictators in Latin America).

The point is, regardless of their intentions on these interventions, the results are generally shitty.

In the case of Iraq, the US supplied Saddam with the very chemicals he used to not only release mustard gas on Iranian soldiers but later on the Kurds. While I can appreciate the fact that the US would be wary of an anti-US movement growing in popularity in a part of the world they depend on for their primary source of energy (oil) the result was just a short term solution.

The true long term solution in the Middle East, the one that Industry would never allow, is to make the US more fuel efficient and to find other sources of fuel.

If you truly want to solve the US problem with the Middle East then just remove the US from the Middle East... or at least greatly reduce its dependance on and interests in the Middle East (I realize I am leaving Israel out of the equation but let's take one step at a time).

The fact is, if the US took these steps, Big Oil and Big Industry would freak out. But wouldnt' this be a better sacrifice than the trillions in military spending and thousands of lives lost?

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

stevo

To me those statistics look rather promising. One in six iraqis (16.66%) overall feel that security is bad because of US forces (34% of 49%). Thats far from the majority. Most iraqis claim their life is better now and most are optimistic about it getting better. Only 1 in 10 iraqis feel that the primary goal should be to get rid of US forces.

__________________
"If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

Rekna

i agree much of it is promising but much it is telling also. look at these ones:

•Since the war, how do you feel about the way in which the U.S. and other coalition forces have carried out their responsibilities? Very good job .......... 10% Quite a good job .......... 27% Quite a bad job .......... 19% Very bad job .......... 40%

•Do you support or oppose the presence of coalition forces in Iraq? Strongly support .......... 13% Somewhat support .......... 19% Somewhat oppose .......... 21% Strongly oppose .......... 44%

•How has the security situation changed since Iraq regained sovereignty in June 2004?

Those saying it's better Better: 41% Don't know: 10%

Who is responsible for the improvement? Iraqi police .......... 28% Government .......... 22% Iraqi army .......... 12% Security forces .......... 10%

Those saying it's worse Worse: 31% Same: 18%

Who is responsible for the deterioration? Americans .......... 34% Government .......... 30% Terrorists .......... 17% Iraqi police .......... 5%

I think these stats are telling in how american troops are precieved.

stevo

And thats why so many iraqis voted in this election. Thats why the sunni turn out was so high. To vote against the occupation. I say things are getting better and to let things run their course. and like I said before and you pointed out again. only 1 in 6 iraqis think the deterioration in security is because of the americans. Far from a majority. I can understand why people could oppose the presence of US forces. But overall I think its promising, it is far from perfect.

__________________
"If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

aceventura3

When did the war against Iraq start? Who started it? I am sure we answer those questions differently, and I think that explains our differing views. Just like we came to the aid of Europe in WWII to stop the aggression of Hitler, I think we came to the aid of the Middle East (Kuwait invasion by Iraq) to stop the aggression of Sadaam. Perhaps the current Bush has the resolve to get the job done.

Rekna

•Do you support or oppose the presence of coalition forces in Iraq? Strongly support .......... 13% Somewhat support .......... 19% Somewhat oppose .......... 21% Strongly oppose .......... 44%

that looks like 65% of Iraqi's don't want the US there. Maybe they should have included on the ballot this week "do you want the US to leave now?" and then we would see what democracy would say.

samcol

I never thought of that question. It would of been very interesting to see what they would of said, although the poll question you quoted seems like they probably would of said 'yes.' Funny how one of the most relevant questions didn't make the list.

stevo

The iraqis just got to vote on their parlimentary representatives. I'm sure many of them ran on the platform that they will do all they can to get the US forces out as soon as possible. I'll bet those people got a lot of votes. Thats how its supposed to work and thats how we will leave soonest. Suicide bombings won't get us out of there any faster, and it appears (as sunnis decided to vote rather than boycott) that the democratic approach is working.

__________________
"If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

Charlatan

I agree with this. I just wonder if the US is ready for real democracy.

What if an election brings to power a government that is Anti-US or that wants to Nationalize the oil fields?

Just speculation. The opposite can be said as well.

What will the insurgents do if a pro-US government is elected that gives *very* favourable to concessions to US led Big Oil?

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

stevo

A. I guess we'd have no choice but to leave then. As long as the system put in place works, we can't complain.

B. I'd assume it would remain bloody, possibly escalate.

What will probably end up happening is somewhere in between.

__________________
"If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

aceventura3

I don't get the connection between what I wrote and the survey question. But, I bet if you surveyed Germans after WWII they would have been in favor of US troops going home too.

pig

I'm not getting involved with the majority of this discussion; in my opinion it's kind of played out. What I will say is, in response to the above, is that if the Iraqi government tries to limit US access to the oil fields, I suspect someone with olive skin and a sweet pair of sunshades in Baghdad is going to be getting a flaming fist of fury shoved up their asses. After the ungodly amount of US $$$ that are flowing in this whole war in Iraq, I strongly suspect that the US and/or US interests will have superduper #1 access to those oil fields.

Charlatan, I agree that it's really funny to me that recently, I haven't heard nearly as much discussion of Middle Easten oil as I do all this stuff about terrorism and Sadaam giving everyone wedgies all the time and balsa wood fliers that could have destroyed North American civilization with mustard gas slathered dirty nuclear bombs, or whatever the argument was supposed to have been of how Iraq posed a tangible thread to the security of the United States.

It seems to me that the only credible reasons to justify a US invasion of Iraq originate and end with concerns over geo-political stability of the mid east, the perceived need of the US to have a stronger military presence in the area, and the need to assure preferential access to oil supplies; which really is one and the same as the need for a stronger military presence. News Flash. We're not really pulling out any time soon.

All this crap about moral reasons to go in, and the evil nature of the former regime, and operation enduring freedom etc. would seem laughable if someone pulled them out in an overnight game of Axis and Allies or the equivalent strategy game; yet somehow we're supposed to buy them in a real live war strategy situation. I mean, I assume our military / government leaders played Risk! or chess or something when they were kids? I just don't understand the position that the US is actually going around the world invading places and spending tres muchos de la denaros because there are bad men hurting people's freedoms all over the place. It just doesn't add up when you consider it in context of what people are doing all over the world, and what our response usually is. The only thing that makes Iraq anything other than a shitty desert that we would see on National Geographic is the assload of oil in the ground, but somehow that's not our chief objective over there?

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

Charlatan

Pigglet... that's exactly what I am getting at but it seems to be the biggest blind spot as far as the US media and the US mainstream discussion of this invasion is concerned.

I think there is plenty of reasons for the US to be concerned about the instability of their supply of oil. Israel aside, oil is the only reason they have ever had for going into the Middle East. And along with the question of Israel, the US precense in the Middle East is the only reason there are those in the Arab/Persian world with a urge to kill Americans en masse.

The anger generated there hasn't always been the US (and other western) government's fault either... the US oil interests did a lot to screw the region and build a foundation of resentment.


I've suggested before that the way to truly solve the Middle Eastern problem is for the US to wean itself from oil. It will be expensive to do this but it can be done. Imagine if the money used to fight this war had been used instead to develop alternative sources of fuel (not get rid of oil completely just reduce the need of oil).

Certain lobbys in the US would never stand for it.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

pig

Agreed. It just seems like a synthetic discussion when we're forced to discuss whether or not some guy from Iraq tried to buy yellowcake from some other guy in Niger, or whether it's possible that some people who might have known some Iraqis could have met potential agents of AlQueda in Poland or whatnot...and I keep thinking to myself that all of that is only marginally related to any decision we're in Iraq. I also get tired of the discussion about "faulty" information from the CIA and friends. I think its far more likely that we had the very best information possible, and that despite some possibly conflicting reports, we were very far from 100% sure of any *WMD" jazz, and I find the notion that I was supposed to scared shitless by the army that we "let's rolled" with some shock & awe in about three days. I think its far more likely that the powers that be (I personally include Congress and many of our wealthy cooporate entities here as well...our gov't. is very far from separated from business interests) knew more or less exactly what they were getting into, and chose to do so anyways. I think that conversation is far more interesting, but we are discouraged from having it lest we be branded traitors and low down dirty dogs.

If the facts are that Americans aren't willing to give up some of their amenities and lifestyle, then yes - we have to have access to escalating amounts of oil. That is directly contrary to the whole "peak oil" realties, and I know for a fact that it's not only hippies that are talking about this. I spoke with people working at US national labs that are having the same conversations, with the same projected data from the US geological survey. I think that the discussion of whether or not the US government has an obligation or credible moral grounds to secure access to the energy source that drives our economy and civilization is much more interesting that a conversation about whether or not bad people are doing bad things in foreign countries. They are. They have been, and it's easy to find documented cases of it where we don't do shit. It seems to me that Iraq is more a question of US oil interests & related economic situations, and Iraq being lowman on the totem pole whom everyone, from Al Queda to Britain to France, could agree they disliked. It was just a question of how to deal with them, and who would take advantage of the situation first. The US did. I don't personal support the decision to do so, but I respect the position that we had to based on securing our access to necessary supplies much more than the argument that we had to because Sadaam was the boogieman.

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style