opinions wanted

diplomatic_means

Active member
Ok so I know yall have done this in several threads but being as I'm too lazy to go through and read all of them, could everyone who wants to put up a summary of their opinions of the recent War in Iraq? You can post abot any or all aspects of it and make it as long as you want. I have to write a paper in a week or so about my opinion of the war and I don't have much of one so I figured getting some help from people who actually know military stuff better than me might be able to help me form an opinion. Thanks.
 
Anyway you look at it, Saddam is a threat to the world. I don't want to hear any of that he was contained sh*t, because this guy was dangerouse. That being said there were WMDs beetween the time of the UN weapon's inspectores being expelled in '98 and the war. My best guest is he destroyed them to turn public opinion against the US, although Ive heard some say they may be in Syria or Lebanon in the custody of Hezbollah and the likes.

As for recent times don't let the media fool you, there are good things happening, but it is my opinion US and British media has encouraged the terrorists further and dilebritaly attempted to sway US opinion. Channels like CNN made clear that they were against this war.

I think Tommy Franks in all respects is partially to blame. He guessed that Saddam would be as egoistic as in the last war and try to fight a driect, conventional campaign with armor and infantry. Apparently he learned his lesson, employing guerilla's instead. I suspect Iran, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and others had terrorist wannabe's truck themselves in before the war to set up the insugency we know see.


The biggest mistake the US can make is leaving Iraq right now. That will cause instability my generation is gonna have to put up with 10 years down the road. The American people need to wake up and understand this is a war, and people die. And frankly I dont appreciate our government telling schoolchildren the best bet is just to pack it up and run away. For the sake of the Iraqi's and the lives of our fallen soldiers we cannot just leave.

Lastly this war is not like Vietnam, no matter how much people wanna say it is. At this rate, it would take us over 100 years in Iraq to equal the casualties from that war.
 
My thoughts are that we were justified going in. A friend of mine said the Iraqis had bio weapons and in the middle of combat had to put his gas mask on every 5 minutes. We also deposed a psycotic dictator and got help to these people.
 
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.
 
GuyontheRight said:
Anyway you look at it, Saddam is a threat to the world.
the world? no.

direct neibours? deffinately.

GuyontheRight said:
The biggest mistake the US can make is leaving Iraq right now.
on this i agree with you.

GuyontheRight said:
Lastly this war is not like Vietnam, no matter how much people wanna say it is. At this rate, it would take us over 100 years in Iraq to equal the casualties from that war.


i would clarify....this is THIS GENERATIONS VIETNAM, an unpopular, politically motivated war being fought on TV in our homes.
 
i would clarify....this is THIS GENERATIONS VIETNAM, an unpopular, politically motivated war being fought on TV in our homes.

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.

Saddam needed to go down, few reasonable people debate that. How we did it etc. may or may not be open for question. The net result is the area is better off by far already and will continue to improve. And though it will take more work yet to come, greater stability in the region will be a benefit to all. If anything, it has exposed the al Queda for the violent hateful people they are. They would rather kill their fellow Muslims then have anything but their own way. Such a movement must be eradicated.
 
This is not this generations Vietnam. Everyone I know supports the troops. Which was not the case in Vietnam. Regardless on why or how we got there, you will see no spitting on troops or any type of disrespect.
 
My thoughts

Well in regards to the WMD thing I have this thought. Saddam definately had them pre-1991, but unfortunately with the fall of the USSR and with the Clinton cutbacks the US did not have great intel cabability to know for certain if he still have him. Also I give Saddam credit, he had everyone including his own people and military fooled that he still had some sort of capability, and the jury is still not 100% sure that there was absolutely no WMDs. It was actually a good defensive measure for Saddam, in a sense. But that deception actually made Saddam a liability after 9/11 and the anthrax attacks. While I am a republican, I have mixed feeling about Bush handling of the War. I think he rushed both Afghanstan and Iraq conflicts and, the objectives of both wars the capture or killing of Bin Laden and the containment of WMDs in Iraq and keeping them out of terrorist hands (aka truck convoys going to Syria and possible Iraqi weapon being used in Sudan). However, this Iraqi war and the taking down Saddam all stems from the violations of UN charter, 11 years of Iraqi aggression and abuse on it own population. It is a basic clean-up of the original Gulf War (something that Bush Sr ended too soon and Clinton dared never to fix himself). Bush's overall outcome is positive with a possible Democratic revolution across the middle east. Also there are rumors now that Saddam had supporting roles in 9/11, the first WTC attack, and even the OK city bombing and the downing of flight 800, as time goes by I think more will be reveiled on Saddam's role with Terrorism in the US.
 
I believe that every thing that we have accomplished for these people is a great thing. We are giving them the freedom that they have never had but rightfully deserve.
 
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
 
Farseer said:
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
 
Charge 7 said:
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

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

http://thewall-usa.com/stats/
 
Charge 7 said:
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.
 
Back
Top