Hagel: Iraq War destablized Middle East, resembles Vietnam

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Dreadsox said:


Right.....:huh:

OK, so you want to talk about "the facts?" The most obvious fact is that there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction. That's right, the number one "reason" given by Cheney et al for invading Iraq was that Iraq supposedly was a threat to its neighbors (and the US) because it had massive stockpiles of these WMDs.

But there were no WMDs. So either some individuals in the US governemnt were lying, or they were incompetent. Either way, they need to be held accountable for their serious actions. And that's a fact.
 
starvinmarvin said:


OK, so you want to talk about "the facts?" The most obvious fact is that there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction. That's right, the number one "reason" given by Cheney et al for invading Iraq was that Iraq supposedly was a threat to its neighbors (and the US) because it had massive stockpiles of these WMDs.

But there were no WMDs. So either some individuals in the US governemnt were lying, or they were incompetent. Either way, they need to be held accountable for their serious actions. And that's a fact.

Then every other intelligence agency in the world was wrong to, as was the prior administration.

Incompentant, maybe....not impeachable.
 
Dreadsox said:


Then every other intelligence agency in the world was wrong to, as was the prior administration.

Incompentant, maybe....not impeachable.

The difference between the USA and most of the major military powers in the world was that the USA initiated military action against Iraq based on these false assumptions. The others were wise enough to wait until conclusive proof was brought to light.

Look, Saddam WANTED everyone to believe that he had these weapons. If anyone knew how weak he truly was, Iraq would have been invaded by neighboring countries ten years prior, not to mention the US. But the point is that he was bluffing, and certain individuals in the US government WANTED to believe he was a huge threat to justify the invasion of Iraq. there is no doubt about it.
 
starvinmarvin said:


The difference between the USA and most of the major military powers in the world was that the USA initiated military action against Iraq based on these false assumptions. The others were wise enough to wait until conclusive proof was brought to light.

Look, Saddam WANTED everyone to believe that he had these weapons. If anyone knew how weak he truly was, Iraq would have been invaded by neighboring countries ten years prior, not to mention the US. But the point is that he was bluffing, and certain individuals in the US government WANTED to believe he was a huge threat to justify the invasion of Iraq. there is no doubt about it.

I had a thread in the War area two years ago, basically presenting the argument that Saddam wanted the world to think that as well......

i am glad his bluff was called.
 
Dreadsox said:


I had a thread in the War area two years ago, basically presenting the argument that Saddam wanted the world to think that as well......

i am glad his bluff was called.

Why? So that you could feel safe that the "boogyman" is in his cage now?

Unfortunately, an entirely more destructive, insidious boogyman has been unleashed by the invasion of Iraq. That monster is called Islamic extremism, and this beast is even more of a threat than it was prior to 9-11. The US occupation of Iraq has destabalized the entire middle east, and has made the rest of the world a far more dangerous place. It's easy to see why this has happened. The US was UNJUST in invading Iraq, and now Musilm fundamentalists can point to it and say "here's proof that the evildoers are out to destroy Islam!" America now has more enemies than ever before, and this is unfortunate, because the majority of the American people mean no harm towards Arabs.
 
starvinmarvin said:


Why? So that you could feel safe that the "boogyman" is in his cage now?

Oh yes....that is it....thanks for the intelligent discusion....
 
financeguy said:


Probably beside your '300 easy ways to back out of a debate' self-help book...

ROFL....I could have saved myself a lot of time in here if I had that book....

However,,,,,,my beautiful bride is calling me,,,,and that is WAAAAYYYY more important than this conversation.
 
starvinmarvin said:


The difference between the USA and most of the major military powers in the world was that the USA initiated military action against Iraq based on these false assumptions. The others were wise enough to wait until conclusive proof was brought to light.

Look, Saddam WANTED everyone to believe that he had these weapons. If anyone knew how weak he truly was, Iraq would have been invaded by neighboring countries ten years prior, not to mention the US. But the point is that he was bluffing, and certain individuals in the US government WANTED to believe he was a huge threat to justify the invasion of Iraq. there is no doubt about it.

Saddam had a military force of over 400,000 , nearly 3,000 main battle tanks, over 2,000 artillery pieces, 400 combat aircraft and at some point, and probably thousands of stocks of WMD although such material has not been found. Simply, Saddam had the largest military force in the Persian Gulf region and it was considerably larger than anything Kuwait or Saudi Arabia could muster. The threat was serious and it was absolutely necessary for the security of the region and the world that Saddam be removed. The fact that Saddam had failed to verifiably disarm of all WMD was not a false assumption, it was a fact. The United States was not the only country that took part in the coalition invasion either.
 
this doesn't really fit in perfectly here,sorry..but to avoid starting a thread

Bill Moyer, 73, wears a "Bullshit Protector" flap over his ear while President George W. Bush addresses the Veterans of Foreign Wars

w082326a.jpg
 
MrsSpringsteen said:
this doesn't really fit in perfectly here,sorry..but to avoid starting a thread

Bill Moyer, 73, wears a "Bullshit Protector" flap over his ear while President George W. Bush addresses the Veterans of Foreign Wars

w082326a.jpg

That would be a great signature!
 
phanan said:


No, but along with Britain, the U.S. was the only major country heavily involved in this supposed coalition.

Not much of a coalition if you ask me.

So Italy, Ukraine, Spain( I know they pulled out) Netherlands, Japan, South Korea, and Australia are not major countries?

Can you name an example of a "real" coalition from history without going back to World War II?
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


Have we ever claimed and made such a big deal about coalition since then?

Absolutely, and I consider the current coalition in Iraq, to be a "real" coalition.
 
STING2 said:


Absolutely, and I consider the current coalition in Iraq, to be a "real" coalition.

I meant have we ever gone out of our way to sell the fact that we had a coalition like this war? And when?

I think the numbers and the amount we've had pull out speaks for itself.
 
STING2 said:


Absolutely, and I consider the current coalition in Iraq, to be a "real" coalition.

How? The British and who else of any substanative support? What are the numbers and the real contribution of the others other than symbolic?

And would you not allow that some people may not consider this a "real" coalition?
 
Oh.:D Never mind then. Wouldn't want to be considered a far leftist traitor. Oops. Apparently I already am.
 
BonosSaint said:


How? The British and who else of any substanative support? What are the numbers and the real contribution of the others other than symbolic?

And would you not allow that some people may not consider this a "real" coalition?

Here are the numbers for non-US coalition members as of August 16, 2005

United Kingdom 12,000
South Korea 3,300
Italy 3,000
Poland 1,500
Australia 1,370
Ukraine 950
Georgia 850
Romania 863
Japan 800
Denmark 540
Bulgaria 450
El Salvador 380
Azerbaijan 151
Latvia 136
Mongolia 130
Lithuania 120
Albania 120
Slovakia 100
Czech Republic 90
Armenia 45
Bosnia & Herzegovina 36
Macedonia 35
Estonia 35
Kazakhstan 27
Norway 10
Netherlands 4

TOTAL: 27,042 troops from 26 different countries.

I do not know how anyone could judge the brave efforts of these troops as being "symbolic".

If someone does not think this coalition or any coalition in history is not a "real" coalition, thats their opinion, but I have a different opinion as well as historical facts to back it up.

Also remember that the countries above are much smaller than the United States and have much smaller standing military's as well. There are only 3 countries on the planet that have the ability to send their entire military force to any part of the globe and support them independently, and they are the United States, United Kingdom, and France. You have to realize that for some these countries in light of this, their contribution is indeed a big one.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


I meant have we ever gone out of our way to sell the fact that we had a coalition like this war? And when?

I think the numbers and the amount we've had pull out speaks for itself.

The coalition in Iraq is larger in terms of numbers of countries as well as contributions from the individual countries than the coalition currently in Afghanistan!

As far as other wars where we have gone out of our way to sell the fact that it was a coalition, you can count all the military actions from Korea in 1950 up to today, Korea, Vietnam, Persian Gulf War 1991, even Bosnia and Kosovo. In all cases the United States constituted about the same ratio of the foreign force as the current coalition in Iraq, especially in terms of the initial military operation. Ocupations in Bosnia and Kosovo were more evenly divided, but required for less total troops to begin with and were closer to a variety of countries involved in the operation.
 
I do not think any one doubts the bravery of the troops there. I would say this....while it is a coalition it does not have the flavor of the force that went into Iraq during desert storm.
 
Back
Top Bottom