i think its a good thing were over there and the few millitary guys i have talked to that have been over there all say the same thing. As far as the WMD i still say who isnt to say there not in country thats alot of area to hide stuff.

It's like this. If I was president and I had all of my intelligence agencies plus the Brittish, Israeli, and Russian intelligence agencies telling me Saddam had WMDs and my country had just been attacked. I don't see how I could do anything else but take Saddam out.

There is a fault in this war, and it is with the intelligence agencies who came to such a wrong conclusion. I support Bush's movie 100% because if he would have done anything else with the information he had, then he would have been wrong.

I mean, take the flip side to the coin. What if saddam did have WMDs and America drug its feet and wasted years trying to negotiate. Now imagine if Saddam, seeing the writing on the wall, decided to at least go out with a bang and sneak some of his chemical/biological weapons into the United States. This scenario was not out of the rhelm of possibility in 2002. If this would have happened and you where the president when your citizens where killed by the tens of thousands from an enemy you had been negotiating with for years... can you imagine a worse leader than that president? No, you have to listen to your intelligence agencies and if another country is a threat to you, then you have a duty to your citizens as their leader, to protect them against that threat.

This is the very basis of Locke's Social Contract and safety is the whole reason for government in the first place. If you where to consciously fail in that objective then that is the definition of evil.

It's like this. If I was president and I had all of my intelligence agencies plus the Brittish, Israeli, and Russian intelligence agencies telling me Saddam had WMDs and my country had just been attacked. I don't see how I could do anything else but take Saddam out.

There is a fault in this war, and it is with the intelligence agencies who came to such a wrong conclusion. I support Bush's movie 100% because if he would have done anything else with the information he had, then he would have been wrong.

I mean, take the flip side to the coin. What if saddam did have WMDs and America drug its feet and wasted years trying to negotiate. Now imagine if Saddam, seeing the writing on the wall, decided to at least go out with a bang and sneak some of his chemical/biological weapons into the United States. This scenario was not out of the rhelm of possibility in 2002. If this would have happened and you where the president when your citizens where killed by the tens of thousands from an enemy you had been negotiating with for years... can you imagine a worse leader than that president? No, you have to listen to your intelligence agencies and if another country is a threat to you, then you have a duty to your citizens as their leader, to protect them against that threat.

This is the very basis of Locke's Social Contract and safety is the whole reason for government in the first place. If you where to consciously fail in that objective then that is the definition of evil.

I agree totally and whole heartedly

Originally Posted by Farseer

I was against the war against Iraq as well as were most Finns, I suppose. I agree that Saddam was one bastard but in the world is multiple bastards like him still left. There might have been peaceful resolution still left to make as sure as possible that Iraq would not be threat to world. And only if it would have failed and most of UN would have agreed armed assault war could have been an option.

Still, what's done is done and cannot be undone. Even if war in Iraq was mistake, it would be another mistake to take out those forces. Even Saddam was evil dictator, during his time at least most of people in Iraq lived in peace. Retreating from Iraq now would left entire country into anarchy and could lead into bloody civil war. Now, with US and UK and some other countries in Iraq, it is most important to rebuild Iraqs infastructure and political stability together with UN and those countries who were against entire war.

I tend to agree with this, however I think it pretty obvious that its now a no win situation if the US stays then Iraq will become another West bank/ Gaza style mess low numbers but continuous casualtiies) and if it goes Iraq will become a another Iran I also think it pretty clear that much of the UN has adopted a "you broke you fix policy" and isnt going to bail the US out either militarily or financially.

Nice rhetoric, Chewie, but for anybody who actually lived through Vietnam that's laughable. Vietnam was a massive car wreck that went on for over a decade. Iraq is a fender bender in comparison.

Oddly enough you should say this as the US casualty rate in Iraq is comparible if not greater than the US's casualty rate in the first 10 years of involvement in Vietnam (this is an old figure I will try and track down the link later), however this a completely different war so it is the only comparisson I will make.


A few points that perhaps should be considered here though:
1) Iraq possessed no chemical, biological or nuclear weaponry to continually argue that it did post 1991 is rather misguided as even the US administration now concedes this.

2) Another thing the US admin seems to accept now is that prior to the invasion Al Quaeda were not operating in Iraq and apart from an operative or two passing through the country (which could be aimed at a large number of other countries as well) there is no connection.

3) There is to date no link between Iraq, Hussein and the Sept 11 attacks.

Even though he was killing kurds faster than the Nazis were killing Jews?

Seemingly an implausable statement given that in 12 years of Nazi rule Hitler killed 6 million Jews and in 29 years of Saddams reign he is reported to have killed less than 400000 Iraqi's.

I mean, take the flip side to the coin. What if saddam did have WMDs and America drug its feet and wasted years trying to negotiate. Now imagine if Saddam, seeing the writing on the wall, decided to at least go out with a bang and sneak some of his chemical/biological weapons into the United States. This scenario was not out of the rhelm of possibility in 2002. If this would have happened and you where the president when your citizens where killed by the tens of thousands from an enemy you had been negotiating with for years... can you imagine a worse leader than that president? No, you have to listen to your intelligence agencies and if another country is a threat to you, then you have a duty to your citizens as their leader, to protect them against that threat.

Surely you jest?

You seriously want to justify a war that has already killed a large number of people on "what if" logic?.
I am sorry but "what if's" work in football matches and vacation planning but not in serious life issues, but as an example: WHAT IF you have visited your doctor for a cure to an ingrown toe nail NOW IMAGINE the doctor cant be bothered looking up the symptoms and decides what the hell lets amputate at the knee.
I am certain you wouldnt hop away from the operating theater with a "Oh well he got it wrong this time" attitude.

Oddly enough you should say this as the US casualty rate in Iraq is comparible if not greater than the US's casualty rate in the first 10 years of involvement in Vietnam (this is an old figure I will try and track down the link later), however this a completely different war so it is the only comparisson I will make.

Wrong. US KIAs from 1961-1965 were 1,864 but that was was with a much smaller force. At the time US servicemembers were only in the tens of thousands or less. From 1966 the numbers are much higher. 5,008 KIAs in 1966 and 29,992 WIAs. As the force strength grew so did the losses. Not in any way shape or form is it comparible to Iraq. The war in Iraq will not go on for ten or more years with no exit strategy as in Vietnam.

Source: http://www.rjsmith.com/kia_tbl.html

Originally Posted by Charge 7

Wrong. US KIAs from 1961-1965 were 1,864 but that was was with a much smaller force. At the time US servicemembers were only in the tens of thousands or less. From 1966 the numbers are much higher. 5,008 KIAs in 1966 and 29,992 WIAs. As the force strength grew so did the losses. Not in any way shape or form is it comparible to Iraq. The war in Iraq will not go on for ten or more years with no exit strategy as in Vietnam.

Source: http://www.rjsmith.com/kia_tbl.html

Very true however you are overlooking the fact that US casualties albeit light started in 1957 not 1961.

http://thewall-usa.com/stats/

I apologize to the families of the eight servicemembers who died from 1957 to 1961 that I left out.

Originally Posted by Charge 7

I apologize to the families of the eight servicemembers who died from 1957 to 1961 that I left out.

While numerically insignificant it is the time frame that is important or to be more precise the start date and not the number of casualties, I am sure you understand why.

Go team, go!!!!!

That's my opinion on Iraq..... rambles off into some incoherent rambling mess.... shouldn't drink so much.

we should not be in iraq we should be in NK