Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Iraqi War wrong?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Iraqi War wrong?

    Here's an AP story for your thoughts, especially the last quote.
    Stay Alert, Stay Alive!

  • #2
    I fear this may be rather lengthy...you may want to use the facilities, grab a coffee and pull the lazy boy up and get comfy. I have debated this in almost every arena you can think of, home, the net, phone, street, work, it seems to be the question everyone is asking, some are truelly looking for answers as to the right and wrong of the war, some are looking for reasons to justify a political agenda, but is anyone actually seeing the big picture, or just the one they are trying to paint for themselves based on their choice of a political party!


    The first thing I think of when I see your link and the title War College Report: Iraq War an 'Error' is the biased college and education system we have, they politically lean left, the majority on the education board is liberal, and most college speakers are of the democratic party. Can I get a Amen? In Colorado's 29 colleges and universities there is a probe on the academic freedoms. State Sen. John Andrews sent out a questionaires to the universities to insure they were not politically biased, and this is a quote from Sen. Ken Gordon, D-Denver "What Colorado's universities need is adequate funding, not politically based inquisitions."

    The minds of our children are in the liberals hands, via TV and the eduction system.

    Now back to the article.

    "Quote---A report published by the Army War College (Jeffrey Record) calls the Bush administration's war on terrorism unfocused and says the invasion of Iraq was "a strategic error."

    A strategic error? We have forces in Iraq, forces in Afghanistan, Isreal... India are allies...I think the strategic error here is that we are not opening our colleges and education system to a unbiased political stage.

    Quote........the president's strategy "promises much more than it can deliver" and threatens to spread U.S. military resources too thin. Record also wrote that Saddam Hussein's Iraq did not present a threat to the United States and was a distraction from the war on terrorism.

    What is this promise of delivery? Almost all the cards in the deck are in prison or dead, I don't even have enough cards in this deck of 52 left to make a poker hand!! Since the capture of Saddam, attacks on US forces in Iraq has been reduced by 25%. I couldn't imagine the reporters these days covering WWII! There has been no attacks on US soil, the most senior al-Qaeda officials are in no longer officially doing anything but fighting for the right to put a towel on their head, and they have to get permition to do that! And Saddam a distraction? In what way?

    This next quote here sums up the thinking there...

    Quote---Lt. Col. Merideth Bucher, public affairs officer for the Army War College, said Monday it is not unusual for students, mostly higher ranking officers, at the war college to be exposed to critical thought that might be contrary to current national policy. She said students are often exposed to speakers with varying views.

    Varying views of differant liberal policies? For they sure do screen and omit Rep points of views I am not so sure the founder .Dwight Eisenhower a Rep and historically great president would approve.Although he did seek world peace, but even he would know that their is no peace to be had with terrorists, be it bathist or al-Qaeda.

    Quote---Record could not be reached immediately for comment Monday through Army public affairs offices and he did not immediately respond to e-mails from The Associated Press.

    To many holes in the article, and he would rather face the kids than us adults.

    Quote---Record's report concludes that the war on terrorism is too widespread and should focus on al-Qaeda and other terrorist threats to the United States.

    So which is it? Not enough troops? To many troops, bring some home? There are links from Saddam to al-Qaeda. Senior al-Qaeda operative Ayman al-Zawahiri met with Iraq's vice president on February 3, 1998 in Baghdad to discuss coordination between Iraq and al-Qaeda, and the establishment of "camps" in Nasiriyah and Iraqi Kurdistan, in late 2002, al-Qaeda operative Abu Musab al Zarqawi was setting up sleeper cells in Baghdad to be activated in case of a US occupation of the city, Saddam personally sent Faruq Hijazi, IIS deputy director and later ambassador to Turkey, to meet with bin Laden at least twice, first in Sudan and later in Afghanistan in 1999.

    Is the world and the people in Iraq safer with out Saddam? YES

    Quote---"The United States may be able to defeat al-Qaeda, but it cannot rid the world of terrorism, much less evil," Record writes.


    No the "world" has to be cooperative for that to happen, and there will always be evil, and there will always be one form of terrorism or another, even if it is from a psychopath down the street. But one thing I am sure we can do, is exactly what Bush is "strategicly" doing, we are in the middle east, hard, we got them thinking and then thinking again, these little terrorist cells are blowing up kids, and themselves, how smart is the enemy that kills themselves for you?

    Comment


    • #3
      In general military schools are not oriented to the left, are they ? I would have tought that they were conservative.

      LaPalice.
      Monsieur de La Palice est mort
      Mort devant Pavie.
      Un quart d'heure avant sa mort
      Il était encore en vie...

      Comment


      • #4
        I am not expert in US education system and their political views, o I leave it out in my remarks.


        Originally posted by Xena ~HS~
        ...

        "Quote---A report published by the Army War College (Jeffrey Record) calls the Bush administration's war on terrorism unfocused and says the invasion of Iraq was "a strategic error."

        A strategic error? We have forces in Iraq, forces in Afghanistan, Isreal... India are allies...I think the strategic error here is that we are not opening our colleges and education system to a unbiased political stage.
        ?? maybe I missed something, but why is the answer for strategic error the forces in different countries? If it is not bad you should send out troops to every country. I think it is not the aim of the US.


        Originally posted by Xena ~HS~
        Quote........the president's strategy "promises much more than it can deliver" and threatens to spread U.S. military resources too thin. Record also wrote that Saddam Hussein's Iraq did not present a threat to the United States and was a distraction from the war on terrorism.

        What is this promise of delivery? Almost all the cards in the deck are in prison or dead, I don't even have enough cards in this deck of 52 left to make a poker hand!! Since the capture of Saddam, attacks on US forces in Iraq has been reduced by 25%. I couldn't imagine the reporters these days covering WWII! There has been no attacks on US soil, the most senior al-Qaeda officials are in no longer officially doing anything but fighting for the right to put a towel on their head, and they have to get permition to do that! And Saddam a distraction? In what way?
        The president promise was the War on terror. Knocking out Saddam is not helped (or not helped much) as the Al-quada still could get money from e.g. Saudi-Arabia. Knocking out senior al-quada officals not happened in Iraq, but we can say that was closer to the promise.

        Originally posted by Xena ~HS~
        ...
        Quote---Record's report concludes that the war on terrorism is too widespread and should focus on al-Qaeda and other terrorist threats to the United States.

        So which is it? Not enough troops? To many troops, bring some home? There are links from Saddam to al-Qaeda. Senior al-Qaeda operative Ayman al-Zawahiri met with Iraq's vice president on February 3, 1998 in Baghdad to discuss coordination between Iraq and al-Qaeda, and the establishment of "camps" in Nasiriyah and Iraqi Kurdistan, in late 2002, al-Qaeda operative Abu Musab al Zarqawi was setting up sleeper cells in Baghdad to be activated in case of a US occupation of the city, Saddam personally sent Faruq Hijazi, IIS deputy director and later ambassador to Turkey, to meet with bin Laden at least twice, first in Sudan and later in Afghanistan in 1999.
        I think war on terror should be more on intelligence gathering, and commando style fight, and not full scale attack and occupation (sorry the word is not correct, but it is my limit of my English).

        Originally posted by Xena ~HS~
        Is the world and the people in Iraq safer with out Saddam? YES

        Quote---"The United States may be able to defeat al-Qaeda, but it cannot rid the world of terrorism, much less evil," Record writes.

        No the "world" has to be cooperative for that to happen, and there will always be evil, and there will always be one form of terrorism or another, even if it is from a psychopath down the street. But one thing I am sure we can do, is exactly what Bush is "strategicly" doing, we are in the middle east, hard, we got them thinking and then thinking again, these little terrorist cells are blowing up kids, and themselves, how smart is the enemy that kills themselves for you? [/B]
        I agree better to be without Saddam (which was helped by US in the beginning), so no debate here. Of course I would rather see some consensus in the world on that as I never was in Iraq, all I know is from TV.

        I think US presence in the MiddleEast doesnot help to reduce the terrorism.

        Same as Israel try to do is bombing after terrorist attack. I think Israel did better when he used intelligence against terrorists. Maybe I am wrong, but who knows...
        my two cents...

        (sorry maybe not well-thought but I write here in my workplace...
        :crazy: )
        a brain cell

        Comment


        • #5
          Lapalice...
          In general military schools are not oriented to the left, are they ? I would have tought that they were conservative.
          I would not be surprised will look that up. As far as the regular colleges. yes predominantly liberal.

          laszlo.nemedi
          ?? maybe I missed something, but why is the answer for strategic error the forces in different countries? If it is not bad you should send out troops to every country. I think it is not the aim of the US.
          The article states we are spreading our troops to thin, and it was a strategic error, I say it was strategicly genuis, we are in the middle east, all over the middle east, where does most terrorism come from?

          laszlo.nemedi
          The president promise was the War on terror. Knocking out Saddam is not helped (or not helped much) as the Al-quada still could get money from e.g. Saudi-Arabia. Knocking out senior al-quada officals not happened in Iraq, but we can say that was closer to the promise.
          And yet the article states that much more was promised then is being delivered, maybe I should have asked it this way what has not been delivered? Laden? I believe dead, but Saddam was found in a hole...maybe. Al-Qaeda is not going to beat the US and her allies, funding for them has been stopped in many ways, and I believe Saddam was a huge funder.

          laszlo.nemedi
          I think war on terror should be more on intelligence gathering,
          mucho intelligence gathering

          laszlo.nemedi
          and commando style fight
          Lots of commando style fighting!

          laszlo.nemedi
          and not full scale attack and occupation
          We own them and can attack anywhere in the middle east with ease.

          laszlo.nemedi
          Same as Israel try to do is bombing after terrorist attack. I think Israel did better when he used intelligence against terrorists.
          I would have to think that the small little strip of Israel which is smaller than New York posseses alot of intelligence gathering to hold off the middle east

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Xena ~HS~
            ...
            The article states we are spreading our troops to thin, and it was a strategic error, I say it was strategicly genuis, we are in the middle east, all over the middle east, where does most terrorism come from?

            Well I still know a lot of countries where are base for terrorism or they finance them (Java, North-Ireland, Saudi-Arabia, ex-Soviet countries).
            So much countries to occupy in the next five years. And don't forget the terrorist planted to US, UK, France, etc...

            Originally posted by Xena ~HS~
            And yet the article states that much more was promised then is being delivered, maybe I should have asked it this way what has not been delivered? Laden? I believe dead, but Saddam was found in a hole...maybe. Al-Qaeda is not going to beat the US and her allies, funding for them has been stopped in many ways, and I believe Saddam was a huge funder.
            Laden dead?? It is new for me.
            Al-Queda still not dead, and knife to hi-jack is not expensive...
            (putting poison to water pipes, making do-it-yourself bombs, hiring ex-Soviet bacteria experts or nuclear experts, suitcase A-bomb, etc...)

            Originally posted by Xena ~HS~
            mucho intelligence gathering

            Lots of commando style fighting!

            We own them and can attack anywhere in the middle east with ease.

            I would have to think that the small little strip of Israel which is smaller than New York posseses alot of intelligence gathering to hold off the middle east
            Mostly we agree , hmm attack everywhere in middle east I am not sure, even leaving Iraq is hard...
            a brain cell

            Comment


            • #7
              I think it's clear the most people do not have a good grasp of the real situation in the middle east. That's partially the U.S. governments fault, but the generally left leaning, "politically correct" media share some of the blame.

              I get the feeling that many believe that this is the end, that it's all over. It's just begun. Of the countries that belong to the Arab League, NOT ONE is any sort of recognizable democracy.

              Iranian attempts to develop nuclear weapons were initially funded by Saudi Arabia with knowledge helpfully provided by Pakistan. The Iranians also shared knowledge with North Korea.

              The Saudis, Iranians, Syrians, and yes, Libyans continue to support terrorist organizations. Relatively peaceful, secular muslim countries like Indonesia and Nigeria have been poisoned by radical Islam exported by the Saudis and Iranians.

              I mean, if this doesn't present a "clear and present danger", then what exactly does?

              The americans are doing the right thing. The idea of a democratic Iraq is only a little less distasteful than Israel to the imam's of Iran and the princes of Saud.

              A democratic Iraq leaves Syria surrounded by countries who don't much like dictators. Perhaps Syria's grip on Lebanon can finally be loosened and the terrorists there flushed out. With a little luck we can also topple the government of Iran and give the people there what they want. If that happens, it's only a matter of time for Saudi Arabia.

              This is going to take a long time, folks, and there's always the possibility of more fighting before it's over. But to not do this is just simply stupid.

              Comment


              • #8
                Iraq war in error?

                Mr Record does no more than speak a truism - it must be obvious to the rational-minded that we cannot rid the world of terrorism, anymore than we can do with cloudy days or social injustice.

                As for his premise, persons of any number of viewpoints may easily twist the facts, both before and after the war, to their ends. Members of the Bush Administration may vehemently insist that the available intelligence indicated that Iraq had WMD (BW/CW) and was actively pursuing a nuclear program. In a sense, this is true. Conversely an strident opponent of the war, or even someone who simply feels it was a bad idea, may point to the lack of concrete evidence that Iraq was pursuing nuclear weapons, especially the allegation that they had attempted to obtain uranium form Niger and/or elsewhere. Some may say that the losses suffered by the United States and others was not worth it. Others may decry the presence of clear national interest - after all, if Hussein was such a threat, why did it take us so long to go after him? Why didn't we do it in 1991? Xena notes that she has debated this issue at length and in various fora, and I think anyone who has seriously engaged in meaningful debate has had similar experiences.

                In closing, I offer this response to the query, "Was the Iraq War right of wrong?"

                Yes.
                Mens Est Clavis Victoriae
                (The Mind Is The Key To Victory)

                Comment


                • #9
                  The war on terror is right. My dissagreement is on our aim.
                  Iraq as I stated elsewhere is a spent force, the main financier of al quaida is our staunch supporter and ally Saudi Arabia. Heck Osama is one of the top Citizens, He's only outlawed there to save face with the us.
                  The American who answered the Saudis best was Rudy Juliani, when a Saudi prince offered him a check for the victims of the world trade center attack. He said no.
                  I vote for President Juliani he's got more guts in his little finger than those non entities G.W. Bush and John Kerry.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    What's wrong with the Left?

                    The Left are the ones who actually stand up for the people who don't have someone in their corner. The Left represents progressive change. The Right represents oppressive stagnation. To keep what they have, by denying others what they could have. The Haves and the Have-nots. And the Haves want to make sure the Have-nots will always be Have-nots. They steal from their fellows by hoarding, and not helping when they can. That's right, Class War, baby! Class-War! I gots to gets mines, so Imma get yours. All legal and non-violent, of course. The Soldier's Ghost. The Warrior's Soul. GhostSoldier.
                    Life is precious, but also cheap. For without war, there is no peace. GS ~ A Soldier's Ghost. A Warrior's Soul.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      The Left are the ones who actually stand up for the people who don't have someone in their corner.
                      They do?

                      Seems the left is selective about who it stands up for. The left seemed to ignore people like Paula Jones who could have used help from organizations like NOW.

                      The Left represents progressive change. The Right represents oppressive stagnation.
                      Oddly, it's the left that seeks to maintain the status quo with continuation of social programs.

                      I fail to see how the removal of such programs is oppressive though.

                      To keep what they have, by denying others what they could have.
                      That's what the left does. It's called wealth redistribution and is a hall mark belief from the left.

                      The Haves and the Have-nots. And the Haves want to make sure the Have-nots will always be Have-nots
                      Pure fantasy.

                      They steal from their fellows by hoarding, and not helping when they can.
                      This is not stealing. If you want to call it selfishness, that is reasonable, but stealing isn't.

                      That's right, Class War, baby! Class-War! I gots to gets mines, so Imma get yours. All legal and non-violent, of course.
                      :crazy:

                      Pathetic and selfish....
                      Islam... it's a blast - literally.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I had to stop being an anarchist, because I decided that I'm really just a criminal with an ideology. GS.:whistle:
                        Life is precious, but also cheap. For without war, there is no peace. GS ~ A Soldier's Ghost. A Warrior's Soul.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          by the way,

                          Who's Paula Jones? What's NOW? Dude, I'm for NORML. GS.
                          Life is precious, but also cheap. For without war, there is no peace. GS ~ A Soldier's Ghost. A Warrior's Soul.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Hey ReiryC.

                            Your little Jeffersonian qoute at the bottom of your posts is basically what I was trying to say in my post asking 'what's wrong with the left'. NOW? ..... get real, man. Read 'Revolutionary Suicide', by Huey P. Newton. NOW GS.
                            Life is precious, but also cheap. For without war, there is no peace. GS ~ A Soldier's Ghost. A Warrior's Soul.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Now I am by nomeans a leftist nor am I a rightwinger but from my prospective. (I.E. Opinion) The Iraqi war was wrong. I believe that the public is not and was not skeptical enough about the information that it was being given. Everyone who gave information was biased to the left or right and a clear picture can only be concieved if all is looked at through a filter.
                              Q: Did Iraq have WMD?
                              A: Most likely not. No definitive awnser can be known. We know that they once did. We sold them the equipment and the know how an have the recipts to prove it but it has been stated pretty thouroghly by people who should know i.e. Hans Blix and Iraqi weapons scientists that no weapons were to be had.
                              Q: Was Saddam supporting terrorists.
                              A: Yes. He was providing money to palestinians whose loved ones blew them selves up. This supports terrorism. Ties with Al-quaida though look a little slim.
                              Q: Is the world better off without Saddam?
                              A: YES! But this is simple math. World - 1 Dictator = Better world. Unfortunatly that is not what our reason was for going in, in the first place.

                              It is good to keep in mind that the US has had its fair share of DOMESTIC terrorists. Most recently Tim McVeigh, but the was also The Weathermen and others. Terrorism is going to happen. We wont stop it. Yes maybe we can lessen it. But Iraq was not crucial in our attempts to stop it. Al-Quaida is still operative, as are numerous other groups.

                              Afganistan I could accept. Very obvious connections. Iraq I cannot. Connections are weak at best.

                              I have one last question. How does the US invading coutries "Preemtively" make us anybetter than the Germans in Pre-WW2 Europe. They took over countries to make "Germans" Safer. How are we so different.

                              Now I don't want anyone to get the wrong idea. I love this country and I think that it has the best system of govenment in the world. I just think that maybe Bush and the media should be a little more open with information and let the people decide. That is what a "Democracy" is.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X