Do you support the war in Iraq?

[The Source]

For those who are intrested:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/

[DarthOxyClean]

Uh, no (insert bannable insult here) I was asking you to remember where Osama comes from.

And where the 9/11 bombers came from.

And where Osama's hundreds of millions of dollars are.

And where the source of a whole lot of...well, figure it out. Haven't I said this before in another thread?

Um, I was kidding.

 

Am I the only person here who thinks there's something wrong with the Vice President and President of the US being able to personally profit from a war they themselves start?[/Quote]

I certainly hope not.

 

For those who are intrested:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/

Ugh. Just reading about what happened ticks me off.

[Samnmax221]

For those who are intrested:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/

Think their reshowing it sometime this week, I think it's important to keep an open mind so I'll definetly watch it if they show it again.

[stingerhs]

meh, what's a couple thousand innocent civilians lives worth, anyways?? not to mention another couple thousand soldiers just to guarentee a remote semblence that we are safe when we walk out the front door.[/sarcasm]

 

seriously, i'm still not convinced this whole 'War on Terror' thing should even be that much of an issue. compared to Europe, i'm in a terrific amount of danger whenever i walk outside due to the crimes within our own country performed by my fellow Americans.

 

besides, if you really want my opinion, this whole Iraqi war wasn't about terrorism anyway. there might be some leftover stuff from the 1980's, but its not enough to be concerned about. even then, its not a big stockpile or anything.

 

looking back to how the war was shoved onto the lap of the American Public, i can still understand why the war was never about terrorism. it was about Hussein having these nonexistant stockpiles of WMD's. the conservative spin now is to say that those nonexistant WMD's could've been sold off to terrorist groups, but you'll note that they've only been saying that recently. it wasn't something that was brought forth in any of Bush's speechs when he was pushing for the war. so, again, i find this whole war to be a case of public misguidance on the count of Bush.

 

it was an unnecessary war from the outset, and we really shouldn't have bothered with it in the first place.

[Jae Onasi]

I guess if people forget about Saddam Hussein *not* having any weapons of mass destruction (which was supposed to be the whole point of invading Iraq, remember?)

AND *not* being remotely connected to Islamic terrorism before the US invasion

AND the fact that he was close ally of the US before the first Gulf War

AND the fact that the US has had plenty of nasty, evil dictators who kill their own people for friends over the years

AND the fact the people who really felt threatened by Saddam were the Saudis (VERY good buddies with the US, and curiously not all that democratic)

AND the fact that the Baghdad morgue has processed over 6000 corpses so far this year

AND the fact that reducing Iraq to a terrorist anarchy might not be the safest long-term plan (which is assuming the US had a long-term plan before invading) for anyone involved

then yeah, it's a good little war.

 

But then, if the US and current Iraqi forces kill and torture just as many people as Saddam, is it all really worth it for the Iraqis?

 

Not picking on you in particular here, Mace, you just happen to have pretty much everything I want to address all in one place so it's a little easier to quote.

I've been following the events in Iraq ever since 1990 when I had to do some research on Iraq for a paper in my history of the Middle East class. I don't claim to be an expert by any stretch of imagination. My biases--I'm a centrist politically (probably closer to a Lieberman Dem than anything) and hubby's in the Army

 

Let's address the reason for entering the war. Yes, WMD was _a_ reason. It was not the _sole_ reason. Hussein violated a number of UN resolutions, some repeatedly. There was reason to believe he had WMDs--first, he'd already fired Scud missiles at Israel. Two, he'd used nerve gas on the Kurds. And he'd used both mustard gas and sarin in the Iran/Iraq war. I saw today on the news that some declassified documents indicated that they'd found about 500 chem weapons (I could have the number wrong, but it didn't surprise me in the least). Was some of the intelligence on WMDs faulty? Knowing what we know now, yes. Hindsight is always 20/20. However, I don't think Powell would have gone to speak to the UN about WMDs if he had any reason to believe the information was truly false in any way. Powell, as a former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (the highest military position someone can hold), understood the cost of going to war. I don't believe he has the kind of character that would send our military men and women into battle for lies. Rumsfeld might, but I don't think Powell would have gone before the UN to defend the US if he didn't believe what he was saying was true (Powell's and de Villepin's speeches to the UN in early '03 were fascinating, btw). Totally unsubstantiated scuttlebutt among some of the military--the WMDs were moved out of Iraq and into Syria, and we don't want to make trouble with the Syrians. I have absolutely no clue on the truth of that, but it's an interesting thought, anyway.

 

Terrorist groups--were pretty much suppressed ruthlessly by Hussein as a threat to his dictatorship. However, Ansar al-Islam and Islamic Movement of Kurdistan were in existance prior to 2003. No Iraqi news organizations dared to report any kind of uprising going on in his country, so it doesn't surprise me in the least to see very few formal terror groups.

 

Support of Iraq prior to 1st Gulf war--this has to be kept in context. Ayatollah Khomeini scared the snot out of the US, especially with the hostage crisis and his threats of an Islamic revolution. A number of countries feared that Khomeini would spread a more radical version of Islam through the Middle East and destabilize the region. Since Hussein came to power in 1979, we didn't know just what a megalomaniac we were supporting (and neither, apparently, did all the other countries that supported him). We weren't supporting Hussein so much as we were working to stop Khomeini.

 

I won't dispute we've made alliances with dictators--sometimes we've chosen the lesser of two evils, and I think a lot (but not all) of those alliances were made during the Cold war when we made almost as a knee-jerk reaction alliances to prevent the USSR from making those same alliances.

 

Saudi Arabia--doesn't claim to be democratic at all. It's a monarchy. And yes, they felt threatened, and so did Kuwait, UAE, Israel, and whatever other country happened to be within range of Hussein's Scud missiles. Saudi Arabia and the US have been allies a long time before Hussein came along. Yes, politics makes strange bedfellows.

 

The Baghdad morgue thing--if the insurgents hadn't been busy with their homicide bombings, there'd be a substantially lower body count.

 

Terrorist anarchy--sure, their new democracy is tenuous and is currently under constant threat. But it's there and millions went out to vote for it. It's a far cry better than Saddam's 'go out and vote for me or I'll kill you, and by the way I'm the only one on the ballot' style of democracy.

 

The search for bin Laden--why go after him and risk our people when we can let nature take its course? If he has end stage renal failure due to diabetes (both of which he is rumored to have), he's not going to last forever. Average lifespan for someone on dialysis for endstage renal failure is about a year, and while he may live longer, his days are nevertheless going to be a lot shorter than someone without kidney failure. It's better for him to die in bed of natural causes and not become a martyr.

 

The PBS documentary--I haven't seen it, but since PBS tends to lean towards the left, I'd take a very close look at Michael Kirk and who did the research. If Kirk's very left-wing and the research is done sloppy, I'm going to view it as far less credible than if it's done by someone scholarly with far less of an agenda who's known to be scrupulous about academic honesty and integrity (and on a slight tangent, I happen to think someone like Moore with his 'politocumentary' is more of a detriment to the Dems than an asset, but that's another discussion entirely). I take a lot of that stuff with a healthy dose of salt.

 

Bush and religion--I have no issue with a President saying X is his faith, any more than saying baseball is his favorite sport and opera is his favorite music. I haven't seen any evidence of him personally trying to force anyone to convert. If you ask him about his religion, he's going to talk about it, but that's a far cry from him telling everyone that they must bow down at the altar of Christ. You can be a moral conservative regardless of religion and support morally conservative policies.

 

US troops killing/torturing as many as Saddam: We'd have to be there decades to get to the body count Saddam had. There are situations in every war where torture is done by all sides, because despite policy to not torture, the people on the front lines are human and sometimes their emotions get the better of them. That doesn't mean I condone torture, it just means I recognize that it sadly is going to happen. But the US military by far has worked hard to make sure torture doesn't occur, so I object strenuously to the implication that we're running around torturing every POW/combatant/whatever we encounter. I think we've done a darn good job preventing more torture from happening, and whatever 'torture' anyone's experienced at the hands of the US, it's far less barbaric than what al-Qaeda and the insurgents are doing sawing off people's heads.

 

And, this is getting way too long so I'll turn over the discussion to someone else now.

[zinervadonella]

Think they just wanted the oil

 

They didn't want the oil. The UN was about to lift the sanctions, and the US administration could not allow that oil on the market. Especialy since Saddam planed on trading his oil in euros and not dollers. If the Iraqi oil had hit the market, we would not have $3.45 a gallon gasoline.

 

Edit: I never supported the war. But the war has been over for a long while now. What we have now is the US occupation of Iraq. I am opposed to the occupation of Iraq, but not for the usual peace loving reasons. Iraq was no real threat. N. Korea was and is and is currently testing an ICBM that can reach the west coast of the US. And there is nothing the US can do about that, because we are bogged down on 2 fronts (Afghanistan as well as Iraq.)

 

Fighting 2 front wars is beyond stupid, because if someone (n. Korea or red China or just about anyone else) decides to open a third front, your goose is cooked. If red China decided to swollow up Taiwan next week, the US would be left with two options, accept it or go nuclear.

 

Edit2:

Let's address the reason for entering the war. Yes, WMD was _a_ reason. It was not the _sole_ reason. Hussein violated a number of UN resolutions repeatedly, some repeatedly.

It is up to the UN security council and not the US to enforce UN resolutions.

 

And you are wrong, WMD was the SOLE stated reason for invading Iraq. Not that it realy matters anymore. Why the US invaded is now irrelevant. The US could have invaded Iraq because Saddam was the reincarnated Hitler or because Saddam chewed too much bubble gum, and it wouldn't change a single thing on the ground in Iraq. While the war has been over for a couple years now, the occupation seems to be endless. And the occupation is what is relevant today, no matter which side of the debate you are on. Everything else is just talking points.

 

zinervadonella, I have combined your Double Posts. Please refrain from Double Posting, that is having multiple posts in a row, while it is alright to do in some rare instances, here it isn't. Use the 'edit this' post feature to add any new content to your previous posts, thanks. -RH

[RC-1162]

totally stupid thing on Bush's part too: he says EEERAQ instead of IRAQ. what a ****er.

[igyman]

Am I the only person here who thinks there's something wrong with the Vice President and President of the US being able to personally profit from a war they themselves start?

 

No, you're not. That was the point of starting the war in the first place - to fill their own pockets with money, not to help the people of Iraq, like I said, it was all about the oil.

 

 

They didn't want the oil. The UN was about to lift the sanctions, and the US administration could not allow that oil on the market. Especialy since Saddam planed on trading his oil in euros and not dollers. If the Iraqi oil had hit the market, we would not have $3.45 a gallon gasoline.

 

Ummm, so how did they not want the oil? Even from what you said it's obvious they did want it.

[The Source]

Think their reshowing it sometime this week, I think it's important to keep an open mind so I'll definetly watch it if they show it again.

Yeah. I want to see it again as well. I have been checking PBS to see if they will anoune it. I hope so. The documentary was pretty extensive.

[Samnmax221]

Yeah. I want to see it again as well. I have been checking PBS to see if they will anoune it. I hope so. The documentary was pretty extensive.

Frontline does a really good job, I especially liked the one about the incident in Beslan

[DarthOxyClean]

Frontline does a really good job, I especially liked the one about the incident in Beslan

 

The Darkside Frontline documentary was the first Frontline I have seen, but I really need to watch it more often.

[The Source]

No waiting needed:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/view/

(You can view the segments online.)

[Tysyacha]

The True Casualties of the War in Iraq:

 

Men, women, and children on both sides of the conflict.

 

The goodwill of most of the world toward America after 9/11.

 

The ideal of true Islam as a faith that promotes peace and justice.

(Most Americans nowadays would rather claim they're atheists than

claim that they follow Islam. A sad irony which causes many American

Muslims to feel torn between their faith and their home/birth country.)

 

Schools, power lines and plants, oil refineries, factories, and homes.

 

Beloved pets who are now dead or strays because their owners also died.

 

***************************************

 

I do not believe more fighting and killing is what Iraq needs at all.

 

Thus, I give the war in Iraq a rating of -1000, or !

[CountVerilucus]

Right, wrong? Laws are silent in a war. Everything depends on the will of the victorious.

[Darth InSidious]

^Thanks, Tully, but thats not so. If "inter arma enim silent leges", then the law loses all credibility, and should be scrapped, IMO.

 

No, I don't support America foisting gunboat diplomacy on a world that's already been through it once before.

 

That said, Saddam Hussein was not a good man, and would have threatened the western world in time even if he hadn't already, and was oppressing his people in a barbaric manner; there wasn't any other way to depose him. Bush couldn't get a UN resolution since the French had threatened to veto any such resolution, and if he backed down, his world standing and the world standing of the USA would have been crippled.

 

And that, ladies and gentlemen, above all else, is why Bush invaded Iraq.

Because otherwise it would have been another Suez Crisis. I'm not saying it was the right thing to do, make no mistake there, but I am trying to explain his actions and try and give a rather more intelligent explanation than that he's a monkey-brained oil fetishist.