war with iraq?

[lau gar]

what are ur opinions

[Bad Karma]

I don't have a problem w/Iraq. It should have been done the 1st time we were over there in force, but the objective wasn't Iraq as it should have been. Too short-sighted were the political views of the time and solely focused on applying the band-aid (liberating Kuwait) instead of curing the problem (Saddam Insane) - IMHO.

This time around, the goals are clear and concise. I don't understand why the issues for a need to find a "smoking gun" has surfaced. Who started that, anyway? The US doesn't need UN approval, never did, to invade Iraq; however, Powell did the right thing by convincing "Dub-Ya" to go through the UN for obvious political reasons.

Regardless, Iraq was and continues to be in violation of several sanctions imposed upon them from/since Desert Storm. It's kinda funny to read about the "UN this" and the "UN that" when I already know they will support and join ANY US action. Which of them would like the US to accomplish this all by themselves and then be in sole control? Not one of them. They'll join up just so they can have some input on the end results. Saudi Arabia is hard pressing the Iraqi's to remove Saddam on their own to prevent the military action...that will happen.

(I think the real fear is for the Muslim community once the US takes residency - I liken it to the Berlin Wall falling.)

What bothers me the most are the people who protest the action with claims of N Korea should be more pressing of an issue. I guess they don't see the connection in the triangle. It's funny they are willing to place US soldiers in the dircet line of fire of nukes and huge loss of life with negative long term effects, but they have a problem with no nuke threat and lesser loss of life with positive long term effects - WTF?!

N Korea is another issue. Not separated from this one, just another side of it. It'll happen in due time.

Peace

p.s. Sign your post(s) with your real name per forum rules.

[Jason Chambers]

Get it overwith already!

Tony,

Email me at e-ninpo.com@cox.net

The PM thing isn't working.

[Jeff C.]

I can't really comment on that. I am a bit too close to the issue. Things seem to be moving forward rather rapidly.

Jeff Cook
Wabujitsu

[Bear]

I think we should have done it right the first time, but we didn't, and hindsight is 20/20. I do think we will be going to war, but I don't think now is the right time. I think we should take care of North Korea first. But that's just my opinion. North Korea doesn't even pretend to not have weapons of mass destruction. They've basically told the world, "We got 'em, so what? What are you going to do about it?" I just find North Korea to be far more aggressive and dangerous than Iraq currently is.

[Jeff C.]

China will keep N. Korea in line, in my opinion.

Regarding what we should have done during Desert Storm, I agree - the UN should have finished the job.

What really bothers me (and none of you have done this here) is that people blame Bush Sr. for not taking out Saddam the first time. People seem to forget that that would have directly violated the UN's resolutions, and it was a UN operation.

Jeff Cook
Wabujitsu

[TenchuDude]

I have mixed emotions about it. I think Iraq is a threat, but I hope we come up with a permantnt solution. None of this partial crap like last time.

But then I also feel that our country as a whole, isn't happy unless we are bombing the hell out of someone. Its like we still have to make up for pearl harbor or something.

[dingodog1]

:bandit:
I think we should have done it right the first time, but we didn't, and hindsight is 20/20. I do think we will be going to war, but I don't think now is the right time. I think we should take care of North Korea first. But that's just my opinion. North Korea doesn't even pretend to not have weapons of mass destruction. They've basically told the world, "We got 'em, so what? What are you going to do about it?" I just find North Korea to be far more aggressive and dangerous than Iraq currently is.We have more nukes than anyone and are the only ones to ever use em. What gives us the right to decide who may have them since we haven't divested ourselves of them? :bow:

[John Bennett]

> "What gives us the right to decide who may have them since we haven't divested ourselves of them?"

The Golden Rule gives us the right.

That rule being, "He who has the most gold makes the rules".

It's not fair, but neither is life.

[dingodog1]

We shall see. As you say, Life is not fair.

[Luebbers]

The main problem I had with our involvement in Iraq has to do with what appears to me to be a contradictory stance on our motivations. The first reason I heard was that we need to drop this global view and concentrate on OUR needs above those of other countries. This is why we were willing to jack up Iraq and its citizens in order to protect ourselves against a POSSIBLE threat. While this isn't my viewpoint, I understand that quite a fwe people share this ideology. Fine.

Now that we have been militarily involved in Iraq for some time now, we have found ZERO weapons of mass destruction and have found that they military and political hierarchy crumbled like a house of cards weeks into our insurgence. Now people are making up this half-baked post-hoc justification that while maybe this wasn't such a big threat, we did the world a favor by removing this dictator. Again, that's difficult to argue with.

My problem is that if we follow this American needs over other countries' needs philosophy (which is why we got involved in the first place) then how do you justify sacrificing American lives in an operation that was far more beneficial to another country that to us?

[wab25]

==================
Now that we have been militarily involved in Iraq for some time now, we have found ZERO weapons of mass destruction and have found that they military and political hierarchy crumbled like a house of cards weeks into our insurgence.
==================

This is my biggest complaint against Bush Jr. First off, he claims that our intelligence and intelligence from other countries, like the UK, has concluded that Iraq has WMD which the UN sanctions don't allow. So, now we have been there and Bush Jr allows the press to get away with saying that we have found ZERO WMD. He also allows the press to get away with saying that the intelligence he acted on was false. What Bush really should be doing is outlining in very clear terms, the WMDs we have found. Yes, I realise that all the front pages of every single newspaper in the country claim otherwise, but if you read those back page articles, the really small ones that do not sell the paper, you will find that a lot more WMDs were found. Here are what I can recall off the top of my head:

1. Trucks with chemical labs, built into the trailers, for making chemical and biological agents. Yes, after a few months it was determined that you could possibly make a few ag related chemicals as well, but it took months to figuire out how to make the ag chemicals, were it took just a few days to learn what WMD chemicals could be made in them. Why does Iraq need mobile ag labs to make ag chemicals? Why not make them in factories, like everyone else and just ship the chemicals? And why bury and hide the trucks just before the US invades? If the trucks were really used for ag, why hide them? ( also remember that just prior to WWII, the Germans convinced all the media that it was making tractors and cargo ships. Once the war started, Germany had huge numbers of U-boats and tanks suddenly. they came from nowhere. funny though, there weren't many tractors around......)

2. They found stock piles chemical agents that could be fired from RPG launchers. They learned through captured military officials that, Saddam had planned to use them against the US troops and had even given that order. It was the generals and colonels that did not want to fight the US troops, that never gave the orders to the troops. Yes, I realize that these weapons were being used for defense, this time. But, Iraq had them, and they were against the sanctions, just like Bush told us.

3. They found tons (sorry I can't remember the exact number of tons, I will have to try to dig up this article again) of biological agents buried 50 miles outside the Iraq border in Saudi Arabia. These agents were buried in the 6 month period between the time Bush said "we give you 6 months then we are coming" and the time we went. Think about it, if you are selling drugs out of your house, and a SWAT team parks a block away, and gives you a weeks notice before they come in, how many drugs will they find on your property? Our intelligence says that Saddam moved most of his WMDs out of Iraq into other places and 6 months was plenty of time to do so.

4. The British Prime Minister reported that his troops found an underground lab that was used to produce ricen ( I hope I spelled that right ) in LARGE quantities. They found that it was in operation right up until the day that the US attacked.

5. The latest findings of the UN inspectors was that Iraq was indeed involved in the development of WMDs. They were out trying to purchase the ingrediants covertly and they did have many labs and scientists working on these projects. They might not have been as far along as Bush told us, but they were on the paths that we were told. ( No, this is not the HIGHLY publisized findings from a few months ago. If you remember, when those were made public they always said at the end that those were the findings of one man and were not official, that the official findings would come out later when the team as a whole was done. I don't know if the team is now done, but the findings I am referring to were the official findings of the team at the time, which was the end of last week )

6. Many of the scientists that we have interegated knew of the projects that were going on to develop such WMDs. The details vary in their correctness and completeness depending upon which particular scientist was questioned, but there are a substantial number that have provided good info. I believe it has been this info that led to finding some of the labs that we have found.

7. We have also found known terrorists and even top level Al-Queda members in Iraq. Many of these people were working directly with Saddams regime. Papers have been found documenting Iraq's funding of Al-Queda projects as well as other terrorist groups. Documents have been found showing that Iraq did send people to train Al-Queda members to make bombs, and that there were plans for Iraq to distribute WMDs to terrorist networks, Al-Queda included, once they were fully developed. These documents also show how the terrorist groups were actively helping to gather the ingrediants for the WMDs.

Thats just off the top of my head. But you can learn a lot by reading the back page stories and by listening to the quick segments on the news. These are the ones that don't sell ad space, but they do carry important information. I think Bush needs to present this information to the citizens of the US. We voted for him, he sent our troops (our fathers, brothers, sons, mothers, daughters, sisters ) and he spent our money. I think he should also step up to the plate and report on what we got for it. No, its not exactly what he said, but its not exactly what the media says either. I think we DESERVE to know the truth about what was found.

[dingodog1]

Considering what the real golden rule implies emphasizes the contradiction in our policy of depriving sovereign nations of the right to develop their own technology to raise their readiness to a level that would deter aggression from their enemies. Our country has asserted it's right to defend itself recently despite widespread dissent in the world community. "Hello, Kettle?, This is the Pot"....

[wab25]

=================
"Hello, Kettle?, This is the Pot"....
=================

If we just look at the last few years, then yes I would agree with you in the pot calling the kettle black. But, if we go back just a few more years, we see that at one time Iraq did have every right to develop weapons as it liked. Then, it militarily took over a neighboring country, in order to gain that countries sea ports and thus make more money. It was as a result of this action, that Iraq received the sanctions on what weapons it could and could not have. Its kind of like when a guy puts a gun to an old woman's head and takes her car. After the police catch him, and give the old lady her car back, should they give him his gun back and set him free? What if he has nice long rap sheet as well? Still give him his gun and let him go?

Iraq would not have had the sanctions against it, if Iraq had not invaded and taken over Kuwait. ( something Iraq did only to increase oil profit. "No Blood for Oil" should also apply for the aggressor, Iraq ) It was the UN that liberated Kuwait, however, whenever the UN does something, it is blamed on the USA because we always supply the troops to carry out the UN's actions. Therefore, Saddam has it in for the USA and he supports terrorist groups which have already conducted one very successful attack on our soil, and many other attacks to our military and civilians in foreign countries. When he has or is trying to get WMDs that he has been sanctioned against, then he becomes a threat. While there wasn't everything there that Bush claimed, there was a lot there that the media downplays. (enough so that in a year or two, they would be where Bush thought they were ) Anyway, when people play by the rules, they have more liberty to do as they please, same goes for countries as well.

[Luebbers]

I don't think anyone is disputing that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons. How does the US government know? We have the frigging reciept.

The supposed impetus for us to move in was that Iraq was allegedly trying and approaching success on building a nuclear weapon. We had intelligence that suggested they were trying to buy weapons-grade uranium as well as materials to build devices for enriching said uranium. All of the intelligence leading to these conclusions was viewed with serious doubt by just about everyone in the intelligence community - and even now the administration has all but admitted that it knew this intelligence was unreliable before we invaded (now that our "proof" hasn't materialized). Hence this emphasis on dethroning the tyrant and stabilizing the area.

As for terrorist connections, Iraq can get in line. If we're looking for Al-Qaeda contacts, why not look to Saudi Arabia? Fifteen out of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers were Saudis. Why not look to Libya, a country that openly admits to providing safe haven for terrorists?

I also don't think anyone disputes that Iraq was in violation of UN sanctions. However, if they're UN sanctions, then let the UN handle it. We, as a part of the UN security council, help make the rules, set up the sanctions and determine the bad guys. But, when the rest of the UN doesn't want to invade another country, we go on our own (sorry, we had the help of The Republic of Palau), to do it. If we're going to play the game, we have to follow all the rules, not just the ones we want.

Now, Saddam was definitely a baddy and the world is a better place without him. And since we have committed to action, I support our troops 110%. But I think our motives for going there in the first place were shady and now that we're setting up governments in TWO differenct countries over there, I think we're going to piss some more people off.

[dingodog1]

I don't think anyone is disputing that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons. How does the US government know? We have the frigging reciept.

The supposed impetus for us to move in was that Iraq was allegedly trying and approaching success on building a nuclear weapon. We had intelligence that suggested they were trying to buy weapons-grade uranium as well as materials to build devices for enriching said uranium. All of the intelligence leading to these conclusions was viewed with serious doubt by just about everyone in the intelligence community - and even now the administration has all but admitted that it knew this intelligence was unreliable before we invaded (now that our "proof" hasn't materialized). Hence this emphasis on dethroning the tyrant and stabilizing the area.

As for terrorist connections, Iraq can get in line. If we're looking for Al-Qaeda contacts, why not look to Saudi Arabia? Fifteen out of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers were Saudis. Why not look to Libya, a country that openly admits to providing safe haven for terrorists?

I also don't think anyone disputes that Iraq was in violation of UN sanctions. However, if they're UN sanctions, then let the UN handle it. We, as a part of the UN security council, help make the rules, set up the sanctions and determine the bad guys. But, when the rest of the UN doesn't want to invade another country, we go on our own (sorry, we had the help of The Republic of Palau), to do it. If we're going to play the game, we have to follow all the rules, not just the ones we want.

Now, Saddam was definitely a baddy and the world is a better place without him. And since we have committed to action, I support our troops 110%. But I think our motives for going there in the first place were shady and now that we're setting up governments in TWO differenct countries over there, I think we're going to piss some more people off.
My remarks were actually in response to John Bennett's as we responded to Bears' comments concerning N. Korea.

Wab25, I agree with you concerning Iraq.

[Dennis Monk]

Regardless of what UN or U.S. military inspectors have found, there was a very dangerous wepaon of mass destruction found in Iraq. He was hiding in a hole under a shack (Saddam himself). How many people does a weapon have to kill to be a "weapon of mass destruction"? I say that if any one man could be considered a "WMD" he would be it. I agree we need to get out of Iraq when the time is right. Just remember, if you tie a brick around a bird's neck and throw him out of a window; Is that bird really free? Those people are not ready yet. In time maybe, but not now.

[Bad Karma]

The US is here for just a few reasons. I have only what I see and hear from the nationals I work closely with here in Northern Iraq. If you could see and hear some of their stories...a lot of good has come from the US being here.
Many of those I work with have lost a family member or two (or more) because of Saddam and his policies.

The changes the US have implemented and working on implementing are drastic the general population. Many are uneducated and unskilled outside of forced military training, if that. I have Kurdish and Arabic / Christian and Muslim working together under my supervision. It's an interesting spectacle.

The best thing that could happen to this country, in my opinion, would be to separate religion from government. Of course, ONE governing body would be nice, too. I'm more involved in civil affair related events than I thought I would be when I touched down. Interestingly, many of those I speak with agree on the separation of religion and government...in this part of Iraq.

I'm not sure how detailed I can get, so I'll go the safer route and be somewhat broad in this comment...things could be done better, but we're doing well with what we have to do with. Always room for improvement.


If we're going to play the game, we have to follow all the rules, not just the ones we want. Oh, man. Where to start and stop with that one...

Peace

[maxpress]

i was mechanized infantry for 6yrs so dont think im disputing the war.

we feed 3/4 of the world and almost all of iraq. i think instead of going to war we could have just stopped the importation of food and let them get hungry enough to come around to our way of thinking or the population would have taken out the government for us.

one thing youll learn from advanced schools in the army is that food is the greatest weapon there is and youll do anything for it once you get hungry enough.


chris mangold