Was the Iraq war the right thing to do??

[jdhill 0]

Quote

What is surprizing is that he -didn't- do more.

On several occations, in '94 and '98 at least, he made threatening moves against Kuwait, which were only trumped by the rapid deployment of U.S. ground troops to the region, at significant cost.

J

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke

[quade 4]

You're not saying that Clinton did something right are you?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[lifewithoutanet 0]

Quote

I'm not apologizing for him, but I certainly understand his actions in that case. What is surprizing is that he -didn't- do more.

My understanding--or interpretation, rather--of his actions in shooting at US/UK aircraft in the no-fly zones was to project defiance against the UN. Edit: This being necessary to maintain his stranglehold on his people, as well as a general part of his megalomania.

Shooting at our planes was 'just enough'. Any more and he'd risk serious consequences. The man knew this. He found a balance--shaky, but a balance--that he was able to maintain for over a decade. Any further direct action could have resulted in a 'less unilateral' approach by the US, further provocation being a motivating factor behind the UN-backing that we (the US/UK) never got.

Responding to others' posts on whether we were right to invade...

Right, wrong or indifferent is subjective to whatever your position is in the first place. I am not surprised at the outrage people have in any administration's (in this case Bush/Blair) capitalization on the situation to further it's political goals; in this case, using the groundwork of the war on terror as a motivator for political support of the invasion of Iraq. I am surprised, however, that people are surprised.

For years it's been, "You should have finished the job the first time." In the 12 years and two presidents that followed, our politicians lacked the political opportunity to go in and finish that job that others criticized us for not finishing in the first place. The political opportunity presented by world events (and I am referring to 9/11 as well as other terrorist attacks worldwide) was siezed by this administration--as someone else on here put it--in sort of a panic. "If we wait that long (30, 60 or 90 days), we might not get our war."

A hasty decision? If you compartmentalize the view and think that we could take another 3 months to garner more support, yes. Step back and take a broader look at the picture and that political opportunity might have slipped away. Were they (the Bush administration) looking for connections? Yes. Did they find some? Depends on who you talk to. There is enough circumstantial evidence connecting Saddam's Regime to terrorism, but not enough to present to the public as was done. Is that, then, their error? Should they have hired some better PR folks?

What our government acted on was an opportunity that presented itself, and an opportunity that they'd been looking for for far longer than one administration. I'm not apologizing for, nor defending the actions of our government (and that includes the legislative branch, not just the executive), I am merely trying to explain them.

As for my more specific views on whether or not invasion was justified, I'd rather discuss that over a beer (or many), spoken conversation providing for the context and tone that is lost in a written medium. I'll get the first round.
-C.

[TypicalFish 0]

I'm right up in Belmont Shore, let me know when... I'll buy the second and third...

"I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

I can understand how people might be misled.

I can understand it too, back then, but this poll is a week old.

Has not the administration backed away from the notion that SH was directly tied to 9/11 for the last year?

. . =(_8^(1)

[billvon 3,116]

>Has not the administration backed away from the notion that SH
>was directly tied to 9/11 for the last year?

They've gone back and forth on that. They basically said there was a connection during the buildup to war, but then didn't find much evidence of it once they invaded. At one point Bush said there was no link, but then Cheney brought it up again and said there was. (in Sept of last year.) Then the 9/11 panel discredited the idea of even a link between Al Qaeda and Saddam, which the administration promptly disagreed with. (Most people equate a Saddam-Al Qaeda link with a Saddam-9/11 link.)

[bch7773 0]

Quote

It was the right thing to do. SH is guilty of crimes against humanity. It was for the wrong reasons (excuses) and I'm pissed at this country's leadership for making us look like a bunch of jack-asses.

amen to that. we lost a lot of respect because of the way our leaders (and no i don't mean only republicans) handled this.

MB 3528, RB 1182

[jdhill 0]

Sure, he did the right thing by blocking SH, but he should have dropped the hammer on him then.

J

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Deposing Saddam Houssein was the right thing to do, however, it should have been done with the support/approval of the UN.

The same U.N. that let Hussein flout its resolutions for twelve years? Come on. The U.N. is apparently about as potent and relevant today as liberals lately claim the Second Amendment is.

On the basis of Hussein's contempt and disregard for the rules imposed on him following his defeat after invading Kuwait alone, the actions of the U.S. are justified.

And no one ever said that people who are rescued from certain evil will understand and appreciate that fact immediately. Eventually, the Iraqi people will thank us, even if grudgingly.

Yes.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

it should have been done with the support/approval of the UN.

Who thinks that was even remotely possible under any scenario?

The U.N. itself should be chastised for leaving it to US to put the teeth in ITS sanctions and resolutions on Iraq!

We picked up the ball that THEY refused to handle.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

"Who thinks that was even remotely possible under any scenario?"
Bush and Blair, they did ask for approval (twice?), but didn't get it.
Then they used the UN resolution as a justification for action, thats taking the law into your own hands in my book.

Okay, then. What does the U.N. use for ITS justification for passing and then not enforcing resolutions and sanctions on Iraq that Saddam Hussein basically pissed on, making the U.N. look like toothless, impotent idiots? How does the U.N. justify shirking its responsibility for keeping the defeated Hussein in line?

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

You mean the exit polls at screenings of F911, right?

No. As I've posted before . . . see http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm and read all of the polls. Individual polls maybe somewhat biased, but if taken as a whole, I think you'll see that the majority of Americans think the war was a mistake.

Individual polls may be somewhat biased, but put enough biased polls together and you get... accuracy?

Amazing. I apparently have much to learn.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

Iraq had been shooting at US and British aircraft for the last 12 years... How long do you shoe at flies before your get the fly swatter?

That's hysterical. The only reason they were shooting at us is because we were trying to enforce no-fly zones over their country. Forget the resons why and just imagine some other country (or in this case group of countries) trying to enforce a no-fly zone over the U.S. -- Hell, I'D take a pot shot at them ever now and then too!

Having lost a war, Iraq was subject to all kinds of terms of surrender, was it not? It's up to those terms to tell whether it is justifiable to enforce no-fly zones over the country. Why is that different from telling him what kinds of weapons he could have?

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[quade 4]

Quote

Individual polls may be somewhat biased, but put enough biased polls together and you get... accuracy?

Well, to a certain extent, yes.

If you look at the polls from CNN, ABC and FOX, I think you'll see some interesting trends when it comes to the results FOX gets vs. virtualy every other source.

For instance, take a look at the attached graphic from pollingreport.com. What the hell is going on over at FOX? Ok, maybe they have some kind of targeted method for who they're polling, but clearly it's not even close to the polls being conducted by the other networks.

Does that mean the FOX poll is invalid? Well, probably not. It's probably valid for the individuals they polled, however, those individuals -may- have been specifically targeted, so maybe the poll is only valid for a specific part of the country. Same deal with the other polls, but taken as a whole, it gives a much broader and probably a bit more accurate picture.

So, what I'm suggesting is that if you look at ALL of the polls it's a bit like a two blind men, one on the right and one on the left throwing darts . . . the man on the left side of the board hits the left side a bit more often and the man on the right side hits the right side more often, but if you look at all the hits . . . you might come closer to the truth.

That, and by looking at all the data, you get a wider sample group. Larger groups tend to be a bit more accurate.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[quade 4]

Quote

Having lost a war, Iraq was subject to all kinds of terms of surrender, was it not? It's up to those terms to tell whether it is justifiable to enforce no-fly zones over the country. Why is that different from telling him what kinds of weapons he could have?

Again, I don't care what the original terms were or if they were justifiable or not. If another country was doing it to US . . . we'd do the same thing. That's all.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[newsstand 0]

Quote

On the basis of Hussein's contempt and disregard for the rules imposed on him following his defeat after invading Kuwait alone, the actions of the U.S. are justified.

So invading a country that poses no legitimate material threat to your country is a wrong thing and it is OK if other people invade you to stop it happening again?

We better bring the troops home and station them at the boarders then.

"Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; nay, you may kick it about all day like a football, and it will be round and full at evening."
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes

[jdhill 0]

Quote

So invading a country that poses no legitimate material threat to your country is a wrong thing and it is OK if other people invade you to stop it happening again?

Your statement suposes that Iraq posed no "legitinatg material threat" to US interests... I guess that depends of your definition of a "legitimate threat"... did Iraq have the capability of striking the US directly, maybe not... did Iraq have the ability to support those that would strike against US interests, yes... did he SH have the intent to jerk the US and UN around... absolutely.

J

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke

[tunaplanet 0]

Quote

So invading a country that poses no legitimate material threat to your country

Whoah. Someone wake this kid up. Read a paper once in a while, would ya?

Forty-two

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

On the basis of Hussein's contempt and disregard for the rules imposed on him following his defeat after invading Kuwait alone, the actions of the U.S. are justified.

So invading a country that poses no legitimate material threat to your country is a wrong thing and it is OK if other people invade you to stop it happening again?

Well, my point really is that if the U.N. was enforcing its own rules rather than sitting back having those rules pissed on, looking like a bunch of fuckin' pussies, the U.S. would not have had to do what was right in their stead.

While we're on the subject, could you tell me what you think of the rationale for the U.S. going to war against Iraq in 1991, the first time around? I mean, yes, we were part of a multinational whatchamacallit, and we had the blessing of the other nations involved... but does that make it right? I mean, even in that case, Saddam Hussein had not attacked the United States.

So it seems to me that your whole basis for saying we're not right to have gone to war with Iraq is that other countries did not say we should -- NOT that we should not have attacked a country that did not attack us. At least, that's what I infer from everyone's statements that we should have waited for the U.N.'s okay before we fought Iraq. Well, the fact is, the U.N. is a pissant coward pussy organization and was never gonna take Iraq to task for violating the terms of Iraq's surrender.

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[quade 4]

Quote

While we're on the subject, could you tell me what you think of the rationale for the U.S. going to war against Iraq in 1991, the first time around? I mean, yes, we were part of a multinational whatchamacallit, and we had the blessing of the other nations involved... but does that make it right? I mean, even in that case, Saddam Hussein had not attacked the United States.

Well, since you're a Republican, I can see where you're confused.

See, in 1991, the US came to the rescue of some people that were, by all means defenseless against an oppressor. WE, as a country, do that sometimes -- (especially if there's something in it for US in the long run).

What I find facinating is how the Republicans see the obvious nobel good in this (and maybe long term financial advantage), but seem to fail to see how doing the exact same thing -within- our own boarders carries the same advantages.

Sometimes, it's just a good deal to stick up for the little guy.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[newsstand 0]

Quote

While we're on the subject, could you tell me what you think of the rationale for the U.S. going to war against Iraq in 1991, the first time around? I mean, yes, we were part of a multinational whatchamacallit, and we had the blessing of the other nations involved... but does that make it right? I mean, even in that case, Saddam Hussein had not attacked the United States.

I did not agree with that war either and when it was over I quit the reserves and in my resignation letter I stated that I was quiting because I could not support my governments position.

Before you ask, had my unit been called up I would have gone because I had made a committment.

And finally while I did not agree with that war I felt that once we started it we should have finished it. But GHWB didn't do it because he followed the U.N. mandate which said only kick them out of Kuwait.

[newsstand 0]

Quote

Quote

So invading a country that poses no legitimate material threat to your country is a wrong thing and it is OK if other people invade you to stop it happening again?

Your statement suposes that Iraq posed no "legitinatg material threat" to US interests... I guess that depends of your definition of a "legitimate threat"... did Iraq have the capability of striking the US directly, maybe not... did Iraq have the ability to support those that would strike against US interests, yes... did he SH have the intent to jerk the US and UN around... absolutely.

J

Then there are a shitload of countries we should be planning on invading.

"Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; nay, you may kick it about all day like a football, and it will be round and full at evening."
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes

[newsstand 0]

Quote

Quote

So invading a country that poses no legitimate material threat to your country

Whoah. Someone wake this kid up. Read a paper once in a while, would ya?

Quote

The friend of my enemy is my enemy
The enemy of my friend is my enemy
But the enemy of my enemy is my friend

Your sig says it all and is the philosphy that got us into this mess in the first place.

"Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; nay, you may kick it about all day like a football, and it will be round and full at evening."
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"What does the U.N. use for ITS justification for passing and then not enforcing resolutions and sanctions on Iraq that Saddam Hussein basically pissed on, making the U.N. look like toothless, impotent idiots? "

My guess is that they didn't want to kill 10,000 civilians unnecessarily, when there was still hope for a peaceful diplomatic solution.

Many resolutions are ignored, not many result in regime change and 30,000 dead or maimed people.

Point being, if your going to point to a law as a justification for taking action, the action should at least be sanctioned by the law makers. We did away with lynch mobs over here a hundred years or so ago, we find them sooooo uncivilised.

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[tbrown 26]

No doubt about it, Saddam is a bad bad man. But so is Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe, all those Generalissimo assholes in Myanmar (Burma), any number of tinhorn dictators in some of the former Soviet states, that assbite Musharif we prop up in Pakistan, who's selling us both ways as well as selling nuclear technology to every hothead in the Muslim world while we funnel the mighty dollars to his regime. And lest I forget, the North Koreans are still demonstrating some attitude, as well as starving their won people to death.

So why not go in and take care of them all ? Two answers: 1.) no oil involved, and 2.) N. Korea would probably shoot back.

Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity !