Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Iraq War

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Iraq War

    In an earlier thread, my wife said:
    Common sense says that if someone kills 3,000 of your citizens, you go after him til you have his head on a platter; not turn around and start a war somewhere else where you have no business being.
    Karen responded:
    I am damn glad we went into Iraq, as are the majority of their people... You say we had no business being there, I and many believe we had a lot of business being there, and GOOD, much good has been done, by our efforts.
    So let's tackle the Iraq War and subsequent occupation and efforts to build democracy here.

    Should we have gone in? Should we have gone in with more international support? Is Iraq better now that it was two years ago, and is the U.S. safer? Were WMD claims overstated, or a reasonable conclusion, and is their absence now irrelevant given other objectives and accomplishments?

    Have at it!

  • #2
    Re: The Iraq War

    Hoo boy. *Waves hand* "Boss, can I have the day off? I gotta spend it working on a 3000-word article similar to this one from the Washington Post", in which the paper admits it was not nearly skeptical enough about Administration claims.

    If you can't get there without registration, I think MSN's homepage has the story as well.

    More later.
    http://www.linkmeister.com/wordpress/

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: The Iraq War

      I guess since it's the Washington Post, they've gotta do it right, but really... media handwringing and self-flagellation over "we should have asked more questions" was so six months ago.

      The thing that strikes me, and I think my wife was making the same point, is that in a way, the administration has won a lot of the battle by framing the debate and limiting it to, "Did we go into Iraq for the right reasons, and does it matter since Saddam's gone?"

      You have to step back and remember that they had us on a roll after 9/11 and stormed into Afghanistan, and basically seem to have decided to cash in a 2-for-1 "war mandate coupon" to take down Saddam as well. We hadn't come anywhere near finishing the job on the first battlefield - we're still on the ground there, overwhelmed by the enormity of that mission. So. We're still searching for our 9/11 mastermind (unless you subscribe to "October Surprise" conspiracy theories) and trying to keep Afghanistan under control, and also still in the middle of it all in Iraq (despite handing over a piece of paper in a rushed, subdued ceremony).

      And honestly, I might even give 'em the benefit of the doubt, and say, Iraq was a problem, and Saddam had it in for America (after all, our current president's father came gunning for him before), and he might have maybe been able to think about possibly considering a study to implement "weapons of mass destruction related program activities," so lets liberate some people (and get some oil), woohoo!

      But there's been that whole pesky North Korea problem all this time, and of all things, Bush is now looking to pick a fight with Iran. "Oops, sorry, wrong country (again)!" Our nation has a huge deficit, our workforce is withering, and we've burned nearly every bridge to the outside world, and they're still looking to push folks around?

      So I can't see Iraq as a decision that had to be made. It's part of a broader philosophy of relentless and unilateral imposition of our will on the rest of the world. Given that underlying motive, while the jury's still out on what good taking Saddam out has done, there's no question in my mind that - at best - we did the right thing (1.) for the wrong reasons, and (2.) in a wrongheaded way.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: The Iraq War

        I don't think the USA should take any part in "pre-emptive" wars.

        We'd have a hell of a lot more reason to invade Sudan right now than we had to invade Iraq. But then we're talking human lives, not oil.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: The Iraq War

          Yes, it remains we "should have gone in." Should we have received more support? Yes! were we wrong to have gone in without it? No. It is on record that France had supplied some things to Saddam in the recent few years, so no wonder they didn't support our going in. Heck, I can't even recall the other nation that refused us, that we have found weapons from, upon going in ourselves, but no wonder some refused.

          The Iraqi people say they are better off, and no, one can't speak for EVERY single one of them, anymore than you can get all Americans to agree on any issue. Our troops are telling, even this week, yes, stories of how they are given gifts, and well-received in various parts of Iraq. their biggest hesitation is that they want to know saddam's fate, will he get the death penalty, of could he live, to someday be free again, and harm their children, if not them.

          Was the claim of WMDs overstated, and if so, WHY? was it a lieing administration, or faulty intelligence? (if faulty intelligence, uh oh, is our intelligence better, now? if not, does this mean we are in even greater danger than we think, here in the homeland, because our intel. just can't do a good enough job? if so...sigh....how do we fix this?)

          There is still another possibility, concerning the WMD claim. Was it really the main reason to go in? Oil, you say? really? how is their oil benefitting us? It is being sold, but the Iraqis are getting the money for it, not the Bush family (G) nor our own govt. so why was oil the main reason, IF it was? If not, is it possible that toppling the madman, saddam and his whacked out sons WAS the main reason, but our govt. used the WMDs for the main reason? Does ANY govt. ever tell us the whole truth about any operation, and furthermore SHOULD they, if not? (sorry, but all valid questions, even though it's a lot to reply to, I hope some bother to)

          Is it possible that it was a combination of things that made Bush decide to go in? Intel that truly did make it look like there were WMDs, plus freeing the Iraqi people, etc. Deny it all one may wish to, the Iraqi people ARE free now, they say they are, just as the Iraqi prize fighter that I saw on KGMB twice, and he spoke for all of his relatives and a host of friends "back home" in Iraq. He is about saddam's age, and even went to school with him while growing up, then knew him since he was a prize fighter in their country, which by the way may be the only reason he lived unscathed. He spoke 100% positive of what we did, "by going in."

          I get email reports regularly, from Iraq. the 2 people I currently know that are there report that we are very appreciated there, and when not, it is those that have entered Iraq, dressed like Iraqis and are fighting to try and make it look like they want us out, as Iraqis when it is a lie. Neighboring countries that hate us a lot, and terrorists dedicated to doing more of what was done on 9-11, are there, to create instability and try to scare even the Iraqis into MAKING us leave, and with their sovereignty, they CAN do this.

          WMDs....were they moved into a neighboring country inbetween visits by the UN inspectors? WEll duh, had I been saddam, that is precisely what I would have done, and there are rumors "over there" that say saddam did just that.

          Bush's biggest mistake probably was publicly saying that WMDs were the "main" reason he was going in! Was this mistake one he could have, therefore should have, avoided? Doubtfully since the Intel. was, by all accounts, not as good as it was believed to have been.

          Is it, right now, good we went in? Depends upon how much you care about the Iraqis, or stability in that region. saddam will never march on another country there, unless the unthinkable happens, if he lives AND goes free. The Iraqis say we did a wonderful thing, while they hug our troops, feed them right inside their own homes, while giving them gifts.

          What now? we stay until they have elections, install their govt. until they say they have a military and police that can protect their people, and bottom line, we stay until they tell us to leave. THEY, as a collective, voting society, NOT as the oppressed people that honestly were tortured, abused, killed and lived in literal fear.

          Yes, much good has been done over there. I read that their own sale of oils will rebuild their country. This better be true, no matter who sits in our white house.






          Originally posted by pzarquon
          In an earlier thread, my wife said:Karen responded:So let's tackle the Iraq War and subsequent occupation and efforts to build democracy here.

          Should we have gone in? Should we have gone in with more international support? Is Iraq better now that it was two years ago, and is the U.S. safer? Were WMD claims overstated, or a reasonable conclusion, and is their absence now irrelevant given other objectives and accomplishments?

          Have at it!
          Stop being lost in thought where our problems thrive.~

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: The Iraq War

            What an odd couple of new entries in the "Deconstructing Iraq" curriculum.

            L. Paul Bremer, former U.S. civilian administrator of Iraq, said "we paid a big price" for not having enough troops on the ground when Saddam was toppled. He made similar remarks about troop levels when he was speaking in Indiana. He claims he "raised this issue a number of times with our government," and when he was rebuffed, he said he "should have been even more insistent."

            He issued a formal statement later to clarify: he was always for regime change, and that he thinks troop levels are fine, now. Of course, that doesn't undermine his original point, which was the chaos that immediately followed Saddam's ouster was one of the major reasons things ultimately spiraled out of control as far as they have.

            Donald Rumsfeld, meanwhile, surprised some when he seemed to admit flatly that "the intelligence proved wrong" on WMDs, and in the same appearance, affirmed what most people have concluded when it comes to supposed links between Saddam and Al Qaeda, saying he had "not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two."

            He issued a formal statement later to clarify: Actually, we think there are links, and always did. It seemed a particularly important correction to make, since by saying there wasn't a connection, he'd be contradicting an assertion Dick Cheney has been freely making all summer.

            What on earth is going on? Where are these guys' "handlers"? It seems folks are having trouble sticking to their carefully crafted talking points all of a sudden.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: The Iraq War

              Originally posted by pzarquon
              What on earth is going on? Where are these guys' "handlers"? It seems folks are having trouble sticking to their carefully crafted talking points all of a sudden.
              Perhaps the Republican establishment has realized what a turkey they've gotten with Bush, written him off as a lost cause, and started positioning for the 2008 campaign.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: The Iraq War

                In regards to the Iraq war...what will Mr. Kerry do if elected? I know he'll inherit the "mess" but how will he make it right. I really feel for people who have relatives that have been killed in Iraq or the surrounding areas that have unrest.
                A friend of ours was to spend her honeymoon here but having been in Saudi Arabia for a year and experiencing the terrible sand storms she changed her mind and went to Europe instead...no more sand for a while. How do we "fix" the wrong? Is there a right way? Seeing the unhappy families that are torn apart because of the war...not a happy time at all.
                Retired Senior Member

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: The Iraq War

                  Broadly speaking, I know Kerry has (1.) stated withdrawal is a priority, and will be accomplished if he can better internationalize the mission in Iraq (i.e. starting to bring troops home in six weeks, and being essentially out of Iraq in his first term), but realistically, (2.) advocating strengthening and growing our military, sending more troops if they're needed.

                  His speech in April is the nearest thing to a full outline of his Iraq plan.
                  As complicated as Iraq seems, there are really only three basic options: One, we can continue to do this largely by ourselves and hope more of the same works; Two, we can conclude it’s not doable, pull out and hope against hope that the worst doesn’t happen in Iraq; Or three, we can get the Iraqi people and the world’s major powers invested with us in building Iraq’s future.

                  Mistakes have complicated our mission and jeopardized our objective of a stable free Iraq with a representative government, secure in its borders. We may have differences about how we went into Iraq, but we do not have the choice just to pick up and leave—and leave behind a failed state and a new haven for terrorists.

                  I believe that failure is not an option in Iraq. But it is also true that failure is not an excuse for more of the same. Here is how we must proceed...
                  It is indeed heavily dependent on rebuilding alliances with other nations, and while I can see how that might be difficult or even unlikely, I also agree there aren't too many other options if we don't want to "go it alone."

                  Make no mistake, "finishing the job" in Iraq will be tough, whether it's Bush or Kerry at the helm. The longer it takes, the harder it will be for the American people to see the wisdom of occupation, and even I see that as a problem, insofar as it is our troops struggling and dying over there, and they need all the support they can get.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: The Iraq War

                    One refreshing out of the box way of thinking about how we can train the Iraqis to take care of themselves and thus ensure our withdrawal from combat that I've heard recently is the notion that maybe we don't have to train those people in Iraq, where both our troops (the teachers) and the Iraqis (the students) are in peril every day?

                    What if we could train them in other countries who are part of the coalition? That could be their contribution to the war effort. Would that not solve 3 problems: 1) fewer of our troops would be hurt and 2) you still accomplish the goal of training the Iraqis, and 3) hold our allies to their pledge to support us?

                    Could we pull something like this off logistically?

                    Miulang
                    Last edited by Miulang; October 5, 2004, 07:47 PM.
                    "Americans believe in three freedoms. Freedom of speech; freedom of religion; and the freedom to deny the other two to folks they don`t like.” --Mark Twain

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: The Iraq War

                      I personally believe all along it is was big mistake that we invaded
                      Iraq. None of the justifications for war were legit. Where was
                      the WMD ? Where were these supposed connections to Al Qaeda ?
                      Why does it look like this invasion was done for the financial
                      benefit of a few people ? Now we are stuck in a muddled mess where different factional ethnic groups are fighting for control of the country.

                      If Bush is re-elected I forsee more military action against rogue
                      nations like in the case of Iraq. Thus stretching our military
                      and world opinion farther into the toliet.
                      Check out my blog on Kona issues :
                      The Kona Blog

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: The Iraq War

                        Originally posted by Miulang
                        One refreshing out of the box way of thinking about how we can train the Iraqis to take care of themselves and thus ensure our withdrawal from combat that I've heard recently is the notion that maybe we don't have to train those people in Iraq, where both our troops (the teachers) and the Iraqis (the students) are in peril every day?

                        What if we could train them in other countries who are part of the coalition? That could be their contribution to the war effort. Would that not solve 3 problems: 1) fewer of our troops would be hurt and 2) you still accomplish the goal of training the Iraqis, and 3) hold our allies to their pledge to support us?

                        Could we pull something like this off logistically?

                        Miulang
                        I don't recall if Kerry has mentioned this, but Edwards has (maybe tonight in the debate; I just recall him suggesting it, possibly to take place in Jordan). That would also get an Arab country "on side," which surely couldn't hurt. I have no clue what the response from any Arab country might be, but what the heck, it's worth a shot.
                        http://www.linkmeister.com/wordpress/

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: The Iraq War

                          Karen and other rabid Bush supporters: Please DO NOT go to the following link as it will put you into apoplectic fits after reading it. This British economist likens the current war in Iraq to a sporting event with a propaganda machine (psyops) aimed directly at deceiving the American public.

                          Here: http://www.counterpunch.org/rooij05142003.html

                          Miulang
                          "Americans believe in three freedoms. Freedom of speech; freedom of religion; and the freedom to deny the other two to folks they don`t like.” --Mark Twain

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: The Iraq War

                            To all the Republican loyalists: what are the rest of us supposed to make of the latest (today) reports from the chief US arms inspector in Iraq that there is absolutely no evidence that Iraq had any WMDs since 1992? Would you like to tell us that the Dems and anti-Bush people somehow got to the people who did the investigation? Inquiring minds want to know...

                            Miulang

                            Here: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/07/politics/07intel.html
                            Last edited by Miulang; October 6, 2004, 05:37 PM.
                            "Americans believe in three freedoms. Freedom of speech; freedom of religion; and the freedom to deny the other two to folks they don`t like.” --Mark Twain

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: The Iraq War

                              Originally posted by Miulang
                              To all the Republican loyalists: what are the rest of us supposed to make of the latest (today) reports from the chief US arms inspector in Iraq that there is absolutely no evidence that Iraq had any WMDs since 1992?
                              I already know the answer, as I have heard it before.
                              The supposed WMD's were smuggled out of the country
                              to Syria etc. Which is bunch of rubbish IMHO.
                              Check out my blog on Kona issues :
                              The Kona Blog

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X