War In Iraq/Terrorists

[mindido]

There is another group of people out there calling for GB to be tried as a war criminal. They're called terrorists.

I think you may want to double check that quote because I think most terrorists just love old GWB. He's done more for their cause than they could have ever dreamed of!

Don't worry, I'm not Secret Service, but calling for the death of a sitting President is risky business (this IS what you meant, because there is no other result from this kind of trial for those who call for it, you don't call for it just because you want him to be found innocent.)

Actually, you may want to bone up on your constitutional (or international) law a bit because the death penalty is not the ONLY option for a war criminal found guilty. Life imprisonment (amongst other options) is a possibility. So no, I have not called for the death of anyone. Just put him away where he can't make the rest of us look like fools any longer.

 

[mindido]

Just ran across an interesting quote:

"Naturally, the common people don't want war, but it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy and it is a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship. . . Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. . . All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country."

Hermann Goering at the Nuremberg War Trials

I was going to use this in my sig but its just too long and its too interesting to try and shorten.

 

[Duke E. Pyle]

It starts off true but doesn't seem to apply in the US. Unless you for some reason think most people are on W's side. But yeah Iran's got it down to a T. Wonder if that's who he's talking about

 

[mindido]

Duke,

Hermann Goering was the head of the German Luftwaffe during WW II. He said this during his trial at Nuremberg after the war so he certainly wouldn't have known about Saddam (or any other modern Iraqi figures). If I remember correctly, he was either hanged at the end of his trial or he committed suicide in his jail cell (its been awhile since I've studied that era so I can't exactly remember). This would have happened in either 1946 or 1947.

Anyway, I just found the quote interesting as there are some serious parallels to modern US times.

 

[Iceberg]

mindido, Duke said Iran, not Iraq.

I tend to agree with him, that Khomeini and Ahmadinejad are the leaders of the country who drag their citizens towards war, even more so that Iran is no true democracy.

Bush did that to some degree with Iraq, but Americans have by and large rejected the war as of today. Congress and, to some degree, the Senate in the US wants to pull out and leave Iraq to take responsibility for their own country.

Perhaps a better solution is a short term (six months or so) surge in troops, doubling the force, then pulling out would help provide a buffer zone for the Iraqis to manage. I don't know if this would work, however, as I have no knowledge of the situation on the ground. Can someone with military knowledge of the situation in Iraq say whether this would work?

 

[Duke E. Pyle]

What is the deal with Somalia, doesn't it seem like it would be the only thing on the news? Has anyone even heard about the results of the strikes? Why don't we hear anything about it? Don't you find it odd, i wonder.

 

[mindido]

Ice,

mindido, Duke said Iran, not Iraq.

Oops, easy mistake to make.

I tend to agree with him, that Khomeini and Ahmadinejad are the leaders of the country who drag their citizens towards war, even more so that Iran is no true democracy.

Achmadinejad may be a loon but I don't think he is trying to get Iran into a war (at least at the moment). They're certainly making life difficult for us in Iraq but thats probably to be expected since good old GW made them feel so welcome by making them part of the "axis of evil". And isn't "Khomeini" dead? I know the present ruling mullah's name is similar.

Perhaps a better solution is a short term (six months or so) surge in troops, doubling the force, then pulling out would help provide a buffer zone for the Iraqis to manage. I don't know if this would work, however, as I have no knowledge of the situation on the ground. Can someone with military knowledge of the situation in Iraq say whether this would work?

I guess we'll find out tomorrow what GW's actual plans are but the "surge" option seems to have a lot of military detractors (they've tried it recently with negative results). Also, please remember that "surge" is actually a euphamism for "escalation". Those of us that remember Viet Nam recognize that very well. Another similarity???

The question I would ask is, What are they going to do when they get there? If they're just going to be kicking in doors and pissing off more people, there are probably better ideas. In fact, I have one and I'll try and write it up. I've been thinking about if for a while and will try and get it done.

And Duke,

What is the deal with Somalia, doesn't it seem like it would be the only thing on the news? Has anyone even heard about the results of the strikes? Why don't we hear anything about it? Don't you find it odd, i wonder.

You do remember Blackhawk Down? The US (nor any other western nation) hasn't had much of a presence there ever since so we don't seem to have good info about what happened there. What seems to have happened is that we apparently received some type of info from the Ethiopians on Al Quaeda operatives in the area so we went after them. Were we successful? No one seems to know at the moment (or at least isn't telling us).

 

[mindido]

OK guys, here's my crazy idea about what to do with Iraq. I should say that I've heard no one mention this idea in its entirety so if someone actually proposes it, well....I guess I should get some of the credit.

First, I think that all would agree that there are no good solutions to the problems in Iraq. Anyone disagree? All right, here goes.

Step one:

In the middle of the night (figuratively), I would pull virtually all US and other troops out of Iraqi cities and move them to the borders. From that point on, the troops will allow NOTHING and NO ONE into Iraq but will allow anyone wanting out to go. The troops objective from this point will be to shut down the border and defend themselves. This also starts a clock ticking for how long any engagement between whatever parties will last.

Step two:

The next morning (figuratively) I would make an announcement to the Iraqi public saying:

1. OK, you people want to have a civil war? Well then, go ahead, go for it, we won't get in your way and we won't get in the middle of it. Lets get this over with.

Now, what we will do is the following:

A. We'll protect the borders so no one can interfere. No Iranians, no Syrians, etc.. etc.
B. We will protect the women, children and elders. We will provide transportation to shelters under our protection to anyone asking for it. We would ask for a one week cease fire to accomplish this.
C. After the weeks cease fire is over it will be up to the remaining Iraqi people to figure out what they want to do. They either sit down and start talking like responsible adults or they start their bloodbath. Whichever, it will be up to them. And them alone.

If the Iraqi's act like adults, we help them in any way that we can. With at least one stipulation; all foreign fighters and insurgents unwilling to turn in their arms must be turned over ASAP. If they decide on the bloodbath, our military keeps the borders shut down, stays out of the way and protects the non-combatants until the fighting is over.

Basically, thats it. Its really fairly simple.

Now, the advantages:

1. Our troops won't be in the middle of a civil war. They'll be on the periphery making sure that foreign fighters and armies do not take advantage of the situation.

2. A majority of the non-combatants should be able to make it to places where our forces can protect them. For those that can't, we go get them. This accomplishes one MAJOR objective. Instead of our troops being looked upon as occupiers, they are now looked upon as heros as they are trying to rescue women, children and elders. A major switch in perception that would be apparent to most everyone in the world. A major victory in the war for "hearts and minds". We will finally be doing the right thing. Something that most everyone will be able to get behind.

And, the disadvantages:

I'm sure there are probably more, but I can only think of one really major problem. Really pissing off the world's Sunni population (which is about 80% of all Muslims). Since the bloodbath (if it occurs) will primarily be between the Shia and Sunni (I don't think the Kurds would get involved) and since the Sunni will be at a tremendous numerical disadvantage, we are likely to piss off Sunni nations (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc., etc.).

Like I said at the beginning, there are really no good options here. People are going to die one way or the other. At least this way, if (by not allowing anything into the country) there will be a limited supply of food which means that eventually the fighters will either kill themselves off, starve or come to their senses.

The main thing is that they will make the decisions themselves and I believe that most of the world would be able to support this.

Thats it! Tear it apart!

 

[MarksMadness]

I think it is very humorous that any of us "think" we know a damn thing about the WAR in IRAQ. All we know is what the media tells us. Talk to someone who has been there. Ask a soldier, an enlisted man or woman whether what we are doing there is necessary. Last time I checked, the re-up for our VOLUNTEER armed forces was around 70%. I guess some of those on the front line think this WAR is doing some good. What? Did we think we could go over there and just make rules and everyone would put down the bombs and guns and say...okie dokie. Not a chance. You can bet your butt our military knew exactly what would happen. As for George W., sucks to be the guy with the guts to take on this craziness. Do you really think if we play the pacifist that this will all just go away? So, IRAQ was not behind the twin towers, who gives a shit!!! Those poor people have been crucified by their leader and his followers. Anyone disagree with that?
In America, we have battered women who stay with abusive men because they fear being beaten. In IRAQ, hundreds of thousands of civilians have been raped , tortured and murdered....simply because the Evil bastard running the place...felt like it.

I'm not going to waste more time defending my point.
The fact is, like it or not....we are fighting for democracy. While we do have our own internal demons stateside, America is far and away the greatest nation in the world. The other truly free nations are equally as great. But what happens when there is a bully around? Nobody wants to get involved. Nobody wants to get hurt.
I do not believe in some of the media reasons for our occupation of IRAQ, but based on the conversations I've had with veterans of the war....I believe in what we are doing. Freedom is not something that people in control will relinquish easily. (we had a little something called the Civil War...maybe ya'll remember that.)

 

[Duke E. Pyle]

MarksMadness the problem is that the left seem to only care about US lives, just read some of the posts. Even though they count US casulties like sheep. They're not to blame since its what they're told to believe and they do what they're told. Of course they'd want help if they were in the same situation, but this is America where we're somewhat safe, and life anywhere else really isn't reality, this is just a bad dream anyway with GW as the star bad guy.

Min you're idea might work if Iraq was a city block. The left bitches about all the precious money we are losing during this war and complain that nothing is being done anyway, so how much extra do you think you're idea will cost?

 

[mindido]

MarksMadness,

I think it is very humorous that any of us "think" we know a damn thing about the WAR in IRAQ.

Heh, heh. I always find it humorous when I see or hear statements like this. If you can ever pull yourself away from the tube or your favorite video game, pick up something called a "book". More specifically, try a history book. And even more specifically, try reading some books on the history of war (there are, literally, thousands of them). There are even books written very recently about the confrontation in Iraq. One of them (which is actually very readable) was even written by a veteran of that conflict. His name is Paul Rieckhoff, and his book is called, "Chasing Ghosts". Paul is also Executive Director of an organization named the "Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America" which even has its own website:

http://www.iava.org/

Their basic thesis? Bush is an idiot and has left us to clean up a catastrophe in Iraq. He hasn't listened to his generals. He listens to a "higher authority" and goes ahead and does what he wants.

All we know is what the media tells us.

No wonder your confused. And this directly conflicts with your next statement:

Talk to someone who has been there. Ask a soldier, an enlisted man or woman whether what we are doing there is necessary.

So....which is it??? The real trick is to gather ALL available information, from ALL sides, and try to discern what the real truth is. My alma mater calls that process "sifting and winnowing" and has worked well for many graduates of that institution. Try it sometime. And, as long as your at it, do a Google search on the following former generals and officers for their opinions of Bush and the war in Iraq.

Retired Marine general Anthony Zinni, former commander of CENTCOM,
Retired Marine general Gregory Newbold, former Operations officer for the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Retired Army general Charles Swannack, former commander of the 82nd Airborne Division
Retired Army general John Batiste, former commander of the 1st Infantry Division
Retired Army general Paul Eaton, formerly responsible for training Iraqi troops

There are more, many more, general officers that believe Bush has totally screwed up this situation in Iraq (as well as other parts of the world.

Last time I checked, the re-up for our VOLUNTEER armed forces was around 70%.

Ugggghhhhh, I don't know where the heck you got that figure. I just did a quick Google search and the number seems to be around 6% to 10% (which is higher than normal). The articles I read suggested that camaraderie and significant incentives (up to $150,000) were the primary reasons. But there is another problem.....recruiting by all branches is down.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-07-17-soldiers-re-enlist_x.htm

As for George W., sucks to be the guy with the guts to take on this craziness.

My bet is that old George will go down in history as the guy who was stupid enough to get confused over who exactly our enemy was.

Do you really think if we play the pacifist that this will all just go away?

Of course not. Thats just stupid. But, as Sun Tzu said (over 2,000 years ago), "Know your enemy". I doubt if GW has ever even heard of him (even though he's still taught at most modern military academies).

So, IRAQ was not behind the twin towers, who gives a shit!!!

So lying is OK with you? Well, maybe for you, but not for me and many, many others.

Those poor people have been crucified by their leader and his followers. Anyone disagree with that? In America, we have battered women who stay with abusive men because they fear being beaten. In IRAQ, hundreds of thousands of civilians have been raped , tortured and murdered....simply because the Evil bastard running the place...felt like it.

Saddam was a bastard. But he was their bastard. And he had no weapons of mass destruction nor ANY of the other points which were used to get us into this mess.

I'm not going to waste more time defending my point.

Probably a good idea as your points are indefensible and weak.

The fact is, like it or not....we are fighting for democracy. While we do have our own internal demons stateside, America is far and away the greatest nation in the world. The other truly free nations are equally as great. But what happens when there is a bully around? Nobody wants to get involved. Nobody wants to get hurt.
I do not believe in some of the media reasons for our occupation of IRAQ, but based on the conversations I've had with veterans of the war....I believe in what we are doing.

Oh sheesh! I take it you must work for the White House. You hit almost all of their talking points. BTW, did anyone else see John Stewart's recent sketch on Bush's "talking points"? And we aren't fighting for "freedom". We're fighting for access to cheap oil. There is no longer any question of that.

I was listening to Thomas Freedman (certainly no liberal) the other day and he had an interesting question. He said something to the effect, "If Iraq's major commodity was olive oil, do you really think we would be in Iraq?"

Freedom is not something that people in control will relinquish easily. (we had a little something called the Civil War...maybe ya'll remember that.)

Now I know you work for the White House! The logic is so flawed as to be ridiculous. I don't remember any other nation trying to get in the middle of our Civil War; while Bush is putting our military right in the middle of an Iraqi civil war!

And Duke,

MarksMadness the problem is that the left seem to only care about US lives, just read some of the posts. Even though they count US casualties like sheep. They're not to blame since its what they're told to believe and they do what they're told. Of course they'd want help if they were in the same situation, but this is America where we're somewhat safe, and life anywhere else really isn't reality, this is just a bad dream anyway with GW as the star bad guy.

Thats just ridiculous. Body counts have ALWAYS been taken (at least since the Revolutionary War). And the public has always had a negative reaction to them (do some research on body counts during Viet Nam). But if the war was deemed just by the public (WW I and WW II) high body counts were tolerated. Since this war was built on a lie (many of them) the public will grow intolerant sooner than later (which is what we are seeing now).

Min you're idea might work if Iraq was a city block.

Actually, it's been done before on very large areas. Its not easy, but it is possible.

The left bitches about all the precious money we are losing during this war and complain that nothing is being done anyway, so how much extra do you think you're idea will cost?

Uggghhh Duke, exactly what kind of conservative are you? The left doesn't bitch about money, thats what conservatives do (at least they used to)! Barry Goldwater sure wouldn't recognize today's conservatives.

Costs? Hard to say. But, given that we're spending about $1.5 billion per week in Iraq (somewhere over $1 trillion so far) at our present levels, I doubt that it would cost (in a monetary sense) anything more. When you think about it, it may even be less. It would definitely be less in US casualties as they would generally be in defensible positions and thus more difficult targets.

 

[m1abrams]

Mindido, i don't know what to say after reading all this. You idiots trying to say this is a Rep vs Dem issue ahhhhhhhh. They just turned the media of the event into one. this is a battle of Right vs wrong, us vs them. If you think for a min that the war in Iraq is wrong or being fought wrong, Jan 27th i leave to go back. Your more than welcome to come with me if you got any guts. 3000 Soldiers dead is a bad thing, but stop throwing it around like it affects you in any way. I have to deal with it daily. I'm the one who sits down with families and tells them how brave there sons, husband, even children were. But 3000 in 3 years is so small a number to keep idiots like you safe. And rooting against us here at home. With in 12 months there will be 2 more battle fronts on the war on terror. If the U.S. were to pull out, say in the next 5 years, than you would know the meaning of death. Our fighting there, has kept the enemy occupied with the battlefields there. Why the U.S. has not been hit. Send your thank you card to G.W. proud to say he is my boss. 2nd thing, were protecting our greatest ally, Israel. Iran, syrian, the Suad's would love nothing more than to start all out war at this time. the reason they dont, the U.S. has over 250,000 troops in striking distance. GOD BLESS AMERICA, AND GOD BLESS THE GREATEST PRESIDENT SINCE REGAN, GEORGE BUSH

 

[OFFicerJACK]

The one major mistake that George Bush made is that he focused too much on the "War on Terror" and not enough on the skirmish called Iraq. People think that Iraq IS the Wot. Afganistan is/was the first battle of the WoT and Iraq was just some unfinished business that was taken care of after the WoT began. 43's efforts in Iraq began with 41's response to the UN resolutions in the early 90's to rid Kuwait of Saddam Hussein. Does anyone remember Kuwait?

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_war (look for heading "Consequences")

Economic sanctions were kept in place following the war, pending a weapons inspection with which Iraq never fully cooperated as it accused the UN inspectors of spying (something which was later proven to be at least partially true). Iraq was later allowed to import certain products under the UN's Oil for Food program. A 1998 UNICEF report found that the sanctions resulted in an increase to 90,000 deaths per year. Many argue that the sanctions on Iraq and the American military presence in Saudi Arabia contributed to an increasingly negative image of the United States in the Arab world.

A United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) on weapons was established, to monitor Iraq's compliance with restrictions on weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. Iraq accepted some and refused other weapons inspections. The team found some evidence of biological weapons programs at one site and non-compliance at many other sites.<-Hey mindido!​

If the oil for food program worked, why 90,000 dead? Of course Saddam Hussein used the money for food, didn't he? I mean, he wouldn't take the money and make more WMD's would he? He's not that kind of guy, is he? Yeaaaaaahhhhh! Riiiiiiiight.

So when Resolution 1441 was signed by the Member Nations to allow inspections to resume, Saddam Hussein resisted. Res 1441 was a consensus of the member nations of the United Nations to warn Hussein to behave himself or face "serious consequenses" for not paying attention to the first resolutions. He didn't pay attention and the world agreed that he should be brought to justice.

Evidently Kofi Annan's idea of serious consequenses is "shake your finger at the enemy vigorously creating a strong enough breeze to knock the enemy down, then simply take their weapons". George Bush's idea of serious consequenses is "shock and awe". One method works very well, the other doesn't work at all. The fact that George Bush and the United States Military shocked and awed, put boots on the ground and pulled that bastard out of his rathole, helped Iraq to set up a new government, and let that new government bring that murderer to justice is proof that shock and awe was the one that worked. If we would have listened to the Democrats Hussein would not have been brought to justice, would still be running Iraq and terrorists would still be operating in his country unrestrained.

I salute you m1abrams and your buddies over there who are fighting to rid the world of people like Saddam Hussein! :beer:

But I reiterate, the War on Terror started before the 2003 Iraq war. The war in Iraq is just a skirmish, a simple battle, in the War on Terror. This war is going to last for DECADES and is going to cost tens of trillions of dollars. If we are serious about this it will work. If we don't have the stomach for it, it won't.

 

[mindido]

m1abrams,

Mindido, i don't know what to say after reading all this.

Well, it seems you figured something out.

You idiots trying to say this is a Rep vs Dem issue ahhhhhhhh.

Uggh, I don't remember anyone saying this is a R vs D issue. It's now clearly a Sunni vs. Shia issue. If there is an R vs D issue, its one of "stay the course" vs. trying to make the best of a bad situation.

They just turned the media of the event into one.

I have no idea what this means.

this is a battle of Right vs wrong, us vs them.

I guess the question is: Who's right and who's wrong? Lets take a brief look. WMD's? Nope, vast quantities not found. GW was wrong there. Insurgency in its last throes? Wrong again. Not listening to Gen. Shinseki about the quantity of troops needed to secure the peace at the beginning of the war? Wrong again. Not keeping the Iraqi army and police forces intact? Wrong and wrong. Not listening to his generals and military advisors? Jeez, GW can't seem to get anything right. I could go on and on and on.

So....who's right and who's wrong?

If you think for a min (sic) that the war in Iraq is wrong or being fought wrong, Jan 27th i leave to go back.

Poor sentence structure, but good luck. It sounds like you may need it. You know, back during Viet Nam, there was a saying that became fairly popular and I think applies here. "Who wants to be the last to die for a mistake?"

Your (sic) more than welcome to come with me if you (sic) got any guts.

Sorry, I'm far too old. But there are a few youngsters around here, with similar leanings, that may take you up on this. Duke????

3000 Soldiers dead is a bad thing, but stop throwing it around like it affects you in any way.

It does effect me! I have a cousin that is in that vicinity at the moment. And I have another that just returned a few months ago. I don't want to see either of them die for GW's stupidity. So don't you dare say that I'm not effected.

I have to deal with it daily. I'm the one who sits down with families and tells them how brave there sons, husband (sic), even children (sic) were. But 3000 in 3 years is so small a number to keep idiots like you safe. And rooting against us here at home.

You may want to be careful here (again), calling those of us that don't support the Iraq war "idiots" isn't a very good way to build support for your position. You may want to look this up, but you should know that, initially, Viet Nam vets were not derided as they eventually came to be by the end of the war. So if you don't want the same thing to happen to you, be very careful of what you say.

And, to this point, as far as I know, no one has derided the troops. Only the leadership. But if you keep making statements like that, things may change and you may learn the same lessons as the Viet Nam vets.

With in (sic) 12 months there will be 2 more battle fronts on the war on terror.

GW alluded to that last night. Its beginning to sound like GW is planning on going out in a blaze of glory (at least in his addled mind). If he does attack Iran, watch out! Oil will immediately go up to around $200 per barrel and gasoline will be somewhere around $8 to $10 per gallon. My feeling is that Congress will probably fight him tooth and nail on this one. He won't be getting any blank checks anymore if the new Congress has anything to say about it (which they do).

I'm not sure about the second front your alluding to, it must be either Syria or Somalia (I don't think even GW is foolhardy enough to go after N. Korea at the present time).

If the U.S. were to pull out, say in the next 5 years, than you would know the meaning of death. Our fighting there, has kept the enemy occupied with the battlefields there. Why the U.S. has not been hit.

You know, I've heard this somewhere before. Oh yes, Viet Nam! The claim made by Johnson, Nixon (and many others) that if Viet Nam fell, all the rest of those Southeast Asian countries would be right behind. They called it the domino effect. That didn't quite turn out as expected, did it? I found it so ironic recently when old GW was in Viet Nam warning about the same thing in the Middle East as he was standing on Vietnamese territory. I was almost rolling around on the ground laughing so hard. What a dufus!

And do you really think the American public is going to stand for our troops being in Iraq for the next five years? I tend to doubt that very seriously. My guess is that we'll be out of there within the next year and a half or so as Republican Senators and Congressmen are eyeing the 2008 election and don't want the Iraq albatross hanging around their necks. In fact, I heard last night that there are, apparently, four to six Republican senators that are now abandoning GW on the Iraq issue.

Oh, and do remember that it was eight years between attacks on the world trade towers. If we know anything about Al Quaeda, it is that they are patient and will not strike until the time is in their favor. And oh! Another of GW's mistakes; Al Quaeda wasn't in Iraq until after Saddam fell! So what GW has done is go after the wrong people (another mistake) and not had his eye straight on the people we should be going after (Al Quaeda). That mistake, in and of itself, is unforgivable.

Send your thank you card to G.W. proud to say he is my boss.

The only thing I'd send him would be a subpoena (if I had that capability, which I don't). And if you like that kind of boss, you would have loved working for WorldCom, Enron or Global Crossing! Come to think of it, if I remember correctly, ALL of GW's private concerns wound up in bankruptcy or being bailed out by his good friends the Saudi's. Some boss!

2nd thing, were (sic) protecting our greatest ally, Israel.

It seems to me that the Israeli's can take fairly good care of themselves (although they certainly seemed to have botched things up last summer). We certainly give them enough money for defense every year.

Iran, syrian (sic), the Suad's (sic) would love nothing more than to start all out war at this time. the reason they dont, the U.S. has over 250,000 troops in striking distance.

Iran and Syria would eventually like to go after the Israeli's, but not now or any time in the near future. They just don't have the troops and there is that little problem of Israel being able to strike back with atomic weapons. Those two aren't going after Israel any time soon. They may rant and rail, but thats just for their publics.

And I have no idea who the "Suad's" are, but if you meant the Saudi's, then that was a joke. Right? The Saudi's can barely defend themselves, let alone think of attacking someone else. Thats just foolish.

GOD BLESS AMERICA, AND GOD BLESS THE GREATEST PRESIDENT SINCE REGAN (sic), GEORGE BUSH

I take it your thinking about REAGAN (not REGAN, he was Reagan's Secretary of State or Treasury, I don't remember which). And my prediction is that GW will go down in history as probably the worst President we've ever had. At least Nixon, Buchanan, Grant and a few others did a few things right. GW has blown virtually everything he's tried. I guess thats what happens when an incompetant is surrounded by incompetants.

 

[OFFicerJACK]

... "idiots" isn't a very good way to build support for your position.

You call George Bush that all the time.

 

[mindido]

OFFicerJACK,

Well, thats because he is. But I don't call others in the discussion that. That would be counterproductive.

And I'm reading your essay at the moment. Much of it I agree with but I think there are some historical inaccuracies but I have to double check.

 

[OFFicerJACK]

So if you leave George Bush out of the discussion, how do you expect him to come over to your side? Oh yeah, you've given up on all hope of him coming to his senses. Fine.

GB: "Right back at-cha!"

 

[mindido]

I have no idea how GW could be left out of the discussion since this is so clearly his war. You know, even GW's dad was smart enough to know that going after Saddam back in '91 was a bad idea. Its too bad his son didn't have some of his dad's wisdom.

And I doubt that I could change m1's mind. He's one of that small percentage of people (around 26% as of last night) that still think GW is doing a good job. I write what I do for others.

 

[Iceberg]

I don't know where to start here, but here goes it:

Going into Iraq at the beginning was not so smart, at least when it was done in March 2003. It would have been better to finish the job in Afghanistan, finding and eliminating bin Laden and his cohorts, and stabilising that nation by setting up a stable government and eliminating the warlords who help proliferate the violence.

However, since the US, UK, and others have gone into Iraq, what would have been far better is if Bush et al never tried to do it on the cheap. People like Sen. McCain said from the very beginning that far more troops were needed and significant investment in protective devices (armour, etc.) to get the job done smoothly, fairly quickly, and effectively. It was simply mismanagement by the Bush Administration which has let the situation get out of control.

As for the premise of the operations in Iraq, there are parts which I can accept and parts which I cannot. Saddam was terrible to dissidents, the Kurds, the Marsh Arabs, and to Shiites. Also, Saddam financed Palestinian suicide bombers' families in their conflict with the Israelis. For these reasons, I support the war.

As it relates to weapons creation and acquisition, there is some evidence that Saddam tried to obtain weapons, but there was no evidence that Saddam had any nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons in March 2003. I can understand the invasion as it relates to this, but I do not have a set position on this issue. (I'm still on the fence, so to speak.)

As it relates to connections with Al-Qaeda and the atrocities of 9-11, this part is spurious at best. Saddam had and Al-Qaeda has very different goals. Saddam was secular and never (until the end) preached Islam, fundamentalist or "moderate", while Al-Qaeda has the intention of forming a global seventh-Century caliphate of Islamic psychosis. I did not support the invasion on this issue.

On another matter, m1, you said Israel is your greatest ally. They are ONE of your greatest allies. Britain, Canada, and the Lands Down Under are also your greatest allies. We have our differences from time to time (and we Canadians always take pride in beating your national hockey teams), but an attack on one is an attack on all and we all have come to each other's defence when this happens.

But m1, you've lost me here:

GOD BLESS AMERICA, AND GOD BLESS THE GREATEST PRESIDENT SINCE REGAN, GEORGE BUSH

Bush and Reagan didn't do much on domestic issues and Bush has actually devastated the domestic agenda. The response to Hurricane Katrina (not like Bush hates black people as that idiot Kanye West said, mind you) proves this point, as well as the deficit/debt that is reaching into the trillions of dollars. He inherited the largest surplus in US history and turned it into the largest deficit/debt in US history.

I can think of a recent president that made great improvements on domestic issues, though. William Jefferson Clinton. He built up a $500 billion surplus and got the US economy rolling. He also helped improve the US image abroad and identified public enemy #1 of the US, Al-Qaeda. Yes, Clinton was the greatest president since FDR.

 

[mindido]

OFFicerJACK

The one major mistake that George Bush made is that he focused too much on the "War on Terror" and not enough on the skirmish called Iraq.

GW made a lot more than one major mistake (see my post above). And I think that Iraq is a lot more than just a "skirmish", by any definition. And I really hate that term "War on Terror". How can you have a war on a tactic? It makes no sense. But, for the time being and until a better term comes along, I guess it will have to be used.

People think that Iraq IS the Wot. Afganistan is/was the first battle of the WoT...

Actually, the WoT has been going on since at least the '60s or 70's (remember all those planes which were hijacked, the Achille Lauro and the Munich Olympics? Some historians would even trace this all the way back to the Crusades.

I do agree that Afghanistan was the first major battle of the WoT though.

and Iraq was just some unfinished business that was taken care of after the WoT began. 43's efforts in Iraq began with 41's response to the UN resolutions in the early 90's to rid Kuwait of Saddam Hussein. Does anyone remember Kuwait?

Here's how I remember things. 41 called off the '91 war after 100 hours and did consider going after Saddam. But he was warned against that by our Arab allies (remember, we had some of them back then. Including Syria). They warned us that just what we are seeing in Iraq today would happen. So, 41 apparently believed them so he packed up and went home. Well, that hung in the craw of certain people like Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld (the Neocons) who felt that we should have gone in and finished the job. There was a lot of discussion back then about who was right but, in retrospect, it now appears that 41 had the better sense.

I don't remember exactly where I got this info but I'm sure some of it is from Schwartzkopf's book and the writings of that Neocon (of Chinese ancestry) that recently said Bush totally screwed things up (can't remember his name off hand.)

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_war (look for heading "Consequences")

Economic sanctions were kept in place following the war, pending a weapons inspection with which Iraq never fully cooperated as it accused the UN inspectors of spying (something which was later proven to be at least partially true). Iraq was later allowed to import certain products under the UN's Oil for Food program. A 1998 UNICEF report found that the sanctions resulted in an increase to 90,000 deaths per year. Many argue that the sanctions on Iraq and the American military presence in Saudi Arabia contributed to an increasingly negative image of the United States in the Arab world.

A United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) on weapons was established, to monitor Iraq's compliance with restrictions on weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. Iraq accepted some and refused other weapons inspections. The team found some evidence of biological weapons programs at one site and non-compliance at many other sites.<-Hey mindido!​

If the oil for food program worked, why 90,000 dead? Of course Saddam Hussein used the money for food, didn't he? I mean, he wouldn't take the money and make more WMD's would he? He's not that kind of guy, is he? Yeaaaaaahhhhh! Riiiiiiiight.

So when Resolution 1441 was signed by the Member Nations to allow inspections to resume, Saddam Hussein resisted. Res 1441 was a consensus of the member nations of the United Nations to warn Hussein to behave himself or face "serious consequenses" for not paying attention to the first resolutions. He didn't pay attention and the world agreed that he should be brought to justice.

I think we can all stipulate that Saddam was an ass, and a really bad one at that. He would do whatever it took to further his ambitions. r@p3, murder, steal, make war on his neighbors, build luxurious castles while his people starved, whatever. None of it was beyond him. The thing is that he was the Iraqi's bad ass, not ours. He may have been a pain in the rear (occasionally firing a poorly aimed missile at our fighters patrolling the No Fly zones we had established) but we had him bottled up and cornered to the point where he was no longer a threat to his neighbors

Evidently Kofi Annan's idea of serious consequenses is "shake your finger at the enemy vigorously creating a strong enough breeze to knock the enemy down, then simply take their weapons".

I was listening to NPR the other day in my travels and they had a guest that said something interesting. Apparently, Saddam demanded that he have some type of approval over these food stocks or he wouldn't let any of them in (again, what a scumbag). So, in order to try and save some of the people, the UN had to go along. Good situation? Not hardly, but it doesn't sound like the UN had a lot of choice if they were going to get the food to anyone.

George Bush's idea of serious consequenses is "shock and awe". One method works very well, the other doesn't work at all. The fact that George Bush and the United States Military shocked and awed, put boots on the ground and pulled that bastard out of his rathole, helped Iraq to set up a new government, and let that new government bring that murderer to justice is proof that shock and awe was the one that worked. If we would have listened to the Democrats Hussein would not have been brought to justice, would still be running Iraq and terrorists would still be operating in his country unrestrained.

It seems to me that Bush's ideas haven't worked well at all. Yes, we did go in and get rid of the Iraqi army and Saddam very quickly. But we're still fighting remnants of the Republican Guard and army today (remember how they pretty much melted away and became invisible). Thats known as a tactic, and its been used for centuries. They knew they couldn't fight the US head on so they did the next best thing. They took off their uniforms and traded them in for street clothes. So I think the "shock and awe" is a bit overblown.

As far as the new government is concerned, time will tell. Some accounts I've seen recently suggest that the only area the new government actually controls is the Green Zone (a few square miles).

Saddam still in power? Well, it really wouldn't bother me (as long as I wasn't an Iraqi). We had him penned in and bottled up. He couldn't do much to anyone other than his own people. It should have been up to them to get rid of him.

The war in Iraq is just a skirmish, a simple battle, in the War on Terror.

Again, I disagree vociferously with your terminology that Iraq is a "skirmish". In fact, here's a dictionary definition:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=skirmish&x=34&y=17

That doesn't match, at all, with what is happening today in Iraq.

This war is going to last for DECADES and is going to cost tens of trillions of dollars. If we are serious about this it will work. If we don't have the stomach for it, it won't.

I do agree that terrorism is going to with us for a long time. Its been with us for centuries already. Cost? Well that depends on how we fight it. Right now, we're fighting it stupidly and with the wrong weapons. Our leadership can't even figure out who the correct enemy is (let me give them a clue, it's AL QUAEDA!) Maybe someday they'll figure that out, but, more than likely with this administration, by the time they do, it will be too late and we'll be hit again. It's only a matter of time.