Time to get out of Iraq

[MontyB]

True, it wasn't the primary reason we invaded, but it WAS a reason. President Bush is a human, just like you. Just like me. He made a mistake. And I'm sure it wasn't just him. His information source could have been corrupt...Any number of things could have lead to the misinterpretation of the idea of there being chemical weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

I am sorry you cannot just shrug this off as "hey he is human he made a mistake" because a mistake is spilling coffee on the rug, tripping over the dog or having a fender bender while checking out a female on the sidewalk a mistake is not invading a country that has lea to the deaths approx 35000 civilians (conservative estimate) and approx 3000 of your own troops on dodgy and manufactured intelligence because if you can believe that then every war in creation can be justified simply by a point of view and refusing to have it challenged followed by a "whoops my bad" when it turns to custard.

Now, human beings suffering...Are you perhaps a bioethicist? Do you believe in the destruction of deformed, chronically ill, terminally ill, just so others can lead fuller lives? Human suffering is HUMANITIES problem...Do you honestly think every human's life was just peachy over there?

Is it any better now?
I am sorry but how is killing the deformed, chronically ill, terminally ill any better than the killing of people because of their religious affiliations, how is taking what was a fine example of an educated secular middle eastern nation (pre-1991) and turning it into a cross between 1980s Lebanon and the 1980s Yugoslavian break up an improvement? Now before the usuals jump in here I agree that this mess is primarily of Husseins creating but a lack of management and planning for the post 2003 invasion has compounded the problem.

Unfortunately being "free" to kill each other is not a step forward in my view.

Unfortunately, there is some truth in your statements. The United States has not the resources available to fight the entire GWOT alone. When other countries wise up to the fact that we DON'T have those resources...Then maybe we can finally do some damage to that effective training ground.

Well perhaps you administraton should have thought of that before it went out of its way to insult and demean every country it now wants cash from, unfortunately it is a proven fact that abusing people is not a great way to get them to donate. My personal opinion is that you will not see any support from the bulk of the world until well after the Bush administration is gone.

Like I said. Once the rest of the Global War On Terror starts to lean in favor of the free, Iraq will be on top, all other countries will be better off, and arguements like this won't happen anymore.

The question is can the war on terror be won the way it is being fought?
I am all for shooting all the terrorists you can find but it has to realised that threatening and bombing isnt all there is to winning this thing at some point there has to be a method of tackling the reason people are becoming terrorists and that unfortunately is a huge task.

 

[C/2nd Lt Robot]

Saddam was in a box has since 91 has not really botherd anyone in his neighborhood so why bother going in the first place. Iraq not worth
it just US looking for new oil source since Dem won't open up ANWAR

He never gased the Kurds, and never killed his own people for speaking their minds. We were dropped on our heads one too many times to even think Saddam was a bad person after '91, correct? Yeah, he hasn't bothered anyone in his neighborhood, if by neighborhood you mean his palace. Even then I wouldn't be surprised if people were tortured in his palace.

Also, can you show me proof that we are looking for a new oil source? I've heard a lot of people talking about, "no blood for oil" but have yet to see any proof. Wouldn't the media be all over that? Looking at crude oil import (thousand barrals per day) we get the highest percentage from our backwards neighbours up north. As for oil imported from Iraq, it's a fraction of what we import from Canada.

http://www.gravmag.com/oil.html

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/...ons/company_level_imports/current/import.html

 

[Rob Henderson]

I am sorry you cannot just shrug this off as "hey he is human he made a mistake" because a mistake is spilling coffee on the rug, tripping over the dog or having a fender bender while checking out a female on the sidewalk a mistake is not invading a country that has lea to the deaths approx 35000 civilians (conservative estimate) and approx 3000 of your own troops on dodgy and manufactured intelligence because if you can believe that then every war in creation can be justified simply by a point of view and refusing to have it challenged followed by a "whoops my bad" when it turns to custard.

Granted, it was a big oops, but honestly, if all you know was given to you by someone else, then how do you know if it is accurate information? Its like that game where you tell someone something at one end of a room, then by the time it gets to the other side, something completely different comes out.

Is it any better now?
I am sorry but how is killing the deformed, chronically ill, terminally ill any better than the killing of people because of their religious affiliations, how is taking what was a fine example of an educated secular middle eastern nation (pre-1991) and turning it into a cross between 1980s Lebanon and the 1980s Yugoslavian break up an improvement? Now before the usuals jump in here I agree that this mess is primarily of Husseins creating but a lack of management and planning for the post 2003 invasion has compounded the problem.Unfortunately being "free" to kill each other is not a step forward in my view.

We kill people because of their religious affiliations? Now, I DO agree with you on the whole planning bit. We should have thought about this more thorougly before acting. We were just so enraged...You've no idea the pain, anger, and grief Americans felt on September 11th...We let our anger blind us and we charged with that blindness into a battle that should have been thought about.

Well perhaps you administraton should have thought of that before it went out of its way to insult and demean every country it now wants cash from, unfortunately it is a proven fact that abusing people is not a great way to get them to donate. My personal opinion is that you will not see any support from the bulk of the world until well after the Bush administration is gone.

I know. Bush should have done a better job going about his way on this whole deal. Of course, as I am 16, I cannot vote and have no say in the choices my administration makes. No one outside the administration themselves can. My personal opinion is that the rest of the world won't show support. They either don't like President Bush, or don't have the balls to back him and are just going with the crowd. Blind conformity to mass thought...A sin in my book. "...you will not see any support from the bulk of the world until long after the Bush administration is gone."That could be translated into "you will not see any support from the bulk of the world until long after you pull the troops out." Why? Because the world thinks that the only reason we invaded Iraq in the first place was because Bush wanted to "finish what his daddy started." I still have a bit of trouble understanding why the world hates us so much for doing what we felt was right...I suppose they feel threatened...

The question is can the war on terror be won the way it is being fought?
I am all for shooting all the terrorists you can find but it has to realized that threatening and bombing isnt all there is to winning this thing at some point there has to be a method of tackling the reason people are becoming terrorists and that unfortunately is a huge task.

Unfortunately. The reason people are becoming terrorists is that they are ignorant of the sweet taste of freedom. They know nothing more than what is given to them by their leaders, or people who seem to know what they are talking about...No one knows WHY the terrorists hate the United States, but we do know that they too haven't drank from the cup of liberty. Perhaps they are simply jealous. As it is, we will never be able to truely tackle the reason people become terrorists because we will NEVER, and I repeat, NEVER go back to anything other that the system we have now.


I think the reason people are so daunted by the task of fighting the GWOT is because they see it the way you do...A huge task, perhaps impossible. The United States, however, feels that it will be worth it in the end.

 

[Fox]

In Vietnam it was a civil war between Democracy and Communism. Like I said, I believe in self-determiniation, and that we shouldnt get involved in other countries internal affairs, including their choice of government.

CIVIL WAR? No, I don't think it is. North Vietnam invaded South Vietnam.

 

[MontyB]

Granted, it was a big oops, but honestly, if all you know was given to you by someone else, then how do you know if it is accurate information? Its like that game where you tell someone something at one end of a room, then by the time it gets to the other side, something completely different comes out.

I think you are grossly under playing the consequences here I consider a "big oops" to be buying dog of a car when 10 minutes online and a bit of thinking would have put you off it not going to war. When my country chooses to go to war I fully expect that they will have made damn sure they have their facts straight.

We kill people because of their religious affiliations? Now, I DO agree with you on the whole planning bit. We should have thought about this more thoroughly before acting. We were just so enraged...You've no idea the pain, anger, and grief Americans felt on September 11th...We let our anger blind us and we charged with that blindness into a battle that should have been thought about.

This is a tough one, I may not be American but I still have had to deal with the effects of 9/11 and Iraq within my own sphere of influence as my wife is American and both her brothers have served in Iraq not to mention having lived there for 12 years. also for the record there is still to my knowledge no connection between 9/11 and Iraq.

I know. Bush should have done a better job going about his way on this whole deal.

A better job, quite frankly I cant imagine how anyone could have done a worse job.

Of course, as I am 16, I cannot vote and have no say in the choices my administration makes. No one outside the administration themselves can. My personal opinion is that the rest of the world won't show support. They either don't like President Bush, or don't have the balls to back him and are just going with the crowd. Blind conformity to mass thought...A sin in my book. "...you will not see any support from the bulk of the world until long after the Bush administration is gone."That could be translated into "you will not see any support from the bulk of the world until long after you pull the troops out." Why? Because the world thinks that the only reason we invaded Iraq in the first place was because Bush wanted to "finish what his daddy started." I still have a bit of trouble understanding why the world hates us so much for doing what we felt was right...I suppose they feel threatened...

I don't agree, I think you are overlooking the possibility that the reason there is so little world support for the US in Iraq is that the world simply doesn't agree with the US actions there I also believe this theory is supported by the fact that nations are more enthusiastic about supporting actions in Afghanistan. It most certainly isn't some world conspiracy to goad the US into invading a country for its own amusement (the world that is).

I still have a bit of trouble understanding why the world hates us so much for doing what we felt was right...I suppose they feel threatened...

Perhaps its because the world in the form of the UN sat down listened to the evidence and said no we don't agree with you that military action is needed yet, the US response to this was to inform the world (in the form of the UN) that it really didn't care what you think, it was irrelevant and out dated, you will either support us or we will go it alone. Now 4 years on you are upset that the irrelevant, outdated world isn't enthusiastic about committing its people bailing you out of a mess that it told you not to make in the first place?
If I was to be cynical I would say this is a practical implementation of the "Told ya so" principle.

I think the reason people are so daunted by the task of fighting the GWOT is because they see it the way you do...A huge task, perhaps impossible. The United States, however, feels that it will be worth it in the end.

The GWOT is not impossible to win at all but it is currently being managed extremely badly, once that management is gone and people feel they can deal with the new management I think world involvement may grow but that's not going to be for at least 2 years.

 

[bulldogg]

So basicly from reading all the commentating here it boils down to Marsh and Monty think its time to cut bait and run? Is this correct?

 

[MontyB]

So basicly from reading all the commentating here it boils down to Marsh and Monty think its time to cut bait and run? Is this correct?

I am not sure how you come to that conclusion, as I have pointed out previously I do not agree with the reasoning or decission to invade Iraq but to leave now would create an even bigger mess.

 

[bulldogg]

So then you're just whinging about spilt milk?

 

[MontyB]

So then you're just whinging about spilt milk?

I take it you are just posting for sake of raising your numbers?
Seriously if you are just looking to start an argument wouldnt a bar be a better option?

 

[Rob Henderson]

I think you are grossly under playing the consequences here I consider a "big oops" to be buying dog of a car when 10 minutes online and a bit of thinking would have put you off it not going to war. When my country chooses to go to war I fully expect that they will have made damn sure they have their facts straight.

The point I'm trying to make was that nothing is certain.

This is a tough one, I may not be American but I still have had to deal with the effects of 9/11 and Iraq within my own sphere of influence as my wife is American and both her brothers have served in Iraq not to mention having lived there for 12 years. also for the record there is still to my knowledge no connection between 9/11 and Iraq.

Then you could "understand" the anger Americans felt when we saw we had been attacked, aimed at civilians, without provocation, by terrorists. Is that not cause for war? Now, the connection between 9/11 and Iraq...Harbored terrorists. GWOT. Global War On Terror. If terrorists are in a country on our GLOBE, then we will go to WAR with said TERROR. Thats the connection. We found that Saddam Hussein was harboring terrorists, and the way to get to the terrorists was to chop of the leader of the country, then go in while they are confused. Breech, bang, and clear. On a large scale.

A better job, quite frankly I cant imagine how anyone could have done a worse job.

He could have sat by and done nothing at all. In which case, he may have been impeached. Once again, you really have no clue about the pure rage that coarsed through me as I saw, as a 7th grader, our World Trade Centers being hit. I knew from being in a military family that this was no mistake, that this was an attack, and that this was time for WAR. I wanted to personally go to the man who ordered those attacks and fight him. At that time, I coulda won too...Point being that the anger overcame the doubt.

I don't agree, I think you are overlooking the possibility that the reason there is so little world support for the US in Iraq is that the world simply doesn't agree with the US actions there I also believe this theory is supported by the fact that nations are more enthusiastic about supporting actions in Afghanistan. It most certainly isn't some world conspiracy to goad the US into invading a country for its own amusement (the world that is).

Then what's the point of calling it a GWOT? Why not the AWOT? Afghanistan War On Terror...As long as terrorism exists, the world will always be unsafe. There is always the possibility of a terrorist attack, as demonstrated by the London prevention.We cannot truely relax until ALL terrorists are sleepin with the fishes.

Perhaps its because the world in the form of the UN sat down listened to the evidence and said no we don't agree with you that military action is needed yet, the US response to this was to inform the world (in the form of the UN) that it really didn't care what you think, it was irrelevant and out dated, you will either support us or we will go it alone. Now 4 years on you are upset that the irrelevant, outdated world isn't enthusiastic about committing its people bailing you out of a mess that it told you not to make in the first place?
If I was to be cynical I would say this is a practical implementation of the "Told ya so" principle.

Like I've made numerous references to in the past, it's not the same unless you are American. Its like the tsunamis...Everyone says "oh wow, thats really bad." but no one actually KNOWS what its like to have your living washed away in the blink of an eye. We send aid, but we have NO IDEA what kind of devastation, pain, grief, anguish, etc. everyone over there was feeling...The United States was pissed. And quite frankly, we were going to do it anyway, we just wanted to see if we could get some help in our quest for vengence...Unfortunately, none of the rest of the world(save the Brits, God love em.)felt we needed to attack. The rest of the world didn't share our grief. Our anger. Our NEED for revenge on the cowards who attacked us. It wouldn't necessarily be "bailing us out" persay...It would be more like "doing the right thing."

The GWOT is not impossible to win at all but it is currently being managed extremely badly, once that management is gone and people feel they can deal with the new management I think world involvement may grow but that's not going to be for at least 2 years.

The principle remains the same.

 

[MontyB]

I am going to try and shorten up my responses a as these posts are getting a little large...

The point I'm trying to make was that nothing is certain.

Then you could "understand" the anger Americans felt when we saw we had been attacked, aimed at civilians, without provocation, by terrorists. Is that not cause for war? Now, the connection between 9/11 and Iraq...Harbored terrorists. GWOT. Global War On Terror. If terrorists are in a country on our GLOBE, then we will go to WAR with said TERROR. Thats the connection. We found that Saddam Hussein was harboring terrorists, and the way to get to the terrorists was to chop of the leader of the country, then go in while they are confused. Breech, bang, and clear. On a large scale.

I disagree with Iraq it was certain the rest of the world saw it and didnt accept it. I like almost everyone I know is completely supportive of operations in Afghanistan and against any and all terrorist groups BUT I and almost everyone I know does not accept that Iraq falls into that grouping.

He could have sat by and done nothing at all. In which case, he may have been impeached. Once again, you really have no clue about the pure rage that coarsed through me as I saw, as a 7th grader, our World Trade Centers being hit. I knew from being in a military family that this was no mistake, that this was an attack, and that this was time for WAR. I wanted to personally go to the man who ordered those attacks and fight him. At that time, I coulda won too...Point being that the anger overcame the doubt.

Then what's the point of calling it a GWOT? Why not the AWOT? Afghanistan War On Terror...As long as terrorism exists, the world will always be unsafe. There is always the possibility of a terrorist attack, as demonstrated by the London prevention.We cannot truely relax until ALL terrorists are sleepin with the fishes.

By all means get angry and by all means hunt down the people involved but also realise that Iraq was NOT part of that.
It is a GWOT because it needs to be but that doesnt mean you need to go around creating terrorist training centres to keep it fuelled and that all the invasion of Iraq has done so far.

Like I've made numerous references to in the past, it's not the same unless you are American. Its like the tsunamis...Everyone says "oh wow, thats really bad." but no one actually KNOWS what its like to have your living washed away in the blink of an eye. We send aid, but we have NO IDEA what kind of devastation, pain, grief, anguish, etc. everyone over there was feeling...The United States was pissed. And quite frankly, we were going to do it anyway, we just wanted to see if we could get some help in our quest for vengence

Yes well fortunately the world doesnt see vengeance as a justification for attacking a nation not involved in the crime.
Tell next week some Chechen rebels destroy a building in downtown Moscow by lets say flying planes into it the Russians blow the snotter out of Chechnia but then decide what the hell the Canadian are harboring terrorists lets tell the UN we are doing it, we dont care what anyone else has to say and they take over Canada (but hey its justified because they were rightously pissed at the time).
A few months later things are not going well because all those pesky foreign fighters are blowing up troops and civilians alike and they ask the UN for money and troops to help out. Would you be keen on US troops helping them?

Unfortunately, none of the rest of the world(save the Brits, God love em.)felt we needed to attack. The rest of the world didn't share our grief. Our anger. Our NEED for revenge on the cowards who attacked us. It wouldn't necessarily be "bailing us out" persay...It would be more like "doing the right thing."

Hey I am pleased the rest of the world hasnt "bailed you out" in Iraq because maybe you will think twice before invading uninvolved countries in the future and no it wouldnt be "doing the right thing" because it would be saying we support the action and quite simply people dont support it.

 

[Rob Henderson]

Iraq wasnt involved? They may not have been one of the few that hijacked the planes, but they definitely held terrorists. Disagree? Who the hell are we fighting? It aint Mary Poppins.

 

[MontyB]

Iraq wasnt involved? They may not have been one of the few that hijacked the planes, but they definitely held terrorists. Disagree? Who the hell are we fighting? It aint Mary Poppins.

Show me some proof that Iraq was involved.
Personally I would suggest that you will find more to involve Germany and Saudi Arabia in the attacks than Iraq.

To back my case I will give you this http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html

There is no doubt that Iraq has terrorists now but thats because every terrorist with desire to take a shot at the US has headed to Iraq to take advantage of the opportunity.

 

[mmarsh]

Fox

There was never a country known as North Vietnam or South Vietnam, there was only Vietnam.


When 2 groups of people attack each other of the same country, thats called a Civil War.

Henderson

Monty is right. The al-Qaeda terrorists arrived in Iraq AFTER Saddam was gone. Saddam even tried to have bin Laden killed. Zarquwi and al Musri both arrived from other countries in late 2003. The only terrorism Saddam was involved with was against Isreal. Not at all the same thing.

 

[The Cooler King]

Fox

There was never a country known as North Vietnam or South Vietnam, there was only Vietnam.


When 2 groups of people attack each other of the same country, thats called a Civil War.

Mmarsh, it was two separate countries. That is not my opinion, that is a fact. After the First Indochina War at the Geneva Convention, Indochina was split up into 4 countries: North Vietnam, South Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos. North and South Vietnam weren't unified until after the war.

 

[mmarsh]

Mmarsh, it was two separate countries. That is not my opinion, that is a fact. After the First Indochina War at the Geneva Convention, Indochina was split up into 4 countries: North Vietnam, South Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos. North and South Vietnam weren't unified until after the war.

Thats a good point. But the thing remains that the Vietnamese people whether they lived in the north or south were still the same people. Its just somebody in Europe split the country into 2. When Vietnam was seperated there were families that found each other on opposite sides of the border. Just like Germany was Split after WWII.

 

[The Cooler King]

To quote you from before...

They are not the same. North Korea was an independent country invading another independent country...Vietnam was a Civil War, two rival factions fighting for absolute power...

So what are you trying to say here mmarsh?

 

[Rob Henderson]

Show me some proof that Iraq was involved.
Personally I would suggest that you will find more to involve Germany and Saudi Arabia in the attacks than Iraq.

To back my case I will give you this http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html

There is no doubt that Iraq has terrorists now but thats because every terrorist with desire to take a shot at the US has headed to Iraq to take advantage of the opportunity.

Just because Hussein didnt know there were there, doesn't mean they weren't.

 

[MontyB]

Just because Hussein didnt know there were there, doesn't mean they weren't.

Well they were in Germany even educated there perhaps you should be attacking them?

I am sorry but your argument is starting to look weak.

 

[Rob Henderson]

Because of you. You asked for shortened posts...If you would like me to, I can go back to the paragraph dissections...



Once again, the United States doesn't have the resources to fight the entire GWOT alone.