36 more dead

[AkMan]

36 US troops died today in Iraq (so far), most due to a helicopter crash. I was all for this war at the beginning, but now I'm beginning to feel like I was duped. We've just lost way too many soldiers and I don't think Iraqis are going to vote on Sunday.

[Bobmuhthol]

I'm not a fan of death, but wtf? For a war, there's certainly an exceptionally low death count. I'm sure more than 36 people were murdered today. Thousands died of natural causes. More died in the blizzard, etc. People that join the military know the risks. I'll start being concerned when I see actual battles.

[Ralimar]

36 soldiers says nothing about the hundreds of Kurdish and Shi'ite citizens that are being killed in their own country by the Sunni rebels.
The other thing is, Bob, is that it's not an actual War. The Evil Regime has been toppled and we've "Freed" the Iraqi people, so the war is supposed to be over and Iraqi elections will put a weak government in place so that America can say, "Okay, we got the guy who tried to kill W's daddy, now you're on your own!"
Supposedly out troops are supposed to start pulling out this year, which is just stupid. If America, the greatest nation in the world, can't keep the people safe, then a fledgling government--no matter what its legitimacy, will have no chance. Things will just go downhill unless an incredibly charismatic leader comes out of the Iraqi people and is able to stifle or find a solution to the Sunni rebellion.

[Warriorbird]

If we leave, Iraq will quickly become an Iranian client state. Unless of course we are "forced" to invade Iran. Then they actually have some chance.

Originally posted by Bobmuhthol
I'm not a fan of death, but wtf? For a war, there's certainly an exceptionally low death count. I'm sure more than 36 people were murdered today. Thousands died of natural causes. More died in the blizzard, etc. People that join the military know the risks. I'll start being concerned when I see actual battles.

You will never see actual battles anymore. The American Military is untouchable in conventional warfare. What Bob said I agree with. 36 dead, though extremely sad is expected to happen especially around this time considering the elections are only a few days away. The U.S. is pulling out eventually, the current plan that I have seen is some 120,000 U.S. troops there for the next two years. During that time we will continue to aid the Iraqi government in training its own soldiers and helping them to defend themselves. The attacks are being carried out by people who are upset that they will not control the country anymore, or people who do not wish to see a state like Iraq be free. They are being carried out by terrorists, and an active foreign insurgency as well. Unlike the old style of warfare where everyone wore a uniform, and you knew where the enemy was we don't have that advantage going for us over there. Every man that walks down the street may be a bomber, or be ready to pull out a gun and blow your head off as soon as you walk by. The number dead is tragic, yet acceptable considering the amount of work that is being done over there as well as the amount of good that is being accomplished as well.

[CrystalTears]

Originally posted by Bobmuhthol
I'm not a fan of death, but wtf? For a war, there's certainly an exceptionally low death count. I'm sure more than 36 people were murdered today. Thousands died of natural causes. More died in the blizzard, etc. People that join the military know the risks. I'll start being concerned when I see actual battles.

That's twice I agree with Bob today. :blink: I think I need to lie down.

[AnticorRifling]

36 more guarding the gates.

God speed and semper fi.

[AnticorRifling]

Haven't heard a 100% on this yet but one of my buddies that's still in says there is a good chance one of the fallen is a friend of ours. If it's who I think it is then I get to hand off another flag... one of the hardest things I've done to date.

I'll know soon enough.

[Keller]

Originally posted by Dave

Originally posted by Bobmuhthol
I'm not a fan of death, but wtf? For a war, there's certainly an exceptionally low death count. I'm sure more than 36 people were murdered today. Thousands died of natural causes. More died in the blizzard, etc. People that join the military know the risks. I'll start being concerned when I see actual battles.

You will never see actual battles anymore. The American Military is untouchable in conventional warfare. What Bob said I agree with. 36 dead, though extremely sad is expected to happen especially around this time considering the elections are only a few days away. The U.S. is pulling out eventually, the current plan that I have seen is some 120,000 U.S. troops there for the next two years. During that time we will continue to aid the Iraqi government in training its own soldiers and helping them to defend themselves. The attacks are being carried out by people who are upset that they will not control the country anymore, or people who do not wish to see a state like Iraq be free. They are being carried out by terrorists, and an active foreign insurgency as well. Unlike the old style of warfare where everyone wore a uniform, and you knew where the enemy was we don't have that advantage going for us over there. Every man that walks down the street may be a bomber, or be ready to pull out a gun and blow your head off as soon as you walk by. The number dead is tragic, yet acceptable considering the amount of work that is being done over there as well as the amount of good that is being accomplished as well.

How many more mindless clichees can you fit into one post? You're like a walking, talking, typing advertisment for this neo-con ideology. Add a few more "liberty" and "freedom" into your rhetoric and you too might become president.

[HarmNone]

For your sake, and the sake of his other friends, I hope your buddy is wrong, Anticor.

[Artha]

You're like a walking, talking, typing advertisment for this neo-con ideology.

You're pretty much the polar opposite. Can't we all just get along?

[Edited on 1-27-2005 by Artha]

[Back]

Iraq is a tragedy. Its unjust. Its murder. Its even genocide. Its absolutely unacceptable. All you religious people who support it shame the god you worship and the tenants you supposedly live by.

Unjust? I take it you've never been here and haven't ever seen some of the shit that passed for just back in the day. If you have and you still want to say that we had no reason to go here than I question whatever supposedly morality you claim to have.

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Keller

Originally posted by Dave

Originally posted by Bobmuhthol
I'm not a fan of death, but wtf? For a war, there's certainly an exceptionally low death count. I'm sure more than 36 people were murdered today. Thousands died of natural causes. More died in the blizzard, etc. People that join the military know the risks. I'll start being concerned when I see actual battles.

You will never see actual battles anymore. The American Military is untouchable in conventional warfare. What Bob said I agree with. 36 dead, though extremely sad is expected to happen especially around this time considering the elections are only a few days away. The U.S. is pulling out eventually, the current plan that I have seen is some 120,000 U.S. troops there for the next two years. During that time we will continue to aid the Iraqi government in training its own soldiers and helping them to defend themselves. The attacks are being carried out by people who are upset that they will not control the country anymore, or people who do not wish to see a state like Iraq be free. They are being carried out by terrorists, and an active foreign insurgency as well. Unlike the old style of warfare where everyone wore a uniform, and you knew where the enemy was we don't have that advantage going for us over there. Every man that walks down the street may be a bomber, or be ready to pull out a gun and blow your head off as soon as you walk by. The number dead is tragic, yet acceptable considering the amount of work that is being done over there as well as the amount of good that is being accomplished as well.

How many more mindless clichees can you fit into one post? You're like a walking, talking, typing advertisment for this neo-con ideology. Add a few more "liberty" and "freedom" into your rhetoric and you too might become president.

stfu. He's walking the walk, not just talking the talk.

[Edited on 1-27-2005 by Kranar]

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by RangerD1
Unjust? I take it you've never been here and haven't ever seen some of the shit that passed for just back in the day. If you have and you still want to say that we had no reason to go here than I question whatever supposedly morality you claim to have.

The genocide that Saddam took part in doesn't matter to Backlash. You didn't know that yet?

[Stealth]

Well said Dave and Ranger. I don't "want" to be here in either a personal sense or as a country. But I strongly believe that we NEED to be here... I volunteered to come, as did our country, and each and every member of the US Military volunteered for the service. I know the risks and I surely hope that each person who stood up and took the Oath knows the risks. What we are doing here is helping people, regardless of righting past wrongs, it's the right thing to do. And pulling out in the next 2 years or less is IMHO, the wrong thing to do. What we really need is about 3 times the number of soldiers (infantry and armor/cav) on the ground here until the area is settled down and the Iraqi Govt can handle it itself. We don't have that many people to send, but it sure would be nice.


Stealth

[SpunGirl]

What would be nice is if all the naysayers would take a few minutes to say thank-you to the service members that are in and have gone to Iraq. Whether you agree with the war or not, it sure is nice that there are all those men and women who are volunteering to sign up and go. Without them, I'm sure the draft would be a lot more of a looming threat.

-K

[Galleazzo]

Originally posted by Backlash
Iraq is a tragedy. Its unjust. Its murder. Its even genocide. Its absolutely unacceptable. All you religious people who support it shame the god you worship and the tenants you supposedly live by. But Saddam raping and murdering tens of thousands, that was okay? Using poison gas on the kurds, that was okay? Bush lied about WMD to get us into it and he oughta been impeached, but that murdering fucker's behind bars and his murdering fuckwad sons are wormfood now. Think the families of the women they raped to death with gun barrels are bitching and pissing about tenants right now?

[Tsa`ah]

stfu. He's walking the walk, not just talking the talk.

When and if he gets deployed he will be.


What would be nice is if all the naysayers would take a few minutes to say thank-you to the service members that are in and have gone to Iraq. Whether you agree with the war or not, it sure is nice that there are all those men and women who are volunteering to sign up and go. Without them, I'm sure the draft would be a lot more of a looming threat.

It's nothing against the soldiers, but what would we thank them for? Risking their lives over a lie?

No, this has nothing to do with the soldiers. I wish each and every one a speedy and safe return. This is a problem with the administration risking the lives of our brothers, sisters, and neighbors over bull shit. This is about our administration shipping off soldiers without a plan, lacking vital equipment, and offering 4x the pay to civilians (through Hali) to work in Iraq.

Iraq is, never was, and will never be, a threat to the US in our life time.


But Saddam raping and murdering tens of thousands, that was okay? Using poison gas on the kurds, that was okay? Bush lied about WMD to get us into it and he oughta been impeached, but that murdering fucker's behind bars and his murdering fuckwad sons are wormfood now. Think the families of the women they raped to death with gun barrels are bitching and pissing about tenants right now?

Yet we ignore the Saudis when they do the same. We ignore many of the Sadams of the world and why? Because they possess nothing that we want.

The "liberation" argument gets old. We're not toppling other dictators, and in some cases we're supporting them. This war had nothing to do with liberation.

[Edited on 1-27-2005 by Tsa`ah]

[Hulkein]

If Bush does proceed to topple other dictators, you'll be the first to oppose it.

Whether or not Bush is indeed universal in his attempt to remove brutal dictators across the world, and not just those who have 'what we want,' you'd still be opposed.

Not that I am saying you shouldn't oppose it, but it's a bit hypocritical to act as if it'd be OK if he was doing it all around the world, but since he started in Iraq, it isn't OK.

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by Hulkein
If Bush does proceed to topple other dictators, you'll be the first to oppose it.

Whether or not Bush is indeed universal in his attempt to remove brutal dictators across the world, and not just those who have 'what we want,' you'd still be opposed.

Not that I am saying you shouldn't oppose it, but it's a bit hypocritical to act as if it'd be OK if he was doing it all around the world, but since he started in Iraq, it isn't OK.

You have no idea what I would be in opposition to and for what reasons. You can assume, but most of the time you assume incorrectly.

If we were going around the world toppling oppressive regimes guilty of heinous crimes against humanity, you bet your ass I would be for it. But we're not.

Our preliminary target, Afghanistan, is still largely in the hands of warlords and what remains of the Taliban.

The Saudis still execute, torture, and rape "enemies of the state".

Several nations observe the extreme Muslim laws that call for the rape and oppression of women.

It's a huge list, but who did we go after? Iraq. Why? Not because of human rights violations ... but because they had all of these non-existent WMDs.

The Bush administration, hell almost every administration, did not and has not involved itself in liberation efforts. Liberation is a tag thrown on military action where we have a vested interest toward domestic gain.

[Edited on 1-27-2005 by Tsa`ah]

[AkMan]

For the record I 100% support our troops and have a large amount of respect for each and every one of them who are willing to fight for our country and freedom. You guys are heros.

[Keller]

As I write this we have recon missions going on in Iran. At least this time the nation-builders in DC are getting the evidence first. I commend them for learning from their mistakes.

Artha, I oppose the neo-con "we've got to get them before they get us" mentality. We can't go around "making" democracies. We've tried (and failed) in two countries under this administrations watch. Please God don't let them think the third time is the charm.

I don't know that I am an isolationist, but I am a proponent of strong domestic policy. This administration has their hands so full with their foreign "policy" that they've hardly had the time to see how miserably their domestic policies are failing. Unless of course if you think that making church doctrine into state policy is a worthy domestic policy. The only good thing this adminstration has done stateside is to create DHS and make us reasonably more safe.

Hulkein, I'm sorry I pissed you off a few days ago. I didn't mean for you to stalk my posts and attempt to "pwn" me every chance you get. I don't think Dave did more than spout the same drivvle this administration has been spitting since they conived this little plan of theirs in 2001. Nothing against Dave, he's not unique in this. He's just reiterating what he's heard and what he believes. I just see it as overused rhetoric.

[Keller]

Originally posted by Stealth
....... What we really need is about 3 times the number of soldiers (infantry and armor/cav) on the ground here until the area is settled down and the Iraqi Govt can handle it itself. We don't have that many people to send, but it sure would be nice.


Stealth

I thank you. I thank you. I thank you. You're doing something I would never dream of doing. You're brave, and slightly retarded.

Why did you volunteer to go? I am 23, and there is no way in hell I would go. Not a chance. As Chris Rock says, "Call me a beef wellington, when the wars over you can call me the beef wellington with two legs!" Now I understand if you signed up pre-neo-con's, but I just don't get signing up to be sent to war. That just seems a little too morbid for me. I am truly interested in knowing if it was patriotism, youthful furvor, or plain boredom.

[Ralimar]

If the administration would have come out and said they were going into the middle east to topple dictators, I would have been much more in favor of the war. After all, America helped most of these dictators come into power simply because they were anti-communist. Instead, we just got lied to over and over and over again. Some people in the administration should have been fired, to say the least, but somehow they avoid all scruitiny and instead anyone who criticizes them becomes anti-american and therefore pro-terrorist.... or even worse, FRENCH!

Yet we ignore the Saudis when they do the same. We ignore many of the Sadams of the world and why? Because they possess nothing that we want.

So you blackball any action that does do good simply because bad things happen in other parts of the world and we as a people are indifferent?

The problem lies not only in whatever administration or government official\entity you choose to blame for the problems in the world it lies in the hands of the people who support those governments and pursue their own interests in place of those who could really use the help.

Ask yourself this honest question, if the government in whatever form were to get up and say we *are* gonna do everything right in the world that we can do you think the public in general would be willing to go along with it, even if it meant the death of themselves, their family and friends? You may personally be willing to make such a sacrifice unfortunately the numbers of people who will are far far less than the people who won't.

I fully understand the indignation people have against the presidency and the US\UN policies that allow such things to continue in this world when we have the power to stop it. What I don't understand is the undermining of the actions that *do* make a difference because they don't fit into some pre-concieved notion of how they should come about.

The fact is: A good thing happened in Iraq and Afghanistan regardless of any other superflous bullshit that may be spouted from *either* political side. We should be pretty damn happy about that. Take that for what you (general) want, but it disgusts me to see people of supposed morality perpuate a problem because they don't like the implications that not everything is good in the world and people often need an incentive to do the right thing.

[Nieninque]

I just dont get how people think that war or armed conflict or whatever you want to call it, is a sterile thing where no-one gets hurt...at least no-one on "our side".

My opposition to the war was entirely because people were being sent to their deaths. US, UK and Iraqi people were destined not to come home.

Of course, there were things that should have been done about the situation in Iraq pre-war, I just dont feel that all the solutions had been tried prior to signing the death warrants on so any people.

For people that are upset because Americans are being killed (or Brits come to that), what did you expect?

For the people that are in Iraq in the armed forces, I hope you return home safely. I dont support the way things came around for you to be sent there, but that is an argument about the management of the conflict, rather than the people caught up in it.

And Keller, people in the main dont necessarily join the army to get sent to war IME. They join the army for a job and a career and, whilst they are trained for war, many dont ever expect to actually go.

[Stealth]

Originally posted by Keller
I thank you. I thank you. I thank you. You're doing something I would never dream of doing. You're brave, and slightly retarded.

Why did you volunteer to go? I am 23, and there is no way in hell I would go. Not a chance. As Chris Rock says, "Call me a beef wellington, when the wars over you can call me the beef wellington with two legs!" Now I understand if you signed up pre-neo-con's, but I just don't get signing up to be sent to war. That just seems a little too morbid for me. I am truly interested in knowing if it was patriotism, youthful furvor, or plain boredom.

I don't think I will return the insult. Let's just say that I am far from retarded, both from a common sense point of view and an intellectual one.

I volunteered for several reasons. I felt that it was my duty to go, I do feel patriotic feelings and camraderie with my fellow soldiers, as I said before I feel that regardless of the whole WMD "lie", that what we are doing here is a GOOD thing for the Iraqi people, for the US, and for the world.

I think that as Tsa'ah said that Iraq would never in our lifetimes be a threat is a completely unfounded speculation, and given the feelings of the Iraqi government and their relationship (albeit shadowy) to various terrorist groups, saying they were not and would not be a threat is fallacy.

You can only fight so many battles at one time, otherwise you lose them all. At the same time you need to know WHEN to fight your battles. Sometimes you don't have the luxury of making those decisions. Do I think other countries in the world should be on the alert from us? Yup..not right now, since we don't have the forces to deal with it. Call me a warmongerer if you like, I just don't think anyone should sit idly by and allow atrocities to be committed. I think this war has had it's mistakes and misjudgements...don't get me wrong. I however I DO think it is a war we should have undertaken...and long ago.

As I said earlier...we really DO need MORE troops here...not less. And more of the right types of troops.

- Mechanized and Light infantry
- Attack aviation
- Military Police
- Special operations (not just Army type SF teams...others as well)

Do we have those troops? No, because our forces have been cut so far down we are short of troops. You need that many people on the ground to keep things under control. Otherwise you just increase the danger to the soldiers and the civilians.

Too many people nowadays live in their little Ivory Towers and don't worry about things until something jumps up and bites them. And even then they don't do alot...even after 9-11 alot of people don't take this seriously.

Hopefully this will be over soon, but in all honesty, it won't be over in a year, or two or IMO even 5. We need to provide stability to the government here until they can handle things on their own. That simply won't happen in 2 years. Then we will have wasted all we have done so far and anarchy will truly reign here.

In a perfect world I would be content to sit at home and work my civilian job and never contemplate going to war. I have news for you, the world is not perfect and without war, and a good armed forces, the anarchy and poverty will come to our country as well. There are people out there who want nothing more than to take what anyone else has.


Sorry for the soapbox...


Stealth

[theotherjohn]

Originally posted by Backlash
Iraq is a tragedy. Its unjust. Its murder. Its even genocide. Its absolutely unacceptable. All you religious people who support it shame the god you worship and the tenants you supposedly live by.

Iraq is a success.

Until the enemy figures out we are in Iraq to provide them a convient target so they stay off American soil then Iraq will remain a success.

[Nieninque]

Originally posted by Stealth
And even then they don't do alot...even after 9-11 alot of people don't take this seriously.



Iraq was not connected to 9-11

[Stealth]

<<Iraq was not connected to 9-11>>


I didn't say it was. I was using it as an example of how people live their lives and ignore things which don't directly impact them in a profound way.


Stealth

[Back]

Ok, I made a mistake. This wasn’t the right topic to start talking about how Iraq is a major fuck up. Instead, its about the tragic loss of life of American soldiers. For that I apologize and want to send condolences and thanks to our troops. And having to do that fucking sucks. Sorry.

[Warriorbird]

Gosh. Agreeing with TOJ. I think by its real standards Iraq is a success. I think there were more immediate threats. I think we should've gone elsewhere first if we are going to invade countries. I think the President and Vice President's connections to Halliburton and Kellogg Brown and Root are a pretty blatant conflict of interest, and impeachment worthy. At the same time, by the standards of its real reasons for occuring, Iraq is a success. By the publically claimed "spin" reasoning or the propaganda they feed the troops, I'm not so sure.

I think we'll leave too early. I think more people will get shot up. Alternately, we'll invade Iran....

I hope Dave and TOJ on the one hand and Stealth and Ranger on the other can prove me wrong. I hope that we can sustain an economic revival through conquering all the Middle East that doesn't toe the line... and I hope that the people of Iraq benefit in the end.

[theotherjohn]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Kellogg Brown and Root

KBR

keep
Bush
Rich

Originally posted by Tsa`ah

stfu. He's walking the walk, not just talking the talk.

When and if he gets deployed he will be.

I have my orders to go to I Corps Ft. Lewis. I will be deployed and soon. My views are unlikely to change.

Originally posted by Warriorbird

I hope Dave and TOJ on the one hand and Stealth and Ranger on the other can prove me wrong. I hope that we can sustain an economic revival through conquering all the Middle East that doesn't toe the line... and I hope that the people of Iraq benefit in the end.

I hope so too warriorbird. I hope that once we are done over there even those critical of the war will look at it as something we should have done and a success.

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by RangerD1
So you blackball any action that does do good simply because bad things happen in other parts of the world and we as a people are indifferent?

This isn't about black balling. The Saudi regime is just as bad as the Bathist regime was under Sadam.

The Saudis play ball to a point, Sadam did not.


The problem lies not only in whatever administration or government officialentity you choose to blame for the problems in the world it lies in the hands of the people who support those governments and pursue their own interests in place of those who could really use the help.

Regardless of voting trends amongst the American people, the Administration is obliged not to risk the lives of people they serve over a lie, over personal interests, over personal vendettas, or over corporate gain.


Ask yourself this honest question, if the government in whatever form were to get up and say we *are* gonna do everything right in the world that we can do you think the public in general would be willing to go along with it, even if it meant the death of themselves, their family and friends? You may personally be willing to make such a sacrifice unfortunately the numbers of people who will are far far less than the people who won't.

As a last resort? Absolutely. If said nations were guilty beyond all doubt of atrocities against it's own people.


I fully understand the indignation people have against the presidency and the USUN policies that allow such things to continue in this world when we have the power to stop it. What I don't understand is the undermining of the actions that *do* make a difference because they don't fit into some pre-concieved notion of how they should come about.

Invading a nation that poses no threat to the sovereignty of the US over a lie, again ... without a plan, holding the hand of the media, ill-equipped ... so on and so forth .... are the reasons why so many are against this action.

Bush has failed as a president since 9-11. He has tied Iraq, through bull shit, to the event, he has set up a big brother system, he has done everything imaginable to divide this nation when he had every tool and opportunity to unit this country.

We now have a new Viet Nam to justify unjustifiable military expenditures. We now have a new cold war to justify the need for a bigger and better big brother system.

What has taken decades to over come and but to rest, Bush was able to resurrect in a few short months.

Iraq and 9-11 was the best thing to happen to Bush's presidency. Had it been averted; He would have been just another lame duck president.


The fact is: A good thing happened in Iraq and Afghanistan regardless of any other superflous bullshit that may be spouted from *either* political side. We should be pretty damn happy about that. Take that for what you (general) want, but it disgusts me to see people of supposed morality perpuate a problem because they don't like the implications that not everything is good in the world and people often need an incentive to do the right thing.

Iraq is, at this point, better off than it was. The action in Iraq was a necessity to the people of Iraq. The motives, the faulty reasons, and the price paid by those in the military, by the now fatherless/motherless children, and our nation as a whole ... make Iraq a tragedy in my eyes.

Afghanistan is another story. The Afghanistan that should have been is reduced to a sub 100 mile radius.

[CrystalTears]

Bush failed so much as a president that he was reelected.
He hasn't tied Iraq directly to the events of 9/11. 9/11 just spirred the need to take out any and all terrorists, themselves and those who harbor them. Terrorists are terrorists and it shouldn't fucking matter in what order that they destroyed, just the fact that they have to pay for what they did.

And I really don't care what anti-Bush people say, calling it all a "lie" just seems like a romantic and dramatic approach to imagine an evil all-powerful ruler as the "root of all evil" rather than just stating that certain things were mistakes, not intentional deceptions.

[Warriorbird]

Right. Bin Laden bombed our country so the logical course of action is attacking Saddam.

[CrystalTears]

So until Bin Laden was found and dealt with it, we should have just ignored every other terrorist/problem country/ruler? Alrighty then.

[Warriorbird]

For some reason I think attacks on American soil should take top priority.

[DeV]

Originally posted by CrystalTears
And I really don't care what anti-Bush people say, calling it all a "lie" just seems like a romantic and dramatic approach to imagine an evil all-powerful ruler as the "root of all evil" rather than just stating that certain things were mistakes, not intentional deceptions. You have got to be kidding though I know you aren't. Not intentional deceptions... my ass. Iraq has been successful because the administration has succeded in toppling a evil dictatorship and hopefully bringing Saddam's sick ass to justice soon. However, the methods used in determining war were a failure as have been the attempts to cover up lies which directly led us to war with Iraq. It is not only anti-Bush people who feel this way. Republicans - Democrats - Independents alike all have mixed feelings on the war and it's definitely not a conspiracy.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah
We now have a new Viet Nam


















You're utterly, completely wrong. What's more, you know this already, yet you persist in the kind of overspeak you rail against Bush for.

[Warriorbird]

And you claimed you weren't a conservative. I think the South Vietnam comparison will be apt if we don't take Iran.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by DeV

You have got to be kidding though I know you aren't. Not intentional deceptions... my ass. Iraq has been successful because the administration has succeded in toppling a evil dictatorship and hopefully bringing Saddam's sick ass to justice soon. However, the methods used in determining war were a failure as have been the attempts to cover up lies which directly led us to war with Iraq. It is not only anti-Bush people who feel this way. Republicans - Democrats - Independents alike all have mixed feelings on the war and it's definitely not a conspiracy.

Wow.. you came up with something that the 9-11 commission didn't. Maybe you have higher access to this information than they do?

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
And you claimed you weren't a conservative. I think the South Vietnam comparison will be apt if we don't take Iran.

You're sounding like a warmonger this morning WB.. FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!!!

[Warriorbird]

That's the thing. I am, compared to most liberals. I just don't agree with how this one was carried out. Portions of my family hate it. I was seriously considering government service of some sort until I got engaged, then married.

[Edited on 1-27-2005 by Warriorbird]

[DeV]

Originally posted by Parkbandit
Wow.. you came up with something that the 9-11 commission didn't. Maybe you have higher access to this information than they do? Or maybe it's you that has higher access than any of us. Or the next person, who knows.
In the end common sense goes a very long way but only if you utilize it.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
And you claimed you weren't a conservative. I think the South Vietnam comparison will be apt if we don't take Iran. The two are incomparable. You (anyone making the comparison) might as well compare the (American) Revolutionary War with the War of the Roses.

[Tsa`ah]

Yep, one is for a lie, the other was for no reason other than we didn't like commies.

Either way, they are both for BS.

[Warriorbird]

So we train a populace to defend themselves. So they fail and get knuckled under by a more powerful country. Man up and study some IR.

[Latrinsorm]

The only thing I can think of IR standing for is Injured Reserve. :/

However, because I wasn't around back then, I figured I'd talk to my dad, on account of most history I read focus on the hippy part of civil life back then. I'm not talking about the reasons for going, because Tsa`ah needs to say one "lie" for every "freedom" Bush says, and neither of them are going to back down. No offense, but neither of you are old enough to have any grasp of what it was like back then, and my dad was, so he wins.

[Warriorbird]

International Relations, wouldyahbelieve?

The analogy of us "training soldiers" or "training police" and an unstable regime fits. Some close family friends are Vietnamese. While that's not the same as being there, we've spoken about it a fair bit. They also compared the Hmong and the Kurds. (I hope I spelled that first right)

[Latrinsorm]

Fair enough. In that facet, Iraq and Vietnam are analogous. In every other sense, they are wholly dissimilar.

[Samin]

I don't see this as the proper subject to place my thoughts on the Iraq Conflict.

My thoughts and prayers go out to my fellow Marines who are forward, and to the families of those who will not make it home. 26 of the Marines on the Helicopter and the Corpsman were from K-Bay, here in Hawaii.

Watching the local news tonight, I heard a story about that Navy Corpsman. He was stationed at Pearl Harbor. His wife was preganant when he left, and she had the baby while he was forward deployed. He never got to see that baby, all he ever heard was the sounds it made over the phone.

Most of thse Marines were due back in a few weeks. One of them was supposed to come back the monday after next.

One think I noticed that was common with most of the deceased Marine's families.. The Marines wanted to be there. I can't tell you if its because they felt it in their heart that they were doing the right thing or if it was just the urge to be a Marine. Maybe a little of both.

Of course, nothing makes the news like bad news. Placing a time table on this Conflict, in my opinion, is stupid. If we don't get the job done in Iraq, not only will all these loses have been in vain.. But we would be abandoning the people of Iraq. Like we did in the past. Like we did to the Vietnamese.

America is a great country, we have the freedom to discuss things like this. Do you realize, had you been in Iraq before Saddam was deposed, you would be tortured and/or executed for it?

Is an American life worth more then that of someone who was born in Iraq?

..I'm way off topic from the topic, even from my own post. I apologize for that. I guess I just don't see why people would argue against this.

[Warriorbird]

All that stuff, hell... I understand why someone would be willing to go. There's times I've really been tempted by military service. There's just too much else tied into the whole thing this time. Is an Iraqi life worth more than a Chechen one? Why don't you guys get a cut of the profits that Kellogg, Brown, and Root and Halliburton make? The whole basis of invasive war historically was to get a portion of the benefit. A fair amount of Special Forces manpower has been used to secure oil, of all things. What happens when we leave? You're leaving a country, in effect, to the Shiites, who while may seem a whole lot more stable currently have a much bigger history than the Sunni of promoting terrorism. Saudia Arabia is our ally, yet produced Bin Laden and teaches its children how horrible Americans are as part of the damn official school curriculum.

I'm glad soldiers are working to save lives. I just wish it was that simple. I'm sure the amount of manpower currently in Iraq could do a whole lot more for the tsunami victims if they weren't currently in Iraq, for example.

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by Samin
My thoughts and prayers go out to my fellow Marines who are forward, and to the families of those who will not make it home. 26 of the Marines on the Helicopter and the Corpsman were from K-Bay, here in Hawaii.

One of them was from C-U. He was short ... very short. I can't imagine his mother's anguish; one more month and he would have been home.


America is a great country, we have the freedom to discuss things like this. Do you realize, had you been in Iraq before Saddam was deposed, you would be tortured and/or executed for it?

No one is arguing that. We're arguing motives and lies.

We have a responsibility as one of the most powerful nations on the planet. Some of those are to not be the bully, the liar, the greedy bastard and every other aspect of wrong we have fought against in the past.

I think we're on a downward spiral and there's nothing much the people can do about it.

[Samin]

Everyone seems to focus on the bad reason this Conflict started. A lie. Not that he DID use gas on his own people. That he DID torutre them. That he DID murder his people in droves.

You may say other nations are the same or worse. Saddam has shown his willingness to employ a Chemical attack. Reguardless of whether or not he does have WMDs, there is no doubt in my mind that if he did, he would have used them on our troops.

So I'm glad we didn't find any, because we still wouldn't have found them, he would have used them.

[AnticorRifling]

I am that which others did not want to be.
I went where others feared to go,
I have done what others failed to do,
I asked nothing from those who gave nothing and reluctantly,
I accepted the thought of eternal loneliness
...should I not succeed.
I have seen the face of terror,
I have felt the stinging cold of fear,
I have longed for comrades lost in battle.
I have cried, pained and hoped,
...but, most of all, I have lived times others would say were best forgotton.
At least I will be able to say that I am proud of what I am and will always be
...A United States Marine.


It was a friend, I should have been there. I'm sitting at work with tears in my eyes damnit I shouldn't have gotten hurt I should have been there. FUCK

[StrayRogue]

Originally posted by Samin
Everyone seems to focus on the bad reason this Conflict started. A lie. Not that he DID use gas on his own people. That he DID torutre them. That he DID murder his people in droves.

You may say other nations are the same or worse. Saddam has shown his willingness to employ a Chemical attack. Reguardless of whether or not he does have WMDs, there is no doubt in my mind that if he did, he would have used them on our troops.

So I'm glad we didn't find any, because we still wouldn't have found them, he would have used them.

I'm anti war, pro-troops. But the above is stupid. What right has America or anyone got to stick their noses into buisness of other countries? Surely that is not far afield from Bin Laden wanting to kill all westerners because of their heathern beliefs?

Saddam did do such things to his people, but such atrocities occur all over the world to degree's many times worse. Look at the Garza strip, for example. Yet America/UN seems to ignore that situation.

Iraq had never threatened America, they had less to do with the Al Quaeda than America did, had never even attacked an American soldier since the Gulf, and was more than cooperative with the inspectors.

If you think you are there to liberate the Iraqi people, you're ignorant. Its all about money and thats all it ever will be about.

Oh and to add, I feel for all the folk who have died in this conflict, and their families and friends. As I said, I'll support the troops forever, even if the war is a stupid one.

[Edited on 28-1-05 by StrayRogue]

[CrystalTears]

Iraq had harbored terrorists that have injured and/or killed Americans in the process, both on U.S. soil and abroad. Sorry if I consider them a threat if no one else does.

[StrayRogue]

Originally posted by CrystalTears
Iraq had harbored terrorists that have injured and/or killed Americans in the process, both on U.S. soil and abroad. Sorry if I consider them a threat if no one else does.

So has America.

[HarmNone]

And Saudi Arabia, and Syria, and Lebanon, and Libya, and the Sudan, and Iran......I could go on, but why bother? Where does it end?

[StrayRogue]

Exactly. No country is innocent, so why invade Iraq. Liberation my ass.

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by StrayRogue
had never even attacked an American soldier since the Gulf

They did fire at US jets that patrolled the UN no-fly zone.


and was more than cooperative with the inspectors.

lol, I guess that all depends on what you feel cooperative means.

[Hulkein]

As for the question, 'why Iraq?'

They have a long-standing history as an aggressive and brutal nation.

When is the last time Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, or Iran invaded another country?

[CrystalTears]

Originally posted by HarmNone
And Saudi Arabia, and Syria, and Lebanon, and Libya, and the Sudan, and Iran......I could go on, but why bother? Where does it end?

Who ever said that I didn't consider them a threat either? One country at a time. They'll be next. :D

[HarmNone]

Iran was infamous for skirmishes across the border into Iraq when they were after those pesky Kurds.

[Back]

Iran is also famous for filling up our gas tanks during WWII.

[Edited on 1-28-2005 by Backlash]

[Hulkein]

Yes, and it also happened longer ago than the invasion of Kuwait.

[HarmNone]

Heh. Okay, Hulkein, if that's what you'd like to believe. By the way, how many Kurdish friends do YOU have.

HarmNone...who lived in Iran for a time

[xtc]

Originally posted by Galleazzo

Originally posted by Backlash
Iraq is a tragedy. Its unjust. Its murder. Its even genocide. Its absolutely unacceptable. All you religious people who support it shame the god you worship and the tenants you supposedly live by. But Saddam raping and murdering tens of thousands, that was okay? Using poison gas on the kurds, that was okay? Bush lied about WMD to get us into it and he oughta been impeached, but that murdering fucker's behind bars and his murdering fuckwad sons are wormfood now. Think the families of the women they raped to death with gun barrels are bitching and pissing about tenants right now?

It was fine as long as Saddam was a friendly regime to the US. We didn't give a rat's ass about Saddam's human rights abuses when he was an ally. Much like we don't care about China's as long as we can profit from it. Some of our "friends" in Bush's administration used to go Iraq in the 80's to make sure he was enjoying the poison gas and biological weapons we were giving him.

[Edited on 1-28-2005 by xtc]

[Hulkein]

I have zero Kurd friends.

You are comparing border flare ups to a full-fledged mechanized invasion of another country....

[xtc]

Originally posted by CrystalTears
Iraq had harbored terrorists that have injured and/or killed Americans in the process, both on U.S. soil and abroad. Sorry if I consider them a threat if no one else does.

I hope you aren't talking about 9-11, because if you are you'd be dead wrong.

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by Hulkein
They did fire at US jets that patrolled the UN no-fly zone.

The "no fly zone" was not a UN sanction, it was a US sanction.

The UN no fly zone never existed.

In fact, if you do some reading, you will find that we never left the region after defending Kuwait. We continued to bomb.



lol, I guess that all depends on what you feel cooperative means.

Cooperative with the UN, yes. Cooperative with the demands of a Nation the kept bombing and imposing sanctions that had no UN backing ... No.

[CrystalTears]

Originally posted by xtc

Originally posted by CrystalTears
Iraq had harbored terrorists that have injured and/or killed Americans in the process, both on U.S. soil and abroad. Sorry if I consider them a threat if no one else does.

I hope you aren't talking about 9-11, because if you are you'd be dead wrong.

No, not at all. But like I've said before, 9/11 is not the only terrorist attack on Americans/U.S.

[Warriorbird]

Yeah, and a hell of a lot of them were from, gosh gee, U.S. citizens. So should we invade Texas over Waco? The militia movements certainly supported McVeigh. Conservatives like to say that liberals make morally bankrupt arguments. You just did too.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by xtc
Some of our "friends" in Bush's administration used to go Iraq in the 80's to make sure he was enjoying the poison gas and biological weapons we were giving him.Are you one of those guys who believes the Cold War was made-up?
Originally posted by Warriorbird
Yeah, and a hell of a lot of them were from, gosh gee, U.S. citizens.And they were captured and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law (and Harmnone will yell at me again if I go into that fullest business). Suggesting we invade ourselves doesn't make any physical sense.

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
And they were captured and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law (and Harmnone will yell at me again if I go into that fullest business). Suggesting we invade ourselves doesn't make any physical sense.

Actually, I think "burnt the fuck up" is a far better term than prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

[Edited on 1-28-2005 by Tsa`ah]

[Warriorbird]

Originally posted by xtc
" Some of our "friends" in Bush's administration used to go Iraq in the 80's to make sure he was enjoying the poison gas and biological weapons we were giving him."

Are you one of those guys who believes the Cold War was made-up?

-Latrin

........


Err, that stuff's actually pretty documentable.

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah
The "no fly zone" was not a UN sanction, it was a US sanction.

The UN no fly zone never existed.

In fact, if you do some reading, you will find that we never left the region after defending Kuwait. We continued to bomb.

I thought it was UN sanctioned, US imposed.

I could've sworn looking at maps that showed what was considered 'no-fly,' and it said 'UN No Fly Zone.'

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Err, that stuff's actually pretty documentable. What I meant was: no duh we helped out bad guys in the 80's. There were bigger bad guys; the Soviet Union. It was obvious to me what I meant, so I figured it was obvious to everyone else too. :oops:

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by Hulkein
I thought it was UN sanctioned, US imposed.

I could've sworn looking at maps that showed what was considered 'no-fly,' and it said 'UN No Fly Zone.'

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,391985,00.html

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/flyindex.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1175950.stm

Again, the UN did not sanction the "no fly zones". These were imposed by the US, UK, and France.

While each claimed it was upholding a resolution, the UN says otherwise and has always said otherwise.

[CrystalTears]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Yeah, and a hell of a lot of them were from, gosh gee, U.S. citizens. So should we invade Texas over Waco? The militia movements certainly supported McVeigh. Conservatives like to say that liberals make morally bankrupt arguments. You just did too.

Yeah? And what exactly happened to McVeigh? Did he run off to Australia and setup a summer home? No, he was prosecuted for it. And that incident in Waco? Oh yeah, they were punished too. And Manson? Yeah, he's a goner. But let's invade our OWN country. WTF. I'm not sure what in the hell you're getting at.

In the words of Michael Jackson, "That's ignorant. You're just ignorant."

However no, I'm speaking mostly of non-U.S. citizens. People who were born and raised in the Middle East. People who tried to blow up the World Trade center back in the 90's. People who go to cafes and airports and blow themselves up in it, injuring/killing many people. People who were compensated, either themselves or their family by Saddam, for sacrificing themselves to destroy others. Whatthefuckerver.

[Edited on 1/29/2005 by CrystalTears]

[Warriorbird]

Yeah. So many of them. They killed so many people versus 9-11. Darn those people focusing on the thousands of dead. Why do they do that!

:rolls eyes:

To establish my ever so "ignorant" point, the militias and organizations who backed and supported McVeigh and Nichols are still very much functioning today. A whole hell of a lot of Republicans helped Eric Rudolph escape justice for years in my area...but of course blowing up abortion clinics is okay, right...and setting bombs. I mean, that's just killing liberals.

Then there's the church burnings.

Ignorant like a fucking hawk.

[CrystalTears]

Granted, you're not getting my point. Obviously try to capture the one that did the most damage, but don't discount all the other ones either.

Alright. So only prosecute one murderer at a time and only until the biggest murderer is caught before we do anything about the others. Only catch the really drunk driver and ignore the others until the really offensive ones are hauled off first. So if McVeigh was never arrested and prosecuted, does that mean that all other bombers should just be passed by? I mean because "no we haven't gotten McVeigh yet.. he's more important than the guy who blew up the bank around the corner.. let him be, he didn't kill as many." WTF!! That's my point.

And when did I ever say that blowing up abortion clinics is okay? Get those assholes too. I never did understand how you can state that you're pro-life and then kill others in the process. Sounds hypocritical to me.

But you keep on fighting the fights you can win. Capture the bad guys you can catch. Why dismiss them all just because they weren't part of the biggest terrorist attack on the nation? It doesn't mean that they're any less important to punish. It's not like Bin Laden is safe as a kitten. The biggest threat he can make is by putting out a video tape. Ooo he's so scary. The second someone sees his head out in the open, he's toast. It's just a matter of time. He's not getting away with what he accomplished, trust me.

[Edited on 1/29/2005 by CrystalTears]

[Warriorbird]

2001 - 2005....

Again, however... if that was ALL that was involved in the Iraq War...

We'd be invading other very invadable countries first, because Iraq really wasn't all that good at sponsoring terrorism. It was a Sunni ruled country.

[Slider]

FACT
Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who has tortured and killed his own people, even his own family members, to maintain his iron grip on power. He used chemical weapons on Iraqi Kurds and on Iranians, killing over 20 thousand people. Unfortunately, during the 1980's, while he engaged in such horrific activity, he enjoyed the support of the American government, because he had oil and was seen as a counterweight to the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran.

FACT
In 1991, Saddam Hussein invaded and occupied Kuwait, losing the support of the United States. The first President Bush assembled a global coalition, including many Arab states, and threw Saddam out after forty-three days of bombing and a hundred hours of ground operations. The U.S.-led coalition then withdrew, leaving the Kurds and the Shiites, who had risen against Saddam Hussein at our urging, to Saddam's revenge.

FACT
As a condition for ending the conflict, the United Nations imposed a number of requirements on Iraq, among them disarmament of all weapons of mass destruction, stocks used to make such weapons, and laboratories necessary to do the work. Saddam Hussein agreed, and an inspection system was set up to ensure compliance. And though he repeatedly lied, delayed, and obstructed the inspections work, the inspectors found and destroyed far more weapons of mass destruction capability than were destroyed in the Gulf War, including thousands of chemical weapons, large volumes of chemical and biological stocks, a number of missiles and warheads, a major lab equipped to produce anthrax and other bio-weapons, as well as substantial nuclear facilities.

FACT
In 1998, Saddam Hussein pressured the United Nations to lift the sanctions by threatening to stop all cooperation with the inspectors. In an attempt to resolve the situation, the UN, unwisely in my view, agreed to put limits on inspections of designated "sovereign sites" including the so-called presidential palaces, which in reality were huge compounds well suited to hold weapons labs, stocks, and records which Saddam Hussein was required by UN resolution to turn over. When Saddam blocked the inspection process, the inspectors left. As a result, President Clinton, with the British and others, ordered an intensive four-day air assault, Operation Desert Fox, on known and suspected weapons of mass destruction sites and other military targets.

FACT
In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change and began to examine options to effect such a change, including support for Iraqi opposition leaders within the country and abroad.

FACT
In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.


And even with all this...it was wrong to depose him...wrong to go to war, because we haven't found any WMD...because there never where any...right Tsa'ah?

[Warriorbird]

Fact. There were lots of other ways and times to depose him.

Fact. Much like pork barrel legislation, gosh gee wilkers damnit, there've been a lot of other issues involved in the war.

But you like usings FACTS as propaganda.

Fact. We support a whole hell of a lot of tyrants. Before he took Kuwait we didn't have a problem with him.

[Slider]

hmm...i beleive i pointed out that in fact we DID support him during the 1980's....and the reasons we did so as well. Wether or not you or I agree with those reasons, is irrelevant, it happened, we did it. What would you have us do? Invent a time machine to go back and change that fact?

And as far as "pork barrel legislation" I might point out that it is Congress...NOT the President who decides the budget. The President does have an input into it, and he does make recommendations as to what he would like in the budget but it is Congress who has the final say.

I was merely pointing out that many of the "lies" you claim that this administration has told, are not in fact lies. You may not like it, you may not agree with it...but it is true.

[Warriorbird]

Err, I don't think I've ever claimed he didn't do any of those except perhaps the "weapons of mass destruction all over Iraq" bit.

By "pork barrel legislation" I meant there is a lot more going on related to the Iraq war and its causes other than "saving the people of Iraq from Saddam" which is valid or "stopping terror" which is ludicrous other than as a deterrent.

You neglect things like oil (cept for the beginning), KBR, Halliburton, the conflicts of interest, the abuses, and the whole base concept of a snowjob on the American people to distract them from not capturing Bin Laden....which are more my qualms. Sure, it's fine to take out Saddam (I'd have supported a hit squad on his unredeemable ass,).... we don't even have a halfway legitimate sounding exit strategy other than either A. take Iran or B. Make nice to a bunch of Shiites and train them and hope they don't decide to become PART of Iran

[Slider]

Okay...fine...so what would YOUR plan be Warrior? Hmmm? Tell us how YOU would have handled it. Quit bitchin' an' moanin' and tell us what your fabulous plan would have been for handling him.

As far as the WMD that you claim where never there. Might I remind you that the UN inspectors found those. Not the US mind you, but the UN weapon inspectors foundthose weapons before Saddam threw them out of the country. Wasn't there even a huge uproar on this very page about weapons that the inspectors found while they where there? That where left unguarded? Ring any bells Warrior?

[Edited on 1-29-2005 by Slider]

[Warriorbird]

Currently or at the beginning? They would've varied greatly. Mainly, I would've damn well focused on Bin Laden first. If we're willing to piss off the world and profiteer off of Saddam Hussein, we damn well ought to be willing to do it over someone who successfully attacked the country.

And when were those weapons dated to, Slider? Forget that bit? Damn us and our funding dictators. Ironically enough though, our first Iraq actions were of course to secure a KBR construction project.

[Edited on 1-29-2005 by Warriorbird]

warriorbird the search for Bin Laden is still active.

[Warriorbird]

I'm not debating that. I don't think we're going about it as full strength or audaciously as we could, however.

If said nations were guilty beyond all doubt of atrocities against it's own people.

^

So, you're saying that Saddam *didn't* commit atrocities against his own people?

Btw, the question is not what *you'd* do but what the country itself would support.

[Warriorbird]

I think the country would've supported a whole lot of different courses, liberal, conservative, or independent.

Dunno who that quote's from however.

It's a quote from Tsa'ah and if you think that the US would support a war for purely altruistic reasons then you are deluding yourself.

[Tsa`ah]

D, this isn't a question of Sadam being guilty; this is a question of motive.

There's no doubt that Sadam was guilty, we've known this for well over a decade. We let do what he did because he played ball. Conflict didn't start until he stopped playing ball.

Playing ball with us isn't a good reason to turn a blind eye to atrocities. Sadam should have been dealt with the day after he gassed the Kurds using equipment we sold to him. Sadam should have been dealt with when he tried to take Kuwait. The apprehension of Sadam should not have been under false pretenses.

It's easy to say, but look what he was doing! Look what he did! You also have to look at what we did.

We imposed no fly zones and flew bombing sorties out of them.
We imposed trade sanction and didn't bother to investigate an oil for food program from the start.
We claimed he had WMDs, despite investigators saying "nope".
We claimed he was harboring Al quada, and had ties to 9-11, and there were none.

How can people not to cry foul? How can anyone not look at this situation past the "liberation" bull-shit and ask the questions that need to be answered?

Why did we initiate operation "hold a reporter's hand" for good ops of pretty explosions?

Why did we cut one of the largest companies in the fuel industry a blank check for rebuilding when a vast majority of our troops were poorly equipped?

Why is this war not about oil, but that was the very first thing we secured?

There is absolutely no doubt that Sadam needed to go. Honestly ... These above questions would be seriously muted if from the word go, we were going after Sadam because he needed to go.

[Warriorbird]

"if you think that the US would support a war for purely altruistic reasons then you are deluding yourself. "

I think that's a damn good observation. I do not think of revenge as altruistic, however, if you were referring to what I said about hunting Bin Laden.

I am curious where you get the idea that the U.S. claimed Saddam had anything to do with 9/11. I have never heard that statment made by a government offical holding a position of responsibility.

[Back]

Unreal.

[HarmNone]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html

I believe Cheney would be considered by some to be a "government offical holding a position of responsibility". ;)

I dont see it saying Cheney said," Iraq is responsable for 9/11"

I see it saying that there are ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq.

If you read the quotes closely you have them saying that a strike against terrorism is a strike against those that commited 9/11. The war is on terrorism, not on those that were the cause for 9/11. They are a part of it, and we have been activly seeking out Al Qaeda members across the globe and are winning that battle. Over 2/3 of the leadership dead or in our possession.

Now we have Zarqawi over there who is a self proclaimed Al Qaeda member leading the terrorists over there. So there are (at least now) obvious ties between the two.

[Warriorbird]

:rolls eyes:

[HarmNone]

Umm, the purpose of the September 11 commission was to determine if there was any link between Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 attack on the twin towers. Cheney had claimed "extensive ties" between Bin Laden's Al Qaida terrorist group, responsible for the 9/11 attack, and the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq. The commission came to the conclusion that no such ties existed.

I don't argue politics, I just correct obvious errors. Being obtuse doesn't change the fact that Cheney connected the perpetrators of 9/11 to Saddam Hussein's regime when no connection existed.

Well to correct your error Harmnone the purpose of the 9/11 commission was to find out what went wrong to allow the attacks to happen in the first place.
I will quote the Senator who created the proposed it in the first place if you question that.
--Lieberman said. "When a new Department of Homeland Security gets up and running, we owe it to the families of September 11th victims, and to the country we're striving to secure, to give as complete and independent an assessment as possible of what went wrong before September 11th and why."--

Obvious errors and all should be corrected?

[Warriorbird]

Of course you have to carefully exclude direct quotes.

[HarmNone]

Heh. I'll give you that the commission had more than one purpose, but that's about all. Baseless claims had been made with regard to the connection between Al Qaida and Saddam Hussein. The commission made it a point to deny said connections. I'd say they saw it as ONE of their purposes, wouldn't you?

Besides, I was pointing out to you the simple fallacy in your statement that no credible member of the Bush administration had claimed such a connection. Like I said, I don't argue politics. It's fruitless.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

<Like I said, I don't argue politics. It's fruitless.>

Yeah, I think I'm going to go back to just reading them again myself.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by HarmNone
Besides, I was pointing out to you the simple fallacy in your statement that no credible member of the Bush administration had claimed such a connection.Which statement are you referring to? I found two that seemed particularly relevant.
Originally posted by Dave
I am curious where you get the idea that the U.S. claimed Saddam had anything to do with 9/11.
I see it saying that there are ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq.As for ties and specific events: there were ties between America and Great Britain during World War II. Does that mean Great Britain was in any way responsible for the (American) Japanese internment camps?

The fact that there were (stressed, WERE) no ties between Iraq and Al-Qaeda is relevant only in pointing out that Cheney and Bush were wrong in asserting that there were ties between the two.

[HarmNone]

I was specifically addressing the first of those two statements, Latrinsorm. I was pretty sure that Cheney would be considered to be a "government official holding a position of responsibility".

[Vad]

The Bush administration was obviously full of crap as far as the WMDs were concerned. There can be no doubt that, at least in part, the government's motives for the invasion of Iraq are shady. I also agree that injustices similar to and worse than those perpetrated in Iraq under Saddam's regime are going on in other places around the world unchecked, and we don't seem to have a problem with that.

Given all that, I still support the war. That Saddam was an evil bastard is undeniable. That his regime was oppressive and murderous is fact. That his sons would have taken it even further if allowed to carry on after him is evidenced by their own crimes. Bottom line, Saddam needed to go. Does anyone disagree with that? Is there anybody out there who thinks we should have left him in power? If not, how can you say that you don't support our actions in Iraq to at least -some- extent?

Whether we did it for the right reasons or not is, to me, irrelevant in the face of the question of whether or not it was the right thing to do. Whether it was for oil, for the President's personal vendetta against Saddam, or in fact for the right reasons, it needed to be done and it has been. Now we just need the brass balls and the staying power to remain in the country and prevent an even uglier ruling party from taking Saddam's place. If we pull out now, we may as well have never even gone.

Many Americans just want to see our troops safe at home, and completely ignore the fact that they are probably the only thing providing any level of stability at all in Iraq right now. The mentality of 'the war is over' is too ignorant for words. Nobody wants to get blown to shreds sitting on a port-a-potty taking a crap in the 140 degree desert by some brainwashed religious fanatic, but it's a risk taken by any service member who raises his hand and says the words. Most of our troops believe in what we're doing there and many have actually volunteered to deploy.

They can handle it, I just hope the general populace can. To those of you who would say that we should withdraw our troops from Iraq so that you can watch Bongo the kangaroo giving birth on CNN in the morning while you are eating your cheerios instead of hearing about a black hawk crash or a car bomb, eat shit and die, there are more important things happening in the world right now than your sensibilities.

-V