revising my opinion on the war - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-01-2003, 11:38 AM   #1
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 4,422
Local Time: 05:31 AM
revising my opinion on the war

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.
__________________

__________________
JOFO is offline  
Old 07-01-2003, 03:58 PM   #2
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 05:31 AM
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.
__________________

__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 07-01-2003, 07:25 PM   #3
BAW
The Flower
 
BAW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: The OC....!!!!
Posts: 11,094
Local Time: 09:31 PM
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.
__________________
BAW is offline  
Old 07-02-2003, 01:55 AM   #4
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 05:31 AM
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.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-02-2003, 01:17 PM   #5
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 05:31 AM
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 bch but I think some of these difficulties could have been avoided.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 07-02-2003, 01:58 PM   #6
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 05:31 AM
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.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-02-2003, 04:14 PM   #7
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 09:31 PM
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 is online now  
Old 07-02-2003, 06:30 PM   #8
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,667
Local Time: 11:31 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep
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.
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.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 07-02-2003, 06:33 PM   #9
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 05:31 AM
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.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 07-02-2003, 08:34 PM   #10
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 05:31 AM
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 is offline  
Old 07-02-2003, 10:09 PM   #11
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 4,422
Local Time: 05:31 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
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.
"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.
__________________
JOFO is offline  
Old 07-03-2003, 03:33 AM   #12
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Just east of Brunoville..
Posts: 50
Local Time: 06:31 AM
The above poster asked....-"Where are all the poisons"?

I refuse to drink from the Tigris River.

Atticus.
__________________
the hand that leads you
is the hand that
will push you away..
Atticus Finch is offline  
Old 07-03-2003, 10:46 AM   #13
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
sulawesigirl4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Virginia
Posts: 7,416
Local Time: 12:31 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Atticus Finch

I refuse to drink from the Tigris River.

Atticus.
I refuse to drink from the Mississippi River. What's your point?
__________________
"I can't change the world, but I can change the world in me." - Bono

sulawesigirl4 is offline  
Old 07-03-2003, 03:42 PM   #14
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 05:31 AM
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.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-03-2003, 04:11 PM   #15
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 05:31 AM
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 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:31 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com