NationStates Jolt Archive

I've been researching the current war, its causes, and statistics regarding its deadliness. I've compiled them into a report that can be found here (http://blacklight-ninja.blogspot.com/2005/12/why-war-was-great.html). I dare say, the results were simply shocking!

By the way, my stance used to be pro-war based on the U.S. administration knowing more than I do (classified information, it being their job to know, etc.). Now I am pro-war based on collected facts, as well as for my previous reason.

And there I was, thinking you had something to add to the debate...:rolleyes:

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

I've been researching the current war, its causes, and statistics regarding its deadliness. I've compiled them into a report that can be found here (http://blacklight-ninja.blogspot.com/2005/12/why-war-was-great.html). I dare say, the results were simply shocking!

While looking at the site, I was wondering what way did you follow to reach it... It seems a parody of a real site, with those so threatening ninja photos...:D and the precise graphs... when I came back to the forum and I saw that that was YOUR site.... LOOOOLLLL:D :D :D
please tell me that it is a joke :p

Well, I'm not sure how I feel about the war. I have moments where I think it just won't work. When the coalition leaves it'll collapse back into some sort of dictatorship. Other times I feel that things might be great. Basically I don't think the value of this war can be judged until after the coalition withdraws. And even then it's tricky because it's hard to say what might have happened in the future. But, taking Devil's advocate here:

The casualities you list are American military casualties, they do not reflect the cost of lives to the enemy and civilians. It may be that all you care about is American soldier deaths, in which case you're right, however that's not all anti-war people are concerned about.

The moral aspect: there's more than one idea of morality. Some folk consider it immoral to be invading any other sovreign nation. Going back to my first paragraph, if this doesn't work out and some dictator ascends to power or lawlessness ensues, and people continue to be killed, raped, robbed, tortured, executed and whathave you, then it will not have been all that moral.

The complaint about going into Iraq on a lie may still have something. However, the lie was partly Saddam's. It seems to me he'd destroyed most of his chemical weaponry, but was giving the inspectors the run around to try and pretend he still had them so that he still appeared strong in the region. It's possible that other leaders knew of this and perpetuated it for their own aims. But who knows? I don't.

The ones about coalition soldiers, I more or less agree with. It's not nice to be there, but it's within the bounds of what one should expect if joining the military. However, one point that some very hard-line isolationists may make is that Iraq probably couldn't have been a threat to the US (even with chemical weapons), and who cares if these people have Democracy? Such people probably would have opposed the first war which created the emnity between the US and Iraq in the first place.

The war was based on oil may still be valid. Because the US isn't just waltzing in and seizing all the oil wells and pipes doesn't mean it wasn't about oil. I'm put in mind of Dune: "the spice must flow". It doesn't matter how, so long as it's freed up. Iraq had been embargoed before the war, the Bush administration had two options: free up trade between the US and Iraq (basically going back on the last war---which they probably didn't want to do), or they could invade, set up a democratic free-market friendly nation and let the market do its work. Admittedly, if it was JUST about oil, they would have dealt with Saddam, but if you want oil but not Saddam, you wouldn't have a lot of choices except to invade and do some nation building.

Mind you, I'm not saying there aren't reasons to think the war was worth it, I'm just pointing out, from my perspective, there's more than one view on this.

I see.

So the argument of this guy is, it's all right to slaughter tens of thousands of people because you want to impose a government you like on the Iraqi people, as long as not too many of the soldiers you send to do it die?

The vast majority of those killed in the Iraq War are Iraqis, not Americans, though one would never tell within the racist mainstream US political debate.

I see.

So the argument of this guy is, it's all right to slaughter tens of thousands of people because you want to impose a government you like on the Iraqi people, as long as not too many of the soldiers you send to do it die?

The vast majority of those killed in the Iraq War are Iraqis, not Americans, though one would never tell within the racist mainstream US political debate.

I admit, the essay was written with Americans in mind, who feel that the war has too many U.S. based casualties. However, if you look more closely at the essay, you should see that more than 95% of the efforts in Iraq have been peacekeeping. So I'm willing to bet that most of those deaths are incurred by insurgants who will not leave even if the American soldiers are removed. In fact, because of America's military excellence, troop removal would mean a rise in successful insurgant activity, pontentially destroying more Iraqis than before.
Let's also not forget that Iraq is surrounded by enemies on all sides. If the U.S. leaves before Iraq is ready, mass chaos will insue as Iraq's neighbors attempt to seize control.

Yeah, 2400 American lives is cake. We should kill off a few more for absolutely nothing.

Yeah, 2400 American lives is cake. We should kill off a few more for absolutely nothing.

Did you even read the page?

We need to cut our loses and leave Iraq NOW.

If the Iraqis don't want us in their country, FINE, let's cut and run and warn them that when a new dictator takes control that they can no longer come crying to America for help.

It's selfish, cruel and irresponsible to cut and run, yes. But it's the only solution to get us out of the quagmire that is Iraq. He who fights and runs away, lives to fight another day after all.


We will lose the Battle For Iraq, but there are other battles and the War on Terrorism isn't over yet.

Problem is, if the US leaves Iraq, Iran will seize the moment and invade it. And what the US does not want, is a bigger Iran.

We need to cut our loses and leave Iraq NOW.

If the Iraqis don't want us in their country, FINE, let's cut and run and warn them that when a new dictator takes control that they can no longer come crying to America for help.

It's selfish, cruel and irresponsible to cut and run, yes. But it's the only solution to get us out of the quagmire that is Iraq. He who fights and runs away, lives to fight another day after all.


We will lose the Battle For Iraq, but there are other battles and the War on Terrorism isn't over yet.
Have you ever talked to an Iraqi? I know one, she goes to my school. Her parents were jailed for seven years because they tried to apply for US citizenship.
She was suspended for two days because she punched out a kid for saying that the US invasion was a war crime and that there was no proof that Saddam was actually doing all this stuff.
Would you like me to introduce you? Shes very nice provided you dont mention Saddam.

And there I was, thinking you had something to add to the debate...:rolleyes:

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
Interestingly enough, the casualty list supports the assertion that we are doing well. If you break the body count down the vast majority of people killed by US action are males 14 and older. OTOH the kill count contributed by the 'insurgents' tends toward children and has a much more equal male/female ratio.

I've been researching the current war, its causes, and statistics regarding its deadliness. I've compiled them into a report that can be found here (http://blacklight-ninja.blogspot.com/2005/12/why-war-was-great.html). I dare say, the results were simply shocking!

By the way, my stance used to be pro-war based on the U.S. administration knowing more than I do (classified information, it being their job to know, etc.). Now I am pro-war based on collected facts, as well as for my previous reason.
From your report: "Every war America has been involved in has had fewer casualties than the recent one in Iraq." Don't you mean "greater?" :confused:

Have you ever talked to an Iraqi? I know one, she goes to my school. Her parents were jailed for seven years because they tried to apply for US citizenship.
She was suspended for two days because she punched out a kid for saying that the US invasion was a war crime and that there was no proof that Saddam was actually doing all this stuff.
Would you like me to introduce you? Shes very nice provided you dont mention Saddam.

Nice tactic, tote out the "Good Iraqi" story to garner sympathy for the War.

Well guess what? The War in Iraq is a MISTAKE, in the beginning it was about WMD, when that didn't fly it became "They helped Al-Qaeda", when that was debunked THEN it became "Free the Iraqi People".

Only when it becomes convenient do human beings care about other human beings.

And it's no longer convenient.

And there I was, thinking you had something to add to the debate...:rolleyes:

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

This (http://www.obleek.com/iraq/index.html) one's better.

Interestingly enough, the casualty list supports the assertion that we are doing well. If you break the body count down the vast majority of people killed by US action are males 14 and older. OTOH the kill count contributed by the 'insurgents' tends toward children and has a much more equal male/female ratio.

And how does this support "the assertion that we are doing well"? I don't understand...

And how does this support "the assertion that we are doing well"? I don't understand...
The point is, we're not habitually killing innocents, whereas the insurgents are, although most of the active insurgents are nothing of the sort, but rather from out of country terrorists. It's pissing a lot of people off. In the long run this is a good thing.

Nice tactic, tote out the "Good Iraqi" story to garner sympathy for the War.

Well guess what? The War in Iraq is a MISTAKE, in the beginning it was about WMD, when that didn't fly it became "They helped Al-Qaeda", when that was debunked THEN it became "Free the Iraqi People".

Only when it becomes convenient do human beings care about other human beings.

And it's no longer convenient.
If you say so. I personally support the war because it removed a psychotic dictator from power, of course, that doesnt count as a legitimate reason, does it?

The point is, we're not habitually killing innocents, whereas the insurgents are, although most of the active insurgents are nothing of the sort, but rather from out of country terrorists. It's pissing a lot of people off. In the long run this is a good thing.

Yes, thank god we've replaced a murderous dictator with murderous gangs from within and without the country, killed people, destroyed infrastructure, lined favoured companies pockets, encouraged Iran to develop nuclear weapons so _they_ don't get liberated, and oveall made a difficult situation that bit harder.

I bet the other countries are just fighting themselves to see who gets to invite us back to their place next, huh?

I've been researching the current war, its causes, and statistics regarding its deadliness. I've compiled them into a report that can be found here (http://blacklight-ninja.blogspot.com/2005/12/why-war-was-great.html). I dare say, the results were simply shocking!

By the way, my stance used to be pro-war based on the U.S. administration knowing more than I do (classified information, it being their job to know, etc.). Now I am pro-war based on collected facts, as well as for my previous reason.
I visited your web site and I do believe you have accurately captured all the pro Bush arguments. Well done propaganda.

I love your statement on the site:

So, my dear hippies, I believe I have adequately proved you all to be morons. So do me a favor and stop crashing what would otherwise be interesting ROTC presentations, clogging up what would otherwise be unclogged streets, and stinking up what would otherwise be drug free air with your protests. You guys lose!

I will stand by my initial thoughts on the Iraq War, in that it is illegal, immoral, and unnecessary.

C. We were led into the war on a lie.
R. Iraq had been evading weapons inspections for several years (even Clinton recognized it as a problem), and suddenly the U.S. satellites pick up a lot of trucks secretly transporting Iraqi government material. Consequently, we were led to war on an educated guess that Iraq was transporting WMDs (which turned out to be slightly flawed). The U.S. did appear to be in immediate danger, however, meaning we were very justified in entering war.


We WERE led to war on a lie. When do you think a nation like Iraq is most likely to use any weapons it has, period? When its own survival is threatened. If Iraq REALLY had the weapons Bush said they did, then they would have used them on our soldiers as they invaded. If he seriously believed that Iraq had WMDs then he shouldn't have expected victory with only 100,000 troops. If your troops are hit by biological/chemical weapons MANY of them will die. You would need several times that many if you expected to weather the worst of what Bush SAID Saddam had. The war strategy tells us that Bush knew there were no weapons ... and attacked anyway.

Let's also not forget how inconsistent the Bush administration has been in justifying the war ... first, it was to protect ourselves against Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Then, when it was clear that those weapons didn't exist, it was 'to free the Iraqi people.' Then, when it was clear that the Iraqi people were responding a tad negatively to the occupation, it was because of 9/11.

The claim that US Satellites found Iraq transporting "government material" isn't known to me, and I call bullshit. OH NOES!!!11 OUR SOOPER SATELLITES SEE TRUCKS MOVING IN IRAQ!!!!11 US IS IN DANGER!!!!111

Ah, but not to worry, only 2000 US soldiers have been killed! That's nothing compared to all our other wars! Too bad no one's counting the dead Iraq civilians, but then again, who cares about them.

Your counting just the American lives lost is very telling. Do you not think Iraqis matter also? You have failed to factor in GI deaths subsequent to removal from the battlefield, which aren't officially counted. The bodies are flown back to the US at night..

Anti war = hippy, of course it does y'twat!

If you say so. I personally support the war because it removed a psychotic dictator from power, of course, that doesnt count as a legitimate reason, does it?

Maybe when the "free Iraqi people" excuse tanks that will become the reason for war.... At least until the US replaces Saddam with a US Sponsored Dictatorship (if it works in Latin America why not the Middle East?).

I've been researching the current war, its causes, and statistics regarding its deadliness. I've compiled them into a report that can be found here (http://blacklight-ninja.blogspot.com/2005/12/why-war-was-great.html). I dare say, the results were simply shocking!

By the way, my stance used to be pro-war based on the U.S. administration knowing more than I do (classified information, it being their job to know, etc.). Now I am pro-war based on collected facts, as well as for my previous reason.


You have done a very good job on that. If I were a teacher I would give you an A+.

If you say so. I personally support the war because it removed a psychotic dictator from power, of course, that doesnt count as a legitimate reason, does it?


That would count as an legit reason if that was the reason for going to war. You can't give your gov't a blank cheque to do whatever they want. If they are going to start a war over human rights issues, than fine, state that at the beginning, you'll have a hell of a lot more supporters, but just be prepared to enter every other nation that is equally as bad as Saddam was or worse.

We need to cut our loses and leave Iraq NOW.

Then the sacrifices of the all troops and their families will have been in vain. It will also guarantee Iraq will have a civil war. Many, many more will die.

Cut and run is a cowards way out, especially now with elections just a couple of days away. We will leave when Iraq has a stable government and their troops and police have been trained to defend their country from insurgents and terrorists.

Then the sacrifices of the all troops and their families will have been in vain. It will also guarantee Iraq will have a civil war. Many, many more will die.

Cut and run is a cowards way out, especially now with elections just a couple of days away. We will leave when Iraq has a stable government and their troops and police have been trained to defend their country from insurgents and terrorists.

Yes. The insurgents and terrorists we generated and dumped in their laps.

I do agree with you though - now that the US (and UK, and a few others) are committed, it would be appalling PR to pull out before Iraq's significantly safer. We caused _this particular_ mess (it was pretty shoddy to start with, but we gave it a whole new set of problems), so we need to stay till it's (largely) fixed.

You have done a very good job on that. If I were a teacher I would give you an A+.
An "F" would be more appropriate. "F" as in failure, fantasy, fictitious, false, foolish, fabrication, etc.

Not to mention that it is a waste of bandwidth.

Not that I care about the war for oil argument but you're missing a very important point. Yes it is true that American companies haven't taken over Iraqi oil but Iraqi oil is still flowing into America and there is no longer any threat of that being stopped. Considering Iraq is one of America's top oil providers that is pretty important.

Also, just before the war started Saddam changed teh currency in which he traded his oil from the U.S. note to the Euro. That was very bad news for America and if it started a trend could cause extreme amounts of damange to the U.S. One of the reasons the U.S. is allowed to run such a large debt is that so much U.S. currency is used for trading around the world, so the money is actually there... just somewhere. If countries started changing to the Euro on mass the U.S. would be in a very sticky situation. America would have to cut spending very fast, and by vast amounts.

Well guess what? The War in Iraq is a MISTAKE,...snip

No, it was not. Even the UN agreed that "strong action" would be taken if Saddam did not comply with the UN resolutions. Even the UN and some European powers believed Saddam had WMDs.

The UN didn't have the gumption to enforce their own resolutions, so the coalition did it for them.

By the way, my stance used to be pro-war based on the U.S. administration knowing more than I do (classified information, it being their job to know, etc.). Now I am pro-war based on collected facts, as well as for my previous reason.

Your analysis is 'slightly flawed'.*




* I use the phrase 'slightly flawed' in the same way you do - "Consequently, we were led to war on an educated guess that Iraq was transporting WMDs (which turned out to be slightly flawed)."

We will leave when Iraq has a stable government and their troops and police have been trained to defend their country from insurgents and terrorists.

So... in other words... we won't leave.

I will stand by my initial thoughts on the Iraq War, in that it is illegal, immoral, and unnecessary.

If I am not mistaken, you believe ALL wars are illegal, immoral, and unnecessary.
Is my assumption correct?

Yeah, 2400 American lives is cake. We should kill off a few more for absolutely nothing.

No, you started out with the "2400 lives is nothing compared to other wars" argument, and I could tell it was worthless.

... If Iraq REALLY had the weapons Bush said they did,


Need to revise this statement slightly: “If Iraq REALLY had the weapons Bush, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry Russia, Brittan, the UN, as well as many other political leaders and countries said they did...”

It is a fact that we went to war because of the WMDs and the very real threat that Iraq would most likely use them as they had done in the past. The fact that we did not find mass quantities of WMDs did not change the reason we went to war. I don't recall anyone in the administration stating the reason we went to war was to get rid of Saddam either before or after the invasion. To the best of my knowledge, it was never used by the administration as justification for the war.

An "F" would be more appropriate. "F" as in failure, fantasy, fictitious, false, foolish, fabrication, etc.

Not to mention that it is a waste of bandwidth.

You forgot the other F word. He does have FACTS there, but I guess you missed those.

If I am not mistaken, you believe ALL wars are illegal, immoral, and unnecessary.
Is my assumption correct?
You assume incorrectly.

Initially, I supported the reprisal against Afghanistan. When the US left there to attack Iraq, the support level drops to zero on both counts.

Afghanistan has been a back burner issue for the US, and troop death tolls are rising there steadily, and the people are no better off. Oh, and where is Osama. Oh that is right, Bush doesn't care anymore.

So... in other words... we won't leave.

I believe most of our troops will be out of there within 12 to 18 months. I also think we will have bases there for several years to come.

No, it was not. Even the UN agreed that "strong action" would be taken if Saddam did not comply with the UN resolutions. Even the UN and some European powers believed Saddam had WMDs.

The UN didn't have the gumption to enforce their own resolutions, so the coalition did it for them.Incorrect. They believed Saddam might have had WMD's and were pushing for more time for the inspectors to find something and for Saddam to come clean. The force that would have gone in had they found something would have been an international force, lead primarily by the US, but answering to the UN.

This did not sit well with Bush, naturally, and he ordered the inspectors out and began the Shock & Awe campaign a few weeks before the UN inspectors could prepare a final report. Why the haste? I think it was because he knew that the inspection reports would have ripped his case to a shambles. Unfortunately, by not waiting, he committed the US to a much higher expenditure in lives, international relations, and tax dollars. (In his favor though, he probably was not aware of how deep a cow-pie he'd just stepped in, even though his dad warned him otherwise, as his more constant advisors -- Rove, Wolfowitz, Cheney, and the other signed PNAC people -- had ideological blinders on which lead them to believe that the people of Iraq would turn and welcome them with open arms as soon as Saddam dropped.)

The UN had the gumption, but they wanted to be sure they were enforcing them properly -- not just on the say-so of an Iraqi general who defected and was known to be a liar with his own motives -- which is what the majority of the "Yes he has them" intelligence reports were based on.

Incidentally.. if the starter of this topic trusts the satellites more than the people, I wonder why once the US got boots on the ground, the satellites suddenly stopped giving all this perfect info about where the stuff was.

You assume incorrectly.

Initially, I supported the reprisal against Afghanistan. When the US left there to attack Iraq, the support level drops to zero on both counts.

Afghanistan has been a back burner issue for the US, and troop death tolls are rising there steadily, and the people are no better off. Oh, and where is Osama. Oh that is right, Bush doesn't care anymore.

The people of Afghanistan are no better off now than they were under the Taliban? Is that what you are telling me?

They have no more freedom now? They still can't listen to music? Women still must wear burkers? Men must still grow beards? Girls still can't go to school? They still don't have free and open elections?

What on earth makes you say the people are no better off now than they were under the Taliban?

You know, ten year olds used to work for sixteen hours a day in terrible conditions in coal mines. Is it ok if they work for four hours today? I mean, their suffering won't be half as bad as it used to be.

If you say so. I personally support the war because it removed a psychotic dictator from power, of course, that doesnt count as a legitimate reason, does it?

I do too, but given that the Bush administration has supported several dictatorships since, I think it can be given that they don't support the war for that reason.

Can I make an interjection?

Minor points aside, there is a single, enormous factor that seperates the Second Gulf War from the Vietnam War, despite what outspoken anti-war advocates would tell you:

As of this moment, well over two-thirds of US military personnell deployed to Iraq support the war, the administration, and believe Iraq is winnable as a military campaign. I believe this is directly tied in to the fact that today, we posess an all-volunteer military.

In the waning days of Vietnam, just before Nixon began the generous "redeployment" of troops, less than a quarter of the troops present, the majority of whom were not draftees, believed the conflict was winnable.

You can call it what you wish, but as a civilian here at home, I honestly don't think what your or I think should have any impact on war policy. Once we've committed to a war, I say we should stay and fight as long as the men being shot at think it's winnable.

My granddad, a career Marine Corps officer with the finest panhandle accent you'd ever hear, veteran of Iwo Jima as well as Korea and Vietnam (though he was an officer by then and did not see much front-line action) once made a remark to the effect of "A Marine is like a bulldog with a bad attitude, y'see. Once he gets ahold of something, he'll take it down or die trying."

To this effect, I do believe we need to find some way to begin pulling the National Guard out of Iraq. While they technically signed up to act as peacekeepers and soldiers, it was done under the premise that the chance of seeing action was incredibly slim. Among National Guardsmen, morale for the war is incredibly low.

I fully believe Iraq is a winnable conflict. I believe this so much so, that I've been considering putting my marksmanship (National Rifle Association, Sharpshooter, High Power Rifle) to the cause and signing up with Blackwater USA, a private security contractor, for the express purpose of hopefully getting a chance to take a crack at some of those knuckleheads over there. Plus, the $500 per day pay rate is nice. Soldiers of Fortune, indeed.

Then again, I think we're missing the entire point of this argument.

You want to blame someone for this? Blame Bush.

I'm not talking about 'Dubya,' though. I refer to George H. Bush, the 41st President.

In January 1991, we had 500,000 soldiers on the ground in the surrounding areas. Add in to that all sorts of multinational forces (remember, the U.N. went along with this one) and you have a massive fighting force, at least compared to what we have in Iraq now.

In a matter of weeks, we had punted the Iraqis out of Kuwait, effectively annihilated their air force and the majority of their armor/artillery, and had demoralized their army to the point of surrendering to remotely-operated drones flying from the recently-reactivated Battleship Missouri.

Right then, at that point in time, we had a prime opportunity to KO Saddam, and the majority of the world would have made a toast in our direction. Instead, we decided, "Well, we kicked his ass pretty hard. We'll be home before summer! Whee!"

NO.

WRONG.

Even the most warped of minds could tell that Iraq, under Saddam, would never abide by the rather harsh limitations imposed on them following the end of Desert Storm. Yet we decided the day was won and took off. Brilliant. After all, since the Cold War was pretty much over by that point, the world wasn't going to be evil anymore, right?

Oh, how naive we were.

Today, Western Europe, Russia, and plenty of other places are throwing a fit about us being in Iraq. We have less than half... actually, less than a third the number of troops in Iraq than we had in 1991, and even less heavy weapons (tanks, artillery, etc). On top of all that, we chose to go into Iraq with a pinheaded President of whose cabinet maybe two people knew what they were doing (Rummy and Colin). And then there's all the conspiracy theories about good 'ol Dick orchestrating the whole thing to boost Halliburton's worth on Wall Street.

So yeah, there we go. We had a noble and just cause, we were just twelve years too late in finally getting around to making it happen, and now we're paying for it.

Need to revise this statement slightly: “If Iraq REALLY had the weapons Bush, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry Russia, Brittan, the UN, as well as many other political leaders and countries said they did...”

It is a fact that we went to war because of the WMDs and the very real threat that Iraq would most likely use them as they had done in the past. The fact that we did not find mass quantities of WMDs did not change the reason we went to war. I don't recall anyone in the administration stating the reason we went to war was to get rid of Saddam either before or after the invasion. To the best of my knowledge, it was never used by the administration as justification for the war.




Disarm Saddam Hussein

The gravest danger we face in the war on terror is outlaw regimes that seek and possess nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.

* Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein agreed to disarm all weapons of mass destruction. For 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement.
* Three months ago, the United Nations Security Council gave Saddam his final chance to disarm. He has shown his utter contempt for the U.N.
* The U.N. and U.S. intelligence sources have known for some time that Saddam Hussein has materials to produce chemical and biological weapons, but he has not accounted for them:
o 26,000 liters of anthrax—enough to kill several million people
o 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin
o 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agents
* Almost 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents
* From three Iraqi defectors, we know that Iraq in the late 1990s had several mobile biological weapons labs. But he has not disclosed them.
* The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, a design for a nuclear weapon, and was working on methods of enriching uranium for a nuclear bomb. He recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa, according to the British Government. He has attempted to purchase high strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons, according to our intelligence sources. Yet he has not credibly explained these activities.
* Thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the UN inspectors.
* Iraqi officials accompany all inspectors in order to intimidate witnesses.
* Iraq is blocking U-2 surveillance flights requested by the U.N.
* Saddam Hussein has ordered that scientists who cooperate with the UN be killed, along with their families.
* Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including al-Qaida members. He could provide hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own. It would take just one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/nationalsecurity/disarm.html

I think the case has already been proven that Saddam needed to go. I'm just bitter we didn't do it when the opportunity was much brighter.

I think the case has already been proven that Saddam needed to go. I'm just bitter we didn't do it when the opportunity was much brighter.

It's not that he didn't have to go or completly change his ways, it was the way the U.S. went into Iraq. If you are going to go to war on with a Nation over WMD, you should have actual proof of WMD or at least allow the inspectors to finish their jobs.

I think the case has already been proven that Saddam needed to go. I'm just bitter we didn't do it when the opportunity was much brighter.

I'm not so sure.

We don't know yet whether a weakened Saddam was a stabilizing factor in the region, or whether the people will be better off without Saddam in power.

I think it is entirely possible that the removal of Saddam could make things much worse in the region and in Iraq.

I admit, the essay was written with American's in mind, who feel that the war has too many U.S. based casualties.

Not all Americans are racists. Some of us hold that an Iraqi life is equivalent to an American life, and the pointless waste of one is equivalent to the pointless waste of another.

However, if you look more closely at the essay, you should see that more than 95% of the efforts in Iraq have been peacekeeping.

Ridiculous euphemism. "Peacekeeping" means securing US domination of the country, achieved through massive organized violence.

So I'm willing to bet that most of those deaths are incurred by insurgants who will not leave even if the American soldiers are removed.

Most of them are caused by the humanitarian consequences of annihilating a nation's infrastructure in war, directly the fault of the United States. As far as actual combat deaths go, the last reliable statistics I saw indicated that some two-thirds of those killed were killed by the US, the remainder by the Resistance, which is unquestionably brutal in methods.

But regardless, all of that is irrelevant; the Resistance will indeed cease operations once the occupiers leave. A civil war may result; such is a risk when you destabilize another country. The important thing is the US will no longer be killing anybody and the situation will have the chance to resolve itself in a manner more reflective of the will of the Iraqi people.

US intervention is making things worse, not better; killing people who oppose its rule does not improve the situation, especially not in the brutal and indiscriminate way it is being done. To the contrary, it is making the armed resistance stronger, and radicalizing sectors of the Iraqi populace. They are forcing a choice between collaboration or resistance, and it is likely that for many this means death now or death later.

In fact, because of America's military excellence, troop removal would mean a rise in successful insurgant activity, pontentially destroying more Iraqis than before.
Let's also not forget that Iraq is surrounded by enemies on all sides. If the U.S. leaves before Iraq is ready, mass chaos will insue as Iraq's neighbors attempt to seize control.

The Iraqis are capable of handling their own affairs without the US ruling over them; they have done so repeatedly in the past. US "military excellence" really does not apply to the war against the Resistance, which the US is losing. Furthermore even if the US would win that result would not be a desireable one for the Iraqi or the American people; an empire running a proxy government rarely is a good thing.

The people of Afghanistan are no better off now than they were under the Taliban? Is that what you are telling me?

They have no more freedom now? They still can't listen to music? Women still must wear burkers? Men must still grow beards? Girls still can't go to school? They still don't have free and open elections?

What on earth makes you say the people are no better off now than they were under the Taliban?
I guess it depends on where you get your news from?

http://www.aopnews.com/yest.html

Afghan women commit self-immolation over one year: report

KABUL, Dec. 10 (Xinhuanet) -- While Afghan government is striving to ensure women's rights in conservative central Asian state, some 100 women have committed self-immolation to get rid of family problems, Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission (AIHRC) said in an annual report Saturday.

"The figure of violation against women and cases of self-immolation could be several times higher than reported in the AIHRC report as many women cannot report to police because of fear of divorce, killing and more violations," the report asserted.

December 9, 2005 - published by the Institute for War & Peace Reporting

Editorials: War on terror enters new phase

(December 6, 2005) In the last couple of months there has been an obvious change in the tactics used by the Taleban and al-Qaeda in their operation against Afghan and Coalition forces. They have switched completely from full-on attacks to operations by individuals. It has in fact been all but confirmed that they are copying the model used by al-Qaeda in Iraq. A second important point is that around six months ago, the Taleban made the claim that they had acquired modern weapons with which to counter air strikes by the US led-Coalition. It was subsequently proven that the Taleban had acquired portable anti-aircraft missiles. A third point is the Taleban’s access to a funding source, which they mentioned in the same interview. That gives cause for concern that the Taleban, who had been using religion as their prime recruiting message are now able to buy the loyalties of many more people. Once again, the unanswered question is where the Taleban are getting the money from. It’s certainly not some hidden treasure from past ages that they have dug up. Very soon after they made their claims, a US Chinook crashed in the restless eastern province of Kunar on June 28, and all 16 people on board died. It was a major blow to US forces, because for the first time, they were facing a large number of casualties in Afghanistan. The US military now needs to intensify its campaign in more sophisticated ways, because Taleban/al-Qaeda are no longer just a force of religiously-motivated mercenaries; in the last couple of years they have learned a great deal about taking on well-equipped and organised military forces.

Editorial: Returnees facing hunger and homelessness problems

(December 5, 2005) According to a reliable source from the Afghan Refugees and Repatriation Ministry, 4.3 million Afghan refugees have returned home over the past three years. Unfortunately most of these returnees face problems of unemployment, hunger and homelessness, and still no humanitarian aid has been provided for them. According to some estimates, nearly 40,000 returnee families in Kabul face unemployment, homelessness and other problems. In order to resolve these problems, the Afghan Refugees and Repatriation Ministry has established contacts with aid organisations and the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, asking them to provide these people with suitable shelter and to help them in other ways. We hope the government officials concerned will hurry to provide the returned refugees with the essentials before the winter comes. Last winter, hundreds of returnees, children and old people died because of the cold weather. If the 40, 000 returnees living in tents are not provided with homes, their children’s lives will be in danger. Symbolic acts by the government will achieve nothing.

http://www.aopnews.com/today.html

Al-Qaeda deputy praises Taliban gains in Afghanistan in new tape

Associated Press / December 11, 2005

CAIRO (AP) — Al-Qaeda No. 2 Ayman al-Zawahri has praised Taliban leader Mullah Omar for winning back control of large regions of Afghanistan and urged Muslims to wage holy war against the West, according to a tape that surfaced on Sunday.

The tape, which is about 48 minutes long, was believed to have been made at about the same time as the last tape attributed to al-Zawahri — a Sept. 19 video.

The latest tape, which could not be immediately authenticated, was obtained by IntelCenter, a government contractor that does support work for the U.S. intelligence community.

In it, al-Zawahri credited Mullah Omar with leading a three-year campaign "against the Crusaders and apostates in Afghanistan" and taking control of "extensive parts of eastern and western Afghanistan."

The hard-line Taliban regime was toppled by U.S.-led forces in late 2001 when it refused to turn over al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and stop offering a haven to the group following the Sept. 11 terror attacks on the United States.

The latest tape was also a rallying call to Muslims to attack Western interests.

"The key to victory is in our hands, and in turn, the primary cause of defeat is in ourselves," it said.

Afghanistan: Battle for Hearts and Minds Lost

By Chris Sands in Jalalabad
PalestineChronicle.com
December 11, 2005

JALALABAD, Afghanistan - The US helicopters fly past Abdul Basir’s house most mornings, off to conduct operations in the towns and villages near the border with Pakistan. They return hours later, once again skimming low over the rooftops in an attempt to avoid any hostile fire from below.

“People liked the Americans before, but for the last year they have been coming into homes without permission and imposing force, and people do not like them now. The problems happen mostly outside the city, but we also hear the stories here,” he said.

There are lots more stories that detail the reality of today's Afghanistan from increased opium production to climbing US death tolls.

Not all Americans are racists. Some of us hold that an Iraqi life is equivalent to an American life, and the pointless waste of one is equivalent to the pointless waste of another.



Ridiculous euphemism. "Peacekeeping" means securing US domination of the country, achieved through massive organized violence.



Most of them are caused by the humanitarian consequences of annihilating a nation's infrastructure in war, directly the fault of the United States. As far as actual combat deaths go, the last reliable statistics I saw indicated that some two-thirds of those killed were killed by the US, the remainder by the Resistance, which is unquestionably brutal in methods.

But regardless, all of that is irrelevant; the Resistance will indeed cease operations once the occupiers leave. A civil war may result; such is a risk when you destabilize another country. The important thing is the US will no longer be killing anybody and the situation will have the chance to resolve itself in a manner more reflective of the will of the Iraqi people.

US intervention is making things worse, not better; killing people who oppose its rule does not improve the situation, especially not in the brutal and indiscriminate way it is being done. To the contrary, it is making the armed resistance stronger, and radicalizing sectors of the Iraqi populace. They are forcing a choice between collaboration or resistance, and it is likely that for many this means death now or death later.



The Iraqis are capable of handling their own affairs without the US ruling over them; they have done so repeatedly in the past. US "military excellence" really does not apply to the war against the Resistance, which the US is losing. Furthermore even if the US would win that result would not be a desireable one for the Iraqi or the American people; an empire running a proxy government rarely is a good thing.

^ This is why I watch carefully for poorly written stuff. Although he seems intellegent due to his vocabulary, he makes several erroneous claims. I said Americans care about American deaths, and this guy claims that that means we don't care about Iraqi deaths. There is no support for that claim, by the way.
He also assumes that he knows exactly what has been going on in Iraq, despite no evidence that he has ever been to Iraq. I personally have spoken to returning soldiers passing through Germany, and their descriptions of their tasks include rebuilding things, and security activities. That sounds very peacekeeping to me.
Next, he quotes several statistics without sources, claiming that they are "good," when as far as we know, it's uncle Billy the town drunk.
Lastly, he makes his own assesment about the Iraqi people that is directly contrary to both the U.S. government's assertation and the new Iraqi government's assertation. Since it's their job to know, they probably do.
This is what conservatives such as myself want to stop: not free speech, but false speech. It's called libel (or slander when spoken).

Soheran
"Peacekeeping" means securing US domination of the country, achieved through massive organized violence

Are you kidding? So basicaly what your saying is that any peacekeeping mission going on in the world right now is "domination of a country through massive organized violence. If we follow that logic, then the NATO peacekeeping mission in Kosovo headed by France right now is wrong. The African peacekeeping mission in Liberia conducted by a coalition of African countries, (not sure who is heading it), is wrong. Everyday, people die in Kosovo and in Liberia.

Soheran
Most of them are caused by the humanitarian consequences of annihilating a nation's infrastructure in war, directly the fault of the United States.

Again, are you kidding? Sadaam had nothing to do with the failing of the infrastructure of Iraq? Sadaam didn't do anything, like invading a smaller nation and raping it, which caused the sanctioins in the first place?

Soheran
But regardless, all of that is irrelevant; the Resistance will indeed cease operations once the occupiers leave. A civil war may result; such is a risk when you destabilize another country. The important thing is the US will no longer be killing anybody and the situation will have the chance to resolve itself in a manner more reflective of the will of the Iraqi people.

I know that you are crazy now. The "resistance" will not cease once the US leaves the country. Which is why it is imperative that the US stays until the resistance is crushed. And you profess to know the will of the Iraqi people? It was the will of the Iraqi people to be brutalized by a family of madmen?

You have no comprehension of the Iraqi culture or or of the things that are going on over in Iraq. You have been fed the liberal extremist bull shit and you have swallowed it. Why don't you read the latest polls that are coming out of Iraq. Or better yet, why don't you go over there, put on a pair of boots and try to help the people instead of spouting of unrealistic talking points.

...huh. Figured I would have gotten flamed for being a mercenary-hopeful. Maybe NS's forum is deserving of more respect than I give it.

Anyway, with that in mind, I once again profess that there would not have been an insurgency, or if you prefer, Resistence, with 900,000 multinational troops in Iraq. It just wouldn't have happened. Period.

...huh. Figured I would have gotten flamed for being a mercenary-hopeful. Maybe NS's forum is deserving of more respect than I give it.

Anyway, with that in mind, I once again profess that there would not have been an insurgency, or if you prefer, Resistence, with 900,000 multinational troops in Iraq. It just wouldn't have happened. Period.

You are correct. Don't get me wrong, I have issues with the way the war is being conducted. I have always felt like there should have been many more troops.

Not just more troops, but a massive international backing, plus Baghdad being on the verge of rioting right out from under Saddam.

They say everyone has 20/20 hindsight, but I can't help but Monday Morning Quarterback on this one: Could the situation have been any simpler then?

Hell, he even still had huge stashes of chemical shells left over from the war with Iran then!! There's your WMDs right there!

Actually, the US has found more than 600 tons of enriched Uranium in Iraq. Not to mention what you mentioned. The chemical weapons.

Actually, the US has found more than 600 tons of enriched Uranium in Iraq. Not to mention what you mentioned. The chemical weapons.

This is why I said the WMD assumptions were slightly flawed. We did find WMDs, just not as many as we'd hoped.

Actually, the US has found more than 600 tons of enriched Uranium in Iraq. Not to mention what you mentioned. The chemical weapons.

Really? You got a link? The standard consensus is that no WMD were found in Iraq.

There are lots more stories that detail the reality of today's Afghanistan from increased opium production to climbing US death tolls.

The stories are OK, but you have not answered my question as to how the Afghan people are no better off than they were under the Taliban. So try these:
Could girls go to school under the Taliban?
Can girls go to school now?
Could music be played under the Taliban?
Can music be played now?
Were women required to wear burkas under the Taliban?
Are women required to wear burkas now?
Were men required to grow beards under the Taliban?
Are men required to wear beards now?
Were there free and open elections under the Taliban?
Are there free and open elections now?
Did women have the right to vote under the Taliban?
Do women have the right to vote now?
Were the people better off under the Taliban than they are now?

Their contry is not perfect now, but I would say they are much better off now than under the Taliban and I'm sure a majority of the Afghans would agree with me.

Although he seems intellegent due to his vocabulary, he makes several erroneous claims. I said Americans care about American deaths, and this guy claims that that means we don't care about Iraqi deaths. There is no support for that claim, by the way.

I did not say Americans did not care about Iraqi deaths. To the contrary, I said the opposite:

Not all Americans are racists. Some of us hold that an Iraqi life is equivalent to an American life, and the pointless waste of one is equivalent to the pointless waste of another.

For the context, this was in response to your earlier statement ("I admit, the essay was written with American's in mind, who feel that the war has too many U.S. based casualties") written in response to my point that the essay ignored Iraqi casualties.

The clear implication of the statement you made is that Americans do indeed care mostly about American deaths, not Iraqi deaths; I contradicted this. You are the one making erroneous claims, and distorting my statements.

He also assumes that he knows exactly what has been going on in Iraq, despite no evidence that he has ever been to Iraq.

No, I have not been to Iraq. Dahr Jamail has; I suggest you read what he has to say. http://www.dahrjamailiraq.com/weblog/

I personally have spoken to returning soldiers passing through Germany, and their descriptions of their tasks include rebuilding things, and security activities. That sounds very peacekeeping to me.

No doubt. That contradicts nothing I said. The fact that some of the activities being carried out in Iraq are of a humanitarian nature is irrelevant to the meaninglessness of the propagandistic euphemism "peacekeeping." The notion that brutal imperialism is "keeping the peace" among the ignorant barbarian savages is a very old one, dating at least from Ancient Rome, and a very false one.

Next, he quotes several statistics without sources, claiming that they are "good," when as far as we know, it's uncle Billy the town drunk.

I said "reliable," actually, not "good." I cannot recall the source at the moment; I believe it was a humanitarian organization, perhaps UN-affiliated or perhaps one of the human rights NGOs doing work in Iraq.

It was not the Iraqi Resistance, the Iranian press, etc.

Lastly, he makes his own assesment about the Iraqi people that is directly contrary to both the U.S. government's assertation and the new Iraqi government's assertation.

The US government lies with regularity, the puppet government is no better. Neither are the slightest bit reliable in the information they release to the public.

Since it's their job to know, they probably do.

Which does not mean they will tell us.

If they do actually know, the question must be asked: why have they so badly botched this thing from the beginning?

Are you kidding? So basicaly what your saying is that any peacekeeping mission going on in the world right now is "domination of a country through massive organized violence.

No. What I am saying is that in this particular case, like many others, "peacekeeping" is the euphemism used by the imperial power to positively portray its actions, and is therefore meaningless propaganda.

Again, are you kidding? Sadaam had nothing to do with the failing of the infrastructure of Iraq? Sadaam didn't do anything, like invading a smaller nation and raping it, which caused the sanctioins in the first place?

I didn't mention the sanctions, that's a separate atrocity, one that can be blamed just as greatly on the containment liberals as on the warmongering neoconservatives.

I was talking about the relative consequences of the Iraq War.

I know that you are crazy now. The "resistance" will not cease once the US leaves the country. Which is why it is imperative that the US stays until the resistance is crushed.

The resistance will not be crushed, it has not yet been, despite immense efforts. Even more brutal and violent tactics were used to stop the Viet Cong during the Vietnam War and the mujahidden during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and in neither case was much progress made.

Of course the resistance to the occupation will cease once the occupation ends, the same way the US Revolutionary War ended once the British relinquished control. I did not say the violence would end, nor that the militias would disband.

And you profess to know the will of the Iraqi people? It was the will of the Iraqi people to be brutalized by a family of madmen?

Of course it wasn't. Nor is it the will of the Iraqi people to be dominated by a brutal imperial power that has killed tens of thousands of them and is continuing its slaughter by the day. No people would support such violence directed against them.

You have no comprehension of the Iraqi culture or or of the things that are going on over in Iraq.

You have no idea who I am, nor any real idea of what I do and do not comprehend.

You have been fed the liberal extremist bull shit and you have swallowed it.

Many of the "liberals" I know tend to be of the opinion, shared by John Kerry and most of the Democratic Party establishment, that murderous aggression is okay as long as we have coalition partners. I do not share their views.

If it is "extremist" to oppose imperial aggression against other countries, whatever benevolent rhetoric is invented to justify it, I count myself an extremist, and a proud one.

The vast majority of the human population is similarly "extremist."

Really? You got a link? The standard consensus is that no WMD were found in Iraq.

Don't need a link, I guarded it. But I'll try to dig one up after dinner.

No. What I am saying is that in this particular case, like many others, "peacekeeping" is the euphemism used by the imperial power to positively portray its actions, and is therefore meaningless propaganda.



I didn't mention the sanctions, that's a separate atrocity, one that can be blamed just as greatly on the containment liberals as on the warmongering neoconservatives.

I was talking about the relative consequences of the Iraq War.



The resistance will not be crushed, it has not yet been, despite immense efforts. Even more brutal and violent tactics were used to stop the Viet Cong during the Vietnam War and the mujahidden during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and in neither case was much progress made.

Of course the resistance to the occupation will cease once the occupation ends, the same way the US Revolutionary War ended once the British relinquished control. I did not say the violence would end, nor that the militias would disband.



Of course it wasn't. Nor is it the will of the Iraqi people to be dominated by a brutal imperial power that has killed tens of thousands of them and is continuing its slaughter by the day. No people would support such violence directed against them.



You have no idea who I am, nor any real idea of what I do and do not comprehend.



Many of the "liberals" I know tend to be of the opinion, shared by John Kerry and most of the Democratic Party establishment, that murderous aggression is okay as long as we have coalition partners. I do not share their views.

If it is "extremist" to oppose imperial aggression against other countries, whatever benevolent rhetoric is invented to justify it, I count myself an extremist, and a proud one.

The vast majority of the human population is similarly "extremist."

Your words speak amply enough for me to get a first impression. It is obvious from your words that you don't know anything about the culture in the middle east that you haven't gotten off your local news.

And I would lay the tens of thousands of civilians dead right at the insurgents feet. The US army is not trained to kill civilians. They are trained to kill combatants. Once a weapon is picked up and aimed, you cease to be a non-combatant and become a combatant.

Actually, the US has found more than 600 tons of enriched Uranium in Iraq. Not to mention what you mentioned. The chemical weapons.

Like DrunkenDove, I would like some proof of this.

I went looking for myself and did find some mention of uranium in Iraq. It does seem that the US did remove some uranium from Iraq. However the similarities are few and far between:

1. It was 1.7 tons

2. It was low enriched uranium that couldn't be used to produce a nuclear bomb.

3. It was under the watch of the International Atomic Energy Agency since 1992, when the high-enriched uranium was shipped to Russia.

4. It belonged to Iraq, and the US seizure of it was unlawful.

EDIT: There was also 400 tons of natural uranium that was under guard of the IAEA that did not get romoved. The storerooms where they were stored were looted once Baghdad fell, they had been safe and guarded for over 10 years prior.

America had an obligation to remove someone like Saddam from power(even though we may have had a hand in is climb to power). I believe removing saddam was a just goal but i believe it should have been done more diplomaticaly. I believe we should have tried to gain more foreign support.

It is obvious from your words that you don't know anything about the culture in the middle east that you haven't gotten off your local news.

In other words, you do not want to actually argue with what I have to say, and would rather make assumptions whose truth you have no way of knowing.

The only thing that has ever defeated the United States military is the United States Congress.

The coverage of the war in Iraq by the mainstream press in the US is criminal. I was there. What gets covered here has almost nothing to do with what is happening on the ground over there. Good news doesn't sell, especially if it shows the military or President Bush in a positive light.

Check out the coverage that does make it here. When people are killed by homicide bombers, it’s outside of police and army recruitment centers. The Iraqi’s know that they are a target by going to these places, and still lines form around the block.

The only Iraqi’s that get quoted are Sunni’s. Sunni’s make up only 20% of the Iraqi population, but make up more than 90% of the insurgency. Why aren’t Kurds and Shiites quoted?

I refuse to let weak minded, weak willed people who refuse to think for themselves, or morally bankrupt people who put politics before principals, attempt to make my fallen brothers in arms sacrafice for nothing.

I refuse to let weak minded, weak willed people who refuse to

Who refuse to what?

The only thing that has ever defeated the United States military is the United States Congress.
That's a pretty fancy claim.

And to bring up just one example, the US Military was defeated in the Phillippines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Philippines_%281941-42%29).

I see an arguement the the "war was great" because few american troops have died compared to other military engagements in the past.

The question whether or not it was a moral war is not debated, it is simply stated that the war "seems very moral" due to that the invation may have "saved many Iraqis from potential further torture". The question is if this is an acceptable reason to invade in this case, especially since it would be a breach of international law to do so. And where does one draw the line? For example, should the democratic country of Turkey be invaded? After all, it has seen it's share of torture and human rights-abuses (including illegal executions).

Neither is the claim that the war is illegal debated, nor the lack of UN-authorization or international support. (Oh, and concerning "have you read the U.N. charter? Every country is permitted to do what it finds in its best interests, believe it or not." - I would like to see which part of the UN-charter this refers to. I very much doubt the statement is correct.)

As for the prelude to war, it is stated that "The U.S. did appear to be in immediate danger" - a statement even the administration now denies. Also,apparently, an "educated guess" is enough to lead the country to war. Should this be enough? Should one not have enough intelligence so one might avoid guessing? Yes, I know one cannot expect 100% certainty, but a guess based on the movement of trucks, is that enough?

And peace-keeping? Maybe... But I don't think that's a common understanding of what the soldiers are doing at the present time. I don't think that even the DoD would classify the military mission as "Peace-keeping".

As a report, I agree with the poster who wanted to give an "F". This doesn't prove anything, it is but a poorly written defense of the war. I find the analysis made in the blog to be just silly.

That's a pretty fancy claim.

And to bring up just one example, the US Military was defeated in the Phillippines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Philippines_%281941-42%29).

I never claimed that we never lost a battle. We still one that war.

I fixed my previous post, i don't know why it got cut off.

I never claimed that we never lost a battle. We still one that war.
It would be "won"...sorry, I don't mean to pass judgement.

If you were talking wars, then Vietnam obviously comes to mind. The US went in there with the explicit goal to stop the spread of Communism and preserve the anti-communist South Vietnam.
They did not achieve that goal. In my book that is a defeat, regardless what sort of treaty was signed and when and for what reasons.

And otherwise the US intervention in the USSR at the end of WWI comes to mind as well as an example of a war that was pretty decisively lost.

It would be "won"...sorry, I don't mean to pass judgement.

If you were talking wars, then Vietnam obviously comes to mind. The US went in there with the explicit goal to stop the spread of Communism and preserve the anti-communist South Vietnam.
They did not achieve that goal. In my book that is a defeat, regardless what sort of treaty was signed and when and for what reasons.

And otherwise the US intervention in the USSR at the end of WWI comes to mind as well as an example of a war that was pretty decisively lost.

Vietman and Korea are the two best examples. They could have been military victories, but politicans, not soldiers, caused Korea to be a draw and Vietnam to be a loss.

The war was not over WMD, have any of you actually read the Congressional resolution authorising the removal of Saddam Hussein, it is all about enforcement of the 1991 ceasefire agreement, to which Saddam never adhered.

Vietman and Korea are the two best examples. They could have been military victories, but politicans, not soldiers, caused Korea to be a draw and Vietnam to be a loss.
It's in the nature of the democratic state that the military has to consider other factors than military ones.
Sure you could've nuked China. To be honest, I don't know what you could've done better in Vietnam without Mao stomping all over the place again.

But neither would actually have been a favourable outcome. You can't always trust a military to be able to assess that kind of thing properly (in fact, I'd argue that you never can).

The US military wasn't able to win, given the constaints of real life. Let's settle for that.

Again, are you kidding? Sadaam had nothing to do with the failing of the infrastructure of Iraq? Sadaam didn't do anything, like invading a smaller nation and raping it, which caused the sanctioins in the first place?

Hey, its not as if Kuwait were slant-drilling and stealing Iraqi oil and so brought the war on themselves, or anything was it?


...oh wait.

In other words, you do not want to actually argue with what I have to say, and would rather make assumptions whose truth you have no way of knowing.
We'd argue with what you had to say if you did more than pull things out of your butt and take other things out of context. It's called reading comprehension... use it.

Actually, the US has found more than 600 tons of enriched Uranium in Iraq. Not to mention what you mentioned. The chemical weapons.

Are you sure you don't mean the 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium found in Iraq that we already knew about and that was under seal at the Tuwaitha complex (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-07-07-iraq-uranium_x.htm) since 1992?

The war was not over WMD, have any of you actually read the Congressional resolution authorising the removal of Saddam Hussein, it is all about enforcement of the 1991 ceasefire agreement, to which Saddam never adhered.

Again, my point exactly. Off him in '91, this never would have happened. In a best case scenario, Iraq would be a free, mostly secular country, sorta like Turkey. In a worst case scenario, they'd be a U.S.-friendly but not women-friendly state like Saudi Arabia. Either one is better than Saddam, if you ask me, and it likely would have cost much fewer lives, both American, European, and Iraqi.

The insurgency thinks they can win if they break our morale. Note, I say 'our' morale. As in, us. The guys on our computers at home. At the current rate of things, it seems unlikely that, barring another Beirut-like barracks bombing, they'll ever get the soldiers to want to throw in the towel. However, by relying on our media to do exactly what it's doing right now, they may create enough uproar domestically to force a troop withdrawl. That's the sad state of things, I suppose.

I'm a bit of a maverick when it comes to the War in Iraq. I remember after 9/11 when Bush had a 90% approval rating in America, I jestingly told a friend that I thought Bush might be the proverbial antichrist (IMO, antichrist is one of the most honest, realistic, and important myths anyone can believe in when it comes to major leaders). Now that it's dropped to 40%, I feel like his power has some serious constraints on it, and in many ways it becomes easy to look beyond his presidency and his power.

The big underlying notion that has framed how I've looked at this war has little to do with WMDs:


Unless we want to make 9/11 a common occurrence, the current strategy of containment, one way or another, had to either be changed significantly or got rid of altogether.


You don't have to look far to find the source of Al-Quaida's ire, or at least what feeds its political machinery. Regardless of what the teachings of Wahabbiists are, you aren't going to find many takers for violence out of a generally simple, courteous people like the Saudis. They're more or less like us: they want to be left alone.

We never sold the Saudi people on the Gulf War, because we never had too. The country was controlled by then Prince Abdullah and the house of Saud, and our presence there was with his approval. But the Saudis never tolerated our presence willingly, many didn’t really understand why we were there, and some were actually sympathetic to Saddam. This would have been no problem, had we not chosen to agree to a ceasefire, gambling that Saddam would fall. Such a gamble worked in Kosovo with Milosevic, but it had disastrous consequences for the United States in Iraq. Before the Gulf War Al-Quaida was a motley band of Wahabbiists, mostly engaged in fighting Russians in Afghanistan and Christian rebels in Sudan. After the Gulf War, the American occupation provided the lightning rod for a people suffering under an autocratic dictatorship and a massive oil machine that were undermining their culture. This political lightning rod grew Al-Quaida into a massive network of radical Sunnis, loaded with recruits and money. Notice that Bin Laden refers to America as the "Great Satan," implying our wrong to the Muslim World is greater than that of Israel. Israel remains the occupier of the third holiest city in Islam. Saudi Arabia, where America remained for thirteen years, is home to first and second.

Bottom line, they don't want us there, and one way or another, we needed, and need, to get out. And assuming that Iraq would accrue his forces and attempt to strike out at Kuwait or another neighbor without us there, the only other option was to invade Iraq. Moreover, the UN's actual approval for the invasion was IMO unnecessary, as the real enforcement mechanism for the UN resolutions on Iraq was the US, so if there weren't any countries there to uphold the UN resolutions in place of the US, to create a best compliance scenario, the resolutions should be enforced in the manner in which the US and it's allies determined was best.

I am not pro-Bush, and I am not for an instant saying that it was his reason for going to war (although it could have been). I'm saying that it is my reason. I am also opposed to a long-term presence in Iraq, for the same reasons. I don't see an abrupt withdrawal reasonable, but a complete withdrawal within the next two or three years is a necessary step to winning the war on terror. And I think we will be out of there in about two or three years, but I am seriously concerned that our presence in Kuwait will be permanent. Kuwait is not really a democracy, so the emir doesn’t have to listen to his people, if he doesn’t want to.

I am completely for the war in Iraq and I definately believe that we need to back our men and women in uniform, true their have been casualties, I have lost a friend as well, but everyone in uniform knew what they were signing on for, you can't miss it, as it is in the oath you take when you swear in "to protect the country from all enemies foreign, or domestic" which means to put it bluntly, a soldier's job and duty is to defend their country, I know there are probably those who would claim that iraq was no threat to us, they may not have been right at the moment or they may have been, I don't know that's why other people are running the war, but what I do know is they could very likely have become one in the very near future.

I'm a bit of a maverick when it comes to the War in Iraq. I remember after 9/11 when Bush had a 90% approval rating in America, I jestingly told a friend that I thought Bush might be the proverbial antichrist (IMO, antichrist is one of the most honest, realistic, and important myths anyone can believe in when it comes to major leaders). Now that it's dropped to 40%, I feel like his power has some serious constraints on it, and in many ways it becomes easy to look beyond his presidency and his power.

The big underlying notion that has framed how I've looked at this war has little to do with WMDs:


Unless we want to make 9/11 a common occurrence, the current strategy of containment, one way or another, had to either be changed significantly or got rid of altogether.


You don't have to look far to find the source of Al-Quaida's ire, or at least what feeds its political machinery. Regardless of what the teachings of Wahabbiists are, you aren't going to find many takers for violence out of a generally simple, courteous people like the Saudis. They're more or less like us: they want to be left alone.

We never sold the Saudi people on the Gulf War, because we never had too. The country was controlled by then Prince Abdullah and the house of Saud, and our presence there was with his approval. But the Saudis never tolerated our presence willingly, many didn’t really understand why we were there, and some were actually sympathetic to Saddam. This would have been no problem, had we not chosen to agree to a ceasefire, gambling that Saddam would fall. Such a gamble worked in Kosovo with Milosevic, but it had disastrous consequences for the United States in Iraq. Before the Gulf War Al-Quaida was a motley band of Wahabbiists, mostly engaged in fighting Russians in Afghanistan and Christian rebels in Sudan. After the Gulf War, the American occupation provided the lightning rod for a people suffering under an autocratic dictatorship and a massive oil machine that were undermining their culture. This political lightning rod grew Al-Quaida into a massive network of radical Sunnis, loaded with recruits and money. Notice that Bin Laden refers to America as the "Great Satan," implying our wrong to the Muslim World is greater than that of Israel. Israel remains the occupier of the third holiest city in Islam. Saudi Arabia, where America remained for thirteen years, is home to first and second.

Bottom line, they don't want us there, and one way or another, we needed, and need, to get out. And assuming that Iraq would accrue his forces and attempt to strike out at Kuwait or another neighbor without us there, the only other option was to invade Iraq. Moreover, the UN's actual approval for the invasion was IMO unnecessary, as the real enforcement mechanism for the UN resolutions on Iraq was the US, so if there weren't any countries there to uphold the UN resolutions in place of the US, to create a best compliance scenario, the resolutions should be enforced in the manner in which the US and it's allies determined was best.

I am not pro-Bush, and I am not for an instant saying that it was his reason for going to war (although it could have been). I'm saying that it is my reason. I am also opposed to a long-term presence in Iraq, for the same reasons. I don't see an abrupt withdrawal reasonable, but a complete withdrawal within the next two or three years is a necessary step to winning the war on terror. And I think we will be out of there in about two or three years, but I am seriously concerned that our presence in Kuwait will be permanent. Kuwait is not really a democracy, so the emir doesn’t have to listen to his people, if he doesn’t want to.

So, if I'm understanding this correctly, you believe that the United States should abandon Iraq before it's ready to fly on its own because Saudi Arabs are not happy with our presence in Iraq? I find it especially odd that you used Osama bin Laden as an example, since it is common knowlege that Saddam and Osama were never on good terms. Osama egged us on going into Iraq, not only because it detracted attention away from him, but also because he thought Saddam ruled too secular a governemnt. Are you telling me that you truly forgot what we learned about Osama during the last two years? Us Bush people didn't; It wasn't that long ago.

(For the record, I'm a conservative, but not a republican.)

So, if I'm understanding this correctly, you believe that the United States should abandon Iraq before it's ready to fly on its own because Saudi Arabs are not happy with our presence in Iraq?

I don't want to "abandon Iraq before it's ready to fly on it's own." Iraq is a democracy, or as close to a democracy as you can get. It can make that decision when the time comes, and probably will assuming things go well. And things are going well, aside from the deaths we are experiencing there. Iraq's economy is in good shape. Their democracy may be more religious than we would like, but at least it is democracy. All in all, I am hopeful for the future when it comes to Iraq. I am not so hopeful about whether we will leave Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar and other small Arab countires, which are all to a greater or lesser extent, autocratic governments.

I find it especially odd that you used Osama bin Laden as an example, since it is common knowlege that Saddam and Osama were never on good terms. Osama egged us on going into Iraq, not only because it detracted attention away from him, but also because he thought Saddam ruled too secular a governemnt. Are you telling me that you truly forgot what we learned about Osama during the last two years? Us Bush people didn't; It wasn't that long ago.

I don't really understand this argument as a defense of Bush, but here's my answer. I don't really consider his opinion of or relationship with Saddam important at all to my argument. He doesn't have to like Saddam or be in bed with Saddam to oppose our presence there. All he has to do is hate us more.

We can smash in any or all of the autocratic governments in the Mideast all we want. None of that will ever do us a lick of good if we don't do something about Osama's political capital. All he has to do is have a whole bunch of people in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and other Islamic areas who hate us being there enough to support him, and we WILL get hit again. Thus, the need for us to get out of the Middle East, when our strategic goals are accomplished. A policy of containment was predicated on a long-term presence in these countries, and unless some other country was willing to be the point man to protect the Arabs from Iraq, and have planes run into their buildings, it was ultimately our decision to pull the trigger and get rid of him.

One of the first things we did after capturing Baghdad was remove our troops from Saudi Arabia, which was a big first step. How to withdraw from Iraq is between the coalition and the Iraqis, with the Iraqis obviously taking the lead, since we are committed to the democratic process there. All I'm saying is that, as the need for troops in the area declines, we need to draw troop levels in the Mideast down to whatever they were before the Saddam attacked Kuwait. I'm guessing that was about zero.

Just to be clear, I support our efforts there 100%, for now. When things improve, as I believe they will, I want our bases in Iraq and these other countries to disappear.

(For the record, I'm a conservative, but not a republican.)

For the record, I am a moderate libertarian, and for the record, I don't think it matters.

Just to be clear, I support our efforts there 100%, for now. When things improve, as I believe they will, I want our bases in Iraq and these other countries to disappear.
Slowly he whittles away.
Are you really that intent on crippling our military? Our locations in other countries are of strategic importance to quicken our reaction and improve soldier morale by shorter plane rides.
By the way, reading through your posts I'm not sure you know what you believe politically.

http://www.comics.com/comics/pearls/archive/images/pearls2610540051212.gif

Slowly he whittles away. Are you really that intent on crippling our military? Our locations in other countries are of strategic importance to quicken our reaction and improve soldier morale by shorter plane rides.

"Crippling our military?" We can send rockets into orbit, for pete's sake! I'm sorry about those poor soldier's bums who have to sit on long plane flights, but in the overall scheme of things, I don't see it as an issue. Why is it so necessary to keep planes in countries whose people don't want us there? And we would still have bases in Turkey. Overall, what I'm saying is, be aware of countries whose people don't want us there, and stay out of those countries. Seems rather simple to me, and hardly contrary to our interests.

As to the last sentence, it's an ad hominem. My politcal views in general are superfluous to what we're talking about.

many here cite the creation of an iraqi democracy as an end which (at least partially) justifies the current occupation.

I've been raking my brain trying to remember any intervention by the US which has resulted in the installation of a true democracy - rather than another dictator or puppet government.

could anyone help me and point one out? oh, WW2 doesn't count. then, the US was part of an alliance which had great visibility.

"Crippling our military?" We can send rockets into orbit, for pete's sake!
And it costs millions in taxpayer dollars to do that.
I'm sorry about those poor soldier's bums who have to sit on long plane flights, but in the overall scheme of things, I don't see it as an issue.
Until they get their heads blown off because jetlag kept them from concentrating.
Why is it so necessary to keep planes in countries whose people don't want us there?
Because the governments of these countries realize that having the most awsome military in the world within their country helps them fend off their enemies too, something that these governments very much aprove of.
And we would still have bases in Turkey. Overall, what I'm saying is, be aware of countries whose people don't want us there, and stay outof those countries. Seems rather simple to me, and hardly contrary to our interests.
I'd totally agree with you, except that you are assuming a minority is the voice of the whole. These insurgants don't make up a mojority of Iraq. The Iraqi government still wants us in, the Iraqi people for the most part want us in (according to several returning soldiers I met).
As to the last sentence, it's an ad hominem. My politcal views in general are superfluous to what we're talking about.
Dictionary.com -> su·per·flu·ous - Being beyond what is required or sufficient.
Nothing to do with having them being organized into something comprehensible. Choose a new word. "Ad hominem" was good, if you can prove your politics have structure. Otherwise, "You don't know what you believe politically" is just a true statement based on the fact that you contradict yourself continually. No? Example:
I don't want to "abandon Iraq before it's ready to fly on it's own." Iraq is a democracy, or as close to a democracy as you can get. It can make that decision when the time comes, and probably will assuming things go well.
That was you suggesting that the Iraqis still want us there. Now lets check another statement.
Bottom line, they don't want us there, and one way or another, we needed, and need, to get out.
Which is it?

How about South Korea?

Aren't these the objectives in Iraq?
http://johndiesattheend.com/objectives.gif

Are you sure you don't mean the 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium found in Iraq that we already knew about and that was under seal at the Tuwaitha complex (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-07-07-iraq-uranium_x.htm) since 1992?

They ignored me when I pointed that out, too.

Aren't these the objectives in Iraq?
http://johndiesattheend.com/objectives.gif

Err... that's sort of a skewed perspective, but I suppose you could argue that.

Hey, its not as if Kuwait were slant-drilling and stealing Iraqi oil and so brought the war on themselves, or anything was it?





Yeah and how dare they ask for the war loans back that they gave Saddam to buy all those american built T-72 tanks plus those american supplied Mirage and Mig jet fighters
After all if you say the US armed Saddam enough times it becomes true

From UN weapons survey of arms suppliers to iraq pre 1990
Soviet union 50%
China 20%
France 20%
Germany 5%
remaining 5% made up of various nations including
United Kingdom 1%
United States 1%

Boris

"Today, I thought I'd list the statistics concerning the death tolls in American wars. This list is compiled using statistics from antiwar.com and lsu.edu [sic]"

-Ninja-

The Vietnam total looks awfully high to me, I dont think it is accurate. Regardless, though it may look as if the US has gotten off well, as far as death rate is concerned compared to other wars, there are circumstances which dont reflect how high the number could be. For instance, kevlar body armor. With the advent of this newfound protection you have less death and more serious injuries. What would have killed a soldier not 20 years ago, now reduces him or her into an amputee. Without kevlar the death count would be much higher.

So, go on and praise that mere 2,144 death count. Compared to other wars this is nothing. Not like thousands of soldiers without limbs mean anything, right?

This was a pretty interesting read, not worth a new topic but fits well here.


The Regime Timeline

For an overview of Iraqi WMD programs and policy choices, readers should consult the Regime Timeline chart, enclosed as a separate foldout and in tabular form at the back of ISG report. Covering the period from 1980 to 2003, the timeline shows specific events bearing on the Regime’s efforts in the BW, CW, delivery systems and nuclear realms and their chronological relationship with political and military developments that had direct bearing on the Regime’s policy choices


Readers should also be aware that at the conclusion of each volume of text, we have also included foldout summary charts that relate inflection points—critical turning points in the Regime’s WMD policymaking—to particular events, initiatives, or decisions the Regime took with respect to specific WMD programs. Inflection points are marked in the margins of the text with a gray triangle.


Ambition (1980-91)

During the Ambition phase in Iraq, Saddam and his Regime practiced open, traditional procurement of conventional weapons and developed clandestine methods for obtaining WMD materials and dual-use items. Iraq’s oil wealth allowed Saddam to overcome the inherent inefficiencies of a centrally planned economy. After the costly war with Iran, Saddam’s procurement efforts focused primarily on restocking Iraq’s war materials. These defense-related procurement goals, however, were hindered by economic weakness. In the later part of this period, the Iraqi economy began to falter, saddled with a high international debt from the war, rising costs of maintaining a generous welfare state, low international oil prices, and the high cost entailed in weapons and WMD programs. Saddam’s ill-conceived, shortsighted economic reforms in 1987 and reactionary price controls, nationalization, and subsidies in 1989 pushed the Iraqi economy further into crisis. Capping the Ambition phase, Saddam chose to fight his way out of economic crises by invading Kuwait.


Decline (1991-96)

In the post-Gulf war decline phase, the possession of WMD remained important to the Regime. Saddam’s procurement of conventional weapons and WMD, however, was hindered severely by a potent combination of international monitoring and a collapsing oil-based economy. These constraints were compounded by the decision not to make full WMD disclosures and the subsequent attempt to remove WMD signatures through unilateral destruction. The poor handling of the WMD disclosures further hardened the international community. UN sanctions, resulting from Saddam’s refusal to comply with UN resolutions, froze the Regime’s export of oil and import of commodities—cutting off Saddam’s ability to generate the revenue needed for illicit purchases on international arms and dual-use markets. The Iraqi economy also suffered under UN sanctions during this period as gross domestic product (GDP) per capita fell from $2304 in 1989 to an estimated $495 in 1995. The decline in the street-value of the Iraqi Dinar rendered the average Iraqi citizen’s savings worthless, casting the Iraqi middle-class into poverty. Simultaneously, this period of decline exhibited an increase in corruption, incompetence, and patronage throughout Saddam’s Regime.


Husayn Kamil’s flight to Jordan in 1995 and Saddam’s handling of the issue led to further WMD disclosures and subsequent international opprobrium. Saddam retained a desire for WMD, but economic growth and the ending of sanctions became the overriding concern as the economy hit rock bottom in late 1995. The combination of these factors motivated Saddam’s decision to accept UNSCR 986, the UN OFF in 1996.


Recovery (1996-98)

The Recovery phase was ushered in by Saddam’s acceptance of UN SC 986 and the UN OFF Program. Trade fostered under the OFF program starting in 1997 allowed Saddam to pursue numerous illicit revenue earning schemes, which began generating significant amounts of cash outside of the auspices of the UN. With the legitimate side of the OFF program providing the Iraq population with economic relief, Saddam was free to develop illicit procurement programs to arm his Regime against perceived and real threats. By the end of this period, Iraq had developed a growing underground network of trade intermediaries, front companies, and international suppliers willing to trade oil or hard currency for conventional weapons, WMD precursors, and dual-use technology. After 1996, the state of the Iraqi economy no longer threatened Saddam’s hold on power in Iraq, and economic recovery underpinned a more confident Regime posture.


Transition and Miscalculation (1999-2003)

The Transition and Miscalculation phases opened with Iraq’s suspension of cooperation with UNSCOM and IAEA. The subsequent lack of effective monitoring emboldened Saddam and his procurement programs. The Regime successfully manipulated Iraq’s oil production and sales policies to influence international political actors and public opinion. However, during this period, Iraq’s long-neglected oil infrastructure began to falter, resulting in an inability to meet demand. As a result, the growth in the legitimate side of the Iraq economy slowed. Meanwhile, Saddam’s increasing illegitimate revenue and profits from UN oil sales compensated for legitimate revenue loses. Illicit oil revenue provided Saddam with sufficient funds to pay off his loyalists and expand selected illicit procurement programs. From 1999 until he was deposed in April 2003, Saddam’s conventional weapons and WMD-related procurement programs steadily grew in scale, variety, and efficiency. Saddam invited UNMOVIC and IAEA back into Iraq in September 2002, in the face of growing international pressure, calculating that a surge in cooperation might have brought sanctions to an end.



Now there is your "Iraq in Retrospect"

source (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2004/isg-final-report/isg-final-report_vol1_rfp_key-findings.htm)

You know what's great? Every time somebody posts in this thread, I get more readers. Every time somebody posts, another person reads my pro-war propaganda (I'm not denying it's propaganda. It's not objective at all, therefore is propaganda, just like Fahrenheit 911, except I'm not a über-liberal fat guy).