Iraq.

[milefile]

Originally posted by M5Power


Are you sure you're an American?

Did you feel free immediately after you actually witnessed a jet airliner packed with human life slam into a building equally packed with human life? Feel free as you watched those buildings fall to the ground crushing everyone who didn't get out?

More free than ever before. It answered the question: free for what?

 

[Danoff]

Hmmm... the thead is about Iraq, and seems to be about the motivations and justification for the war, so I'll dump this here:

But it was indeed played out like it was part in response to 9/11 by the government and the media. Majority of people supported the invasion, because according to them, Hussein had something to do with the 9/11.

If that's what people thought, it isn't my problem. Nor is it president Bush's problem, since he didn't make that claim.

 

[a6m5]

If that's what people thought, it isn't my problem. Nor is it president Bush's problem, since he didn't make that claim.

This must be confusing for people who just saw this pop in out of nowhere. Now to my response:

You are right, it isn't your problem, but I think it was the U.S. government's problem. Ultimately, I think public were just too stupid to realize that there were no direct relation between Hussein and 9/11. But since most people believed this, government should have educated(at least the media) the public a bit here.

I could not believe all those people supporting the invasion, when they had no clue why it was happening. Anti-Invasion people were looked at like they were covering for the terrorists or something. It was very strange times.

 

[ledhed]

I was wondering who the post monster thread reviver was . from out of the crypt and the far reaches of time comes....THIS THREAD .


Bwaaaaaaaaaaahahahahaahahahahaha...........

 

[Danoff]

This must be confusing for people who just saw this pop in out of nowhere. Now to my response:

When I said "nearest Iraq thread" I actually meant "oldest one I could find".

You are right, it isn't your problem, but I think it was the U.S. government's problem. Ultimately, I think public were just too stupid to realize that there were no direct relation between Hussein and 9/11. But since most people believed this, government should have educated(at least the media) the public a bit here.

I could not believe all those people supporting the invasion, when they had no clue why it was happening. Anti-Invasion people were looked at like they were covering for the terrorists or something. It was very strange times.

Some of the anti-invasion people WERE covering for terrorists, because they were also against the oprations in Afghanistan and blamed us for 9/11. If you were for the operations in Afghanistan but not Iraq, then you're simply covering for a brutal dictator. Much better.

I don't think that the US government did too bad a job with the reasoning. Anyone who was following along remembers that we tried to work through the UN and in terms of UN resolutions and treaties violated. So anyone who was following along knows Iraq's bad rap sheet from that discussion. The problem was that Bush thought that the American people needed more of a reason to go into Iraq than "broken treaties give us all the legal reason we need". So he sold the American people on the notion that Iraq was a current real danger that would bite us in the ass if we let it sit any longer. That line of reasoning may not have been completely correct, but it was close. Iraq would have bit us in the ass if it sat long enough, but probably not before Iran or NK.

The real reason we went into Iraq was to stop terrorism, but not because Iraq sponsored terrorism. We went into Iraq because Iraq was in the region and we wanted a friendly nation in the region to hurt terrorist recruitment and bring democracy and freedom close to home. His big idea was the free nations don't engage in terrorism, and that Iraq being free would erode support from other nations in the area.

I think he was right. So far Iraq is a big success. It hasn't gone perfectly, it's taking a little longer than one might have hoped, but it has gone extremely well.

 

[a6m5]

Some of the anti-invasion people WERE covering for terrorists, because they were also against the oprations in Afghanistan and blamed us for 9/11.

I have no comment on people who were against the military going in Afghanistan(at least none I can share here).

If you were for the operations in Afghanistan but not Iraq, then you're simply covering for a brutal dictator. Much better.

That was me, but I don't know about "covering" for Hussein. I didn't even know we were that close. In the Brutal Dictator ranking of 2003, was Hussein even in the top-10?

I don't think that the US government did too bad a job with the reasoning. Anyone who was following along remembers that we tried to work through the UN and in terms of UN resolutions and treaties violated. So anyone who was following along knows Iraq's bad rap sheet from that discussion. The problem was that Bush thought that the American people needed more of a reason to go into Iraq than "broken treaties give us all the legal reason we need". So he sold the American people on the notion that Iraq was a current real danger that would bite us in the ass if we let it sit any longer. That line of reasoning may not have been completely correct, but it was close. Iraq would have bit us in the ass if it sat long enough, but probably not before Iran or NK.

The real reason we went into Iraq was to stop terrorism, but not because Iraq sponsored terrorism. We went into Iraq because Iraq was in the region and we wanted a friendly nation in the region to hurt terrorist recruitment and bring democracy and freedom close to home. His big idea was the free nations don't engage in terrorism, and that Iraq being free would erode support from other nations in the area.

By bypassing the U.N. because there was a risk that invasion could be vetoed, The U.S. was having a cake and eating it too. Invasion was not justified, because usually it's the U.S. telling you, U.N. this & U.N. that. Of course, all that changed until the U.S. wanted something done, that wasn't approved by the U.N.

P.S. I wouldn't call Iraq a success, but I don't think it's a total failure either. Whatever they do, U.S. should stay in Iraq until the whole region is fully stabilized.

 

[Danoff]

That was me, but I don't know about "covering" for Hussein. I didn't even know we were that close. In the Brutal Dictator ranking of 2003, was Hussein even in the top-10?

Maybe not, but the top-10 of the last decade? I think probably.

By bypassing the U.N. because there was a risk that invasion could be vetoed, The U.S. was having a cake and eating it too. Invasion was not justified,...

Justified and approved-by-the-UN aren't the same thing.

P.S. I wouldn't call Iraq a success, but I don't think it's a total failure either. Whatever they do, U.S. should stay in Iraq until the whole region is fully stabilized.

Where exactly have we failed in Iraq?

 

[a6m5]

Justified and approved-by-the-UN aren't the same thing.

It has to be UN-Approved, until U.S. wants to invade Iraq.

Where exactly have we failed in Iraq?

I guess they aren't failing at anything. It's just that rebuilding of Iraq could take many, many decades. Maybe it will never get done. To be honest with you, I was hoping it would get done pretty smoothly. I sure didn't see over 2,000 U.S. casualties coming.

 

[Danoff]

It has to be UN-Approved, until U.S. wants to invade Iraq.

I don't hold any other nation to the "UN-Approved" standard either. As far as I'm concerned the UN is basically useless. What matters to me is the nature of the conflict, and the history behind it. If one nation can point to treaties violated/damge done I'm behind them. An example is Israel. I don't think Israel needs UN-approval to defend itself. Whether or not I agree with their actions is entirely dependent on the nature of the conflict.

I sure didn't see over 2,000 U.S. casualties coming.

I guess it's all about expectations. I actually expected higher numbers - or at least I would have if I had assumed it would take this long.

 

[a6m5]

I guess it's all about expectations. I actually expected higher numbers - or at least I would have if I had assumed it would take this long.

It's just that initial invasion went so smooth, swift. I expected a lot of casualties in the beginning, not after they toppled Hussein's Regime.

 

[YSSMAN]

Let me make a few things clear:

- I supported the war in 2003
- I still support the war today
- I will still support this war in the future

Things haven't gone the way that I had expected, but part of that can be placed uppon the heads of the DOD. Not allowing for a quick and smooth transition of power to the Iraqis as was done in Afghanistan was a mistake, and I think it may have proved to be part of the problem.

I don't have all the answers, as none of us do. But for us to play "Arm-chair Rumsfeld" isn't fair either.

 

[a6m5]

I don't have all the answers, as none of us do. But for us to play "Arm-chair Rumsfeld" isn't fair either.

I know, that's why we tried to tell you not to go into Iraq. See, problem solved. j/k