revising my opinion on the war

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
J

JOFO

Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
Joined
Dec 2, 2000
Messages
4,422
so while I always said war is wrong, I felt the u.s. had no choice but to take out saddam hussein's regime. a few months after the war, I'm starting to change my mind.
after 911, many u.s. citizens are paranoid about further terrorist attacks, even though they won't admit it. the scenario painted by the bush administration regarding hussein giving al-queda biological weapons for them to unleash in the u.s. was enough reason for me to support the war. now that there hasn't been any weapons found, no links to al queda found, no direct theat to the u.s. found, and ensuing chaos and sniper attacks in iraq on coalition troops, I think that u.s. citizens were duped by bush.

sure enough, hussein deserved to be toppeled......I just wish we held off until we had the support of the rest of the world. now the rest of the world is even more anti-american than before.
 
I think Saddam deserved to be toppled, too, but I think the people in Washington thought that this whole Iraqi thing was going to be a heck of alot of easier than it has been. They were being naive. You just don't take a country that's been under a brutal Stalinist dictatorship and make a democracy out of it by overthrowing the government. You've got to do more than just overthrow a government. The U.S. screwed up by not working with other countries more. There's a possibility that other countries could have been sold on the war if other reasons could have been given, i.e, getting U.S. troops out of Saudi Arabia. They based the whole thing on WMD's, and the WMD's haven't been found. Plus, the whole unilateral thing is why there is increasing anti-American sentiment in Iraq and other Arabic countries. If the force had been multi-national, like it was in Afghanistan, they wouldn't be angry at any one country. It would have helped if some of the troops had been Moslem. Now Iraqis are afraid the occupiers want to rip off their religion. The mosque explosion that happened today is a disaster. I hate to think of what's next. I'm mad as hell over these screw-ups. :censored: :censored: :censored:
 
JOFO...you took the words right out of my mouth. I've been struggling with this issue for months and have to agree with everything you said.
 
The USA had plenty of support for the operation. In addition to a multiple resolutions by the security council approving the use of force, more than 40 countries were on the record as supporting the operation. Operation Iraqi Freedom was indeed a multi-national effort with US, UK, and Australian forces doing the job.

In May, the UN recognized and approved these countries as the "Authority" in Iraq through resolution 1483. An entire Polish Division is going to be sent to Iraq. Polish soldiers are already taking on more roles in Iraq along with Australian, United Kingdom and USA troops.

Saddam Hussiens regime was a danger to the rest of the world because of its failure and unwillingness to fully comply with the UN resolutions and ceacefire agreement it signed on to at the end of of the 1991 Gulf War. Operation Iraqi Freedom is simply the completion of what was supposed to happen following the 1991 Gulf War, but because of Saddam's resistence and games, did not. The only solution to that problem and Saddams non-compliance and failure to account for his WMD was his removal. Saddam's removal and the disolvement of his military and other assets of power insure that Saddam will no longer be able to threaten the region or the world with those things, as he had done so often in the past through the invasion and attacks on 4 independent countries and the murder of over 1.7 million civilians, soldiers from Iraq and other countries in the region.

Nation building especially in a country like Iraq is going to take years if not decades. What is naive is the criticisms that have been leveled against the Bush administration because people have been killed since the end of combat operations and Iraq is not a first world country yet. Nation Building is not nice and tidy, its difficult work and its actually suprising that Iraq is not in a full scale civil war at the moment considering the rivalry's among Sunni, Kurd, Shia and other groups. Difficult ups and downs will probably continue for the next year or two. Once a trained Iraqi Police force is on the streets and some of the Iraqi military rebuilt, then things will start to get easier and US troops can pull back more. In addition, the farther along political and governmental development is, the the more likely unrest will subside.

But these improvements take TIME! Lots of time. Even if the German and French were on the ground in large numbers, the problems would still exist. The French and Germans don't have silver bullets from the problems of nation building. Time and patience are needed rather than jumping up and down from the latest headline that the media decides to blasts everywhere.

Not to many reports or talk about the situation in the Kurdish North and until recently the Shia South. Iraq is a large country and is more than just Baghdad and the area's north of Baghdad. Iraq is more than just the Sunni population who are a minority in Iraq.

The sudden results of the 26 day war melted away much of the criticism and predictions of what would happen during the war. The 26 day war was entirely different than the Anti-War marcher's had believed it would be.

But nation building and keeping the peace and stability in Iraq will take an incredible amount of more time. But gradually as the political, economic, and social situation starts to improve, todays criticisms will melt away as well. Improvement must be measured in months and years, not weeks and days. This is a massive undertaking.
 
OK, Sting2. But I happen to think things would have been better if (particularly) Moslem countries had been involved in one way or another. This was the case in Afghanistan when Turkey supplied some of the troops. Does Turkey feel threatened by terrorists? You bet. It's a U.S ally--and a Moslem country. My point is that if the invaders had been more like the force that invaded Afghanistan alot of these problems wouldn't be going on. U.S. and British soldiers wouldn't be targeted this way. Nation building is a b:censored:ch but I think some of these difficulties could have been avoided.
 
How many Kurds do you think would have been happy with the deployment of Turkish troops on their land? How do you think that would have effected things? What about Iran? Do you think, any Iraqi would feel better with Iranian or Syrian troops in Iraq, especially after what happened in the 1980s between Iran and Iraq?

Perhaps a Muslim country like Egypt or Pakistan might work who are farther removed from the region, but most of Iraq and its neighbors have a deep difficult past. While the use of Turkish troops in Afghanistan is a good thing, the vast majority of troops in Afganistan were American in the begining and still are. There were a few more countries involved supplying very small numbers of troops, but on the whole, the operation in Afghanistan is not really any more multi-national than the one in Iraq. Most individual UN military operations around the world each involve less than 5 countries and often only one or two.
 
Sting,

It would have been better if the administration had you as their spokesman. You would have told everybody the reason for the attack on Iraq is because of violations of UN resolutions 1441, XXXX, and XXXX. I do not remember all the numbers.

The way you stay on point is good. If the Bush Administation had used your arguments only, there would not be so much heat on Blair and the Administration about the MISREPRESENTATIONS.




You have been consistant THEY have not.


Governed people do not like to be lied to, no matter what the ends are to those lies.
 
deep said:
Sting,

It would have been better if the administration had you as their spokesman. You would have told everybody the reason for the attack on Iraq is because of violations of UN resolutions 1441, XXXX, and XXXX. I do not remember all the numbers.

The way you stay on point is good. If the Bush Administation had used your arguments only, there would not be so much heat on Blair and the Administration about the MISREPRESENTATIONS.




You have been consistant THEY have not.


Governed people do not like to be lied to, no matter what the ends are to those lies.
Click to expand...

Well said Deep. I'm still not sure if I would have supported the war, no offense here Sting2, but I wouldn't despise the administration so much.
 
Sting2, OK, the Kurds probably wanted the Turks in Iraq about like they wanted to cut their throats. The Iraqis don't get along with the Iranians due to tensions between Arabs and Persians. In fact, there is also tension between the Turks and the Arabs not to mention the Kurds. I was just using them conceptually as "Moslems" and wondering if having troops who were Moslems might have made a difference. If there had been Turkish troops in southern Iraq it might not have been a bad idea as about one-third of Turks are Shia Moslems. Still, some Washington lawmakers, including John McCain, wish the force in Iraq was more multinational. If it were the U.S. troops wouldn't have this kind of vulnerability. That might be part and parcel part of nation-building. But Americans are not by nature a patient people and this could spell trouble.
 
deep,

"Governed people do not like to be lied to, no matter what the ends are to those lies."

Name one thing that Bush lied about in regards to Iraq.
 
STING2 said:
deep,

"Governed people do not like to be lied to, no matter what the ends are to those lies."

Name one thing that Bush lied about in regards to Iraq.
Click to expand...

"The Iraqi Regime has vast amounts of vx verve gas, mustard gas, etc. etc. and it poses a direct threat to the united states. So much so, in fact, that we've got no time to lose, so we're going in without a majority of support in the united nations, including two of our closest allies, the germans and the french".

where is all the gas? surely, a madman like saddam would have fought with whatever weapons he had available knowing that his life was on the line.

one possibility may be that what has happened was actually the desired outcome; saddam escaped to an unknown country with his loot, and the united states is now hated around the world and is left policing iraq.

but I don't saddam was aiming for that.
 
sulawesigirl4,

"I refuse to drink from the Mississippi River. What's your point?"

Its possible that WMD material may have been disposed of by the Iraqi's in the tigris river.
 
JOFO,

"The Iraqi Regime has vast amounts of vx verve gas, mustard gas, etc. etc. and it poses a direct threat to the united states. So much so, in fact, that we've got no time to lose, so we're going in without a majority of support in the united nations, including two of our closest allies, the germans and the french".

First off, this is not a direct quote from the administration. Secondly it is inaccurate.

The UN supported the operation Iraqi Freedom by their support for resolution 1441 in the fall of 2002 that authorized "Serious Consequences" for Iraq if it failed its one last chance to comply AND reafirmed prior Security Council resolutions that already authorized the "use of all means necessary" to bring about compliance with UN resolutions and the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire agreement.

The UN reafirmed its support for Operation "Iraqi Freedom" by passing resolution 1483. Resolution 1483 specifically recognized the USA, UK, and Australia as the "Authority" in Iraq. This recognition further approves that actions that were taken to achieve that position.

More than 40 countries supported the operation. The USA has more close allies than just France and Germany. France and Germany don't form a majority in anything anywhere.


"where is all the gas? surely, a madman like saddam would have fought with whatever weapons he had available knowing that his life was on the line."

First off, it is a documented fact that Saddam had large amounts of WMD including the "gas" you speak of at the end of 1998 when UN inspectors were kicked out of Iraq. Even Saddam admitted to having certain things around that time.

The Gas and WMD Saddam had is a threat to civilian populations around the world and third world military's, not the US military providing prior preperation with suits, drugs, and decontamination facilities.

Saddams chief goal was to survive another round of inspections by getting away with failing to acount for the WMD he had in 1998 by letting the UN inspectors check all of Iraq and find nothing and then certify him as "clean" despite his failure to account for the WMD. Once certified as "clean", UN sanctions could be lifted.

But the only way to succeed and be certified "clean" without actually giving up the WMD, would require an extensive process to bury and clean up any evidence that inspectors might be able to find once they came into Iraq. In doing so, they have prevented inspectors and now soldiers from finding the WMD. But it meant giving up the option of using such WMD since digging it out would take to long a process if a conflict started. But since US military forces were essentially immune to the type of WMD Saddam had, it would not effect the outcome or his fate in this situation. So really his best option in attempting to keep his WMD was to hide it well enough to be difficult to find, even though this meant he would be unable to extract quickly enough if an invasion happened.

He mis-caculated though because the French and Germans were not able to prevent a coalition invasion despite inspectors not finding the WMD, because the fact of the matter was, the only relevant factor was Saddam's inability or refusal to factually account for the WMD that he was verfied and admitted to having in 1998.
 
STING2:

ok fair enough, maybe the WMD are buried in the middle of the dessert and we won't find them for another 5 years.

but don't you agree that the general world opinion of the united states since the war has gotten even more negative?
 
JOFO,

"but don't you agree that the general world opinion of the united states since the war has gotten even more negative?"

Perhaps, but that won't last. France is already spending millions of dollars to attract Americans to vacation in France.
 
your right sting. absolutely, and im not being sarcastic. but its the way your government works. america believes people have short term memory and everything will work itself out after a while, and for the good majority of the time it works. but it wont always.
 
I was for the war.....
I still am....But for reasons that were never expressed by this administration.

As to the failings of this administration:

*They wanted us to believe we were in IMMEDIATE DANGER (we were not). This is why I wanted Congress to have a formal declaration of War. We were invading another country, and in my opnion, since it was not an immediate situation, use of force was too little.

*They acted without the support of the UN(the latest resolution was not an endorsement of the action we took, I am not interested in debating it! Here is what I base my opinion on,http://www.asil.org/insights/insigh107.htm .

* Postwar planning SUCKS because we acted without the FULL support of the UN. Not only the UN, but other ARAB nations sending in troops through the ARAB league would have given us more legitimacy at this point.

*And in my Opinion the POLITICAL Handlers of this President have too much power over the decisions that are being made. That is why so much MMISINFORMATION was worked into the case presented. I wish I could find the article, but NEWSWEEK even reported sometime ago that Colin Powel was so nervous about this, he had his own people researching everything that he was presenting to the UN.


SO where does that leave me? I am proud of the job that the servicemen and women have done in Iraq, for purely humanitarian reasons. I predict that more servicemen and women will DIE before we leave Iraq than dies in the entire WAR. This IS the President's fault, and I believe directly because of the things I listed above.

Peace
 
STING2:
The world will forgive the US but they won't forget - and lots of people will remember it next time.
People who hated the US before this war will do so even more after the war. These are the seeds your president planted for the next generation of terrorists.

Klaus
 
Klaus said:
STING2:
The world will forgive the US but they won't forget - and lots of people will remember it next time.
People who hated the US before this war will do so even more after the war. These are the seeds your president planted for the next generation of terrorists.

Klaus
Click to expand...

Klaus,

It is a shame that your random Joe in Palestine or Saudi Arabia doesn't like the US. But random Joes and potential terrorists are different subspecies of human, and I really don't think the events of the last two years are going to turn many "random Joes" into new terrorists. Meanwhile, the terrorists already had plenty of reasons to hate the US (remember, the World Trade Center was bombed in 1993).
 
speedracer:
Take a look at the life of Osama Bin Laden, think how he started his "career" and why he turned against the hands that feed him. Then think about "random Joe" in Saudi Arabia again.

The terrorists had plenty of reasons to hate the US and there were manymany terroristic activities against the US - long before '93. Lots of them were stoped by various secret services over the globe, some of them not (Lockerbee Pan Am for example).

Klaus

p.s. they are all Homo Sapiens Sapiens - they are not born as Homo Sapiens Terorisiensis
 
Klaus,

"The world will forgive the US but they won't forget - and lots of people will remember it next time.
People who hated the US before this war will do so even more after the war. These are the seeds your president planted for the next generation of terrorists."

The world does not need to forgive the USA because the USA had done nothing wrong. How many people do you really think want to become terrorist because Iraq has been liberated from one of the worst dictators in history. Rather than planting seeds for terrorist, Bush is rooting them out, unlike many of our friends in Europe. Most Europeans still like to let problems grow until they are uncontrollable, just as they did in the 1930s. The USA is not in the business of appeasement.
 
Klaus said:
speedracer:
Take a look at the life of Osama Bin Laden, think how he started his "career" and why he turned against the hands that feed him. Then think about "random Joe" in Saudi Arabia again.
Click to expand...

If I remember correctly, ObL turned against the US because the US committed the unconscionable sin of --gasp!-- putting military bases on the holy land of Saudi Arabia. (Never mind that their purpose was to prevent Saddam Hussein from attacking Saudi Arabia.)

Instead of pandering to dictators and terrorists, maybe the peoples of the world should focus on discrediting and destroying the poisonous strains of fanatical "Islam". You know, the ones that proclaim "there is a Zionist conspiracy to take over the world", "kill the infidels", "an Israelite's favorite drink is Arab blood", etc.
 
Last edited:
Dreadsox said:
I .

SO where does that leave me? I am proud of the job that the servicemen and women have done in Iraq, for purely humanitarian reasons. I predict that more servicemen and women will DIE before we leave Iraq than dies in the entire WAR. This IS the President's fault, and I believe directly because of the things I listed above.

Peace
Click to expand...

:up:

Being a sceptic where authority is concerned and especially politicians, the inability of the admin. to demonstrate in a tangible way the threat of Sadaam was a major reason I protested the war, especially with the former head of the inspection team refutting the "facts" the admin. used. The other was the lack of OK and involvement by NATO and the UN.

Now we are stuck in a QUAGMIRE with no outlet in sight.

What happened to a Iraqi intermeddiate gov't?
 
Klaus said:
speedracer:
This is just the "last episode" of the game.
Do some research and look who convinced arabs to start djihad anyway
Click to expand...

ObL and al-Qaeda's stated aims are to force the US military out of Saudi Arabia. They didn't start taking up the cause of the Palestinians until recently, and Palestinians are for the most part very cynical of ObL's attempts to curry their favor.

The rest of the Middle East terrorists are motivated by a deep-seated, partially historical and mostly fanciful hatred of Israel and its allies. It's true.
 
Go back to the time when Mr. Osama Bin Laden was about 20 years old, think about how he was convinced to fight in Afghanistan with the Mujahedin instead of enjoying his Life on a Luxurious Motorboat at Monte Carlo or flying with his private Jet to Aspen for skiing.

Klaus
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
the little stranger chapter 2
Replies
0
Views
526
annj
A
A
The Little stranger chapter 1
Replies
0
Views
978
annj
A
A
The little stranger Chapter 5
Replies
0
Views
675
annj
A
LemonMelon
Desert Island XI - QUARANTINE ISLAND - Group 2 Listening Thread
4 5 6
Replies
175
Views
6K
namkcuR
N
A
the little stranger chapter 3
Replies
0
Views
575
annj
A

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom