The War

[Dreadsox]

This is not a debate thread. I know what will happen but I would just like some public statements about the war in Iraq.

1) I believe this administration LIED and DECIEVED to gain public support for an invasion of Iraq using WMD to scare the nation and congress(just before the election) into voting to give war powers.
2) I do not believe the ends justifies the means. I believe we should have gone to war because Iraq was a critical reason for the violence against America over a ten year period. I do not believe the country would have supported my position, nor did this administration so they conducted a strategic, well thought out, manipulative campaign to lead us to war.
3) I am proud of the work our soldiers have done.
4) I do not believe we have done right by the soldiers of this country, sending them on tour after tour, and preventing them from leaving the serivice when their contract is over.
5) I believe that the Iraq War is a reason that Al-Qaeda has not struck the USA again. The war created a front because AL-Qaeda came to do battle in Iraq. I do not believe they were an operational force until after the war.
6) I believe John McCain was correct in his criticism in the manner the war was conducted. If the international community had been given time to develop a coalition like the one for the Gulf War, our soldiers may very well be home now. If only we had a crystal ball...but it was poorly conducted from the start.
7) I believe that if an honest presentation of a case for war was presented to the American people we would be looking at a different election.
8) I do not believe we should be withdrawing until the region looks stable, we started this mess, we need to leave it better than when we got there.

 

[U2isthebest]

Are we supposed to state which one(s) we agree with or add our own?

 

[Dreadsox]

I was kind of hoping for peoples own declarations.

 

[Utoo]

I agree with a good deal of what you said, Dread.

Earlier today, I was considering starting a thread to ask the following question, so instead I'll just ask it here:

What consitutes the end of the War on Terror?

I think that the Bush War in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan can meet an end when the regions are more stable. I'm one of the few liberal Dems who is of the mindset of "we broke it, we fix it" (though I do think that at least a proposed timetable, with the option for delays, is part of the solution). However, I do think that we must keep in mind the fact that our very presence does indeed breed the anti-American sentiment that we are fighting. So, I think that "stability" is hard to define when it feels like we'll have people fighting us there as long as we're present. "More stable" or "as stable as we can expect" is more nuanced.

The War on Terror, on the other hand, is much more amorphous. Is it confined only to Iraq & Afghanistan? We know it's not. Is it limited only to Al Qaeda? Can we expect to fully and forever destroy Al Qaeda and all of its iterations? Are we now pledged to fight all terrorists, in all forms, everywhere? Or does the war end once we kill bin Laden, no matter what other terror groups exist or whether Al Qaeda still survives?

So, having accepted that the reasoning for the Bush War in Iraq was a lie and an abuse of power in its sales pitch, what is still left to unsettle me is the War on Terror. Like the "War on Drugs," I think it's something that by its very nature is designed to fail.

 

[VintagePunk]

I agree with everything you've stated Dread, but I'm not really sure I understand the point you're making with number 5.

I also strongly agree with number 8. I always have. It's the one area where I depart from Obama's stance. I don't think that there should be a firm pull-out date, just for the sake of what would be good for America, unless they can make a compelling argument as to why the area would be more secure after a pull-out. Bush fucked up royally in choosing to engage in this war, and the Iraqi citizens whose lives have been destroyed are owed some measure of security. You broke it, you fix it.

I would also go one further in expressing my resentment as to the way this ill-advised invasion took the focus off of the more important task of actually capturing the group and leader responsible for 9/11. In addition to this, it's taken the focus off of Afghanistan, and has greatly lessened the resources available for that battle. Every time I hear on the news that another Canadian soldier has been killed in Afghanistan, I get extremely angry.

Also, the American public had access to all the same information that I did, prior to the elections in '04. Why has it taken much of the country so long to come to essentially the same conclusions that I'd drawn way before?

 

[Dreadsox]

In my opinion number five would mean we created a front on a frontless war....decreasing attacks on America because al qaeda moved into iraq.

 

[toscano]

8) I do not believe we should be withdrawing until the region looks stable, we started this mess, we need to leave it better than when we got there.

The region has been unstable for centuries

Time to go, if we wait until it's stable we'll be there forever.

Define "better than when we got there", before the war it was a brutal tin pot dictatorship the likes of which we tolerate in many other countries, but it was relatively stable.

If they want to have a local Civil War, go ahead, or send in UN troops instead of American troops

Given that the majority of the Iraqi army disappeared overnight, you know there are a lot of trained ex-Military people any budding Iraqi security force can draw upon.

 

[JOFO]

This is not a debate thread. I know what will happen but I would just like some public statements about the war in Iraq.

1) I believe this administration LIED and DECIEVED to gain public support for an invasion of Iraq using WMD to scare the nation and congress(just before the election) into voting to give war powers.

Yes, they did. I do think they actually thought WMD were there. Poor intelligence and they acted upon it. WHY? It will be years before the real answer is known imo. Did Bush want to settle the score with Saddam for the assasination attempt that never happened on his father? Did Bush want to outdo his father by finishing what his father started? Did the administration want to put a U.S. presence right in the middle of the middle east, thereby also threatening Iran and Syria? Did Cheney have the Haliburton thing going from the beginning? These questions have never been answered.

5) I believe that the Iraq War is a reason that Al-Qaeda has not struck the USA again. The war created a front because AL-Qaeda came to do battle in Iraq. I do not believe they were an operational force until after the war.

I don't think so. I think if you read about the arrests and kidnappings of "suspects" and the subsequent torture of them, I think alot of info has been given up as far as possible future attacks.
I do think Al Queda would have hit us again by now if they could've, but I don't think the war has anything to do with it.
Also, our security measures are much better now, and hopefully the intelligence agencies are working together better.

8) I do not believe we should be withdrawing until the region looks stable, we started this mess, we need to leave it better than when we got there.

It's never going to be stable. These people have hated each other for thousands of years. Take your pick: we leave now and they rip each other to shreds, or we stay another 50 years, have thousands more US soldiers dead, and then leave and the people rip each other to shreds.

 

[JOFO]

Also: the war in Iraq has turned every country in the world against us, has put the soldiers through unimaginable trauma, has brought out the worst in our leaders (advocating prisoner torutre, ignoring the Geneva convention), cost us how many trillions of dollars, has stretched the military to the point were we cannot respond to any other crisis in the world, has deverted our attention from getting Bin Laden, and emboldened Iran.

Wow. Just wow.

Great work W.
Mission Accomplished allright.

 

[Vincent Vega]

I'm still appalled by how the government has treated all the nations that not support going to war with Iraq. I'm still appalled by the visciousness that administration has shown, that stubborness and that arrogance.
And I am still convinced that going into Iraq while still being far away from "mission accomplished" in Afghanistan did no good to the parties involved.

And yes, aspects like Guantanamo, Abu Ghreib, all the CIA practices, disregard of/for? human dignity and common standards etc. leave me greatly disappointed.

 

[JOFO]

And not only have we become the very thing we're suppossed to be fighting against by allowing the torture, we've also just subjected American pow's to the same thing in retaliation.

Also:
I don't think in the end this has been "a war for oil"; if it was suppossed to be, we failed miserably at that as well considering the oil prices in the last few years.

Iraq= Monumental Clusterfuck.

 

[ntalwar]

#5 is a bit of a stetch.

I don't think in the end this has been "a war for oil"; if it was suppossed to be, we failed miserably at that as well considering the oil prices in the last few years.

Bush/Cheney aren't "we". Take a look at a stock price chart of, say ExxonMobil and Halliburton since 2003 (except for this month).

 

[JOFO]

Well, I don't follow such things. But Exxon has made a ton of money right? Great.....why are the gas prices so high? (and believe me, I'm aware they're come down recently, and even at their highest are still far lower than in Europe's been for years).

 

[JOFO]

Judging by how few respones there have been in this thread, I can only assume that either: 1) it's Friday night and everyone else has something better to do tonight than me or 2) like Vietnam, no one wants to hear about it anymore; it's been going on too long, it's desparaging to talk about, it's a quagmire and it's going to be that way a long time or 3) since the media hasn't been covering it in the last 6 months because of the election, everyone thinks it's all calm cool and collected overthere.

 

[Vincent Vega]

Do we need mandatory reply threads? Many people like to read, but less to post, or they just don't think they have something meaningful to add, or have any other reason not to post.
I don't agree with this tendency to judge posters here by what threads they respond to and which not.
And yes, not everyone shares the same interest in what topics to discuss. Doesn't tell anything about whether they care about any topic in general or not.
Additionally, if you take a look at the respondents to the other threads you will see that there is only a few posters active today. It seems safe to assume that most are doing other things than visiting FYM today.

 

[JOFO]

cool thanks for the info.

 

[Diemen]

Judging by how few respones there have been in this thread, I can only assume that either: 1) it's Friday night and everyone else has something better to do tonight than me or 2) like Vietnam, no one wants to hear about it anymore; it's been going on too long, it's desparaging to talk about, it's a quagmire and it's going to be that way a long time or 3) since the media hasn't been covering it in the last 6 months because of the election, everyone thinks it's all calm cool and collected overthere.

I think you can safely take #3 off the list.