The short term objectives to meeting the long term goal of a stable and democratically influenced government have definitely been poorly defined and keep changing. Things definitely could have and should have been handled better; but that is not limited to just this.
I don't have any specific solutions that will instantly make things better; but it seems there is a great lack of understanding of Middle East history, culture and the role religion (not just Islam as there are significant numbers of Christians and Jews in the region as well) plays in society.
We should not be confused when we go to War. EVER. At least one can make an argument for the war in Afghanistan. That makes sense to me. I understand that. But since most of our troops are deployed in Iraq, I am confused and angry.
I mean, I'm not asking for a lot am I? If you want me to send your son or daughter to fight and die for me, don't you need a good reason than beyond the call of duty?
Why should it be this confusing? Why must I follow and die blindly?
A country that keeps this sort of behavior up will lose its greatest military asset, an overwhelming support of its citizenry to lay down its life for it and the values in which it believes.
1. Kills his own countrymen (through gas and other means) (by weapons supplied by us no less. and if we are that concerned, how come we didn't check Pinochet (Argentina), Omar al-Bashir (Sudan), King Jong (Korea), or Idi Amin while he was alive? Those guys killed thousands of their own people. Omar killed hundredsd of thousands and so did Amin.
To answer you - it's not popular or as strategically important to have gone after those persons/regimes. This was also way before the Islamic extremists broke the unwritten rule of not taking the fight to the US homeland. The Sudan by the way is not thousands, it is tens of thousands into the hundreds of thousands with displacement of homes and such including maiming, rape, etc. Of all these areas I truly believe we should have gone it to help the Sudanese people, but hey the UN Resolutions are really helping a lot there aren't they? Kim Jong Il as far as I know hasn't killed thousands of his people although he isn't doing much to help them, he is a Pomeranian compared to Hussein.
2. Kills his own family, (i don't care about that. you're right when you say he was a madman, but that should be dealt with within his own country.)Yeah we saw how well that was going.
3. Invades his neighbors for access to shipping (it was when he got to Kuwait and had very close access to oil reserves in Saudi Arabia that our "allies" in Saudi Arabia sent out a call to us.)So what's the point, we shouldn't have helped the Kuwaitis out?
4. Kills off his political adversaries, (he's a dictator that we put in power, what do you expect?)There are some who believe you don't make martyrs of your adversaries, Hussein was not one of them.
5. Is stupid enough to routinely shoot off guns into the air in the city, (petty)I guess it is petty to allow hundreds to routinely shoot off firearms inside populated areas when compared to the numerous other acts he's commited.
6. Inquires about production of the largest gun in the world (as a delivery system for his weapons), (but never got the WMD's as claimed by the U.S., a crime nevertheless, but shouldn't the UN take care of it?)Keep in mind that the gun was for the sole purpose of delivering ordnance into Israel since the guidance systems on their missiles sucked ass.
7. Shoots missiles into a non combatant country, (once again, this is a UN resolution)Hello, Gulf War..........trying to draw Israel into an attack when they weren't involved in the war. Again how much affect did the sanctions have? None, especially since following the war he failed again and again to comply with sanctions.
8. Seeks nuclear potential as far back as the 80's, (sought it, but didn't gain anything. and in the 80's Iraq was our Ally. Rumsfeld shook hands with him.)You do realize that they were set back since Israel bombed their planned nuclear reactor right? The French built reactor was non compliant.....again with the world community. If this sounds vaguely familiar it is the exact same line that Iran is currently walking.
__________________
Now I'm just laid bad - G35Princess
R.I.P. MBC
The UN doesn't lack a strong bite, it lacks any bite at all. No WMDs were found in inspections scheduled days to weeks ahead of time. Gee, really? That is surprising, I'd have expected them to leave stuff they were illegally in possession of laying around for the inspection. Inspectors were also not allowed in to inspect sites many times and often led around during the inspections. The only way you find violations in an inspection is for it to be a surprise; thats why the health dept. doesn't tell restaurants ahead of time they're coming. They don't want the bug killer and cleaning chemicals moved away from the food for just during their inspection.
Iraq was known to have chemical weapons prior to the first gulf war; they weren't used during the war so where'd they go? They didn't just vanish from existence.
__________________
Everyone is finally equal. No one is smarter than anyone else. No one is stronger than anyone else. No one is better. Everyone is worse.
this is a terrible terrible terrible interpretation of why we should go to war.
next time i see a GI in uniform, i'll be sure to thank him for his contribution to our economy. or when i ask him "what are you fighting for?" and he says, "freedom." i'll shake my head and say "no son, your fighting to pump our economy."
send Bush's daughters there, send the kids of congressmen there to die for our economy. not our lower-middle class/middle glass boys and girls. fuck'em!
You shouldn't quote out of context to prove your point Gamma, it makes you look like a puppet of the Democrat controlled media.
The actual quote is a response to a statement from Archer (see below for the accurate quoted response) in which he says that the war is bad for the economy. My response to him is that the war actually bolsters the economy rather than it killing it.
Your statements in response to mine sounds exactly like it's been recycled from the Vietnam war.
I'll give Troy that it's killing our soldiers, but the country needs to be stabilized before we leave. Just think what would have happened if Hilter was stopped before WWII. It would have been an extremely unpopular act, but do you think the lives lost in WWII would have justified such an act? Are we to learn nothing from history, or are we going to let madmen rule the world?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GZire
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archer Troy its good hussein is gone....but our presence in iraq at this point is doing nothin but draining our economy and killing our soldiers
War is good business if you are pounding the other guys into submission. It is terrible for the national debt, but I think you can credit the good financial state of the economy on the war.
__________________
Now I'm just laid bad - G35Princess
R.I.P. MBC
you can whine about the UN all you want, but they told us that Iraq had no WMD's. when Colin Powell stood up there and sold 'em a bill of goods, who looks like a fool - them or us?
yes, i agree, the UN lacks a strong bite. but when its house in a country that doesn't adhere to its rules or regulations anyway, why should anyone respect it?
If you think that all the weapons from Hussein's arsenal are destroyed, you are sorely mistaken. I just hope they are unuseable by the time a nutcase actually tries to use them.
Now on to Phelan's charge about UN corruption. Yeah I forgot about that whole bunch of allegations about Kofi's questionable behavior. Hey maybe we just don't pay as good as the other countries gamma.
__________________
Now I'm just laid bad - G35Princess
R.I.P. MBC
The UN doesn't lack a strong bite, it lacks any bite at all. No WMDs were found in inspections scheduled days to weeks ahead of time. Gee, really? That is surprising, I'd have expected them to leave stuff they were illegally in possession of laying around for the inspection. Inspectors were also not allowed in to inspect sites many times and often led around during the inspections. The only way you find violations in an inspection is for it to be a surprise; thats why the health dept. doesn't tell restaurants ahead of time they're coming. They don't want the bug killer and cleaning chemicals moved away from the food for just during their inspection.
Iraq was known to have chemical weapons prior to the first gulf war; they weren't used during the war so where'd they go? They didn't just vanish from existence.
UN is a joke. After having surved under the UN banner I was extremely disenchanted. UN's only power in the international forum is that of a one trick pony. It is all but become a reactionary organization. Someone or nation commits an injustice, the UN meets for the next decade to argue about what should be done. Then 99% of the time they issue sanctions, which for the most part doesn't do much and is much too late. Furthermore, it's reactionary power is moot as it doesn't have the guts to take action when needed and because the fact that they've become completely reactionary towards world events they're usually too late to make change. They've become the clean up crew of the world. I should say we, the US, since we do most of the dirty work anyway.
I like to use this anology with the UN. It's the world's ultimate weapon manned by a bunch of panzies. It's the 3 legged horse. The one legged hoe. You get my point...
__________________ Always outnumbered, never outgunned.
ahhhh so many issues raised, so many points to discuss and so little time (i gotta take off in about 20 minutes).
you can theorize all you want to Phelan, just like i theorize all i want to about who was responsible and had a hand on the 9/11 terrorists attacks, but most evidence shows that Iraq had no WMD's.
"The United Nations located and destroyed large quantities of Iraqi WMD throughout the 1990s in spite of persistent Iraqi obstruction. Washington withdrew weapons inspectors in 1998, resulting in Operation Desert Fox, which further degraded Iraq's WMD capability. The United States and the UK, along with many intelligence experts, asserted that Saddam Hussein still possessed large hidden stockpiles of WMD in 2003, and that he must be prevented from building any more. Inspections restarted in 2002, but hadn't turned up any evidence of ongoing programs when the United States and the "Coalition of the Willing" invaded Iraq and overthrew Saddam Hussein in March 2003.
Great controversy emerged when no such weapons were found, leading to accusations that the United States, and in particular its President George W. Bush had deliberately inflated intelligence or lied about Iraq's weapons in order to justify an invasion of the country. While various leftover weapons components from the 1980s and 1990s have also been found, most weapons inspectors do not now believe that the WMD program proceeded after 2002,[1] though various theories continue to be put forward." Iraq and weapons of mass destruction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gzire
You shouldn't quote out of context to prove your point Gamma, it makes you look like a puppet of the Democrat controlled media.
The actual quote is a response to a statement from Archer (see below for the accurate quoted response) in which he says that the war is bad for the economy. My response to him is that the war actually bolsters the economy rather than it killing it.
Your statements in response to mine sounds exactly like it's been recycled from the Vietnam war.
I'll give Troy that it's killing our soldiers, but the country needs to be stabilized before we leave. Just think what would have happened if Hilter was stopped before WWII. It would have been an extremely unpopular act, but do you think the lives lost in WWII would have justified such an act? Are we to learn nothing from history, or are we going to let madmen rule the world?
see, now the mud slinging starts. Now i've studied history a long time. I spent a year studying the Holocaust, I even went to Dachau to mourn and grieve and saw the concentration camps themselves. and here is where I will strongly disagree with you.
Saddam Hussein does not equal or could never amount to the lethality and prowess that Hitler was. Not even close. Stop listening to G.W. Bush speak and his analogies of comparing this war in Iraq to WWII. This is so far apart, he might as well say that there were WMD's in Iraq and Iraq had something to do with 9/11. ( )
see, I haven't had a T.V. in 6 months. Since I don't have one, I was free to look up the newspaper and stay away from political hogwash. The media is not controlled by the left anymore (whether it did is arguable, but for now, it is not). If it truly was, we wouldn't have had this war in Iraq. People wouldn't of followed so blindly and we would of actually checked out all of the sources and reports that Bush said were true.
Now then, on to your analogy of stopping Hitler vs. stopping Hussein.
Quote:
I'll give Troy that it's killing our soldiers, but the country needs to be stabilized before we leave. Just think what would have happened if Hilter was stopped before WWII. It would have been an extremely unpopular act, but do you think the lives lost in WWII would have justified such an act? Are we to learn nothing from history, or are we going to let madmen rule the world?
You think that a pre-emptive war is self-defense. You think that had we have stopped Hitler before he invaded Poland in 1939, that the war would of never happened. Well hindsight is 20/20, and it's possible that you could be correct, but at what point? When exactly? See I could tell you that WWI and WWII were just one big fucking war - which it truly was - with one 20 year intermission. Just a big break. The issues weren't resolved. Hitler had nothing to do with WWI, he was just an infantryman there. He wasn't the direct cause. He only manipulated the resentment that was felt afterwards and brought himself up to power - legally.
I could go into this further, I could write pages and pages on WWII with regards to its hand in hand relation to WWI, Treaty of Versailles, the great depression, etc. etc etc but it would have nothing to do with the war in Iraq.
Nothing, not a god damn thing. The people are different, the religion is different, the reason to fight the war is different.
Did you know that when WWII started and before the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, over 90% of Americans did not feel that we should engage in war with Europe. No one wanted war. There was no reason at that time to go over and fight. We didn't think we were the police of the world at that time. Then of course we were bombed at Pearl Harbor. But that was a different enemy altogether.
But you brought up a solid point, "Your statements in response to mine sounds exactly like it's been recycled from the Vietnam war." You're damn right they do! Here I could draw a dozen more parallels of why this war like the war in Vietnam was in vain.
1. We did not know the enemy.
2. The Gulf of Tonkin was completely misunderstood and there was no serious threat (Gulf of Tonkin Incident - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ) vs. 2001 where the attack came from 11 individuals (9 from Saudi Arabia) and Osama Bin Laden took responsibility.
3. We are in an endless war, with nothing to gain. In Vietnam, they were fighting a civil war. They were fighting for their independence. In Iraq, once again, WHAT ARE WE FIGHTING FOR?
4. We have no communication with the enemy. It's a guerrilla war with no possible ending in sight.
5. We have a very sophisticated and incredible military that is eager to prove that it is mighty in the world with all the new armaments, smart bombs, and technology. We thought the same thing in Vietnam. Our enemies were inferior, lacked sophistication, and military force. Except for 1 thing: they were willing to die for their war, just like in Iraq. We are not.
Once again, I ask you and don't dodge the question like many Republican loyalists do, I ask you as a citizen of this nation who believes in values and democracy:
Why are we fighting the war in Iraq? If its for Freedom, what does that mean? What does Victory mean? And who are we fighting for?
UN is a joke. After having surved under the UN banner I was extremely disenchanted. UN's only power in the international forum is that of a one trick pony. It is all but become a reactionary organization. Someone or nation commits an injustice, the UN meets for the next decade to argue about what should be done. Then 99% of the time they issue sanctions, which for the most part doesn't do much and is much too late. Furthermore, it's reactionary power is moot as it doesn't have the guts to take action when needed and because the fact that they've become completely reactionary towards world events they're usually too late to make change. They've become the clean up crew of the world. I should say we, the US, since we do most of the dirty work anyway.
I like to use this anology with the UN. It's the world's ultimate weapon manned by a bunch of panzies. It's the 3 legged horse. The one legged hoe. You get my point...
This was President Wilson's dream, a league of Nations. So since you fought for them, what would it take to get that 3 legged horse to run on all 4? It's obvious that we need a better and more solid UN to even prevent the shenanigans of the U.S. What will it take?
This was President Wilson's dream, a league of Nations. So since you fought for them, what would it take to get that 3 legged horse to run on all 4? It's obvious that we need a better and more solid UN to even prevent the shenanigans of the U.S. What will it take?
That is a serious question gamma and although I don't pretend to have the answer I have my personal opinions. First and foremost, the UN has to deliniate themselves from world politics. If the UN is supposed to be world police agency and enforce the morals/laws/beliefs of the world coalition, then it must be just that. It must not be used to play political games as it is today. Sure the UN can send amabsadors to prevent war, but it's mission "must" remain clear and concise. A police force does not treaten action or ask for compliance. It proactively asserts itself to "prevent" disorder and if this cannot be accomplished it act swiftly and with authority to bring those who violate the above mentioned reasons back in line to compliance.
Many of you might not know this or consider this fact, but organizations such as NATO, SEATO, UN and the former Warsaw pact are, in many ways, a country without a border. They have huge budgets and large military capabilities. Sure all this comes from coalition nations, but once committed generals take their orders from UN authorities rather than their own nation's officials. Now whether this hold true in a condition of war is yet to be proven, but those are the facts.
The UN was created so that the citizens of this world would not have to live in fear of world wars, but how can this be accomplished if those who run the UN live in fear of asserting their authority.
__________________ Always outnumbered, never outgunned.
................Saddam Hussein does not equal or could never amount to the lethality and prowess that Hitler was. Not even close. Stop listening to G.W. Bush speak and his analogies of comparing this war in Iraq to WWII. This is so far apart, he might as well say that there were WMD's in Iraq and Iraq had something to do with 9/11. ( ).........
How can you say that Hussein could never amount to what Hitler was? Hussein was ready to go on line with nuclear power back in 1981 with the backing of a nuclear capable country (France). Do you seriously think that he would not be able to generate a nuclear weapon with the facilites to not only study, but to refine weapons grade fuel? What about the assistance from the French despite arguments to the contrary by the world community?
Look at the size of Hussein's military force prior to the start of the war. He had the largest armored force in the world outside of the Superpowers. They were battle tested also after 10+ years of fighting with Iran. They were at the height of their military capability with the desire to expand, this was more than what Hilter had to start off WWII.
Let's not forget the French, there track record in the past 100 years is pretty terrible when looking at their decision making, they just don't take shit for it like us. We bailed their asses out of WWII and I. They thought that the end all was to build a trench around their border with Germany..............hmm what did Hitler do, just went around. The Surrender Frogs' leadership are morons.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gammawolf
.......Now then, on to your analogy of stopping Hitler vs. stopping Hussein.
You think that a pre-emptive war is self-defense. You think that had we have stopped Hitler before he invaded Poland in 1939, that the war would of never happened. Well hindsight is 20/20, and it's possible that you could be correct, but at what point? When exactly? See I could tell you that WWI and WWII were just one big fucking war - which it truly was - with one 20 year intermission. Just a big break. The issues weren't resolved. Hitler had nothing to do with WWI, he was just an infantryman there. He wasn't the direct cause. He only manipulated the resentment that was felt afterwards and brought himself up to power - legally.
I could go into this further, I could write pages and pages on WWII with regards to its hand in hand relation to WWI, Treaty of Versailles, the great depression, etc. etc etc but it would have nothing to do with the war in Iraq.
Nothing, not a god damn thing. The people are different, the religion is different, the reason to fight the war is different.
Did you know that when WWII started and before the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, over 90% of Americans did not feel that we should engage in war with Europe. No one wanted war. There was no reason at that time to go over and fight. We didn't think we were the police of the world at that time. Then of course we were bombed at Pearl Harbor. But that was a different enemy altogether.
OK I agree hindsight is 20/20. My point is we need to learn from the past. We need to prevent the next WWII. It's unpopular to do so, but what if we don't stop WWIII from happening? We might not be speaking German this time, we might not be speaking at all, we might all be dead.
I agree that Hitler used the underlying causes of WWI to get Germany to back him (yes legally). Hitler made the German people feel like the were worth something (they were) and that they weren't the cause/fault behind WWI (which for the most part they weren't). I don't dispute any of this with you.
Do you not see the similarity with what Hussein did? It's all the fault of the West. We did nothing wrong. We should do this to them. What's to stop Hussein from rolling right down the Gulf? Why stop at Kuwait (Belgium for Hitler to get an anchor hold for his water borne power), why not roll on down through Dubai, UAE, and yes Saudi Arabia (where the non extreme Muslims should be rolled into his fold, his way of thinking)?
Yes I know that most of America didn't want war in WWII. Shouldn't we learn from that experience to prevent a repeat in the future? What if we officially came in to WWII earlier? How much of an impact do you think that would have had on shortening the war and saving human life?
Quote:
Originally Posted by gammawolf
Once again, I ask you and don't dodge the question like many Republican loyalists do, I ask you as a citizen of this nation who believes in values and democracy:
Why are we fighting the war in Iraq? If its for Freedom, what does that mean? What does Victory mean? And who are we fighting for?
I would say we are done fighting the State of Iraq. We are still fighting those in the middle east who's express purpose in life is to wipe us from the face of the earth. They have stated so. Should we wait around until they find a more effective way of killing us than ramming jets into buildings, or should we go out and get them?
I have a question for you, for those that oppose the war. Do you really think the slogan, "I support the troops, but not the war," is truthful? I certainly don't. If you support the troops, you go in and get them everything they need to complete their missions with as much speed and as little loss of life as is possible.
__________________
Now I'm just laid bad - G35Princess
R.I.P. MBC
This was President Wilson's dream, a league of Nations. So since you fought for them, what would it take to get that 3 legged horse to run on all 4? It's obvious that we need a better and more solid UN to even prevent the shenanigans of the U.S. What will it take?
Unfortunately the UN will not ever work. The only way it was to work is if every country gave up it's sovereign power and decided to vest it's decision making in the UN.
I don't think Starfleet will be popping up anytime soon.
__________________
Now I'm just laid bad - G35Princess
R.I.P. MBC
It's been a whilie since I've seen the exact figures, but Iraq did not have the largest standing army in the world. It's China, then India, then Vietnam, then USSR, then Iraq, and something to that effect. They were in the top 10 though for sure.
__________________ Always outnumbered, never outgunned.
It's been a whilie since I've seen the exact figures, but Iraq did not have the largest standing army in the world. It's China, then India, then Vietnam, then USSR, then Iraq, and something to that effect. They were in the top 10 though for sure.
I didn't say army. They had the largest armored corp (i.e. tanks) outside of the superpowers.
__________________
Now I'm just laid bad - G35Princess
R.I.P. MBC
)