Historical Blunders

Bib · Jun 18, 2005

Swank,

>Bib, I did interpret this comment to suggest that you fealt the use of the bombs was somehow justified by their poor war-time conduct. It has never been the policy of the US military to change out conduct or standards of acceptable tactics just because the enemy may not hold themselves to the same principles, i.e. we wouldn't use chemical weapons on civillians even if our enemies did so, we wouldn't abuse or murder prisoners of war just because out enemies did, ect. Perhaps I misinterpreted, but I do bristle at the suggestion of justifying any of our military actions by citing examples of what other countries have done. I believe the US should, and generally has made it's own decisions based on our own standards. <

Yes, you misinterpreted, plus took the remarks out of context. I have mistakenly done the same before, so no big deal. I referred to five instances in history of mass civilian killings, in each one, asking if these actions were worse than the A bombs. Please notice the question marks. None of the references were to justify US or any other killing of civilians. It was a simple numerical comparison of how horrific men can be. On an historical scale, the US actions at the end of WWII, concerning dropping the bombs, paled in comparison to the other sited atrocities. It was a direct question and contradiction of Kal's post. That's it.

My post:

"So, how is this different from the Japanese killing of MILLIONS of innocent people of many nationalities during the same period? The A bombs were worse than the killing of six millinon Jews by the Germans? How about the three million killed by the KHydromaxer Rouge after the US turned tail in southeast asia? Ghengis Khan? Kubla Khan? Or are your senses solely impacted by time frame?"

Kal,

I would say EVERY single American wants our troops out of Iraq. That is not the question. Each American also wants peace, but that is not the question either. The question is, can our further military presence in Iraq lead to the opportunity for future peace? I and most other Americans believe the answer is yes.

By the same token, almost every single Iraqi wants peace. They also do not want foreign fighters, Al Queda, or former Bathists killing Iraqis. At some point, they will be able to fight and protect their own country. At that point, the US will be able to leave. Every commentary I have heard from Iraqis within their government say they are not ready as of yet to take over full responsibility for their own protection.

Surely, every single member of our military wants to come home. However, the vast majority of them are mature enough to realize their purpose, and what they are acheiving in Iraq. They further realize that their actions will have long term consequences, making the US and the rest of the world much safer for decades to come. That is, if the pressure of freedom and democracy are kept up.

I have many friends of my sons that are or have been in Iraq and Afghanistan. Two of which have been wounded, one fairly severely. Each one knows why he is or has been stationed there. They all speak well of what has happened, and have great hopes for what will happen. Each one speaks very well of Bush, and they are all glad he is our President. But I am sure there are other members that disagree.

You are very welcome to your own feelings. But do not presuppose them on everyone else. Most of us are able to look deeper than the surface.

Bigger

koooky · Jun 18, 2005

"Deeper than the surface"????

Are you kidding me? Do you think Bush is just as antsy to bring "democracy" to
Saudi Arabia? Do you think Bush--or anyone in power now--will suggest tons of
sanctions against Saudi until the do turn toward democracy? Maybe I don't know a
lot about Saudi as of right now, but the last time I checked, they are still a monarchy and King Fahd is still in charge.

"The question is, can our further military presence in Iraq lead to the opportunity for future peace? I and most other Americans believe the answer is yes."

I disagree here as well Bib. I don't think "most" Americans want a continued pressence there. In fact, I think it is the opposite. I believe "most" Americans want us out of there ASAP and "most" are just now taking note of the increased burden and strain on our economy and military. Also, I think many are seeing how a select "few" companies have gotten rich off this war. Overcharging the government for sodas and simple laundry is an absolute sham/shame.

In the end, I can't wait until my wife is through with her time in the military. She is not due to go back to the dessert unless Bush decides to start a war with another country who has not attacked us.

Kooky

kooky

Bib · Jun 18, 2005

kooky,

>Are you kidding me? Do you think Bush is just as antsy to bring "democracy" to
Saudi Arabia? Do you think Bush--or anyone in power now--will suggest tons of
sanctions against Saudi until the do turn toward democracy? Maybe I don't know a
lot about Saudi as of right now, but the last time I checked, they are still a monarchy and King Fahd is still in charge.<

Within the past year, SA has had local elections for the first time in their history. They have a plan to try and bring national elections, and install an elected government, along the lines of Britain, with a central, non-ruling monarchy, and at least a somewhat secular elected government.

The point is, they are making progress toward democracy, as are other middle eastern countries, without the threat of war. The same cannot be said of the Taliban or Saddam.

>"The question is, can our further military presence in Iraq lead to the opportunity for future peace? I and most other Americans believe the answer is yes."

I disagree here as well Bib. I don't think "most" Americans want a continued pressence there. In fact, I think it is the opposite. I believe "most" Americans want us out of there ASAP and "most" are just now taking note of the increased burden and strain on our economy and military. Also, I think many are seeing how a select "few" companies have gotten rich off this war. Overcharging the government for sodas and simple laundry is an absolute sham/shame.<

Well thankfully, you are wrong. I am not much on polls, but when asked a correctly framed question, most Americans answer that they understand the reasons for staying in Iraq for a while, and approve.

When asked solely if they want the US to pull out of Iraq, they answer yes. Of course everyone wants us out of Iraq. Once again, that is not the question.

>In the end, I can't wait until my wife is through with her time in the military. She is not due to go back to the dessert unless Bush decides to start a war with another country who has not attacked us.<

I hope you get your wish. Please thank her for her service and sacrifice for me. I truly and deeply appreciate every single person who serves, no matter how they feel about the policy. Their sacrifice benefits not only the US, but the rest of the world, and indeed our children and all future generations. Her service is a wonderful gift to us all.

Bigger

koooky · Jun 18, 2005

Bib...

Where are you getting this info? Where are these polls coming from that you are referring to? The most recent polls I have seen show the later, that most Americans want us out of there ASAP. That is the best I can do.

I think that when more and more of the info becomes known such as all the money wasted and conned, all the different mistakes that were made at the military levels, and all the injured and lost lives to US forces, civilian contractors, and Iraqi civilians that more and more support for the war/occupation and Bush will be lost.

As for SA, I will have to see it to believe it as far as them reconstructing their government towards democracy. But I don't really think King Fahd or the ruling crown prince will give up power so readily.

And you brought up an interesting point about the Taliban and Saddam NOT moving toward democracy. I am sure you and others have argued it to death, but since when is it up to the US to free other countries? Don't get me wrong, I understand fully and agree with why we destroyed the Taliaban. There was a direct link between them and the men who attacked us. But I do not believe that link is there with Iraq. So Saddam and his ruling Bath party hated the US. So, who cares. There have almost always been countries that hated us or opposed the US. Until they make a move or an attack is imminent, I don't think we have the right just to attack countries out of hand. I am sure there are reasonable argument to be made ont the far right as to why we did it. But what I can't understand is this; why didn't we finish the job first in Afghanistan and use the massive effort to take out Saddam that should have been focused on Bin Laden? I think the military, money, and resources would have been better used getting him then "freeing" a county that had never attacked us.

And as far as my wife goes. You probably won't believe this but she feels like her time in Iraq was NOT for you or anyone else here in the states. She absolutely hated to hear about those "fighting for our freedom" when that simply is not the case. The men and women ARE NOT fighting for the freedom or rights of anyone here in the USA. Our rights and freedoms were never attacked by Iraq.

As I can see, there are many of us who no longer support Bush or the GOP. And there are many who still do. My opinion is no more or less valid than yours or anyone else's. The fact remains that I will never, ever again vote for any GOP canidate. Not for a long time to come anyway. I feel betrayed and lied to by the GOP. It will be a long time before I can trust any of them again. I feel as if Bush sold this war on WMD's and there have yet to be any. Let Bush or his supporters tell the loved ones of those that have died that "your daddy died for someone else's freedom"

kooky

iwant8inches · Jun 19, 2005

koooky said:
"Bib, everyone has their views, do they not? At all costs, we must respect them. Last year was definetly a turning point for me, as my cousin's best friend was in Iraq and came home for the holidays, and after all that he said, I could'nt be for this bloodshed anymore, human life is extremely valuable, and the US forces are being used based on lies, I'm sorry you don't see that, Let me ask you this: Are you willing to die for your beleif in this war?" -Kal-el

That is an excellant post. As most of you know, my wife recently returned from Iraq and I(as she) was/is 100% against the war in Iraq. Her parents are huge Bush supporters and justified the war about how Saddam was such a danger to his people and how much he hated America etc...I asked them almost the same question. IS their belief in this war or their belief that it was up to the US to remove Saddam worth their daughter's life? Is that an unfair question to ask a parent? Yes. But I don't think they realized that until that statement hit home with them.

This last election was the first ever that I voted democrat. I will do so again in 2008 regardless if Clinton is on the ticket or not. Where I used to believe 100% in the GOP party, now I have no faith in what they are trying to accomplish. I also don't agree with the religious far right trying to legislate (their)morality in this country.

kooky

I empathize to an extent as I have 3 cousins (one of which is like my brother...having grown up with him the first 8 years of my life) who fought in either Afghanistan early on and/or in Iraq for 2003 invasion. All three were different people after they came back home. I've never got into it much with them about what they feel as far as the justification goes, but I know the one I'm closest with hated being there and luckily he is in the States now with a few years of obligation left. I'll be voting Dem again in 08 as well, but chances are Kerry had he been elected would not have the troops back home right now either.

On a side note...what's with the oh God help us if a Democrat gets elected BS I hear from people. It's like that whole BS about "I thank god every day Gore wasn't elected President." What is that?

iwant8inches · Jun 19, 2005

Kal-el, the use of sandn***** is something my one cousin has used a few times as well. I don't say anything to him about it though because hell I can't possibly know exactly why he would use the term. He hated being there and I suspect the whole experience changed his view of the Iraqis there as well as what the U.S. was accomplishing there. He hates the fact that because of the situation there he had to go there, which is odd, but I think he believes the invasion was based on ulterior motives. It just seems that it didn't have to be the U.S. responsibility to remove Saddam from power or at least not militarily. Eventually someone close to Saddam would have given in and helped with his ousting. If anyone did deserve to be removed by a coup it's Saddam and I know many efforts to remove him one way or another were tried, but eventually his removal would have been achieved. I mean if the Oil for Food program wasn't working the way it was suppsoed to and was acting as an enabler for Saddam's agenda to obatin WMDs then something to the regards of the program should have been done. I believe Condaleeza Rice said at one time that Iraq could have the means to build a nuclear weapon within a year. If it was about a year from happening then obviously other options were still available. The UNSC was obviously conflicted over interests such as with France and Russia, but the sanctions at one time were working. I think the administration shot from the hip on this from the planning of the war to the way power and decision making was delegated in the reconstruction process to the exit strategy. Sorry, I'll stop. It's the wrong thread really.

Bib · Jun 21, 2005

koooky,

>Where are you getting this info? Where are these polls coming from that you are referring to? The most recent polls I have seen show the later, that most Americans want us out of there ASAP. That is the best I can do.<

As stated before, it all depends on how the questions are framed. I want us out of Iraq ASAP. That is the key. ASAP. But soon as possible means when Iraq is able to defend itself against the insurgents. When asked with that in mind, a majority agree that we should stay till the job is finished.

>I think that when more and more of the info becomes known such as all the money wasted and conned, all the different mistakes that were made at the military levels, and all the injured and lost lives to US forces, civilian contractors, and Iraqi civilians that more and more support for the war/occupation and Bush will be lost.<

What more could possibly come out? It seems every stinking hangnail in the region has been reported, much of it we now find is bullshit. The original flash story is always larger than the retraction. How come?

>As for SA, I will have to see it to believe it as far as them reconstructing their government towards democracy. But I don't really think King Fahd or the ruling crown prince will give up power so readily. <

Better to be the kindly monarch than have a knife in your ribs some night.

>And you brought up an interesting point about the Taliban and Saddam NOT moving toward democracy. I am sure you and others have argued it to death, but since when is it up to the US to free other countries? Don't get me wrong, I understand fully and agree with why we destroyed the Taliaban. There was a direct link between them and the men who attacked us. But I do not believe that link is there with Iraq.<

Then we disagree. This has been fully covered in another thread. I believe Saddam was MORE of a threat than Afghanistan. He had more resources, and was every bit as willing to use them as Al Queda.

>So Saddam and his ruling Bath party hated the US. So, who cares. There have almost always been countries that hated us or opposed the US. Until they make a move or an attack is imminent, I don't think we have the right just to attack countries out of hand.<

Why in hell would any country wait until an attack was imminent to act? That is just stupid. What if you were a bit late? 3000 people die so the US looks good? I would rather my leaders be a bit early, than a bit late.

>I am sure there are reasonable argument to be made ont the far right as to why we did it. But what I can't understand is this; why didn't we finish the job first in Afghanistan and use the massive effort to take out Saddam that should have been focused on Bin Laden? I think the military, money, and resources would have been better used getting him then "freeing" a county that had never attacked us.<

Uh, we are still in Afghanistan. We are finishing the job. 140,000 troops were not needed there. If they were, I am sure the military would put them in country. The US military is quite capable of doing more than one thing at a time.

>And as far as my wife goes. You probably won't believe this but she feels like her time in Iraq was NOT for you or anyone else here in the states. She absolutely hated to hear about those "fighting for our freedom" when that simply is not the case. The men and women ARE NOT fighting for the freedom or rights of anyone here in the USA. Our rights and freedoms were never attacked by Iraq. <

I am sorry to hear that. Perhaps, with the passage of time, she will realize how she contributed. I hope so. At any rate, I still firmly appreciate the sacrifices both she and you have made. That will not change. And I will always know that she did contribute to my freedom. This is a hard concept for many to grasp, but it is valid.

>As I can see, there are many of us who no longer support Bush or the GOP. And there are many who still do. My opinion is no more or less valid than yours or anyone else's. The fact remains that I will never, ever again vote for any GOP canidate. Not for a long time to come anyway. I feel betrayed and lied to by the GOP. It will be a long time before I can trust any of them again. I feel as if Bush sold this war on WMD's and there have yet to be any.<

I have often said I would never vote for another Dem. But hopefully, that is not the case. In fact, I have voted for a few Dems in local elections. But isn't it nice to have the right and priviledge to vote? It swells my heart to think of the Afghans and Iraqis that are now able to. 50,000,000 of them. They all now have the same freedoms you have.

Once again, this has been covered in another thread. But let me say this: What possible difference could it make if Saddam had any stockpiles of WMD, if he had the capability, the means, and the intent to produce more within a six month period? Please read the Duelfer report, to see exactly what the threats were, and why Saddam had to be removed.

>Let Bush or his supporters tell the loved ones of those that have died that "your daddy died for someone else's freedom"<

They have, and history will continue to tell the story. Thankfully, most of the families of those who have sacrificed, understand the sacrifice, and are appreciative and proud of what their loved one did. I am surely proud of all my family and friends who have sacrificed through the decades for my freedom.

Bigger

koooky · Jun 21, 2005

Bib, it is very obvious that we totally disagree. That is find and I accept that. You are no more likely to convince me of your opinion as I am to convince you. I am sure both of us could carry on with talking points and such until we both are bored to tears. Bush won fair(?) and square and is doing/has done what he and those around him thinks is best. It could take 20 years or so to have the hindsight to see al the mistakes as it took in Vietnam.

kooky

Baraka · Jun 21, 2005

Bib said:
I believe Saddam was MORE of a threat than Afghanistan. He had more resources, and was every bit as willing to use them as Al Queda.

Sorry, but I'm a little lost here. Do you mean that Saddam was every bit as willing as terrorists in Afghanistan to use his "resources" to attack the United States? Or are you talking about another country, such as his own country (the people of Iraq), or his Middle Eastern neighbors?

Bib said:
I have often said I would never vote for another Dem. But hopefully, that is not the case. In fact, I have voted for a few Dems in local elections. But isn't it nice to have the right and priviledge to vote? It swells my heart to think of the Afghans and Iraqis that are now able to. 50,000,000 of them. They all now have the same freedoms you have.

Of course, such as the right against unreasonable search and seizure, the right to a fair trial, the right against cruel and unusual punisHydromaxent, the right against the seizure of private property without just compensation, etc.

Oh wait...

Ah well. At least they have the right to bear arms. 1 out of 10 ain't bad. After all, there's always the big goose egg. No one's perfect, right?

iwant8inches · Jun 21, 2005

Bib said:
koooky,

>Where are you getting this info? Where are these polls coming from that you are referring to? The most recent polls I have seen show the later, that most Americans want us out of there ASAP. That is the best I can do.<

As stated before, it all depends on how the questions are framed. I want us out of Iraq ASAP. That is the key. ASAP. But soon as possible means when Iraq is able to defend itself against the insurgents. When asked with that in mind, a majority agree that we should stay till the job is finished.

>I think that when more and more of the info becomes known such as all the money wasted and conned, all the different mistakes that were made at the military levels, and all the injured and lost lives to US forces, civilian contractors, and Iraqi civilians that more and more support for the war/occupation and Bush will be lost.<

What more could possibly come out? It seems every stinking hangnail in the region has been reported, much of it we now find is bullshit. The original flash story is always larger than the retraction. How come?

>As for SA, I will have to see it to believe it as far as them reconstructing their government towards democracy. But I don't really think King Fahd or the ruling crown prince will give up power so readily. <

Better to be the kindly monarch than have a knife in your ribs some night.

>And you brought up an interesting point about the Taliban and Saddam NOT moving toward democracy. I am sure you and others have argued it to death, but since when is it up to the US to free other countries? Don't get me wrong, I understand fully and agree with why we destroyed the Taliaban. There was a direct link between them and the men who attacked us. But I do not believe that link is there with Iraq.<

Then we disagree. This has been fully covered in another thread. I believe Saddam was MORE of a threat than Afghanistan. He had more resources, and was every bit as willing to use them as Al Queda.

>So Saddam and his ruling Bath party hated the US. So, who cares. There have almost always been countries that hated us or opposed the US. Until they make a move or an attack is imminent, I don't think we have the right just to attack countries out of hand.<

Why in hell would any country wait until an attack was imminent to act? That is just stupid. What if you were a bit late? 3000 people die so the US looks good? I would rather my leaders be a bit early, than a bit late.

>I am sure there are reasonable argument to be made ont the far right as to why we did it. But what I can't understand is this; why didn't we finish the job first in Afghanistan and use the massive effort to take out Saddam that should have been focused on Bin Laden? I think the military, money, and resources would have been better used getting him then "freeing" a county that had never attacked us.<

Uh, we are still in Afghanistan. We are finishing the job. 140,000 troops were not needed there. If they were, I am sure the military would put them in country. The US military is quite capable of doing more than one thing at a time.

>And as far as my wife goes. You probably won't believe this but she feels like her time in Iraq was NOT for you or anyone else here in the states. She absolutely hated to hear about those "fighting for our freedom" when that simply is not the case. The men and women ARE NOT fighting for the freedom or rights of anyone here in the USA. Our rights and freedoms were never attacked by Iraq. <

I am sorry to hear that. Perhaps, with the passage of time, she will realize how she contributed. I hope so. At any rate, I still firmly appreciate the sacrifices both she and you have made. That will not change. And I will always know that she did contribute to my freedom. This is a hard concept for many to grasp, but it is valid.

>As I can see, there are many of us who no longer support Bush or the GOP. And there are many who still do. My opinion is no more or less valid than yours or anyone else's. The fact remains that I will never, ever again vote for any GOP canidate. Not for a long time to come anyway. I feel betrayed and lied to by the GOP. It will be a long time before I can trust any of them again. I feel as if Bush sold this war on WMD's and there have yet to be any.<

I have often said I would never vote for another Dem. But hopefully, that is not the case. In fact, I have voted for a few Dems in local elections. But isn't it nice to have the right and priviledge to vote? It swells my heart to think of the Afghans and Iraqis that are now able to. 50,000,000 of them. They all now have the same freedoms you have.

Once again, this has been covered in another thread. But let me say this: What possible difference could it make if Saddam had any stockpiles of WMD, if he had the capability, the means, and the intent to produce more within a six month period? Please read the Duelfer report, to see exactly what the threats were, and why Saddam had to be removed.

>Let Bush or his supporters tell the loved ones of those that have died that "your daddy died for someone else's freedom"<

They have, and history will continue to tell the story. Thankfully, most of the families of those who have sacrificed, understand the sacrifice, and are appreciative and proud of what their loved one did. I am surely proud of all my family and friends who have sacrificed through the decades for my freedom.

Bigger

One the biggest problems that has been known would be inevitable is that there are a good amount of Iraqi leaders that want the U.S./coalition out now and have for a time. But because of a prior arangement it looks like the U.S./coalition won't be leaving.

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=925971&C=mideast

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=929079&C=mideast

Baraka · Jun 22, 2005

Dude, that's fucked up right there. Even more fucked up is how little press attention this letter received. I mean, it's only from 82 lawmakers and so what if they represent the largest group in Iraqi parliament! Who cares? Obviously no one.

And isn't it funny how military bases are being closed in the US, while brand new military bases are being built in Iraq? Hmmm...

Thanks for posting the URL below. You should also check out http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GF01Ak03.html

iwant8inches said:
One the biggest problems that has been known would be inevitable is that there are a good amount of Iraqi leaders that want the U.S./coalition out now and have for a time. But because of a prior arangement it looks like the U.S./coalition won't be leaving.

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=925971&C=mideast

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=929079&C=mideast

iwant8inches · Jun 22, 2005

It wouldn't be too out of the realm of possibility if the amount of time spent on preparing for the invasion and reconstruction was about equal to the time spent deciding the amount of and locations of military bases in Iraq.

Baraka · Jun 23, 2005

No doubt.

REDZULU2003 · Jun 24, 2005

I could name some historical blunders that the UK has been involved in, but they are like at least 100 years old and more.
One of which is the Zulu war in Zululand, Province of South Africa.
The Zulu in my screename comes from the zulu tribe of that province.
If the British hadn't under estimated them, and also used better line of attack which they didnt and hence the smoke from their guns blocked their vision and they became massacred, they might have stood a better chance.
Poor organisation, lack of knowing the enemy, poor recon and just pure ignorance from the officers in charge lead to a MASSIVE blunder and the UKs 1st defeat in the commonwealth empire for a LONG LONG time.
This started a wave which lasted 40-50 years and the collapse of the British empire, tose two main Boar wars actually destroyed moral and the British empire, alot of high ranked officers in the empire died in zululand.
I could mention other blunders, such as the battle of bannockburn but I'm sure if you lok it up and read you'll see the errors.

Bib · Jun 28, 2005

koooky,

I agree with you....about the agreeing to disagree.

Baraka,

>Sorry, but I'm a little lost here. Do you mean that Saddam was every bit as willing as terrorists in Afghanistan to use his "resources" to attack the United States? Or are you talking about another country, such as his own country (the people of Iraq), or his Middle Eastern neighbors?<

Surely. His history is an open book. As soon as the heat was off, the risk was great that he would have provided the means to attack the US. He was paying suicide bomber families in Israel, secreting money to resume his weapons programs, etc. Just read the Duelfer report.

>Of course, such as the right against unreasonable search and seizure, the right to a fair trial, the right against cruel and unusual punisHydromaxent, the right against the seizure of private property without just compensation, etc.

Oh wait...

Ah well. At least they have the right to bear arms. 1 out of 10 ain't bad. After all, there's always the big goose egg. No one's perfect, right?<

Uh, OK.

Bigger

Baraka · Jun 28, 2005

Bib said:
Baraka,

>Sorry, but I'm a little lost here. Do you mean that Saddam was every bit as willing as terrorists in Afghanistan to use his "resources" to attack the United States? Or are you talking about another country, such as his own country (the people of Iraq), or his Middle Eastern neighbors?<

Surely. His history is an open book. As soon as the heat was off, the risk was great that he would have provided the means to attack the US. He was paying suicide bomber families in Israel, secreting money to resume his weapons programs, etc. Just read the Duelfer report.

Bib,

I understand that Saddam was paying suicide bomber families in Israel. Everyone was aware of that for a long, long time. But so many other governments in the Middle East were also involved in funding suicide bomber families in Israel. This begs the question: Why attack Iraq, as opposed to an Iran or a Syria? All funded terrorism- and continue to do so- yet only one was attacked. Why? You'll have to explain that one to me.

Also, what has funding suicide bomber families half way across the world have to do with threatening the lives of the American people? You talk about Saddam being able to "provide the means to attack the US", but you don't actually explain what that means. On what basis do you make that statement?

Thanks again for helping to better my understanding of the situation in Iraq.

goodbutnotgreat · Jun 28, 2005

"This begs the question: Why attack Iraq, as opposed to an Iran or a Syria?"

Baraka has hit on a very fundamental point here, one that generally seems to be ignored or dodged by proponents of the war.

If you read anything written by experts on terrorism, diplomacy, our own foreign policy, world issues in general, it weill become clear that on the list of countries that support terrorism and actually pose a threat to the well-being of the US and our allies, Iraq was very low on the totem pole. A concern? Arguably. Imminent threat? Laughable.

Iraq was selected as part of the neo-con plan for starting democracies in the middle-east in order to get a stronger US foothold there, which is in no small part desirable because it would increase our degree of control over the oil supply. Richard Pearle and Paul Wolfowitz have written about this plan extensively, and Wolfowitz used to reportedly send hundreds of memos to the Clinton office and literally beg him to do as Bush has and engineer a conflict with the Iraqis. With the Downing memos we now know that they were gearing up for invasion almost a year before it was announced as even a liklihood - in fact Bush said it was their last option and they hoped to avoid it, even as they privately had no intention of doing anything except invading.

I fail to see how anybody can say our reasons for being over there are legit with a straight face. Fighting terrorists and bringing democracy were just tangential reasons for heading over in the first place - now all of sudden everybody has forgotten about the phantom WMDs? They were once the great tagline, and 90% of the justification for setting foot on foreign soil, all this "fight them there so we don't ahve to here" BS is plainly just scrambling for something to hold onto. The truth is, the insurgency over there was created by the war in the first place and Iraq was damn near devoid of serious terrorist activity (it certainly had some of the lowest numbers pre-war) before we went in there and gave the militant Muslim sects another excuse to hate us.

It's rather funny to me - everything the critics said before the war, such as "there are no WMDs, we won't be greeted as liberators, terrorist attacks and instability will last for years after the war, this will be vastly more expensive than the administration has said, American casualties will be high, it will hurt our credibility internationally," absolutely everything has come to pass. It's just as big of a fiasco as everybody predicted, and fotunately the polls are starting to show that more and more Americans are figuring this out in due time.

Shithead · Jun 28, 2005

you know what sickens me...?

Edit: I'm pissed off enough to make a new thread about it.

Bib · Jun 30, 2005

OK, I give up. I have no idea why you cannot see the big picture, what had happened in the past, how it related to invading at the time, and how it will impact the future.

You all seem to see one fact, no stockpiles of WMDs, and are blinded to everything else. A true shame.

Let's see how it goes. Maybe the pressure will be kept on, and the terrorists will be defeated, or at least marginalized.

Or maybe a liberal democrat will be elected, and we can have more 9/11's. At any rate, we shall all know within the next decade or so.

Bigger

Bib · Jun 30, 2005

Baraka,

>I understand that Saddam was paying suicide bomber families in Israel. Everyone was aware of that for a long, long time. But so many other governments in the Middle East were also involved in funding suicide bomber families in Israel.<

Who would these other governments be? I have not heard of them. To my knowledge, Saddam and Iraq were the only ones with that much brass, and stupidity.

>This begs the question: Why attack Iraq, as opposed to an Iran or a Syria? All funded terrorism- and continue to do so- yet only one was attacked. Why? You'll have to explain that one to me.<

Because of HISTORY! No other middle eastern governments have proved to be as nuts, at this point in time, as Saddam was. Other means of controlling these other situations are being implemented. At some point, other countries may need to be taken care of militarily.

>Also, what has funding suicide bomber families half way across the world have to do with threatening the lives of the American people?<

Geez, I had no idea that this level of specification was needed. First, half way around the world means nothing to terrorists. Israel is an avowed enemy of Saddam. The US in an avowed enemy of Saddam. Saddam funded attacks against Israel. Saddam would probably fund, and provide the means to attack the US in the same manner. Given his history, the risk was too great to take.

>You talk about Saddam being able to "provide the means to attack the US", but you don't actually explain what that means. On what basis do you make that statement?<

As the Duelfer report indicates, from sources within Saddam's government, he was waiting for the sanctions to be lifted to begin his weapons programs again. He also was giving sanctuary to terrorists. Al Queda, like it or not, was in Iraq before the war. It would have been too simple and easy for Saddam to give money and actual weapons, chemical or biological, to terrorists for use in the US or Europe. Given his history, the likelyhood was great.

It will be interesting if the winds do shift, we stop the offensive against terrorism, fall back to a defensive position. I think it will not be long till we have the answer to which system is better.

Bigger

Historical Blunders

0

Active member

0

Active member

1

1

0

Active member

0

1

0

1

0

Well-known member

0

0

0

0

0

0

Similar threads