The question is would any of those “facts” have made a difference faced with the overwhelming evidence that WMD were there and in significant quantities to be a threat. And the answer is no.

Ted, the problem is that we invaded another nation based on what we didn't know, rather than what we did know. We didn't know where the alleged WMD's were, so the administration and many of us duped by them, assumed that Iraq was hiding them. We had no intelligence reporting from inside Iraq to corroborate the claims, excpet for some expatriots who were clearly following their own agenda for power in a post-Saddam Iraq.

Since when does a responsible government commit the lives of it's citizens based on theory?

I agree. Going in with not exact location was as dumb as it gets. I believe though Iraq was either hiding them or never made them (unlikely). To believe Saddam would just “destroy” what the inspectors could not find is too silly to believ imo.


We had TONS of intel, and evidence from years of inspection or WMD programs and production. The fact that the WMD got away because we were too stupid to nail it down BEFORE invading does not mean it was not there.

Ted, we had NO intelligence corroboration from inside Iraq. None. Knowing that he posessed WMD in 1998 does not equal posessing WMD in 2003. Bush committed American lives and not a small amount of your tax dollars, essentially on a hunch.

Dontreadonme



This is assuming that the sole reason we were going into Iraq was WMD, the evidence they had regarding WMD was not 100% conclusive, but I read one of your responses to Ted suggesting that we shouldn't have invaded Iraq about something we were unsure about. If the only mission we had was to find WMD, then you just might have a point. This war however was about the Saddam regime more than anything.

Point is everything you have gone on to suggest bush lied, thus far has been highly argumentative. Your now making another argument, that your willing to believe bush didn't know if they would find WMD by going into Iraq, but he might as well have lied because there was conflicting evidence, yet he still went to war anyway.

Like I said this war wasn't titled ((Operation find a Bomb, and go home)) It was titled ((Operation Iraqi Freedom)) the primary mission is even part of the name of the war itself. one of the many objectives was of course to locate the WMD that Saddam had already used before. However that was only one part of a much broader mission to bring democracy to Iraq, and that primary objective was never a secret. Why you would have ever supported the war at any time is beyond me considering you believe that this Idea is ludicrous and you keep using this ((its bad to invade a Sovereign Nation)) one liner. What the hell does that even mean? Not to get too far off track but Most wars have been fought with Sovereign nations, or nations that are politically separate from the U.S. Ive seen people say things like that because it sounds good only to later suggest that Iraq is A civil war zone where the gouvernment has little influence. A sovereign nation last I checked is an effectively self governed independent country or state, people need to stick to one theme for goodness sake.






I'm going to bring that term sovereign nation back up and put it to good use. As a sovereign nation I could say that the U.S. (as a nation) went to war for that very reason. The same reason I can say that the U.S. went to the moon, rather than claiming the State of Florida went to the moon. Because we are one nation, made up of individual states which are united under one political system. Additionally because this is a gouvernment elected by the people than this brings us into the loop on a number of issues if we choose to be. Some people don't care or choose not to get involved at all for their own reasons, but Americas Government elected by the people choose to go to war so that means America went to war, not just the military thats silly. Our military wouldn't even exist if the taxpayers money didn't fund it.



Look you said it yourself ((wait out the U.S. presence.)) Which is what he seems to be doing, the six month Cease fire was timed to end at roughly the same time as the surge is. The U.S. played a significant role in pressuring him to call a cease fire, which makes sense of why he would tell his men to lay low in the presence of the Americans. Read this for example......... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...30/wiraq130.xml



Its apparent to me from reading things like this at a number of places that the U.S. is the primary reason he had to call this cease fire, but not the sole reason.



I guess It got lost in the cloud of depressing, derogatory, and doubtful, remarks you've targeted at everyone from Bush, to Petraeus.



There's that sovereign nation tid bit again. Considering a number of wars fought by this nation were against or involved other sovereign nations, you might as well be saying we had no right to invade (a nation) and leave it at that, because your not stating anything we haven't done before. Then next week when im talking about political progress with Iraq, suddenly Iraq is no longer a sovereign nation, but a country where the political system put in place can not effectively govern its own people. Ive heard you make that argument as well, so which is it? Is Iraq a sovereign nation, or a country without control over its people, which by definition is not a sovereign nation.


The end justifies the means. We knew this would be tough, and its proving to be just that. I wouldn't be ok with the NYPD letting a serial killer run a local gun dealership, yet it wouldn't effect me directly. I also thought it was a mistake to let a known mass murderer run a country with a military. My only criticism goes on this administration for not properly preparing our military for the mission at hand, If bush wanted to go beyond taking out Saddam and help Iraq politically he should have better prepared. The smart thing would have been to wait a while before committing to Iraq, but now that this administration has made a number of mistakes we all find ourselves in a difficult position, but I'm not in a position where I'm going to say 4000 Americans died for a lost cause.
Additionally I do believe we can win, and thats the most important thing. I wouldn't be supporting this war if I didn't think we could win it. Our greatest enemy is not AQI, Al Qaeda, or sectarian violence, our greatest enemy comes from within. Its our own division, and our own doubt that our enemy will rely on to win.

I have only two predictions for the outcome of this war, one is that we succeed, the other is that we retreat. I dont see us losing this any other way than by pulling out, and thats what bothers me the most.


Yea of course its his own words and how you interpret them is your business, truth is he wasn't saying anything others at the same time and before him weren't also saying. If this wasn't Cheney or someone else in the Bush administration we were talking about you would care less about such a comment, its that simple. Nobody, and I mean nobody here making that argument has done anything but speculate and speculate. I realized some time ago that its not the evidence that has people talking about this, its the implications.

To imply that this administration knowingly lied about the war is juicier than a medium well ribeye steak for some people. I am not going to be drawn into that, even for someone I don't like such as Bush. Look, the Bush administration has poor communication skills, no doubt about it. Thats not an excuse, its a criticism. The kind of rhetoric floating around online is partially their fault, but I call it like I see it and as of now not one person making the arguments you are have convinced me of anything that I wasn't already aware of, and that is bush is a poor leader. Thanks for that, but I already knew it and I argue that myself all the time.


I'm not convinced because you haven't shown me anything convincing. You changed your argument anyway, apparently you believe bush did not know whether or not Saddam had WMD, but your arguing that because they spoke overconfidently that this is just like lying. To me there is an obvious difference, so aparently if I don't make gross exaggeration's, and unfounded claims on the president, I'm a bush Apologist, lol thats funny right?

I would agree with you, that Bush wanted regime change. Tell me though, what right do we have to arbitrarily change the government of another nation by force, and then attempt to install one to our liking. Don't just say, well we've done it before.........what gives the United States the right to commit such an act. Now if this nation had attacked us, that would be a different argument.



Did I miss where the Iraqi's had made a compelling request to us for an installation of democracy? From where I stand, most seem to prefer an Islamic state.



I supported the war in the beginning, because like many of my fellow Americans, I was duped by the patriotic fervor, the media hype, and the administrations case. Then I started seeing my friends come back wounded or dead, coupled with the lack of any clear strategy for Iraq, and I started to wonder. Then I came to Baghdad and worked with the Iraqi's, saw my friends leave wounded or dead, and still saw no clear strategy for Iraq. I saw the intelligence firsthand, I saw combat explode through the homes of ordinary Iraqi's and I saw the carnage the Iraqi's have inflicted on each other. All the while, units are required to submit 'good news' stories for press releases, the command still touts the 'we're helping the Iraqi's' line. It's as if I'm an actor in a play. It's a charade.
If you don't understand what soveriegnty means, this thread is not the place to discuss it, it's a much larger issue than Iraq. But I do hope you'll look into it.



Irrelevant argument. Most nations committed some form of slavery and genocide, doesn't make it right, just as invading another nation that hasn't attacked isn't right.



That really didn't make any sense to me. So am I in the Space Program or not? Seriously, if saying that we are a nation at war makes you feel good on the inside, then by all means continue. But realistically, we're not a nation at war, we're a nation with a war. When you're a nation at war, everybody sacrifices......something, anything. No, time on the computer doesn't count. Americans aren't being asked or made to sacrifice anything for Iraq.



OK, jesus....you win. Even though your own link backs up what I just posted, let's just both agree to say that Sadr's cease fire was A primary reason for the surge's success and that we helped him to decide to call a cease fire. Does that placate you? I can't share any intelligence here that I'm not 100% sure isn't already open source, and I'm simply tired of dancing this dance with you.



I'm actually happy as a clam right now! As long as I don't get shot or blown up, I come home in 54 days. There's plenty of credit that I will give to my Army, we simply haven't touched on many of the specifics in these threads where that credit is on topic and appropriate.



In 2003 using your own definition [an effectively self governed independent country or state], Iraq was a sovereign nation. And again using your definition, in 2008 Iraq is not a sovereign nation. Sure you can slap the label on it, but colony, protectorate or vassal could fit just as well. You seem to be arguing that historical relevancy is equal or just as virtuous as moral relevancy. Is that your position, that just because we've done something in the past, it's logically correct?



Can you at least understand and empathize for the people who believe that 4000 Americans have already died for a lost cause?



You'll attempt philosophy here, but don't understand when I ask what right we had to invade?



Sooooo........what would Cheney have had to say if he was absolutely, without a doubt lying? I'm still trying to find your boundary between lying and have a whole bucket load of confidence.



And you're argument isn't just as much speculation as the opposing?



I said that I'm willing to believe that the administration didn't knowingly lie. I'm willing to meet halfway, because you nor I know the truth. But yes, when an administration commits American lives and resources, as it has.......based on a level of 'confidence' that was controversial at best, even in 2003; That's just as bad as lying.

DTOM
I have no clue where you are going with such an idea. Are you trying to tell me that Saddam had WMD in 1998 that he spent 7 years keeping from the inspectors and that after the inspectors were GONE he just destroyed them? You have to be kidding. Not even worth discussing. Do you have any documented back up for this wild speculation?

When people talk about this being an illegal war, this is the point. 1441 had no triggers that called for military action. But Bush knew he couldn't get the second resolution calling for military action passed, so he opened up this entire "grave and gathering threat" rhetoric to get around it. He made the invasion about self-defense which is legal.

So, anybody that says WMD was not the only reason is admitting the war is illegal - it had to be self-defense to remain legal. So, with unlimited resources from the best and brightest on the planet, Bush still managed to be 100% wrong about every single detail of this invasion and occupation. You can't be 100% wrong by accident.

I have just as much proof for my speculation as you do for your theory that they loaded them all up on trucks and drove them away, and also took with them every person who ever worked on WMD or at WMD facilities. Crikey, they must have even taken the facilities away. So your theory is not even worth discussing, correct?

Where it concerns WMD, we went to war on a hunch. Tragic.

Nonsense. We are not talking about “facilities” as you know but WMD that were shown by records to have been produced and never destroyed. And “my speculation” they left the country is just that. But there is no speculation about what the UN was looking for in 1998 when they were tossed out.

So your statement that everyone was wrong including Bill and the WMD was never there is based on what?

And Bush was to have divined this by what method? EVERY intel agency in the WORLD thought the country retained WMD and so did the UN – I would call that one hell of a lot more than a hunch.

.

Yes and this was the flaw in the UN Resolutions from day one. They had no teeth and never would have. As we found out later corruption and payoffs as well as the promise of contracts gave several countries the “incentive” to not vote for action against Iraq – ever.

http://www.innercitypress.com/

Apparently Ted, you labor under two illusions.

That WMD's don't have to actually be stored in a controlled environment, that nobody has to secure them and monitor them. Maybe they were under Saddam's bed?

And you consider 4-5 year old intelligence as actionable by military force.

We have no clue where they were “stored” do we, and I addressed the shelf life nonsense previously. Do you know that even though we knew that Saddam had huge underground bunkers – one vast one built by a Greman Co. that was identical to the one in Serbia, that the UN never looked in any of them. In the end Blix said he would like to do this and just needed more men, money and time and I wish we had listened.

.

Sure when there is no chance in hell it had changed. That is what Blix was doing and if you read whet he says he was far from certain Iraq did not maintain the WMD that Butler was looking for in 1992-98.

"The colossal concrete bunker in the heart of Baghdad's security-obsessed Green Zone, from which Saddam Hussein is believed to have planned his futile defense strategies and made some of his last televised appearances as the leader of Iraq, was unscathed by a savage American bombardment that mangled the upper floors of the palace above.
Roughly 650 feet long and 120 feet tall, with three blue domes that somehow remained standing even though one was pierced by bombs, the complex built over the bunker, called the Believers Palace, looks as if it would be astronomically expensive to repair and nearly impossible to demolish.

The palace reportedly cost about $60 million when it was built by a German company in the 1980's, but nothing close to it could be built for that amount today.
The structure is massive, with steel reinforcing bars of all sizes poking from the riot of heavy concrete and ductwork where the bombs pummeled the roof, causing little or no damage to the bunkers themselves. An elaborate system of airlocks and filtration systems protect against a gas attack, two enormous electrical generators made by Siemens lie deep within and secret passageways and escape routes are everywhere.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/29/world/mi...t/29bunker.html

Ted, do you ever run your posts through the logic test before hitting 'Add Reply'? I didn't mention shelf life, but WMD's do have to be mantained in secure, and many times temperature controlled facilities. The UN may not have looked in them, but how about US forces? How about Blix after we invaded? The assumptions that you leap to amaze me. Thanks for your link about the bunker, but it is irrelevant. Unless anyone can prove that WMD's were stored and maintained there, it was simply his little hidey-hole.

And exactly what corroboration did we have that the 4-5 year old intelligence had not changed?

The bunker could have maintained all or much of the WMD. The binary weapons – artillery shells need none of this as we know.

This hidey-hole could have held all we were looking for easily.


What could 4 years do to the information to make it wrong> Blix started with this and if he thought it had changed since 1998 he never said so and he and his team were there so I have no idea what you are getting at.

And the issue was 1441 – show us the WMD or prove you destroyed them. If he had, proof would have fulfilled the reqirement and we would have had to back down.

So you're not at all skeptical of the 8000 redacted pages from the 12000 page Iraq Report on Weapons?

And let me allow you to clarify if you desire: you see no issue with using uncorroborated 4 year old intelligence to launch an invasion of another country? Especially an invasion in the middle of a fairly excitable part of the world?

Two points. First, to answer the latter question, since WMD became prevalent. Never before in history have nations been faced with the potential extermination of millions of their citizens from a single weapon. Therefore, there simply isn't time to wait until one is certain about such threats...that certainty might not come without a mushroom cloud over one of your cities.

Second, I would argue that many wars in the past have been based on theory, or worse. There has never been complete and full disclosure of any threat prior to war. In this particular case...how could we get additional information? All of the data we were interested in was in Iraq, and Saddam had been demonstrating over the prior 10 years that he was not going to submit to a full and open investigation.

However, all of this is skirting around the issue. We did not invade just because of WMD, there were a bunch of other reasons. WMD was simply the one chosen to put forth publicly--I believe primarily to take to the U.N. Also, regardless of whether or not such weapons were actually found, it has been documented that Saddam had every intention of pursuing them in the future, further indicating that the only solution to that situation was to remove Saddam from power.

It should also always be remembered that the reason bin Laden gave for 9-11 is the presence of U.S. troops in the Holy Land. They were there because of Saddam Hussein, and would have needed to continue to stay there as long as he and his regime stayed in power. This alone created a continued threat to the United States, which could only be dealt with by removing Saddam from power. There is no argument, then, that sanctions were working. In fact, they created the situation which led to 9-11. Further, they were creating hardship for Iraqis (not for Saddam) which was causing further dissent with the U.S. throughout the Muslim world. This also threatened U.S. security, while also strengthening Saddam. Sanctions simply don't work against dictators..they create hardship for the people, not the leader, and dictators don't care. In fact, they'll spin it to actually increase their power. So, there wasn't really a 'diplomatic' solution to this problem. Simply leaving the area was viewed as a sign of weakness and defeat, which would have created its own set of future security issues. How emboldened would that have made others to thumb their noses at us? Bin Laden had already made it clear he considered the U.S. a paper tiger..adding further evidence to that would have only weakened us in future situations. So, essentially, we were faced with a set of bad options. Given were we are currently, one could certainly argue the wrong option was chosen. However, at the time the decision was made, that's not so easy to do. IMO, the flaw wasn't in deciding to go to war, it was in failing to properly plan for the peace---thereby following previous U.S. policy in the area.

Hobbes, you make a cogent argument, but I disagree that the theoretical threat posed is worth the cost of unending and unilateral military action.



What we traded was insulting [in their eyes] Sunni's by having an armed presence in their holy land, for insulting Shia by having an armed presence in their holy land. What we have is blow back. I believe that the current debacle in Iraq is only the tip of the iceberg in terms of giving Islamic radicals a center of gravity for their rage. Our invading a middle eastern Muslim nation was certainly worse in that regard than simply stationing a paltry force of Air Force and advisor's in Saudi Arabia. The case can be made quite succinctly in the Muslim world that we have shown ourselves for the infidel aggressors that they believe we are since we are attempting to install a westernized culture and governance in Iraq. I believe the worst thing that we could have done after 9/11 was invade Iraq.

I agree that hindsight is always 20/20, and I have had a radical change in philosophy since 2003, so I aided and abetted this tragedy in my own way too.

In this case, I would agree. Although WMD create a smaller margin of error, the consequences of invading must always be weighed against the risk present. Personally, I never thought the U.S. itself was in that much danger from WMD from Iraq. However, were he to have them, it would have altered the balance of power in the area--one in which we have vital security and economic interests.



Hmmm... I have never thought of the difference between Sunni and Shia in this regard (and I'd be willing to bet no one involved in the planning did either--we have a long and glorious history of failing to appreciate such things in this area). This is a good point. After the invasion, I paid a great deal of attention to reaction in the Muslim world, and by and large they seemed more open minded than I would have expected. However, this would have been mostly Sunni reaction, I believe. Even in Iraq, though, the initial reception seemed positive. To me, it seemed the dissension didn't start until later, when we struggled with restoring basic services, and the Iraqi government itself created separation between the different factions. As for the invasion being worse than the force we had previously, this is certainly true over the short term. The problem was that without invading, there was no way to ever remove the forces there. The successors to Saddam were going to be his sons, who were seen as even worse than he was. So, we would have had to keep our forces there for the foreseeable future.



It could, but this didn't seem the case initially. In general, the Muslim world, to me, seemed to have a wait-and-see attitude about it. Where this turned was in our failure to deliver after the invasion.



Again, our options were limited. The status quo was failing. This really left us with two choices...invade, or leave. At the time, I think leaving would have been ruled out by any administration, due to the fear of making us look weak, and allowing Saddam to claim victory. However, I think it could have been done in an effective manner, and doing so would have had greater long-lasting impact than invading did. Sometimes the best way for the tiger to demonstrate its strength is by not attacking. This is where the WMD question becomes crucial. For this to work, we would have needed to be sure that Saddam didn't have any WMD, and wouldn't have them in the future. Whether he would have used them on us (unlikely) or threatened the area with them (almost certain), either way we would then have been in a situation were we would have had to invade anyway, and in a drastically worse scenario.

While I agree with the hindsight, I have to say there was no lack of foresight regarding the current situation.

That foresight started with Bush 41 when he stopped Schwartzkopf from invading Baghdad. Bush 41 had the sense to avoid creating Bush 43's mess.

I've stated before that I found AD after getting banned from another place for what I said would happen. I knew that if we invaded Iraq unilaterally, we would basically be trading the entire future of the republican party for this war. The republican party (from my own selfish perspective) had more to gain by staying in power and needed to do whatever needed to be done while sticking to conservative principles. Nation building is not a conservative principle.

But it was clear to me that Saddam did not have any WMD and even if he did, he would not use them. If one were to believe he would use them, you would need to square the fact that in Gulf War 1.0 - where Arthur "The Scud Stud" Kent was a media star - everyone donned gas masks, but not one WMD was ever used. Why have them if you won't use them? Of course they used them in the Iran/Iraq war. But Iran was using them as well and it was an ugly war. If you are going to use the "well, if they used them once, they'd do it again" to justify this fear, then you would have to concede we are the most dangerous country in the world. We are capable of vaporizing 100's of thousands of non-combatants because we've done it before.

Secondly, you would also need to believe in the trustworthy terrorist theory: Meaning - as discussed in another thread - a leader would turn the future of his country over to a terrorist under the assumption the terrorist would fulfill his promise of attacking someone else instead of not doing anything except use the threat of WMD attack for personal gain locally.

And I was not alone in this kind of foresight. It didn't take a great deal of intelligence to figure out what has happened would happen. But if terrorism scares you, you will agree to any type of action that will make you feel safe. I think that is why the republican party traded in their future for this war - collectively, they are cowards. The biggest proponents of this war either won't sign up themselves or don't have anybody in their family serving. It's a great idea as long as someone else's kid is fighting this war.

The republican party will be out of power for a very long time because they are nation builders, liars, hypocrites, and at the end of the day, liberals. Republicans need to hang onto this war because they bet it all on it's success. If the war fails to accomplish what they had hoped, they know they will have bet the their entire future on a losing horse.

There was just as much foresight as there is hindsight. And with unlimited resources at your disposal to get it right, it is inexcusable to get it wrong.

Your assertion is a flat out myth. The true threat was at the beginning of the atomic age where no containment protocol was set up. The true threat was on figuring out who would develop first and if they would allow their earlier discoveries to be sold to less affluent countries. To purport this is a new and significant danger post 911 is beyond ludicrous because the operation was conducted with hardware you could purchase at Home Depot. It was the administration who married dangerous weapons to terrorism, not the terrorists themselves. To do otherwise is to revise history.



This has to be one of the most inflammatory comments I've seen in years. The point of a "council" or any other international body was to not only contain a dictator from expanding territory but to also prevent free unilateral action on the large powers from being imperialistic. Theoretical wars have no legitamacy period. The League of Nations brought the idea of collective security into the twentieth century. This means if one nation becomes aggressive the other nations can team together. What nation became aggressive in 2003 Hobbes? What reasons were given and then fell through? See how well preventative action worked? I'm interested in hearing how you rationalize conducting an invasion on what you didn't know. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that if any other country tried this same reasoning we'd have another world war. I think it is well past time time for a team up ...

You deny that WMD escalate the threat potential? Just exactly how do you justify that? The very name itself signifies the enhanced threat potential. To claim that is a myth just demonstrates a failure to grasp the significance of the threat.



Huh? Stating facts proven throughout history is suddenly inflammatory? Wow. Theoretical wars are not legitimate, period? How do you reconcile this with the fact that ALL wars are started based on theory? You never know for sure what the outcome is going to be, or what the other side's threat is for sure...its ALL theoretical until it happens. Vietnam, Korea, WWII, WWI, go back as far as you want. All were started on theory. It's also demonstrated over and over again throughout history. Just because some people may not like it doesn't make it not true, or make pointing it out inflammatory.

Dontreadonme




When a rouge nation decides that the lives of its neighbors hold no real value is when we have the right. Now to me what happened leading up to Desert Storm is almost half my motivation for supporting action against Iraq, even if it has been over a decade since Desert Storm. He remained a threat to the area so long as he ruled a country with a military. Now you can talk about him not having any ability to do a thing after 1991, but when a handful of demented Muslims with a cause flew Jumbo Jets into American sky scrapers on 9/11, it proved to the world that you don't need a 1 million man army or WMD to kill thousands of people, the most dangerous thing a dictator can posses is having the intent and will for violence, and just like Bin Laden, Saddam had just that.

Plus there were obvious indicators he still had the intent to rebuild his regime in the 90's. Thankfully America never sat on their rear letting him do whatever he wanted, even in the Clinton administration, at least he took some action. However we had little way of knowing exactly how much he was capable of before the start of the 2nd gulf war, he said he had WMD, he gave weapon inspectors the run around, and the longer he was left to rule Iraq the higher the odds were that he would find a way to repeat what he had already done before. there is little doubt to me that it would have happened again, and in a situation like that its better to be safe than sorry.




Yea if you say so thats good enough for me, actually not really lol. Your position has been the same with everything, if we are talking about success in Iraq, your talking about failure, if were talking about Gen Petraeus, your saying hes distorting facts, if we are talking about the U.S. troop surge being the primary cause for progress, your pointing at Al Sadr, if we're talking about Bush being a poor leader, to you hes comparable to a terrorist, heck even when talking about the economy your quick to say its going into a recession fast.

It's not surprising that you would say that most Iraqis ((PREFER an Islamic state)). Remember that link I showed you that had 2 different opinion polls taken the same year on the opinion of Iraqis, both coming to conclusions that were totally different? They differed by over 30% while asking the same thing. I see soldiers on T.V. all the time talking about an increase in cooperation with Iraqis, and yes I said soldiers. I don't believe what you said even if most Iraqis want us out of the country, which I'm not ruling out. You said most of them prefer an Islamic state? So most Iraqis prefer either blowing people up, or getting blown up themselves, is that right? These people are scared man, pure and simple, many that want us out want us out because they are afraid of continued retaliation from terrorist. Ive seen and heard enough about this war from soldiers testimonies to not fall for what you just claimed.

Truth is it will probably always be primarily an Islamic state in Iraq, thats the most widespread religious faith in Iraq after all. I knew that you meant they prefer an Islamic extremist state for one reason, the U.S. was never out to change the position of Iraq as a Islamic dominate state, we were out to stop those who used their religion as an excuse for violence, and since thats what we're out to change, that had to be what you were referring to. Unless of course you actually believe we are out to change their religion, and Id hope you aren't that naive




Ok then, are you calling a large portion of your fellow soldiers who see this stuff first hand, yet still support the war Dupes?



Saddam was guilty of both genocide and homicide already. His aggressions were not limited to Iraq, its history. Like I said hes not Kim Jong ill



lol, Ok then I suppose America has never been to war, because there has never been a war in all of history where everyone has sacrificed something. In fact I guess that means no country has ever been to war, World Peace Woo Hooo! and no your not an astronaut, at least I don't think, but that doesnt mean you cant be a part of something like that in a number of ways if you choose to be.




Sorry but I don't agree with that considering that the biggest improvements in Iraq came in the two months prior to the cease fire being called, as I showed.
I do agree it has played a role however, although one of the biggest reasons it was called was again, because of the surge.



Every accomplishment earns our boys credit. So your coming home? My cousin got discharged last month, he is now stationed somewhere in Florida. Well, Get back safe and all.




No, you just made it sound as if that was significant for some reason, Iraq being a sovereign nation that is. To me its irrelevant, I mean not supporting the war because you dont like guns makes more sense than not supporting it because Iraq was a sovereign nation. That pretty much means that you wouldn't have supported many wars this nation fought in the past, including WW2.



I understand what your saying, that argument makes more a lot more sense than some others I've heard, and its one of the fundamentals I think a lot of people go on when not supporting the war. You know we could go back and fourth about whether or not bush lied, and other such things, but when somebody bases their disbelief in this war, on something I can see is not speculation, or bias, I respect that. 4000 deaths, thats a lot of death. Much more if you consider the Iraqis that have been killed, and while I understand it, I support the war because I genuinely believe Saddam had to be stopped, and that the mission we have is achievable.


Well that was my reason, and you can call it philsophy or whatever, but if you had read some of the things that people who knew Saddam have said you would see that this is more than philosophy. Some of the closest insiders in the Saddam regime also say he needed to be stopped.


If he knew that Saddam didn't have the weapons, thats the only way he would have been lying. You can call them overconfident and even a bit foolish, but if someone believes something and they say its true, even if he didn't know for sure, they didn't lie. Thats like saying that early astronomers who thought the Earth was the center of the solar system, were lying if they told people that is how the solar system is laid out. It just meant they were wrong, it didn't mean they were lying so long as they believed it.



Two things, number one I'm not speaking in absolutes, number two my support for the war is not based on WMD, or whether or not bush lied. Ive talked to people who talk about bush lying as if it were fact, and some base a large portion of their skepticism of this war on shaky notions such as those. Its everywhere, I cant tell you how many times I see people ramble on about ((there is incontrovertible proof that bush is a lying scuzz bucked yada yada)).
Its been done on this very forum, and its being done by millions across the internet, as well as in real life. So I decided to start asking to see some of that incontrovertible evidence, and it seems nobody has it, although some will claim they do.




Well like I said that was not the sole motivator for Bush going into Iraq, and Its not the primary reason I supported going in either, so therefore this is not a war based on something we didn't know for sure, it was based on finding out if he had WMD, as well as something we already knew, Saddam was dangerous, and he had acted on threats before, as well as trying to rebuild his regime throughout the 90's.

Net2007


Or you can call it a lie. If I seen you with a gun 2 month ago, then I see you in the mall, then go tell a police officer "that man over there has a gun". I am lying to the police because I have no idea if you have a gun or not. The lie is not whether you have a gun or not, the lie is the fact I am telling police I know something that I do not know, when in fact, I have no clue.

Hobbes


Except... how were they going to deliver the pay load to our soils?? And what state were the WMDs even if they did exist, did they expire their "shelf life"??

Look it's like saying Britain or France or Israel is a threat due to the mere fact that they have WMD. Iraq could not even defend it's own airspace Hobbes. You have it right there was no threat, there was only potential threat. But "potential" threat exists with every nation with any semblance of a military. Potentianally they could threaten us... but is htat enough to invade a country Hobbes?? The fact that they could "potentianally" threaten us.

I mean many would say we shouldn't fight until attacked. Other want to be more proactive and attack when they see an imminent threat... still others need a just any threat, but we actually invaded because the potential of a threat... that criteria supports an invasion of practically any nation in the world.

My theory is that an act of interventionism is not a cure for a problem created by interventionism.



Fair enough for your opinion, but what gives us that right? There’s certainly nothing written in law that states when a country attains superpower status, they become the policeman of the globe. In fact when other nations that achieved ‘superpower’ status have tried the same, we vilified them. Couple that with the fact that in most cases where we have involved ourselves in foreign entanglements, the blowback factor that has resulted was worse in the long run than the initial problem. History can be a great teacher, but we have to be willing to learn.



I haven't given you anything to 'fall' for. I'm not attempting to trick you, I know you're mind is made up. My point was that I actually talk to Iraqi's, what I posted is what is true for me. But you have fallen for the propaganda that tells you what you want to hear. I talk to Iraqi’s nearly everyday, and while many don’t mind Americans in general, everyone of them that I deal with are consistent in believing that the US presence in Iraq is THE point of focus for both sectarian and AQI violence. They maintain that once we leave [if we ever do] that there will be a sorting out between Shia and Sunni that will be bloody, but it will work itself out in it’s own way, Inshallah. The longer we remain, the longer we maintain the artificial construct, only puts off the inevitable.
I don’t particularly care if you believe me or not, since it doesn’t affect what I know to be true. But I see the mandatory ‘good news’ stories that Brigades are required to submit, that turn into MNF-I and MNC-I press releases. Do you ever wonder why there are video clips of soldiers on YouTube? Brigade Public Affairs Offices post them. My unit has posted several. There are plenty of videos with present and former soldiers saying quite the opposite. You seem to take them at face value, apparently not realizing that much of it can easily be the same vein propaganda that you would accuse many on the left of pushing.



No. you are incorrect. I meant what I wrote, an Islamic state. What the planners have tried to do in vain, is to inculcate western values and procedures into a very eastern country. That has helped to breed the hatred and violence towards us. It’s minutiae that adds up and festers in the minds of many Iraqi’s, giving focus to their view that we are attempting to impose a client state ala cold war proxy style. You never did answer my question of how do you personally, reconcile the fact that we are paying the salaries for many of the same people who were trying to kill us just a few months ago? And ironically, we are aware of a good deal of infiltration of the Sons of Iraq [the latest name for CLC's] by AQI. There is no doubt that we are paying a moonlighting salary to some of the same people who are our arch-enemy.



Apparently you are not aware of rationing and War Bond drives during WWII. If saying we’re ‘a nation at war’ gives you some sort of patriotic warm fuzzies on the inside, be my guest.



Of course. Don’t take the word of the guy who actually called the cease fire…….that would be silly. It's also rather silly to believe that I'm simply touting this line for some personal reason. Former BBC Correspondent Rageh Omaar says much the same thing in a recent article.

The reality is that the surge is not what has led to the lower levels of violence, and attacks on US troops are still causing considerable casualties. What has had a far greater impact has been the decision by the radical Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr to call a ceasefire between his Mahdi army, a force of up to 100,000, and US troops and Iraqi government security units. Although US commanders on the ground ascribe almost every attack on Iraqis and their troops to al-Qaeda-linked groups, this is mainly for political reasons - to support President Bush's notion that Iraq is the central battleground in the fight against the terrorists.

What is undeniable is that the Mahdi army is far more powerful militarily than groups linked to al-Qaeda, and it has been behind far more attacks. Unlike the dozens of Sunni-based insurgency groups, a number of which work with and are allied to al-Qaeda-linked groups, the Mahdi army is a proper standing military force and, as US commanders will tell you off the record, its soldiers in effect control at least half of Baghdad.

Moqtada al-Sadr called the ceasefire because the Mahdi army badly needed to reflect the political force his movement had in the Iraqi parliament.
Perhaps the greatest success of the surge has been in the way it was sold politically, and thus has become almost unquestioningly accepted as a panacea for the violence in Iraq. Petraeus's performance in front of the congressional armed services committee last September gave the impression that the surge was a new beginning for US policy in Iraq. The luck was that it coincided with the Mahdi army ceasefire. Without that, however, the "success" will evaporate, and Iraq will come back on to the US presidential election agenda with a vengeance.



Why do you always assume that you are the only person who is aware of how Hussein ran his country?



The problem lies in the fact that the administration DID speak in absolutes. I defy you, using the English language, to try to construct Cheney’s sentence in any more of an absolute than it already is.
If this were a legal case, instead of merely debate fodder, the onus would be on members like yourself to prove that they weren’t lying. We know from findings that they did not tell the truth, the WMD’s were not found. The possibility exists that they were confused, inept, selective or lying. Surely you can see where many rational non-wild-eyed-non-lefties could draw a conclusion that they lied.

Why would I if the UN didn’t? Why would you?




Blix was there for long enough to pick up the threads of the WMD chase and had virtually the same concerns Butler did in 1998 so I don’t get your point.

Saddam with WMD was a threat tous and the Region and the region is vital to our interests.

Where we can agree is the method and timing. I would have pushed the UN for a new Resolution after Saddam failed to respond to 1441. And this one would have had teeth and a time limit. But, as you know, there is little indication the UN would ever go that far.

I'm utterly amazed. Or maybe not since it came from you. 3/4 of the Iraq Weapons Report was deemed so classified or damaging to the administrations case, that it had to be redacted, never to see the light of day or the scrutiny of the public eye. And you don't care?

You seem to have literally no critical thought when it comes to the Bush Administration, and their actions.



Apparently we do not agree.

Redacted because it did not make the “case” – post something on that please because I never herad that. Or because it had information that was too specific about WMD production etc?

In fact it was the weapons UN inspectors who “redacted” parts of it and the US wanted an unsanitized version.

“The U.N. Security Council will allow weapons inspectors to analyze and redact parts of the report before distributing it to council members. A partial copy of the report will also be reviewed by the UNMOVIC.
A U.N. official has told CNN the United States is pressuring this month's president of the Security Council, Colombian U.N. Ambassador Alfonso Valdiviezo, for an "unsanitized" or unedited copy of the Iraqi “declaration.
http://edition.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/12...ions/index.html


What I do know is that the UN in 1998 and in 2002 had essentially the same issues. Where are the tons of VX, the artillery shells, (one of which by the way was used as an IED a year ago), the 8,500 + liters of anthrax etc. This is PUBLIC testimony and is enough of a “case” on its own. Add to that the CIA folks with people with over 120 years of collective experience saying they were confident Iraq maintained WMD and you have the “case”. And the CIA folks who made the assertions obviously had the classified info.

This is no “hunch”.

Where we can agree is on the decision to attack to secure WMD when your intel cannot tell you exactly where the hell it is. How stupid was that!

The threat potential can be skewed bigtime from if there is even a hint of an agenda where the establishment sees what it wants to see. The issue is one of perception.

To actually get up and claim that there is some kind of new threat fails to grasp the history of atomic development. There is no new argument. There is only the issue of proliferation and continued use. The con job of the millennia entailed convincing people that this time (911) was different. That supposedly the threat was bigger, more immediate, and more long lasting. What an Olympic level sales pitch that turned out to be. Throw in some political agendas and we now have imperial starship trooper mindset which is essentially a freedom from all justification. No rationale needs to be given for pulling people off the street, invading other countries, or playing by the old rules of trade. The WOT is a gigantic, catch-all gimme. The "whatever, whenever license" which contains all the aspects of colonialism, but throws in the pomp and ceremony of an imperial presidency, that can't tell up from down, left from right. Distguishing friend from foe from a hole in the ground is the issue Hobbes.



Want to debate the evidence? Sure. We've been there. Let's pull X threads and let history illuminate the absurdity of starting wars based on assumptions, and the blowback generated as the populace became resistant to occupation.

Bringing up the outcome of mission probabilities and their success rate is a convenient evasion of the issue. The operationally oriented logic sidesteps the rationale why the conflict is occurring in the first place. This is great logic if you are the marine who need to compartmentalize your brain into concentrating onto your small part of the mission. Unfortunately the bigger picture is left to the punditry and this is dangerous for all involved. These are the challenges facing the public, not turban toting individuals with a chip on their shoulder.

droop224



Ok droop, the only problem with that line is that it assumes that the Bush administration wasn't highly confident that Saddam had WMD. You claim they were unsure, they of course would say that they were very confident like many other people were. Whatever conflicting evidence that came in at the last minute was not enough to counter what had become almost like common knowledge at the time, even to many of the liberals who I could see you giving a free pass on this.

The single most disturbing obvious truth in this case is that nobody here, or anywhere else I've been to talk about this, has ever been able to do anything but argue things that can easily be counter argued. Its your word against this administration as to how confident they were, and because of this apparent lack of any real evidence in this case, you actually have no case, nor does anyone else here that argues that this Administration lied about WMD, and by the way despite what you may believe a lie is, there are many people out there suggesting he knew Saddam probably didn't have the weapons. The funny thing is everyone arguing this seems to assume something slightly different, thats comical if anything.

Why exactly do you think Bush does not get impeached for lying about something that in part helped him to convince congress to go to war, which in turn led to much death as we all know ? Well because the politicians and media pundits that have helped to elaborate the truth in all reality have nothing more to go on than you do, they never did, and probably never will.



Dontreadonme


If that didn't sound like it came right out of the liberal play-book. Is there anything in the law that says we couldn't have invaded Iraq to end the rule of Saddam? A congress elected by this nations people funded the war, so we went to war, what more is there to say? Because it seems to me that those making the argument that he mislead congress by lying are quite easily debunked because they have nothing to go on that isn't argumentative. Nations decide to go to war for their own reasons, and there is no World Rule that all nations must abide by, the closest thing to that is the UN which has been less than impressive.



I have fallen for propaganda that tells me what I want to hear? lol, on the contrary I frequently accept and believe things I don't want to hear if I believe its creditable information. And I see your using your position as a soldier to suggest that propaganda is not your bag of chips, well I don't put favoritism past anyone, but I don't know you so I'm not going to assume why you believe what you do. However understand that the percentage of soldiers that support the war is higher than the general public. As for if its a majority of soldiers, I couldn't say but there is much opposition to what you claim, from soldiers.


I know what you meant, Ive already heard you make generalizing comments about what Iraqis want and who they are. I wasnt relying soley on that comment to know what you think of the Iraqi people.

Also I believe I did respond to you when you asked how do I personally, reconcile the fact that we are paying the salaries for many of the same people who were trying to kill us just a few months ago? Perhaps my response was a little to close to home for you to label me as near sighted, and one sided, leading you to forget what my response was. I believe I related this to what happened in 2002 when we used Ahfgans in place of American troops to catch Bin Laden. In short I think its largely a mistake, and I've been an advocate for using our own forces whenever possible. I may support the war but I have always had doubts about some of Bushes tactics.


Any war has an effect on the nation as a whole, the tax rate, whether or not there is a draft, and how the economy may react in general, which is why America goes to war, rather than just the military which mind you wouldn't exist without depending on the taxpayers money. Now this doesn't mean everyone is involved in some fashion, no matter what war your talking about, you have people who are in prison, people who are in coma's, or people who live almost completely off the grid like some people who live so deep into the mountains of Alaska that the extent of what they know is that we are at war. This is a rather silly argument, but we are a nation at war whether or not some people choose to get involved, but if it makes you feel warm and fuzzy to call this George Bushes war, then you be my guest.



I'm not the only person and never said that, but the problem is too many people in this nation have a big but. I call them the "yea but" crowd. Sure Muslim extremist are dangerous BUT............, Sure Bin Laden attacked us, BUT........, and Sure Saddam was an Evil half crazed murderer BUT............ There are many who I'm convinced don't know some of the finer details on Saddam, however the bulk of those in the "yea but" crowd simply don't care, or don't believe in war no matter what the justification is.




Those that say that bush lied about WMD largely say it because its whats convenient for them to believe. Read my last response to droop on this, you can argue whatever you want but the fact that all you can do is argue that Bush lied is what I'm focusing on. Above you say ((if this were a legal case.....)) Well if this were a legit argument worthy of our court system it would indeed be a legal case. Problem is the Bush administration can easily say that despite some conflicting evidence they were indeed very confident they would find WMD, and they can make that argument because its the same argument the majority in the Clinton administration were making. Most people were highly confident about Saddam having WMD and that was for good reason, he may very well have had those weapons up till 2003. The only thing you can say definitively is that they were over confident and cocky that the traditional thought on Saddam was accurate. However as I've pointed out this war was more about Saddam himself and his regime than WMD. The things we knew about him, were the solid facts this war was founded on, and if you know anything about Saddam you know its not necessary to make things up to make him sound dangerous.

Liberal playbook? That’s certainly a deep rebuke……

So what exactly differentiates our actions in 2003 from Iraq’s actions in 1990? Iraq certainly had a beef with Kuwait, and Kuwait was and still is no freedom loving democracy. How is our act of aggression any more honorable than the multitude that this nation has condemned? What I'm asking is, what was our basis for legitimacy in invading Iraq? If your argument basically boils down to might=right, then our military actions are no more logically valid than the military actions of Hitler, Hussein, Hirohito or a myriad of other actions that we have called evil. Before your sense of patriotism gets offended or you try to label me as a liberal, no I'm not comparing the United States to Hitler's Germany. I'm asking you to look dispassionately at our actions and ask yourself if we are not being hypocritical in terms of our foreign policy.

Why are you so eager to give the United States the moral sanction to commit actions that almost everyone agrees would be immoral, illegal, and criminal if committed by any other nation? Logically speaking, the United States government has no right to invade a non-threatening nation, nor to impose a system of government upon it, if it has a history of condemning other nations for doing the same.



That doesn’t make any sense.



I indeed must have missed your response [I still can’t find it], but your response above isn’t relevant because in Afghanistan we didn’t use Taliban militias. We used the militias of the Northern Alliance and then the fledgling Afghan National Army. I’m quite sure some members of the ANA were former Taliban soldiers, but they turned as individuals, not entire organizations. In Iraq we are paying Sunni’s who have carried over their command and control structure into the ‘Son’s of Iraq’. If we are theoretically waging a war on terror, and the administration includes Iraq as a part of that [which I dispute], then how can our enemies go from being terrorists one minute to 'allies standing with us' the next?



This argument is all semantics and largely irrelevant, but I find it interesting that you see no fundamental difference between a nation at war that has been attacked, has a draft and rationing……….and a nation with a war that was not attacked and requires literally no extra effort or deprivations from it’s citizens.



Saddam was a brutal dictator; I believe everybody acknowledges this fact. What I do not understand specifically, is where it became the responsibility of the United States to remove him from power. There are obviously some Iraqi’s who are grateful that he is gone. Just as there are obviously Iraqi’s who are not. I’m very sure that the dead Iraqi’s are not happy at the outcome. As sure as I am about the dead American soldiers.

Again I go back to the cost-benefit analysis. We removed a dictator who posed no serious threat to the US, and his threat to the Middle East is at least arguable. In doing so, we have made enemies of many more than the Republican Guard; we allowed Al Qaeda to gain a substantial foothold in a country where they had none; depleted our military; lost 4000 more Americans than we would have by not invading; and have taken our eyes off of the ball concerning terrorism.

The policy of “regime change in Iraq” actually started with the Clinton Administration. And you would think that someone would have wanted an end to the standoff that came out of the first Gulf War. One thing does lead to another.

Ted, you're not getting the simple point that I'm trying to make. What gives us the legitimacy and/or the right to decide what regimes around the world are in need of change? I could care less if the policy began with Clinton, Bush, Reagan or Roosevelt. Has our hypocritical