Some Reality: The Origins of the Iraq War

(CNN) -- Saddam Hussein let the world think he had weapons of mass destruction to intimidate Iran and prevent the country from attacking Iraq, according to an FBI agent who interviewed the dictator after his 2003 capture.

Saddam was crazy but he wasent stupid. this is all the post invasion failure CYA, i dont believe this guy for a second. Just like "curve ball" the con man who fooled the greatest nation in the world into one of its worst military blundders ever. Thats laughable, HA!!!
 
You should read some of the links in this thread for starters. He confirmed what many other sources had been saying. History will decide if it was a blunder but right now we have troops in harms way. It disgusts me when I see arm chair generals make those kinds of assertions.
 
"History looks back favorably on Reagan, though none of us thought it would at the time."

I liked that one. He is the one who was selling arms to Iran to fund his death squads in Central America. Should Georgie boy sell arms to Iran as well to carry on this fine legacy?

Oh and he pumped arms to Saddam. And the Mujahideen, who one day turned into the Taliban.

Woo!!! USA! USA!
 
Oh and he pumped arms to Saddam. And the Mujahideen, who one day turned into the Taliban.
Click to expand...

All true. I actually believe that was the period we were putting American flags on Iraqi tankers so we could escort them through the straights of Hormuz.

But when you take big risks you gotta lose a few. On the positive side, Reagan bloodlessly (at least US military wise, by sending arms to Afghanistan and bankrupting it with an arms race) destroyed the Soviet Union, brought a shaky democracy to El Salvador, and brought pride back to the US Military.

With Reagan we have decided to overlook the issues you bring up and judge him favorably. We'll see how History balances out the good and bad of Bush (though it looks like there is more of the latter right now).
 
Armchair Presidency

I can't believe people are still talking about this. If the evidence is so clear, demand your congressman start impeachment proceedings. If he violated "international law", assist the UN when they march to the White House to arrest "Bushie". If he violated "international law" demand the UN sanction us. Maybe they'll pass one of their resolutions. Oh-they're busy fixing the problems in Africa with their usual efficiency-the same efficiency I saw in Somalia and East Timor when then-President Clinton wanted to put us in baby blue berets.

Sorry to hear about the problems with retention in my sister services. I've been a Marine Infantryman for over 20 years and retention is the highest I've ever seen-particurlarly among Infantryman.

To those who "pity the soldiers"--don't. I can only speak for myself and I don't want pity. I'm a volunteer. Despite what John Kerry says, many of us can read and I've even seen some of my fellow Marines use math. I'm on my second tour over here-as a volunteer. I could have retired last year-but I believe in the what's happening over here and the changes that are occuring. There's still work to do. This place never really left the stone age, and change is happening-but not fast enough for a country that gets spun up over waiting in the drive-thru for more than 5 minutes. Words like "debacle" and "quagmire" are used by those who want to see things a certain way despite what reality says. I'm fairly certain that I'm not brainwashed. More likely I'm not in the same Iraq that I read about in the news.

I don't particurlarly like being shot at (although there hasn't been much of that lately), but I firmly believe our presence here has made our country safer. The stories of foreign fighters coming into Iraq to engage us are buried by the media because they don't fit the "civil war" pronouncement--guess what--they're here, and they hate America. I'd much prefer them to use their resources here than in my town. Or yours.

History will judge President Bush (yes, I put President in front of his name. It's a question of respect.) If he's as dumb as people assert, I wonder how he keeps beating the Democrats. If he's guilty of anything, it's not articulating effectively about this conflict-not specifically here in Iraq, but the worldwide one.

Were there mistakes made in this conflict? Probably. Were there mistakes made in the execution of WWII? Yep. Shall we go back and say how incompetent the leaders were then? What would be the point? War is war. It's fluid and uncertain. The best plans don't always work because the enemy doesn't follow our plan. Sometimes the worst plans work-there's no telling until much later. I wonder what the current crop of media and politicians would have said during WWII. I suspect the conflict wouldn't have turned out so favorably for the world. Sooner or later we'll fight the perfect war in which nobody will get hurt and there will be no critisism, but for now, this is what we have.

I think what's happening here are the opening battles of what will become a long conflict that will determine the future of the US and Europe-although I think Europe may have already lost.

Bottom line-hindsight is always 20/20. Nothing is easier then sitting back and criticizing. No risk in that. The risk comes in taking action for what you believe in. I should probably give credit to that quote-here it is:

"The galleries are full of critics. They play no ball, they fight no fights. They make no mistakes because they attempt nothing. Down in the arena are the doers. They make mistakes because they try many things. The man who makes no mistakes lacks boldness and the spirit of adventure. He is the one who never tries anything. His is the brake on the wheel of progress. And yet it cannot be truly said he makes no mistakes, because his biggest mistake is the very fact that he tries nothing, does nothing, except criticize those who do things."--Gen. David M. Shoup USMC

Bottom line-if you feel so strongly about something-do something about it. Engaging in a debate isn't enough-that changes nothing. In the end, words will have no effect. Action will. Take action for what you believe to be right-until then they're just words.

Scott
MSgt USMC
Somewhere in Iraq
 
"Bottom line-if you feel so strongly about something-do something about it."



Been there, done that got the t-shirts, hats and holes in my butt. Marine, thanks for your service to the good old USA.

US Army
M/Sgt. Retired
 
Last edited:
Bottom line-if you feel so strongly about something-do something about it. Engaging in a debate isn't enough-that changes nothing. In the end, words will have no effect. Action will. Take action for what you believe to be right-until then they're just words.

Scott
MSgt USMC
Somewhere in Iraq
Click to expand...
Very well said, thanks for your service, dedication and insight. And God willing, a speedy return home. I only wish your POW got more air time over here but the appeasers and critics rule the roost. I only hope that the next president sees the big picture for what it is. It would be nice if the civilized world would do more too, but most long ago decided to be critics rather than doers.
 
I should think a genuine Conservative could handle his left wing views just fine. Foreign interventionism is profoundly left wing.
 
Zero said
"Scottz needs to enlist the service of some left wing college blogheads to sraighten him out."

Ha! My wife says that too-she's from the Bay Area of California but she's expected to make a full recovery! Funny you mention that-I retire later this year and hope to attend college in Illinois-either PhD in Psychology or MBA (I double Majored in undergrad work) so I'm sure I'll get my share!:)

And Pat, I respectfully have a different viewpoint-protecting national security and interests is profoundly Right-wing in my view, while giving them away appears to be the progressive approach from where I stand.

Just my 2 dinar, for what that's worth.

Semper Fi
Scott

"You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. If we fail, at least let our children and our children's children say of us we justified our brief moment here. We did all that could be done."
Ronald Reagan
 
By no means am I an expert on international law, so perhaps my opinions on whether the war in Iraq is legal are not are pure bull puckey. At any rate, here is my understanding of the situation:

In 1991 Congress declared war on Iraq, and shortly afterward Iraq was militarily defeated and a cease-fire was negotiated.

During the period 1991-2003 something called a peace treaty which would end the war was never approved by Congress (or even agreed to by the belligerents) and thus not made into law, whether international or domestic. So the war with Iraq was never formally ended, merely concluded with a cease-fire. Thus, the US has been at war with Iraq for the period beginning in 1991 up to the time of invasion in 2003 and possibly even the present. Notably, Iraq frequently violated the terms of the cease-fire by firing missiles at USAF jets patrolling no-fly zones in N and S Iraq which the US had the right to patrol under the terms of the cease-fire. By my understanding, violations of cease-fire agreements justify resumption of the hostilities by both parties, and in this case the US was the victim of a resumption of hostilities, not Iraq.

In 2002 (possibly prior), the Bush Administration decided to topple Saddam Hussein's regime, citing WMDs and terrorism as the justification since a few missile launches that did not significantly damage US military operations in the no-fly zones makes for a harder case for resuming the hostilities to the public. Although Saddam did not have WMDs, he was materially supporting terrorism (for instance: giving $15k to the families of each Palestinian suicide bomber). Since Israel is a US ally, providing aid to parties who perpetrate acts of war on Israel is an act of war against the US as well. Any proof of Saddam providing support to terrorists intending to directly strike the US or its interests also shows that Saddam engaged in acts of war against the US itself in violation of the cease-fire agreement.

Now, the morality and justifications of this war are subjects of hot debate. But the technical legalities of it shouldn't be, according to my understanding of them. President Clinton had the same legal right to do what Bush has done based on Iraq's repeated and persistent violations of the cease-fire terms. Prior to the renewal of hostilities in 2003, Bush made the case to the UN in a way that makes the public (notorious for forgetting what the Executive branch did 12 years previous) in the US think that he broke the law.

Bottom line: IMHO, the war is legal. It may or may not be justifiable by other criteria, but there is a difference between what is legal (meaning permissible under the law) and what is moral/ethical/rational and people should know the difference when they debate the war and whether it is justified.

Now let me reiterate: I am not a lawyer, and I certainly don't practice law in the international arena. I could be dead wrong in my understanding of the situation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top