- This topic has 59 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 18 years, 5 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Well, it was soon after 9/11 and we feared that Saddam had WMDs and would be willing to arm terrorist organizations like al quada with them in their quest to do us harm.
I wont force you to take my word for anything. I dont serve in the military to do that. You believe what you want to believe. Your right, there are alot of oppresive dictators around the world and no we arent going after all of them. Do I think we should. Hell yes! Do I make the rules. No, I just follow them. Even though we have the greatest country in the world and the best military to boot. One dictator at a time please. We cant do em all in one day, one month, or one year.
Do I think this war serves our best interests? YES! YOUR DAMN RIGHT IT DOES! Why? Because alot of those dictators, like momar kadaffi (sp- too lazy to look it up) are now backtracking on alot of policies because we said we were going to go in and remove Saddam and we did. In case you didnt see the news, lybia killed its WMD and Nuclear programs after we did regime change in Iraq. Dictators are now aware that you dont F*&% with the US or we will replace you. Even North Korea is backing down on the whole nuclear issue. That my friend is what I call \”In our best interests\”. Its in our best interests to have a safer world globally, not just in the US. Not just where we live. But everywhere.
Having been to the middle east and spoken with troops on the ground I would say a majority of those we talk to say it sucks but we are doing a good thing. Yes its a mess yes its dangerous yes we made some mistakes. (Thank you paul bremer)
Is the president taking this country in the wrong direction? No. You get Clinton in there what did he do to prevent terrorist attacks. How did he respond to the cole? How about the embassy bombings? Oh he sent a few cruise missiles in..stirred up the hornets nest and left he mess for someone else to clean up.
To try and sum up what I am saying I will try and use a Krav Reference. Is it in your best interest to do a 3rd party gun defense if you dont know the person your defending? Would you still do it because its the right thing to do? Would you put your life on the line to save a random stranger on the street?
Yeh, sure…our interests. While we’ve been dicking around in Iraq ($220 billion+ spent, and counting), North Korea and Iran have been giving us the finger with their nuke aspirations. Iran = fundamentalist islamist state = Al Qaida’s pal. N. Korea = isolated totalitarian regime that despises the US and has threatened us repeatedly and NOW has nukes = potential Al Qaida pal.
Ron, with every action there’s a positive and negative reaction. Yes, Lybia is now more apt to toe the line regarding their weapons program. Yes, Syria pulled out of Lebanon much more willingly than it would if we weren’t in Iraq. But, I wouldn’t fire up the grill just to cook up one pork chop, and neither would I say this war was worth a few positive side-effects.
And now, we’re totally stuck there…and yes, it IS a quagmire, like Vietnam. We’re fighting a war of attrition against an enemy that likes dying for their cause. They don’t wear uniforms and melt into the population at will, hence, no set fronts but rather a front anywhere and everywhere. The only way to win such a war is to kill insurgents’ families, friends, and neighbors, something we won’t do. It will be a long wait until Iraq will be able to deal with this insurgency all on its own without resorting to the same methods Saddam would have used, which kind’a negates this whole ‘liberate Iraq’ thing, no? US pullout in 2006? Ha!
ok then GV, what do you think the correct course of action should have been? And why do you think we went to war in iraq?
Re:
quote \”Andre\:ok then GV, what do you think the correct course of action should have been? And why do you think we went to war in iraq?I already said why we went to war. And, although I was initially for going into Iraq, I now realize what an entirely rash decision it was. I thought surely we had concrete evidence that Saddam has WMD’s and he’s plotting with Al Qaida against us. I mean, no way we’d invade another country, bomb the shit out of it AND rebuild it just on a series of guesses. And yet, that’s exactly what happened. That’s some irresposible use of power, methinks.
As for your other question, I think we should have left things alone with Saddam, maybe even opened up a line of communication with him. There was no love between him and Al Qaida and he would have been a good enough ally against them. As Giantkiller pointed out, we’re already buddies with our share of cruel hitleresque dictators, so hey…can’t have too many friends. 😆
I don’t think we’re gonna succeed in Iraq unless we stay there for like another 5 years or something, and spend another hundred billion on a mess that we created in the first place. This talked about pullout in ’06 will see terror attacks all over Iraq, which will rapidly overtax the fledgling Iraqi national guard and toss the country into a civil war. Perhaps that’s the best thing, actually. I say let the Sunnis and Shiites duke it out, and then the Kurds could form their own state and become the second democracy in the middle east. Go Kurdistan!
I honestly don’t think Khadafi gave up his WMD program because he is scared of the US attacking his country. We used to talk about Libya a lot, now it’s way down on the list of countries to attack. I think he just seized the opportunity to improve relations with the US. He helps us with the Al Qaeda thing, we look the other way when it comes to possible human rights abuses or oppression of the opposition in his country. He probably wasn’t going to use the weapons anyway, or he could have done so a long time ago, so this might have seemed like a good informal deal to him.
Same with North Korea. They are toying with us now. They know we’ll be tied up in Iraq for a while, so they use their nuclear weapons program to try to get concessions out of us. Maybe they try to see how much they can get away with, because right now they know we are not posing an imminent danger to them.
As to why we went into Iraq, I’ve been asking myself that same question. I’ve never been in favor of it, even if there had been a small amount of WMD. Iraq never posed a danger to us. I think Bush, Jr probably did see some threat there, but also wanted to finish the job Bush, Sr started. They really wanted to get rid of Saddam, whether or not he posed an imminent danger to us. And that there was a lot of oil in the country probably also aided that decision.
By the way, John, I’d be interested to hear your opinion on the use of torture on detainees. I know you are busy, but I was just wondering…
\”…although I was initially for going into Iraq, I now realize what an entirely rash decision it was.\”
At the junction when it was decided we had to go to Iraq, there was overwhelming evidence from multiple international intelligence agencies that Iraq was trying to obtain a nuclear stockpile. At that point, there are only two options, to invade Iraq, or leave them to their own devices. To invade required that the US commit itself to a full on war to prevent any further proliferation. To not invade required that we turn our back on a man that mustard bombs his own people routinely, to focus our attention on others. So in short, not taking Saddam out of play would have been gross negligence since we can live with taking a despot out of power, as opposed to leaving him there. If there had been an Iraq sponsored attack on the US after Sept.11 that could have been prevented, then we would be wondering why we didnít go into Iraq and oust Saddam. And to say thatís not true is defying syllogistic logic.
ìI mean, no way we’d invade another country, bomb the #### out of it AND rebuild it just on a series of guesses. And yet, that’s exactly what happened. That’s some irresponsible use of power, methinks.\”
So how do you go from thinking that were justified to going in the beginning to thinking that we just bomb countries by throwing darts at a map and going with the ebb and flow. And what makes you the judge of unilateral power, as opposed to those whose charge it is to protect us and this countries best interest.
\”As for your other question, I think we should have left things alone with Saddam, maybe even opened up a line of communication with him. There was no love between him and Al Qaida and he would have been a good enough ally against them. As Giantkiller pointed out, we’re already buddies with our share of cruel hitleresque dictators, so hey…can’t have too many friends.\”
Youíre joking right? Saddam killed millions of his own, and between Clintons bombing in 98′, Desert Storm, and the UN’s multilateral (insert joke about UN’s uselessness here 8) ) weapons inspections, there was no ####### chance for an open like of communication. He, as a man, is so criminally insane that I didn’t even want respond to that part of your statement. They can humanize him all they want by saying he loves Doritos and walks in the Park on a Sunday afternoon in the media, but it doesnít change the beast that he was.
\”I don’t think we’re gonna succeed in Iraq unless we stay there for like another 5 years or something, and spend another hundred billion on a mess that we created in the first place.\”
What price would you put on the civil war, both monetarily and in terms of human life? Thatís what Iraq is going through; itís a moment in time. And the only way to uproot Islamic fundamentalism in the region is choice (see me later for my thoughts on 22nd cent China). The power that those people get to wield by simply showing up to vote is astounding.
And calling Iraq, Vietnam is nothing but talking points, along with the boo hoo, N.korea has missles, why didn’t we stop him. You can blame Clinton for N.Korea’s proliferation, he literaly gave them the technology. Vietnam spanned several Presidencies, and damn near a trillion dollars, as well as costing over a million US soldiers lives to be lost. As well as countless more to be injured. So before you sling around these phrases and statements, stop and think aboutn what your saying.
The last thing, the WMD’s that \”weren’t there\”, but according to John Kery around last years election, those were the same WMDs that the terrorist where using against our soldiers. But how can that be, if they dont exist, how can they be used ❓
P.S.
The administration also just finished bartering a deal with N.Korea to extinguish there Nuclear weapon program.And Giant, even if that was the case, didn’t the country wonder why Bush 41 didn’t finish the Job in Desert Storm. As one can observe in the overtones of the movie \”Three Kings\”. So now the \”job is finished\”, but he shouldn’t have? Sometimes you can’t win for losing.
Some of the stuff you said is wrong. Hussein didnt kill \”millions\” of his own people. He didnt use mustard gas \”regularly\”. When he did use it, he used stuff that the US sold him. There wasnt \”overwhelming\” international evidence that he had WMD. The inspectors on the ground were saying he didnt have any.
Also you are using a hypothetical not logic. You say if there had been an Iraq-led attack on the US after 9/11 then we would be wondering why we didnt go in there. That is true in the same way it is true that if Belgium attacked the US after 9/11 you would be wondering why you didn’t go in there. Both countries had about the same intention of attacking the US.
A stronger argument is to suggest this hypothetical: if the US concentrated its efforts on finding Osama Bin Laden then maybe attacks in Bali and Spain and London might have been stopped.
Even that argument is not good because al queda is spread out, but it is a better argument. 😉 😉 😉
I’m done with this conversation after this.
darkhorse, who are you talking to?I’m no retard. He killed millions, if not damn near. Have you never seen pictures of the mass graves in Iraq. In regards to the mustard gas, your right, he liked variety, so he alternated between his rape rooms, and serin gas also, with many others forms of death mixed in also.
So your telling me there weren’t UN sanctions that he ignored? Your telling me that the British, Italian and so on intelligence that seemed concrete enough for even Kennedy to vote for war was bad, but yet nobody of significance in the senate or house decided to speak out against the war in the beginning. Your telling me that even current intelligence that says the WMDs are in Syria, or neighboring countries after being moved, are also incorrect?What I used wasn’t a hypothetical, if it was, I would have presented it as such. No one can deny what the reaction would be if the US took no action. It would have been the \” why didn’t you save us from evil Saddam crowd\” crying bloody murder.
\”When he did use it, he used stuff that the US sold him. \”
Why do you present your argument like the US just sold them armorment, like were a bastard country. And by the way, the US provides mostly intelligence and training to other nations, not WMDs. Its simply not in our best interest.
I’ve said this elsewhere, and I’ll say it again. You believe that catching Bin Laden would end terrorism? That’s the same logic that jailing John Gotti will end all organized crime. And whens the last time that you’ve tried to find one man, out of over six billion people?
\”Even that argument is not good because al queda is spread out, but it is a better argument.\”
Your words, but somehow there are no terrorist in Iraq, but their still spread out?
Why is everyone so willing to believe that were the cause of the worlds troubles? And no one even tries to contemplate my points or even think maybe the US isn’t to blame.. The points get skirted, and \”the US sucks\” is basically the message that gets inserted.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
