iraq war; what do you think about it??

[MilitaryArms]

We should have won the war in 1991. During Desert Storm my unit got well behind the republican guard. We were 150 miles from Baghdad and we (us peons) wanted to go take the country down because we didn't want to come back later to finish something that could be finished now. It was that pansy liberal Colon Powell's fault that we didn't finish it.

I used to think that too. I now believe believe the right decision was made in 1991. Had we toppled Saddam in 1991, we would have been there for the following 10 years trying to deal with the mess - just like we were in 2002 to present.

We had no reason to topple Saddam. He was no threat to us. He wasn't a threat in 1991 and he wasn't a threat in 2001. All we've done is created a huge power vacuum that we've not fully realized the implications of yet... but we will.

Sure, he was a brutal dictator. The world is full of them and it's not our job to topple them and then spend 10 years and billions/trillions propping up a puppet government after the fact. If the Iraqi people wanted to get rid of Saddam, they could have done so on their own.

Trying to force a representative republic to those savages (who consequently have no interest in such a system of government) isn't worth a single American life.

 

[Grunt]

I used to think that too. I now believe believe the right decision was made in 1991. Had we toppled Saddam in 1991, we would have been there for the following 10 years trying to deal with the mess - just like we were in 2002 to present.

We had no reason to topple Saddam. He was no threat to us. He wasn't a threat in 1991 and he wasn't a threat in 2001. All we've done is created a huge power vacuum that we've not fully realized the implications of yet... but we will.

Sure, he was a brutal dictator. The world is full of them and it's not our job to topple them and then spend 10 years and billions/trillions propping up a puppet government after the fact. If the Iraqi people wanted to get rid of Saddam, they could have done so on their own.

Trying to force a representative republic to those savages (who consequently have no interest in such a system of government) isn't worth a single American life.

Yes, you have a good point. If anything, we should have allowed Iraq to take down Saudi Arabia; they seem to be the world financiers of terrorism, then and now.

If Hussein was left in power, the area would be much more stable. In 1991 the timing would have been better, the people were much more welcoming than in 2003. If we took him down then, we may have gotten them to stand on their own much quicker.

Both Bush's made poor decisions.

 

[GIJEW]

Destroying a rogue regime that used terrorism as a foriegn policy tool was worth it. We didn't find piles of WMDs all wrapped up, ready to ship in the "baby-milk factory"? Imagine that. during desert-storm, Hussein parked what he could save of his air force in Iran--and the dirt had just settled on all the graves of the soldiers killed in the war between them.

The mistake was trying to "nation build" there. Democracy MIGHT take hold there but it will probably happen AFTER Iraq splits into sunni, shia, and kurdish states. It would have been better to wreck Hussein's regime, find what we could of importance, and leave the "butcher of baghdad" to hide in his spider-hole while his enemies came after him in the following civil war. We would have left a huge deterrent effect behind that would have spoken to the mentality of Assad, ahmanadijhad, and his bosses the mullahs-behind-the-throne.

 

[MilitaryArms]

Destroying a rogue regime that used terrorism as a foriegn policy tool was worth it.

You think bankrupting our nation while losing thousands of American lives was worth it? We've never made any connection to Saddam and terrorism against our country, so how do you rationalize the billions spent and thousands dead as being worth it?

 

[GIJEW]

Actually, our wars in the middle east have destabilized the entire region. Much of the unrest we see in the middle east today is directly related to our military actions over the last decade or so. It has never been more unstable in that region and we're only a small spark away from a massive explosion...

Left to themselves, the arabs fight like the hatfields and mccoys:
after WW1 the saud clan drove the husseinis out of arabia--hence saudi arabia.
in the early '50s lebanon was at the brink of civil war (sending the marines may have helped stabalize it).
in the early '60s egypt was fighting a dirty little war in yemen--using poison gas--to prop up the regime of their choice.
after losing a campaign of cross "border" terrorism with israel, the plo turned on their host, the jordanians and then syria got ready to invade jordan to save the plo from losing again; until israel mobilized reserves and pinned them down.
in the meantime the lebanese were at each other again, and both the syrians and plo joined the fight in order to take control.
and about that the libyans and egyptians were having a border war, and algeria was fighting a proxy war against morroco that was invading it's neighbor to the south.
oh, i forgot to mention the coups by nasser, gadaffi, and s. hussein (who murdered his co-conspirators...
of course the kurds have been fighting to shake off the arabs and turks (don't accuse them of genocide against armenians, unless your ready to fight). you probably remember hussein dropping nerve gas on the kurds--wmd's.
the "arab spring" is another round of more-of-the-same, with "islamists" overthrowing not-religious-enough dictators the way the moslem brotherhood tried to overthrow assad sr.

 

[GIJEW]

You think bankrupting our nation while losing thousands of American lives was worth it? We've never made any connection to Saddam and terrorism against our country, so how do you rationalize the billions spent and thousands dead as being worth it?

The initial invasion was over in about a month. The overwhelming majority of casualities and cash were lost during the following decade trying to "nation-build"--which I said was a mistake and NOT worth it.
Never mind Czech intel reports of mohammed atta meeting with iraqi intelligence agents in prague prior to 9/11, iraq was involved with iran and syria in "gun running" to all kinds of terrorist groups. Before the invasion, the last visual check of any kind on his wmd programs (that he did have such programs is beyond doubt) was when he expelled the un inspectors 5 years earlier. The possibility of terrorists setting off a "dirty bomb" was not some Tom Clancy fiction--remember jose padilla? Why iraq and not iran or syria? iraq was politically a feasible target with "outstanding warrants", and even then it wasn't possible to get a un resolution past french and russian vetos (if hussein was gone, they wouldn't be able to collect the $)

 

[repeter1977]

The initial invasion was over in about a month. The overwhelming majority of casualities and cash were lost during the following decade trying to "nation-build"--which I said was a mistake and NOT worth it.
Never mind Czech intel reports of mohammed atta meeting with iraqi intelligence agents in prague prior to 9/11, iraq was involved with iran and syria in "gun running" to all kinds of terrorist groups. Before the invasion, the last visual check of any kind on his wmd programs (that he did have such programs is beyond doubt) was when he expelled the un inspectors 5 years earlier. The possibility of terrorists setting off a "dirty bomb" was not some Tom Clancy fiction--remember jose padilla? Why iraq and not iran or syria? iraq was politically a feasible target with "outstanding warrants", and even then it wasn't possible to get a un resolution past french and russian vetos (if hussein was gone, they wouldn't be able to collect the $)

Well, after helping search bunkers of munitions in Iraq, I will give you some clues on why they were two of the most vocal avoiding us going in. Its because both had sold weapons and munitions that were clearly a violation of the UN treaty and did not want it noticed. And I dont mean that there was a couple of weapons, I mean that there were freaking aircraft hanger sized munitions dumps filled to the ceiling with them. Course, they were not the only 2 countries, as we had found other countries munitions in there as well.
As for someone pointing out the terrorist training camps, they were there in 04. Were some involved in problems, or could be later used in the US, who knows. I would assume any terrorist deserves lead desert. I do not believe that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. I believe that terrorists are terrorists and that if we bent over and gave them their goal (which in most their cases, would only be if as us Americans were dead), then, they would just demand more and more from those that remain. Look what giving in to Hitler did in Europe. That seemed to work really well. Saddam did the same thing in 91, but annexing what he said what his.

 

[repeter1977]

BINGO!



So when I go to Paris to see the Eiffel Tower I can expect US troops to protect me, or is that properly the job of the French authorities? Or US troops to protect, say, Microsoft offices in Italy?

How about Russian troops in the US to protect Russian citizens or interests here?


Troops to extend our influence? How about we leave influence-extending to the brilliance of American freedoms, treaty-making, international conferences, the appeal of American universities to foreign students, the US Chamber of Commerce, trade delegations, and the NBA? Don't see a role for armed forces there...

Great points about us being overseas. Of course, in most countries, there should be a US Embassy, to help out Americans. But, then again, I'm not too big a traveler, even though I have already been to Korea, Hungary, Croatia, Bosnia, Kuwait, Qatar, Iraq, and Germany. I do get what you are saying about leaving the influence extending to the professionals, however, I do believe that the US Soldier has also been an Ambassador where ever he goes as well.
In Korea, when I was there, the Koreans protested, and we ended up leaving one of the bases there. Less then a year later, they were begging for us to come back. Because as American Troops, we did way more then just help with the economy, which we did plenty of that. But it was also the lots of little things that don't make the news. For instance, one of the orphanages nearby had run completely out of money, and trouble getting help. On off days, there had been Soldiers going there to help, and give their time off, and just assist over there. But, it was not really noticed until after we had left that area.
As you have said, it would be nice if others picked up the slack, and did their jobs, but its nice to know the American troops are really making us look good wherever they go.

 

[BE Mike]

BINGO!



So when I go to Paris to see the Eiffel Tower I can expect US troops to protect me, or is that properly the job of the French authorities? Or US troops to protect, say, Microsoft offices in Italy?

How about Russian troops in the US to protect Russian citizens or interests here?


Troops to extend our influence? How about we leave influence-extending to the brilliance of American freedoms, treaty-making, international conferences, the appeal of American universities to foreign students, the US Chamber of Commerce, trade delegations, and the NBA? Don't see a role for armed forces there...

No Russians soldiers aren't allowed here. We defeated the "Evil Empire", so they can't come here and extend their influence. One piece of the puzzle in defeating them was being stubborn and keeping our troops in West Berlin behind the Iron Curtain, long after the Soviets tried their blockade to force us out.

 

[BE Mike]

They say that you can tell the greatness of a Nation based off of how many people are fleeing to a country, versus how many are fleeing from it. Since the US does not have any mass exodus of people fleeing, and we have tons of people wanting asylum here, I believe we are doing a pretty bang up job. Might not be the best system, but there still has not been one better yet

I agree. My daughter has a friend who is from Slovenia. He is here legally. Slovenia is economically and politically stable, as I understand it. It is also is a very beautiful country. One day, he was describing the beauty of Slovenia and its virtues. Someone asked him, if Slovenia is so great, why did you leave? He looked at the questioner with a puzzled look and said, " Everyone wants to come to America!"

 

[MilitaryArms]

The initial invasion was over in about a month. The overwhelming majority of casualities and cash were lost during the following decade trying to "nation-build"--which I said was a mistake and NOT worth it.

Do you think going in and toppling a government then immediately leaving is a good idea? What do you think would happen? Civil War, then what? A new dictator... that's what would happen. Are you willing to bet the new dictator that comes to power isn't as bad or worse than the one you just removed?

The solution is not to invade a country that hasn't attacked you. They never attacked us. We have no intelligence showing they were planning to attack us. They were trying to influence politics in their region... something every nation does.

Never mind Czech intel reports of mohammed atta meeting with iraqi intelligence agents in prague prior to 9/11,

Hearsay. If you want to find the real culprits, look no further than our own government who knew full well something was going on (FBI) yet chose to ignore it. I would much rather have those men in prison than worrying about hearsay evidence that Atta might have met an Iraqi agent - which ultimately amounts to nothing of significance. If he did, they probably told Bush jokes and nothing more sinister. We would need evidence that Iraq funded Atta in some way, or trained him, something significant... alas there is no such evidence.

iraq was involved with iran and syria in "gun running" to all kinds of terrorist groups. Before the invasion, the last visual check of any kind on his wmd programs (that he did have such programs is beyond doubt) was when he expelled the un inspectors 5 years earlier. The possibility of terrorists setting off a "dirty bomb" was not some Tom Clancy fiction--remember jose padilla? Why iraq and not iran or syria? iraq was politically a feasible target with "outstanding warrants", and even then it wasn't possible to get a un resolution past french and russian vetos (if hussein was gone, they wouldn't be able to collect the $)

We gun run, big deal. Name a country that doesn't.

We know Saddam had chemicals weapons, we gave them to him. He never threatened us with them, he had no delivery method, and we can't go around toppling every government in the world because we *think* they might sell something to a terrorist. We would have a LONG list of governments to topple.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

You think bankrupting our nation while losing thousands of American lives was worth it? We've never made any connection to Saddam and terrorism against our country, so how do you rationalize the billions spent and thousands dead as being worth it?

Sorry to disagree with you, but we had documented evidence of Iraqi-sponsored Al Qaeda training sites in Iraq. At least one of them was a training site for airplane hijacking.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Do you think going in and toppling a government then immediately leaving is a good idea? What do you think would happen? Civil War, then what? A new dictator... that's what would happen. Are you willing to bet the new dictator that comes to power isn't as bad or worse than the one you just removed?

The solution is not to invade a country that hasn't attacked you. They never attacked us. We have no intelligence showing they were planning to attack us. They were trying to influence politics in their region... something every nation does.



Hearsay. If you want to find the real culprits, look no further than our own government who knew full well something was going on (FBI) yet chose to ignore it. I would much rather have those men in prison than worrying about hearsay evidence that Atta might have met an Iraqi agent - which ultimately amounts to nothing of significance. If he did, they probably told Bush jokes and nothing more sinister. We would need evidence that Iraq funded Atta in some way, or trained him, something significant... alas there is no such evidence.


We gun run, big deal. Name a country that doesn't.

We know Saddam had chemicals weapons, we gave them to him. He never threatened us with them, he had no delivery method, and we can't go around toppling every government in the world because we *think* they might sell something to a terrorist. We would have a LONG list of governments to topple.

For someone who has strong opinions about this topic, you don't seem to have paid much attention to the information that was presented publicly when the US was building its coalition to invade Iraq in Gulf Wars I & II. All the connections you deny as being of any significance (and how do you KNOW?) were discussed publicly and in various forae around the country and around the world. Of course, for every bit of intelligence that was made public, how much more was NOT made public? The intelligence about Iraq's capabilities and intelligence was sufficient to convince a majority of the First World's governments that the Hussein regime needed to be deposed and replaced. It's a shame no one bothered to share that info with you.

 

[cobber]

Of course, for every bit of intelligence that was made public, how much more was NOT made public?... [
It's a shame no one bothered to share that info with you.

It was not made public, but apparently the powers-that-be shared it with you?

So do tell already. We're waiting with bated breath...

Are we still talking about WMDs here? I thought even W finally disavowed that canard?

Another example of using troops to build good will falling flat: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/10/w...ntence-in-rape-of-teenager.html?_r=1&ref=asia

 

[turnandshoot4]

An interesting read for sure.

Not only did Bush illegally declare war, but he didn't ask anyone about it. He wanted to go to Iraq all along.

Colin Powell's New Book: War With Iraq Never Debated

 

[Blackhawk2001]

It was not made public, but apparently the powers-that-be shared it with you?

So do tell already. We're waiting with bated breath...

Are we still talking about WMDs here? I thought even W finally disavowed that canard?

Another example of using troops to build good will falling flat: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/10/w...ntence-in-rape-of-teenager.html?_r=1&ref=asia

The information that was presented publicly was enough for me in this particular situation. As to information not disseminated to the public, please don't be silly.

The Bush Administration never, to my knowledge, disavowed the WMD charges, which was a good thing because there was extensive documentation of WMD not only found during the occupation, but of attempts to use WMD weapons in IEDs. IIRC, there were over 5K internet references to WMD found in Iraq after the conventional fighting stopped.

As to your final comment, this type of incident happens - and has been happening in any location where there are troops. When I was in Korea in 1974, a Sheridan armored scout vehicle was speeding on a local road and killed two Korean women. The troopers were charged under the UCMJ, in accordance with the SOFA. Don't know what happened to them. But I also know the locals were happy we were there to help them against the Communist North; at that time the adults still remembered the fighting during the Korean War. Even when I was in Korea in 2007, Koreans, as a whole, continued to be happy at our continued presence.

In any situation where troops and civilians mix, there are going to be problems (check out the police blotter in any military town). Add in cultural differences and there are going to be occasional frictions, resentments, and downright criminality on both sides. Has nothing to do with the concept of "nation building".

 

[cobber]

Of course, for every bit of intelligence that was made public, how much more was NOT made public?

The information that was presented publicly was enough for me in this particular situation. As to information not disseminated to the public, please don't be silly.

You go first.

Even when I was in Korea in 2007, Koreans, as a whole, continued to be happy at our continued presence.

Of course. Defense on our dime. Why wouldn't they be pleased?

 

[Blackhawk2001]

You go first.



Of course. Defense on our dime. Why wouldn't they be pleased?

The South Koreans have spent and do spend plenty on their own defense. We have primarily been a trip-wire and nuclear deterrent for the past 20 years. To put your own argument back on you, have you spoken to any Koreans to get their take on our presence and on their attitude toward defending their own country? I'll let you off the hook. Just like here, there are those who love us and those who hate us. The younger generations (those younger than me) don't remember the war, so many, like many younger people here, question the need for such a martial atmosphere and military preparedness. Of course, all they have to do is look North of the DMZ, just like the Iraqis can look across their borders and see the Iranians on one side and the Syrians on the other.

 

[cobber]

The South Koreans have spent and do spend plenty on their own defense. We have primarily been a trip-wire and nuclear deterrent for the past 20 years. To put your own argument back on you, have you spoken to any Koreans to get their take on our presence and on their attitude toward defending their own country? I'll let you off the hook. Just like here, there are those who love us and those who hate us. The younger generations (those younger than me) don't remember the war, so many, like many younger people here, question the need for such a martial atmosphere and military preparedness. Of course, all they have to do is look North of the DMZ, just like the Iraqis can look across their borders and see the Iranians on one side and the Syrians on the other.

Actually I have spoken to Koreans. And know Koreans. And have travelled there. Studied taekwondo for 3+ years. Eat kimchi and bibimbap, have been known to have a snort of makkoli. And my brother lived and worked there in the 70s. So I am pretty familiar with Korea for a migook.

So no need to 'let me off the hook'.

Korea is just one of the money pits.

As the late Sen. Everett Dirksen once said, 'a million here and a million there and pretty soon you're talking about real money.' Each little commitment overseas, aside from actual wars, drains money from the homeland.

Whether they love us or not, how many 'client' states can we support before the fisc goes bust?

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Actually I have spoken to Koreans. And know Koreans. And have travelled there. Studied taekwondo for 3+ years. Eat kimchi and bibimbap, have been known to have a snort of makkoli. And my brother lived and worked there in the 70s. So I am pretty familiar with Korea for a migook.

So no need to 'let me off the hook'.

Korea is just one of the money pits.

As the late Sen. Everett Dirksen once said, 'a million here and a million there and pretty soon you're talking about real money.' Each little commitment overseas, aside from actual wars, drains money from the homeland.

Whether they love us or not, how many 'client' states can we support before the fisc goes bust?

South Korean is not a "client state" in the sense that you mean; we're not supporting them except with a token military presence - which also gives us a presence in the Far East.

It's not that we're talking past one another, it's just that we disagree. No point in arguing with you further.