Here comes the history revision

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
I'm sure that they were aimed at the bad guys and not civilians with every possible intention of being that way but we've seen and heard the damage reports of missed bombs and missiles, hell one ended up in Iran, so while we relied on technology to attempt avoidance of civilians it didn't work that way. Going overboard to protect the civilians would have been to keep 'shock and awe' from happening and using more mobile ground forces with better lines of sight.

I think using the words 'shock and awe' was the only bad thing here. It was stupid to use those kind of words leading into war. I do think they did everything possible to avoid civilian deaths though.

 

[Psychoblues]

I think the "Mission Accomplished" banner was also in bad taste and coupled with the chickenhawk strut was absolutely deplorable. But that's just what I think. There are some that still think of GWB as some kind of a war hero. Imagine that?

 

[Annie]

DK you and Bam are echoing the 'apologize to UN and Euro minority', you have no sway over any other than perhaps us. We have Kerry and Edwards, both of whom were behind administration with most of their colleagues for the war, then turn tail. Will be great if the war was actually made up of whole cloth. Do you honestly believe it was?

Then you have Dean, well he thinks as of yesterday, that the Iraqis were better off under Saddam than today. You agree?

Then there is Clark. Gee he not only voted GOP, he endorsed the policies leading up to war. NOW as a dem candidate he is opposing all, and wanting to withdraw troops NOW. You agree?

 

[Psychoblues]

Wow, you'll stop at no misquote or innuendo to somehow mark your spot!!!!! DK or Bam either one has alluded to such propaganda as you suggest and JD has never uttered the words that you attribute to him. As I alluded earlier to you, Kathianne, your life nurturing habits seem, at least to me, to be self defeating. But you GO GIRL. There are those that appreciate your illusions and will cheer you on to your ultimate detriment. But that's all political, isn't it?

 

[eric]

Going overboard to protect the civilians would have been to keep 'shock and awe' from happening and using more mobile ground forces with better lines of sight.

Sorry, but if this increases the risk of even one American soldier getting killed then it is just unacceptable !

 

[DKSuddeth]

DK you and Bam are echoing the 'apologize to UN and Euro minority', you have no sway over any other than perhaps us.

not sure how you see me doing that....I just want to find out the real deal with intelligence, any misapplied pressure, and if there was truly deception and hold any accountable if need be.

We have Kerry and Edwards, both of whom were behind administration with most of their colleagues for the war, then turn tail.

which will be why neither of those two receive my vote.

Will be great if the war was actually made up of whole cloth. Do you honestly believe it was?

explain what you mean by 'whole cloth', I'm tired fighting this virus issue and not comprehending your meaning.

Then you have Dean, well he thinks as of yesterday, that the Iraqis were better off under Saddam than today. You agree?

were they better off? I don't know and frankly Its not any of my business. I have a family to take care of, a job to do, and am pretty much in charge every 2 to 4 years of deciding who runs my country. Whats the population of Iraq? and the population of husseins army before the invasion? an overthrow would have been completely possible by the iraqis themselves had they really wished it to be. I don't believe its our countrie's responsibility or priviledge to determine who gets to rule what country.

Then there is Clark. Gee he not only voted GOP, he endorsed the policies leading up to war. NOW as a dem candidate he is opposing all, and wanting to withdraw troops NOW. You agree?

agree that the troops should be withdrawn? hell no. in fact I think that there should be more put in there to quell this insurgency once and for all. I disagreed with the reasoning for war and I certainly disagreed for the hows and whys it was fought, but my voice counted little since I was lumped into a 'focus group' by a president I voted for in the first place (which will not be happening again, btw) and was ignored. Now we're there and have to face up to the enormous responsibility that the administration has saddled us with financially. to leave would make us no better than we were at Bush Sr's decision to leave the kurds to their own end at the first one.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by eric
Sorry, but if this increases the risk of even one American soldier getting killed then it is just unacceptable !

then just what did we really accomplish there eric? by the words and actions of our government we've stated loud and clear that we could care less about the civilians of iraq over our own troops, so tell me, were 500+ american lives worth the cost then if we truly didn't care about liberating the iraqis? or removing the threat to their population, since there seems to be less credibility over the WMD threat now.

I, for one, think its extremely hypocritical of anyone to cheer about the liberation of the iraqi people one day and then the next to say flippant remarks like the one Powell did about civilian losses when he said 'those aren't numbers I'm really interested in'.

 

[eric]

I for one never cheered about the liberation, I might have said the Iraqi people will be better off, but no cheer here. My stance has remained constant, he HAD WMD, did not disclose what happened to them, violated resolution after resolution, was a threat to the region, and laughed in the face of the UN. Given this my utmost concern is the safety of our men and women !

 

[Psychoblues]

Eric, law enforcement deals with your analogies all the time. Was I speeding or not? Did I trespass or not? Typical law enforcement is a judgement call. WAR should never be simply a "judgement call". It appears, at this point, that this war was indeed an ultimate simple judgement call and over 500 Americans have paid a very dear price for presumption and poor judgement.

This "WAR" was predicated on the TRUTHS that SH had WMD's and that this country was under immenent threat from them. Both are absolutely, thusfar, proven untrue. But either one, without the other, is no reason for the US to engage it's own young troops and submit them for exposure to death on the battlefield for any presumption. Surely, in this age of trustworthy intelligence and worldwide gathering of such quality information a mistake like this couldn't have been planned, or could it?

I've got my opinions as do you, eric. I just don't see the need for this war beyond ego or personal profit. I don't think any reasonable thinking person can disagree.

This war was/is not Viet Nam. This war was not Grenada or Panama or even Gulf War I, my friend. This war was/is not Afganistan or in any way a war against terror. This war was/is a personal thing with GWB. Without further explanation or evidence I'll die believing that.

But ain't New Hampshire a hoot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Psychoblues
This "WAR" was predicated on the TRUTHS that SH had WMD's and that this country was under immenent threat from them.

How many times are you guys going to claim Bush said we were under an imminent threat. IT WAS NEVER SAID.

 

[Psychoblues]

OK, jimnyc, maybe it was only Colin Powell or even Bill O'Really. But the implication was clear from the White House. American doom to the use of the WMD's of SH were indeed imminent. Your argument denying that is ludicrous to say the least. Had it not been propagated from the WH then this war would have never happened and we would not be having this discussion. Is "WAR" so flippant in your understanding of national responsibilities that it could have been propagated by anything less?

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Psychoblues
OK, jimnyc, maybe it was only Colin Powell or even Bill O'Really. But the implication was clear from the White House. American doom to the use of the WMD's of SH were indeed imminent. Your argument denying that is ludicrous to say the least. Had it not been propagated from the WH then this war would have never happened and we would not be having this discussion. Is "WAR" so flippant in your understanding of national responsibilities that it could have been propagated by anything less?

Actually, I don't recall anyone saying that the threat imposed to the US by Iraq was 'imminent'. I didn't hear this from Bush or Powell. My argument isn't ludicrous, it's factual. You heard and believed something that just wasn't said. Bush clearly stated "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option." Spin any way you see fit, the words simply were not spoken.

You obviously have your opinions about the war as do many others. Let's not drown out the real debates by entering fictitious words.

 

[Psychoblues]

You inadvertantly post another of the GWB lies. That there is a connection between SH and the terrorists that we all recognise as Al Queda. Based on all information available to me, that assertion has been positively disproven. I'll repeat one of the very first statements that I ever made here in the USMB. Saddam Hussein and OBL, in fact all of Al Queda, generally hate each other and consider the other heretics. There has not been anything presented here or otherwise that would convince me differently.

On edit: Apparently your ideology of national responsibility is so flippant and dismissive as to agree that we should send our troops on to war based on some presumptious or more ominous reasoning. Tsk, tsk. I think better of my country than you.

 

[jimnyc]

You inadvertantly post another of the GWB lies.

No I didn't, you're just having trouble differentiating between your opinion and fact again. You're just one big walking propoganda machine.

That there is a connection between SH and the terrorists that we all recognise as Al Queda.

First off, where in the quote that I posted does it mention Al Qaeda? There's enough proof that terrorists were running rampant through Iraq, and apparently at Saddam's blessing.

Based on all information available to me, that assertion has been positively disproven.

I'm assuming you're again speaking of Al Qaeda, which wasn't brought up. Based on all the information available to me, the assertion that Saddam had ties to terrorists is beyond doubt.

I'll repeat one of the very first statements that I ever made here in the USMB. Saddam Hussein and OBL, in fact all of Al Queda, generally hate each other and consider the other heretics. There has not been anything presented here or otherwise that would convince me differently.

Next time, instead of wasting your time babbling, spend more time reading what I posted. Who the hell said anything about Bin Laden or Al Qaeda? If you don't think Saddam supported terrorism you are more naive than I originally figured.

On edit: Apparently your ideology of national responsibility is so flippant and dismissive as to agree that we should send our troops on to war based on some presumptious or more ominous reasoning. Tsk, tsk. I think better of my country than you.

"flippant" 'dismissive" "think better of my country than you"

Do you realize what an idiot you sound like? Do you really think you are somehow superior because you don't support the effort in Iraq? You think you're going to garner sympathy here by posting about your brother. You think you're going to garner accolades here by citing a military record. All you're proving with your attitude is that we aren't missing a damn thing. I have neither sympathy nor praise for you.

I may not always agree with my government, but I'll stand strongly behind their direction. I may not agree with all the decisions in Iraq, but I'll support the men and women in our armed forces. I may not agree with all aspects with the war on terror, but I'll stand behind the efforts being taken to protect me. I may not like the Democratic candidates, but should one be our next president I'll proudly support whomever it is.

I would not proudly support my country if we stood by idly while terrorists put fear into the hearts of our people. I would not support my country if action wasn't taken to prevent future atrocities. I would not support my country if they negotiated with known terrorist organizations or those who support them.

So please don't claim to 'think better of our country' than me. You haven't the qualifications to make such a statement. You haven't earned that right. You certainly haven't displayed anything to backup such a statement. In fact, your claim alone that you think in a superior manner is enough to prove you don't think more of our country. Your words are what is flippant and dismissive. Our country is better off without your type of support.

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by Psychoblues
gop_jeff, as much as I love you and appreciate your point of view I somehow fail to see any justification for it other than to take it as a lockstep follower of the GWB doctrine. I did my duty under Richard Nixon. I did not question it. I further did my duty under Ronald Reagan. I did not question it. I did my duty under GHWB. I was only beginning to question, I guess that goes with experience and age, but I did my duty and was fortunate to come back home relatively intact.

Far from being a "lockstep follower of the GWB doctrine," I support Bush's actions in the GWOT because, after evaluation teh situation and possible courses of action, I think that his course of action was the best to take to maintain the security of the nation. If you disagree, great. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
And, BTW, we are both veterans, though I did not see combat. So we both did our duties as they were given to us.

Your entire response to my original statement is opinionated and opinionated without qualification, as far as I am concerned. The USMB is not a newscast but a place for Americans to come and express their feelings, elations and disappointments, and invite commentary on the same. Sorry, jeff, but I require a more American stance and that is accurate news and depiction of circumstances and public discourse of known "FACTS". I leave the spin to admitted pundits and otherwise entertainers.

I have stated my opinions, backed with facts, and I am suddenly not as American as you are?!? Yet you post things like this

Eric, law enforcement deals with your analogies all the time. Was I speeding or not? Did I trespass or not? Typical law enforcement is a judgement call. WAR should never be simply a "judgement call". It appears, at this point, that this war was indeed an ultimate simple judgement call and over 500 Americans have paid a very dear price for presumption and poor judgement.

in which you make a statement (namely, that the War in Iraq was a "simple judgement call") which is backed up with NO facts. Is that a more "American" way to debate? Should I just start in with the name-calling, as many on the Left are apt to do, without any facts to back it up? Would that be "American" enough for you?!?

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
Jeff, While your documented definition of 'just war' will work fine for heads of state, military commanders, and parliamentary leaders and their followers, theres one part of it that everyone should have issue with the way the Iraq war was fought.

two words come to mind that completely refute this statement....'Shock and Awe'.

DK, I think Jim already said it, but the Shock and Awe phase of the campaign was still not aimed at civilians, and was not a disproportionate means, IMO. I know that not all of the smart bombs hit their targets, not all of the rounds we fired made their way into enemy combatants, but I think the US effort to avoid civilians is commendable. Iraq certainly did no such thing during its resistance after the war.
And I agree with Jim... "shock and awe" probably wasn't a great term to use. Then again, perhaps it was designed to scare the living daylights out of the Iraqis, making them think we were going to have an all-out bombing of the country...? Total conjecture on my part, but I think there might have been a reason for that name.

 

[bamthin]

Originally posted by Kathianne
To DK and Bam, have you remotely thought of what you are leading a possible democrat leader into if he should be elected? What if there are serious threats out there? I mean there is no way a 9/11 could happen again, right? You are hamstringing anyone who might take over from GW, not that I think he'll lose, but what if?

I have thought of that K. This is the way I feel about the whole thing. I really think we should more concerned about tightening our security here at home rather than running around the globe throwing wild punches in the dark at ethereal foes. The "War on Terror", to me is a ploy to manipulate the average American into believing that we should be lashing out at every corner of the planet that isn't free and democratic. Why does everyone accept at face value that terrorist organizations are limited to non-democratic countries? Wouldn't freedom of communications, assembly, and other civil liberties make organization even easier? Forcing a democratic state won't force these people to suddenly like America.

I think we need to invest more tax money into improving our intelligence and bettering our efforts into infiltrating these terrorist organizations and destroying them from within. Instead of mobilizing 100K troops and spending $200 billion dollars, I prefer training crack, fast response delta teams and having them at the ready to take on the terrorists peicemeal.

How can you fight a conventional big time war against an organization of suicidal religious zealots who are scattered all over the world? I contend you can't. I contend that the more "collateral damage" you cause with heavy weaponry, the more anti US sentiment you create and the more potential terrorists as well.

The world is, for the most part, pretty sympathetic to the losses we incurred on 9/11. We should use that sympathy to develop broad support and focus our efforts intelligently on the pertinent enemies. I think we would get alot of support. Bush is squandering all of that.

In my view, I feel less safe with Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Perle, etc. running this military campaign. They have, in my opinion, an ulterior motive for continuing this heavy handed approach to making America safer from Al-Queda.

I think a new face in the White House will enable the world to give the US another chance to be good international citizens and will allow us to more successfully employ diplomatic solutions to tricky situations.

-Bam

 

[modman]

Oh boy, here we go again! Do you have ANY proof whatsover that anyone was 'knowingly mislead'?

Do you have ANY proof whatsoever that anyone was told the truth? Look, if we were misled in the first place they are'nt going to bring proof foreward and say "here it is, we lied to you, lock us up and throw away the key". There will be no proof that they lied. The government chooses what they want people to know. It just so happens we do know that the Bush administration told us there was stockpiles of WMD. But wait, there are'nt any! Show me some proof that they told us the truth...

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by modman
Do you have ANY proof whatsoever that anyone was told the truth? Look, if we were misled in the first place they are'nt going to bring proof foreward and say "here it is, we lied to you, lock us up and throw away the key". There will be no proof that they lied. The government chooses what they want people to know. It just so happens we do know that the Bush administration told us there was stockpiles of WMD. But wait, there are'nt any! Show me some proof that they told us the truth...

Yes, the very same intel that was shared wordlwide and throughout our government. They made statements based on that intel, as did MANY democrats. They all came to the same conclusion. Are they all liars? Please, you're stretching here.

 

[modman]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Yes, the very same intel that was shared wordlwide and throughout our government. They made statements based on that intel, as did MANY democrats. They all came to the same conclusion. Are they all liars? Please, you're stretching here.

I'm sure I remember a few key members of our government not supporting and not voting to go to war. I think what you meant to say was they shared some kind of intelligence, some made statements, and some came to the same conclusion. I'm sorry but you are stretching.