a thought to get off my chest....

[Danzig]

I am is the military service. I have been for a little more than 8 years. I have been to Iraq, Korea, and Bosnia. I've seen a bit of the world. I know what they think about America and the US government. They don't all love us as many people would have the public believe. They didn't Herald us as saviors or liberators when we invaded Iraq. Some did. Many did to our faces..and bombed and shot us when our backs were turned.

Ask yourself this: The Iraqis have a LOT of weapons. Bombs, Guns, RPGs, etc. They (as a rule) didn't use them against the government of Saddam Hussein. But they have no problem using them against the US military. So...in their eyes who is the greater evil? They were willing to put up with Hussein...but not us. True..that says a lot about them...but it can't help but say something about us..and the way the world views us as well.

We shouldn't be there. If things were so bad in Iraq..the Iraqis themselves would have risen in revolt as my ancestors did in 1776.

I am no liberal pacifist scumbag. I believe if someone strikes you then you have every right to crush him without mercy. Make sure that he never rises to harm you again. But Iraq didn't attack us. Saddam Hussein posed no threat to my family, my friends, or my neighbors. I dare say that all of you can say them same thing. I also can say with certainty that everyone in the United States (with the exception perhaps of some with family or friends in the middle east) are obliged to say the same. So...if Iraq posed no threat to us..then we had no right to attack that country.

If someone does believe that Saddam Hussein was a threat that needed to be removed then they should be free to go over there and do what it takes to achieve that goal...But no one has the right to send others to die for what they personally believe.

 

[fisherman66]

There is a concept called "learned helplessness". People (or rats in the study) when exposed to cruelty (or shock) and are given no way to cope or deal with the situation are prone to internalize the strife. So much so; and the pattern teaches them to, always react the same way to the teatment (just sit and take it.)

I think to a certain extent the people of Iraq are struggling to get out of that trap. And also; like a dog that has been beaten, they will strike at the first caring hand that tries to feed them.

Roll all that in to a culture that considers the west the land of "infidels" and you get this reaction.

Should we be in Iraq? I don't have all the facts. To a certain extent we are posing for the rest of the world to see how strong we are.

Should we be in Afganistan? Absolutely!!!

 

[Lord_Nikon]

But... but... how can anything good come out of this world without (cue superhero music) the USA to save the day?

Not saying anything negative about the US, but rather the idea that good things only happen if we help.

 

[Eghad]

sometimes to people the devil you know is better than the devil you dont know....

You will have to ask Bush and Co. why we went to war with Iraq.

No WMDs have been found

David Kay who was hand picked by Bush to find the stuff has publicly admitted that some of the stuff in the intelligence reports was never found.

The we were told it was to liberate Iraq.... when all our other Arab/Muslim allies are authoritarian or police states.

We were told that it was because Iraq an Ql Queda have ties and was worried about Iraq givint Al Queda WMD. CIA official that were there during that period said the pore over thousands of pages of documents but came up with nothing definitive. I am of the opinon that Saddam would have given them money possibly and small stuff...but WMD? Saddam is crazy sometimes but even he knew that Al Queda would turn what he had given them against them in the end.



I am confused....very confused.

just as you are.........

However, we are there for the duration now.......

 

[TheBluesMan]

They (as a rule) didn't use them against the government of Saddam Hussein. But they have no problem using them against the US military. So...in their eyes who is the greater evil?

This logical fallacy is brought to you by the rules of engagement. If a man took a shot at Saddam and then hid in a mosque, Saddam would simply kill everyone in town. If a man took a shot at an American Soldier and then hid in a mosque, the soldiers would take cover and then not fire back unless fired upon again.

With Saddam, they had little to gain and much to lose. With the U.S. Military and the rules of engagement, the situation is reversed.

If things were so bad in Iraq..the Iraqis themselves would have risen in revolt...

Please study your history. Some tried during the Gulf War. What happened to them was a bit less pleasant than getting stacked up naked with underwear on their heads.

So...if Iraq posed no threat to us..then we had no right to attack that country.

We went into Iraq because it was the most logical target.

The September 11 atrocity was planned and financed by bin laden and al qaeda. Their money and people came mainly from Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan, with the Afghan government (the taliban) being the most overtly anti-American and belligerent. Afghanistan also gave aid and shelter to the mastermind, bin laden. For this reason alone, they became target number one.

The pentagon knew that Afghanistan was too distant a target to make a truly effective demonstration of their new resolve against terror, so another target had to be chosen. The country that deserved it most was Saudi Arabia, but since they have been a "friend" of the U.S. for so long, there was no way we would attack them. Besides, I am sure that they have bankrolled a large portion of our activities in Iraq - trading money and oil for us to not invade them...

Though I don't buy into the War for Oil propaganda, if you are going to choose a country to attack, you should choose one that makes the most sense. These were the criteria for the countries that were considered for invasion in order of importance:

The country must be mainly islamic and located in the Middle East.
The country must not be too strong militarily or financially.
The country must have mediocre to poor relations with other islamic countries.
The country should have oil.
The country should have a secular government (for ease of transition to democracy).
The country should have a tie-in to terrorism (most of them do...).

It really didn't matter which islamic country we attacked. It was more important that we not back down again like we had under Clinton. We had to make a stong showing in the back yard of the islamic fundamentalists. Their extremist religion knew no national boundaries, so what difference should boundaries make when choosing a nation to invade?

Iraq fit the above criteria best. It had the added advantages of being the other bookend to Iran, having its air space already under de facto U.S. control, and it was still being run by Saddam Hussein who continued to be a burr in the Bush family's saddle.

Even if Iraq had nothing to do with September 11 (and they probably didn't) they were the most logical target for the reasons outlined above. Larger wars have started over less.

 

[Eghad]

excerpt from Peter Arnett's interview with Osama

REPORTER: Mr. Bin Ladin, if the Islamic movement takes over Saudi Arabia, what would your attitude to the West be and will the price of oil be higher?

BIN LADIN: We are a nation and have a long history, with the grace of God, Praise and Glory be to Him. We are now in the 15th century of this great religion, the complete and comprehensive methodology, has clarified the dealing between an individual and another, the duties of the believer towards God, Praise and Glory be to Him, and the relationship between the Muslim country and other countries in time of peace and in time of war. If we look back at our history, we will find there were many types of dealings between the Muslim nation and the other nations in time of peace and in time of war, including treaties and matters to do with commerce. So it is not a new thing that we need to come up with. Rather, it already, by the grace of God, exists. As for oil, it is a commodity that will be subject to the price of the market according to supply and demand. We believe that the current prices are not realistic due to the Saudi regime playing the role of a US agent and the pressures exercised by the US on the Saudi regime to increase production and flooding the market that caused a sharp decrease in oil prices.


The relationship of Saudi and the US over oil/palestine goes back to FDR when he cut a deal with the Saudis to give us access to Oil.

 

[fisherman66]

Danzig;

I forgot to say thank you. Thank you!

 

[Garand Illusion]

Danzig ...

And others serving in the military: Thank you! Only history will ultimately decide if a war was honorable or not, but history can't change that the men that went out to fight the war did so for honorable reasons.

Blues Man ...

Good stuff, dude. You've obviously read enough to really understand the situation.

One thing I might add, though ... however this war started it is now DEFINITELY a war directly against terrorism AND Al Quaeda. If we lose, then Al Quaeda has one. And Vice Versa.

And now the moderate muslims are getting a taste of terrorism. Now the suicide bombers are killing Arabs, and Arabs are having to watch fellow muslims weep over graves (not that I think anyone should be killed, but if x number of people have to die I prefer it at least be people of the same religion of the fanatical SOBs doing the bombing).

I saw a recent poll that said that many mainstream views have changed in the Middle East. Before the war, something like 80% of Jordanians believed that suicide bombings were honorable and an acceptable way of making war. The same poll, re-run recently, had that number down to 34%. That is a HUGE victory (percentages not exact, but in the ballpark).

Now we just have to make sure we actually create a peaceful, democratic Iraq that will be an anchor in the Middle East (will we do it -- I've got to say I have my doubts).

Don't get me wrong, this war may turn out historically to be one of the biggest bungles in American History. But for the moment, I don't think we have a choice but to finish it with total victory.

 

[BDD]

I will always believe that going into Iraq was a good thing. The middle east is often run by people who want no progress beyond the 11th century. They want tyrannical rule. They want their religion to give them the right to kill all who do not believe as they do. They believe that America and the freedoms we hold dear are a grave threat to them. Plus, they hate the Jews for who they are and everyone who supports them.

I believe that in order to change that, we need to educate the newest generations. The current generations can be partially changed. But we need to show them that we can live in peace with them. They with their beliefs and us with ours. AS LONG AS THEIR BELIEFS DO NOT INCLUDE MURDERING THOSE WHO DO NOT BELIEVE AS THEIR "RELIGION" DICTATES. When they start partaking in those actions, they must be removed from the face of the earth.

Back to Iraq. We went to Iraq because we felt that they were a sufficient threat to our national security, and the security of the world, because they supported terrorism, they displayed intentions to build up warring capabilities, and demonstrated the will to attack their neighbors. We no longer had the luxury of diplomatic solutions. So under UN agreements, we ordered them to cease and desisit such activities. After many, many months, and in fact years of trying to get their cooperation, we attacked them to remove the danger.

True, we didn't find massive stockpiles of bad stuff. But we did, as the Kay report showed, find the means and the intentions for them to do so.

If you recall, Libya started cooperating with the UN requests to turn in nuclear equipment. And they did to the tune of several thousand tons of it. And other countries began efforts to root out terrorists.

All of these are steps in the right direction, which I believe will lead to a more peaceful world. When future Muslims learn that we do not want to exterminate them, that we are not the great satan, that we want to live in peace and in fact welcome their religion to our country, then we can move forward in a more peaceful world.

If we did not invade Afghanistan, if we did not invade Iraq, if we do not make any attempt to reach out to the worlds of Islam and Muslims, then we cannot have any other alternative than continuous war.

There is a bad element out there in their world. If we can succeed in eliminating it, then we can become friends with the others. It is not going to be easy, but I don't see any other choice.

God bless those who serve our country. They protect me and my family and all the families of America and of freedom loving countries. They are also, I believe, giving future middle eastern families a chance at peace. A chance that their own countries would never give them.

Thank you. I am not fit to shine your boots, but I'll buy you a drink anytime.

 

[fisherman66]

Back to Iraq. We went to Iraq because we felt that they were a sufficient threat to our national security, and the security of the world, because they supported terrorism, they displayed intentions to build up warring capabilities, and demonstrated the will to attack their neighbors. We no longer had the luxury of diplomatic solutions. So under UN agreements, we ordered them to cease and desisit such activities. After many, many months, and in fact years of trying to get their cooperation, we attacked them to remove the danger.

I do enjoy your youthful enthusiasm and positive outlook, but I have to disagree. Eghad and Bluesman have hit the proverbial nail on the head. This is about street cred. if you know what I mean. A preemptive strike not against Iraq, but for all govs with open hostility toward us (and Saudi Arabia who doesn't display it openly.) This is posturing plain and simple. In poker some players make a bet just to discourage another player from betting bigger.

Afganistan....Yeah, I agree. We have a REAL beef there and I wish we finished that job before deciding to flex our muscles. But then again I'm playing Monday morning QB.

 

[Lawyer Daggit]

Danzig I agree with you.

We don't have a mandate for regime change in Iraq and I think most Iraqis believe our actions are more motivated by a desire to guarantee oil supplies for the right cost per barrel.

Prior to the US playing around in the middle east the English, french and Germans were active in the region and the occupants are well and truly sick of white men with ulterior motives.