The war in Iraq, Justified? Options

[Kleerance]

I just wonder what you North Americans feel about the war in Iraq.

Do you think it's right? (why/why not?)

This war is expensive for US. How much are you willing to sacrifice from a domestic perspective (money and casualties) to win.

Other strong opinions...?

I am just curious.......

[Cpt. Snot Rocket]

John Edwards > January 7, 2003
"Serving on the intelligence committee and seeing day after day, week after week, briefings on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons, he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons. It's just that simple. The whole world changes if Saddam ever has nuclear weapons."



So who's lying? I'm confused.

[Hellfighter]

John Edwards > January 7, 2003
"Serving on the intelligence committee and seeing day after day, week after week, briefings on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons, he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons. It's just that simple. The whole world changes if Saddam ever has nuclear weapons."



So who's lying? I'm confused.

Yes I think you might be . Like I stated before, even I was for the decision going to war - I remembered how everyone ignored Churchill when he warned about not taking out the Nazis before they turned into a superforce.
However I became skeptical with Powell's 'evidence' at the UN, and the US desiring to go it alone without the UN even though inspectors were getting full access to inspect everywhere they wanted.
The CIA was telling the Bush admin at the time the reports were not credible - the CIA!!!!!!
So that's where the lie comes in.... Cheney wanted the war to show the terrorists and any nation leader supporting any terrorist groups, that attack is the best form of defence - picking on Iraq was the likely target.... Saddam was unpopular to everyone except the Palestinians-who'd come to his support if he was attacked... not the Saudis, not Iran, and definately not the Iraqi populace.
He was squeezed by no-fly zones in the north and south and his air defences were constantly being whittled away - something was in the works all along- just a spark was needed and the fabricated one was the final solution,
You talk about a flood of WMD reports coming in daily -well where was that huge volume of intel presented at the UN by Colin Powell? It all came down to suspicions over a large truck and a tiny plane? Is that your irrefutable evidence. And then they were using 'evidence' from Iraqi dissidents- what did that come out to be?
It was all cooked up for one purpose in my opinion- note I didn't say the threat didn't exist, but it was played up with lies and for an un-admitted purpose.

Its all about strategy- strategy to fool the gullable. Have you seen Cheney's 1994 interview about what he thought going into Iraq would mean.

The point you're missing is the insurgents in Iraq aren't the terrorists that you dream will come over here, 'in our streets' to fight. You are mixing up that bag of nuts with Al quaeda coming into Iraq from Syria. And those nuts are mere diversionary cannon fodder- those are the nuts stirred up to fight because of the war and their close proximity to Iraq to get in there and create their diversionary havoc bin Laden wishes while he re-consolidates his real hardcore strength elsewhere in the world.
You are indeed getting sucked in by Bush's current lies about everything being all or nothing in Iraq. Even after a total victory that wipes out terrorists in Iraq [impossible] there will still be chaos unless the Iraqi factions politically make a settlement.

The real terrorists are training HERE in our backyards already or in the safety of Afghanistan-Pakistan where we didn't finish the job.

Again you and others should get off the "everyone's busting America's balls" horse. People[and the majority of Americans] are busting the balls of Cheney and Bush and their policy in Iraq. You only confuse yourselves thinking the pot is bigger.

You're not the only ones fighting terrorists. Military and secret ops, intel from ALL around the world are involved in the operation -we're all on the chopping block of the terrorists and every region of the world has been hit by these same terrorists before and after 9-11.

And you people on the beat-up France bandwagon- hello, but France has troops in Afghanistan in the War on Terror. So you hate them because they were chummy with Saddam pre 9-11. Let's see who was chummy with him and shaking his hand with smiles during the Iran-Iraq war even with his reputation already established as a ruthless dictator.....

Bottom line is that war won't be won unless 300,000 troops+ are there to secure the borders and starve the insurgents and terrorists the means to destabilise the nation and nullify any advance in a political solution.
Until then why continue with same strategy continuously that is quagmired since only the shifting of forces means a shifting of victories. The enemy has limitless cannonfodder to pour through the strategy's holes.

And that line about 'these people hated us anyway'.... I don't care if someone hates my guts to the core. The thing about haters is whether they act out or not -everyone is hated by someone; even the nicest people in the world have haters somewhere. If you know haters won't act out their hatred on you, you can sleep at night. If they're provoked into acting out- your health is in jeopardy.---- and no, you don't always know who your haters are to take them out beforehand..... re: Timothy McVeigh


This post has been edited by Hellfighter: 08/19/07 9:17am

[*Triggahappy13*]

though inspectors were getting full access to inspect everywhere they wanted.

uhhhh no?

[M@ster of Dis@ster]

though inspectors were getting full access to inspect everywhere they wanted.

uhhhh no?

Before the war for 6 months, yes. Fact.

No weapons stockpiles found. Fact.

No active programs found. Fact.

No operational weapons facilities found. Fact.

No such thing as "mobile trailers". Fact.

No nuclear program. Fact.

No SCUD missles. Fact.

Weapons inspectors were in the midst of confirming all this, reported they were getting good co-operation from Iraqi's in their last report to the UN, had already concluded there was no nuclear program, and were begging for time to finish the job. They were forced to leave as the US commenced the war, dismissing all their perfectly accurate reports, saying that Saddam had "deceived" them. The weapons inspectors were not deceived. they were right. Fact.

So, make the arguments you wish, but these are facts, not the opinion of right wing and left wing blogs. Simple, indisputable facts that will be recorded by history despite the attempts of right wing commentators to confuse with theories no better than any wingnuts conspiracy theory.

Just FYI, you can't move weapons factories to Syria, or bury them in the desert without a trace.

This is why traditional allies did not join the war. There was no reason for it. It was an aggressive war based on faulty intelligence that was not standing the test as the weapons inspectors were discovering all the "intelligence" the America's had was false. The international community joined the Afgan mission because they agreed there was a threat. They did not join the Iraq mission because most felt there wasn't a threat. Both choices were correct. However, it could be argued that Iraq does NOW pose a threat as the ultimate terriost training ground, especially if the Americans cannot restore stability and the rule of law, which they are unlikely able to do. However, that is a threat of Bush's creation.

This was perhaps the United States greatest strategic mistake of its history. The war on terror should be covert, taking out terrorists and their cells in back rooms and dirty hotels. It should be clandestine, it should not make the news. Terrorists are not a conventional army, their ranks are not finite and their resources are not limited by budgets. They are multi-national, know no borders, and their ranks swell in proportion to the unpopularity of the US's policies in the region. Trying to defeat them with a conventional army is a disaterous policy. You can kill 1000's insugents/terrorists today, it makes no difference. The fact you killed a 500-1000 civilians too probably means you'll get 2000-3000 more people who will convert to the terrorist cause in some form or another. It's called blowback. The US will be facing it for years and years to come.

This post has been edited by M@ster of Dis@ster: 08/19/07 10:25am