With the U.S. ending major combat operations in Iraq, do you think the war has been worth the effort?
8.6% say "yes - it has made us safer"??? What??? I'd like just one of those people to explain themselves. How exactly has the Iraq war made us safer? Who are these people? The Bush/Cheney family and friends?
It didn't make the American people safer, but they made enough money off of it to be able to hire a private police force so it made THEM safer.
It's impossible to make a logical argument to convince someone who decides things based on emotion.
Obama has lied about getting out of Iraq from day one.
He's nothing more than GWB the II
We're pulling out combat troops? Really so what are the loads of other troops doing there? I guess they are playing hopscotch?
He's a lying sack of dog diareha and we all fell for it.
How Gitmo and the patriot act working out?
This guys lies more than GWB did.
The democrats and republicans have ruined this country.
We'll actually the american public idiots have, voting for the same people over an over again. It makes me sick.
No, the problem is some liberal only left a "yes" with a "it has made us safer". So they gave us no way to answer yes. We just said "screw it" we'll answer yes our own way, thank you.
I guess if removing Saddam from power because he was a "brutal dictator" doesn't leave your American blood singing with pride nothing will.
The above analysis needs clarification: You cannot argue with insanity or irrationality. Unfortunately there are alot of people who suffer from the delusions of an America that has long past us by. WWII was the last time that America could feel remotely good about a war we fought, and we still use the same formula that we used then: Defend Amrica from evil for freedom.
Here is a thought: What if Americans were told the truth: " American people, we are facing a serious lack of this natural resource called petroleum. There is this dude who's country sits on the second largest oil reserve in the world. He is a real meanie who gasses his own people into submission and on top of that, our buddies Israel hate the SOB. Now I know it sounds bad, but we outta invade this place and get those resources and make Israel happy. It'll make sure that we have oil for generations to come, and it will protect you friend Israel from a very real threat. Did I mention how important i is that we keep Israel happy?"
I wonder how many Americans would have heard the truth and said something to the effect of " OK it sucks but we need it and he is a dork and Israel is where the new Jesus is gonna drop out of the sky so we gotta keep em safeuntil that Jesus dropping happens, so lets go!"
I hope that eventually this government stop lying about thier nationilist agendas, becasue America right now is ripe for a nationist imperalist uprising. Hey Washington, tell em the truth, you'll be surprised how many will go along with it.
The "Status of Forces" agreement negotiated by Bush with Iraq called for the withdrawal of combat forces from cities by Mid-2009 (which did occur), and the withdrawal of ALL U S forces by the end of 2011.
Obama/Gates are now saying that we may have combat forces in Iraq beyong 2011, so Obama is behind even Bush's timetable for withdrawal.
I do not agree that the Iraq war has made us safer but in answer to your question, those friends of mine that supported the war say that it kept the terrorist fighting in Iraq rather than allowing them time to create more acts of terror here. I think we should have always been committing our time to the terrorist's home base of Afghanistan which would also have kept them occupied overseas instead of here.
There was a large amount (550 metric tons) of yellow cake discovered, seized and transported to North America for disposal. Not many news organiztions reported it in their headline news. You can find it on MSNBC.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25546334/).
First: Bush sold his soul to get elected. The folks who funded his election were the Texas oil and Haliburton folks who managed to also get their person as V-P too.
Second: We HAD too much money, too many resources and too many young people willing to serve - all this allowed us to make all the wrong decisions based on LIES from the above folks.
The reason the Europeans wanted NO PART OF THE WAR was because they didn't have the money to spend and there would be hell to pay from their electorate.
Bush didn't have the B9&%S to stand up to these folks; now we are committed and OBAMA CAN'T TURN on our troops. Like Colin Powell said, "You break it, you bought it."
The problems in Iraq are not solved and Hussein may have been a tyrant but we KNEW WHO HE WAS. Can you say the same of the new folks in power.
No we are not safer anywhere in the world.
This was never America's war. It was a war for Bush/Cheney and their cronies. The fact that it cost us 4000 plus lives didn't bother them at all. And, we've made more enemies because of this war than we had going in. The Iraqi people are not safer. This was a war that made Cheney money since he is still connected to Haliburton. And, Bush got revenge against Saddam Hussein for his father. Was it worth it. No. This is a war we should never have entered into. And, the cost of lives and money was far too steep.
This is how it made us safer. Barbaric, stuck in the middle ages tyrants throughout the middle east and there illiterate and savage followers understand only one thing. Force. Force is something America has in abudance. The will to use it when neccessary is the question. Borrowing a phrase from the loony left Sadaam hanging from the gallows was a teachable moment for the middle eastern tyrants, islamofascists et al. When Saddam dropped they all soiled there pants. Oh by the way the Dems are the war party. I mean real wars not the Dominican Republic, Panama, Haiti, Grenada, Lebanon, Iraq and Afghanistan interventions. I mean WWI Wilson, WWII FDR, Korea Truman, Vietnam Kennedy and Johnson. All the biggies were preceded by bad economic times so get ready for Obama's big war vs Iran. God bless America.
our addiction for oil has made us mentally unstable..our hunger for world democracy has made us hated..our appetite for greed has made us something i rather Not say..yet we still continue to believe, perhaps being humble is acknowledging the fact; that it's all bad out there including here, but for now we pray to survive.. money/ power/ Govt and oil ownership is a beastly enterprise..
It disrupted the terrorist operations and put them on defensive footing rather than their previous offensive footing when they were attacking. In regard to the WMO it is a known and proven fact that possessed and used such weapons against Iran on numerous occasion during the prolonged war.
But then again liberals cryout in the usual iconclastic diatries no matter which way the ball bounces. Only they have all the answers and are always right. But just look at the economy it is a shambles and the direct result of people like Chris Dodd and Barney Frank and their disfunction ideas.
The American people cannot wait until November 2010 to clean house of the liberal democrats and do everything in out power to politically dismantle the entire Democratic liberal cabal once and for all.
What do you think of that Keith Olberman?
"With the U.S. ending major combat operations in Iraq, do you think the war has been worth the effort?"
You mean the unjustified and illegal invasion of that sovereign nation? You mean the one that is now being "justified" by its originators with their sixth excuse?
If you are on your sixth excuse for doing something, you were obviously wrong.
Worth it? Hell no.
lets STOP with sticking our nose in business were it ain't BELONGS.
Mr. Frost,
I nearly agree with you on all fronts, but Afghanistan. Bin Laden brought us there, not the Republicans. And we would probably be out of there if Bush didn't side track us with his Iraqi personal mission.
No matter what you say, dead children's bodies are not being given back to their parents for speaking out against Saddam anymore, we did some good. It might not have made us safer, but 12 year old little girls are not being murdered to terrorize their parents into submission. You must feel safe from behind your keyboard, blasting away at things that are so much bigger then you. From the media's point of view the war was just about oil and was only shown in a bad light during Bush, now its not even reported. Where did the death toll scroll go, nice how Obama doesn't get one for the Afghan war. I know several people who served 3 or more tours and not because they had to, but because they were making a difference in the Iraq people's lives.
Good Job to all our troops, words can not thank you enough for your sacrifice and all the lives you have made better!!!!!!!
It disrupted the terrorist operations and put them on defensive footing rather than their previous offensive footing when they were attacking.
No. There were no terrorists in Iraq before we invaded. Those types were beheaded. But Dumbya and Dicky-Boy did provide the terrorists with a nice training ground for actual combat experience to use later. Be sure to thank them later.
In regard to the WMO it is a known and proven fact that possessed and used such weapons against Iran on numerous occasion during the prolonged war.
And the WMDs were where when we invaded? What do you mean there were none? But you said they had them in the past. Oh yeah. They were destroyed over the years after the Gulf War. But you mean you believed their leader when he implied he still had some? What about the intelligence that he had non and was just propping himself up to prevent Iran from invading his country?
Oh. I guess everyone's prayers were answered and they just "disappeared."
I opposed the decision to overthrow Saddam because I believed (correctly it turns out) it would take our focus off of Afghanistan . That said Iraq is a far better place now than it was under the tyranny of Saddam. No more people disappearing for speaking out, no more athletes tortured for losing, no more Iraqis gassed because Saddam perceived them to be a threat!!
The future of Iraq is in the hands of the Iraqi people. Is it perfect?? Not even close. But is the future far brighter than under Saddam? Hell yes!!
Thousands of our men and women have been sacrificed to fight this evil force that has been, and still is dedicated to the destruction of our nation and performing the worst atrocities against innocent women and children all over the world. Even their own families have been victimized by these animals who have no conscience. How can anyone challenge the valor and courage our armed forces have shown by saying that the fight to rid this evil from our planet is not worth it.
To say that their sacrifices did not mean anything is ridiculous, (except to our enemies). These vermin are essentially joined by those idiots who feel we should not do the right thing on behalf of humanity. My thanks and respect goes to those men and women who stepped up to fight this difficult battle.
Turn your back on these warriors like you did with the Viet Nam vets and you had better be ready for Shari`a Law, because that's what is in store for you stupid infidels.
RVJ
Robert-Thank you, I never read anything about that, and thought we were completely mislead about the wmd's. Good to know that at least one agency reported on it. Probably a good thing no one knew about it while it was still there, as it could have fallen into enemy hands.
Now for the yes vote? Saddam WAS paying a bounty to every martyrs family that fought against Israel. Perhaps it should have been Israel that invaded instead of us, but never-the-less, he was planning an Allies demise.
The argument cannot be changed to "we got rid of a brutal dictator" as justification for the war. We went in based on a complete lie that the administration knew was a lie. We destroyed our military capacity, lost thousands and tens of thousand are going to be needing assistance for the rest of their lives. We broke our economy by never paying for the war and just borrowing the trillions against the future. I would agree that it is good that we do not have a Saddam and his devil spawn kids around ony more, but a sniper bullet would have been a lot cheaper and if that was the reason for this war, then what was all the WMD BS about?
Trying to make this into a dems lied or repubs lied is futile. Dick Chaney wanted a war for his profiteer buddies and Dubya the puppet did his bidding. The war was illegal because it was not declared nor funded by congress and everyone, repub or dem, who went along with the lies is guilty of the blood of our soldiers, the civilians, and the destruction of our economy.
first: http://joelcomm.com/what-democrats-said-about-weap.html Allen seems to be the only person here that knows this.
second: Zep. The argument that we went to Iraq for the oil is just stupid. If we'd gone to Iraq to take it over, and make it part of the US, then sure, that might makes sense. Iraq is still a sovereignnation. We still have to buy the oil we get from them. This war has done nothing to help anybody in the US with oil. That was never the intention. The whole idea that this war about oil was created by conspiracy theory leftists.... Which is weird, cuz normally conspiracy theorys come from the far right.
The future of Iraq is in the hands of the Iraqi people. Is it perfect?? Not even close. But is it far better than under Saddam? Hell yes!!
Hey Fred! Long time no see. While I, as usual, agree with much of your comment, I'd prefer to hear from the Iraqi people on whether or not they think it is far better now. Asked by Independent observers, of course. Maybe if they can ever get out of the water lines and find a computer in a place that has electricity they could comment here.
Basic services are still no where close to the availability and reliability they had pre-war. Were there major problems in Iraq? Of course there were. But for the average Iraqi, they knew how to avoid those problems and were mostly content. Were they in a cage? Yes. But is their new cage really that much better right now? They are still suffering, and in some ways, worse than before.
Only time will tell if they are really and truly better off, according to their opinions. Ours' really don't count here.
But still, when you're on your sixth excuse for doing something...
Here is Obama's original position on Iraq:
"
Immediately upon taking office, Obama will give his Secretary of Defense and military commanders a new mission in Iraq: successfully ending the war. The removal of our troops will be responsible and phased.
Obama and Biden will press Iraq's leaders to take responsibility for their future and to substantially spend their oil revenues on their own reconstruction.
Obama and Biden will launch an aggressive diplomatic effort to reach a comprehensive compact on the stability of Iraq and the region. They also will address Iraq's refugee crisis. "
Obama did not make the promises that the GOP claims. And the first one he kept. In fact, he apparently had discussed this with Sec. Gates prior to inauguration and Gates and Mullen began the planning for withdrawal while Bush was still in office. He didn't give a date, he just said "responsible and phased" and said time after time that the commanders on the ground would make the timetable decisions.
Promise number two has been much harder to keep. The Sunii and Shia are not reaching accommodations and are not working toward their country's future. Part of the problem is that we destroyed so much of the infrastructure that there is little oil money. But the major part of the problem is the centuries old hatred between the Kurds, Sunii and Shia. I would call that a promise made, but not yet kept and would wait until towards the end of next year to make a final call.
The last promise is in the same category. I see little additional stability in the region. There has been some improvement in the grassroots Islamic view of the U.S., but at the same time Iran is flexing its muscle and Turkey is sliding toward the Iranian camp. (This could ultimately destroy NATO.) Israel and Iran remain the most serious trouble-makers in the region with no abatement. The Iraqi refugee crisis has been partially abated with many Iraqis returning from Syria and Jordan. So I would call the first part a failure so far and the second part of the promise a partial to almost success.
I would point out that an orderly withdrawal is one of the most difficult military operations to conduct. Vietnam was a disorderly withdrawal. Dunkirk was a semi-disorderly withdrawal. Iraq to date has been an orderly withdrawal.
Fred, I agree..despot and straight faced lying Leaders seem to be crawling out of the wood work these days, worse than ever........
Arizona grandma....did you mostly hate those 9 % because they did not have your opinion ?? I personally like diversity in opinion...else we could just listen to ourselves.
What was the reference to bush etc....you must still looking in the review mirror ? And replublicans :) Party liners (you must be one to write that comment)...make me think of football fans...hooting, wearing hats, painting faces, etc
The conclusion I've reached from everything I've read about our reasons for invading Iraq follows: the Bush administration and just about every other intelligence organization expressing an opinion (friend and foe alike) truly believed that Saddam Hussein had WMD. He even proved it with poison gas attacks against his own people and against Iranian troops.
So, given Saddam's hatred of the US (which humiliated him in Desert Storm), his tendency to stockpile and use WMD, and his affiliation with terrorism (he was paying$10,000 to each family of Hamas suicide bombers), I believe the Bush administration feared that Saddam would provide terrorists with a chemical, biological, radiological, or at least some type of dirty bomb for an attack against a major US city. I can't prove that with documentation, but the snippets of evidenceI just described logically point in that direction.
I do believe that securing our source of oil from that region had some relevance to our invasion, but not much when compared to the fear of being hit by WMD on our home turf. And if I'm correct in my assessment, I think George Bush did the right thing at that time in that place, given everything we knew and realistically feared in the context of the 9/11 attack, which was still a fresh memory.
Moreover, even though the Iraqis signed a peace agreement after Desert Storm, they kept shooting at our aircraft and tried to assassinate former President Bush (the elder). President Clinton (in office at the time) even said the "Iraqi attack against President Bush was an ATTACK AGAINST OUR COUNTRY AND AGAINST ALL AMERICANS."
Also, would anyone say that WWII ended if the Japanese tried to kill a former president and kept shooting at our airplanes shortly after they surrendered? It seems to me that Desert Storm never really ended.
Here's some more interesting facts: About 75,000 civilians are estimated to have died since the onset of the war in Iraq. An excellent argument can be made that this number is inflated (see The Civilian Casualty Fable), however, for the purpose of debate, let's assign validity to that number.
Saddam Hussein became president of Iraq on July 16, 1979, and was deposed in April of 2003. Over that twenty-four year period, Saddam Hussein killed an estimated 800,000 Iraqi civilians, was responsible for the deaths of 400,000 Iraqi military personnel and over 700,000 Iranians and Kuwaitis. Utilizing ONLY THE IRAQI CIVILIAN NUMBERS, this is an average of approximately 2,800 Iraqi citizens killed by Saddam Hussein each month that he ruled Iraq. And there were no indications that such killings would stop while he was in power. However, the United States toppled Saddam Hussein 87 months ago as of now.
So, if Saddam had remained in power for those 87 months, more than 243,000 additional Iraqi civilians would have died at his hands – children starved in prisons, whole villages gassed into oblivion, dissidents fed through industrial shredders, women strangled after visits to rape rooms, all to be eventually reunited in remote mass graves.
The US saved a lot of lives by ridding the world of Saddam Hussein, whether that was our primary goal or not. So, thank you George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and all the U.S. military personnel who helped rid the world of the monster, Saddam Hussein!
Finally, most of the personal attacks I've read about George W. Bush are based upon mindless hatred, hysteria, and ignorance. He wasn't perfect (nobody is), but he also wasn't as bad as some people claim. Ironically, he has freed more Muslims (especially WOMEN, in Iraq and Afghanistan) than anyone else in recent memory.
I saw posts from a couple in the military. We respect your opinion and please know we support our troops regardless of how we feel about the war.
Ted-803281 How can you put blame on Obama for Iraq? Were you asleep between 2001 and 2008? I bet you listen to a ton of Rush, Beck, Hannity - Oh my.
But seriously, this president is doing the things he said he was going to do. First of all we are plenty safe here in America. Have been since 1776. Now we are not safe from people over here who are nutcases. There are plenty of our fellow Americans running around with a screw loose and a gun problem…What's the problem? They own a gun! But for the most part, this is a very safe country as far as terrorists attacks go.
Good going Obama!!! Bring our boys and girls home. And protect us from the real enemies here at home…The Republican Party. And don't think for one second that if they got in control again we wouldn't be right back over there doing the same crap we did for the last 10 years.
Obama didn't start this war but he sure as hell ended it!!!!
And for all of you worried about the Middle East, don't worry, they will always kill one another over there because that is what they have been doing for thousands of years and they are not about to stop anytime soon.
As bad as Saddam was, we knew what he was about(keeping himself in power and ruling harshly). Saddam wasn't about to let enemies of the US (Al Queda) operate freely in his country. He knew after Desert Storm, that we could waltz in and overthrow him at will. He kept the Iranians in check. Yes, he had Kurds and other gassed in the 80's(remember we were helping him against Iran, so it wasn't an issue with our government when he was our "friend"). He wasn't playing ball with us business wise, so a reason was fabricated to justify overthrowing him(he "posed a threat" to us).
Remember how hard Bush and Cheney tried to link Saddam to 9/11 and Bin Laden?
Iraq living wasn't all that "barbaric" before we invaded(I know 3 Iraqis that were there before the invasion). Iraqis were able to attend universities and most had basic services. Saddam didn't let Sharia law prevail. Compare that to the way Iraqis are now living. Look at all the suicide bombings going on with our presence there(insurgents are basically still unchecked).
There were other nations that had more brutal dictators and warlords(Somalia and other African nations), countries that posed more of a danger to us with WMD's(N. Korea).
Why didn't we rush off to help "liberate" those peoples from tyranny? Maybe because they didn't have anything to give us in return.
We have a Nation here at home that needs to be rebuilt! Now we are getting ready to bring thousands of kids home to join the unemployment rolls ... ? Hopefully the billions we have been spending there can be used equally to create jobs here. It appears the political priorities have have been affected by oil and power way too long! Our current President has had no problem in continuing the waste of money and American Blood so ... the Bush blame is now History! Instead of blaming the past, it is now time to look to the future and show some REAL Leadership by making some tough decisions and following through on them! It is likely that a strong message in the upcoming election could make a difference ... some new blood in that little city called DC just might be the answer. It certainly won't make it worse!
To all the folks that believe the war is being fought over WMD you are only partially correct. The United Nations had multiple agreements with Iraq to send investigators to determine the legitamacy of the WMD - Saddam blatantly defied these decrees multiple times. Many nations all thought that Iraq had the intent, capability and desire to launch nuclear military strikes. What other nation on this planet would launch an attack to possibly save other nations - only the good old USA. Call it Bush's war or whatever - I would think that any sitting President would have done the same.
Here are a couple of reasons to support the war in both wars.
1, Ensuring access to the Persan Gulf will stop WWIII
2, Surrounding and containing Iran
3, A hope for a better life for future generations, I agree, time will tell
4, Rape rooms, lack of freedom, the oppressive nature of a hijacked religon is something we should encourage them to oppose.
5, My son served two tours in Iraq, the hearts and minds of the Iraq people understand and appreciate our help.
6, My son will never be the same, war is hell. We all should question the good and pray for world peace.
Scuba Golf Jim, I spent 14 months of my life over there trying to make it a better place for them. The one thing I saw that makes me pretty sure they appreciated it (other than the fact no one shot at any convoy or helicopter flight I was on on the last deployment) was the smiles and thanks (mostly in English) we received when we augmented the Iraqi Army for the January,2009 elections. 2/3 of the population voted despite the fact that in some places it meant they were risking their lives to do it.
First of all, how many of you ever served in the military…. Seems to me we have a lot of people expressing their opinion and matters what hey have read or heard on many of the right and left wing talk shows… And how many of the so called news people have ever served? I would say nary a one!! You see, our Constitution gives everyone the right to speak freely and say whatever we want…
Are we safer now,,, yes we are. And why you ask….. think about it.. Our borders are so porous; you could drive a Mac truck through them… Any bad guy with a bomb could come across our border; they do it all the time with drugs don’t they? Well what would stop a guy with some explosives? Not much… We went into Iraq to fight the bad guys on their own ground…. Plain and simple… Where we screwed up, we did not realize the numbers of dedicated fanatics bent on destroying the US and other nationalities within their own country. Was it perfect, no it was not, did we make mistakes, yes we did… Did we under estimate the resolve of the fanatics, yes we did.. But our troops did fight them with guns.. People are voting in Iraq, attending school, and other humanitarian things you never hear about.
As a retired Military Officer, I have lived through two wars. And as a Commander I order troops into battle. And I thank God that all my troops came home. We in the military hate War, we prepare for war so that we will not have to go, but if we do, we go to win…. I will never change some of your opinions, and that is okay, you are free to say as you wish. But get your dang facts straight. So many of you right and left wing nuts watch TV and honestly believe the trash you hear… What you don’t hear, is the real truth.
Someone said that President Bush (41) lost the first war…. We stopped the war because of International Intervention.. do you remember the road of death…. The military destroyed the Iraq Army during their retreat… It was over, but we bowed to international pressure….. So get your facts straight…
I was vehemently opposed to entering the war in Iraq. But from the first combat casualties we were commited. Once our boys have been blooded and killed in the ways that I dare not speak of on this forum it MADE IT WORTH EVERY DAMN KILOMETER WE TOOK. What saddens me is that we are pulling out in a time when the administration feels is right. Skirmishes are down across the board and only indigenous units are being hit in large scale action. "INDIGENOUS" Think about that. They (AL Qaida) know we are pulling out. They know if they hit us in large scale or even unit sized skirmishes that gives us a reason to stay. THEY damn sure don't want that. They are so close to having a new base from which to train new recruits and plan the next major attack on US soil the won't do anything to spoil it. AND, the training, munitions, arms, and experience we gave them will be put to use in training the insurgence and sending them where they will do the most damage, Afghanistan. As for all the talk about loving Bush and Cheney, forget it they are just as idiotic as the current administration but I am not looking at this in political fallout. I am looking at this as more American troops being KIA in theaters around the world because we did pull out. The evidence is there to support my claims and first hand observation. I won't spell it out for anyone, as Americans it is our duty to find that for yourself. Oh, and by the way, we didn't get one damn barrel of oil for our trouble. Why do you think our war budget in Iraq was so high. Come on people use your brains. Don't follow the news or party line, think for yourselves, don't be sheep.
Exactly American Lobo. Well said.
Yeah Saddam was a tyrant. No doubt about it. However, he was not our problem. There are many, many tyrants throughout the world but it is not our job to overthrow them all to "save" their people.
Like it or not, we had no business in Iraq. The sooner we get out of there the better.
If you are so blind that you do not recognize; figting in Iraq beats fighting in New York City, you have real issues!
I agree that Sad-man was not the enemy, but our enemies certainly rallied around the entire effort. They are not finished either, not that it matters.
Do not think that it's not coming here. The question is,"How long can we stave it off on foreign soil." Believe me when I say "you do not want it here."
However, it still won't matter; "The 6th seal has probably been opened."
Jim Runyan
LaGrange, Texas
"it has made us safer" was added to the yes/no/maybe answer by a liberal who doesn't even know what the war was about. It was never about making us safer unless you believed all of the Democrats screaming about him having WMDs since the Bush Sr years.
Allen-968499 - You must inhabit a parallel universe. It was the Bush administration that loudly, and on numerous occasions claimed that Saddam possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction, that he was closely linked with Al Qaeda and thus presented an immanent danger to our country's security. I recall Condaleeza Rice saying, with studied seriousness, in an interview with Wolf Blitzer in January of 2003:
"The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.".
What was lost in the shuffle was that the U.N. inspectors were not finding any evidence of an active nuclear weapons program.
It was only a year or more after our invasion, when the paucity of WMD finds was becoming an embarrassment, that conservatives started stressing the humanitarian reasons for ousting Saddam Hussein
What unbelievable story telling.
Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel Prize winning economist, back in 2006 set the estimated longterm cost of the war at $3 trillion. The CBO since then came up with a $2.3 trillion estimate. Both would have to be revised upward with the additional years we have stayed in Iraq.
The highest cost that was paid obviously was in human life, all the people now with lifelong serious disabilities, and the destruction of Iraq at a level to create millions of refugees in other countries. That should mean all the countries involved, including Iraq and and all the involved coalition forces.
Mideast experts warned George HW Bush to not invade at the end of the Persian Gulf War when Saddams' troops were in full disorganized retreat. What they meant was removing Saddam would only create a civil war between Sunnis Muslims, Shi'ite Muslims, and Kurds. The fundamental problem is the only way Iraq could be one nation is one group subjugating the other two groups. Iraq should have been three countries from the very beginning.
The problems Iraq is confronting relates directly to these fundamental issues. American troops staying is not the answer to these issues. They will have to resolve those issues themselves.
sorry Andy. I respect your service, but are you are insinuating that Iraq was filled with "bad guys" trying to kill Americans or somehow responsibe for 9/11, before we invaded? No doubt they were/are able to operate in Iraq AFTER Saddam's removal.
Do you (or anyone else) have any undeniable hard evidence that Iraq was a threat to Americans(with terrorism or WMD's)? I don't think so.
Post your sources
If you are so blind that you do not recognize; figting in Iraq beats fighting in New York City, you have real issues!
...and if you do not realize that there is absolutely no correlation to fighting in Iraq and fighting in New York City, then it is because you are being intentionally obtuse.
I seem to recall a recent, failed attempt in New York City.
First off, terrorism is not a labor-intensive means of war. So neither Al Qaeda, nor related groups are strapped for manpower.
Secondly, the efforts of terrorists in Iraq have been primarily directed at rival religious groups. It it were otherwise, our casualties would be far higher.
Lastly, our bungling activities in Iraq were probably the best global recruiting tool for Al Qaeda ever devised, as well as a proving ground for suicide bombings, Improvised Explosive Devices (IED) and other efficient terrorist weapons currently being used in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Every dead terrorist there is one less we have to worry about here. By the way, Obama's war is not going too well now. What about that one?
Dan, why do you thank Robert for misleading information?
When the Bushies told us that Yellow Cake was actively purchased from Niger in order to make MORE WMDs, that was a lie! The yellow cake that this article is referring to was supplied in the early 80s, with the help of the French, for the Iraqi nuclear power plant, that the French were building, and that the Israelis bombed to smithereens. From then on this useless yellow cake was just sitting around, since the French pulled out after the bombing, and the Iraqis didn't know what to do with it. Yellow cake by itself doesn't do anything. It can't even be used in a dirty bomb. Without French help, the Iraquis didn't have the wherewithall to convert yellow cake into nuclear fuel, so to purchase more of it just doesn't make sense. Wilson told the truth and because of this he and his wife were thrown under the bus by the Bush administration.
When we went into Iraq, Saddam didn't threaten us, he had nothing to do with 9/11, he did not support AlQuaeda and no longer had any WMEs. That war was totally unnessessary, unlawful and cost us too many young lives, cost us too much treasure and wrecked our economy. On top of that, we created a haven for untold terrorists, who wouldn't have dared to enter Iraq under Saddam because they would have been hunted down and killed by Saddam's forces. Saddam and his sons deserved to die, but not at this high a cost! Tanks a lot Mr. Bush!
Any bad guy with a bomb could come across our border; they do it all the time with drugs don’t they?
We went into Iraq to fight the bad guys on their own ground…
So... fighting in Iraq is keeping some bad guy, with a bomb, in a truck from driving into our country how?!?
Are you seriously saying that Al Qaeda is so strapped for manpower that they couldn't find some bozo to drive a truck from Mexico into Texas?
Yes, I guess that you are. So now that Iraq is tranquil, we need to invade another Muslim country, thus drawing all terrorists there like flies, with our armed forces acting as a giant bug-zapper?
Good thinking AndyGrd. Real good thinking.
How has it made us safer you ask and the answer is so simple --Have you seen any more bloodshed or attacks on our soil?? No hmmm--- then Iraq worked as it was designed too ' plus stabilized a unstable area and placed a foothold --Cannot believe you idiots that think we should have continued stand by and let Sadaam continue. Probably the same folks who during Hitler's attacks said Oh that is their problem not ours. And no we are not leaving as we have not left Cuba, Europe or many others.
Obama has lied about getting out of Iraq from day one.
He's nothing more than GWB the II
We're pulling out combat troops? Really so what are the loads of other troops doing there? I guess they are playing hopscotch?
He's a lying sack of dog diareha and we all fell for it.
How Gitmo and the patriot act working out?
This guys lies more than GWB did.
The democrats and republicans have ruined this country.
We'll actually the american public idiots have, voting for the same people over an over again. It makes me sick.
Heres an article, the combat troups were supposed to be out long long ago.
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2008/07/07/080707taco_talk_packer
Then he changed his time table again
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-02/26/content_10897907.htm
And
We're still leaving 50,00 troups in there...
Deception and lying and we keep accepting it from our leaders!!
Um, Roy?
You do know combat troops are out at the end of this month, right? And the residual training and their support/logistics troops are out at the end of 2011, right?
Neither Gates nor Obama have said anything contrary.
Where do you get your news?
This was never America's war. It was a war for Bush/Cheney and their cronies. The fact that it cost us 4000 plus lives didn't bother them at all. And, we've made more enemies because of this war than we had going in. The Iraqi people are not safer. This was a war that made Cheney money since he is still connected to Haliburton. And, Bush got revenge against Saddam Hussein for his father. Was it worth it. No. This is a war we should never have entered into. And, the cost of lives and money was far too steep.
Oh would you Bush blamers wake up please?
Saddam refused to allow UN Security into areas to check for WMD's, indicating to the UN the US and the rest of the world that he had them (not to mention melting Kurds and tons of 'dirty bomb' uranium that was found).
Prior to 2001, Saddam had grown more and more antagonistic and outspoken against Israel. We didn't remove his regime from power to make Haliburton money or to reduce the cost of oil....our hand was forced by Israel and our alliance.
The United States was caught between a rock and a hard place....leaving Saddam in power actually helped the United States in that he was a destablizing force among the Arab nations in the middle east. Simply by it's geographic position, Iraq kept Iran, Saudi and Syria in a sort of "check"...but due to his instability and willingness to attack for personal gain, leaving him in power was going to end up with an attack against Israel probably sooner rather than later.
Why isn't anyone asking why Bush Sr. didn't remove him when the opportunity presented itself? Because the resulting power vacuum and Shi' majority is going to lend itself to another Ayotollah Khomani Theocratic rule and a possible alliance between Iran and Iraq in the not too distant future.
Without heavy support of US troops, this puppet government will fall. This is a no-win situation across the board.
What I find interesting is that Obama is doing this for August 31st, which is the official kick-off for the campaigning for November. If this was his strategy, there is no reason it couldn't have been done 6 months ago and saved American lives.
Wow........well, if you want to thank Bush for one thing it is the venomous division that was created over the rationale for war.
Truth be told, the real effects of the wars in the middle east will not be known for decades until all the controversies have either been solved or forgotten. After reading numerous posts from both sides of the ideological spectrum, it is apparent that there will be no compromise so long as people base their ideas on emotion, rather than fact.
Don't get me wrong, both sides will claim to have their opinions supported by "the facts", but in reality most people only choose the facts that support their particular viewpoint. (This phenomenon has a name- please post it if you happen to know!)
As for my 2 1/2 cents, I find it hard to believe anybody can justify the current wars of aggression. Sure, we had a specific reason for invading Afghanistan, though I would argue the need for a full military invasion over a surgical spec ops mission. It seems to me that it would've possibly been faster, less expensive, and less complicated to send in special forces to oust the Al-Qaida network in Afghanistan. But then again, I don't claim to be an expert in military operations. (BTW- I realize that there are many current and retired service members participating on this chat......but unless you happen to be a senior officer directly involved in the planning of these affairs, you most likely don't know any more about it than the rest of us.)
As for Iraq, well, it's been a fool's errand.....we should never have invaded their country in the first place.
Sure, Saddam was a tyrant and despot. Sure, he gassed his own people brutally. But are you hawks suggesting that we go on a world tour removing every tyrant? He surely wasn't/isn't the only one!! Besides, are we forgetting that our own CIA helped Saddam to power in the 80's?? Are we forgetting that we propped him up to oppose the Iranians? (which he did marvelously...) It was only when Saddam overstepped the boundaries we allowed him and invaded Kuwait (which threatened our oil supply), then we fought the first Gulf War and neutered him. This, of course, was only political in nature, as most things in our modern age seem to be.
C'mon! We were only 30 miles from Baghdad in 1991.....so how come we didn't get rid of Saddam then? Politics!!! (it's a long story.....)
So then, 10 years later, after a controversial attack on our country that didn't even involve Iraq, we go in and dispose of Saddam....for what? WMD's? Hey, we didn't find any. Bummer. There goes the entire rationale for our involvement. Was it to pre-emptively protect us? Umm, no, Saddam didn't have the capability to attack us, and so far I haven't read any info suggesting he was even trying. Was it because he was a bad person? Well, why should we care?? As I mentioned above, there are tyrants all over the globe....some far worse than Mr. Hussein. SHould we attack them, too? Who declared us the world's police, anyways?
But here we are, immersed in these two quagmires that rob us of our blood and treasure. Yet still, some of you believe we are fighting these wars for the GWOT. Good grief!! Some of you want to make this out to be a Republican vs. Democrat issue. Completely pointless. There is no bipartisan system here....only one party with two factions! By bickering over party affiliation, you are simply playing into the hands of those who wish to keep Americans ignorant of the real issues underneath it all.
So, in 2011, after 8 years of occupation we are finally seeing our servicemen come home from Iraq.
What will we have gained from this? What will we have learned from this? And precisely who will have to pay in more blood and treasure to atone for these war crimes?
BTW, supporting the troops and supporting the war are two different things. Of course I support the troops, but that doesn't obligate me to defend the very reasons our government sent them into harm's way in the first place!! I, too, have friends and family in the "land o' sand", and I wish for them to come home. But I will not be an apologist for the neocon warhawks that have inundated our country with these ventures.
Let the flaming retorts begin!!
What people like you and your elitist friends need is another 9/11 with the loss of maybe more lives as before to wake your a$$es up to what is going on in the world. These Muslims want to kill us all, no holds barred, just kill us all because we dont believe as they do. Our Muslim president is siding with them, and we will pay the price at some point in time. He can appease them all he wants which will just embolden them more and make them hate us more. So hopefully some day you will run into Obamas poll workers and see how much muslims love us.... that is unless your black, then you will be just fine.
eftsux "Oh by the way the Dems are the war party."
Interesting hypothesis.
I made a study of American war deaths over the last 96 years (1912 - 2008), and the results were interesting. These wars included World War 1, World War 2, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq 1, Iraq 2, and Afghanistan. Each party had control of the Presidency for 48 of those 96 years, yet over 96% of the 635,000 American war deaths were incurred under Democratic Presidents. This begs the question;
Are Republicans more effective at PREVENTING wars, and are Democratic Presidents more naïve and dangerous in their foreign policies?
Food for thought.
Chris-886030 WHo's blaming obama, he didn't storm Iraq!! I never blamed Obama.
He's lying though. I posted two articles. WHile he was running he said within a year, then he made it 16, 18 months and he's still keeping troups in there he's just saying they are now diplomats. That's BS. He said he'd pull them out and he's not. Its the exact BS that we voted out of office. Stick your head in the sand all you want but when someone bold face lies to me after an election it displeases me to see that others that voted for him ignore his lies and deceptions.
Enjoy GITMO and the Patriot act and Iraq, stop being a fanboy and write him, tell him to hold up his end of the bargain!!
Don't hold your breath that all the troups will ever be out under his administration, it aint going to happen but we should at least DO SOMETHING to make him know we want them out now.
Wow! I'm with you. just exactly "who" are these people who think we're safer? Would one of you speak up, please? I'm just curious to know who you are ..........
Fred G.: I agree with you on most things here but Al Qaida wasn't truly kicked out in 07'. Recon and intel have turned up dozens of Al Qaida lower level leadership put inplace the same way we used our SF groups as advisors in Vietnam. They were forbiden from active participation but we got some of the lil' bastards anyway. Wish we could have had live intel on em'. But a dead INS is a good INS.
old sailor,
Wilson is a liar. I suppose you believe Scooter Libby outed Valerie Plame too. There is no tooth fairy. I still say better to kill them over there than to have them come here and kill randomly.
Indy-Patriot - you make some valid points. I absolutely agree with your assessment of Iraq; it falls under the heading of "What the !@# were we thinking?".
But I do think that our core reason for being in Afghanistan relates to the Global War On Terror (GWOT). It may be that we are not pursuing our goals intelligently or efficiently; for instance, we really don't seem to be any closer to catching Osama bin Laden, after 8+ years. But allowing a chaotic situation to evolve into a radical, muslim state with close ties to Al Qaeda was a mistake we made back in the 1990s. We really don't want to replicate it.
I don't believe we have accomplished a thing. I honestly believe America created this war for dominance over other countries, but mainly for the oil. As for 9/11, I as well believe our own government created these events in order to fool people into believing that these people did this, and to start a war. As they say in politics, "You must create disasters in order to create a war for profit and gain".
America is far from being innocent, and there is always two sides of a story. We've only been told one side of it.
Our government has made the USA a target of hate and disgust. People aren't all dumb and know that within any government, their are lies and deceit told to the people on a daily basis.
I made a study of American war deaths over the last 96 years (1912 - 2008), and the results were interesting.
Roy Wilson - You trot out this same tired, superficially plausible argument every couple of months. Here's your post from March 27th of last year:
I made a study of American war deaths by president over the last 96 years, and the results were interesting. These wars included WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq I, Iraq 2 and Afghanistan.
Each party had control of the Presidency for 48 years in the last 96 years, yet 96% of the 635,000 American war deaths were incurred under Democratic presidents, and only 4% under Republican presidents. This begs the questions;
Are Republican presidents more effective at PREVENTING wars? Are Democratic presidents more naive and dangerous in their foreign policies?
I hope history doesn't repeat itself. Food for thought.
Aside from logical fallacy of your implied argument, that a republican president would have kept us out of WWI, WWII, Korea, or even Vietnam, don't you get tired of posting the same shopworn arguments, over and over again.
I know I get tired of reading it. I'd think you'd get tired of writing it.
Chunky-Monkey "I don't believe we have accomplished a thing. I honestly believe America created this war for dominance over other countries, but mainly for the oil."
You're kidding, right?
After the hundreds of $Billion we spent on the war, and the fact that any oil we get from Iraq still has to be paid for at market rates, how can you say it was mainly for the oil?
It's a lot cheaper to buy it from Chavez in Zenezuela at $80/barrel than pay the hundreds of $thousands per barrel based on your thinking. In fact, I doubt that we get much of any oil from Iraq.
Wow, they said people would forget in 10 years, but I never thought it would happen. I guess anyone who has the ignorance to question whether the war in Iraq and the ouster of Saddam has made us safer did not live in NYC in September about 9 years ago. How are we safer? Here's how. From the late 80's through the 90's a little group of terrorists named Al Quada trained and organized in Afghanistan. Their main goal was to attack, terrorize, and kill westerners, particularly Americans. Because Afghanistan was under Taliban rule, they had the freedom to extensively train and a solid source of funds to operate. In September 2001 they fulfilled a plan they had been working on and horrifically murdered thousands of Americans (and other nationalities) and terrorized the entire world. It literally brought the world to a standstill for several days. Perhaps you forgot that feeling afterwards - I have not. In response we invaded Afghanistan to break up the terror operations over there (so no more attacks like the WTC happened to us or anyone else) and to catch the people responsible for the WTC attacks. Fortunately, we were able to break up their operations at that time and prevent any future global attacks like the WTC attacks. Yes, that's right - the invasion of Afghanistan stopped any more organized global attacks at that time. Unfortunately,the Al Quada terrorists are a loose and slippery group (due to the fact that they are very hard to distinguish from the local populous of the entire region - its not like they have headquarters and uniforms), and they filtered out of Afghanistan and into neighboring Iraq. So now a good chuck of these terrorists were now operating out of Iraq and were reorganizing themselves. Saddam was providing them freedom to train and organize again, and was likely even providing them any financial assistance they needed. So what do you have in Iraq at that time:
1. You have a funded, organized, riled up, angry group of Al Quada terrorists in Iraq who have already successfully conducted the largest terrorist attack on American soil in history and were weekly televising how they were going to do it again (death to the infidels);
2. You have a sadistic violent dictator who was committing a level of human rights atrocities that were nearly sufficient in their own right to warrant intervention;
3. Said dictator had already invaded one of our nearby allies, Kuwait, and was threatening to do it again. Oh, and for those who keep tooting the "we only invaded for oil" kazoo, it is pathetically old and still completely inaccurate. In case you forgot, there is a little country right next to Kuwait called Iran who also wants to destroy us, but they have bigger and nastier methods in which to do it. As anyone in the military knows, the importance of Kuwait is not oil. The critical importance of Kuwait is that it is an allied country from which we can base a military operations to monitor and defend against Iran. It is what South Korea is to North Korea. It is what Poland used to be to the Soviets.
4. A possible cache of WMD's that said dictator might use or provide to terrorists to use. Did we find any nuclear bombs, thankfully no. That does not mean he did not have any WMD's. How big is a WMD? How much room does poison gas take? What if they took that poison gas and released it during the SuperBowl or the Olympic Opening Ceremonies or the World Cup? Just because there were not nuclear bombs in a room in Saddam's palace with a sign on the door saying "WMD Room" does not mean he did not have any other WMD's that could have been sold, taken out of country, or buried in the thousands of miles of empty desert in Iraq. He also was trying very hard to make a nuclear bomb, he just had not accomplished it ... YET. So, which one of you thinks it would have been better for us to wait until he built a nuclear bomb or better to wait until he provided a chemical weapon to Al Quada or other terrorists to release on innocent Americans. Lord save me from Monday morning military strategists.
So we invaded Iraq, removed Saddam, broke up Al Quada again, stopped the second invasion of Kuwait, and ensure that Saddam did not have or distribute any WMD's. Since then Al Quada has only been able to conduct terrorists acts on smaller scales, outside of the US, and only through local alliances with "homegrown" terrorists. Since we invaded Iraq, Al Quada has not been able to successfully send a terrorist from outside of the US into the US to commit terrorism. And the only one they tried recently, the Underwear Bomber, was so pathetic that it was almost comedic. The fact that they have to resort to such blatantly bad attempts is evidence of how disrupted they are right now. Compare Underwear Bomber to the 9/11 terrorists - its like PeeWee football vs. a pro football team. And why is that ... because we invaded Iraq!!
Roy Wilson: Give it up and please try to refrain from posting this illogical arguement here. It's so illogical in fact, that I have no rational reply and neither does anyone else.
dman-353357 "Roy Wilson - You trot out this same tired, superficially plausible argument every couple of months"
Was there a disagreement over the figures I disclosed, or do you just have a problem with the facts?
I guess Al Gore would call this "An Inconvenient Truth".
By the way. Where is the "logical fallacy" in my post since I was merely stating facts and asking a question?
Are you one of the people who say "Don't confuse me with facts, my mind's already made up".
Military contractors are getting wealthier, while American soldiers are dying and Taxpayer's money is being wasted on a war based on lies of "WMD". The Iraq war has made the US less safe by helping recruit more terrorists.
By the way, Obama's war is not going too well now. What about that one?
Prof - This should not need saying but, wars should not be judged solely on their outcome, but also on their necessity. Invading Iraq in no way served our nation's interests. Your theory that a terrorist active in Iraq means one less in New York City (or in L.A., Chicago or any other major city) is logically unsupportable. Terrorism does not require large numbers of active agents and if you've been watching the news, you know that our activity in Iraq has in no way constrained their activity in Pakistan, or Yemen, or in the Sudan.
The reasons for being in Afghanistan should be clear to all. If the war is not going well, we should keep in mind that this conflict has been largely ignored for the past 6 years. Rationally, I would not expect it to turn around over night. If six months from now, no progress is evident, it may be time to question the overall strategy and our tactics.
But not as yet.
Many many thanks Chunky-Monkey. It is very good to know there are people out there who do not get fooled. There are comments above that suggest that removing a tyrant like Saddam was a good thing to do. I do agree with that but when are we going to remove our own tyrants like Goldman Sachs and his fellow bankes who are sucking our blood day and night, AIPAC who make the Congress look more like an Israel Congress and not a US one. If you notice the Republicans and the Democrats in Congress hardly agree on anything except what AIPAC wants. Millions of Americans are jobless or homeless but Congress is so quick to find money for whatever AIPAC wants not to mention the trillions for Goldman Sachs!
The Legendary American Hypocrisy continues through comments like taking credit for removing Saddam. We have supported him in every way when he was "our son of a @!$%#" and fighting Iran then he was a tyrant when he started going against us. This is very much like Bin laden being one of the Mujahedeen and freedom fighters when he was fighting the Soviets but a terrorist when he is fighting us!
America is a beautiful country with so many good people like Grand Ma and Chunky-Monkey. My hat is off to boh of you.
It's just like george jr when he was straining at the leash. He had to jump in and start the ball rolling by invading Iraq. History tells us everything. There will always be conflict there because they all want to be in charge and the more infidels that die the better for this guy Allah, whoever he is today.
Bin Laden brought us there, not the Republicans. And we would probably be out of there if Bush didn't side track us with his Iraqi personal mission.
Ok, that's fair...good point...
The only thing missing was a "mission accomplished" sign behind the podium.
I guess Al Gore would call this "An Inconvenient Truth".
By the way. Where is the "logical fallacy" in my post since I was merely stating facts and asking a question?
Roy Wilson - So, I guess you are not tired of posting the same repetive drivel.
First, logically, and taking you at your word, a question cannot be termed a truth.
As far as your facts go, I'm sure that your numbers are roughly correct. WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam were certainly our bloodiest wars in the 20th century, and they our participation was certainly under Democratic presidents.
But what you fail to mention is that each of these war had its own reasons for being fought, and that there were good reasons for believing our nation's vital interests were at stake.
Would you really argue that our nation should have stayed on the sidelines in 1941, and allowed Germany to seize control of all of Europe and Japan to seize control of the far east?
In 1950, when the Soviets had already attempted to seize much of Europe, wold you seriously claim that we should have stepped aside when the Chinese-backed North Korean Army crossed the 38th parallel?
If not, then you have to accept the casualties as the unavoidable cost.
I wonder what Thomas Dewey's stance would have been on Korea.
So, you numbers may be correct, but your implied theory, your somewhat stale "food for thought" does not amount to much. Yes, more U.S. servicemen have died in WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam, than in Kuwait, Iraq and Afghanistan, far more. But history has shown that we made the right decision in 1917, in 1941 and in 1950, just as it will show we made a god-awful, stupid decision in March of 2003. Vietnam may have been a mistaken endeavor, but it was a bipartisan action, supported by both Johnson and Goldwater in 1964.
Please, if you're going to keep posting this same argument, facts without logic, are like cars without wheels. They may make a lot noise, but they do not go anywhere.
I love the way this is all being turned into "but we got rid of the Dictator". This was never our job! History has shown that time and time again, when America gets involved with nation building (especially when it comes to helping to depose a leader), we put a puppet regime in place that over time, is no better than the one before. And who can forget the Iraqi American's who thought that once Saddam was gone, that they could simply waltz in and take over the country, only to be shoved on their pampered rear ends by the citizen's of Iraq?
It is not America's job to decide who should or should not be in power in a country, as we have our own issues. We went to Iraq because we were told that WMD were present and that those that were party to 9/11 somehow had safe haven there. Nowhere in either statement was it ever claimed that we were going to depose a cruel dictator!
We need to get the heck out of Iraq, and allow the Iraqi people...even if it turns out to be a religious authority...lead their own nation and rebuild. They don't need our tax dollars, as they have enough oil revenue to cover all of their costs. The time, for goodness sake, is now!
Obama had Iraq as part of his campaign platform because Bush had refused to state any withdrawal time from Iraq. He said that it would give our enemies information that they shouldn't have. Then, just before his last term was over, he negotiated a contract with Iraq for pulling our troops out and training theirs. IOW, he finally got off his butt and did something. This was after Obama had included Iraq in his platform. Once Bush made the contract with Iraq there was no longer a need for Obama to do anything but follow the contract that Bush made.
As for Gitmo, Obama submited a plan to Congress to take down Gitmo and move the prisoners. Congress refused to fund it. Have any of you remembered this??? Obama cannot simply issue an order and have it done.
As for Afghanistan, we should never have taken our eye off this country and al Quaida. But we did. We now have to do what we can there to finish.
I never did understand why we didn't go after Saudi Arabia. That was where most of the bombers came from. And they got their monetary support from one of the princesses.
As I mentioned in my Post #1.71, I stated facts and then posed a question. I think most people can tell the difference.
As to the rest of your conjecture, I think you missed my point. My question didn't suggest that we should not have responded against Japan (which led to the war with Germany only because of Japan's treaty with Germany), and North Korea.
The point I was suggesting by my question was, since Republicans tend to approach foreign relations from a standpoint of strength, while Democrats tend to weaken our defenses, perhaps the stronger foreign policy under Republican Presidents has helped PREVENT conflicts.
As I said - Food for thought, especially since many have argued that Reagan's buildup against the Soviet Union led to the breakup of the Soviet Union and the fall of Communism there - by peaceful means.
Anybody who was awake and paying attention to all the "war talk" leading up to the invasion of Iraq only needed to remember back a few short years to the 8 years of Pres. Clinton. The Republicans spent the whole 8 years making false accusations and lies about all kinds of things against him. After spending millions of dollars and 7 years of their special prosecutor the only thing they could prove to be true was his affair with Monica. While that was a terrible thing he did, it was not a matter that should have been between anyone but him and Hillary. We did not elect him as our husband (which he proved to be a bad one), we elected him to be our president and he was a good one.
Then just a year or two later Bush and Cheney were making the same kinds of accusations against Sadam. I remember Bush on TV claiming Sadam had WMD and Sadam kept denying it. Bush would say, if he just tells the truth we won't invade. He kept denying and Bush kept making his accusations. You almost had to feel sorry for the guy (Sadam). So we all know the rest of the story, we did invade them and there were no WMD's. So the Iraq war was a Republican war which was based on lies.
If anyone is still paying attention, the Republicans are still at it, making all kinds of false accusations about Obama. Seems to be their way of operating. I hope people stop and think about this and look back and remember. You can't believe much of what they say - but they think if they repeat the same lies often enough they become facts - and for some people who aren't paying attention I guess they do. Until everyone wises up to what's going on we can expect the same from them and it does not result in good outcomes. Like it or not, our bad economy and lack of jobs today is still an outcome from this senseless war and excessive spending the past 8 years
Az Grandma--- Normally I would respect my elders....not in this case. You are a tool! You memory may be slipping but about ten years ago our country was attacked and our people were killed. The USA did what any self respecting country would do, we retaliated! We attacked this scum in their breeding ground and have kept them on the run for a decade! If your president(not mine)bamster, had not changed the rules of engagement, we'd be doing more! We are fighting a religion and way of life, I have news for you, tool, this war will never be over! Those rag-headed freaks have been doing this since time began and killing each other and our people is all they know! We have to respond in kind! Tool.
Grandma Moses,
You hit the nail on the head. Thanks for post #1.82.
Arizona Grandma said, "8.6% say "yes - it has made us safer"??? What??? I'd like just one of those people to explain themselves. How exactly has the Iraq war made us safer? Who are these people? The Bush/Cheney family and friends?"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The vast majority of Americans agree with you and respect your honesty.
Arizona
How exactly has the Iraq war made us safer?
Here's my thoughts and why I think it has. First, hindsight is always perfect so now we know some things we didn't know then. I want to separate how we got there and who did what and when from your question. The start up is all after the fact.
How it makes us safer is that we did something internationally and we finish(ed) it out. Those of us that agree with the whats and hows will agree with doing it and those that don't never will. But once you have ahold of the tiger's tail, you need to finish what we started or we become many times more unsafe in the future. So, today we are more safe. Tomorrow? Depends.
I know some will think I'm an apologist for the war. That's not so. Whatever the calculus that got us there was, it needs to finish and we exit on our terms. Let's all just hope that happens sooner rather than later.
Someone 50-70 years from now will have better insight on the how's and why's. I have more current issues to focus on that I might still affect.
I have to agree! This war only made the United States a bigger target towards terrorists... I think if we pull our troops out now we'll be attacted by the year 2016.
SO MANY UNINFORMED POSTS HERE.
Iraq: 1980s, US Military Training Teams from Germany to Iraq during the Iran Iraq Wars. POMCUS Stocks from Germany to Iraq.
The Iraqis Government demands Oil Nationalization to take control of the Iraqis Northern and Southern Iraqis Oil Fields away from the Foreign Oil Corporations. These Oil Corporations lobby US Congress. They are also lobbying against VenezuelanResource Nationalization (Oil, Venezuela supplied 23% of US daily Oil). US Strategic Oil Reserves at 6 months (just like J-a-p-s before Pearl Harbor).
US and other Countries demand UN Sanctions. Corrupt Kuwait to manage the Oil for Food Program. Kuwaitis diagonal drill into southern Iraqis Oil Fields. Kuwaitis raise the Iraqis Oil Transfer Price to Supertankers, making Iraqis Oil worthless, sell food to their own people. Iraqis Parliament demands Iraqis President/Commander In Chief, to end the Kuwaitis corruption that is starving the Iraqis People. Iraq invades Kuwait. My men and women and myself as observers escape Kuwait and evade into Saudi Arabia. US Liberates Kuwait.
1990. The First Gulf War Starts.
President Clinton demands the Overthrow of the Iraqis President and Iraqis Parliamentary (Democratic) Government in his State of the Union Address, that also first uses the term WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction). Congress passes this into Law (Declaration of Current War At Iraq).
Operation Desert Fox. December 1998.
US Congress pre 9/11 2001 funds the US Military Overthrow of the Iraqis President and Iraqis Parliamentary (Democratic) Government.
We are sent to Northern Iraq to organize the Kurdistanis Warlords to fight the Iraqis. With the strategic goals of making the Iraqis think we are going to attack thru Turkey, so as to deploy their main forces to the North and not south; and to seize the northern Iraqis Oil Fields with the assistance of the Kurdistanis.
President Obeys the Law fully funded by US Congress. Invades Iraq.
The plan works, the Iraqis deploy the majority of their forces to the North after the Turks place Armored Battalions on their southern border. The majority of the communications and electronics (radar, power generation, vehicle ignitions, anti aircraft missile guidance, radios, telephones, television, etc.) at Iraq are destroyed with the use of Non Nuclear E-Bombs. The Iraqis Military Commanders can no longer send or receive information, cannot Command, Control, Communicate, nor Coordinate anything. The Iraqis Military is destroyed piece meal as their Armor units to the south were dug in defilade (sitting ducks)(armor's main advantages, firepower, speed and maneuverability). The main Iraqis Forces to the North cannot be recalled to counter the main US Forces attacking from the south. The Iraqis Military is not taught Initiative and relies on absolute orders from above (which is gone), so their forces all surrender believing their superiors are all dead.
Iraq becomes a UN Mission. Currently a UN Mission (Nation Building)
Afghanistan: 1980s Senator Charles Wilson, Democrat Texas demands involvement of US. US Military Training Teams from Germany sent to Pakistan to train the Pro Western Afghan Muhajeen. The Pro Western Afghan Muhajeen defeat the USSR Occupation (USSR 40th Army). The Congress cheaps out and abandons the Afghans to the Taliban (trained and equipped by Iran). The Taliban in accordance with the Holy Koran (Quran) Sura 33 massacre the Collaborators to the Jews and Christians (Sura 9.30), including chasing all the US Trained Pro Western Afghan Muhajeen into Pakistan and massacring them at Pakistan, as to how the Taliban ended up at Pakistan. US Congress continues to state the US No AssassinationPolicy, every time Osama Bin Laden is targeted (in the sights of US Military Special Warfare Snipers) or US Special Warfare Forces told to stand down and let the Afghan Military kill or capture Osama Bin Laden (stupid Political Reasons).
Currently a UN Mission (Nation Building).
History is written by those that were not directly involved and that can afford to sit around at home and write it. While those creating History are still actively participating and do not have the time to write it. - david-475776
My US Military Officer Involvement with the "Middle East" since the 1980s.
BLKCOAT, I am afraid you are the tool and the grandma in AZ has got it a lot straighter than you do.
Your inability to distinguish between Afghanistan and Iraq, as revealed by your bigoted "rag head" comments, is at the core of your confusion.
A Saudi terrorist group under the protection of the Taliban in Afghanistan began attacking US targets in 1993. This group, al Qaeda, was identified by the Clinton administration as a grave threat. Richard Clark prepared a memo that outlined a plan to defuse this threat. Rice and Bush ignored this memo, until after 9/11, when they implemented every step of the plan - too late, of course.
Bush/Cheney used this tragedy, which in fact unveiled their absolute incompetence to lead the country, as a cover to invade Iraq, something that they were already planning on doing.
It was as though Japan had bombed Pearl Harbor, so we attacked the Chinese. Yes, they are both Asian countries. The similarities end there. Afghanistan and Iraq are both Muslim countries. The similarities ended there.
Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11, and all the conflict in Iraq did was serve as a breeding ground of anti-US sentiment, inspiring thousands of people against us who otherwise would not have cared even a little bit, and provided al Qaeda and the Taliban the recruiting posters they needed to continue their activities against the US.
Grandma in AZ is also right about the Republican persecution of Clinton - read "the Hunting of a President" for more details about the $70 million Ken Starr spent determining that Clinton lied about having an affair with an intern, and nothing else. Read about his coercion of the McDougals to lie about Whitewater and testify against Clinton. Then juxtapose that with the devastation that Bush/Cheney wreaked on our country.
The point I was suggesting by my question was, since Republicans tend to approach foreign relations from a standpoint of strength, while Democrats tend to weaken our defenses, perhaps the stronger foreign policy under Republican Presidents has helped PREVENT conflicts.
So if Alf Landon had won in 1936, WWII would never have happened?
Thomas Dewey would have prevented the Korean War?
If William Howard Taft had won in 1912, WWI would not have happened?
You cannot be serious.
These wars all grew from conditions outside the United States. The causes of WWI were rooted in Europe, not the U.S. and WWII were rooted in the wider world.
The Democratic presidents cited were not particularly hawks, but neither were their Republican counterparts.
If you're going to make such a breathtaking logical leap and assert a common foreign policy stance by such diverse presidents as Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman and Johnson, you should be prepared to offer more in the way of specific policies followed and not just cite the wars which occurred during their Presidency.
I remember that Harry S. Truman championed the Marshal Plan, which help Western Europe rebuild and resist Soviet Expansion. He also oversaw the creation of NATO (in 1949), which has played a key role in preventing war through strength in all the years since.
So, what have you actually got, beyond a bunch of numbers, relating to global events outside the control of the U.S.
The Iraq war didn't make any Americans safer. In fact, 4,400+ Americans are dead as a direct result of the Iraq war, with thousands more injured, many of them permanently. It was less safe for Americans than September 11, 2001 by a LOT.
I don't even want to get into the rationale for starting that war. We've had that argument for nearly as long as we've been there. But do we really think we can occupy someone else's country, kill civilians (intentionally, accidentally, doesn't matter), terrify children, blowup houses from 35,000 feet, storm through neighborhoods and expect to get out with FEWER people who want to kills us?
I know for sure I'd want to kill the people who came across the world and killed and maimed my family members to impose their cultural values on me.
No the Bush debacle failed to win the war on terror. Bush failed to destroy Al-Qaida and Bush failed to destroy the Taliban, the Bush Administration debacle ---A complete failure.
Witchking here's your chance to make things right! The President has made it clear," we will tolerate no safe haven for al-Qaida and it's exremist allies." Obama said,"we will disrupt, we will dismantle, and we will ultimately defeat al-Qaida." Man, Witch, that was spoken like a true Republican although the President is a liberal Democrat. You gotta tell me Witchking, which which is which? If what President Obama is saying is true,he has to escalate the war,not withdraw troops. And no, it was the father of the bride that let Bin Laden slip past him in his 8 years as president.
MY GOD !!,, man Obama, we should have high tailed out of there since the downing of Saddam..civil war there would have taken care of it's self afterwards......
JustAThought08 - the Republican persecution of Clinton
So just to see how you are morally.
Was it right for President Clinton in exchange for Campaign Contributions from the Chinese to push Chinese Free Trade. aka "Chinagate". Of which the Clinton Foundation still receives huge donations from China.
Was it right for President Clinton to eliminate the Glass Steagall Acts. With the Glass Stegall Acts working from 1933 to 2000 to keep the US out of a Great Depression. It only took from 1907 to 1933 for the authors of the Glass Steagall Acts to figure out the causes and make them illegal (after "regulation" did not work, why President Obama's Financial Reform will stop the next crisis.). So now those same causes caused the "Global Economic Crisis" of 60-100 Trillion USDs and will allow the cause of the next "Crisis" of 54.6 Trillion USDs.
Further pushing the Free Trade Agreements and Amendments to legalize Outsourcing of US Jobs and US Manufacturing.
Gutting US Intelligence. Making the US have to rely on hostile unconfirmable intelligence sources. Congressional 9/11 Committee.
A Cut to the Bone Reduction In Forces (RIF) of the US Military. Creating a niche for the US Contractors.
Closure of 14 US Military Installations with the resulting near Great Depression Era US Civilian Economies in the surrounding towns, cities.
Bullsh1tting about a Budget Surplus (not spending the total amount allocated), with this money already spent before he was Impeached. With the real economic indicator being the interest on the National Debt.
Interest Rates on government debt were significantly better under Bush (2.59%) than under Clinton (4.40%), and average monthly Interest on the National Debt under Bush was only $16.6 Billion, versus $18.9 Billion under Clinton.
Witchking is ignoring the facts:
Terrorist Safe Havens: Strategies, Tactics, Tools for Disrupting or Eliminating Safe Havens
http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2007/104103.htm
I still believe that Bush (41, former Director CIA) helped Bush (43) write this (what President Obama is attempting to copy).
It ain't over 'til it's over. When the last US soldier leaves Iraq and doesn't head for Afghanistan, I might believe BO. Until then, it's nothing more than an idle promise. I'm not buying into none of BO's rhetoric. I don't like him pitting the middle class against the rich and the poor against everybody. He is a socialist and has government sticking it's nose into everybody and everything. Come 2010 and 2012, you libs just vote for whoever and we conservatives will do our thing and we'll just see where it goes? We know where BO's going and that's home. Yeah, I know. There's nothing BO can do that'll please me. You're right. I didn't vote for him, won't again, and don't like anythings he's done.
Before 911 only Al qaida and Bin Ladin that hated us. After the Iraq war everyone hates us, so Bush creat more terrorists than pre 911. Thanks alot w. cowboy and the Retardickans.
TkWis. Turn the page fellow. When you go to vote, I want you to write " Not George Bush". You can't come to grips that your man just isn't getting it done; so, you find fault and reasons and make excuses for him. 3,000 people died on 9/11 and I guess you're a "turn the other cheek Guy". Yeah, you're truly a great American.
This will probably be hard for a lot of people to swallow, but the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq by 2011 was agreed to by GWB and the Iraquis BEFORE BO took office. BO blames everyone else for things he can't do; now, he wants to take credit for what others did do. Plus, 50,000 troops will remain in Iraq after 9/10 as a transitional force. It is not over yet.
Old Sailor-I thank Robert for providing me with information. The D.O.D. site confirms the story. I don't know exactly where you get the "misleading" part from, but the stories confirm that there was yellowcake in Iraq. So that is fact. Now there is only one reason I know of to have yellowcake-nuclear reactor fuel. So with this new knowledge of the fact that Iraq had nuclear reactor fuel, there are only three ways of viewing this fact. 1. He had a nuclear reactor. 2. He had ambitions to build a nuclear reactor. 3. He planned on supplying someone that would use this ore. Now, reasons 1+2 would give moral credibility to the pre-emptive strike. Reason 3 would give reason to at the very least force inspectors to keep a watchful eye on it.
I believe we were sold by the previous administration and the media to fight this war on false claims. However, I believe that this discovery was not widely reported. The last thing we need is the government or the media to do our thinking for us. If you feel that nuclear fuel found in an enemy government isn't a big deal, then that's your opinion. My opinion is that nuclear reactor fuel should not be found in a country that claims it does not have wmds. Imagine trying to fight in Afghanistan with Saddam still actively supporting terrorism one country over. That would be Iran supporting on one side, and Iraq supporting on another.
Remember Vietnam. We pulled out and the country just went right back down the tube. I believe we should stay until we absolutely know that they aren't going to do anything to harm any U.S. citizens again.
ANY dead terrorist or a threat to our way of life is a victory. It would appear to me that being from AZ you might think about that a bit differently. Would you also prefer that the more liberal minded have their way and simply open the Mexico/Arizona border to all who wish to enter? The United States of Everywhere. I'm not sure I like the sound of that too much. Especially when those terrorists are coming into our country through your back door. It's been a well known fact for years that terrorists have been entering our country through our porous border. Would you like that to continue?
Before 911 only Al qaida and Bin Ladin that hated us. After the Iraq war everyone hates us, so Bush creat more terrorists than pre 911. Thanks alot w. cowboy and the Retardickans.
I'm sorry but this may be one of the most clueless statements I've read on Newsvine. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad that someone out there actually believes this.
Before 911 only Bin Laden and Al Qaida hated us?? Uhmmm...so Iran, South Korea, Russia, Kosovo, Tanzania, Kenya, Algeria, Libya, Egypt, Syria, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Nicaragua, Columbia, Somalia, etc, etc, etc loved us? Must have skipped history class in school huh?
Bush didn't create terrorists, neither has Obama or anyone else. Terrorists are created by fundemental religious extremists.
Remember Vietnam. We pulled out and the country just went right back down the tube. I believe we should stay until we absolutely know that they aren't going to do anything to harm any U.S. citizens again.
I don't think we'll ever be able to completely leave Iraq. My biggest criticism of Bush and our government in this war is the belief that the people of Iraq want to live in a country like the US. In (most) Iraqi's world, their religion comes first and well before democracy or freedom. This isn't much different than Iran of the 1970's or even Afganistan after the USSR left. The ensuing civil war and shift of ideals almost always goes back to the extremist religious leaders.
In both Gulf Wars you had a lot of troops that didn't want to fight and die for a dictator that they didn't believe was a good Muslim and we walked into Bagdad in very little time. But now if you have a million troops that are fighting for Allah....that's a scary thought.
Proud: Vietnam is now a safe place for Americans to travel to. It isn't a locked down police state, tightly controlled by the "evil Reds".
What proof is there that Iraqis were/are doing anything to harm Americans(on US soil)? You state we should keep them from doing so, AGAIN? Post your sources, not just ignorant opinions.
Of course there are now Iraqis looking to kill US troops. We are an occupying force, and they are reacting to it.
Joe: terrorists aren't just religion motivated. No doubt many are just sick of the US trying to control other countries resources, and how we have covertly backed coups of foreign leaders who wouldn't play ball and give us what we want. The leaders of insurgencies/terrorist groups, use religion as a tool to sway/coerce the weak minded.
Lobo, not sure if you read my post at 1.57 but if you've studied enough history/US politics and stay in touch with the news for 20+ years, I do not feel that my opinion is too far off. You can ask for proof or sources but it's such a multitude of books and articles there is no one definative source. It is an opinion.
With that said, I can understand the cause of the Iraqi invasion....what I can't justify is Afganistan. I'd be more than happy if the US never went in there, and if we packed up and just left tomorrow. That is a situation not unlike Vietnam where we are trying to force others into agreeing with US ideals.
If Bush was really interested in attacking the source of terrorism, he would have gone right at Saudi Arabia, not Afganistan.
It seems your opinion is that Bush's reasoning for Iraq was sheerly for oil profit. I don't see any proof of that anywhere.
I do agree with you on the fact that the leaders of the terrorist groups use religion to coerce fanatics to perform that terrorist activities.
You asked Proud to post sources
The D.O.D. site confirms the story. I don't know exactly where you get the "misleading" part from, but the stories confirm that there was yellowcake in Iraq. So that is fact. Now there is only one reason I know of to have yellowcake-nuclear reactor fuel.
Dan - Yellow cake uranium is not nuclear reactor fuel. It is only partially refined uranium ore. Without further processing, it is of no more use in either running a nuclear power plant or making a bomb than is partially refined crude oil in powering your car.
Also, the yellow cake found in and removed from Iraq, dated from before 1991, so Saddam had not made much progress in his quest for nuclear weapons by 2003.
Ref: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25546334/
Israeli warplanes bombed a reactor project at the site in 1981. Later, U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said.
The type of inexact reporting of the facts as is evident in your post make it difficult to discuss or debate the subject of Saddam Hussein, what level of threat he posed to the Middle East or the world at large and what justification (if any) there might be for the massive effort involved in replacing him.
Dman-Check this out....
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/07/the_550_tons_of_yellowcake.html
exactly what is your point on it? That because he didn't get any more that he was not going to strive to use it at all? Do you honestly think for one moment that if he had a chance to use it against us, that he wouldn't? Or that it was safe under the "watchful" eye of the IAEA?
"Yellowcake is a uranium ore that can be processed to become nuclear fuel"-http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=50430
It wasn't nuclear fuel....YET. The type of inexact reporting of the facts is what you should be complaining about every time it's mentioned that wmd's were not found. I may be misreading your stand, but it sounds like your saying someone should not be arrested for possessing an illegal gun as long as they don't have any bullets with it. If this WASN'T dangerous, then you should be screaming at the amount of money wasted to transport this "safe" material out of Iraq. My stand is that if this was dangerous enough to not want in enemy hands now, then it was dangerous enough to not want in his hands either. Now, is it enough to invade? Not in my opinion. But I didn't know about it, and that was why I was thanking him for pointing it out to me. Because now every time I hear someone claim that nothing was found, I can prove them wrong. Of course that's if they are reasonable enough to accept the fact that a nuclear program on hold is still dangerous in the hands of a brutal dictator.
Dman- Also, why don't you read the entire article. Then you might realize what you said- "Without further processing, it is of no more use in either running a nuclear power plant or making a bomb than is partially refined crude oil in powering your car."
From the same article you linked:
"But exposure carries well-documented health concerns associated with heavy metals such as damage to internal organs, experts say."
Here's the osha sheet on ithttp://www.osha.gov/SLTC/healthguidelines/uraniuminsolublecompounds/recognition.html#healthhazard
So if you want to talk about the safety of having it, I'd like to know where you get your facts. The story talks about it not being potent for a dirty bomb, but the Osha sheet would disagree.
It has not made us safer. There is more than one women out of ten in Iraq who became widow because of war. Their childern are going to be terrorist for innocent citizens for years to come just like w bush became the terrorist when his father was attacked in Kuwait. The cycle of violence will continue - just ask Jews.
It wasn't nuclear fuel....YET.
After over a decade, I'd say "yet" is hardly the word to use, Dan.
As to your other rejoinders:
"But exposure carries well-documented health concerns associated with heavy metals such as damage to internal organs, experts say."
Yes, we did not go into Iraq to improve the health of the Iraqi people, but, allegedly to eliminate an immanent threat to our security. Yellow cake uranium is not something I'd sprinkle on my cereal, but neither is it, of itself, a reason for starting a war. And it was by itself, in an abandoned nuclear site, unused and unrefined after over 10 years.
Your OSHA site demonstrates adequately that Uranium is potentially hazardous in any form. No where does it mention yellow cake's potential use or suitability for a dirty bomb. That is your interpretation.
You seem happy with half the facts and then to supply the most fanciful interpretations to them. In your lexicon, yellow cake uranium is fuel for a nuclear reactor, when creditable sources clearly state otherwise. This type of fact-twisting is dishonest and intellectually lazy.
No, I'm no relation to those idiots. While we should have never invaded the country in the first place, i believe, we are safer. We opened an arena to zap the resources of AQ and the insurgency which has worked. We used the most fundamental military doctrine, choose the time and place for battle that favors you and not your enemy. We drew them into the open and as a result countless cadre of AQ and other extremist are now with Allah. :-) By way of comparison this war has been the least costly ( in terms of U.S. casualties) than any other. War is war, it cannot be sanitized or made clean it is what it is. WMD's was the entire logic for the invasion but you and I both know that was B.S. So if we're in a war and we can make our enemies from around the globe bleed by opening this front than yes, we have become safer. We have also become very close to Bankruptcy, which may happen no matter how much crap they spout to the contrary. So after all this how can I think we're safer? When we're Bankrupt we can start a new Constitutional Convention. Then god help any foreign power that wishes to land on the U.S. mainland, or politician that brought us to this point try to enter the convention. I gladly throw my hat in the ring for consideration of Sentinel.
We opened an arena to zap the resources of AQ and the insurgency which has worked.
You assume that the terrorist we encounter in Iraq is one we will not see in the United States. I challenge that assumption.
First off, we have no evidence of former residents of the U.S. going to Iraq during this time period and the bitter fighting there has not stopped either the Taliban or Al Qaeda from advancing their agenda in other countries around the world, such as Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, the Sudan and India. In short, it is we who have had our resources tied up in a meaningless conflict while our enemies were active in other parts of the world.
If there has been few effective attacks on our own soil over the intervening years, I believe it is more in response to greater vigilance by our various intelligence agencies.
Also, by you logic, with Iraq winding down as a conflict, we should now start another war in an unrelated Muslim country. Surely the strategy would work again.
dman-you don't read the entire article that you quote to use in your argument, and you accuse me of being intellectually lazy? Now THAT's funny! Now I'm not positive on this, but I don't believe we've made an atomic or hydrogen bomb in decades either. And after making nearly one a day in the early fifties does that mean that we can not? If you have the capability to refine uranium or have the desire to sell the capability, does that not make you a threat?
We can debate the effects of what a yellowcake dirty bomb would be if you like? My take is that it would be detrimental to everyone's health. More so than your typical refined crude oil comment. That was why I included the osha link. Do you consider crude oil gasoline? If you can make that comparison then you can make the comparison to yellowcake and reactor fuel. But if you want to change what I'm saying to suit your needs then I can see we will never come to any agreement.
My argument has always been this:
1. Reports of never finding anything relating to a wmd are incorrect since this yellowcake has been found. Now we can debate exactly what a wmd is, but I view it as a weapon to create widespread terror and death.
2. This yellow cake that we knew they had wasn't enough to invade in my opinion.
3. There will be portions of this war and invasion that will not be disclosed until many years from now. And I'm not foolish enough to think that I know all of the facts about it.
4. We know what we had given him in terms of wmds in the Iran/Iraq wars, and that has not been fully disclosed. I feel that there was more, but has not been disclosed due to the embarrassment of it having the U.S. stamp on the side of the canisters.
You still haven't answered my question-do you think that if Saddam had the oportunity to use it that he wouldn't?
dman- These of course aren't necessarily from Iraq, but certainly U.S. citizens that joined the fight against us for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. If not caught, they very well could have been in Iraq after their training.
http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB124831838104074909.html
So here are at least two that went there instead of here. Seems like every week we are killing a "second in command." Those could very well be leaders of another cell. But I think we can agree that unless we change the course, we will continue to breed the hatred that has led these terrorists against us.
dman-you don't read the entire article that you quote to use in your argument, and you accuse me of being intellectually lazy? Now THAT's funny!
Glad I made you laugh. I read the article. You may have read it too, but you choose to ignore or disregard anything with which you disagree:
So if you want to talk about the safety of having it, I'd like to know where you get your facts. The story talks about it not being potent for a dirty bomb, but the Osha sheet would disagree.
Now, I read your OSHA report too. And nowhere does it say that yellow cake uranium is suitable for making a "dirty bomb"; is says that it is a dangerous substance; so is gasoline. From that you jump to the conclusion that it is suitable for use in a dirty bomb. Well, at least you are no longer calling it nuclear reactor fuel.
Now I'm not positive on this, but I don't believe we've made an atomic or hydrogen bomb in decades either.
Yes, the difference being that the U.S. does possess both the know how and the infrastructure to build another nuclear bomb, should the need arise. Iraq has neither, and this was also true in 2003.
To me, these seem to be really simple concepts here. In 2003 Iraq did not have even a ghost of a nuclear weapons program. Yellow cake uranium, even 550 tons of it, if lying neglected in an abandoned storage site does not constitute any such program. Without either an illicit weapons program or a connection to Al Qaeda, there can be no rational reason for us to have invaded Iraq.
Reports of never finding anything relating to a wmd are incorrect since this yellowcake has been found. Now we can debate exactly what a wmd is, but I view it as a weapon to create widespread terror and death.
Not even the Bush administration, desperate as they were to find some justifying reason for our invasion, ever claimed that this yellow cake uranium constituted a Weapon of Mass Destruction, and it is not. It is a raw material, potentially useful, only with further refinement, for either peaceful, or warlike use.
As to your last point, that our invasion of Iraq served some strategic purpose in the war on terror, in effect drawing their fire away from more valuable target, I would say you the equation precisely reversed.
In invading Iraq, we committed tens of thousands of men, expended hundreds of billions of dollars, built bases and other necessary infrastructure. In response Al Qaeda needed only to commit a comparative handful of men, certainly no more than a few hundred and probably less. For equipment, they used AK47s, 9 mm ammunition and IEDs, all relatively cheap and readily available. The advantage in such a confrontation is all on their side. They can come and go as they please. We can only disengage over a period of months or years.
And you may have noticed, while we were "fighting them there instead of here" as the say goes, they have not been idle in other countries. You have read of their work in Pakistan, in Afghanistan, in Yemen, the Sudan and in India. In short they have been in action wherever they wanted to be, while we were stuck in Iraq.
I'll bet dollars to a moldy doughnut, that the day we invaded Iraq, Osama bin Laden laughed himself sick.
You still haven't answered my question-do you think that if Saddam had the oportunity to use it that he wouldn't?
No, if by "it", you mean a nuclear bomb, I do not think that he would use it. For a country of Iraq's minimal resources to start a nuclear war would be equivalent to committing suicide. Saddam was not suicidal, or psychotic. He was brutal and ruthless, but not stupid or crazy.
Oh, regarding these other prior remarks:
More so than your typical refined crude oil comment. That was why I included the osha link. Do you consider crude oil gasoline?
No, my remark was that oil is not gasoline (you cannot run a car on it), just as yellow cake uranium is not nuclear fuel (you can neither run a nuclear power plant with it, nor use it in a nuclear warhead).
I may be misreading your stand, but it sounds like your saying someone should not be arrested for possessing an illegal gun as long as they don't have any bullets with it.
Saddam had neither the bullets, as in fissionable material or the gun, as in the hardware and manufacturing facilities to build a bomb. So a more accurate analogy would be arresting somebody for having some lead, some sulphur and salt peter and some brass sheeting ...and no, I would not arrest somebody for possessing these materials.
dman-it amazes me that even after presented with proof that citizens here DID go over to the middle east to fight against us and prove your claim wrong that you just change the argument. I don't agree with your opposition that the target was moved over there instead of here, just wanted to prove you wrong on your point that "First off, we have no evidence of former residents of the U.S. going to Iraq during this time period"
Yes I did read the article, and I didn't disregard the portions I didn't agree with, matter of fact I brought them up as that which was conflicting. I even pointed them out to you to make your argument easier.
I do appreciate the fact that you've forced me to learn exactly what yellowcake is. I don't know exactly why an Osha report would include any facts about a chemical being the correct material for a dirty bomb, lol, but let's hope they never include that in an Osha report. And the fact that at it's present state, the use of it wasn't an impending danger. However my analogy of the bullets and the gun you've misunderstood, or have forgotten his capabilities. He did possess the capability to launch long range missiles capable of hitting any ground troops that were in Afghanistan. So to correct your analogy, that would be the gun. (I'll break it down for you) Now the definition of a dirty bomb defines it as a including radioactive material. I don't believe yellowcake to be radioactive. I think you and I can agree that it is a health concern, if used as a weapon that would endanger our troops regardless of being radioactive. (launched by missile-that would be the bullet) Which would classify it as a weapon of mass destruction by definition. So perhaps the use as a dirty bomb was a stretch on my part now that I see the classification of a dirty bomb. But to assume that this wouldn't be used as a terror weapon against us, if possible, is in itself naive.
Now you've stated as fact that Iraq possessed a nuclear site that was bombed by Israel. And then you admit that although we have not made a nuclear weapon in quite some time that we could. Yet you don't think that Iraq could start up again? Because why exactly? They were found to be in the process of doing that very thing in 1991. Although U.N. inspectors dismantled it. Your claim that Iraq had neither? What makes you think that the common angst against the U.S. wasn't enough for Iraq to work with China or North Korea? Iraq worked with us when it was beneficial for them.
I don't for one second think that Saddam would actually use an atomic bomb against us, but if he had one, it would certainly be used to alter foreign policy. However, I do believe that if he could use a weapon to disperse a chemical agent, that he most certainly would do that. He had access to chemical weapons (which we gave him) And after failed attempts to use them initially, learned how to use them. Hence the issuing of gas masks to our soldiers during the first gulf war.
So under your rationale about crude oil and nuclear materials, we shouldn't be concerned with Iran until they actually possess the capability of launching a nuclear weapon. Is that correct? Because just because crude oil can become gasoline, and yellowcake can create nuclear fuel, they are not dangerous? I don't know why I have to continue to repeat myself that I STILL believe that it wasn't worthwhile to invade Iraq. However, I do believe that in the long run it made our mission in Afghanistan much easier. And also gave us intel that is invaluable about the training and leadership of the terrorist networks that seek to destroy us. Not that the cost in human life is worth the gains at all.
So you continue to dismiss the fact that this yellowcake was not a dangerous material in the wrong hands. Yet the fact that is was guarded right after the invasion until it was removed is a determining factor as the potential for destruction it possessed.
Here's a great article of what was found and what was intended. I accept the fact that he wasn't capable of using wmds at the time of the invasion, but here we are seven years after, and my opinion is that he would have tried.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12115-2004Oct6_3.html
Actually Dan, I looked at your first link which detailed the story of a U.S. Citizen who went to Pakistan, and was being tried for teason.
Pakistan is not Iraq.
But this is a side point. What is important, is the level of commitment necessary for us to maintain a presence in Iraq vs. what it demands of Al Qaeda.
They infiltrated a small cadre of leaders and spent enough money to arm others, with small arms. Any of these people werre able to leave or return at will.
We placed over 150,000 men and women in Iraq for over 10 years. We spent over one trillion dollars. And every soldier, tank and plane we had in iraq was one less to place in Afghanistan, which you may have notices has been going to hell in a hand basket during the same time period. As has been Pakistan.
How does this look like a win for the United States?
Now you've stated as fact that Iraq possessed a nuclear site that was bombed by Israel. And then you admit that although we have not made a nuclear weapon in quite some time that we could.
The United States & Iraq are not logical equivalents. What we could do is not what Iraq could have done, or would have done.
dman-great, now you're just not reading my comments all the way through. lol
"These of course aren't necessarily from Iraq, but certainly U.S. citizens that joined the fight against us for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. If not caught, they very well could have been in Iraq after their training."
I see your point about the resources spent in Iraq instead of Afghanistan. It is possible that the U.N. would not have needed these resources or asked for them either. Of course if you ask Obama, those arabic translators could have been used in Afghanistan. lol.
Obama posited — incorrectly — that Arabic translators deployed in Iraq are needed in Afghanistan — forgetting, momentarily, that Afghans don’t speak Arabic.
“We only have a certain number of them and if they are all in Iraq, then its harder for us to use them in Afghanistan,” Obama said.
The vast majority of military translators in both war zones are drawn from the local population.
Naturally they speak the local language. In Iraq, that’s Arabic or Kurdish. In Afghanistan, it’s any of a half dozen other languages — including Pashtu, Dari, and Farsi.
But with all honesty, I think the only way we can come out of Iraq with a "win" is if we leave them with schools, businesses, and leadership. If you look at Charlie Wilson's war, the whole problem in Afghanistan is that we cut and ran too fast because we didn't want to support the country's economy or way of life after they did what we wanted them to do. The only way we can come out of the region better off, is if we put forth the resources to build a strong partner in commerce-and not just oil. The Marshal Plan accomplished this, and that spent a LOT of money. Part of which was used for black ops. (most of the public and history books don't talk about that part) But the 9/11 commission claims that Osama was emboldened by Reagans retreat out of Beirut. And that allowed Osama the propaganda to teach his terrorists that we can be defeated. It is MY belief that if we turn and run and leave this mess behind, we will only have to revisit this same problem in the near future.
dman-I realize the U.S. and Iraq are not logical equivalents. All I'm stating is that if they had ambitions to do it once and got to a certain point, it's certainly possible that they pick up where they left off. And if they become allied with a country that hates the U.S. (seems like we made enough of them under Bush's reign!) then they could move further ahead faster. Or if we have a scientist defect to Iraq. All long-shots of course, but the possibility does present itself. And if we don't look at the possibilities then we are doomed to repeat past mistakes.
Just as hope is enough to get the first black man elected in the U.S. only decades after the civil rights movement, Hatred is just as strong to destroy the U.S. Or it's interests at the very least. I hope for both of our sake, that we can overcome the hatred.
Dan - I think the point has come for us to agree ...to disagree, amicably.
I don't see any justificaiton for us becoming involved in Iraq. You do. While I don't agree with your reasoning, you have plenty of company, including at least one man living now in Texas (that horse's ass in a cowboy hat, who was our President).
Enough said. Catch up with you later.
dman-Sounds like a good idea. I do appreciate the civil conversation and hope you realize I never meant to attack you personally, just argue the facts you presented. I think we can agree that invading was the wrong thing to do at the time under the circumstances. And agree that the head of the previous administration certainly resembles the description you mentioned! I just try to see some good coming out of the lives lost, and hope that we don't have to have many more conversations regarding wars. But if we do, I look forward to your opinion.
No one ever believed their were WMD there everyone always knew that was just an excuse to go their and create a base in that part of the world. America has done what it planned. That huge complex we built? That's our base we will never leave. We will however start letting them go back to killing each other.It seems to be what they enjoy,sort of a national sport for them. The guns in American hands will be used now to do what they have always been meant to do protect Americans! Well done George!As always keep those comments coming. I can be contacted at work http://www.bestmichiganbusinesses.com were still in Beta so me and Granholm and Obama are all doing the same thing. Watching the paint dry. I wish my boss would give be enough time off the get in some golf, oh well.
It sure seems like there are one hell of alot of Iraqis who would vote "yes" in this conveniently worded, lop-sided MSNBC poll.
This war is a travesty and has made us LESS safer.
What about the people it DID make life safer for? People on the left are so caught up in Bush bashing that they forget about the almost 1 million who Hussein murdered.
Do I wish we could save all the people who are being killed by dictators throughout the world? Yes. But that is not our job. And, if it is there are more people being killed in Sudan and other places than Saddam ever killed. This was not our war.
Yes, its true that Saddam was a horrible dictator. So are others in North Korea, Iran, parts of Africa, etc.
We should not be the world's police. If we end up toppling over regimes, we will end up bankrupt. Nevermind, this 2 endless wars are already doing it. Spending billions on 2 wars when it could be smartly used over here.
That is a tragedy.
However, it is not for the US to dictate how the world should be, and certainly not up to America to invade other countries on a whim. If the argument that a dictator is mistreating the citizens of his country is so compelling and actionable, why haven't we invaded all the other countries with bad and dangerous governments, like North Korea? The country was sold on the Iraq invasion because Hussein was supposed to have WMDs. When they didn't materialize, other "reasons" were tacked on and people swallowed it whole. I understand how people need for there to be a good reason to help balance all the damage we have caused, but the Kurds' safety was never a priority or a reason. Who says it will be any better for them after this invasion is over?
We invaded iraq in 2002. What you are saying that Saddam didn't do anything harmful to his people for over ten years before we invaded his country. He was on his best behavior and we took him out? Now that is the reason, not WMD. Sorry, i believe the oil thing more.
All you neo-cons who say it was worth it because we removed a horrible dictator are missing the point. Of all the evil murderous dictators in the world Saddam didn't even make the top ten. And have any of you self righteous idiots bothered to notice that violence has gotten worse for the people in iraq since we messed with their country? Saddam ruled with an iron fist, that was was necessary to rule in that region of the world. And while it was wrong, it was up to the Iraqi people to fight their own revolution when they were ready. How can they ever move forward with any sense of national pride now? The current government in Iraq will always be known as the government too weak to overthrow Saddam themselves.
What about the people it DID make life safer for?
It might would be perceived a little different if the rhetoric you recite had been Dumbya's first reason to invade... not his sixth.
So spending trillions and losing thousands of lives and tens of thousands injured was better than the cost of one sniper bullet to take Saddam out? The REASON we supposedly went in was for the WMD lie, not to rid the world of an evil dictator. If that was a justification for war, we should be in about 17 different countries right now.........
Allen: our government looked the other way about Saddam's iron fist when was a "friend" to us. When he stopped playing ball(listening to our wants), all of a sudden he was an "evil dictator".
There were over 400 reasons on why we invaded Iraq. Get a clue ScrubGolfJim
This BS situation has got to stop. Iraq and Afghanistan are simply the latest instances of a US President deciding unilaterally to go to war and Congress failing to enforce its constitutional mandate that only it has the authority to declare war. We've had Korea, Vietnam, Iraq 1, Afghanistan 1, Iraq 2, and Afghanistan 2, and in each case the sitting president initiated or extended participation in a war and Congress did nothing except follow along like a bunch of cattle to slaughter. Not only do they fail to declare war, they're even too spineless to cut off all the funding to stop it. So the wars drift on and on and on, with no end in sight. Screw this and screw the system that lets it happen! If retaliation is the objective, drop a cruise missile with a nuke warhead on an appropriate target, but don't demonstrate the stupidity to get involved in a ground war just because a US President and his advisors thought it was an appropriate idea!
There were over 400 reasons on why we invaded Iraq. Get a clue ScrubGolfJim
So give us one.
Hey BobP- great post! LOL!
You mentioned 400 reasons.........ummm, so gimme ONE! (Oh, and you can't pick any of the tired, overused excuses our media has been shoveling at us for years......bring something new to the table!)
And the purposeful misspelling of ScubaGolfJim's name...whew!!! How clever!! I'll bet that one went over well with your buddies...or anyone else with a sub-80 IQ.....
Yeah, these posts require a little homework first. The rest of us expect you to at least have a rational argument with SOME factual support! You certainly don't have to agree with everything others say (right Fred G! ;) ), but you at least have to know how to post an intelligent thought. Good Day!!!!
The biggest reason we had to invade Iraq was so the Shrub could be a war president. He wanted to play army but didn't want to be shot at.
The most galling thing he said while he was in office was on the call to some soldiers in Afghanistan, when he said something to the effect of, "If not for my age and my job, I would love to join you in this wonderfull adventure." If he had wanted to go to war, why did he go AWOL during Vietnam? It was just one more lie he spewed.
Hey Indy (I am resisting the Patriot portion of you name since I question its accuracy), I have given you 4 very good reasons in Post 1.69 above. When you quit doing your verbal impression of Rumplestiltskin, take a look and then let's hear what you have to say.
Oh, and add these to the list:
5. Having a Saddam controlled Iraq in a region where terrorist activity had been flourishing for the past 15-20 years was becoming increasingly dangerous. We stopped our efforts to remove Saddam from power after the First Gulf War because of public international pressure. Because we did, Saddam was able to turn Iraq into a giant patch of fertilizer for terrorist groups who wanted to attack and kill Americans.
6. By previously invading Kuwait, Saddam had already displayed that he had no intention of just killing his own people and remaining within his own borders. Who knows who he was going to go after next? Israel? Saudi Arabia? Armenia? America helps its allies. In WWI we stepped up and helped our allies when they were being threatened with invasion by another country. Why is this any different? In WWII we went with the isolationist concept you seem to promote, and what did that get us? Almost 3000 people killed in Pearl Harbor and our being thrown into the war anyway.
Since you think you are such an intellectual and that you are capable of a rational discussion on this issue, feel free to respond ... without whining, moldy rhetoric, and overbroad generalizations.
BLKCOAT, does "you are a tool" represent the extent of your ability to respond in a debate? Bringing the argument ad hominem is an admission that you have lost the argument and now can only resort to name calling. Next time you feel the urge to write it, be sure to look in a mirror while doing so.
Allen-968499, oddly, we did not invade Darfur when genocide commenced there beginning in 2003, killing 400,000 and displacing 2.5 million. The Congo (formerly Zaire) completely collapsed and anarchy reigns, at least 10 million have died there - the US did not bat an eye throughout.
If we were so outraged by Saddam Hussein's violence, why were we not similarly moved by the excesses in these other countries? The fact is that there are brutal dictatorships all over the planet - we picked a fight with Iraq because they are sitting on a sea of oil. There was no other reason. And there is not a single indication that the suffering of the Iraqis is any less for that.
If you were around during the Iran Iraq Wars as part of the US Military Training Teams from Germany; you would also realize that the Kurdistanis were/are the Armed Allies of the Iranians. During the Iran Iraq Wars the Iranians trained and equipped the Kurdistanis to kill the Iraqis, with Iran promising that they would help the Kurdistanis form Kurdistan. To this day the Kurdistanis in the form of the PKK are now fighting the Turks in southern Turkey, northern Iraq.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NF4CqdZQHws
If you bother to do the research you would have found this out:
1. As even the movie Triage (2009) depicts the Kurdistanis Insurgency attacking Iraqis Military during the Iran Iraq Wars.
2. The current situation at Northern Iraq and Southern Turkey can be seen in the Turkish (anti War) movie: Nefes: Vatan Sagolsun (2009).
3. The Treaty of Lausanne arbitarily divided up many Nations.
4. The Kurdistanis (Indo Europeans, Shiites) were never Iraqis (Arabs, Sunnis, Arabic). Just like the millions of Shiites from Iran (Persians, Shiites, Farsi) that filled up southern Iraq since there were no jobs at Iran, were never Iraqis (just like the Illegal Alien problem in US).
This is why I keep saying that the US got Iraq all wrong, just like they got this place (Afghanistan) all wrong.
In retrospect, the reason that the US got involved in the Iran Iraq Wars, was because this War was disrupting the Oil Flow. As after the Iran Iraq Wars (seen from the air when we were leaving) there were Oil Tanker Trucks going to the horizon coming from Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.
How about researching where the Chemical Weapons used against the Kurdistanis came from.
You might want to contact for info (that is all I can say): ortsbuergermeister@clausen.de
By the way I do not see you jumping up and down about the USSR Occupation of Afghanistan using mustard gas (Chemical Warfare), poisoning water wells (Chemical Warfare), and Agent Purple (Chemical Warfare, some say Biological also).
Again like I said before:
History is written by those that were not directly involved and that can afford to sit around at home and write it. While those creating History are still actively participating and do not have the time to write it. - david-475776
Add to post #2.18
If you bother to research the Kurdistanis PKK, HPG, etc. you might figure out that they used everyone to fight, men, women, teenagers, their children, (their whole family), etc.. That is what the Iraqis used Chemical Weapons against, the enemy during War, just like the USSR.
If you do not believe it go look at youtube.com. for PKK and HPG, etc..
That is how they fight now (against the Turks) and how they fought against the Iraqis during the Iran Iraq Wars. As well as when we were allied to the Kurdistanis prior to the start of the Current War At Iraq. As to how we know how to fight Asymmetric Mountain Warfare against the Taliban, Al Quada, Hamas Foreign Fighters, Chechen Foreign Fighters, etc. (but there are not many of us left).
Hey Allen you cite a gas attack on the Kurds as a justification for invading Iraq on a WMD lie. Who do you think gave Saddam the gas? I’ll tell you who it was that senile old fool Ronald Reagan that’s who, we gave Iraq a chemical weapons to use against Iran. Not to mention giving the present day Taliban stinger missiles to fight the Soviets with. Now we are learning that one was used to shoot down an American helicopter the other day.
Some of what you say is correct but not:
Not to mention giving the present day Taliban stinger missiles to fight the Soviets with. Now we are learning that one was used to shoot down an American helicopter the other day.
As the stinger missiles were not given to the Taliban, they were given to the Pro Western Afghan Muhajeen (massacred by the Taliban). And the Stinger Missiles battery is not something "off the shelf", and they would not last from 1980s to now. And the Stinger missiles of then even had IFF (Identification Friend or Foe, stamped metal folding antenna) with the USSR realizing this and using ECM to defeat the IFF on the Stingers, not allowing the Stinger missile to be fired. (fixed after the USSR Occupation was defeated by the Pro Western Afghan Muhajeen). The current US Aircraft are still equipped with IFF transmitters. The more readily available shoulder launched anti aircraft missiles are from Iran manufactured by China of Russian Federation design, similar to a Grail SA-7. Just an FYI, this is why the Pro Western Afghan Muhajeen were using SA-7s and not Stingers to shoot down USSR Occupation Aircraft.
Part of the stupidity was that the Taliban used news footage to identify the Pro Western Afghan Muhajeen to massacre them.
It is too easy to say it cost too much, yes right now it may look like that but, ...we need to evaluate the full outcome once we've left the region. The true evaluation of the effect will be in how the region is stablized and how the world and the US benefit from this stablization yet to be determined.
Why do we feel the need to go into the world's locations that are "unstable" and make them so? Do we go into Syria, Pakistan, or Iran? Those are far more unstable and more likely to produce terrorists than Iraq was. If the price of Americans must be paid it must be to go after those that harm us as nations. Special Forces can go into small countries and get specific targets, but to invade a country, it must be the country itself that produces that harm. Bush knew there were no WMD...he went there for revenge for his father's failure that caused him to lose re-election and for oil. The real reason was never for terrorism or stabilization? We are fooling ourselves to think that was what it was.
The region was more stable BEFORE we moved in. Yes, Saddam was a terrible person. Yes, he murdered many of his own people - mostly with weapons and money that Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush supplied him. We will never know the actual death toll associated with our invasion of Iraq. Whether it is tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands, it is very likely that the United States is responsible for more Iraqi deaths than Saddam could ever dream of.
Our security was never threatened. There were no weapons of mass destruction. No reason to ever go in there other than to start pumping oil again. Security continues to disintegrate as tribal leaders jockey for position and struggle to consolidate power. Iran's influence is growing - and we can expect to be spending hundreds of billions of dollars a year to prop up our puppet government for at least a decade.
This after already sinking a trillion dollars into this quagmire while our economy tanks.
We do go to the countries like syria and iran, just not in a public manner. But taking care of Sadaam was a necessity folks, like it or not. In my opinion, who gives a crap whether it was over WMD or Oil or whatever, the point was getting rid of Sadaam, And that was accomplished.
There wasn't a threat to the US from Iraq before the war, but there certainly is now that Al Queda has moved in. Thanks to the former President Bush for creating more enemies.
Who cares if just Iraq war alone will end up costing upwards of 3 trillion. We borrowed money on credit from the Chinese, our economy is going down the tubes, agruing over measly millions just to extend the unemployment when we are easily pissing that away in 1 month over there, China are buying up all the minerals and oil contracts, insurgency attacks are up........ yeah who gives a crap. At least we got rid of Saddam
While quoting presumed numbers of dead Iraqis at the hands of Sadam Hussein, why not post the presumed numbers of dead Iraqis at the hands of Bush/Cheney?
al-Qaeda got kicked out in 2007 in case you weren't paying attention. The Iraqis may fight amongst themselves but they had enough of foreign fighters and when they started turning on them, that, along with the surge caused the al-Qaeda punks to break camp.
al-Qaeda's base of operations are now Africa and Yemin. Should we invade there?? Of course not. But we had better be ready to send in Spec. Ops. troops and Predator drones to exterminate the vermin when we get good Intel on them. One of the unfortunate fall outs from the wiki-leaks outrage is we are less likely to get good Intel because of the TRAITORS that named names.
Nah we won't. BUT, if they happened to stumble upon a huge deposit reserve of OIL in Africa or Yemin....... you bet we will be there. Under pretense of WMD, murderous dictator, or in the name of democracy. But of course not oil.
Keep thinking we're the ones at war while we wait for the next attack. There have been THREE ISLAMIST attacks in the past year. Luckily only one (the Fort Hood massacre) succeeded.
But of course it's all the U.S.'s fault and has been for the last 41 years (since the first plane was hijacked by these f**ks) !!!
al-Qaeda got kicked out in 2007 in case you weren't paying attention.
Fred - you are right. I missed the official notice of their departure. It makes one wonder who is setting of bombs in Shiite neighborhoods and at Shiite religious sites.
I also wonder when al Qaeda first became active in Iraq. Oh yeah, it was after our invasion.
In my book, you don't get credit for putting out a fire which you lit. And you don't get credit for kicking al Qaeda out of Iraq, when it was your actions which gave them access.
As a country, Iraq has never been one of our largest oil suppliers. Iraq has supplied Europe mainly with oil. Whether or not people agree why we are in Iraq, or what the motivations are, one thing is clear: It is not for oil. That is silly, and a rally cry for the misinformed. I'm not saying I agree with the Iraq war, but people claiming we went there for oil, plain and simply, are wrong.
You had me until you started to spin BS. GHWBush did not fail in Iraq. It was the "rules of engagement" set forth by the UN that disallowed us to go take Saddam out when we were there the first time.
It wasn't my actions in either respect. I didn't rejoin the military until after my friend (that I served in the Navy with) Jeff's son was killed by the ISLAMIST F**KS in 2005. The main force behind al-Qaida's departure was the Iraqis turning on them (as I stated).
I opposed the decision to overthrow Saddam, which I have stated on numerous vines including this one.
The current violence is almost all between the Iraqi Sunni and Shia factions and if any outside forces are involved it is Iran due to the value to Ahmajimmyjammy of having chaos in Iraq. al-Qaida are primarily operating and training in Africa and Yemin.
AlQaeda and Hussein were natural enemies before we invaded Iraq....FOR OIL. Thank you Dickie Cheney and Georgie Bush. The blame lies with no one else.
I'm not saying I agree with the Iraq war, but people claiming we went there for oil, plain and simply, are wrong.
If not, then why were the Dickster and his cohorts drawing up maps of the Iraqi oil fields and distributing certain fields to certain oil companies prior to 9/11? Remember his secret "energy" meetings?
I'm not saying I agree with the Iraq war, but people claiming we went there for oil, plain and simply, are wrong.
Ok - I give up. Why did we invade Iraq?
As a country, Iraq has never been one of our largest oil suppliers.
True, but the barrel of oil exported from Iraq is one less barrel Europe needs to import from Canada, where we do get the bulk of our oil. Nations go to war for multiple reasons, and oil was certainly part of the mix in Iraq.
Were there others? Yes: A mistaken belief that we could make over the world in our image. A desire for payback for the first gulf war. As an object lesson to any other nation (like Libya) which might think of annoying us.
Were there any good reasons? I doubt it. If the Bush Administration did not know that Saddam was not a threat to us, it was because they did not want to know. If they believed their own, cock-eyed intelligence regarding his weapons programs, they were unbelievably stupid.
Oil? One of the most valuable commodities on earth. Supply barely meeting demand. Iraq has some of the larges proven reserves of it. You say this could not have been a factor. I say... you've got to be joking.
Still more uninformed posts.
Bush obeyed the Law to Overthrow the Iraqis Government to Liberate the Iraqis People, passed by Congress 1998, Congressionally funded pre 9/11 2001. (even Presidents must obey the Congressionally Funded Law or face Impeachment, if not funded then President does not have to enforce the unfunded Law (a valid excuse)).
Do we go into Syria
We do not have to the Turks went there and wiped out a bunch of Kurdistanis and Hamas Foreign Fighter Training Camps.
RJ Roman - Yes, he murdered many of his own people
Wrong see posts#2.18 and 2.19.
Wrong we created more enemies long before either Bush. The people to blame is Congress listening to the Oil Lobbyists. With the Oil Lobbyists demanding halting various Countries Resource Nationalization by any means possible (including Corporations sending "Jackals" (private para military) to start Civil Wars to over throw Governments to stop Resource Nationalization). examples: Iraq, Venezuela, Peru (current International Court Case), Brazil, South Ossetia, Abkhazia , etc..
We went in under false pretenses. Thousands of lives have been lost for what? And yet those that got us into the war don't have to answer for their lies or explain why they made the mistakes they did. It's disgusting.
Do you really beleive the garbage you are writing? We went in under false pretenses? All of you who really beleive this garbage make me sick. AS SOON AS 911 HAPPENED i enlisted in the Marine Corp. because i as well as any other PATRIOTIC AMERICAN wanted those to pay for the horror that had been brought onto American soil. But i guess all of you could even go as far to say that George W. Bush hired those people to fly those planes into the world trade center, after all this is all his fault! Right?
Those who attacked us on 9/11 were not from Iraq and Saddam was not involved
thanks for your service however you are misguided- as I was during Vietnam- Iraq presented no threat to us the war was to satisfy the Ego's of two men- Bush and Cheney again thanks for serving I salute you
Ummm....you do realize Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11...right?
I respect your service but for the millionth time, Iraq had nothing to do with 911.
As a fellow member of the military, I have only to ask the question? Who attacked us on 9/11? It certainly was not Saddam or IRAQ. That was a convenient line by the Bush/Cheney Admin that was used to blur the difference. They have counted on people's desire for revenge and retribution and bet that blindness to that fact would allow them to exploit IRAQ and American for their own darkest desires and cronyism. I continue to be a member of our armed forces for 18+ years and will always be patriotic, but what that Administration did could easily be seen as criminal and destructive to more than just one country. We need to extract ourselves from that place as soon as feasible and safe for our exiting troops. No need to leave 50K of them there, as the situation will deteriorate rapidly and will cost additional lives. Let that country and their citizens figure out how to make it work. We had good examples in 1776 but a new nation must decide how it will govern and be governed and we have lost sight of that fact.
There was a large amount (550 metric tons) of yellow cake discovered, seized and transported to North America for disposal. Not many news organiztions reported it in their headline news. You can find it on MSNBC.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25546334/).
If there are no terrorists in Iraq hostile towards the US, who is shooting at our troops?
Sorry, Local Marine, but Iraq and it's bloody-minded dictator had not a Damn thing to do with 9/11. Al Quada opposed Saddam because he was not their fanatical sort of Muslim. Saddam opposed Al Quada because it was another gang not under his total control.
Patriotism without panic, to quote the old "Webster Quimley Society motto. And I've had two grandsons serve in the United States Marine Corps.
Who is shooting at US troops? A mixed bag - terrorists, criminals, political nut-cases, even a few honest Iraqi patriots.
localmarine - Iraq had nothing to do with 9/12. And, Allen, if someone invaded here for no reason don't you think there would be hundreds of thousands of Americans shooting at them? What a foolish post!
Well in Allen's world, (not to far away from Wayne's World) that would make you a terrorist. So I guess the French Resistance during World War two was actually the French Terrorist Movement.
Yeah I have to agree with other posts above. 9/11 has nothing to do with Iraq or Saddam. Plain and simple. It was all about the oil. I'm just as patriotic as you since I'm a Iraq/Afghan vet too. But you are way off.
What is truly disgusting is how those of you that do not understand that you cannot bury your head in the sand when faced with a serious problem expecting it to go away.
Problems NEVER resolve themselves... it takes courage to face problems, and it takes a concerted effort to resolve problems. You dishonor the courage of those who served to face the problem that had been ignored for decades. You dishonor the price paid by those who served in the effort to resolve the problem.
The Middle East (ME) has been a problem long ignored by World Leadership, a problem that could have been resolved more than six decades ago when there was a void of leadership in the area. The people of the ME have suffered in poverty and languished in ignorance while the rest of the world progressed and profited from the riches beneath the sands that they walked upon. At the end of WWII, there was NO stability in the ME and that was the time for World Leadership to step in and HELP the people of the ME.
Anyone who believes that Iraq had no WMDs is a fool. They did a documentary IN IRAQ where Dr. Germ showed the media her laboratories and told the world the IRAQ had enough biological weapons to destroy the world four time over. Those weapons where never destroyed, they were moved to Syria on the eve of the invasion.
The problem with the war in IRAQ is the same problem we faced in Vietnam. We had a Congress that capitulated to a minority of protesters to preserve their chances for re-election. That's the way it goes in America. You blame Dubbya for a loss of "Billions" in IRAQ. You ought to do your homework about our Constitution... the Executive branch doesn't have the authority to spend a nickle of taxpayers money without Congressional approval.
We lost billions because we have a Congress who ignore the needs of the American public and capitulate their sacred trust for campaign donations from the very organizations that get rich from Congressional decisions.
We need a Constitutional convention to undo some of the things our Congress has done to serve themselves at the cost of the American People in the last half century. That's a problem that far too many Americans continue to bury their heads in the sand hoping that the someone else will resolve it for them.
"We The People" are responsible for EVERYTHING that those 545 people in Washington do in our name. One President, 100 Senators, 435 Representatives, and 9 Justices of the Supreme Court are calling the shots for 300 million Americans. If you are looking for someone to blame, go to your bathroom and look into the mirror.
Semper Fi
Allen it's a WAR. The other side will fight as well to defend an invasion in their country.
What about the other problems all over the world that has been ignored by the World leaders? Dictators that massacred innocents in Sudan, North Korea, Indonesia, Nigeria, Yugoslavia, and many more. Oh yeah, forgot. They have no OIL.
Iraq was involved in an attack on the World Trade Center and very likely in its' destruction, just not in the 2001 one. Ramzi Yousef was an Iraqi agent who not only detonated the bomb under the North Tower (which caused structural damage that very well have led to the success of 9/11. Like a car repaired after a major accident, something can only be new and right once), but also provided training for Terry Nichols which led to the OKC bombing. He may or may not have been acting in an official capacity but looking at the timing (2 years after the humiliation of Desert Storm) I wouldn't bet against it !!!
I was wrong about Ramzi Yousef being an Iraqi agent only . He did enter the U.S. in 2002 on an Iraqi passport with false information to hide his identity (he was born in Kuwait). He was detained due to the bogus passport but released due to overcrowded INS holding cells. He fled to Iraq after the bombing.
The man who made the bomb was Abdul Rahman Yasin who was an Iraqi. He was the second person detained in the initial inquiry and after being foolishly released,immediately flew back to Iraq. He was detained in 1994 and offered to U.S. authorities in exchange for a statement which released Iraq from any involvement in the '93 attacks. He was interviewed on 60 Minutes in 2002 in an Iraqi prison but hasn't been heard from since . He is still sought as one of the FBI's most wanted terrorists.
Just so we're clear the 1500 lb. 1993 bomb tore a 100 ft. crater through 5 levels of the underground parking garage with the most extensive damage being levels B1 and B2. There is no way that didn't affect the integrity of the structure.
Fred, who provided training for Terry Nichols? Wasn't it the US Military? I can't see where you got your line of thought there. The Murra building bombing had nothing to do with Iraq, but it did take out Federal agents who had incriminating evidence on Bill Clinton....
Fred! Your post is a red herring! C'mon!
Yeah, the WTC was attacked in 1993, two years after the first Gulf War. But was that "terrorism", or revenge? Either way, you can't use that situation to base an opinion on the current one.
You're telling me, that 8 years after the first WTC attack, the Iraqi's are still implicated in the second attack? Just because of the historical considerations?
Naw.......I'm not doubting your facts, just your rationale. Just because the people involved in the 1993 bombing were Iraqi, doesn't automatically mean Iraq was involved in the 2001 attack.
You may be right about the structural integrity of the WTC after 1993, but I would like to think that the engineers were capable enough to securely fix the towers. To my knowledge, if there is a building as large as the WTC that has irreparable damage and is under threat of further collapse, I believe the prudent thing to do would be to demolish and rebuild entirely. But I'm a doctor, you would have to ask an engineer.
So if a crazy American(or group of them) with a grudge, blow up a building in another country, that country should should hold all Americans and the US government responsible?
I have no doubt there are some crazy Iraqis with grudges, but I doubt it's even half the number of crazy Americans(with no scruples) that we have here in the US.
For Robert Snickle - The yellowcake you keep talking about was "discovered" pre gulfwar after Isreal bombed a nuclear power facility it had been under UN guard ever since.
From your sited article - Israeli warplanes bombed a reactor project at the site in 1981. Later, U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said.
You are right. We went into Iraq on false pretenses. But we went into Afghanistan for the right ones.
We were told, repeatedly, by the Bush Administration before invading Iraq that we were doing so because they had WMD and that they were refusing the UN inspectors access to their sites. Except that they did let the inspectors in about a week before we invaded. We should have waited for their report before we did anything. Period. But, if we had done that, it would have proven that there was no reason to invade. Based on WMD.
We had one or two pieces of information that Saddam had WMD and dozens that they didn't. Joe Wilson actually went and checked out the major one indicating that they had them and found that it wasn't credible. The Bush Administration ignored his first hand report and chose to go with the ones that had been discredited by most of Europe. And when Wilson's report was ignored and the Administration went ahead with the invasion plans, he wrote an article about what he did, and what his conclusion was. In it, he stated when this had happened. The WH, in retaliation, had his wife outed as a CIA agent. Not too honorable were they?
The other reasons that the Bush Administration used for invading Iraq came after we already had and had not found any WMD.
Saddam refused to work with al Quida. They were not in his country. His country was fighting a civil war between three different factions of Islam. He had his hands full and was not threatening us in the slightest.
I believe, from what I heard and read before we invaded them, that the main reason that we went into Iraq was because, during the Gulf war, Saddam had tried to have Bush Sr. killed. It was not for oil or any other reason. It was as revenge against the person who tried to kill Bush's Dad. Which is why he used the discredited information instead of the ones that stated that Iraq had no WMD's.
With regard to Iraq and WMD, historians probably will provide an entirely different slant on what is today's popular opinion.
A 2006 article in the National Review by Deroy Murdock ("Set WMD Truth Free") asserts that "Americans in Iraq have found 500 sarin and mustard gas filled artillery shells, live botulinum toxin, cyanide salt, and two tons of uranium." The 500 munitions out of 3,000 reported to exist in Iraq were found in scattered locations rather than at a single site, and the chemical/nerve agent rounds were still very deadly with an efficient built-in dispersion system triggered upon detonation.
In a related story, Pentagon Deputy Undersecretary of Defense, John A. Shaw, told an audience in 2006 at an Intelligence Summit in Alexandria, Virginia, that "Russian spetsnaz (special forces troops) were specifically sent to Iraq to move weaponry and eradicate any evidence of its existence."
In another article, the New Media Journal (April 5, 2006 "In Search of Saddam Hussein's WMD: Russian Intelligence, Belarus & Highway 11") describes in detail Russia's complicity in moving very sensitive weapons/materials out of Iraq and into Syria by truck convoy (I doubt if they were moving furniture) and by aircraft into Belarus, which offered Saddam sanctuary if he fled Iraq before/during the US invasion.
Then there's the statements by noted Democratic leaders linking Al-Qaida to Iraq: "An executive from the Al-Qaida linked plant in Sudan, travelled to Baghdad to meet the father of the VX (nerve gas) program." (said by Bill Clinton's Secretary of Defense, William Cohen in 1998).
"Certainly there's a connection between Iraq and Al-Qaida." (said in 2002 by Wesley Clark, recent Democratic candidate for president).
"He (Saddam Hussein) has also given, aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists including Al-Qaida members." (said in 2002 by Hillary Clinton, our current Secretary of State).
For Robert Snickle, Mike 1948 is correct - the yellow cake in Iraq was pre-Gulf war and was under IAEA security.
The issue is the lie that Bush told in his state of the union address, that British intelligence had discovered that Iraq was attempting to revive its nuclear program by illicitly purchasing yellow cake from Niger.
This was quickly rebutted by Joseph Wilson as intelligence that had already been disproved via Google Search engine, which turned up a copy of the obviously forged document, nevertheless referenced by Bush in his speech. Wilson's wife Valerie Plame paid the price. The Bush administration has since admitted that the famous "sixteen words" claiming that Iraq was trying to get a new, secret supply of yellowcake should not have been in the speech.
The simple fact is that we invaded Iraq because we were scared after 9/11, and the Bush administration played us like a bunch of violins with lies and half-truths. Their motive was securing the sea of oil that Iraq sits on, for American and select foreign oil corporations (i.e., BP). They grossly mismanaged the initial invasion of Iraq and in allowed corruption and incompetence take root in Afghanistan.
You may recall that the American public was also told that the war, the cost of which was estimated at less than $100b, would pay for itself with this oil.
Dream on Obama,Iraq will never be over till you nuke the country,or pull out completely and let them kill each other.
#5 - Mon Aug 2, 2010 11:19 AM EDTI doubt Iraqis will be in any worse state once we leave.
You want to nuke people who have never attacked our country? That's pathetic(what are you, 12?)
This was Bush/Cheney's sop to the Military contractors, the security contractors, the no-bid Halliburton contractors and the rest of the parasites. It was illegal; it was ineffective; and it was obscene.
For the money that was wasted there we could have rebuilt the infrastructure; given EVERYONE health care, and refunded the entire education system. Congratulations neocons... You got another war.
#6 - Mon Aug 2, 2010 11:20 AM EDTAllen, it does. But, the "proof" presented to Congress was falsified. Condelesa Rice, Cheney, Rumsfield and Bush knew what they were touting as WMD were nothing of the kind.
Don't forget that Colin Powell lied to the UN about the reasons for invasion. They've all got blood on their hands.
I say that everyone including me was fooled. With 9/11 fresh on everyone's mind, no one wanted to be that guy who fell asleep on the wheel. Bush/Cheney Inc pretty much exploited our feelings to the fullest.
That was true about the contractors. Myself being over there in person, watching the contractors making 3 to 4x more money than us (tax free) just to do the same job? It made us (military) our blood boil. They are the only real winners in this war. And also China.
WMD's were found in IRAQ. Why doesn't anyone know this because your liberal media did not want this new pit out. Over 500 munitions containing mustard mand sarin nerve agents were recover AFTER 2003 in IRAQ. For any of you SHEEPLE who don't know the effect of sarin liquid, one drop the size of Lincoln's eye on a penny on your body WILL kill you. Funny how so many are not willing to research FACTS. Thank GOD Bush did what he did. Those who hate us are and have been there long before the war, that's why Sept. the 11th happened. The "proof" was there. Ask yourself one question if over 500 munitions were found how much do you think they actually were able to move?
I agree (in the end point you want)...the US should stop observing other countries, stop being the global policeman....no one likes a policeman, and if by doing nothing, something happens (I do seem to remember bad men in recent history)....so what, it's some other country, let them deal with it.
I also thinking not going to the doctor is right..they could have bad news, and the doctor/govt/insurance "man" has his jackboot in the middle of my back....they are the only real winners.
And that art and culture donation crap...more of the same, only they profit...they are the man too...keeping the working man down.
The story of the "shrub an unca dick"....... this time line starts in the Jimmy Carter years when "pappy bush" was the CIA director. Jimmy "C" had called him out as the director and relieved him of his duties as BOSS of the CIA. Kinda ticked the bush man off, well he and his pals "Unca dick" and "Rummy" and the wolfman wolffy weren't buying that so,,,,,,, the rest of the story started to unfold SADDAM: was a good buddie, He was the guy that got the money and weapons and the gurella training from the "mericans"(said with a texas slang to it), that helped him fight the IRANIANS for ten years.
The Ruskies were in Afganistan trying to beat those guys up, and the
"mericans"were teaching them to use the gurrealla type warfare and any weapon that didn't have a label"MADE IN USA on it ,all the money and the training came from the American war college though go to wikipedia.org/wiki John P. O'neill and look up " Charlie Wilsons war"
en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/incarceration
The United States' incarceration rate is, according to official reports, the highest in the world, at 737 persons imprisoned per 100,000 (as of 2005).[8] A report released in 2008 indicates that in the United States more than 1 in 100 adults is now confined in an American jail or prison.[9] The United States has 4% of the world's population and 25% of the world's incarcerated population
This pretty much sums it up about us. Society of paranoia. We live in gated communities, we don't know our neigbors, spend thousands on home security, lock up everyone in prisons, being the world's police, etc.... Sooner or later, all those people being locked up will have to be let free due to budget cuts and budget crises. Are we safer now? I think not.
WHO
The World Health Organization's ICD-10 lists paranoid personality disorder as (F60.0) Paranoid personality disorder.[3]
- It is characterized by at least 3 of the following:
- excessive sensitivity to setbacks and rebuffs;
- tendency to bear grudges persistently, i.e. refusal to forgive insults and injuries or slights;
- suspiciousness and a pervasive tendency to distort experience by misconstruing the neutral or friendly actions of others as hostile or contemptuous;
- a combative and tenacious sense of personal rights out of keeping with the actual situation;
- recurrent suspicions, without justification, regarding sexual fidelity of spouse or sexual partner;
- tendency to experience excessive self-importance, manifest in a persistent self-referential attitude;
- preoccupation with unsubstantiated "conspiratorial" explanations of events both immediate to the patient and in the world at large.
- Includes:
expansive paranoid, fanatic, querulant and sensitive paranoid personality (disorder)
Remember folks, not only was the country hoodwinked into going to war, but our own freedoms here have been under constant assault because of "terrorism". We have been bestowed with the Patriot Acts, we now engage on torture (war crime), we can be held indefinitely as habeus corpus is now extict if you are even labeled an "enemy combatant", and the list goes on. "Never let a crisis go to waste" in the words of Rahm"dual citizen" Emannuel. The problem is the Govt creates these crisis in order to implement the crap they want to shove down our throats!!!
Still more uninformed posts.
"Bush this, Cheney that". what a f**king joke. How about "Congress this and Congress that", meaning YOU (your Representatives).
Together we must also confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons, and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade, and much of his nation's wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. The United Nations weapons inspectors have done a truly remarkable job, finding and destroying more of Iraq's arsenal than was destroyed during the entire gulf war. Now, Saddam Hussein wants to stop them from completing their mission. I know I speak for everyone in this chamber, Republicans and Democrats, when I say to Saddam Hussein, "You cannot defy the will of the world", and when I say to him, "You have used weapons of mass destruction before; we are determined to deny you the capacity to use them again. - President Clinton's 1998 State of the Union Address Demanding the Passage of the Law (Act) to Overthrow the Iraqis President.
The U.S goverment is lucky the american people don't storm Washington DC and take control of this goverment them self's.... S#!% we would do a better job because we are the one who are suffering not those dumb S#!&'s who are in office running this country to the ground
I takes an act of congress to start a war.
The last time that war was declared by Congress in conformity with the US Constitution was on December 12, 1941, in response to Nazi Germany's declaration of war against the United States.
" He tried to kill my dad "
#7 - Mon Aug 2, 2010 11:20 AM EDTI remember that too. Usually when it is quiet and the kids long gone to bed.
Good call Sir.
He also ignored agreements he signed to end Desert Storm for 12 years, fired missiles at planes enforcing the "no-fly" zones which were part of those agreements, defied 16 UN Security Council resolutions, and NEVER COOPERATED FULLY with UN weapons inspectors.
Was it worth it, well if you were Black water or Haliburton or any of the companies ripping off the American taxpayer I guess it would a resounding Yes. No ask those who have lost loved ones both Americans and Iraqis...If you dare!
#8 - Mon Aug 2, 2010 11:21 AM EDTParamedic working for Blackwater gets about $120,000 per year. (80,000 is tax free). The US government gives 300k to Blackwater for that individual.
A US medic / corpsman (military) gets about 15-30k per year.
I wonder who is getting shafted in this deal?
Typical uninformed post.
Who created the niches for the US Contractors.
President Clinton after his cut to the bone Reduction In Forces of the US Military, that eliminated the cheaper in house US Military Positions. had-enough-470242 example. This is why Congress did not fund the Law (Act, Declaration of War At Iraq, 1998, and only later funded the Law pre 9/11 2001). The US Military Positions eliminated were Logistics, Supply, Transportation, Water Purification, Food Service, Maintenance, VIP Protection, Sanitation, Laundry Services, etc. with many of the former US Military (RIFed) forming the US Contractors to do these jobs (at higher pay, less rules).
And to prove how uninformed there were thousands of US Contractors formed after the RIF of the US Military under Clinton. Your State more than likely has at least two.
So as soon as you limit your self to discussing only Blackwater, Halliburton, KBR, then you also prove limited knowledge.
post# 9.2. Another uninformed post.
I have to say, to me it was never about WMD. It was about deposing a leader responsible for one death every 7 minutes of every hour, of every day, of every week, of every month, of every year for 37 straight years. Muslim or not, those that he killed were mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, cousins, friends. Any person in touch with the human condition had to be empathetic with the millions of innocents that Hussein murdered or sent to their death.
He was nothing less than a modern day Hitler, actively threatening every nation around him and killing hoards of people solely for their ethnic heritage.
#9 - Mon Aug 2, 2010 11:21 AM EDTLook around, there are countless others that have done FAR worse than Saddam. Are we supposed to go in and remove them? Oh wait they have no resources we need. We are not super heroes or the world police.
Is this revisionist history number 10 reasons for the war. What about it was a war for Halliburton to steal billions of dollars in unbid contracts. It was a war for the oil companies to get unlimited access to Iraq oil reserves. It was a war for junior to wear a fly suit and play solider. More people in Iraq died after the invasion then during Hussein's regime. Get real with the fact, buddy.
Kevin form NYC, I have said this from day one...well, honestly, before day one...since 1991.
Armysniper, please educate me on who are these "countless others that have done FAR worse than Saddam" that we have failed to go after. With the invasion of Iran in the 1980s, the invasion of Kuwait 10 years later, the genocide of his own citizens, the guy was responsible for at LEAST 2.5 million deaths.
Reason #1. OIL
Plain and simple. Remember when gas prices were $4-5 bucks a gallon? I guess they thought it was cheaper to just invade another country on false pretenses, topple over a regime and everything will be sunshine than to reduce oil comsumption, create alternate power source and look for alternate ways to get oil. Must've forgot a decimal point somewhere in the equation because it was a grave mistake.
had-enough you are so right. Oil was one of the reasons for the invasion. Another being payback for Bush Senior. They thought it would be an easy takeover especially when Bush Junior put up the "Mission Accomplished" sign, makes me cring. Boy were they wrong; years later we are still there with no full withdrawl in sight.
I have got to ask. Just how many barrels of oil have we secured for domestic use since Iraq began?
I have read several times here that "so many people have done much worse than Saddam". Who? To trivialize his atrocities is pretty poor form.
How many companies are there is the world that are large enough to take on the disaster of the Kuwait oil fields? How many large enough to work effectivly in Iraq?
Hint...there are 3
Answer, Halliburton owns 2 and a partial ownership in the third...so who oh wise one, were they to go to?
ChevsMark, the Kuwait oil fields fire was in 1992, not 2001. In Iraq for the last 8 years, Halliburton does everything from serving food, blankets, underwears and supplies to our military men. Now this may be a surprise to you but before the Republican privatizes our military with cronies, we had military chains which deliver supplies to our fighting men. "Beware of the military industrial complex" wasn't a quote from Gandhi.
Not one single US company walked away with anything when the Iraqis auctioned the rights to their oil fields and in fact only one solitary US company even put in a bid, so the whole "Bush did it for his buddies in the oil business" theory is a load hooey.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1948787,00.html
Kevin from NYC.post#9.10.
Another uninformed post. See post#8.2.. You know why Congress loves the US Contractors, JOBS, thousands of F**king US Civilian JOBS. GET THE THOUSANDS OF F**KING US CIVILIANS OUT OF THE F**KING COMBAT ZONES, let the US Military do those Jobs cheaper in house again.
Mike in SA what would you do with thousands of Armed Allies of Iran, fighting you since the 1980s.
see post#2.18 and 2.19.
Then you also have to add the thousands (millions) of Iranian Shiites at southern Iraq. That are fighting so that Iraq is annexed to Iran. Just like the US's Illegal Aliens wanting Aztlan (Reconquest of the US by Mexico).
Thats why the Iraqi's should of revolted and take him out themself's
This is an entirely bogus argument. The rationale for going to war in Iraq was WMD and the supposedly imminent threat to the US and its allies. We do not pay taxes or support the world's largest and most expensive military machine in order to depose other peoples' leaders or to bring justice to nations which coincidentally happen to control the third largest oil reserves in the world.
The only good thing about it was sadam an evil butcher was killed along with his 2 deranged sons. Oh, and it put us in a position to attack iran eventually. The bad part is the loss of our precious men and woman, the war prophetering by the rich for oil greed. To bad it is impossible to teach democracy to islamist's. That is and always will be the failure in this war of civilization of which poor Israel is at the front of trying to protect itself over and over from islam.
#10 - Mon Aug 2, 2010 11:21 AM EDTSo stop driving or using any Oil based Plastics.
Also the money given to Israel is being used to keep the Hamas Foreign Fighters (trained and equipped by Iran, travel thru Southern Turkey) from killing US Citizens worldwide in accordance with the Holy Koran (Quran) Sura 9.30.
While this adminstration irregardless of UN warnings, gave the Palestinians $900 Million US Aid, which was seized by armed force by the Hamas Warlords. This US Aid was then used to force more neutral Palestinians to join Hamas or starve and face daily beatings. These new recruits to Hamas to prove their loyality are sent to Iran for Training and Equipment and sent worldwide to kill Jews and Christians in accordance with the Holy Koran (Quran). These Hamas Foreign Fighters have been captured at South and Central Americas, Afghanistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Europe, Africa, former USSR Countries, etc..
So instead of learning from the first mistake this administration is giving Palestine another $400 Million (to be seized by force again by the Hamas Warlords).
Ask the Iraquis. I'll bet they will say, emphatically, "NO!"
#11 - Mon Aug 2, 2010 11:22 AM EDTYou think they'd prefer to live under Saddam?
They hate us even more! The countries of the Middle East have been so brainwashed into believing that we are evil that we are the "Great Satan" that asking Iraq if they would rather be under Saddam or our rule is like asking the Jews if they preferred Hitler or Stalin.
To Tabasco Ed - YES, THEY WOULD. They had a life with Saddam. They had business with Saddam, schools with Women attending. Do you think that will be the case after? They didn't have to worry about being blown up going to the market. With Saddam, they had to worry about his two sons murdering and rapping women, after the invasion, they had to worry about everybody murdering and rapping their women. Are you serious or is this just another conservative talking point without thinking first?
To Kevin from NYC- Hahaha, yeah Iraq was such a great country before we invaded. Get real, schools are much more available now thanks to hundreds of charities funding them, and womens rights are up now more than ever in Iraq.
Iraq was far from perfect before Saddam was overthrown, but there was utilities in place for most people, there was access to college educations and there wasn't insurgents blowing up people in market places/mosques. Sharia law wasn't predominantly controlling the lives of Iraqis either.
Iraqi's should of just have them self's a revolution let them fight to over throw that Pendejo who was running the country, and then we might be OK as a country right now.... But who know's "w" was in charged with daddy's foot up his a$$ telling him what to do.... So Mr. "read my lips no more taxes" served 4 terms two in office and two from home..... Then with reagan too "MAN" thats one bush that should of been trimed to the roots.... To late now that suck's.... Hope you are enjoying your alabama kush "w"....
Most of you have NO idea what Iraq was like before. Former British Colony, Cradle of Civilization and Jewel of the "Middle East".
What happened was President Saddam Hussein pissed off the rest of the Islamic World with his "Modernization of the Arab World" Programs. This included 1. more nuclear power plants, less dependence on Oil, 2. Women's Rights including driving vehicles (especially pissed off the Saudis and Kuwaitis), voting (really pissed off the Iranians), females attending schools (pissed of the other Islamic Nations), no more Burkhas, 3. Less emphasis on the Islamic Laws (Koran (Quran) Laws, Hadith Laws, Fiqh Laws, Sharia Laws, etc.), this got him declared a Heretic of Islam (death penalty), 4. Resource Nationalization (pissed off US and other Nations), 5. etc.. These got him declared a Heretic and a worshipper of Satan (Pro Western, Jews and Christians) with the over 1.5 Billion Islamic Believers demanding his overthrow (and Islamic Lobbyists to US Congress). Number 5. got all the US and Foreign Oil Corporations so pissed off they started sending Multi Million USD Lobbyists to US Congress to stop this by any means.
So afterwards the Iraqis Sunnis (Pro Western educated at Western Colleges and Universities) were overthrown and started to get killed off by the Uneducated Fundamentalist Iranian Shiites at Iraq. The centuries old blood feud between the Sunnis (Arabs) and the Shiites (Persians). With the Kurdistanis being the Armed Allies of the Fundamentalist Islamic Iranians.
You're right David.
Many ignorant people think that we were bringing "civilization" to a bunch of stone age living, strict Islamic fundamentalists in Iraq.
Iraqis were more modernized(in the bigger cities) and less religiously governed than most of their neighbors. They even had internet service. Women had more freedoms.
Saddam was indeed a heretic by Islamic hardliners standards, and almost pro-Western.
We'll see if Iraqis end up being worse off(run by Islamic hardliners) after we leave.
Get real, schools are much more available now thanks to hundreds of charities funding them, and womens rights are up now more than ever in Iraq.
Iraq under Saddam Hussein had the highest literacy rate in the Middle East, and women not only freely attended schools but also occupied positions in government and business. The new Iraqi government established under US protection is founded on a declared basis of Sharia Law, and women's rights have been sharply curtailed. If you are going to participate in a discussion in a public venue, at least try to get your facts straight.
All the reasons why the US invaded Iraq are none of the reasons we've heard on TV, in the papers and from the lips of our corrupt, corporatized leaders. Iraq was NOT about terrorism or WMD's and we were not greeted as liberators much to the chagrin of that idiot Cheney.
Iraq is just another chess move in the geo-political struggle to maintain access to oil to keep the wealthy class........wealthy.
#12 - Mon Aug 2, 2010 11:23 AM EDTFu&% the wealthy they can kiss my broke a$$.... B.P too and there 4billion dollar profit. They got balls anouncing that with all the damage they did and the jobs lost.... What are they doing now pointing the finger like a little Bi%#&.... So how much of that 4billion dollars you giving back puto's
Tell that to your Representatives at Congress, making you just as guilty. You let Congress get controlled by the greedy.
Bush/chenny went into that war to secure the oil and then got embarrassed because so many people said it all about oil and then they couldn't go after it without being proven to be liars because they said it was about WMD,we the people of this country and the people of iraq got crapped on and the buddies of bush/chenny got rich.
#13 - Mon Aug 2, 2010 11:25 AM EDTWow boba...global issues are quite simple :) Here I thought those were factors, plus human rights violations, geopolitical instability, etc.
Did know it was due to oil, and enriching buddies....so simple not sure how it escaped me.
What about that climate change and health care....get rid of the clutter and let me know THE cause for that one too.
You know, a presidental election is coming up, a man with your grasp of the simple should be on the nomination list....just saying Boba...Boba....I can hear the crowds now
Those weapons were like from the korean war. They got them on clearance from stalin before he died
Bush and Cheney marched us into this war. Cheney got 5 deferments to keep from gong to Vietnam, Bush got a free ride in the reserve. But they had no problem, sending our men, and women into harms way. And had the nerve to call them "just numbers".
This war wasted many many lives and tons of money. That is what got us to where we are today. War is such a waste, talk is cheap and does not kill.
#14 - Mon Aug 2, 2010 11:25 AM EDTI seem to have forgotten; just exactly how many days has Obama served? He has no concept of military (or any other kind) leadership.
Doc - Bush was a deserter. I have no problem with Obama's leadership and neither do thousands of military personnel. We've had many Presidents who didn't serve in the military. Oh and I especially like Cheney's comment on serving - "I had better things to do."
Cat....point being what....the dept of hindsight is kicking in the time machine and we're going back to right that wrong.
The only time people screw up is when a decision is made....you''re on...what is the right decision, and can people second guess you in 3 years if you screw up ??
Talk is cheap..yes indeed, because it has no action associated with it. All I am saying is give peace a chance :)
Doc: Obama doesn't try to act all gung ho/John Wayne, like Cheney and Bush did. Obama didn't invade a country that had nothing to do with attacking us either.
Do you disrespect your family members and friends that didn't serve in the military?
My point is that the man (Obama) had/has NO prior leadership skills; military or otherwise. Ask any military leader if it is a good idea to announce to the enemy when you are going to be leaving?
Doc
i thought that we achieve victory in iraq? Who are the enemy in Iraq? The Iraq people? We took out Hussan, they have a government so see ya........ good luck in reconciliation between the Sunni and Shia.
W. Goin - I have no problem with Obama's leadership and neither do thousands of military personnel.
REALLY, tell that to those (near Million) that were cut under the April 2009 Defense Budget Cuts.
Guess those 95,000 US Civilians that lost their jobs due to the April 2009 Defense Budget Cuts also will also disagree with you.
You have no idea W. Groin.
Cat-947570 another uninformed post.
Vice President "Mr Corporate America" (Delaware Incorporation of Corporations) Biden. Five Student Deferments, One Medical Deferment bought from a known anti War Doctor for $20,000 (worth about 1 Million USDs today). This Medical Deferment was brought up during his numerous Presidential Campaigns causing his defeat, as "too sick to hold any Public Office".
American Lobo Do you disrespect your family members and friends that didn't serve in the military?
Just the one's that talk out of their rectal oriface about things they have no knowledge or firsthand experience about. Those that have never served in the US Military telling others what the US Military is about is like trying to learn to ride a bicycle or drive a vehicle faultlessly by reading a book.
David: Yet you think it's ok to disrespect a POTUS(or anyone else), because they didn't serve?
Just about every male in my family has served in the military(WW2, Korea, Vietnam vets). None of them think they are better than anyone who hasn't served(and 5 are/were decorated combat vets). They scoff at those who think that by serving, they are elevated to "better-than you" status.
I was signed up to go in after high school, until a motorcycle accident injured my back, otherwise I would have probably gone to US Army sniper school, and maybe been a lifer.
Just because someone hasn't served, doesn't mean they don't understand anything about the politics, strategy, and life in the military.
I'll call out anyone who thinks that those who haven't served aren't worthy of the same basic respect as those that have.
The Book of Republican War Heroes only lists one name, that of Randy "Duke" Cunningham, and he is currently serving a prison term for corruption and for taking bribes in connection with the awarding of government contracts while he was serving in the US Congress.
The invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan have cost us a combined $1 Trillion in deficit spending, thousands of U.S. lives and tens of thousands of foreign lives, and caused us to lose the world's respect. And for what? We will leave behind us two dysfunctional societies that will contend for the title of "the new Haiti." A curse of those who stampeded us into war, and that includes the news media. Lest we forget, all the networks had mastheads on their evening news broadcasts back then extolling "Operation Iraqi Freedom" and showing shining images of the American Flag and Our Troops. It wasn't just Fox News that was caught up in the rush to war.
#15 - Mon Aug 2, 2010 11:25 AM EDT1 Trillion Dollars and they blame Obama for deficit spending. Atleast he has made in roads to help not send people to their deaths for oil. Problem is that Obama has not done enough. I have to pay out of pocket for my kid to go to college because I cannot get a damn loan for him without a near perfect credit score! So my kids have to have less and I am borderline middle class. Not rich. We need to fix this country more and stop spending our money on fruitless expeditions to foreign lands hunting for terrorists where they dont exist.
Actually, the cost far exceeds 1 trillion dollars. Most of the expenses were not accounted for in Bush's budget. They were listed under special expenses and not included as part of our national deficit until Obama came in and gave a true accounting of our budget.
That's important, but hindsight. I think most armies cost a lot of money, and certainly wars and conflicts do. Which of the last 5 wars did you think was money well spent.
And what is the limit we should put on annual spending. I did not want either Afgan or Iraq.....but I think the our gov't should stay out of all other countries affairs, and if some injustice is present....not my fault, that way, no one can second guess me and I will can join the finger pointers...
Don't forget that BIT@# Clinton she was all about invadeing iraq to.
More uninformed nonsense.
Most of that Money is going to US Civilians. NOT THE US Military.
If you want to cut the Defense Budget in half get rid of all the US Civilians: 1. US Contractors, 2. Directly as non Combatants in the US Military, 3. At the Pentagon as SESs, Political Appointees, etc. with no US Military Experience as Chiefs and Department Heads, as the only US Civilians that belong there are the Secretary of Defense and the Secretaries of the Branches. 4. No more unnecessary US Military Equipment based only on which Congress person's State the US Military Equipment is manufactured at.
The US Defense budget for 2010 is $884 billion -- more than is spent on weapons and armaments by all of the rest of the countries on the entire planet combined. We now have 1.5 million people under arms -- and more generals and admirals on the payroll than we did in WWII, when we had more than 8 million men under arms. The US could do a lot more with a lot less, if only the political will was there in Congress.
As is so rightly said by the FCNL [Friends Committee on National Legislation]: WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER. A colleague once asked, pointing to my bumper sticker, "The answer to what?" It is not the answer to ANYTHING, with the sole exception of aggression. The only 'winners' are the contractors of the military-industrial complex who make obscene amounts of money from the pain and suffering of civilian populations who are the real victims of war.
#16 - Mon Aug 2, 2010 11:26 AM EDTSo are you saying war didn't get rid of painfull tyranny, naziism, slavery, fascism, and oppression?? Get real, war has been in human nature since the beginning of our time, long before your stupid bumper sticker.
Nope, these people probably think the world would have been better off with Hitler.
War stopped Germany and their death camps. War ended slavery. War ended the Great Depression. War gave the US independence from overseas elites who wanted to tax without representation. War made whatever free country you live in now free to begin with.
War is ugly, but there will always be someone with malicious intent ruling a country and an army somewhere that wants to force their ways on you. Without war, you'd be living under their thumb right now. War gives people the right to voice opinions such as yours as a matter of fact. Try denouncing your government in public like that in some other countries that just rolled over and let the dictators have power. You'll end up in some mass grave somewhere so that in the future some other guy can get on public forums and say invasion to stop the guy who killed you and your family was just about oil and $$.
Allen...spin, spin, spin...The Germans were losing the minute they marched troops toward Russia. When they lost there, it was like a house of cards falling down. It give all the impetus to the achilles heal of the 3rd Reich.
Did war end slavery? Or, have the Free Labor Industrialists found nearly free labor by offshoring American jobs and using illegals they pay wages that force the rest of us to pick up the costs for their illegal workers?
War didn't end the Great Depression. My parents lived through the Great Depression. Get your facts straight. The Great Depression was caused by the same kind of speculators in 1929 that caused the Financial Meltdown in 2008. US involvement in the war didn't start until after the Great Depression had been lifted through the programs FDR put in place. Anyone who lived through the Great Depression would tell you that.
i guess we didn't need a war either? We wouldn't be the United States of America if it weren't for people fighting for what they beleive in. Do you think the civil war was so bad? Talking wasn't going to solve the issue of slavery, so something had to happen. Not such a good point Mike.
We made the world less stable, gave radicals tons of rallying points to recruit more kamikazi bombers, & compromised our American integrity via Abu Ghraib, Blackwater, Halliburton & other scandals. Why? probably for oil & Bush/Cheney business cronies, perhaps Bush's emotions re his father's past, and perhaps because Bush 2 thought that many Americas would rally behind him as the "great kick-butt America-is-better-than-everybody-else" president (a la Reagan pushing out Carter because of the Iran hostage situation and the then too-popular "nuke Iran!" macho American mentality).
All the posts that demean the Iraqi population & culture are disturbing-- in general, people don't prefer war to peace. Honestly, our American culture has its own problems in gangs, drugs, poverty & ultra-affluence, sexual predation including date-rape & domestic violence, a dysfunctional 'education system', and broken families --all on top of the history of European American's genocide against the native cultures here, the outrageous history of slavery, and raping of the global environment in pursuit of oil & mineral resources to fuel business fortunes. Yes, we've offered some OPPORTUNITY & some limited tolerance that even today attracts some immigrants worldwide. But it's no great wonder that foreign cultures might not appreciate the negative aspects of our American culture infecting theirs.
OK, war stopped Hitler (after the US was drawn in by the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor), but it was Hitler who STARTED that war. Should we be a global guardian?? Not all on our own, but Americans can be more proud of such well-meaning military interventions executed for the sake of other peoples -- we served the world honorably in WW2 and in Bosnia (albeit belatedly), as well as for natural calamities like the Haiti earthquake, and I would be proud if we intervened in Darfur. Such efforts would begin to re-establish our moral standing (in our own eyes as well as worldwide), healing our American soul that is badly damaged by the abuses, lies, & incompetency of the Iraq & Afghanistan wars. Al-Qaeda's September 11th attacks most severe damage has been caused by the Bush-initiated policies that followed; GWB has given Osama Bin Laden & his ilk "victories" far beyond the sad effects of those 9/11 hijacked jetliners.
Sadam Hussein was evil, but if taking him out causes greater harm still, then it can't be justified. Valid American self-defense in the wake of 9/11 includes airport, ports & border security, eliminating terrorists' financial assets & infiltrating their communication networks, & perhaps Special Forces or drone assassinations of key leaders. There's now terrible flooding in Pakistan --do we want to make a positive difference? Divert our military there to help in the rescue efforts, and win over some respect from the population.
No one ever said that war isn't sometimes necessary.
Those who use their brains and take an honest look at our invasion of Iraq, can easily come to the conclusion that going to war with THEM wasn't necessary.
the war contractors did indeed make(lose) billions of our $$ on the Iraq war.
Why can't we just pay our troops better salaries(with decent combat pay), instead of hiring mercs. Pay our combat troops at least $75,000 a year(tax free). Let military engineers build and non combat troops provide services, instead of outsourcing and givng the money to private contractors.
Sorry Mike Monahan but I'm with Jaxon01, guitarjock, Allen-968499 & localmarine on this one..but with a twist to say that there is also another factor which has not really been exposed. Google Bilderberg Group (known to be a secret society of Billionairs who are supposedly calling the shots worldwide) and it will come up with many entries. Start with the Wickipedia then go through the others. We must be open to all avenues.
War might be necessary. But as of now I strongly believe (as well as my men and women) that it is now someone else's turn. We are waiting for President Obama to full fill his campaign promise, Start of the Selective Service (aka Draft), as reflected by the April 2009 Defense Budget Cuts (chopped the USAF and USN) and the 2010 Defense Budget, this would be into US Military Ground Combat Units (no more cush jobs). Candidate Obama, "US Citizenship is not an entitlement".
I want them to Unionize the US Military to make a "Fair Living Wage", I would be making at least the same as the current US Contractors (pay plus the same benefits we have), about $1 Million per year. A lot of us are considering joining the Foreign Security Contractors (hired by the US Diplomatic Corps) to make more and have US Diplomatic Immunity.
Maybe the commander in chief needs to speak to the soldiers who are now serving in Iraq. He would get the REAL picture of what is happening in that country.
#17 - Mon Aug 2, 2010 11:26 AM EDTKind of like how he needs to visit the Mexican borders with Texas, Arizona and New Mexico...?
Shirleen - Pretty sure he's spoken to more soldiers of Iraq than you ever will.
Some of those people serving in Iraq still believe the right thing was done there, and some believe it is retarded to leave.
Shirleen Stanko...How is it you didn't expect Bush to speak to the Iraqis he was killing in the tens of thousands or those who were killed by Blackwater? Where was your mouth then?
More of those who served in Iraq(and their families), didn't think we should be/have been there.
Ask a soldier who's burnt up or missing his legs or blind if he would do it over again.
It's one thing to be deployed to directly protect the US and/or Americans, and another thing to be deployed to carry out corporate interests and political agendas.
Shirleen Stanko - Maybe the commander in chief needs to speak to the soldiers who are now serving in Iraq.
He will "speak to" them but he will not listen.
Examples: General McKiernan, need more Soldiers, Asymmetric Warfare not Conventional Warfare, Fired.
General McChrystal, need more Soldiers, less US Civilians, Investigate corrupt US contracts of Eikenberry and Holbrooke, Asymmetric Warfare not Conventional Warfare, Fired.
McKiernan was replaced by McChrystal because he was reluctant to implement "Asymmetric Warfare," not for recommending it.
McCrystal was fired for being too stupid to keep his mouth shut, and for publicly criticizing the Commander-in-Chief in Rolling Stone magazine. Any civilian executive dumb enough to have criticized his boss like that would have been gone in a heart-beat, too. Generals need to understand that they are employees, and to stop thinking of themselves as Rock stars.
It was all about the Oil and Money Greed was the name of the game at any cost to the U.S. Armed Services
#18 - Mon Aug 2, 2010 11:29 AM EDTNothing will ever change among the people in this region.
No amount of reasoning, or guidance will effect change them. Short of complete genocide, nothing will work. Get our soldiers out!
#19 - Mon Aug 2, 2010 11:30 AM EDTSteve...I agree that these people are backward. They also bear a unique sense of communal traditionalism that most modern people don't understand. The only good thing that will come out of Iraq is the American influence on the youngest generations there. I don't hold out much hope that their religious fanaticism will diminish to the point where tolerance within religious sects will ever change.
Steve-447372 & ewent: "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?" (Matthew 7:3-5). Do not judge another's culture until You have lived among them respectfully. USA has a number of moral & cultural failings too, including some surge in "religious" intolerance. Learn some history: Iraq has a history of deep learning & culture.
Math+Sci+JusticeFuelProsperity,
they have no idea of what Iraq was like before:
The Wars.
The filling up of the southern half of Iraq with uneducated Shiites from Iran thru Basra. Seizure of the Southern Iraqis Oil Fields by the Shiites from Iran as assisted by the US No Fly Zones.
The Kurdistanis assisted by the US No Fly Zones to establish Kurdistan. And Seizure of the the Iraqis Northern Oil Fields.
What is there to discuss ?. This military adventure into Iraq was an ill advised disaster. We should have stayed the course against Al Queda in Afghanistan and even that would have been a huge (but necessary) operation. Saddam Hussein was providing an effective buffer between Iran and the Arab world, Sunni and Shiite. We have wrecked Iraq as a country and stirred up the hornets nest that is the middle east for what ?? a stolen 'democratic' election in Afghanistan. Does nobody in Washington read history books ?
#20 - Mon Aug 2, 2010 11:30 AM EDTA big salute to your comment. All of our focus should have been on Afganistan and definitely not Iraq. There was a pole in Hit Parade shortly therafter the war started and Saddam was either #12 or #15 out of the worse world leaders. Are we the world police?
I partially agree with your post, that we should have stayed the course into Afghanistan. That would have shown that this was more of a war on terror rather than a fight for black gold. However i don't really beleive that we wrecked Iraq, we did them and the rest of the region a favor by eliminating Saddam. He is no Daisy.
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
Comment collapsed by the community
I have to say, to me it was never about WMD. it was about deposing a leader responsible for one death every 7 minutes for 37 straight years