# 9 American Soldiers Were Killed In Iraq Yesterday...



## Jonathan Randall (Dec 4, 2006)

9 American Soldiers Were Killed In Iraq Yesterday. Please tell me what their deaths are accomplishing? The situation in Iraq is getting WORSE, not better. Is there an end in sight? What is the objective? And don't give me **** about _not _supporting "the troops". If I had had my way NO troops woulld have been sent to Iraq. I SUPPORT the troops. It is the right-wing kool-aid drinkers "freedom is on the march!" folks who don't.


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Dec 4, 2006)

****ing sociopaths.


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Dec 4, 2006)

**** you *******s who memorized right wing talking points in order to sell this war to a frightened American people. Do you know who is most responsible for the debacle in Iraq? The President? Defence Secretary Rumsfeld? NO! It is the Joe Sixpack who listened to right-wing talk radio and memorized its talking points and called ANYONE who dissented "an anti-American" who is MOST responsible for this mess.

You put your _party_ before YOUR country. *******s!

I am an American first and last. I was opposed to the Iraq War because I saw it contrary to the best interests of the U.S.A. Screw you who played the patriotism card.


----------



## mrhnau (Dec 4, 2006)

Jonathan Randall said:


> **** you *******s who memorized right wing talking points in order to sell this war to a frightened American people. Do you know who is most responsible for the debacle in Iraq? The President? Defence Secretary Rumsfeld? NO! It is the Joe Sixpack who listened to right-wing talk radio and memorized its talking points and called ANYONE who dissented "an anti-American" who is MOST responsible for this mess.
> 
> You put your _party_ before YOUR country. *******s!
> 
> I am an American first and last. I was opposed to the Iraq War because I saw it contrary to the best interests of the U.S.A. Screw you who played the patriotism card.



There are alot of people who are American. About 3000 people who were American were killed in 9/11. Have you forgotten? Where is the rage for this? Where is the rage for the train bombings in Spain and London? How about the embassy bombings across the world? Suicide bombers in Tel Aviv? Why is there no rage for police murdered? Victims of drunk driving? Training accidents in the military?

We went into Iraq in a search for weapons of mass destruction based on intellegence. Overall, it appears that intellegence was mostly wrong. This invasion was done as part of the war on terror.

So, we are now in Iraq. We have thousands of foreign fighters streaming into Iraq. I'd wager the highest concentration of terrorist currently exists in Iraq. They may not have been there before, but they are sure there now.

So, we do what you think is patriotic. We pull out. Terrorist proclaim another victory, because we have not dealt with the problem. Think they are planning on staying in Iraq? Where do you think they will be going? Terrorism is no longer a local problem. With technology, planes, etc, they can be and go anywhere.

So, you want the best interest of the USA and don't want us to play the patriotic card. Those wanting to be in Iraq WANT the best interest of the US. Cowering in our own boarders is not going to solve the problem. The analogy to WW2 is scary. Why did we go into Germany? We were attacked by Japan. SURELY there was no reason to invade Europe. Let THEM deal with their problems. If this were to happen, Europe would have fallen to the Nazi regime. Think they would stop there? Same thing here. The world is no longer a closed system. Hiding in our shell is simply not going to work.

I've stated this before. I'd love to pull out of Iraq. We will be leaving the country in a worse mess then when we came in. Even Democrats are not openly suggesting an immediate withdrawl. Get the country where they can support themselves and defend themselves. At this point we can pull out w/out sounding the death knell of the country. This is not going to happen next week. Deaths will occur until that point. Deaths occur during war. That is part of war.


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Dec 4, 2006)

mrhnau said:


> There are alot of people who are American. About 3000 people who were American were killed in 9/11. Have you forgotten? Where is the rage for this? Where is the rage for the train bombings in Spain and London? How about the embassy bombings across the world? Suicide bombers in Tel Aviv? Why is there no rage for police murdered? Victims of drunk driving? Training accidents in the military?


 
And Iraq had WHAT to do with this?


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 4, 2006)

Jonathan Randall,

I have to disagree with your ascertion of responsibility. The responsibility of the Iraq debacle falls specifically upon the Republican Party.

The leader of the Republican Party is President Bush. He initiated this war. He has been the 'calcium in the backbone' in continueing this war.

The President has had the complete and total unwavering support of the rank and file Republican's in both chambers of Congress; so much so, that the minority party, now that they are in minority, are looking to give away the giant 'Rubber Stamp' they made as a prop for the House Floor.

Joe SixPack, while mostly sharing in responsibility, was presented from all angles overwhelming information to support the Republican Party; Television, Radio, Newspaper all presented the 'Party Line'. How could Joe SixPack not come to believe in the presented material? With Judy Miller presenting the Vice President's cherry picked intelligence on the front page of the 'Liberal' New York Times, how can Joe SixPack make quality discernments on the issue.

I found this is a good article ... 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/the-republicans-lost-iraq_b_35432.html

In this article, Cenk makes the point, that the "Blame Game" is about to start being played by Team R - pointing directly at the Democratic Party.

The Republicans Are Responsible !  Make no mistake about it. 

The Republicans Are Responsible.


----------



## mrhnau (Dec 4, 2006)

Jonathan Randall said:


> And Iraq had WHAT to do with this?



Where are the terrorist NOW? As I stated, there seems to be a stream of terrorist heading into Iraq.

Were there terrrorists in Iraq at the time of invasion? Evidence seems to say its unlikely.


----------



## mrhnau (Dec 4, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> I have to disagree with your ascertion of responsibility. The responsibility of the Iraq debacle falls specifically upon the Republican Party.



I'll mostly agree. I think the faulty intellegence played a significant part into the initial thinking. If Saddam had been transparent about weapons we would not have had a problem. Not allowing inspectors when required was not exactly a smart move. The UN had no real backbone for enforcing their rules, especially with Russia, France and Germany having veto power. Being on the take in the Oil for Food program would seem to influence their veto power.

Fault abounds. Its not -only- on the Republican party, but they bear their own share.


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Dec 4, 2006)

mrhnau said:


> Where are the terrorist NOW? As I stated, there seems to be a stream of terrorist heading into Iraq.
> 
> Were there terrrorists in Iraq at the time of invasion? Evidence seems to say its unlikely.


 
The two are NOT mutually exclusive - fighting them _either _here or there. 9/11 took at most a few dozen. Iraq, like Afghanistan under the Soviets, is serving as both a training ground AND unifying force for groups and sects that would otherwise be at each others' throats.

Stop drinking the Kool-aid, look at the evidence and let your party hang if necessary to save your country.


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Dec 4, 2006)

mrhnau said:


> I'll mostly agree. I think the faulty intellegence played a significant part into the initial thinking. If Saddam had been transparent about weapons we would not have had a problem. Not allowing inspectors when required was not exactly a smart move.


 
There were inspectors on the ground in Iraq WITH unrestricted access in the months before the invasion. Your information  comes from right-wing propaganda.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 4, 2006)

mrhnau said:


> I'll mostly agree. I think the faulty intellegence played a significant part into the initial thinking. If Saddam had been transparent about weapons we would not have had a problem. Not allowing inspectors when required was not exactly a smart move. The UN had no real backbone for enforcing their rules, especially with Russia, France and Germany having veto power. Being on the take in the Oil for Food program would seem to influence their veto power.
> 
> Fault abounds. Its not -only- on the Republican party, but they bear their own share.


 
Saddam Hussien was completely transparent about his weapons. He provided UNMOVIC a report of thousands of pages. He made repeated public ascertians that he had no weapons. 

UNMOVIC had unfettered access to all areas in Iraq in the fall of 2002, and winter of 2003.

The one weapon system UNMOVIC discovered was a short range missle. Iraq was allowed to have missles of 150 kilometers in range. UNMOVIC destroyed missles with range of 159 kilometers. This was the only discovered violation of missles.

That Saddam Hussien was uncooperative, is a 'Big Lie' that the Republican Party spins, to shift blame, from them to anyone else. 

There were no weapons in Iraq.


----------



## mrhnau (Dec 4, 2006)

Jonathan Randall said:


> Stop drinking the Kool-aid, look at the evidence and let your party hang if necessary to save your country.



btw, not my party. I'm not a Republican. I see evidence quite fine. Two people given identical facts will have different views of what to do about it. We still live in a country where this is permissible, unlike in Iraq before the invasion. Thats why we debate. Hopefully a civil converstation that does not include such clever interjections as " 	****ing sociopaths.", "**** you *******s " and "You put your _party_ before YOUR country. *******s!". If you want a civil conversation, please try to act civil.



> The two are NOT mutually exclusive - fighting them _either _here or there. 9/11 took at most a few dozen. Iraq, like Afghanistan under the Soviets, is serving as both a training ground AND unifying force for groups and sects that would otherwise be at each others' throats.



This may be true. Are you endoring a civil war in Iraq then? Do you believe we will be left alone and our country fine if we show weakness and run in fear?


----------



## mrhnau (Dec 4, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> Saddam Hussien was completely transparent about his weapons. He provided UNMOVIC a report of thousands of pages. He made repeated public ascertians that he had no weapons.
> 
> UNMOVIC had unfettered access to all areas in Iraq in the fall of 2002, and winter of 2003.
> 
> ...



I watched the news every night when this crap was happening. I recall several broadcasts when Bush warned Hussein to be transparent and allow inspections to resume. He chose not to. It's no "Big Lie". Surely you were paying attention back then in real time.

Public assertions and documents are wonderful. Until its verified, its just that: paper and speech. Words are nice, proof is more meaningful.

I also recall videos of trucks leaving labs ahead of inspections. They had word of impending inspections. If I recall correctly, large masses of Anthrax in Syria were found near the Iraq boarder. Think thats circumstantial? I also recall anti-aircraft fire being shot at our planes in/around the no fly zone being enforced. *shrugs* I guess thats all part of the "Big Lie".  Bush Sr. should have finished the job.


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Dec 4, 2006)

mrhnau said:


> btw, not my party. I'm not a Republican. I see evidence quite fine. Two people given identical facts will have different views of what to do about it. We still live in a country where this is permissible, unlike in Iraq before the invasion. Thats why we debate. Hopefully a civil converstation that does not include such clever interjections as "     ****ing sociopaths.", "**** you *******s " and "You put your _party_ before YOUR country. *******s!". If you want a civil conversation, please try to act civil.


 
How can I be civil about the unconscionable waste of human lives, both Iraqi and American?. How can I ignore the right wing dishonest call for perpetual war? No, I believe, very strongly that a large number of Americans put the _appearance _of patriotism before the actuality and chose the cheap route of supporting the Invasion over the harder, less politically acceptable, route of raising objections? Objections based upon the best interests of the U.S.?


----------



## mrhnau (Dec 4, 2006)

Jonathan Randall said:


> How can I be civil about the unconscionable waste of human lives, both Iraqi and American?.



Allow me to repeat myself.

_There are alot of people who are American. About 3000 people who were American were killed in 9/11. Have you forgotten? Where is the rage for this? Where is the rage for the train bombings in Spain and London? How about the embassy bombings across the world? Suicide bombers in Tel Aviv? Why is there no rage for police murdered? Victims of drunk driving? Training accidents in the military?
_ 


> How can I ignore the right wing dishonest call for perpetual war?


There is no call for perpetual war.



> No, I believe, very strongly that a large number of Americans put the _appearance _of patriotism before the actuality and chose the cheap route of supporting the Invasion over the harder, less politically acceptable, route of raising objections? Objections based upon the best interests of the U.S.?



Key word... you believe. We have the right to have our own beliefs. Others have beliefs that differ from your own. A majority of Americans elected George Bush as president. Perhaps you voted the other way. However, this is a democracy. The last election made the statement that public view is changing. That fine, thats how democracy works. In the next presidential election the process will work again.

Want to raise objections? Feel free! I maintain the right to do the same or support whatever route I feel is right. I don't like my opinions being called having "the appearance of patriotism before the actuality", but thats your view. It is also debatable if your views represent the best interests.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 4, 2006)

mrhnau said:


> I watched the news every night when this crap was happening. I recall several broadcasts when Bush warned Hussein to be transparent and allow inspections to resume. He chose not to. It's no "Big Lie". Surely you were paying attention back then in real time.
> 
> Public assertions and documents are wonderful. Until its verified, its just that: paper and speech. Words are nice, proof is more meaningful.
> 
> I also recall videos of trucks leaving labs ahead of inspections. They had word of impending inspections. If I recall correctly, large masses of Anthrax in Syria were found near the Iraq boarder. Think thats circumstantial? I also recall anti-aircraft fire being shot at our planes in/around the no fly zone being enforced. *shrugs* I guess thats all part of the "Big Lie". Bush Sr. should have finished the job.


 
It's verified now, isn't it? 

Trucks driving around means what, exactly? 

UNMOVIC said they found no evidence of weapons prior to the invasion. UNMOVIC was directed out of the Iraq by President Bush, because they would be in harms way.
UNMOVIC has stated with more time, they would have been able to declare Iraq in compliance with the obligations of the UN Mandates.
Hussein's delegation to the United Nations presented a report that said they had no weapons.
Hussein and his spokespersons said they had no weapons.
Our military found no weapons.
The Iraq Survey Group found no weapons.

Add that all up, and it comes to the realization that *no amount of evidence* would have been sufficient.

We have the proof now, don't we? ... when it is all too late.


----------



## Lisa (Dec 4, 2006)

*ATTENTION ALL POSTERS IN THIS THREAD:

Please keep the conversation polite and respectful. 

Lisa Deneka
MartialTalk Super Moderator*


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 4, 2006)

This article is interesting. It is linked here to demonstrate why Joe SixPack might have not been able to form an opinion outside what the media spin presented. 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/03/AR2006120301108.html



> Although given little public credit at the time, or since, many of the 126 House Democrats who spoke out and voted against the October 2002 resolution that gave President Bush authority to wage war against Iraq have *turned out to be correct in their warnings. . . *


 


> Rep. David R. Obey (Wis.), who will chair the Appropriations Committee, was among the group that organized the Democrats. He spoke then about poor preparation for postwar Iraq . . .
> 
> Obey's district was 70 percent in favor of going into Iraq,


 


> The day after the House vote, The Washington Post recorded that 126 House Democrats voted against the final resolution. None was quoted giving a reason for his or her vote except for Rep. Joe Baca (Calif.), who said a military briefing had disclosed that U.S. soldiers did not have adequate protection against biological weapons.


 
Mr. Pincus' reporting before, during, and after the invasion was always spot on. His skeptical stories were often buried on page A-18 (as opposed to Ms. Miller's front page publication).

Once again, he presents an excellent case full of newsworthy, and noteworthy, information.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 4, 2006)

It is commonly believed in the UK that when Bush jnr became President he would takes steps to remove Saddam purely and for no other reason than because his father had failed to. So it was no surprise to many of us when Iraq was invaded. I don't think anything was going to stop Bush going to war and yes we blame Blair every bit as much. The 'facts' about WMD was going to be manipulated to read whatever the governments wanted them to read. Blair admitted that the reports were 'sexed' up and a government scientist employed by our MOD working on those reports died in strange circumstances. 
 Frankly I don't care about 'saving face', I don't care who appears to win anymore, I just want the Armed Forces, all of them home, from Afghanistan too. I want the deaths of children and innocent people to stop in Iraq too and I really don't care how much the politicians whinge and squirm, there must be a way for it to be done.Stuff egos and appearances, I can't believe that war is the only way.
   The children I teach in our martial arts club are aged 4-13, most of them have one parent away in Iraq, mostly fathers. The children are 'playing up' a little now, the anxiety is showing, the mothers put brave faces on and carry on being 'normal' for their families. A couple of children have their mothers In Iraq. We've had deaths too and everyone wonders, who's next? The politicians who believed the war was a good idea at the time need to come down to earth and start saving lives not throwing them away.


----------



## Cryozombie (Dec 4, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> I have to disagree with your ascertion of responsibility. The responsibility of the Iraq debacle falls specifically upon the Republican Party.



Yeah, cuz 100% of Republicans supported it, and 0% of Democrats did.

Party ******** at its best.

JR, you are, of course right about the party line thing, but it clearly runs both ways, and both sides are full of *******s.  Lets stop pointing fingers and FIX it.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 4, 2006)

Cryozombie said:


> ..... Lets stop pointing fingers and FIX it.


 
I agree wholeheartedly with that! The governments of the US and the UK are busy thinking about their re- election chances and how they 'look' to the electorate when they should be doing all they can to bring a solution to the Iraq and Afghanistan problems. The thing I hate the most is when the politicians tell us that we don't understand the situation out there and they know best.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 4, 2006)

Let us not forget all of the democrats who voted for this war.  Let us not forget all of the democrats who could have been out there among the American people trying to spread the truth of this war.  Let us not forget the two-faced lying scumbags who stood by and did nothing...or worse...made big shows of opposition but continually voted for this trainwreck.  

Partisan blame spreads thin among all of those who support the military industrial complex.


----------



## HKphooey (Dec 4, 2006)

Let's not forget the psycho gassed thousands of people.  I would call that a weapon of mass death!  

I have asked many soldiers their thoughts, and each said they will go back without hesitation.  The news is not showing any of the good.  I hat to see any soldier killed.  There are many areas of Iraq that are safe and prospering.  

Yes, in restrospect, maybe we should not be there, but anyone can be a Monday morning QB.

And it is not a party-thing.  The both have plenty of blame.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 4, 2006)

HKphooey said:


> Let's not forget the psycho gassed thousands of people.


 
I'm not going to deny that Saddam gassed his own people, but, the story is much more complicated then the propaganda that is thrown into the echo chamber back in the US.

Lets not forget who gave Saddam the chemicals for the gas, gave him the helicopters to carry it out, and watched dispassionately while the whole thing was going on.

IMO, we don't need to monday morning quarterback Iraq.  We shouldn't be there...end of story.  The evidence was crystal clear and I am absolutely ashamed that the Democrats failed to stand up for what was right.  

All of those "yes" votes were politically motivated...and that sickens me.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 4, 2006)

HKphooey said:


> Let's not forget the psycho gassed thousands of people. I would call that a weapon of mass death!
> 
> I have asked many soldiers their thoughts, and each said they will go back without hesitation. The news is not showing any of the good. I hat to see any soldier killed. There are many areas of Iraq that are safe and prospering.
> 
> ...


 
You are aware that soldiers can be court martialed and thrown in jail if they speak against the Commander-in-Chief. They really aren't a good source for an objective opinion.

Many power sources around the globe have done horrible things to their citizens. To mention the gassing of the Kurds, which too place in the 80's, isn't really a very good argument. Someday, someone may make the argument that the United States Nuked Hiroshima and Nagisaki. They would be accurate, wouldn't they?

There are not "many" areas that are safe in Iraq. The Kurdish north is relatively calm. But that is because it has been operating independently since 1992, when the first Gulf War ended. During the intervening years, the Kurds operated under the protection of the United States no fly zone. They were able to establish an effective local government. 

However, are you arguing that we should expect to be in Baghdad for the equivilent 14 years ... to establish similiar stability? That is not what I was told by the people in power; President, Vice President, Secretary of Defense and his undersecretarys, National Security Advisor and her undersectretaries, and the Secretary of State. 

Further, the Kurds would be just as happy to see Iraq disolve. So, while their particular region is relatively stable, were they to secede, things would get far worse, not better. 

Lastly, I would ask anybody proposing there is plenty of blame to go around, to please spend some time using "The Google" to review "PERMANENT REPUBLICAN MAJORITY". 

The Democratic Party of the last 5 years has been completely neutered. They had no power, no authority, no nothing. They were able to play one card - once, when a brave Democratic Senator called the full Senate into a closed session to discuss the Phase Two portion of the report about the Bush Administrations mis-handling of intelligence. 

Any 'YEA' votes from the Democratic members of the Congress, were completely meaningless in terms of policy. The Republican Controlled Congress would have carried all votes anyhow. Sure, those votes helped the Congressman become a candidate that couldn't be painted into the peacenik hippie crowd, but in terms of policy - nothing. 

This disaster lies completely at the foot of the Republican President and his Rubber Stamp Republican Permanent Majority. 

As for fixing it ... yes, the Democrats will again come in and clean up after the children ... there are people calling for an immediate withdrawl. I point anyone who thinks otherwise to Dennis Kucinich's web site. 

How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 4, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> The Democratic Party of the last 5 years has been completely neutered. They had no power, no authority, no nothing. They were able to play one card - once, when a brave Democratic Senator called the full Senate into a closed session to discuss the Phase Two portion of the report about the Bush Administrations mis-handling of intelligence.


 
A Senator or a Congressmen always has power.  They have two legs and a mouth and a mind and a name.  And I have known a few that would take the show on the road in order to drum up support for unpopular ideas that just happened to be right.



> Any 'YEA' votes from the Democratic members of the Congress, were completely meaningless in terms of policy. The Republican Controlled Congress would have carried all votes anyhow. Sure, those votes helped the Congressman become a candidate that couldn't be painted into the peacenik hippie crowd, but in terms of policy - nothing.


 
More "NO" votes would have shown the world that this country is not unified by this cause.  It would have provided more unity among democrats...instead we got politics.   



> This disaster lies completely at the foot of the Republican President and his Rubber Stamp Republican Permanent Majority.


 
I just don't believe this.  Can you imagine what a group of 10, 20, or 30 senators could have done if they had traveled the country together and brought all of those who cared to Washington to voice their opinion?  There would have been millions of people protesting PNAC's illegal war.

That sort of thing used to happen in our country's past.  Sadly, it is not the case anymore...



> As for fixing it ... yes, the Democrats will again come in and clean up after the children ... there are people calling for an immediate withdrawl. I point anyone who thinks otherwise to Dennis Kucinich's web site.


 
Unless the Democrats get serious about impeaching Bush on the various crimes he has committed in office, the best they can acheive is a holding pattern for two more years.  The worst thing they could do is to keep going along with this trainwreck by attempting to "fix" the problems in Iraq.

IMHO, if we don't want to be there for 20 years spending trillions of dollars, the only viable solution is to cut and run.  

Kucinich is one voice among a sea of people who are still playing politics while people are dying.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Dec 4, 2006)

i blame partisanship.

we're in a war of aggression in order to establish (one could say maintain) a global empire.  i'm not saying that's a bad thing.  historically, well-run empires have been good overall (han china, british, roman, even mongol) with some exceptions (nazi germany, ussr).

what i object to is that we citizens don't get a say in this.  it doesnt' matter if we vote dem or rep (sorry, mikeedwards).  both parties are so caught up in their power struggle that their squabbling is more important than the good of our society.

the united states needs a progressive, independent party with some actual teeth.  if we, as a nation, want to rule the world, then lets vote for it and fire up the legion.  but let's not get caught up in hating some puppet from texas while the real criminals saunter away out of the spotlight.


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Dec 4, 2006)

mrhnau said:


> Allow me to repeat myself.
> 
> _There are alot of people who are American. About 3000 people who were American were killed in 9/11. Have you forgotten? Where is the rage for this? Where is the rage for the train bombings in Spain and London? How about the embassy bombings across the world? Suicide bombers in Tel Aviv? Why is there no rage for police murdered? Victims of drunk driving? Training accidents in the military?_
> 
> ...


 

*My apologies* - it terms of "sociopaths" and false patriotism, I was speaking specifically about the talk radio hosts who constantly and consistently toe the party line over a critical examination of what is in the bests interests of the country rather than their party. The extreme folks on both sides do this. I did NOT mean and apologize for sounding this way, MT members who supported the war. *I also specifically apologize to Mrhnau for my comments about "drinking the kool-aid". They were uncalled for.*

Rage for 9/11? Of course. Even the President admits that Iraq had nothing to do with _that_.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Dec 5, 2006)

Jonathan Randall said:


> 9 American Soldiers Were Killed In Iraq Yesterday. Please tell me what their deaths are accomplishing? The situation in Iraq is getting WORSE, not better. Is there an end in sight? What is the objective? And don't give me **** about _not _supporting "the troops". If I had had my way NO troops woulld have been sent to Iraq. I SUPPORT the troops. It is the right-wing kool-aid drinkers "freedom is on the march!" folks who don't.


 

The Objective: To create a stable government in Iraq.  One which does not condone or sponsor terroism, and is friendly to the American people and government.

Are they accomplishing that?  Well that is certainly to be debated.



> There were inspectors on the ground in Iraq WITH unrestricted access in the months before the invasion. Your information comes from right-wing propaganda.


 
After the paradigm shift which occurred after 9/11, the Bush Administration decided not to mess around any more.  It is historical fact that Saddam Hussein would allow inspectors in, with "unlimited access", only to kick them out again, or impose restrictions which would allow him to circumvent the UN Resolutions.  At what point do we say, "Enough is enough?"  Saddam Hussein was very much the con artist in this regard.  It was not:



> That Saddam Hussien was uncooperative, is a 'Big Lie' that the Republican Party spins, to shift blame, from them to anyone else


 


> Lets not forget who gave Saddam the chemicals for the gas, gave him the helicopters to carry it out, and watched dispassionately while the whole thing was going on.


 
You're absolutely correct.  We gave Saddam Hussein the gas to kill people, in the hopes that he would use it against a worse enemy (to the U.S), Iran.  Were we wrong for that.  Historians will continue to debate it.  

What a lot of people seem to forget is that the UN resolution not only asked do you have, or are you developing WMDs, but also what did you do wiht the stuff the U.S. gave you.  They were never able to adequately establish that.  

Now, my opinion.

We were correct to go after Saddam Hussein.  After 9/11 (and in my opinioin before that) we could no longer stand by why innocent people were killed in the name of Islam, Jihad, fatwah, etc.  Especially in our own country.  The paradigm shifted to not just defeating those specifically involved in that attack, but those who supported terrorism, like Hussein (ie. $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers, training camps, etc.).  The U.S. throughout the years (from 1975) had suffered too many acts of terrorism.  9/11 is just the one that brought it home to most Americans.

And lets face it, our military did an excellent job in defeating the Iraqi Army and security forces.  With very few casualties suffered by us.

Where the Administration went wrong, IMHO, is that they misunderstood the culture of the Middle East.  These are not people who's culture allows for a true democracy (or republic, if you will).  They are generally tribal, with power structures embracing a single leader, usually genetically inherited.  Also, their religious practises are not conducive to these type of governments either.

We should have gone in there, taken out Saddam and his children (who were reportedly worse then him), installed a dictator (or similar) who was friendly to us, and let them go their own way.  If that dictator we installed was taken out, so be it.  But the threat (openly stated) would be that if you act against us, we will return.

We are forcing on the Iraqi's something that they don't understand, nor will their culture or religion allow it.  That is where the Administration messed up.


----------



## HKphooey (Dec 5, 2006)

_"You are aware that soldiers can be court martialed and thrown in jail if they speak against the Commander-in-Chief. They really aren't a good source for an objective opinion."_

I very well a aware of what can/cannot be doen to a soldier.  Do you really thinj that keeps a soldier from taking to friends and family about their opinions.  One would just keep their mouth shut if they disagree, not promote what they are doing.  

And how can you say they are not a good source of an objective opinion?  They are there.  They see things first hand.  They put their life on the line for a cause in which they believe.  Do you think the opinions we base on a CNN and books written by college professors make us all the better at forming an objective opinion.

Looking back with all the facts, I will agree with the "next guy", we should not have gone.  But we are there and we made that choice.  We need to get a better plan and ask the rest of the world to support the cause.

I always enjoy these discussions because it brings out a lot of great points and it nice to read other people's opinions.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 5, 2006)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> The Objective: To create a stable government in Iraq. One which does not condone or sponsor terroism, and is friendly to the American people and government.
> 
> Are they accomplishing that? Well that is certainly to be debated.
> 
> ...


 
The objective was not to install a stable government in Iraq. It was to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction. And to prevent the use of those weapons against the United States and her allies. 

All other objectives have grown up to justify the invasion "ex post facto".

Another error in this thought process is when you attribute killings of innocent people to Saddam Hussein in the name of "Islam", or "Fatwah". Saddam Hussein led a secular government. Religion was allowed, but not supported by the government. One of the most popular Iraqi's in the world, is Former Iraqi United Nations Ambassador Tariq Aziz. After serving as Ambassador, he functioned as Deputy Prime Ministier. Mr. Aziz is a Christian. In the first Iraqi war, Aziz was the voice of Iraq.

By linking Hussein and Iraq to religious fervor and fundamentalism, you lead into the last, and most aggregious error. Your argument about the 'culture' of the middle east, not allowing for democracy, is an argument of racism. You propose that "those people" are incapable of self rule, and our best option is to stand up a, 'Our son of a *****' government.

Egypt and Jordan have both implemented democratic reforms that run counter to your argument of tribal, inherited authority.

The 'problem' our government has encounter is that you can't implement a democracy at the gun point. 

There are further problems that you hint at with your tribal argument. And you are correct in the Administration created a significant error by not learning of the history and ecomonics of the area before invading. Iraq is not a natural country. It was created by the empirical British 80 years ago. Without a strong man to keep the country unified, it will revert to its natural state; three different groups living in proximity. 

Whether the people of Iraq unify or 'balkanize' is complete acceptable to me. What is not acceptable, is that United States soldiers die in service of those objectives and that the United States tax payer pays (and pays, and pays) for it.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 5, 2006)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> You're absolutely correct. We gave Saddam Hussein the gas to kill people, in the hopes that he would use it against a worse enemy (to the U.S), Iran. Were we wrong for that. Historians will continue to debate it.


 
According to our own government at the time of the deed, Saddam was gassing villages he believed had sided with Iran.  The particular villages in question were in open rebellion and were aiding the enemy (Iran).

So he dealt with the threat.

Now, before anyone jumps up and starts screaming, do you know what the threshold for collateral damage is for every single bomb we drop in Iraq?  30 non-combatants.  So, if we drop 200 bombs to *deal with a threat*, and kill 6000 non-combatants without even blinking an eye, how different are we?


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 5, 2006)

HKphooey said:


> _"You are aware that soldiers can be court martialed and thrown in jail if they speak against the Commander-in-Chief. They really aren't a good source for an objective opinion."_
> 
> I very well a aware of what can/cannot be doen to a soldier. Do you really thinj that keeps a soldier from taking to friends and family about their opinions. One would just keep their mouth shut if they disagree, not promote what they are doing.
> 
> ...


 
I think soldiers who state a desire to 'get back in there' are speaking of a committment to 'Billy' and 'Frankie', who were lying next to them in a fox hole, or playing cards with them in the cafeteria, or manning the gun on the HumVee. I do not think soldiers who state a desire 'get back in there' are speaking of a government policy that intertwines military, ecomonic, and political agendas. 

I would also suggest that any one soldier's point of view is too limited in scope to be considered an objective source about what is happening in Iraq. A couple of video clips linked to on this board show that; one with a soldier kicking a soccer ball around with some kids, one with a soldier taunting some children with a bottle of water. Only through the advent of video sharing do we see these two opposing images - but which one will be the one the soldier tells us about, and gets passed on amid claims that 'no good news gets reported'.

In your last assessment, we have a problem. And this is the sad thing. As many have said, we are left with a choice of no good options, and having to choose among bad options. And in this there has been a complete lack of accountibility. And, with the hubristic way the United States government has acted toward foreign countries since 911 (you're with us, or you're with the terrorists), we have not given the world a reason to support our misguided objectives. The other nations, in their own self interest, may be willing to play a part, but it will come at a high price for we citizens of the United States; a price that we may be unwilling to pay.


----------



## Cryozombie (Dec 5, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> I would also suggest that any one soldier's point of view is too limited in scope to be considered an objective source about what is happening in Iraq.



But any one puppet for the liberal agenda who will ignore 100 positives to focus on a single negative is objective?

PLEASE.  We know which story is gonna get passed on, the one how our soldier TORTURED those poor children by denying them water.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Dec 5, 2006)

> The objective was not to install a stable government in Iraq. It was to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction. And to prevent the use of those weapons against the United States and her allies.


 
I will reply by simply saying the same thing another way.  The objective was to overthrow Saddam Hussein, a person, and be extension a regeime, who sponsored terrorism and posed a threat by giving the enemies of the U.S. weapons of mass destruction.  In doing so, we sought to institute a regeime with would not do those things, and be friendly towards the U.S. and its allies.



> Another error in this thought process is when you attribute killings of innocent people to Saddam Hussein in the name of "Islam", or "Fatwah". Saddam Hussein led a secular government. Religion was allowed, but not supported by the government. One of the most popular Iraqi's in the world, is Former Iraqi United Nations Ambassador Tariq Aziz. After serving as Ambassador, he functioned as Deputy Prime Ministier. Mr. Aziz is a Christian. In the first Iraqi war, Aziz was the voice of Iraq.


 
I will assume that my wording was faulty and will attempt to clarify.  I was not attempting to say that Saddam Hussein his activities for religious reasons.  And also, he never made an attack by terrorist means on the U.S.( although he continually shot at our planes in the no-fly zone, an activity which went essentially unanswered militarily until the invasion).  However, he supported those who attacked us for religious reasons by providing them with training, weapons (possibly WMD's, which was the concern), and economically (eg.: $25,00 to the families of religious suicide bombers).  Saddam Hussein was no fool.  He would only go so far in attacking the U.S. 



> By linking Hussein and Iraq to religious fervor and fundamentalism, you lead into the last, and most aggregious error. Your argument about the 'culture' of the middle east, not allowing for democracy, is an argument of racism. You propose that "those people" are incapable of self rule, and our best option is to stand up a, 'Our son of a *****' government.
> 
> Egypt and Jordan have both implemented democratic reforms that run counter to your argument of tribal, inherited authority.


 
Your very statment provides proof to my argument.  What reforms do you have to make to a culture that will already readily accept a democracy?  The answer is none.  If their current culture allowed for democracy, and the people wanted it, then they could easily have it.  That the people of those countries want a democracy is great, but they have to change their cultural mindset.  It is not racist to say such, just as it is not agism to state that the elderly are old.  It is what it is.

You also need to recognize that neither Egypt (republic in name only, but not in actuallity) nor Jordan (a constitutional monarchy) are anywhere near being a practicing republic (democracy).  



> The 'problem' our government has encounter is that you can't implement a democracy at the gun point.


 
I agree, especially after you devastate a country through a war, wether justified or not.  It is up to "those people" to have self-determination for their govermental type.  We can even help them if asked.  But again, I say we reserve the right to return if they "mess up."




> There are further problems that you hint at with your tribal argument. And you are correct in the Administration created a significant error by not learning of the history and ecomonics of the area before invading. Iraq is not a natural country. It was created by the empirical British 80 years ago. Without a strong man to keep the country unified, it will revert to its natural state; three different groups living in proximity.
> 
> Whether the people of Iraq unify or 'balkanize' is complete acceptable to me.


 
I agree.  Personally, everyday I see more and more reason to support the three country system over there.  We should not force upon them a government type.  We can, however, protect ourselves from their government should the need arise.



> What is not acceptable, is that United States soldiers die in service of those objectives and that the United States tax payer pays (and pays, and pays) for it


 
Again, I think the "nation building" effort should have ended a long time ago.  But the Administration messed up, and they have to clean up their mistakes.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Dec 5, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> Now, before anyone jumps up and starts screaming, do you know what the threshold for collateral damage is for every single bomb we drop in Iraq? 30 non-combatants. So, if we drop 200 bombs to *deal with a threat*, and kill 6000 non-combatants without even blinking an eye, how different are we?


 
What makes us different is that our governments attempt to avoid those casualties as much as possible.  To Saddam Hussein, all of the people in those villages you refer to were the enemy, wheter they were fighting or not.

Net effect, for every 200 bombs dropped, 6,000 non-combatants died.  But when did this become a perfect world.  That's like trying to blame the cop who shoots a bystandard accidentially, while he was actually trying to hit the bad guy.  Would you be so quick to convict him/her and say he was as evil as the bad guy?  I somehow think not.


----------



## Cryozombie (Dec 5, 2006)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> Would you be so quick to convict him/her and say he was as evil as the bad guy?  I somehow think not.



Ohh... watch that assumption, I'd bet money you would see certain people here screaming how the cop was responsible and all cops should be disarmed, and it was probably intentional excessive force anyhow.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 5, 2006)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> What makes us different is that our governments attempt to avoid those casualties as much as possible. To Saddam Hussein, all of the people in those villages you refer to were the enemy, wheter they were fighting or not.


 
"You go to war with the army you have, not the one you want."

Donald Rumsfeld



> Net effect, for every 200 bombs dropped, 6,000 non-combatants died. But when did this become a perfect world. That's like trying to blame the cop who shoots a bystandard accidentially, while he was actually trying to hit the bad guy. Would you be so quick to convict him/her and say he was as evil as the bad guy? I somehow think not.


 
The problem is that "the cop" in this case didn't have any case to start shooting in the first place.  So much for minimizing casualties...


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Dec 5, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> The problem is that "the cop" in this case didn't have any case to start shooting in the first place. So much for minimizing casualties...


 

That is your opinion.  Based on the information known *at the time* and under the totallity of the circumstances, one can say that we were justified in going to Iraq.  It will probably be continued to be argued for a long time.


----------



## mrhnau (Dec 5, 2006)

Jonathan Randall said:


> *My apologies* - it terms of "sociopaths" and false patriotism, I was speaking specifically about the talk radio hosts who constantly and consistently toe the party line over a critical examination of what is in the bests interests of the country rather than their party. The extreme folks on both sides do this. I did NOT mean and apologize for sounding this way, MT members who supported the war. *I also specifically apologize to Mrhnau for my comments about "drinking the kool-aid". They were uncalled for.*
> 
> Rage for 9/11? Of course. Even the President admits that Iraq had nothing to do with _that_.



Thanks man... its really touchy with alot of people. Raises alot of emotion, especially when those making that ultimate sacrifice are your family and friends. I don't wish that on anyone.

In many ways this has been a bad war. I do wish we could leave Iraq and things just go peachy. I've spent alot of time thinking about this, and I don't see a clear exit strategy that is going to be 100% positive.

The war on terror is a difficult thing... one wonders how much is dealing with terrorist and how much our warring is creating the next generation of terrorists. Its just a big nasty mess.

I think I'll be starting a new thread on sacrifice soon... its one I've been contemplating for a while now...


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 6, 2006)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6214078.stm

This has been all over our news today, there have also been comments that it hasn't been on the news in the US. I don't know if thats true or not?

Quote:
Net effect, for every 200 bombs dropped, 6,000 non-combatants died. But when did this become a perfect world. That's like trying to blame the cop who shoots a bystandard accidentially, while he was actually trying to hit the bad guy. Would you be so quick to convict him/her and say he was as evil as the bad guy? I somehow think not. 

The first sentence comes across as being heartless. The second sentence is too much of a generalisation, I can think of many circumstances where neither had to be shot. I think the analogy is not a good one. I've been bombed and it's a little facile I think to say "hey, innocents get killed, shame but we meant well"


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 6, 2006)

The military has announced that 10 US Servicemembers were killed in four seperate attacks today. 

I foresee a time when we are looking back upon 9 or 10 US deaths per day, and thinking it was a good day. Look at the first four years of the United States involvement in Vietnam. While there were lower numbers serving in the early sixties, the casualty rates took a significant increase in the fifth year. 

Those who never learn history (5 deferment Mr. Other Priorities - and MR. skilled out an TANG, except for my dentist appointment) are doomed to repeat it.

I expect the Iraq Study Group report will get as much attention in the White House as the Downing Street Memo recieved. But, it is the buzz of the radio talk shows today. Too late for those ten soldiers though, isn't it.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Dec 6, 2006)

Tez3 said:


> The first sentence comes across as being heartless. The second sentence is too much of a generalisation, I can think of many circumstances where neither had to be shot. I think the analogy is not a good one. I've been bombed and it's a little facile I think to say "hey, innocents get killed, shame but we meant well"


 
I certainly empathize with you.  My point though is that in war/combat, sometimes innocents get hurt.  In modern warfare, its a virtual guarantee that innocents will be hurt or killed.

But the problem is that most are searching for the perfect answer.  There is no such thing.  And sometimes, war is necessary, unless you want to roll over for every strongman that comes around.  But I guarantee you that the strongman thinks he's at war, even if the loser doesn't.

The question is what would you have us do?


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 6, 2006)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> The question is what would you have us do?


 
Disarm (to an extent).  Beat (some of) our swords into plowshares.  This would force us to find peaceful solutions for most problems.  When your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

I believe that we have every right to defend ourselves...but Iraq was no threat.  The world community, through the UN, was taking care of the problem.

And I would like to point out, more people died in Iraq as a result of the US backed sanction plus the damage to their infrastructure from the first gulf war.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Dec 6, 2006)

> Disarm (to an extent). Beat (some of) our swords into plowshares. This would force us to find peaceful solutions for most problems. When your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.


 
How can we consider beating our swords into plowshares as an individual country, when there are those out there who seek our destruction?  To what level do we disarm?  We already handicapped our military during the Clinton-era.  What more would you have the government do?

And I don't think that we only have hammers for tools.  However, when you see a nail, you need a hammer, not a wrench.



> I believe that we have every right to defend ourselves...but Iraq was no threat. The world community, through the UN, was taking care of the problem.


 
And am I the only one who see's the UN as a impotent joke?  Please explain to me just what exactly has the UN accomplished in the last 25 years.

When you have some of the worst human-rights violators on the Human-Rights Commission of the UN, it's the most tragic of ironies.

And the UN was not taking care of Iraq.  How many times did Iraq restrict or out and out kick out the UN Weapons Inspectors?  How many times did Saddam Hussein shoot at planes patrolling the northern and southern No-Fly Zones.

I wonder, if you have kids, how many times it would take or your child saying to you, "**** you", before you spanked them.




> And I would like to point out, more people died in Iraq as a result of the US backed sanction plus the damage to their infrastructure from the first gulf war.


 
Let's see, the Oil-For-Food program, which ostensibly allowed Iraq to sell its oil to feed the people was filled with corruption by the overseeing body.  Who was that body: the UN.

Instead of buying food, Saddam bought other things, like houses and palaces, and you guessed it, weapons.  

So is that really our (the U.S.) fault that people died, while we tried to keep ourselves and Iraq's neighbors safe.

You seem to be attributing all of the good things about Iraq to the UN, and all of the bad things to the U.S., without examining the historical truth of the matter


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 6, 2006)

Going back to the point should we have invaded, it was said that based on the information we had at the time we should have. The problem with that is that the information we as the electorate was given was not the information that the governments actually had. Blair admitted that the reports were 'sexed' up, that some of it was based on a these by a university student several years ago.
You also asked if we should roll over for every strongman that comes along but who made Saddam strong? The west did, he was sold weapons with which he went to war against Iran, where was keeping the neighbours safe then? What threat was Iraq really? Very little in fact. This is not a just and moral war, it's a dirty little squabble between a very powerful nation and one of it's allies who did the dirty on them, as they should have known they would. What's not little is the ensuing death toll.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Dec 6, 2006)

Tez3 said:


> Going back to the point should we have invaded, it was said that based on the information we had at the time we should have. The problem with that is that the information we as the electorate was given was not the information that the governments actually had. Blair admitted that the reports were 'sexed' up, that some of it was based on a these by a university student several years ago.
> You also asked if we should roll over for every strongman that comes along but who made Saddam strong? The west did, he was sold weapons with which he went to war against Iran, where was keeping the neighbours safe then? What threat was Iraq really? Very little in fact. This is not a just and moral war, it's a dirty little squabble between a very powerful nation and one of it's allies who did the dirty on them, as they should have known they would. What's not little is the ensuing death toll.


 
I can't speak to what information was given the the British people, as I'm not there.  But, the information given to the Amercans was, for the most part truth, another part incorrect (though not intentionally false) information.

And the west did not roll over for Saddam Hussein for Iran.  We used him, plain and simple.  We used him as fodder to fight a war against Iran, who at the time, was a worse enemy than he was. 

One could argue that if you lie with dogs, don't be surprised if you get fleas, but this ain't that simple.

And people get this impression (and I'm taking it that you do too) that we were worried about Saddam's T-55 and T-72 Main Battle Tanks marching down Main Street, USA.  That is not the case.  He was attacking our allies (and interests), and using surrogates (like Al-queida) to do the same.  He was paying the families of suicide bomber $25,000 for their actions.  That's why we went into Iraq.

And the fear was, that since he was not being forthcoming about his WMD programs, that these surrogates would obtain them and use them to attack us, a very real and possible fear.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 7, 2006)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> I can't speak to what information was given the the British people, as I'm not there. But, the information given to the Amercans was, for the most part truth, another part incorrect (though not intentionally false) information.
> 
> And the west did not roll over for Saddam Hussein for Iran. We used him, plain and simple. We used him as fodder to fight a war against Iran, who at the time, was a worse enemy than he was.
> 
> ...


 
No I wasn't thinking you were worried about the tanks marching down your streets! I work for the Ministry of Defence and maybe have an even clearer idea than most of the situation over there. Iraq and Iran were never the main problem, Syria was and still is.
 American intel is lacking because they don't use humint which gives a much clearer view of a countries situation ( I have spent over 30 years in the Int business mil and civvie). You did get false information because it came from us and it's since been proved to be false, you were intentionally lied to as Blair lied to you as well as us. What allies in particular was Saddam attacking? The Kurds? Turkey has been killing them for years without a squeak from western governments. Kuwait? As I've said their human rights record is worse than Saddams yet again the west never said a word, only when the supply of oil was endangered did the west decide to do something about it. Thats the bottom line... money and oil. A dirty war.


----------



## Sukerkin (Dec 7, 2006)

A most pertinent last sentence there, *Tez* :tup:.  

Real world geo-politics in action was what we observed when the Anglo-American world power decided to flex it's military muscle.

I shouldn't imagine that there are many who don't believe that the root cause of rolling into the Middle East was the black stuff that comes out from under the sand (oh and to field test some of the new destructive toys on targets who largely could not respond).

I'll read this thread through in a minute (I admit I've reflex posted here to my shame ) to see what the core ideas are but I just want to add one thought to the mix.  

'We' have lost quite a number of soldiers 'keeping the peace' (oh the irony) over in Iraq.  I do not for a second want to lessen the appreciation of the impact on the families of the fallen, nor am I a raving Arabo-phile or anti-Western thinker (I'd far rather live here than there thank you very much) but the number of Iraqui's slain during this period has been monumental.  I just hope we can spare a little sympathy for them amidst our grief for our own.

Now to go read so that I can comment in an informed manner rather than just being a bleeding-heart liberal bleating on about how we all suffer when we slay each other :blush:.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 7, 2006)

Sukerkin, sometimes first thoughts are the best!

I live in the largest garrison in Europe, written in graffiti on one of the local walls was this, obviously written by a soldier.....

" Fighting for peace is like *****ing for virginity". Crude but pithy.


----------



## jazkiljok (Dec 7, 2006)

Tez3 said:


> No I wasn't thinking you were worried about the tanks marching down your streets! I work for the Ministry of Defence and maybe have an even clearer idea than most of the situation over there. Iraq and Iran were never the main problem, Syria was and still is.
> American intel is lacking because they don't use humint which gives a much clearer view of a countries situation ( I have spent over 30 years in the Int business mil and civvie). You did get false information because it came from us and it's since been proved to be false, you were intentionally lied to as Blair lied to you as well as us. What allies in particular was Saddam attacking? The Kurds? Turkey has been killing them for years without a squeak from western governments. Kuwait? As I've said their human rights record is worse than Saddams yet again the west never said a word, only when the supply of oil was endangered did the west decide to do something about it. Thats the bottom line... money and oil. A dirty war.



the hypocrisy of our foreign policy is blatant and has been exposed endlessly to no avail. gadaffi gets tea with blair for a few bucks and good timing, saddam gets jailed for messing with bush's kuwaiti oil princes-- when it was the eighties and reagan, it was the other way around (gaddafi almost killed for messin with kuwait/saud princes, saddam getting tea with rumsfeld.) -- yep, Turkey has been fighting a kurdish rebellion (wait, isn't that what saddam was up against?) and we condone that cause Turkey is an important ally in the region.  Syria has always been a player in the region-- and one that we could just as easily allied with as say Egypt-- enemy or ally? hey, let's see which way the bottle points-- it's all about time and place and practicality and mutually beneficial alliances and screw the millions who suffer from realpoliticking. 

true foreign policy would have created lines of communication in the mideast that could have avoided most of the turmoil we've seen in the last 50 years-- as James Baker finally stated- we CAN talk to our enemies- we did it with the Soviet Union and China for 50 years and managed to avoid world war 3 and even untangle a few serious other conflicts.

the neofarts with their hellbent kill'em if they don't like macdonalds on every  street corner mentality has screwed this country up to no end. now they all just get to quietly vanish into history, write books, take on prestige jobs at schools, think tanks, etc... sipping tea as 100,000s of thousands have died and suffered from their big ideas and, ahem, good intentions.

money and oil? perhaps.. but dont' forget ideology and vanity's side tango.


----------



## CoryKS (Dec 7, 2006)

Tez3 said:


> Sukerkin, sometimes first thoughts are the best!
> 
> I live in the largest garrison in Europe, written in graffiti on one of the local walls was this, obviously written by a soldier.....
> 
> " Fighting for peace is like *****ing for virginity". Crude but pithy.


 
Only if you think peace is something that magically happens all by itself.  Peace always requires enforcement.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Dec 7, 2006)

> No I wasn't thinking you were worried about the tanks marching down your streets! I work for the Ministry of Defence and maybe have an even clearer idea than most of the situation over there. Iraq and Iran were never the main problem, Syria was and still is.
> American intel is lacking because they don't use humint which gives a much clearer view of a countries situation ( I have spent over 30 years in the Int business mil and civvie). You did get false information because it came from us and it's since been proved to be false, you were intentionally lied to as Blair lied to you as well as us. What allies in particular was Saddam attacking? The Kurds? Turkey has been killing them for years without a squeak from western governments. Kuwait? As I've said their human rights record is worse than Saddams yet again the west never said a word, only when the supply of oil was endangered did the west decide to do something about it. Thats the bottom line... money and oil. A dirty war.


 
In the area of the Middle East, it appears to me America has always had trouble with humint.  In my opinion, we tend not to trust Muslims in that part of the world, so using them for intelligence purposes isn't gonna happen.

And if we got lied to by those who supposedly do know, then why blame the U.S.?  We went there on the best information that we had, according to you.

And as I said before, but maybe should have said clearer.  The role of an individual government is to protect the citizens of that country.  What do you think wars have always been about, "Give me what I want (need) peaceably, or I will take it by kicking your butt."  To think otherwise would be childish.

I'm not arguing that it was not a war for oil.  I think that is very much a part of it.  We wouldn't need stability in the region were it not for the oil there.  Hence, look at the Sudan (which the French are blocking the UN from doing anything about due to their oil interest there).

Are their alternatives, sure.  It's called bio-diesel.  But for right now, we have to do what we have to do.

But also, and a bigger part, is that we needed to make sure that Muslims stop attacking us for not being Muslim, and for assisting Isreal, an ally in the region (and that's not just for oil).  Come on people, most of the leaders in that country have stated some form of the phrase: "Death to America!!!"  And we have been attacked by Muslims of the region for not being Muslim.  Enough is enough.




> the hypocrisy of our foreign policy is blatant and has been exposed endlessly to no avail. gadaffi gets tea with blair for a few bucks and good timing, saddam gets jailed for messing with bush's kuwaiti oil princes-- when it was the eighties and reagan, it was the other way around (gaddafi almost killed for messin with kuwait/saud princes, saddam getting tea with rumsfeld.) -- yep, Turkey has been fighting a kurdish rebellion (wait, isn't that what saddam was up against?) and we condone that cause Turkey is an important ally in the region. Syria has always been a player in the region-- and one that we could just as easily allied with as say Egypt-- enemy or ally? hey, let's see which way the bottle points-- it's all about time and place and practicality and mutually beneficial alliances and screw the millions who suffer from realpoliticking.
> 
> true foreign policy would have created lines of communication in the mideast that could have avoided most of the turmoil we've seen in the last 50 years-- as James Baker finally stated- we CAN talk to our enemies- we did it with the Soviet Union and China for 50 years and managed to avoid world war 3 and even untangle a few serious other conflicts.


 
I find it interesting that you say that we "talked" with the Soviet Union and China.  For one thing, we attempted (while "talking" with them), and ultimately succeeded in economically bankrupting the Soviet Union.  We forced them to spend billions on the military that they could ill-afford (a la Star Wars, among others).

We have spoken with Iraq, Iran, etc., but they have been attacking us (directly or indirectly) while we speak with them.  So what do we do about it?  Continue to be attacked, while they tease us with talking.

They have said they want the world to become Muslim and if we don't die.  Let's deal with that fact people.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 7, 2006)

CoryKS said:


> Only if you think peace is something that magically happens all by itself. Peace always requires enforcement.


 

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. 

M. Ghandi


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 7, 2006)

"Jaw jaw is better than war, war"  Winston Churchill

Our government lied to us, your government lied to you. Don't imagine poodle Blair did this off his own bat!

America doesn't use humint in any country, it relies on satellites and yes I do think Bush and Yo Blair do have the mentality of 'give me what I want or I'll kick your butt'. It was called Gunboat Diplomacy in the days of the Empire.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Dec 7, 2006)

Tez3 said:


> "Jaw jaw is better than war, war" Winston Churchill
> 
> Our government lied to us, your government lied to you. Don't imagine poodle Blair did this off his own bat!
> 
> America doesn't use humint in any country, it relies on satellites and yes I do think Bush and Yo Blair do have the mentality of 'give me what I want or I'll kick your butt'. It was called Gunboat Diplomacy in the days of the Empire.


 

As you know, humint comes in many forms, not necessarily the spy of the movie industry.  Business people, journalists, foreign nationals, and diplomats.  I can't agree that we have no human intelligence assets in any country of the world.  Although I will agree that we rely too heavily on technological assets for most of our intel.

And remember this about Winston Churchill as well:  

There can never be absolute certainty that there will be a fight if one side is determined that it will give way completely_ always held the view that the maintenance of peace depends upon the accumulation of deterrents against the aggressor  

and

"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last."

and 

"One ought never to turn one's back on a threatened danger and try to run away from it.  If you do that, you will double the danger.  But if you meet it promptly and withouth flinching, you will reduce the danger in half." 
"By this time next year we shall know whether the policy of appeasement has appeased, or whether it has only stimulated a more ferocious appetite."

and finally:

"You had the chance to vote for appeasement or to vote for war. You have voted for appeasement, and you shall get war."_


----------



## Sukerkin (Dec 8, 2006)

I don't necessarily disagree with the fundamental principle that, whilst most of the world are not pacifists or Buddhist, you have to be prepared to show that you can defend what you have.

That's not the circumstance that applies with regard to the 'Iraq' question.

If it had been true that they had weapons of mass destruction then, coupled with the tendency for Arab rhetoric to be rather over-hyperbolic, it would be much easier to justify the overwhelming application of force to eradicate the threat.  As I've said elsewhere, the primary function of a military is to project force in such a fashion as to remove your enemy's ability to project force - the usual precis is "break stuff and hold ground".

However, what the reality of the situation is that there is a lot of oil under the sand over there and 'our' governments want to secure the supply of that oil for themselves.  Again, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with that except that the tool they chose to use for this was the huge military left over from the cold war ... might as well get _some_ use of it it eh?

I'll have to come back later .. bosses looming .


----------

