And we wonder why the Iraqis don't like us...

[Achilles]

While I would, of course, prefer a pro-US government in Iraq (not too many Americans wouldn't), I really wouldn't mind a truly, truly independent and secular Iraqi government either, free from U.S., Russian, Iranian, or Religious influence. So far both of those goals seem like a pipe dream.

I would very much like to see *all* nations share a common set of values (we are talking about our pipe dreams here). But that's not the same thing as wishing for a pro-U.S. gov't. Which is what we *are* installing. While telling everyone that we're promoting an indepedent democracy. In other words, "lying".

[Maxstate]

The US has been screwing over the Iraqi population from here to sunday since the 80's, why did you ever even think anything changed? People don't change, especially not people from the same administration that lead the country back then.

[Seph]

As soon as you guys come up with a way that prevents casualties on both sides(troops and civilians) like this pitch it but until then stick with what works, not everyone likes it but it's probably the best way they have right now.

[TK-8252]

As soon as you guys come up with a way that prevents casualties on both sides(troops and civilians)

 

I have a way: withdrawl.

[Totenkopf]

I guess the point of this rant is to point out that the U.S. has absolutely no intention of estabilishing a truly independent democracy in Iraq....

 

Frankly, don't think it would matter if we did have that intention or not. By which I mean any truly "independent"* democracy would last about as long as the Weimar Republic did after WW1. Took several centuries for the west to develop workable systems and a thorough beating down for the Germans and Japanes to come around. Arguably, in the west, it also required a certain amount of decoupling of strong religious influence from the levers of state power. Not likely to see that in the Middle East for some time, it seems.

 

 

 

*as in not "controlled" by the US, not necessarily others, apparently

[hhunter6]

I wonder if anyone here has been out there and actually lived a day in the life of an american out there. Its all good to have your opinions and say what you feel is wrong with the war. But honestly before you can say how someone should do something over there try being there first. It will give you a perspective you don't have now.

[Achilles]

And what are you assuming that we would know if we did?

[hhunter6]

You would have an understanding of why we drive the way we do out there for one.

[Achilles]

Which assumes that I don't. Anything else?

[hhunter6]

Which assumes that I don't. Anything else?

That all depends on you I suppose. Everyone has their own opinions about it. I have mine, and you have yours. Not to beat on my chest but I've spent almost two years in many different areas of that country. I've driven on almost every road from Basra to Baghdad. And I've seen the positive changes in area's where I've lived for months.

[Achilles]

I don't doubt that you have. But I don't see how that has anything to do with our justification (or lack thereof) for being there in the first place.

 

Thank you for your service. If you are still there, I hope that you are safe and that you get to come home soon. Take care.

[hhunter6]

I don't doubt that you have. But I don't see how that has anything to do with our justification (or lack thereof) for being there in the first place.

 

Thank you for your service. If you are still there, I hope that you are safe and that you get to come home soon. Take care.

 

Let me ask this. How would you feel if Bush said, "Saddam is mass killing his people and it needs to stop. Thats why were going in." Would you feel different? I'm not defending the reason why we were over there in the first place by any means. There is alot that I don't agree with about the war in Iraq. But after seeing a grave of about 100 thousand bodies many children with bullet holes in there head, how big his palaces were and the poverty of the surrounding villages were. In some way it was justified going over there. But again when you find no WOMD then its a tainted mission so to speak. My thought is you see videos of the military bumping cars, which is crazy in its self due to the vehicle IED threat, but you never know out there. and I wouldn't want to be the next military guy to be captured and beheaded.

 

You don't have to thank me for anything:) I've enjoyed my time as a marine and I have no regrets. I havn't been back there for two years and i hear its calmed down alot since I was there. But I've seen alot there that no one here ever sees or hears about. (go media) I'm just one man with his own opinion. but I enjoy healthy conversations about it. It keeps you sane

[Achilles]

Let me ask this. How would you feel if Bush said, "Saddam is mass killing his people and it needs to stop. Thats why were going in." Would you feel different?

No, because I would doubt the veracity of that reason as well. Bush was in the 2nd year of his term when he invaded Iraq. If he was genuinely concerned about the welfare of the Iraqi people and wanted to use that as a justification, he should have invaded much, much sooner.

 

The catalyst for the invasion was the attacks of 9/11. I don't know why a terrorist attack would in turn become the catalyst for a huge humanitarian effort, especially considering that terrorist mastermind allegedly responsible for the attacks is being relatively ignored in another conflict in another country. Should our attention be there?

 

I'm not defending the reason why we were over there in the first place by any means. There is alot that I don't agree with about the war in Iraq. But after seeing a grave of about 100 thousand bodies many children with bullet holes in there head, how big his palaces were and the poverty of the surrounding villages were. In some way it was justified going over there.

See above.

 

I have no doubt that Saddam was a real, honest-to-goodness ass-hat. An ass-hat that we put into power, gave weapons to, supported for years, etc. Again, if we had some moral obligation to be there, it went ignored for almost a decade. 2 years of which by George Dubya.

 

And if we're going to side-step the U.N. to act unilaterally in the name of human rights abuses, etc, then why aren't we in Durfur?

 

Also, please keep in mind that you're asking me to completely ignore all of the Project for a New American Century rhetoric.

 

But again when you find no WOMD then its a tainted mission so to speak. My thought is you see videos of the military bumping cars, which is crazy in its self due to the vehicle IED threat, but you never know out there. and I wouldn't want to be the next military guy to be captured and beheaded.

I also see video of contractors strafing cars with machine gun fire while listening to Elvis (or was it Johnny Cash?). But that's unrelated as they aren't actual military personnel.

 

You don't have to thank me for anything:) I've enjoyed my time as a marine and I have no regrets. I havn't been back there for two years and i hear its calmed down alot since I was there. But I've seen alot there that no one here ever sees or hears about. (go media) I'm just one man with his own opinion. but I enjoy healthy conversations about it. It keeps you sane

I don't follow the MSM, so I don't know how well they cover things. I do know that a lot of the documentaries I've seen aren't afraid to pull punches, so I do like to think that I have some small of idea of how completely nutters things have been over there.

[hhunter6]

No, because I would doubt the veracity of that reason as well. Bush was in the 2nd year of his term when he invaded Iraq. If he was genuinely concerned about the welfare of the Iraqi people and wanted to use that as a justification, he should have invaded much, much sooner.

 

The catalyst for the invasion was the attacks of 9/11. I don't know why a terrorist attack would in turn become the catalyst for a huge humanitarian effort, especially considering that terrorist mastermind allegedly responsible for the attacks is being relatively ignored in another conflict in another country. Should our attention be there?

 

Absolutly it should be there. Trends show that as Iraq calms, Afghanistan gets worse. as I said there are many things I don't agree with, and your point about going to Iraq after 2 years in term is taken. IMO son wanted to finish what dad started. But what do I know.

 

 

I have no doubt that Saddam was a real, honest-to-goodness ass-hat. An ass-hat that we put into power, gave weapons to, supported for years, etc. Again, if we had some moral obligation to be there, it went ignored for almost a decade. 2 years of which by George Dubya.

Politics will do that.

 

And if we're going to side-step the U.N. to act unilaterally in the name of human rights abuses, etc, then why aren't we in Durfur?

 

There are many places we should be, however the first one should be our own country. Maybe we should help ourselfs before we help others. but that could be rather selfish in the eyes of others if you feel that way of course.

 

 

Also, please keep in mind that you're asking me to completely ignore all of the Project for a New American Century rhetoric.

 

In my own ignorance I have to admit defeat on this cause I don't know what that is. BUT if I did, I would not ask you ignore any thought or idea. I was merely going off the first post about driving in the streets of Iraq and saying how someone should put theirselves in the Military's shoes while their out there.

 

I also see video of contractors strafing cars with machine gun fire while listening to Elvis (or was it Johnny Cash?). But that's unrelated as they aren't actual military personnel.

 

Blackwater or a company of the same equivalent no doubt. thats upsetting to see because they go off their own "rules" and pretty much do what they want. all that does is defeat what others have worked hard to try fix out there.

[Achilles]

Absolutly it should be there. Trends show that as Iraq calms, Afghanistan gets worse. as I said there are many things I don't agree with, and your point about going to Iraq after 2 years in term is taken. IMO son wanted to finish what dad started. But what do I know.

I am by no means an expert either, but I would encourage you to watch old footage of Secretary of State Dick Cheney talking about why Bush 41 opted not to invade Iraq.

 

if you need it.

 

That taken with reports that I've heard (sorry, no source so take with a grain of salt) that Bush 41 did not support Bush 43's invasion of Iraq leads me to suspect that even the "finishing what dad started" explanation doesn't work. But again, this is all my dime-store analysis.

 

Politics will do that.

And that's fine, but we can't have it both ways.

 

There are many places we should be, however the first one should be our own country. Maybe we should help ourselfs before we help others. but that could be rather selfish in the eyes of others if you feel that way of course.

And I would tend to agree with you, wholeheartedly. Unfortunately, this side-steps the question though.

 

Humanitarian crisis in Darfur vs. humanitarian crisis in Iraq. Relatively small oil reserves in Sudan mostly committed to China vs. 3rd largest known oil reserves in Iraq right next to neighboring ally with 1st largest known oil reserves (Saudi Arabia) which also holds strategic significance for neighboring enemy with 2nd largest known oil reserves (Iran).

 

Nevermind that we're still left wondering how the attacks of 9/11 factor into this.

 

But forgive me if I sound cynical and skeptical

 

In my own ignorance I have to admit defeat on this cause I don't know what that is. BUT if I did, I would not ask you ignore any thought or idea. I was merely going off the first post about driving in the streets of Iraq and saying how someone should put theirselves in the Military's shoes while their out there.

Fair enough. PNAC is a Washington think tank co-founded by Bill Kristol (also co-founder of The Weekly Standard). Members include Paul Wolfowitz (Deputy Secretary of Defense and creator of "The Wolfowitz Doctrine" later to be known as "The Bush Doctrine"), Scooter Libby (Assistant Secretary of State), Dick Cheney (Vice President), Donald Rumsfeld (Secretary of Defense), and other names associated with the Bush Administration, but might not be as well known.

 

The group began calling (quite publicly) for pre-emptive war against Iraq in 1991. Coincidentally, many of the key members (listed above) just happened to be key members of the Bush Administration and just happened to be central to the invasion of Iraq which just happened to have been "justified" by the attacks of September 11th.

 

Minor point of interest: the PNAC published a paper called Rebuilding America's Defenses in September 2000 which identified Iran, Iraq, and North Korea as the key stratigic obstacles to American military dominance. Coincidentally, Bush 43 has frequently referred to these three countries as "the Axis of Evil".

 

All of this information is online if you want to do your own research. I will also be happy to funish you with links if you would like for me to recommend sources.

 

Blackwater or a company of the same equivalent no doubt. thats upsetting to see because they go off their own "rules" and pretty much do what they want. all that does is defeat what others have worked hard to try fix out there.

Indeed, it is very sad.

 

Thanks for the great discussion! I am enjoying it very much

[hhunter6]

I am by no means an expert either, but I would encourage you to watch old footage of Secretary of State Dick Cheney talking about why Bush 41 opted not to invade Iraq.

 

indeed i'll have to watch this. however since ole Dick can not tell the difference between man and beast I may tend to steer clear of him all together:)

 

That taken with reports that I've heard (sorry, no source so take with a grain of salt) that Bush 41 did not support Bush 43's invasion of Iraq leads me to suspect that even the "finishing what dad started" explanation doesn't work. But again, this is all my dime-store analysis.

Just cause papa doesn't approve doesn't mean son can't do. Lol. However I do remember hearing that W wanted to be remembered at the man who took down Saddam. I can't verify nor does it justify.

 

 

Humanitarian crisis in Darfur vs. humanitarian crisis in Iraq. Relatively small oil reserves in Sudan mostly committed to China vs. 3rd largest known oil reserves in Iraq right next to neighboring ally with 1st largest known oil reserves (Saudi Arabia) which also holds strategic significance for neighboring enemy with 2nd largest known oil reserves (Iran).

well thats all good to look at but I might be wrong, but do we not get a majority of our black gold(Texas tea) from Canada? but that is also asking why are we there as well.

 

 

Indeed, it is very sad.

Thanks for the great discussion! I am enjoying it very much

Indeed it has been a great discussion. Its always nice to learn new things and hear how regular people feel about the issue.