Iraq

[Marmadogg]

[quote]deanosumo wrote:
Don’t forget the US supplied him with weapons to fight Iran. Rumsfeld even shook hand with the cunt.[/quote]

That is what I was getting at…

[hedo]

[quote]goldin wrote:
Take a look at Just War Theory if you want to know why so many soldiers are dying in Iraq with the situation not really improving - and becoming more dangerous with other countries.

To the soldiers - I have the utmost respect for you. It’s good to hear your views. Unfortunetely there are quite a few soldiers that are misinformed as well (not you). I don’t really know too much about the Iraq war but I would like to point out that it is your choice as a soldier what you are willing to lay your life on the line for. America can start a war, but if none of the soldiers are willing to fight in it - is it a war that should be fought? If you think the reasons are justified, then fight, but each person needs to make that decision before they enter the war, and thus not everyone will come to the same conclusion. You may think it worth it to remove Saddam and help the Iraqi’s, others may think that it just wasn’t worth the lives of soldiers. This is why information is so critical. [/quote]

An Army run that way would be an unruly mob and would not last a day.

In a volunteer force you decide whether to join or not. You don’t decide when or who to fight. You obey the orders you are given. The only ones you can choose to fight are the unlawful ones.

Considering the war lawful or not is a politcal discussion and not something that a soldier makes a decision on.

[jlesk68]

Wrong, I don’t love Bush Jr.

[hedo]

[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
hedo wrote:
deanosumo wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
gocav wrote:
c) WMD or no WMD, no one should argue that we should not have removed Saddam Hussein. The entire world should be ashamed that they allowed such an evil man to rule for as long as he did.

You should be very careful as that statement is a severe indictment on us.

We never met a dictator we did not like and it does not matter which party is running the show.

Don’t forget the US supplied him with weapons to fight Iran. Rumsfeld even shook hand with the cunt.

We supplied weapons to the Soviet Union in the 40’s. Then we defended ourselves against them for the next 50 years. Last week Kraft gave Putin a Superbowl ring.

Times and circumstances change. Britian is our only reliable ally over time. Others come and go.

You are correct.

America creates it’s own reality.

[/quote]

So what are you saying. We should isolate ourselves from the rest of the world, ignore changing situations in the world?

What of the Soviet example? Should we have not helped them and let the Germans grind them down. Should we not be supportive of them now and treat them like an enemy?

Isn’t it in our own best interest to create our own “reality” rather then have it created for us?

Just curious?

[dastang23]

[quote]hedo wrote:
goldin wrote:
Take a look at Just War Theory if you want to know why so many soldiers are dying in Iraq with the situation not really improving - and becoming more dangerous with other countries.

To the soldiers - I have the utmost respect for you. It’s good to hear your views. Unfortunetely there are quite a few soldiers that are misinformed as well (not you). I don’t really know too much about the Iraq war but I would like to point out that it is your choice as a soldier what you are willing to lay your life on the line for. America can start a war, but if none of the soldiers are willing to fight in it - is it a war that should be fought? If you think the reasons are justified, then fight, but each person needs to make that decision before they enter the war, and thus not everyone will come to the same conclusion. You may think it worth it to remove Saddam and help the Iraqi’s, others may think that it just wasn’t worth the lives of soldiers. This is why information is so critical.

An Army run that way would be an unruly mob and would not last a day.

In a volunteer force you decide whether to join or not. You don’t decide when or who to fight. You obey the orders you are given. The only ones you can choose to fight are the unlawful ones.

Considering the war lawful or not is a politcal discussion and not something that a soldier makes a decision on.

[/quote]

Amen,
If you have ever been in anything close to combat you would know what it feels like to complete a mission. The mission is given to us with all the information we need and have to do. If we dont do the job given to us the mission may be compromised causing harm to our other soldiers, maybe the guy next to you or men miles away. Once you get to know you troops like I have (as a medic) you want none of them to get hurt. So we do the jobs that we are given like them or not many times, because we have to for the guy next to us

Thank all… well… most of T-Nation for your support. If you would like i could keep you all more posted on the goods thing my company is doing here in Kosovo, I have many pics of MEDCAPPS, us giving aid…
Dastang

[dastang23]

JeffR
Damn good work! I agree with it all.

[Harbee38]

I’ve tended to read more posts than actually post to them, but I wanted to see if anyone shared this view of the war: The U.S. went to Iraq, not primarily for oil, not primarily for removing Saddam Hussein, but rather to “geopolitically influence” the middle east to change their ways. I have been reading a lot of political research from www.stratfor.com and find that they always seem to be on point with their information. Think about it…Iraq is the perfect strategic “base of operations” to straighten out some of the trouble-makers in the region: Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia (where most of the 9-11 hijackers cam from).

Don’t you find it a little coincidental how the US now seems to have a lot of problems with Iran?! Hey, and wouldn’t you know it, we’re right next door! Also, I hear the US is building even more permanent military bases in Iraq…hmmm, future staging area for operations in Iran. Of course, going to Iraq to give a spanking to the bad children of the world (Iraq, Iran, Syria) would not have been a justifiable reason for the American people so we went under the guise of providing freedom for the Iraqi people. That’s a nice after-effect, but I don’t believe it was the primary goal…anyone agree?

[100meters]

[quote]JeffR wrote:
“Now as to Iraq. My personal view is that I am opposed men like yourselves risking your lives for a war I do not think was entirely justified.”

I am very proud of you men fighting a war that was not only justified but inevitable. I was either going to be Germany in 1932 or in 1941.
[/quote]
Oh gosh. Inevitable? Germany? There goes credibility again.

“Comparisons with Hitler are incorrect.”

They are right on. Every brutual, expansionist characteristic was present and active.

“Saddam had no more plans for territorial expansion.”

Wrong. Read Duefler. On his way to reconstituting his weapons of mass destruction program. What for? Ask his captured regime members. They have said he was on his way to further conquests. Besides, who in the hell would think that after invading Iran, Kuwait, and firing missles on Israel, that this guy was going to stop?

And it took a war to stop this? Or would no-fly zones been a more effective means. Answer-no:fly zones.

“His armed forces had never recovered from the first Gulf War.”

Time.

Is this seriously your logic? Couldn’t you have used the same reasoning with democracy in Iraq?

“He had no WMDs.”

Yes he did. Apparently, no obvious stockpiles. He had a nascent weapons program that was being increasingly funded every year.

Jeff,our intel was “Dead Wrong”, Duelfer said no WMD’s for at least 10 years. Saddam had no wmds since the first Gulf War. Just accept it. Again, a total credibility loss. P.S. N. Korea HAS wmd, we haven’t invaded. Why?

“Iraq does not further the war on Terror either.”

Front line of the war on terror.

A created front line. Which would be the issue. How does creating a new frontline on terror, a new training ground for terrorists, further the war on terror? It doesn’t.

Not to mention the concept of deterrance.

The fake rationale regarding terror was to prevent a breeding ground for terror. We’ve now created one. So what about deterrance?

Anyone else glad to have a burgeoning ally NEXT DOOR to Iran right about now?

See hostage taker as President.

“It may make our terror problem worse in the future.”

Actually, it has already helped. See Pakistan offensives. See Libya voluntarily relinquishing WMD. They understand deterrance.

New training ground for terrorists, 100’s of americans killed by terrorists there, terrorism way up around the world-and those reports don’t even include Iraq–so it certainly isn’t helping the terror problem (if your goal is reducing terrorism that is—don’t know what the admin’s goals are…)

“Now as to the point made that a vicious dictator has been removed from power, there are tons of vicious dictators and evil regimes in the world. Do we go after them all?”

Do we have to go after them all?

See Libya and the concept of deterrance.

Libya would be the result of this thing called diplomacy…

This is on of the most ignorant dem positions taken. It’s like saying, “I’m a patient with Lupus, Brain Cancer, Diabetes, and a ruptured gall bladder. No Doctor, you cannot fix my gall bladder unless you fix all the others RIGHT NOW.”

Actually the war in Iraq as it relates to terror is like a patient having brain cancer, and as the doctor you decide to remove their hand. (They’re totally unrelated see?) In your example you should have replaced ruptured gall bladder with black head or hangnail, in order to be more…honest.

“Or just the ones with oil?”

HALLIBURTON RULES THE WORLD!!!

We still haven’t invaded North Korea have we?

“Or the ones we have a ten year old score to settle with? Or do we just do it to be a ‘War President’. Or to outdo daddy?”

Jesus, that is so irresponsible as to make comment difficult.

Actually ‘war president’ most likely is Bush’s leading rationale (his official biographer certainly got that feeling)–though not his admin’s–see PNAC.

“And is it right to fabricate intelligence to begin this war?”

Proof please.

“intel fixed around policy” Or encourage sen. roberts to hold the committee that he promised to investigate the iraqi intel? You do want to know right? So why no committee, no urgency, no desire to investigate? Wierd.

“And is it right to go on about ‘liberating the people of Iraq’ when this was not our initial intention?”

It certainly was one of the major aims. See the 2002 speech of W. that I posted for you. I would appreciate the courtesy of reading material that I lay out.

This was debunked already wasn’t it? Liberating wasn’t a reason for invading Iraq, perhaps a benefit—but wmd, fake al-queda ties were. I mean the Iraqi people needed liberating when Bush ran in 2000 on no nation building, no world’s police force, right Jeff? Your speech only confirmed this–as pointed out on your wierd “debunked myself again” thread.

“It is great that the people of Iraq have been freed from Saddam, but this was not promoted as a reason to begin the war.”

That is absolutely false. See speech.

Absolutely true. See speech and speeches and countless appearances for the urgency in attacking Iraq.

“And is it right to create an illusion in Americans minds that Al Qaeda and Iraq were somehow the same thing, when before the US invaded this was patently not true?”

You are dead wrong. zarqawi was harbored and protected by saddam. You knew (from not reading my material) that the King of Jordan asked saddam to extradite zarqawi BEFORE THE WAR and saddam refused. AKA harboring. Or do you maintain that zarqawi isn’t al qaeda?

9/11 commish says: No credible evidence.
Cheney knew he was lying when he talked about al-queda connections ( trip to prague) but said it anyway. Doesn’t this bother you? When intel says don’t say this—Why would they say things anyway? The aluminum tubes, yellowcake, prague meeting, biolabs, etc…we know now all were in doubt by intel, but none of this doubt was relayed to the public. Alarming no?

“And why are we diverting resources away from looking for Osama Bin Laden, the real perpetrator of 9/11?”

Everyone raise their hands if you think that more troops are the answer?

It’s strange because Shrub said:
?We’re going to hunt them down one at a time?it doesn’t matter where they hide…"
He does say what he means and means what he says right? A real straight shooter. (hilarious).

Ask Porter Goss about it. He’ll tell you it isn’t troop numbers, it’s getting Pakistan to allow troops in to get bin laden. How would more troops have helped that?

Mr. Goss’s agency has also said Iraq is worse than afghanistan and will be a breeding ground for terror for years to come. Wonderful. Also again:
Bush: Hunt them down, no matter where they hide.

“When you weigh everything up, the only good to come out of the Iraq war is that Iraq’s people are free now. But the damage caused to the US’s position in the world, the creation of future terrorists, the death and destruction, have been too much of a cost.”

Wrong. Identified our REAL allies. Disrupted, killed, captured, removed, deterred terrorists and terrorist supporting regimes all over the planet.

Terror way up. New training ground for terrorist for years to come. Insurgency could last what, 15 years! Billions of dollars being spent (Billions just lost!) 100’s of troops dying. 1000’s of troops maimed, Osama still giving us the middle finger, and on and on and on…

Inspired trust in our ability to stay the course. Lived up to our ideals of promoting Democracy. Undid a wrong (arming saddam).

Again, I want you guys to know that what you see on the media is as misrepresentative of Americans as it is of the War in Iraq. Don’t forget that most of the media don’t bother to feign objectivity.

America feels misled about the war, loves the troops, doesn’t trust the president, and military leaders in Iraq confirm media reports and Rummy just said 15 year insurgency (i.e. Cheney is a liar). It’s a damn shame the troops don’t have an honest competent military leader in the whitehouse.

We are behind you and your mission.

JeffR

[/quote]

[Elkhntr1]

[quote]Harbee38 wrote:
I’ve tended to read more posts than actually post to them, but I wanted to see if anyone shared this view of the war: The U.S. went to Iraq, not primarily for oil, not primarily for removing Saddam Hussein, but rather to “geopolitically influence” the middle east to change their ways. I have been reading a lot of political research from www.stratfor.com and find that they always seem to be on point with their information. Think about it…Iraq is the perfect strategic “base of operations” to straighten out some of the trouble-makers in the region: Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia (where most of the 9-11 hijackers cam from).

Don’t you find it a little coincidental how the US now seems to have a lot of problems with Iran?! Hey, and wouldn’t you know it, we’re right next door! Also, I hear the US is building even more permanent military bases in Iraq…hmmm, future staging area for operations in Iran. Of course, going to Iraq to give a spanking to the bad children of the world (Iraq, Iran, Syria) would not have been a justifiable reason for the American people so we went under the guise of providing freedom for the Iraqi people. That’s a nice after-effect, but I don’t believe it was the primary goal…anyone agree? [/quote]

I agree with that assessment and have stated it before.

The Neocon ideology fueled originally by Jewish liberals in the early 60’s and morphed into a republican ideology by disgruntled former said liberals is too get a strategic powerbase in the Middle East.

I believe the current administration believed it was the right time and the right mood after 9/11 to sell the public on getting that strategic powerbase. I also believe that the ties that the admin had with corporate America i.e. Haliburton fueled the eagerness to go over there. I think on a smaller level dubya also wanted retribution for his dad as well.

I think they thought it would be a walk in the park and they would be greeted with flowers and they didn’t expect a foreign group of people to have the will or fortitude to stand up to America.

You had experts telling them to think it through remember Colin Powell’s remark to the Pres. “You break it you own it”. but the fact that the heads of this movement weren’t military men but liked to play them fueled there impulsiveness and thats why our soldiers are dying in two’s and three’s everyday with no end in sight not to mention scores of Iraq’s.

[Marmadogg]

[quote]hedo wrote:
So what are you saying. We should isolate ourselves from the rest of the world, ignore changing situations in the world?

What of the Soviet example? Should we have not helped them and let the Germans grind them down. Should we not be supportive of them now and treat them like an enemy?

Isn’t it in our own best interest to create our own “reality” rather then have it created for us?

Just curious?[/quote]

Huh?

Facts are facts.

I am synthesizing not analyzing.

We should never support dictators under any circumstances period.

We should always be true to ourselves and replace any and all dictators with a democracy.

Do you agree?

[JeffR]

lumpy,

Thanks. I completely disagree with everything you said.

Have a great Fourth of July!!!

JeffR

[JeffR]

e-hater,

Is Rumsfeld a military man?

Is Powell a military man?

Are the Joint Chiefs military men?

Was W. a military man?

Seems like those were the major players in the planning.

JeffR

[JeffR]

Dastang,

I sincerely appreciate your post.

I wanted you guys to make sure you remember that there are MANY of us here who are one-hundred percent behind you.

We haven’t forgotten and will not.

Remember that pollsters NEVER call us. One gets the feeling that the pollsters want to create news. I doubt some of their methods and results.

Stay safe.

Thank you,

JeffR

[hedo]

[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
hedo wrote:
So what are you saying. We should isolate ourselves from the rest of the world, ignore changing situations in the world?

What of the Soviet example? Should we have not helped them and let the Germans grind them down. Should we not be supportive of them now and treat them like an enemy?

Isn’t it in our own best interest to create our own “reality” rather then have it created for us?

Just curious?

Huh?

Facts are facts.

I am synthesizing not analyzing.

We should never support dictators under any circumstances period.

We should always be true to ourselves and replace any and all dictators with a democracy.

Do you agree?

[/quote]

No I don’t.

You are stating an opinion not synthesizing facts. The word “should” is the give away.

To make a blanket generalization is to ignore reality in the world. Not a good long term policy.

Overall dictators are of course bad, but we must deal with them on occasion.

[hedo]

100

Al Franken is on vacation. Didn’t he give you off the week too?

Too bad.

[Marmadogg]

[quote]hedo wrote:
No I don’t.

You are stating an opinion not synthesizing facts. The word “should” is the give away.

To make a blanket generalization is to ignore reality in the world. Not a good long term policy.

Overall dictators are of course bad, but we must deal with them on occasion.[/quote]

The current administration disagrees with you in theory but not in fact.

We never met a dictator we did not like.

Uzbekistan is a perfect example.

Cheers!

[goldin]

[quote]dastang21 wrote:
hedo wrote:
goldin wrote:
Take a look at Just War Theory if you want to know why so many soldiers are dying in Iraq with the situation not really improving - and becoming more dangerous with other countries.

To the soldiers - I have the utmost respect for you. It’s good to hear your views. Unfortunetely there are quite a few soldiers that are misinformed as well (not you). I don’t really know too much about the Iraq war but I would like to point out that it is your choice as a soldier what you are willing to lay your life on the line for. America can start a war, but if none of the soldiers are willing to fight in it - is it a war that should be fought? If you think the reasons are justified, then fight, but each person needs to make that decision before they enter the war, and thus not everyone will come to the same conclusion. You may think it worth it to remove Saddam and help the Iraqi’s, others may think that it just wasn’t worth the lives of soldiers. This is why information is so critical.

An Army run that way would be an unruly mob and would not last a day.

In a volunteer force you decide whether to join or not. You don’t decide when or who to fight. You obey the orders you are given. The only ones you can choose to fight are the unlawful ones.

Considering the war lawful or not is a politcal discussion and not something that a soldier makes a decision on.

Amen,
If you have ever been in anything close to combat you would know what it feels like to complete a mission. The mission is given to us with all the information we need and have to do. If we dont do the job given to us the mission may be compromised causing harm to our other soldiers, maybe the guy next to you or men miles away. Once you get to know you troops like I have (as a medic) you want none of them to get hurt. So we do the jobs that we are given like them or not many times, because we have to for the guy next to us.

Dastang[/quote]

Ah, okay, I guess I was unclear. What I meant was that it is up to the soldier when to volunteer/join, not when to “battle”. Once employed he must follow the rules - if he wants to get out he must do so honorably and lawfullly.

My point was - yes certainly people will always be in the military regardless of the current political situation - however in war-time it may or may not cause more enlistments. The lawfulness of a war is certainly not only in the realm of the politicians, every soldier/potential soldier must make that decision. Otherwise the American people are just yes-men to the politicians. Volunteer soldiers are a check on the lawfulness of a war. If we were being invaded by a foreign agressor on our land - I’m sure there would be no shortage of volunteers.

However, if hypothetically we went to war with England to grab their resources, I’m betting there would be shortage of soldiers.

So as far as Iraq, those that think it justified, should volunteer, those that don’t, shouldn’t. If we are low on soldiers that must say something about the motivation of the American people, right? Either the war isn’t justified, or the right information isn’t getting to us. Of course, either way, there is no reason to be disrespectful to those who are fighting.

Anyone who is willing to lay their life down to keep this country safe is A Okay in my book, even if I may think their choice of action misguided.

Also, I’m not really talking about Iraq, I’m not sure whether I agree or not since I don’t know very much about it. I’m just pointing out a good gauge for the support of a war and one reason why we don’t seem to be doing as well as we should (Just War Theory).

[jlesk68]

.

[deanosumo]

We knew that Saddam was a ruthless evil bastard even back when he was fighting Iran. But we still helped him. As Marmadogg said, we have backed up evil men time and time again (Chile, most of Latin America just to name a few that come to mind) so all this sanctimonius talk about ‘removing an evil dictator from power’ is just bullshit! Regimes can be commiting heinous crimes against their own people, but if communist rebels were fighting them, or we hated their neighbour, we would back them up. The US only works for its own ends.

[KevinKovach]

[quote] but I know the intelligence was BS but no one is going to pay for that.
[/quote]

I bet the intelligence was great and a lot of good people lost their jobs, but Bush didn’t tell the American people the truth. I used to be totally against this war, but I’m starting to think that this is all about having bases next to Iran but the Bush team knows that the American public wouldn’t get behind this without some other justification.

Well that doesn’t sound very clear, I guess in conclusion if something good comes from this war, I’m all for it, but I don’t expect any more freedom or benifit to the Iraqi people for a couple decades.