A very important Question

I question your premise that al quaeda and bin laden are the only real enemies. Was Saddam shooting at our aircraft because he was our friend? What do you think he would have done with a captured pilot?

Obviously a lot of countries hate us, but Bin Laden and his network were a much bigger threat than Saddam was to our security here in the U.S. We need to prioritize instead of scatter.



We are bending over backwards to accomodate thier culture. Probably more than any invadng army ever has. How do you treat suicidal fanantics decently? We sure as hell didn't teach em how to do that nor cause them to engage in tribal feuds.

That's not my point. It was our job to anticipate something like this and react accordingly, from the beginning, not after they've begun to slaughter anything that moves.
 
Obviously a lot of countries hate us, but Bin Laden and his network were a much bigger threat than Saddam was to our security here in the U.S. We need to prioritize instead of scatter.

You speak as if we have given up in Afghanistan--not true inspite of the media. Chase the Taliban and bin laden into Pakistan? Wouldn't be prudent--for now.


That's not my point. It was our job to anticipate something like this and react accordingly, from the beginning, not after they've begun to slaughter anything that moves.

Ya--and we should have done about a zillion things differently for decades. When an Sunni kills a Shia or vice versa I really can't blame anyone but them. Sure--we could prop up another Saddam but that's a no win situation too.
 
There are many reasons for the war. Some of the reasons turned out to be based on incorrect information. Some are thought to be good reasons and some are thought to be bad reasons. Here is a small list:

It was thought that Iraq was an imminent threat to America.

It was thought that Iraq had close ties to Al Queda and to the Taliban.

It was thought that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

It was thought that Iraq did not obey the UN.

It was thought that Bush Jr. had a personal vendetta against Saddam for attempts made against Bush Sr’s life.

It was thought that we had strong interest in influencing the oil supply and price. Having power and influence in the Middle East would help in this regard.

We need a military presence in Iraq in order to influence Iran and other surrounding nations – (Ex: imperialism).

To impose/provide “freedom” and democracy for the people in Iraq.


But almost all the above reasons are proper justifications for Bush to invade Iraq.

After the Israelis blew Saddam's reactors in Osirak it set the Iraqi nuke program back by a few years. But Saddam also started posion gas and mustard gas factories. Also he started another atomic bomb project after Osirak and this time he hid his facilities in every corner of his country. AFter Desert Storm there was still evidence of an Iraqi nuclear program and Saddam's hatred and vendetta against U.S continued. Also , there is firm eveidence of Saddam trying to plot an assassination of Bush senior. George Bush also stated in an interview a few years back that " He (Saddam) tried to kill my dad...".

I understand why the Americans supported Bush at that time when he invaded Iraq and toppled Saddam. Also , Bush's tough stance against terrorism after 9/11 inspired the AMericans to support him. One has to admit: Iraq was an atom bomb waiting to explode.If America haden't intervened then Saddam would have popped a nuke into Tel Aviv or into a U.S base in the region. he could have collapsed the whole regions economy and spark an oil crisis . Before it happened Bush screwed it up (thank god). Yes , there were casualties (3000 American lives which should not have been lost). But , why did Bush not anticipate this?. WHy didn't the AMerican citizens not anticipate this ? Did the U.S military underestimate Iraq or what ?

So is that why America turned its back on its President ? Because of the 3000 bodybags which came home ? But then these are the same folks who waved flags and cheered Bush and re-elected him.
Remember Vietnam ? First the AMerican people didn't mind its troops getting rid of Communism in Vietnam but after the Vietcong started shooting down your troops all the AMericans protested vigorously against U.S military presence in Vietnam. So was the Iraq war a sham then ? (I have posed these questions based on solid facts/news and observations which have come from the Iraq war).
 
You seem to have it about right, akiboy, except for just a couple of things.

1. America did not 'turn its back' on Bush before the re-election, or he would not have been re-elected. America hadn't, as a whole, rejected the war until later, and Bush's declining popularity has a lot to do with his outrageous spending and refusal to deal with the southern border.

2. The casualties were anticipated. In fact, we expected 3000 in the first 6 months. I really don't understand why it's such a big deal now. Sure, it's a tragedy when soldiers die, but 3000 deaths in the span of time we've been over there is shockingly low. We lost more than that in a single hour on D-Day, defeating an enemy who is at least as dangerous as this one.
 
You seem to have it about right, akiboy, except for just a couple of things.

1. America did not 'turn its back' on Bush before the re-election, or he would not have been re-elected. America hadn't, as a whole, rejected the war until later, and Bush's declining popularity has a lot to do with his outrageous spending and refusal to deal with the southern border.

2. The casualties were anticipated. In fact, we expected 3000 in the first 6 months. I really don't understand why it's such a big deal now. Sure, it's a tragedy when soldiers die, but 3000 deaths in the span of time we've been over there is shockingly low. We lost more than that in a single hour on D-Day, defeating an enemy who is at least as dangerous as this one.

Think about it-- the two main wars where direction has been lacking (Vietnam and Iraq II) are the wars where we question body counts. Most Americans are willing to sacrifice the lives of soldiers when they see a just cause and a well-executted battle plan. We don't have that in Iraq and therefore we question: Why must they die in vain?
 
Maybe if we let soldiers...you know...kill people, we wouldn't be "bogged down" in Iraq. The problem is any punk 20 year-old is just plain not afraid of joining the insurgency. They are not scared of the American military, because they know that American soldiers will hesitate to kill them, fearing collateral damage and lawsuits. Ethiopia is a more fearsome military power than America right now, because Ethiopia will lay the smack down on jihidist ass and not give a crap what the BBC thinks.
 
Maybe if we let soldiers...you know...kill people, we wouldn't be "bogged down" in Iraq. The problem is any punk 20 year-old is just plain not afraid of joining the insurgency. They are not scared of the American military, because they know that American soldiers will hesitate to kill them, fearing collateral damage and lawsuits. Ethiopia is a more fearsome military power than America right now, because Ethiopia will lay the smack down on jihidist ass and not give a crap what the BBC thinks.

Yes, causing a lot of collateral damage has the opposite effect. Think about it, September 11 did not make us want to leave Al Qaeda alone by causing fear.

Say you have this city which has a crime problem. Hiring more policemen will only cut down on a city's crime so much. If you really want to crack down crime, you have to go to the root causes like poverty. There is only so much that hiring more policemen will do. You acknowledge here that we need to get down to the fundamental cause for violence here, but your solution is to make the terrorists afraid of death. That does not work very well in the ME, where all of the Martyrs are worshiped. If in our imaginary city, making the police more brutal does not solve the problem. It has the opposite affect, like how the Rodney King trial inspired the LA Riots. There is no quick and easy solution to the problem that Iraq is, because we have to stop the insurgency at its roots. Terrorism is like a weed, and we just keep killing off what's above ground while the root cause keeps generating more terrorists. The only way to fix Iraq is to make Iraqis live a socially and economically stable country, and to make them value Nationalism more than their religious fighting.
 
Sadly (in, of course my opinion), this country is fairly conservative as a whole. Most Americans wet themselves when they hear gay marriage and alternatives to the nuclear family. Bush, without any shred of doubt, supports the traditional, judeo-christian values along with many of those who voted for him.

Don't confuse conservatism with people who claim to be conservatives. Conservatism is not much more the personal responsibilty and objectivity. Even more people than you think are probably conservative. The above is not a reflection of conservative beliefs, that's called just being an old white guy. I am a conservative and don't have problem with gay unions (wanting to call it marriage is something I just don't get, but that's a different topic.)

Anywho as far the war in Iraq is concerned my belief is that Bush had a well intentioned idea, but didn't tell the American people the real reason. I believe the real reason was to plant the seed of democracy in the Middle east. We can all see what was lost now that it hasn't gone according to plan, but think of what could have been gained. A real thriving democracy in the middle of the main breeding ground of terrorists. In a sense presenting this as the reason would have been much more a kin to Vietnam -which was in the broadest sense one of many theatres used to fight socialism - then the WMD story and probably even less palatable.

Whether actually true or not, WMDs and immenent threat was the best reason to give in terms of what the American people would let him get away with. Even if we never find WMDs in Iraq the administration can still say that that doesn't mean they weren't there. Hell it would only take a drum of VX to wipe out New York city. Even if that's the least Saddam had, good luck finding in a country the size of California. I do whole heartedly agree that Saddam would have become a real problem for the U.S. at some point, the Bush admin exaggerated this threat probably because they didn't want to take the chance of Democrate president haveing to make the same choice later when he really became a threat and thinking we could negotiate with him. To make a long story short, there wasn't gonna be a better time for the U.S. to be sold this story and believe it short of when Saddam actually pointed something at us, probably not a chance Bush was willing to take.

I think most American's would be okay with the invasion had the story actually been true. Since it's looking more likely all the time that this wasn't true it does seem odd to me that turned our focus to a single country rather than focusing our military might on terrorists, wherever they may be, in general
 
Don't confuse conservatism with people who claim to be conservatives. Conservatism is not much more the personal responsibilty and objectivity. Even more people than you think are probably conservative. The above is not a reflection of conservative beliefs, that's called just being an old white guy. I am a conservative and don't have problem with gay unions (wanting to call it marriage is something I just don't get, but that's a different topic.)

Anywho as far the war in Iraq is concerned my belief is that Bush had a well intentioned idea, but didn't tell the American people the real reason. I believe the real reason was to plant the seed of democracy in the Middle east. We can all see what was lost now that it hasn't gone according to plan, but think of what could have been gained. A real thriving democracy in the middle of the main breeding ground of terrorists. In a sense presenting this as the reason would have been much more a kin to Vietnam -which was in the broadest sense one of many theatres used to fight socialism - then the WMD story and probably even less palatable.

Whether actually true or not, WMDs and immenent threat was the best reason to give in terms of what the American people would let him get away with. Even if we never find WMDs in Iraq the administration can still say that that doesn't mean they weren't there. Hell it would only take a drum of VX to wipe out New York city. Even if that's the least Saddam had, good luck finding in a country the size of California. I do whole heartedly agree that Saddam would have become a real problem for the U.S. at some point, the Bush admin exaggerated this threat probably because they didn't want to take the chance of Democrate president haveing to make the same choice later when he really became a threat and thinking we could negotiate with him. To make a long story short, there wasn't gonna be a better time for the U.S. to be sold this story and believe it short of when Saddam actually pointed something at us, probably not a chance Bush was willing to take.

I think most American's would be okay with the invasion had the story actually been true. Since it's looking more likely all the time that this wasn't true it does seem odd to me that turned our focus to a single country rather than focusing our military might on terrorists, wherever they may be, in general


Good post. For the last few years, war supporters have continued to frame Saddam as an imminent threat in their pursuit to justify this war. But as you've stated, a better justification would have been that we were attempting to create a stable, pro-western democracy in the heart of the Middle East.

But with that said, ideas and their ability to be executed are not one in the same. Our war plan neglected to consider how Iraqis would react to the "freedom" that we spread. We waltzed in and believed that once we toppled Saddam, Iraqis would come to their senses and unite in the face of an optimistic future.

The fact is that democracy does not work everywhere, especially when a country has been oppressed for so long and with the underlying religious tensions that finally ruptured and reached an apex after "Mission Accomplished." It was the duty of the Bush administration (and I say this fairly because I am not a loose cannon liberal who bashes Bush at every opportunity though I do not like him), to understand how this was going to play out. If you want to wage war, you must be ready to deal with the consequences and he was not. His ethnocentric perception of the world and his belief that offered freedom, no one can deny it, was dead wrong for this situation.

So while we may tout democracy and freedom here, and while we feel that it is an honor and a privilege to live under it, we have to understand that it is not a universal truth because different people react to different things differently.
 
Good post. For the last few years, war supporters have continued to frame Saddam as an imminent threat in their pursuit to justify this war. But as you've stated, a better justification would have been that we were attempting to create a stable, pro-western democracy in the heart of the Middle East.

But with that said, ideas and their ability to be executed are not one in the same. Our war plan neglected to consider how Iraqis would react to the "freedom" that we spread. We waltzed in and believed that once we toppled Saddam, Iraqis would come to their senses and unite in the face of an optimistic future.

The fact is that democracy does not work everywhere, especially when a country has been oppressed for so long and with the underlying religious tensions that finally ruptured and reached an apex after "Mission Accomplished." It was the duty of the Bush administration (and I say this fairly because I am not a loose cannon liberal who bashes Bush at every opportunity though I do not like him), to understand how this was going to play out. If you want to wage war, you must be ready to deal with the consequences and he was not. His ethnocentric perception of the world and his belief that offered freedom, no one can deny it, was dead wrong for this situation.

So while we may tout democracy and freedom here, and while we feel that it is an honor and a privilege to live under it, we have to understand that it is not a universal truth because different people react to different things differently.

Now that after all that has happened, what kind of government do you think the people of Iraq really want and how do you feel about Irans' attempt to destabalize the area?
 
Now that after all that has happened, what kind of government do you think the people of Iraq really want and how do you feel about Irans' attempt to destabalize the area?

I have no idea what kind of government the Iraqi people want. My guess would be one that enforces the sectarian Islamic beliefs of each side. But it's not about what they want, it's about what's going to work and democracy has failed thus far.

And do you blame Iran for destabilizing the area? Why wouldn't they? They're playing the same game the U.S. has played throughout its entire history-- screw with things that are already a mess to benefit the country's interests. It doesn't make it right, but we'd certainly be hyppocritical to condemn it.
 
The Whole Issue Is Like Talking About A Play Or Wwf Like It Was Real...none Of It Is Real..911 Was An Inside Job .the Worst Case Of Terrorism In Us History Was The Work Of The Bush Crime Family
In Your Last Election You Had A Choice Of Skull And Bones Or Skull And Bones ,with Rigged Voting Machines To Make Sure E You Picked The Right Skull And Boner ...its A Joke Wake Up Revolution The Only Solution Liberal Conservative Is All Illusion 2 Sides Of The Same Coin Good Cop, Bad Cop To Keep The Masses Distracted:
 
The Whole Issue Is Like Talking About A Play Or Wwf Like It Was Real...none Of It Is Real..911 Was An Inside Job .the Worst Case Of Terrorism In Us History Was The Work Of The Bush Crime Family
In Your Last Election You Had A Choice Of Skull And Bones Or Skull And Bones ,with Rigged Voting Machines To Make Sure E You Picked The Right Skull And Boner ...its A Joke Wake Up Revolution The Only Solution Liberal Conservative Is All Illusion 2 Sides Of The Same Coin Good Cop, Bad Cop To Keep The Masses Distracted:

Can't wait to see your sources! Next post?
 
9/11 - 2/1/2006 BYU Professor Steven E Jones WTC Lecture UVSC ...BYU Physics professor and founder of SCHOLARS FOR 9/11 TRUTH Steven E Jones presents his presentation on the collapse of WTC Buildings 1,2, ... all » and 7 ...
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=964034652002408586 - 84k

11 Controlled Demolitions of September 11, 2001 - Google Video9/11 Controlled Demolitions of September 11, 2001 ... World Trade Center buildings (Twin Towers and Building 7) were brought down by controlled demolition. ...
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3249714675910247150 - 84k

terrorstorm , loosechange,penac,northwoods
Dark Secrets Inside Bohemian Grove (Reprise) (Alex Jones)
n Dark Secrets: Inside Bohemian Grove, Jones and his assistant infiltrated the annual secret gathering of the Bohemian Club. He was aided by a team of ...
AEJ Productions - 1 hr 32 min - 14-Mar-2006
American Dictators
... crime, intelligence agencies, and the occult. * That the "Order of Death" known as Skull and Bones has its members at the highest levels of every ...
INFOWARS.COM - 1 hr 31 min -
 
9/11 - 2/1/2006 BYU Professor Steven E Jones WTC Lecture UVSC ...BYU Physics professor and founder of SCHOLARS FOR 9/11 TRUTH Steven E Jones presents his presentation on the collapse of WTC Buildings 1,2, ... all » and 7 ...
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=964034652002408586 - 84k

11 Controlled Demolitions of September 11, 2001 - Google Video9/11 Controlled Demolitions of September 11, 2001 ... World Trade Center buildings (Twin Towers and Building 7) were brought down by controlled demolition. ...
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3249714675910247150 - 84k

terrorstorm , loosechange,penac,northwoods
Dark Secrets Inside Bohemian Grove (Reprise) (Alex Jones)
n Dark Secrets: Inside Bohemian Grove, Jones and his assistant infiltrated the annual secret gathering of the Bohemian Club. He was aided by a team of ...
AEJ Productions - 1 hr 32 min - 14-Mar-2006
American Dictators
... crime, intelligence agencies, and the occult. * That the "Order of Death" known as Skull and Bones has its members at the highest levels of every ...
INFOWARS.COM - 1 hr 31 min -
Well it took a few, but here is the link:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top