War In Iraq/Terrorists

[mindido]

Ice,

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.

Can't agree with you more. Just imagine if we had actually done that. If we had spent even a hundredth of what we've spent in Iraq getting rid of Al Quaeda (our real enemy) and the Taliban. Then building roads, hospitals, schools, etc. If we had figured out a way to get those people decent jobs instead of turning them into the largest producer of heroin in the world. And now, the Taliban and Al Quaeda are coming back and trying to make life miserable again for the people there. This is all Bush's fault. He didn't keep his eye on the ball and let the whole situation slip. More than likely, we're going to have to go back in there and finish the job.

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.

Agreed again. Although you forgot to mention Gen. Shinseki, who told GW that it would take about 350,000 troops to stabilize Iraq. Bush fired him for that.

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.

I'll have to depart from you a bit here. Stipulated that Saddam was an ass. But he was the Iraqi's problem, not ours. There are many dictators and despots around the world that are just as bad as Saddam, why don't we go after all of them? The answer. They don't have billions of barrels of oil underground.

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.)

The best info I've seen on this subject suggests that very small quantities of WMD's have been found in Iraq. These were basically artillery shells and old bombs which were found here and there around the country. All of which were made prior to the '91 Gulf War. And for the most part, they were in such bad condition that they would have been more of a threat to their handlers than anyone they were aimed at (they were in that bad of a condition). Certainly, no "vast stockpiles" (as the Bush administration alluded to) were ever found.

In actuality, the WMD issue was not that big of a deal for me initially as I also figured that Saddam had them (at least the chemical and biological weapons). But what bothers me is the pattern of this administration of making false claims time and time again. Bush, Cheney and the Neocons wanted this war with Iraq probably before they were even elected. They just needed an excuse. When Saddam didn't provide one, they just made them up.

Thats what bothers me.

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.

Agree totally.

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.

Hockey? Whats hockey?

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.

It does kind of amaze me that so many people seem to have forgotten about Katrina so soon (unless you happen to live along the Gulf Coast). Good old George has certainly received glowing reviews for his handling of that situation. Not!

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.

I don't think I actually ever voted for Bill (I may have for his second election) but I think his administration turned out better than anticipated. I would vote for him now (which can't happen) because of that whole impeachment charade. What a crock! Which is a main reason I believe GW should be impeached. When you compare what the two of them lied about (a hummer vs. the fiasco in Iraq) its hands down, no contest. GW wins by a landslide.

The best since FDR? Maybe and probably. I didn't agree with him on everything but he did get a lot of good things done.

 

[nigfacedjenkins]

Incase you didnt realize congress has to vote on whether or not to go to war lol. Another typical spawn child of MTV and CNN

 

[nigfacedjenkins]

MarksMadness,



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:


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.

If it's in a book it must be true!

You say Bush left us while at the same time you complain about what he is doing and how is he is reponsible for everything despite the fact that congress has to vote to go to war. Make up your mind

I don't think liberating a country while losing a couple thousand troops is a catastrophe. We liberated a COUNTRY. Go ask the people who were around to see Saddams reign of terror. I mean, he was hung for Gods sake. They obviously didn't like him.

I normally don't argue with peoples views when they are backed with knowledge but you take the cake on ignorance my friend.

also even if you don't agree with Bush you still respect the president no matter who it is. You don't call the president an idiot. Go learn manners and stop backing your views with childish insults that make you feel smart.

 

[mindido]

nigfacedjenkins,

Interesting name. How did you come up with that?

Incase (sic) you didnt (sic) realize (sic) congress has to vote on whether or not to go to war lol.

Uggh, yeah, thats specified in the US Constitution. The question today is whether the President has exceeded that Congressional authorization. And I fail to see what exactly is funny about that.

Another typical spawn child of MTV and CNN

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. I take it you have some problem with MTV and CNN? That also must mean your a Faux or Lumbaugh fan.

If it's in a book it must be true!

Uggh, no. That is certainly incorrect (but you can believe that if you wish). An educated individual realizes that all humans (as well as all authors) have certain built-in biases. So, if someone wants to find the truth, they must find it by examining both sides of any issue. And, usually, the truth will be found somewhere in between. By examining both sides, a disciplined and educated mind should be able to determine which argument is most logical (makes the most sense) and, conversely, which arguments make little, or no, sense (logically are incorrect). That is how one best arrives at the truth.

So, the long and short of truth is, that if you only listen to one side of an argument, you don't have a clue of what is really going on.

You say Bush left us

I could, probably, have used a better term than "left", but I'm not exactly writing a dissertation here (this is the internet). I take it you haven't been following the news lately, as GW made a statement about two weeks ago where he said that this war (Iraq) will be the responsibility of the next administration (look it up, you've have heard of Google?). So GW fully intends for "us" to clean up the mess that he's gotten "us" into.

while at the same time you complain about what he is doing and how is he is reponsible (sic) for everything despite the fact that congress has to vote to go to war. Make up your mind

What GW is "doing" is making stupid mistake after stupid mistake. And he is responsible! He is the Commander in Chief?? And "the decider"?? Who else is supposed to be in charge? As far as Congressional authorization is concerned, old GW has gone far beyond what the current Congress believes they authorized. Setting up what appears to be a very interesting clash between GW and Congress over the next several weeks. Who will win? Stay tuned.

And my mind has been made up for a while now. Someone else just needs to get their brains out of the ditch and into a book, or two, or three....

I don't think liberating a country while losing a couple thousand troops is a catastrophe.

What some people call "liberation", others call "occupation". You may want to learn the difference. And losing a couple of thousand troops may be no big deal to you, but I'm sure that the families of those troops would have a different perspective. You really are a good example of the hypocrisy of the right. You make my job far too easy.

We liberated a COUNTRY. Go ask the people who were around to see Saddams (sic) reign of terror. I mean, he was hung for Gods sake. They obviously didn't like him.

I swear that the few remaining individuals supporting GW have the IQ of carrots. If you would look back only a very few posts (and, actually, much farther than that) you would find that it has been stipulated (you do understand that term, don't you?) that Saddam was an ass. Nobody that I know of argues that point. So why do you? And if you would have actually read the thread a bit you would find that I do know an Iraqi. My conversations with him led to many of my current opinions. You know, if you have a good enough g.p.a., you should really check out getting a higher education. You'd be amazed at the people you get to know from around the world.

I normally don't argue with peoples views when they are backed with knowledge but you take the cake on ignorance my friend.

Uggh, first off, we're not friends (not even acquaintances). And secondly, I think I have a bit more knowledge about the present situation than many. It helps if you study and understand human nature and history.

also even if you don't agree with Bush you still respect the president no matter who it is. You don't call the president an idiot. Go learn manners and stop backing your views with childish insults that make you feel smart.

I just love it when the shoe is on the other foot. It was only a couple of years ago when people of your disposition were calling Bill Clinton every name under the sun and impeaching him for lying about a god damn hummer (something that almost every heterosexual male has, at one time or another, done.) Talk about hypocricy! And as far as the respect is concerned, BS, people have to earn that! GW has done absolutely nothing to earn any respect. Exactly the opposite!

 

[nigfacedjenkins]

Maybe you should ask the families of people who died and ask them how proud they are that their loved one saved countless lives and how about asking an Iraqi family who doesn't have to worry about being thrown in jail for bad mouthing Saddam.

I like how you tell me what I said about Clinton. Dont generalize please it makes you look very childish. Calling people names and lumping all right wingers into one group also makes you and people who think like you stupid. Also I'm not a right wing fanatic.

Also I think winning the election for Presidency and getting re elected should earn every Americans respect. I respected Clinton. I didn't like what he did but he was the president of the United States of America and I would love to meet him. I can't imagine if Kerry was president.



Can't teach a chimp how to juggle


Peace I'm done.




PS: It's hard to listen to your side of the arguement when it's riddled with school house insults to an entire group of people who you think you are better than.






Also when you are busy quting my post to find maybe a missing comma or synonym I should have used, let's see your response to pyle's post.

 

[stu2906]

A link that displays the bravery of UK troops fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan. If these guys don't get the Victoria Cross (UK's highest military honour) i'll be amazed.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6285091.stm

video

http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/...4429.stm&news=1&nbram=1&nbwm=1&bbram=1&bbwm=1

 

[OFFicerJACK]

"This was ingenuity and bravery of the highest order."

Couldn't have said it better myself. L/Cpl Ford was a very brave man and so were his rescuers.

 

[OFFicerJACK]

...I just love it when the shoe is on the other foot. It was only a couple of years ago when people of your disposition were calling Bill Clinton every name under the sun and impeaching him for lying about a god damn hummer

That's because he WAS a liar, or don't you remember that?

 

[mindido]

That's because he WAS a liar, or don't you remember that?

Ugh, yeah, I remember that. But which is worse? Being caught for lying about a hummer (something we all have, or will, lie about) and costing the American public over $50 million? Or, Bush's lies which have cost over 3,000 lives, >25,000 wounded and over a trillion dollars (so far)?

I think there is no question as to the answer.

 

[johnski]

Ugh, yeah, I remember that. But which is worse? Being caught for lying about a hummer (something we all have, or will, lie about) and costing the American public over $50 million? Or, Bush's lies which have cost over 3,000 lives, >25,000 wounded and over a trillion dollars (so far)?

I think there is no question as to the answer.

nice spoken m8!!! respect...

 

[Duke E. Pyle]

Do the words "aspirin factory" ring a bell with anyone? If you want to go through the facts and stop the political cheerleading then you will see many parallels between the two administrations.

 

[mindido]

Oh jeez Duke,

I can't believe your trying to compare the two situations. Its been a while since I'd thought of that incident so a brief search found this site (which seems fairly accurate although I haven't had time to read it entirely):

http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/khartoumbomb.html

But, even from my own memory, there are few parallels. The main one seems to possibly be poor intelligence on the part of the US.

So, in every other instance, there is no question of which incident is worse.

 

[Duke E. Pyle]

What 2 situations, i'm drawing parallels to the importance of the security of the US in going after terrorists wherever they hide. The mistakes of both sides are there and they will continue. Bill knew we were going into Iraq and Afganistan. The difference is that Bill had a license to kill, so maybe he should have done it.

 

[mindido]

What 2 situations,

Iraq and the 1998 bombing of the "aspirin factory" are the two incidents I believe you were referring to.

.. i'm drawing parallels to the importance of the security of the US in going after terrorists wherever they hide.

Nobody is arguing that should be THE top priority. The problem is that GW is doing a lousy job of it. Remember the ports fiasco? The southern border? etc. etc. etc.

GW should have kept his eve on our real enemy (Al Quaeda) and made damn sure that Afghanistan never could be used by Al Quaeda and the Taliban again. Now, we're taking troops out of Afghanistan and putting them into Iraq. All the while suspecting that Al Quaeda is planning a spring offensive and the Taliban's influence is growing again in Southern Afghanistan. Smart, real smart (NOT).

The mistakes of both sides are there and they will continue.

When I was a little kid, my parents told me that if I was going to do a job, DO IT IGHT THE FIRST TIME! Then you don't have to go back and do it again! GW apparently never learned that. But he is now.

Bill knew we were going into Iraq and Afganistan.

Please provide references. I haven't heard that previously.

 

[Duke E. Pyle]

References? He bombed Iraq, the president, before him bombed Iraq and the president after him bombed Iraq. Does it really take a genius to see where this was going? The Clintons didn't back the war for the hell of it. He knew. But i've noticed alot of americans shift their voice's of "we shouldn't have went to war", to "Bush has done a terrible job in the war". And instead of saying "Bush lied his way to war" their saying, "put a cap on deployment and a deadline". From my point of view many people are following the careful words of our next president of the united states....yep Hilary i said it Hope i'm wrong but i think a wave of people who know nothing about anything but shopping at the gap will vote her in.

 

[mindido]

Duke,

There is a hell of a big difference between bombing a place and sending in troops (and then occupying it)! Yes, GHW Bush and Clinton both bombed Iraq.

GHW bombed Iraq and then sent in troops to get Saddam out of Kuwait. And, after Saddam's troops had been destroyed, he stopped. Why? Why Duke? Why? Could it be that GHW listened to his advisor's who told him going all the way into Iraq after Saddam would be a mistake (and a big one)? If your not sure why, go read Gen. Schwartzkopf's book on the subject. He leaves little doubt.

And Clinton only bombed Iraqi radar installations after they fired on American aircraft. He never had any intentions of sending in troops. Unless you can find credible info that I'm not aware of.

 

[Duke E. Pyle]

Clinton bombed Iraq when Sodamn turned away weapons inspectors min. Credible threat. I guess the next 5 or so presidents could bomb him for the same reason but why? And no Bill had no intentions of sending in troops. So yeah there is a very big difference beween bombs and boots. Now i want to see you cross your fingers for the Iraqi troops in hopes they "will" take hold because we already know they "can".

 

[mindido]

Duke,

I think we all know that the Iraqi's can fight for themselves but the question is, will they fight for Iraq? Or, and more likely, will they fight as a Sunni, Shia or Kurd? Until that question is answered (and the Iraqi's are the only ones that can answer the question) the US will continue to fight a losing proposition.

 

[Iceberg]

mindido, it seems as if the US is neither losing nor winning. There is progress being made, I believe, but very slow progress. Case in point:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Najaf_(2007)

Insurgents and Shi'a militias are being eliminated, but not at the speed that we all hoped. If coalition troop levels were doubled, the job would be done a lot faster and the troops would be able to return home much earlier.

 

[mindido]

Ice,

I think the opening line says a lot:

The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed.

I mentioned this event in the Religion thread the other day and wondered about this. Yes, the Iraqi military did a reasonable job and were backed up by US forces (the way its supposed to work according to one US general I heard) but I'm not really sure we know, as of yet, what really happened there. The article I saw suggested that these insurgents were mainly Shia (from some type of cult) attacking a Shia holy event! They were apparently hoping to bring back some cleric from the dead! Shia attacking Shia? My question was, WTF have we gotten ourselves into? I can understand Sunni vs. Shia or Kurd, but this?

Also, from what I've seen lately, the Iraqi's and US are going after Sunni insurgents but there seem to be some real problems of going after Shia militias. Al Malaki appears to owe his job to Al Sadr so.... Time will tell.