NationStates Jolt Archive

One of the main "justifications" I hear for this current war is that Saddam Hussein was a dictator (which he was), and that the Iraqi people deserved "democracy," and deserved to choose their own leader. However, what if Iraq was to hold a 100% open, free, and fair election, in which Saddam was one of the candidates, and he won, and was thus "the peoples' choice?" Would you want the troops to stay in Iraq and overthrow him again, declare "mission accomplished" and go home, or regret starting the war in the first place?

I like M&Ms.

I fear your thread title is going to make an actual response somewhat unlikely...nobody in their right mind actually "supports" this war anymore.

It has long ago been revealed as a sham, a waste, and counterproductive to the stated goal of improving American security.

I fear your thread title is going to make an actual response somewhat unlikely...nobody in their right mind actually "supports" this war anymore.

It has long ago been revealed as a sham, a waste, and counterproductive to the stated goal of improving American security.

It also doesnt help that his arguement is completely silly as well.

It also doesnt help that his arguement is completely silly as well.

Considering that a substantial majority of Iraqis were quite happy about Saddam's death sentence, I would tend to agree.

I like M&Ms.

Me, too. :)

It also doesnt help that his arguement is completely silly as well.

What do you mean? And I'm speaking only hypothetically.

Interesting question, but one you will never get answered. I think "supporters" of the war would simply point to his recent conviction & say that it's a moot point, because a man convicted of crimes such as he could never again hold public office.


I prefer Smarties.

I prefer Smarties.

Reese's Pieces, FTW!

I fear your thread title is going to make an actual response somewhat unlikely...nobody in their right mind actually "supports" this war anymore.

It has long ago been revealed as a sham, a waste, and counterproductive to the stated goal of improving American security.

I disagree with you in every instance.

What happens to Hussein is up to Iraq. If he were to be elected back to his old position, I'd actually be cool with it. But then, "dislodging a dictator" was never on my list of good enough reasons.

Reese's Pieces, FTW!

Yes, the peanut butter is good, but they're not readily available here. They should make a combination of Smarties & Reese's Pieces. That would be ideal.

Yes, the peanut butter is good, but they're not readily available here. They should make a combination of Smarties & Reese's Pieces. That would be ideal.

Oh please GOD no. It would essentially be chocolate covered chalk. We'd either die laughing from the irony or die due to disgust at how stupid this joke is.

...

Oh, wait, I thought that said "Hershey's" not Reese's Pieces. My bad.

Oh please GOD no. It would essentially be chocolate covered chalk. We'd either die laughing from the irony or die due to disgust at how stupid this joke is.

...

Oh, wait, I thought that said "Hershey's" not Reese's Pieces. My bad.

Nup, Hershey's would be my last choice of chocolate.

I disagree with you in every instance.

OK...care to elaborate??

I said it was a sham...first it was WMDs...then it was removing Saddam...then it was spreading freedom...now it's stopping a civil war. The first cause, the REASON we were told we were going in in the first place, has long since proved to be a big fat waste of breath. Explain how it is not a sham?

I said it was a waste...we're spending billions rebuilding infastructure we ourselves destroyed...and on the troops to guard said infastructure so terrorists don't blow it up...and on interest payments on the debt these billions of dollars are racking up for us.

Not to mention thousands of dead Americans, along with the casualties the British and our other allies have suffered...and tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of dead Iraqis.

We won't even go into the diplomatic ramifications...we've wasted more goodwill over the last five years than I thought was possible.

I said this war was counterproductive to the stated goal of improving American security...where is Osama? Why are there 150,000 troops in Iraq and less than 20,000 in Afghanistan? Why are Iran and NK cranking up the pace on their nuclear programs? Could it be that they know we're stuck in the desert with our thumbs up our butt's and don't have the force to back up our empty threats?

Not to mention the breeding ground we've created for terrorism...couldn't have provided a better training ground for terrorist groups if we'd set up a training facility in Colorado somewhere.

So...what, exactly, are your reasons for disagreeing with my statement? Cause I'm having a hard time trying to work out what they might be.

(And I couldn't care less what happens to Saddam...if the Iraqi's want him back, they can have him...but the oppressed Majority is not going to suddently vote in their oppressor when they have him on the hangmans rope.)

I like M&Ms.

The crunchy ones with the bits of biscuit in them are teh win.

OK...care to elaborate??

I said it was a sham...first it was WMDs...then it was removing Saddam...then it was spreading freedom...now it's stopping a civil war. The first cause, the REASON we were told we were going in in the first place, has long since proved to be a big fat waste of breath. Explain how it is not a sham?

Bush mangled the PR phase at the start, but since when is having 5 good reasons to do something worse than having 1?

I said it was a waste...we're spending billions rebuilding infastructure we ourselves destroyed...and on the troops to guard said infastructure so terrorists don't blow it up...and on interest payments on the debt these billions of dollars are racking up for us.

The actual physical "infrastructure" destroyed was miniscule in the lightning fast militatry takeover. The infrastructure rebuilding now is the institutions like brodd-based police, courts, legislature, etc that never existed under Saddam.

Not to mention thousands of dead Americans, along with the casualties the British and our other allies have suffered...and tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of dead Iraqis.

The price of war. This happens when you overthrow a dictatorship and try to bring democracy to religious civil strife that dates to 850 AD.

Personally, I have a lot less moral outrage for a war fought by a professional volunteer army than one as the result of a draft.

We won't even go into the diplomatic ramifications...we've wasted more goodwill over the last five years than I thought was possible.

I don't care. The US has to defend itself -- we are the target for the martyrs of radical islam (right now, anyway). The weak French sense of self preservation led to the last two world wars. World "goodwill" was perfectly happy to let Saddam rage and Afghanistan train lunatics for attacks around the world.

I said this war was counterproductive to the stated goal of improving American security...where is Osama? Why are there 150,000 troops in Iraq and less than 20,000 in Afghanistan? Why are Iran and NK cranking up the pace on their nuclear programs? Could it be that they know we're stuck in the desert with our thumbs up our butt's and don't have the force to back up our empty threats?

You are really whiny. Iran and NK aren't cranking up their nuclear programs -- they are coming to fruition after decades of development. Hopefully by the US actually paying attention the the 19 UN resolutions Saddam ignored the UN will have more respect in the future on these issues.

We could take out North Korea in a few weeks -- South Korea has 4 times the economy, population, and military and we are right there on their border. The issue with NK is whether China would stand by when we do that.

Not that Nancy Pelosi is going to do anything until San Francisco is a nuclear wasteland.

Not to mention the breeding ground we've created for terrorism...couldn't have provided a better training ground for terrorist groups if we'd set up a training facility in Colorado somewhere.

Really? where are the terrorists training now that Bin Laden's main training camps were flattened in Iraq, his finances frozen, a majority of his lieutenants killed or captured, and he himself sent into hiding in some hovel or mud cave?

What is the argument we made them "mad"? Guess what, the whole region has been mad for a thousand years, full of medieval religious murdering and martyring against the "infidels".

(And I couldn't care less what happens to Saddam...if the Iraqi's want him back, they can have him...but the oppressed Majority is not going to suddently vote in their oppressor when they have him on the hangmans rope.)

You preface about Saddam being elected was too stupid for retort.

So, you have a lot of complaints. What is your plan? Cut and run from Iraq? Invade Iran and North Korea? You seem to be bouncing from pacifism to hawkisn like a golden retriever at the park.

OK...care to elaborate??

I said it was a sham...first it was WMDs...then it was removing Saddam...then it was spreading freedom...now it's stopping a civil war. The first cause, the REASON we were told we were going in in the first place, has long since proved to be a big fat waste of breath. Explain how it is not a sham?

And WWII from the British perspective was… punish Fascist Germany for taking Poland, and then it was for defending France, then it was for defending and retaking North Africa, then it was for saving the middle east and the Mediterranean areas… It was quite some time before anyone thought of helping the Poles anymore, I’d argue that the ‘original reason’ (Poland) was never even addressed by the British in the war at all.

So your point of addressing original reasons in a demeaning tone seems to be equally misleading for looking at justifications for war even when the war being fought IS acceptable by most people’s standards.

In other words, that misleading methodology doesn’t help us look at this war accurately either.

I said it was a waste...we're spending billions rebuilding infastructure we ourselves destroyed...and on the troops to guard said infastructure so terrorists don't blow it up...and on interest payments on the debt these billions of dollars are racking up for us.

A waste to try and rebuild it? Of course we should try to rebuild it. Why shouldn’t we rebuild it? Help them, help ourselves. BTW: has there ever been an inexpensive method of rebuilding any country after a war? Was it inexpensive to rebuild Japan and Germany? Or rebuild France and Russia? How many years should it be after a war should it be before the expectation of a country being rebuilt should be accomplished? I submit that it is far longer than the Americans have been in Iraq so far. Taste testing a pie only a quarter baked is unfair to the cook and the pie.

Not to mention thousands of dead Americans, along with the casualties the British and our other allies have suffered...and tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of dead Iraqis.

Casualties are unacceptable, always will be. But we can easily see what they tried to do with the quick hit tactics, but what worked in Panama (jump in, take out the leader quickly and the other team forfeits the rest of the game) doesn’t seem to have worked in Iraq like it did there. The hail Mary pass to end the game quickly this time did lead to a quick score, but the coach didn’t have a plan for the second quarter… It doesn’t mean that the shouldn’t be playing the game though.

We won't even go into the diplomatic ramifications...we've wasted more goodwill over the last five years than I thought was possible.
How can you waste goodwill? Is their a bank somewhere that we could have traded that in for straight up cash or something? Good will is good will. You’re more popular if you’re winning, if you’re losing, the crowds look for a replacement.

I said this war was counterproductive to the stated goal of improving American security...where is Osama? Why are there 150,000 troops in Iraq and less than 20,000 in Afghanistan? Why are Iran and NK cranking up the pace on their nuclear programs? Could it be that they know we're stuck in the desert with our thumbs up our butt's and don't have the force to back up our empty threats?

There are many allied troops in Afghanistan. There are some allied troops in Iraq. You can do math.

Monday morning quarterbacking always makes the guy talking sound like he has a good point, should have run when they were passing, should have passed when they were running, etc. But the winner gets less criticism. In this case, the game’s not over yet, we’ll have the wait and see if the stratagem succeeds or not.

Not to mention the breeding ground we've created for terrorism...couldn't have provided a better training ground for terrorist groups if we'd set up a training facility in Colorado somewhere.

As IF Afghanistan wasn’t an entire country and it’s government devoted to training terrorists already before the war , as IF Saddam wasn’t already defying the UN resolutions and scamming them with the Oil for Food program and picking periodic spats with the multinational forces required to enforce the no fly zone with weekly missile attacks and AA radar lock-on’s etc., as IF ten years hadn’t already been spent guarding Iraq’s borders from the outside… It’s not like Clinton didn’t have to attack him from time to time with additional Cruise missile attacks.

When exactly was it, the Middle East, that it wasn’t a breeding ground against the west and specifically the US? It’s not like this war started the animosity there.

I was never a supporter of the war. I always thought, from minute one, that it was a bad idea. And so far, I've been proven right. And sadly, we see too many soldiers coming home in caskets. Parents bury their children. Sisters bury their brothers. Fred Phelps makes himself a public figure. And for what? For fucking what? So we can turn Iraq into an even bigger shithole? So we can replace Saddam with someone worse? So we can turn a dictatorship that could take or leave the U.S. into a brutal theocracy that would make Saddam look like a fucking Boy Scout? Stop me if I get it. My fiancee works at a cemetery and oversees a few military funerals. Her stepdad is buried next to a Marine who was 18 fucking years old when he died. (Incidentally her stepdad served in Vietnam, the last great American disaster, and lived to the age of 57, but that's beside the point.) It's absolutely fucking ridiculous. If we're sending soldiers to their deaths in some God-forsaken Third World country, it had damn well better be worth it. Korea was worth it, even if it was a draw. The first Iraq was worth it. This horseshit is far from worth it. It's fucking madness. And the adminstration keeps changing their minds over why we're in iraq to begin with. Why? Because all the reasons they give are wrong. I've never seen such idiocy in running a war in my lifetime. Fuck the neocons in the ear. If they wanted a damn war so bad they should get off their chickenhawk asses, put on flight suits, and go shoot some terrorist bastards themselves. Oh right, I forgot, they're too rich and too spoiled to die. Maybe sign them up for the Alabama National Guard or some horseshit like that.

And tell me this - where the fuck is bin Laden? Shouldn't we be chasing that asshole? Now there's a fucker we ought to kill - no trial, no nothing, just hang him up by his eyelids and whack him with a baseball bat like he's a fucking pinata. The callous murdering bastard doesn't have any regard for us. He doesn't deserve any regard from us. Frankly, if we pull out of Iraq, we need to go after the chief executive fucker, cut off his beard, and strangle him with it. Who the fuck does he think he is with that thing anyway, ZZ Top? And the 9/11 victims, the Marines, and Pat Tillman's brother should all line up and strike him with a bat one time each, and then we can split the money between a nice 9/11 charity and some fund to prevent people from becoming assholes. And then we can do the same to those shitholes in Afghanistn who supported him. Then we can try to build an economy there that isn't based off the fucking opium trade. Then maybe they'll be a nice, happy, productive country that doesn't listen to extremist fuckers and maybe an produce an inexpensive car within the next 50 years. Call it the Mountain Goat. If I'm up to it, maybe my grandkids will own them.

Seriously. We need to get the hell out of Iraq sooner rather than later, apologize to the Marines, and get Bush and Cheney the hell out of office and replace them with scarecrows for the next two fucking years while we have a vote to detemine what somewhat-less-incompetent assmonkey will be elected next. And then we need to get the Marinesthat served in Iraq into fancy business schools or something so they can make big bucks for the rest of their lives. And maybe they'll actually be honorable about it, too, unlike that assmunch Cheney. Christ I hate that fucker. Ought to plant him back in Wyoming and make him change his last name to Head. Christ...it's 9:30 in the damn morning and I need a beer. And I don't even drink. I hate the shit, but after a rant like this, I need something to take the edge off.

I like M&Ms.

I like Pie and M&M's .

I fear your thread title is going to make an actual response somewhat unlikely...nobody in their right mind actually "supports" this war anymore.

I support it. I didn't support starting it, but we're there now, and we can't do anything about it. It's either you support the war, or you support Iraq going to hell. There's no chance for a pullout anytime soon.

I support it. I didn't support starting it, but we're there now, and we can't do anything about it. It's either you support the war, or you support Iraq going to hell. There's no chance for a pullout anytime soon.

Iraq's going to hell whether we're there or not. We would have to ramp up troop levels to an unacceptable level in order to calm Iraq down, and even then, it would probably still go to hell. So either you support Iraq going to hell with us in the handbasket with it, or you support Iraq going to hell with us getting the hell out of the handbasket. There's no chance for a reasonable government.

Iraq's going to hell whether we're there or not. We would have to ramp up troop levels to an unacceptable level in order to calm Iraq down, and even then, it would probably still go to hell. So either you support Iraq going to hell with us in the handbasket with it, or you support Iraq going to hell with us getting the hell out of the handbasket. There's no chance for a reasonable government.

if that's the credentials, I suppose we should pull out of north america too. :p

if that's the credentials, I suppose we should pull out of north america too. :p

OK, let's do it. Let's go to the moon. We can't fuck that place up too badly.

I support it. I didn't support starting it, but we're there now, and we can't do anything about it. It's either you support the war, or you support Iraq going to hell. There's no chance for a pullout anytime soon.

I would gladly support a mission in Iraq that involved something more than just keeping Iraqis from killing each other. Our troops could be used much more effectively if we were to go into the areas that harbor non-government militias and just wipe them out. If we aren't willing to do the things that will make it possible for Iraqis to protect themselves, let's just quit and go home.

OK...care to elaborate??

I said it was a sham...first it was WMDs...then it was removing Saddam...then it was spreading freedom...now it's stopping a civil war. The first cause, the REASON we were told we were going in in the first place, has long since proved to be a big fat waste of breath. Explain how it is not a sham?

I said it was a waste...we're spending billions rebuilding infastructure we ourselves destroyed...and on the troops to guard said infastructure so terrorists don't blow it up...and on interest payments on the debt these billions of dollars are racking up for us.

Not to mention thousands of dead Americans, along with the casualties the British and our other allies have suffered...and tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of dead Iraqis.

We won't even go into the diplomatic ramifications...we've wasted more goodwill over the last five years than I thought was possible.

I said this war was counterproductive to the stated goal of improving American security...where is Osama? Why are there 150,000 troops in Iraq and less than 20,000 in Afghanistan? Why are Iran and NK cranking up the pace on their nuclear programs? Could it be that they know we're stuck in the desert with our thumbs up our butt's and don't have the force to back up our empty threats?

Not to mention the breeding ground we've created for terrorism...couldn't have provided a better training ground for terrorist groups if we'd set up a training facility in Colorado somewhere.

So...what, exactly, are your reasons for disagreeing with my statement? Cause I'm having a hard time trying to work out what they might be.

(And I couldn't care less what happens to Saddam...if the Iraqi's want him back, they can have him...but the oppressed Majority is not going to suddently vote in their oppressor when they have him on the hangmans rope.)


Sure, I don't mind elaborating. I just didn't want to hijack the thread.

I don't believe it was a sham because I believe they honestly expected to find the WMDs. A lot of people thought they were there - and they did find some remnants. Among those who expected them to be present were the preceding administration, and the reasons they believed them to exist were valid. We now know they were not present, but we had no way of knowing that before we went in, save Saddam Hussein's protests - and why the hell would we believe a guy who's continuously lied to us about things for years?

In addition, old SH had been under a set of instructions for 13 years. Those instructions were the price of leaving him in power after Gulf War Two. He hadn't lived up to any of them; that in and of itself was a valid casus belli.

I don't believe it's a waste because of Kurdistan. The northern half of Iraq is stable, productive, basically self governing, no problem for anyone. There's no insurrections there, no fighting, it's peaceful and calm, and not a single allied soldier has been killed there in anything but car accidents.

The fact is, MOST of Iraq is peaceful and calm. It's only in certain, relatively small areas that all the problems are occuring. And most of that infrastructure is working just fine, thanks. As far as the bill goes, well, to be brutally honest, we can afford it. Not forever, but for the next few years, no problem.

As for casualties...this is going to sound callous, but it's the price of doing business. We and our allies have taken very few and very light casualties - our total losses to date add up to roughly one minute of the casualties we took on D-Day. Iraqi casualties come in two types: ones we kill, ones they kill. The former mostly deserve it, the latter is less because of our presence.

We have 150 000 in Iraq and 20 000 in Afghanistan because that's the ratio we need on the ground. I am NOT denying Iraq is the bigger problem! But Iran has had a Nuclear Program since well before we went into Afghanistan, and I don't claim to know what's going on in KIm Jong Il's head, but any program capable of creating missiles able to be thrown over Japan from NK didn't appear overnight.

As for the "Breeding Ground for Terrorism" angle - don't be dumb, these people hated us anyway. We represent (to them) concepts they cannot abide. And as much as I hate agreeing with GWB, figting them in Iraq really does look like a much better idea than fighting them where they choose.

There's plenty to criticize about the Iraq war - not least being the defeatism that will probably make us lose it for no good reason. But we had good reasons to both go in, and to fight it.

Sure, I don't mind elaborating. I just didn't want to hijack the thread.

I don't believe it was a sham because I believe they honestly expected to find the WMDs. A lot of people thought they were there - and they did find some remnants. Among those who expected them to be present were the preceding administration, and the reasons they believed them to exist were valid. We now know they were not present, but we had no way of knowing that before we went in, save Saddam Hussein's protests - and why the hell would we believe a guy who's continuously lied to us about things for years?

In addition, old SH had been under a set of instructions for 13 years. Those instructions were the price of leaving him in power after Gulf War Two. He hadn't lived up to any of them; that in and of itself was a valid casus belli.

I don't believe it's a waste because of Kurdistan. The northern half of Iraq is stable, productive, basically self governing, no problem for anyone. There's no insurrections there, no fighting, it's peaceful and calm, and not a single allied soldier has been killed there in anything but car accidents.

The fact is, MOST of Iraq is peaceful and calm. It's only in certain, relatively small areas that all the problems are occuring. And most of that infrastructure is working just fine, thanks. As far as the bill goes, well, to be brutally honest, we can afford it. Not forever, but for the next few years, no problem.

As for casualties...this is going to sound callous, but it's the price of doing business. We and our allies have taken very few and very light casualties - our total losses to date add up to roughly one minute of the casualties we took on D-Day. Iraqi casualties come in two types: ones we kill, ones they kill. The former mostly deserve it, the latter is less because of our presence.

We have 150 000 in Iraq and 20 000 in Afghanistan because that's the ratio we need on the ground. I am NOT denying Iraq is the bigger problem! But Iran has had a Nuclear Program since well before we went into Afghanistan, and I don't claim to know what's going on in KIm Jong Il's head, but any program capable of creating missiles able to be thrown over Japan from NK didn't appear overnight.

As for the "Breeding Ground for Terrorism" angle - don't be dumb, these people hated us anyway. We represent (to them) concepts they cannot abide. And as much as I hate agreeing with GWB, figting them in Iraq really does look like a much better idea than fighting them where they choose.

There's plenty to criticize about the Iraq war - not least being the defeatism that will probably make us lose it for no good reason. But we had good reasons to both go in, and to fight it.

Invading a country because you honestly believe there are WMDs, especially when they allowed the inspections, is a really stupid idea. Considering that this was a pre-emptive war, the burden of proof lied with the U.S. They failed to produce WMDs either before the war or after the downfall of Saddam. I'll grant that the guy's an asshole, but the reason for the war changed when the previous reason became inconvenient, and soon enough, the new reason became inconvenient. Why? Because the reasons are shitty ones. Let's look.

WMDs - well, if the UN couldn't find them, where was he hiding them? The UN could searchevery square inch of Iraq and dig up the soil and not find anything more destructive then a can of pinto beans. OK, and some firearms, but no WMDs. And if you're going to start a war based on WMDs, you better be ready to prove it. The U.S. did not. And they were wrong. Dead wrong.

Ties to al-Qaeda - this is perhaps the most ridiculous one of them all. We all knew where Saddam stood. We knew he was a dictator, we knew he could take the U.S. or leave it, and we knew he had tried some shit before. But he was a secular dictator who would rather stay in power than stir up shit. He and bin Laden hated each other; there's no way in hell they were cooperating.

Toppling Saddam - who was keeping the region together. There's a reason we didn't overthrow Saddam before. If we were to toss his sorry ass out, we should have done it in 1991, not 2003. Yes, he's an asshole. Yes, he probably doesn't care for the U.S. No, he's not dumb enough to act on it. Last time he tried, he got in big trouble.

Liberating the Iraqis - from what? Order? The absence of civil war? The absence of insurgents and suicide bombers? We tried this "liberation" strategy in the 1970s with the Shah. We saw how it turned out. Also, there are plenty of people worse off than the Iraqis. Maybe we should start with Darfur, Zimbabwe, North Korea, Turkmenistan, or Saudi Arabia. Oh wait, no oil, no oil, buddies with China, no oil, and buddies with Dubya's family. Now I understand.

Oil - and just where is this extra oil coming from? We can't even produce on the most cynical of the reasons for invading Iraq. Gas just shot up to $2.27 a gallon here in Columbus, where gas is among the cheapest in the country. If we were getting cheap oil from Iraq, gas should cost half that. And sorry, but I depend on a car. I work 30 minutes from home in a city with almost no public transport.

Fighting terrorists on their home turf and not ours - yeah, we had a place for that already. It was called Afghanistan. We didn't need another. I'd rather have Marines fighting in Afghanistan and only Afghanistan than in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Besides, bin Laden would have been found by now, and if for no other reason than that fucker deserves to die in the most sickening way possible, I was hoping we'd find him by now. We were best off leaving Iraq alone.

It's worth it - no it's not. Losing one American soldier is too damn many if we end up making things worse. The casualties were acceptable on D-Day because we won. If we had lost, the country would be up in arms. If we were actually making progress, everything would be hunky-dory over here. But we're losing. That's why we're so jaded from Vietnam - we lost. We lost 53,000 Americans in Vietnam for a defeat. I don't care how man ywe lose from this one; it likely won't be 53,000, but it will be too damn many.

Iraq was a bad idea. Every day we stay there, we're killing Americans and making no difference. It's high time we got out of there. That is, unless there's a chance for Kurdistan. And that's a super-hyper-mega-IF.

One of the main "justifications" I hear for this current war is that Saddam Hussein was a dictator (which he was), and that the Iraqi people deserved "democracy," and deserved to choose their own leader. However, what if Iraq was to hold a 100% open, free, and fair election, in which Saddam was one of the candidates, and he won, and was thus "the peoples' choice?" Would you want the troops to stay in Iraq and overthrow him again, declare "mission accomplished" and go home, or regret starting the war in the first place?

saddam technically did something that was illegal...he went on a rampage and murdered thousands of people. in an international court he would be sentenced to life in prison. i'm not an iraqi constitutional scholar but i think that kind of makes him inelligible for a 2nd go at it.

Well almost the same thing happened in palestine. The palestinians had free fair and open elections which made the US and Isreal very happy. Then Hamas won. Free, Fair and openly. The western powers freaked out and cried from then till now. They need to get thier heads out of thier asses.

One of the main "justifications" I hear for this current war is that Saddam Hussein was a dictator (which he was), and that the Iraqi people deserved "democracy," and deserved to choose their own leader. However, what if Iraq was to hold a 100% open, free, and fair election, in which Saddam was one of the candidates, and he won, and was thus "the peoples' choice?" Would you want the troops to stay in Iraq and overthrow him again, declare "mission accomplished" and go home, or regret starting the war in the first place?

A better question is, "If we are really trying to build democracy, then why don't we let the Iraqi people decide if the American troops stay?"

Bush mangled the PR phase at the start, but since when is having 5 good reasons to do something worse than having 1?

I didn't see one good reason for going in there in the first place...and the PR was perhaps the worst debacle in a long, LONG list.

The actual physical "infrastructure" destroyed was miniscule in the lightning fast militatry takeover. The infrastructure rebuilding now is the institutions like brodd-based police, courts, legislature, etc that never existed under Saddam.

We might not have destroyed infastructure at every opportunity during the invasion, but our very presence now invites attacks on all sorts of targets, from oil-pipelines to government offices.

The price of war. This happens when you overthrow a dictatorship and try to bring democracy to religious civil strife that dates to 850 AD.

Funny...I seem to recall something about WMDs and a threat to America.

Personally, I have a lot less moral outrage for a war fought by a professional volunteer army than one as the result of a draft.

So do I, but either way, I'm sure the dead don't care.

I don't care. The US has to defend itself -- we are the target for the martyrs of radical islam (right now, anyway). The weak French sense of self preservation led to the last two world wars. World "goodwill" was perfectly happy to let Saddam rage and Afghanistan train lunatics for attacks around the world.

Tell me what martyrs of radical Islam were in Iraq before we invaded...cause I'd really like to know.

Defend ourselves?? Against what? Iraq didn't attack us, and they weren't about to try. Saddam knew the score...pratically every neighbor was an enemy. Why risk losing power over a scuffle in the desert?

I've never once stated that I am against the Afghan conflict...I have supported it from day one, and it frustrates me to no end how much it impedes our mission there to be stuck in Iraq.

You are really whiny. Iran and NK aren't cranking up their nuclear programs -- they are coming to fruition after decades of development. Hopefully by the US actually paying attention the the 19 UN resolutions Saddam ignored the UN will have more respect in the future on these issues.

You're saying that Iran and NK would be this confrontational if we still had those 160,000 soldiers here at home, and ready to go kick ass with a word from Bush? I suppose it's possible, but it's not a concept I find very likely.

We could take out North Korea in a few weeks -- South Korea has 4 times the economy, population, and military and we are right there on their border. The issue with NK is whether China would stand by when we do that.

Well...the FIRST issue with that is the millions of casualties and refugees in Seoul should such a thing occur.

Not that Nancy Pelosi is going to do anything until San Francisco is a nuclear wasteland.

I'm SO tired of Pelosi being the conservatives go-to boogie-woman. She has no direct influence over defense policy as Speaker of the House. Commander-in-Chief is still BUSH'S job...so you can relax, not that the rest of us will.

Really? where are the terrorists training now that Bin Laden's main training camps were flattened in Iraq, his finances frozen, a majority of his lieutenants killed or captured, and he himself sent into hiding in some hovel or mud cave?

What terror camps were in Iraq before we invaded? How many are there now?

See the problem here?

What is the argument we made them "mad"? Guess what, the whole region has been mad for a thousand years, full of medieval religious murdering and martyring against the "infidels".

I don't think this needs a reply...

You preface about Saddam being elected was too stupid for retort.

I never once said I thought he could get elected...I specifically stated the opposite.

So, you have a lot of complaints. What is your plan? Cut and run from Iraq? Invade Iran and North Korea? You seem to be bouncing from pacifism to hawkisn like a golden retriever at the park.

You bet cut and run. Send those troops to Afghanistan, where they should have been in the first place, and do a proper job of nation-building in at least HALF of the countries we invaded.

Iraq will fall apart...I'd rather terrorists, Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia be fighting over the scraps than going through Spring Training in Iraq getting ready for bigger and better things.

--------------
NEXT POST! :p
--------------

And WWII from the British perspective was… punish Fascist Germany for taking Poland, and then it was for defending France, then it was for defending and retaking North Africa, then it was for saving the middle east and the Mediterranean areas… It was quite some time before anyone thought of helping the Poles anymore, I’d argue that the ‘original reason’ (Poland) was never even addressed by the British in the war at all.

Yet the goal from the beginning was the defeat of Germany...the war wasn't going to end any other way. Hence Africa, Italy, France and the road to Germany.

The goal from the beginning in Iraq was WMDs...a goal which will never materialize, even if Iraq changes it's name to "Happy Democracy Land!"

So your point of addressing original reasons in a demeaning tone seems to be equally misleading for looking at justifications for war even when the war being fought IS acceptable by most people’s standards.

In other words, that misleading methodology doesn’t help us look at this war accurately either.

I fail to see how my methodology is any more misleading than that of the administration during the course of this conflict.

A waste to try and rebuild it? Of course we should try to rebuild it. Why shouldn’t we rebuild it? Help them, help ourselves. BTW: has there ever been an inexpensive method of rebuilding any country after a war? Was it inexpensive to rebuild Japan and Germany? Or rebuild France and Russia? How many years should it be after a war should it be before the expectation of a country being rebuilt should be accomplished? I submit that it is far longer than the Americans have been in Iraq so far. Taste testing a pie only a quarter baked is unfair to the cook and the pie.

The pie was already cooked and sitting on the window sill...we took it and threw it against a brick wall. Pretty dumb, considering we didn't have to. I already stated what it's costing us.

I do not think rebuilding the infastructure to acceptable levels is possible while we are there. Maybe the Iraqi's will stop killing each other and do it, but we're not helping the situation one bit.

Casualties are unacceptable, always will be. But we can easily see what they tried to do with the quick hit tactics, but what worked in Panama (jump in, take out the leader quickly and the other team forfeits the rest of the game) doesn’t seem to have worked in Iraq like it did there. The hail Mary pass to end the game quickly this time did lead to a quick score, but the coach didn’t have a plan for the second quarter… It doesn’t mean that the shouldn’t be playing the game though.

Perhaps the game shouldn't have been started in the first place?

How can you waste goodwill? Is their a bank somewhere that we could have traded that in for straight up cash or something? Good will is good will. You’re more popular if you’re winning, if you’re losing, the crowds look for a replacement.

You seem to believe that our relations with our close allies will one day be as amicable as they once were...I do not see any evidence of that.


There are many allied troops in Afghanistan. There are some allied troops in Iraq. You can do math.

Monday morning quarterbacking always makes the guy talking sound like he has a good point, should have run when they were passing, should have passed when they were running, etc. But the winner gets less criticism. In this case, the game’s not over yet, we’ll have the wait and see if the stratagem succeeds or not.

Nation-building in two unstable states...while simultaneously dealing with increased nuclear threats, and a general lack of military flexibility.

Yeah...good strategy.

As IF Afghanistan wasn’t an entire country and it’s government devoted to training terrorists already before the war , as IF Saddam wasn’t already defying the UN resolutions and scamming them with the Oil for Food program and picking periodic spats with the multinational forces required to enforce the no fly zone with weekly missile attacks and AA radar lock-on’s etc., as IF ten years hadn’t already been spent guarding Iraq’s borders from the outside… It’s not like Clinton didn’t have to attack him from time to time with additional Cruise missile attacks.

I keep seeing arguments about Afghanistan...but again, I feel that that nation should be our principle focus.

Oil for Food could have been just as easily stopped by the UN, if they ever felt like getting their act together. As for spats and radar lock-ons...I'd rather be dealing with THAT...it'd be far less of a problem, it's not like we were going anywhere.

When exactly was it, the Middle East, that it wasn’t a breeding ground against the west and specifically the US? It’s not like this war started the animosity there.

You're right, it didn't...sure hasn't helped either.

-------------
ONE MORE! :p
-------------

Sure, I don't mind elaborating. I just didn't want to hijack the thread.

Meh...it's an Iraq thread...they go all over the place. :p

I don't believe it was a sham because I believe they honestly expected to find the WMDs. A lot of people thought they were there - and they did find some remnants. Among those who expected them to be present were the preceding administration, and the reasons they believed them to exist were valid. We now know they were not present, but we had no way of knowing that before we went in, save Saddam Hussein's protests - and why the hell would we believe a guy who's continuously lied to us about things for years?

I too thought there might have been WMDs at the time of the invasion...I also thought that an invasion such as the one we undertook would do nothing but drive any such weapons across the border straight to Iran and Syria.

In addition, old SH had been under a set of instructions for 13 years. Those instructions were the price of leaving him in power after Gulf War Two. He hadn't lived up to any of them; that in and of itself was a valid casus belli.

Maybe...but try selling THAT to the American people.

Wait...they didn't bother, cause they knew it wouldn't work.

I don't believe it's a waste because of Kurdistan. The northern half of Iraq is stable, productive, basically self governing, no problem for anyone. There's no insurrections there, no fighting, it's peaceful and calm, and not a single allied soldier has been killed there in anything but car accidents.

If nothing else, we should arm the shit out of the Kurds, despite what Turkey might say. It'll keep Iran on it's toes, and provide a continued base for a U.S. military (as in NOT an occupation) force.

The fact is, MOST of Iraq is peaceful and calm. It's only in certain, relatively small areas that all the problems are occuring. And most of that infrastructure is working just fine, thanks.

If it's so great, then what need is there for us? Oh wait, we disbanded the army, and expelled all the civil servants who worked for the old government, so we have to rebuild the entire damn thing from the ground up. All the while dealing with decades old hatreds that threaten to devolve into further violence and regional conflict...regardless of whether we are there or not.

Why we stuck our nose in this hornets nest...I still don't get it.

As far as the bill goes, well, to be brutally honest, we can afford it. Not forever, but for the next few years, no problem.

Sure...we can afford it. I personally didn't ask to waste our national finances on this quagmire...but hell, I'm only 23...I'll be "affording" it until the day I die.

Meanwhile, retirees who voted Bush into office because their country was sucker-punched by some religious fanatics in caves a half a world away will continue collecting their Social Security checks...secure in the knowledge that they will never have to worry about the long term repercussions of this war, despite the burden it heaps on their grandchildren.

Greatest Generation my ass. :mad:

As for casualties...this is going to sound callous, but it's the price of doing business. We and our allies have taken very few and very light casualties - our total losses to date add up to roughly one minute of the casualties we took on D-Day. Iraqi casualties come in two types: ones we kill, ones they kill. The former mostly deserve it, the latter is less because of our presence.

I agree that the casualties have been remarkably low...at least for our forces. That doesn't mean, however, that this "buisness" was worth even one American, British, or Iraqi life.

We have 150 000 in Iraq and 20 000 in Afghanistan because that's the ratio we need on the ground. I am NOT denying Iraq is the bigger problem! But Iran has had a Nuclear Program since well before we went into Afghanistan, and I don't claim to know what's going on in KIm Jong Il's head, but any program capable of creating missiles able to be thrown over Japan from NK didn't appear overnight.

Maybe that's the ratio we need...but we needed exactly zero in Iraq before we decided to make it our problem.

The fact that NK and Iran have been working on WMDs for years was not lost on me...but I highly doubt that they'd be testing missiles, detonating nukes, and threatening neighbors if we had the greater portion of our armed forces ready to intervene if they push too hard.

The threat of force would be doing a lot for us right now...but we don't even have that anymore.

As for the "Breeding Ground for Terrorism" angle - don't be dumb, these people hated us anyway. We represent (to them) concepts they cannot abide. And as much as I hate agreeing with GWB, figting them in Iraq really does look like a much better idea than fighting them where they choose.

They had only one breeding ground of significant size before we created one in Iraq...and we were already smashing the hell out of Afghanistan. Now we have TWO breeding grounds...and no way to deal with either one without abandoning the other.

If we weren't in Iraq, where do you suppose they would be choosing to fight??

There's plenty to criticize about the Iraq war - not least being the defeatism that will probably make us lose it for no good reason. But we had good reasons to both go in, and to fight it.

Let me know when you find those WMDs. I'll be wondering about what the tax rates will look like when I'm 40.

I disagree with you in every instance.

What happens to Hussein is up to Iraq. If he were to be elected back to his old position, I'd actually be cool with it. But then, "dislodging a dictator" was never on my list of good enough reasons.


I was all for war with Iraq if for no other reason than to get rid of a dictator who tortures and murders. I however, saw the war as a stepping stone to removing the Syrian and Iranian regimes and as a warning to North Korea and a possible prelude to a liberation of N. Korea. Ummm I was wrong. Instead we just kinda hang out in Iraq and spend a lot of money. I am not against the war but I think we are spending way too much money there and I wish that we would start laying some smackdown on the other bad asses of the world.

Yet the goal from the beginning was the defeat of Germany...the war wasn't going to end any other way. Hence Africa, Italy, France and the road to Germany.

The goal from the beginning in Iraq was WMDs...a goal which will never materialize, even if Iraq changes it's name to "Happy Democracy Land!"

The goal in Iraq was regime change. You seem to have forgotten that even up to three days before the invasion Saddam was offered the chance to take his sons and leave Iraq, avoiding the invasion altogether. Selective memory seems to be caused by the chanting of, “where are the WMD?!”

I fail to see how my methodology is any more misleading than that of the administration during the course of this conflict.

You don’t hold yourself to a very high standard then if you only want to argue as well as they do.

The pie was already cooked and sitting on the window sill...we took it and threw it against a brick wall. Pretty dumb, considering we didn't have to. I already stated what it's costing us.

I do not think rebuilding the infastructure to acceptable levels is possible while we are there. Maybe the Iraqi's will stop killing each other and do it, but we're not helping the situation one bit.

The pie was already cooking? If you mean Iraq was already falling, I disagree.

As to the not being able to rebuild infrastructure, there is no conclusive evidence to say otherwise. Where is the evidence that says what you suspect is unalterable? If we leave now and things get worse there instead of better, would you advocate going back then? If not, why not? Are you really arguing for the benefit of the Iraqi people for us to leave or are you simply looking for a cop-out like Reagan did in Lebanon?

Perhaps the game shouldn't have been started in the first place?

The game was already being played. Even Clinton talked about regime change in Iraq, it goes all the way back to Bush Sr. (although Bush Sr. didn’t talk about doing it himself, the pollsters then talked about why didn’t he do it then, saying he should have. Advocating the big push for Baghdad then, saying we could have done it and been done with it then… IF this after the war travesty happened THEN, who then would have been in the frying pan for that blunder? The truth is war critics go on both sides, saying, “Bush Sr. didn’t go far enough, Clinton didn’t go far enough with just cruise missile and so on and so forths” And then turning around a few years later and saying, “Bush W has gone too far what was he thinking! We liked it the other way better…”

Just more Monday morning critiquing …

You seem to believe that our relations with our close allies will one day be as amicable as they once were...I do not see any evidence of that.

Alliances with Germany and Australia seem to be coming along fine. Poland, S. Korea and Japan, etc., what’s the problem? Do you singularly want just the western European countries as alliances?

Nation-building in two unstable states...while simultaneously dealing with increased nuclear threats, and a general lack of military flexibility.

I would say getting China and the other four countries to deal with N. Korea is coming along fine. And the EU seems to be seriously recognizing the threat of Iran along with the UN finally. Would you rather the US was the entire world’s Police force and go it alone or didn’t you say we should have allies and good will of others to help us get things done?

I keep seeing arguments about Afghanistan...but again, I feel that that nation should be our principle focus.

Afghanistan is not under US command, the Alliance is in charge of the forces there.

One point I want to reply to:

If we weren't in Iraq, where do you suppose they would be choosing to fight??

Hmm - Saudi Arabia (our bases there), Israel, Egypt, Lebanon, Turkey, Chechnya, Pakistan...There are a lot of places they could be fighting, and almost all of them at our expense, either directly or indirectly.

Incidentally, this is also the main reason we cannot afford to fold in Iraq now. If we do, our opposition will assume we will always fold. Worse, they might be right.