Civl War has begun in Iraq

[Jarhead]

When his justification of a "threat" to our country is our planes getting shot at while enforcing a no fly zone over Iraqi air space, my response was perfectly apropos.

No. His justification was that Iraq had WMD's based on the intel of many countries...including 4 years worth of intel from the US...AND the previous president telling him they existed as well.
It was then supported by Hussein being in breach of the treaty HE SIGNED when he did not allow FULL inspections.

The planes being shot at? Nothing more than an explanation point. But by no means used as justification.

Why are you spinning what really happened?

his = the poster I was quoting, not the Bush Team

My bad.
Sorry.

 

[Article 15]

No. His justification was that Iraq had WMD's based on the intel of many countries...including 4 years worth of intel from the US...AND the previous president telling him they existed as well.
It was then supported by Hussein being in breach of the treaty HE SIGNED when he did not allow FULL inspections.

The planes being shot at? Nothing more than an explanation point. But by no means used as justification.

Why are you spinning what really happened?

his = the poster I was quoting, not the Bush Team

My bad.
Sorry.

No worries.

 

[konradv]

So a band of nomads without a military has greater military capability than a country with an established military.

Like I said in post before this...check your ideology at the door. It stifles your ability to apply logic.

Now...that being said.....I do not support the Iraq invasion. But I do not hold Bush or Congress irresponsible for reacting to intel form countries all over the world.

Don't put words into my mouth. Tell me what YOU think. That being said, you post makes no sense. I don't recall ever saying anything like your first line. Check your ideology at the door, I still haven't seen the logic in your posts.

you said what I put in red bold.

I said what I put in blue bold in response.

There is plenty of logiuc for my response.

You just dont know how to respond to the logic.

Don't get how a "band of nomads" gets into the picture. How about saying exactly what you mean instead of couching it in cutsie phrases? I know you're trying to make a point, but you're confusing the issue with irrelevancies.

 

[Katzndogz]

We don't have to worry about being invaded. They are here. We don't have to worry very much at all about stopping psychos at the border. All of the plots and thwarts since 911 have been by American Citizens. Either born here and raised in terrorist supporting nations, or naturalized.

Iran gee, somehow, wonder how that happened, got the control codes for our drones.

This is far from being sectarian violence in Iraq. This is a full scale invasion by Iran under the cover of sectarian violence.

 

[Jarhead]

I wasn't talking time; I was talking inspectors. However long it took them to finish their job would have been the proper time. The notion that there was some reason they couldn't do that, implied intel Bush obviously didn't have.

When I suspected my son was smoking pot when he was younger.....

I approached him with it. He denied it. I asked if I can check his room and pockets. He allowed me. I found nothing.

A week later, I suspected it again based on my finding him using visine when I saw him walking in the house at midnight.

SO I again asked him if I could check his room and pockets.

He allowed me to check the clothes in the laundry....but got very defensive when I asked to check his nightable draws.

As his father, he had no choice and I found rolling papers.

I knew I would find something as soon as he made it difficult for me to look.

It is not rocket science.

And yet we didn't find anything amounting to a stockpile of working WMDs to justify an invasion. Giving the inspectors time could have told us that. By your logic, before you found the papers, someone would have ordered you out of the house and burned it down. Problem solved or should I say "Mission Accomplished"?!?!

So your position is that we should have continued looking for them until we could not find them?

For 10 years we were unable to find them....but regardless, the intel of MANY countries said they were there. Even Clinton said they were there.

But you say we should have actually found them before taking action?

Do you really think Hussein was going to let them find them?

DO you really think Saddam was going to say to them..."dont open that door"

Do you really think Saddam was going to ket them get within miles of them if they were there?

The minute he breached the agreement, it meant one of two things..

1) I dont want you to find them and you are getting close
2) I dont care about your treaty. I am going to resist and fuck you.

Now...which one was it?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"Mission Accomplished"

 

[thereisnospoon]

Religion is the cause.

It's more tribal than sectarian.
I knew this would be the case once the US military left.
Iraq has three relatively equal factions. Sunnis, Kurds and Shiites.
Each has over the years partioned the nation by region for themselves.
Shiites had been the dominant group for 4 decades.
Now that there is a weakened central government and of course the infighting among government officials representing these different tribes, violent acts will occur with groups attempting to establish dominance.
The problem any country without a dominant culture faces is the lack of the ability to self govern.
Each tribe or group will attempt to influence the country as a whole. Violence usually occurs if the issue cannot be resolved diplomatically.
In short, the groups each believe they are getting the proverbial short end of the stick.
The result can be in the most extreme cases, civil( what is civil about it) war.
These tribal wars can be particularly violent as hatred rises to the surface.
Unless something drastic occurs such as a sit down resolution between the tribes of Iraq, the nation could fall into chaos and civil war.

 

[Caroljo]

When I suspected my son was smoking pot when he was younger.....

I approached him with it. He denied it. I asked if I can check his room and pockets. He allowed me. I found nothing.

A week later, I suspected it again based on my finding him using visine when I saw him walking in the house at midnight.

SO I again asked him if I could check his room and pockets.

He allowed me to check the clothes in the laundry....but got very defensive when I asked to check his nightable draws.

As his father, he had no choice and I found rolling papers.

I knew I would find something as soon as he made it difficult for me to look.

It is not rocket science.

And yet we didn't find anything amounting to a stockpile of working WMDs to justify an invasion. Giving the inspectors time could have told us that. By your logic, before you found the papers, someone would have ordered you out of the house and burned it down. Problem solved or should I say "Mission Accomplished"?!?!

So your position is that we should have continued looking for them until we could not find them?

For 10 years we were unable to find them....but regardless, the intel of MANY countries said they were there. Even Clinton said they were there.

But you say we should have actually found them before taking action?

Do you really think Hussein was going to let them find them?

DO you really think Saddam was going to say to them..."dont open that door"

Do you really think Saddam was going to ket them get within miles of them if they were there?

The minute he breached the agreement, it meant one of two things..

1) I dont want you to find them and you are getting close
2) I dont care about your treaty. I am going to resist and fuck you.

Now...which one was it?

I believe the WMD were always there...until we gave Saddam enough time to move them

WMD conjecture in the aftermath of the 2003 Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I remember the news showing trucks moving toward Syria before we invaded...Bush's only problem was that he warned them too many times that we were coming if Saddam didn't cooperate. He gave Saddam too much time to move it all or bury it....there's still too many questions for anyone to confidently say that there weren't any there.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Iran will step in and settle things.

Iran wants two things. To establish a Mulsim government in Iraq and of course, Iraq's oil reserves.
After all the praying is done, it boils down to one thing...Accumulation of wealth.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Nah, we'll stick with Dubya, thank you. He and Rumsfeld were touting an "immediate threat", when there was none.

Did our pilots being shot at consider that an immediate threat?

Were they flying over United States or anywhere in the vicinity of at the time?

Question: Is it your contention that American economic and national security interests do not extend beyond our borders?
Consider your answer carefully and do some homework before responding.

 

[Jarhead]

Don't put words into my mouth. Tell me what YOU think. That being said, you post makes no sense. I don't recall ever saying anything like your first line. Check your ideology at the door, I still haven't seen the logic in your posts.

you said what I put in red bold.

I said what I put in blue bold in response.

There is plenty of logiuc for my response.

You just dont know how to respond to the logic.

Don't get how a "band of nomads" gets into the picture. How about saying exactly what you mean instead of couching it in cutsie phrases? I know you're trying to make a point, but you're confusing the issue with irrelevancies.

I did not realize you do not appreciate "cutsie" phrases.
And to be frank, I can not see how a cutsie phrase confuses things.

SO I will say it clearly for you.

Al Queda did not have an established military. They did not have an airforce or a navy. They did not have the comfort of established borders to work from. They are/were ideological driven people with nothing more than a goal. And they found a way to kill American Civilians on our shores.

Now, if they were able to find a way...I must believe well trained military personnel would find a way.

Would we be able to fend them off? Absolutely. But it doesnt mean innocent American cicvilian lives wouldnt be lost.

I believe in being pro-active...not reactive.

 

[Article 15]

Did our pilots being shot at consider that an immediate threat?

Were they flying over United States or anywhere in the vicinity of at the time?

Question: Is it your contention that American economic and national security interests do not extend beyond our borders?
Consider your answer carefully and do some homework before responding.

That's an easy no.

Is it your contention that Iraqis shooting at American planes flying over Iraq while enforcing a no fly zone was a threat to our shores or to Joe American working the construction site or office right now, and is justification for spending a trillion dollars and getting tens of thousands of American troops killed or maimed?

 

[Jarhead]

Were they flying over United States or anywhere in the vicinity of at the time?

Question: Is it your contention that American economic and national security interests do not extend beyond our borders?
Consider your answer carefully and do some homework before responding.

That's an easy no.

Is it your contention that Iraqis shooting at American planes flying over Iraq while enforcing a no fly zone was a threat to our shores or to Joe American working the construction site or office right now, and is justification for spending a trillion dollars and getting tens of thousands of American troops killed or maimed?

I have a question...

Short of an attack on our shores by an enemy...

What would justify the US attacking an enemy?

 

[Truthmatters]

Haliburton got what it wanted.

I wish the rest of us had gotten something out of that Iraq war.

all we got was alot of our bravest killed and a trillion dollar debt.

everyone who knew anything about Iraq knew that the day we left was the first day of the civil war there,

Iraq was NEVER a people who wanted to be a country, they were the left over land from colonialism.

Now it will likely take a decade for it to sort out.

Iran may be kept buzy trying to power grab there.

 

[Article 15]

Question: Is it your contention that American economic and national security interests do not extend beyond our borders?
Consider your answer carefully and do some homework before responding.

That's an easy no.

Is it your contention that Iraqis shooting at American planes flying over Iraq while enforcing a no fly zone was a threat to our shores or to Joe American working the construction site or office right now, and is justification for spending a trillion dollars and getting tens of thousands of American troops killed or maimed?

I have a question...

Short of an attack on our shores by an enemy...

What would justify the US attacking an enemy?

An attack on a U.S. ally or an enemy declaring war on the United States.

I'm also fine with surgical strikes against high level terrorist operatives.

 

[Article 15]

Question: Is it your contention that American economic and national security interests do not extend beyond our borders?
Consider your answer carefully and do some homework before responding.

That's an easy no.

Is it your contention that Iraqis shooting at American planes flying over Iraq while enforcing a no fly zone was a threat to our shores or to Joe American working the construction site or office right now, and is justification for spending a trillion dollars and getting tens of thousands of American troops killed or maimed?

I have a question...

Short of an attack on our shores by an enemy...

What would justify the US attacking an enemy?

I have a question....

You were against the invasion of Iraq.

So why are you trying flirt with justifying the invasion?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Were they flying over United States or anywhere in the vicinity of at the time?

Question: Is it your contention that American economic and national security interests do not extend beyond our borders?
Consider your answer carefully and do some homework before responding.

That's an easy no.

Is it your contention that Iraqis shooting at American planes flying over Iraq while enforcing a no fly zone was a threat to our shores or to Joe American working the construction site or office right now, and is justification for spending a trillion dollars and getting tens of thousands of American troops killed or maimed?

I was hoping you'd be more elborate in your answer.
"no" doesn't cut it. Expand upon your answer. In other words, the reasons you replied "no".

 

[Article 15]

Question: Is it your contention that American economic and national security interests do not extend beyond our borders?
Consider your answer carefully and do some homework before responding.

That's an easy no.

Is it your contention that Iraqis shooting at American planes flying over Iraq while enforcing a no fly zone was a threat to our shores or to Joe American working the construction site or office right now, and is justification for spending a trillion dollars and getting tens of thousands of American troops killed or maimed?

I was hoping you'd be more elborate in your answer.
"no" doesn't cut it. Expand upon your answer. In other words, the reasons you replied "no".

My answer not good enough for you?

So sorry.

Do try to cope.

 

[Jarhead]

That's an easy no.

Is it your contention that Iraqis shooting at American planes flying over Iraq while enforcing a no fly zone was a threat to our shores or to Joe American working the construction site or office right now, and is justification for spending a trillion dollars and getting tens of thousands of American troops killed or maimed?

I have a question...

Short of an attack on our shores by an enemy...

What would justify the US attacking an enemy?

An attack on a U.S. ally or an enemy declaring war on the United States.

I'm also fine with surgical strikes against on high level terrorist operatives.

So you believe the threat of an attack on an ally or a threat of an attack on US interests is not proper justification?

Interesting.

I can debate both sides of that...meaning I am not in agreement or disagreement with you.

 

[Article 15]

I have a question...

Short of an attack on our shores by an enemy...

What would justify the US attacking an enemy?

An attack on a U.S. ally or an enemy declaring war on the United States.

I'm also fine with surgical strikes against on high level terrorist operatives.

So you believe the threat of an attack on an ally or a threat of an attack on US interests is not proper justification?

Interesting.

I can debate both sides of that...meaning I am not in agreement or disagreement with you.

Correct.