Forsake the troops gets destroyed!

[Commissar]

By the way - I quote from fallible memory - large protests in South Korean history today outside one of the military bases over there. And yeah, I did say South Korea. That I just simply do not get. Do they really think the North wouldn't come rolling across the line if we pulled out?

[Lucius]

That is, indeed, silly. North Korea's leader is outrageously unstable I think, one of the more silly things he did recently was to outlaw long hair, people should cut their hair to match true socialist haircuts...

 

Somewhat like his own, I imagine?

 

[11XHooah]

In regards to North Korea, they do pose a threat. And it is obvious that they have aspirations to start up their nuclear programs. Should we go to war with them? Not if we don't have to. We'll give them a chance just like we gave Saddam. Besides, we could not handle another war if we had to right now. Unless of course we reinstate Selective Service, which I highly doubt will happen.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

"Not if we don't have to" - Oh but isn't all this about bringing our form of government, and our views of freedom to the rest of the world anymore? What determines if a country is fit for purification? Is it that Dubya & Co knows that North Korea actually possesses WMD's to use against possible invaders and Iraq didn't? :D

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That is true. We did go in with some pretty sh*tty intelligence. We realized that we either made mistake, or came into Iraq to late to find the WMD's, so we changed the objective of the war. We had to rebuild Iraq after the invasion, so we changed the war to a liberation effort.

[Walsingham]

Are you saying that Bush and Co. never brought up Iraqis' Crimes against Humanity, the breaking of UN resolutions a,mongst other thinsgw hen making the case? or, you one of those who will pretend it was always 100% about WMDs. They played a big part of the reasoning; but it wasn't the only one.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Sure they did, but they would never have been allowed to launch an invasion based on "we're going in there to liberate them poor Iraqis" alone, they just needed an excuse, a really good one, the ultimate lie... hmm; "Threat to the international community in the forms of deadly biological and chemical warheads plus a possible nuclear program?" You got it! :D

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I take your point. However, that is an extremely simplistic approach to the question of the intel. yes it was a lie to say we knew he had the weapons. But we DID know for a fact that no-one could account for thousands of tonnes of chemical agents we knew he had in 1991, and had subsequently 'gone astray'. That was the Un's own report. The Iraqi authorities were also fighting extremely hard to stop the inspectors doing their jobs. i think it was reasonable to assume the weapons were there.

 

But more importantly, if our government had to lie in order to get us off our fat backsides and do something about the regime, then I think it is we who should be ashamed, not the government.

 

~

 

As for the situation in Iraq. A comparison with Japan or Germany postwar is risible.

 

1) In both cases we were supplanting ourselves into the role of government in countries with strong national identities and sense of society. Iraq was a hodgepodge of tiny communities bound not by any social contract but by pure fear. Since we are not ruling by fear there is substantial upheaval.

 

2) In both cases, thanks to the fanatical doctrines espoused, former members of the fascist regimes did us the favour of getting killed in the war. They were thus not around to cause trouble later.

 

Moreover I should point out that Iraq is NOT in the grip of a popular rebellion. The numbers of insurgents, and the tactics they are employing both betray their origins as former members of the regime (the special Republican Guard units had terrorist training as standard to operate against opponnets outside the country), and jihadi tourists from Afghanistan and elsewhere.

 

~

 

The use of military force against Korea could not be applied with the same degree of confidence as we had with Iraq. The campaign would be long and brutal.

[metadigital]

I take your point. However, that is an extremely simplistic approach to the question of the intel. yes it was a lie to say we knew he had the weapons. But we DID know for a fact that no-one could account for thousands of tonnes of chemical agents we knew he had in 1991, and had subsequently 'gone astray'. That was the Un's own report. The Iraqi authorities were also fighting extremely hard to stop the inspectors doing their jobs. i think it was reasonable to assume the weapons were there.

 

But more importantly, if our government had to lie in order to get us off our fat backsides and do something about the regime, then I think it is we who should be ashamed, not the government.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

At no point did the authors of the intelligence (the secret services) give any false assurances. The reliability of all the evidence, as it always is, was marked clearly.

 

The other salient fact that you seem to be omitting is that Hans Blix was conducting a renewed search for WMD. He has stated numerous times since the war that not only was he receiving unprecedented co-operation from the Iraqi government, but also he was seeking out the very places mentioned in the (soon-to-be) coalition's intel, with zero result.

 

It would be a fair and reasonable conclusion to say that Bush invaded Iraq before the normal UN processes could produce a result. Now whether this was because he wanted some sort of vengence, or because he wanted to nullify Iraq as a force in the Middle East is not certain. Certainly the "it's for the poor people of Iraq" defence doesn't wash.

 

What about the poor Palestinians? They had half their country stolen by the Israelis, and then the League of Nations did nothing. What about the poor North Koreans? Etc.

 

I have no problem with the US invading Iraq as a global politcal man

[Lucius]

We'll I've already stated my opinion on that matter, so I won't repeat myself.

 

However, here is where our fundamental disagreement lies, I think:

 

But more importantly, if our government had to lie in order to get us off our fat backsides and do something about the regime, then I think it is we who should be ashamed, not the government.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'm not ashamed, and I do not think it is right for a government to lie before the entire world in order to get things their way, especially in a matter as serious as declaring war.

Who knows, I might have a different stance on the matter if they had just come out and said "these people are being oppressed, we're gonna help them".

[Lucius]

That is true. We did go in with some pretty sh*tty intelligence. We realized that we either made mistake, or came into Iraq to late to find the WMD's, so we changed the objective of the war. We had to rebuild Iraq after the invasion, so we changed the war to a liberation effort.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I don't doubt your intentions Hooah, I just doubt those of your government by having to use a smoke screen in order to achieve their goal, that's all. ^_^

[Walsingham]

At no point did the authors of the intelligence (the secret services) give any false assurances. The reliability of all the evidence, as it always is, was marked clearly.

 

The other salient fact that you seem to be omitting is that Hans Blix was conducting a renewed search for WMD. He has stated numerous times since the war that not only was he receiving unprecedented co-operation from the Iraqi government, but also he was seeking out the very places mentioned in the (soon-to-be) coalition's intel, with zero result.

 

It would be a fair and reasonable conclusion to say that Bush invaded Iraq before the normal UN processes could produce a result. Now whether this was because he wanted some sort of vengence, or because he wanted to nullify Iraq as a force in the Middle East is not certain. Certainly the "it's for the poor people of Iraq" defence doesn't wash.

 

What about the poor Palestinians? They had half their country stolen by the Israelis, and then the League of Nations did nothing. What about the poor North Koreans? Etc.

 

I have no problem with the US invading Iraq as a global politcal man

[Lucius]

You aren't making enemies of anyone here, stuff like this is normal/below the average serious discussion I've withnessed on this forum. For better or worse. :D

[Lucius]

In regards to North Korea We'll give them a chance just like we gave Saddam.

.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

LOL ^_^

[cewekeds]

Speaking about Afghanistan. How come women are being pushed back into there houses and repressed again by their goverment? How come the warlords still control most of the country? How come we dropped the aid we promised for that country?

 

I do not believe in nation building like the libreals that support the iraq war. If Iraq had WMD or Saddam gave them away how none has been used yet.

Maybe Iraqies in charged of destroying the WMD had bad paperwork to account for them. We all know the U.S. military paperwork is always correct.

 

If Bush and congress really believed Iraq was a threat to the U.S. and had WMD that could reach us then yes lets go to war. Its always good idea to attack a country that can kill millions of our people with their WMD at moment notice. I'm so glad that once we knew where the WMD where we placed satellites over those area to make sure nothing was moved out until we could take control.

 

I glad we had 100 million plus save to train iraq soldiers since 1998 and only spent a couple million. That shows me how many Iraqies wanted the freedom we're willing to die for over there. And we gave those soldiers the spotlight so it would more like Iraqies freeing themselves then the U.S. and the coalition.

 

I like we have a coalition with countries that are just as surpessive as Saddam. I think its it great that we don't believe in torturing POW but sending them to countries that can.

 

Wait I forget there no POW from Iraq or Afghanistan so we can detain them for life without trail.

 

I like the fact that so many young people who support the war has made record recruiting numbers fopr the Army and marines(missing their goals by larger and larger numbers every month).

 

I like how people suggest we find a new fuel source we just laugh at them. I would hate to think all these humvees filling up at the pump could be lining the pockets of the people we are fighting.

 

 

I do think we have to stay and give iraq the best chace for peace now before we leave. Its our mess and we need to clean it up.

[11XHooah]

Speaking about Afghanistan. How come women are being pushed back into there houses and repressed again by their goverment? How come the warlords still control most of the country? How come we dropped the aid we promised for that country?

 

I do not believe in nation building like the libreals that support the iraq war. If Iraq had WMD or Saddam gave them away how none has been used yet.

Maybe Iraqies in charged of destroying the WMD had bad paperwork to account for them. We all know the U.S. military paperwork is always correct.

 

If Bush and congress really believed Iraq was a threat to the U.S. and had WMD that could reach us then yes lets go to war. Its always good idea to attack a country that can kill millions of our people with their WMD at moment notice. I'm so glad that once we knew where the WMD where we placed satellites over those area to make sure nothing was moved out until we could take control.

 

I glad we had 100 million plus save to train iraq soldiers since 1998 and only spent a couple million. That shows me how many Iraqies wanted the freedom we're willing to die for over there. And we gave those soldiers the spotlight so it would more like Iraqies freeing themselves then the U.S. and the coalition.

 

I like we have a coalition with countries that are just as surpessive as Saddam. I think its it great that we don't believe in torturing POW but sending them to countries that can.

 

Wait I forget there no POW from Iraq or Afghanistan so we can detain them for life without trail.

 

I like the fact that so many young people who support the war has made record recruiting numbers fopr the Army and marines(missing their goals by larger and larger numbers every month).

 

I like how people suggest we find a new fuel source we just laugh at them. I would hate to think all these humvees filling up at the pump could be lining the pockets of the people we are fighting.

 

 

I do think we have to stay and give iraq the best chace for peace now before we leave. Its our mess and we need to clean it up.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Work on some of your grammar and spelling there buddy. Anyway, I'm not even going to get started on this because it's just going to turn into a flame war, and the big green dragon will come and shut this thread down.

[Darth Drabek]

Well, since I haven't made a politics-related post yet, here goes....

 

 

I find it disgusting that my nation has squandered the goodwill of our longtime allies and many other countries after 9-11 by alienating everyone with our arrogance. Seriously, it's like a little kid pouting when he doesn't get what he wants. "Mr. Annan, If I'm not all-time QB, I'm taking my ball and going home."

 

As a citizen, I do not appreciate being misled by my elected officals. As a journalist, I resent the fact that any media outlet trying to shed light on the deceptions, hedges and strategic omissions is derided as just another member of the liberal media. You know, at the time of Watergate, the New York intellectuals turned neo-cons were writing about how horrible it was that the press had gained the power to discredit a president of the United States who had the popular support of the people. They thought that the executive branch should be up on a mountain, unsurmountable and unassailable. This is how you get Frist's filibuster fracas: an attempt to allow the the tyranny of a small majority over a large minority - a power play. I'm sorry, but I believe in checks and balances in government, and if the press is ballsy enough to call "BullXXXX" when it's wading hip-deep in the stuff, I CANNOT fathom how that is a bad thing.

 

As for the news... do you want propaganda or do you want a semblance of truth? NPR is good. So is the Washington Post. But if you really want to be objective you have to read both sides. Read William Safire AND Nick Kristof. Read George Will AND Leonard Pitts. Stay away from Ann Coulter and Phyllis Schafly, because they are idiots. Don't waste your time with the people yelling across a table from each other on TV, unless you want to find out exactly where each party stands on an issue.

 

Moving on...

I'm not going to look up the number of accomplished generals who have resigned because of Donald Rumsfeld's shoddy direction of this war. I don't remember the numbers, but the gist is this: these policians can start a war, but they sure don't know how to run one.

Von Schlieffen knew that a two-front war is a war you're going to lose. When the U.S. army was running down Bin Laden in Afghanistan, did it make sense to pack it up for a new war and let the newly trained Iraqi army finish our job for us? My good friend flew to Afghanistan two weeks ago, so I think that answer is clear. It's like a little kid again, getting more toys out before putting the other ones away. Now we've got a larger army than Von Moltke did when he botched Von Schlieffen's plan, but as Hooah said - we're stretched thin. Real thin. And there ain't gonna be a draft this time, no sir. Even if North Korea keeps kicking our chair, there's nothing we can do right now. We've got more than we can handle already.

[Cantousent]

It's good to see folks willing to express an opinion. It's the foundation of democracy that we, the citizens, discuss our democracy. ...And I appreciate the fact that we must all be heard, even if we disagree.

 

Still, your opinion cuts both ways. You say, "I find it disgusting that my nation has squandered the goodwill of our longtime allies and many other coutnries after 9-11 by alienating everyone with our arrogance." It's easy to engender goodwill while you're getting your teeth kicked down your throat. It's quite a bit more difficult when you're kicking someone else's teeth down his throat. I'd rather lose goodwill by attacking Iraq than win goodwill by having terrorists fly airplanes into our national landmarks.

 

You say, "...at the time of Watergate, the New York intellectuals turned neo-cons were writing about how horrible it was that the press had gained the power to discredit a president of the United States who had the polular support of the people." This sounds quite similar to rhetoric regarding Bill Clinton. Both political parties, every political party, engages in such practices. However, if you think that the press is stifled, then you are clearly misguided. The press has every right to make claims. If its deficiency of judgment and excesses have undermined public trust, the press can only blame itself. I suspect they lack the introspection to do so.

 

You write, "...these policians can start a war, but they sure don't know how to run one." ...But it takes one Darth Drabek to really know what we should do.

[Lucius]

You still had bloody goodwill after Afghanistan, a war we all supported and which, you know, actually had something to do with the attack on 9/11. You lost the goodwill, however, when you launched an invasion upon a nation that had nothing to do with this so called war on terror, and on false premises to boot.

 

Sorry, but I'd prefer Darth Drabek over that arrogant incompetent fool Rumsfeld anyday.

[metadigital]

You still had bloody goodwill after Afghanistan, a war we all supported and which, you know, actually had something to do with the attack on 9/11. You lost the goodwill, however, when you launched an invasion upon a nation that had nothing to do with this so called war on terror, and on false premises to boot.

 

Sorry, but I'd prefer Darth Drabek over that arrogant incompetent fool Rumsfeld anyday. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Here, here!

 

There was absolutely no "terrorist" reason to invade Iraq; in fact, more terrorists are from Saudi Arabia than anywhere else, and I don't see Bush charging into Mecca. It is ludicrous is to exclaim that Iraq was just a terrorist / WMD factory that had links to Al-Qieda.

 

There is no shame in admiting the real reason for the war; Bush, as a duly elected leader of a powerful state, is fully entitled to pursue such international policies that would maintain or even increase his country's prosperity. That's common sense. Also, if the US becomes so strong that it prevents the competition (an integral part of the capitalist system) from thriving, then the US will become the dominant global political ethos, as well.

 

I say again, it is perfectly reasonable for the US to secure supplies for its commerce machine -- including oil and gas energy supplies -- and I would be very concerned about the rest of "The West" and their concomitant standard of living, should the US not have sufficient energy.

 

It is not legal, however, nor is it fair. But since when has life been fair?

 

The biggest problems are:

- moral: an unfair system is fair from moral

- monkey see, monkey do: the rules of engagement are being set by the US, and they will be followed by the other participants, such as India and China. China is now financing the US foreign debt; if they decided to play "hard-ball" with the US, they could easily stop buying USD and shift their surplus into Swiss Francs, for example, and the USD value would plummet. That would really set the cat amongst the pigeons: Germany forced the US into WW1 by attacking their merchant navy, how long would the US stand for Chinese capitalist aggression on that scale?

- practical, by continuing and increasing a reliance on a deminishing resource, to the cost of not developing alternative and renewable sources is self-defeating -- moreso as time continues.

[Cantousent]

I still haven't had a chance to express my views of the Iraq war, but I think I'll save that for the morals thread.

 

As for the issue at hand, I suggest that it's much easier to say, after the fact, that this should have been done or that should have been done. Hind-sight is not 20/20. Play a computer game and make a save before a critical decision with a number of variables and paths. Play that save several times. After the first move, you might think that you know what you should have done. Nevertheless, you'll often find the outcome of the replay isn't exactly what you expected. Sometimes, you'll find the outcome isn't at all what you expected. Now, take that experience with games and apply that perspective on real life where there are infinitely more variables.

 

Right now, Iraq is not the Viet Nam that folks claimed it would be. Bush and Rumsfeld never claimed it would be a walk in the park. Still, the commander-in-chief does make mistakes, some of them understandable and some of them understandably foolish. The most ridiculous thing Bush did was announce the end of major combat actions in Iraq, which clearly wasn't the case and still isn't today.

[Darth Drabek]

I'd rather lose goodwill by attacking Iraq than win goodwill by having terrorists fly airplanes into our national landmarks.

 

We could have demolished Afghanistan and kept the goodwill of our allies, because it was the correct enemy to be fighting. A justified war, a war of vengeance.

 

I'm not going to debate that Saddam is a bad person, because he is. He's not a nice guy. But dreaming up ties to Al-Quaida to drum up popular support for an invasion of Iraq to further your own motives is not a nice thing either. Admittedly, lying to your constituents is better than killing them, but it's still not an admirable character trait.

 

The Clinton thing... well, extramarital affairs aren't admirable either. The press covered that whole circus extensively as well, and the people complaining said that it was not a public matter - presidents from Thomas Jefferson to JFK all had affairs and it didn't affect their ability to govern. Clinton never painted himself as President by Divine Right, either. I guess the moral issues voters hadn't come out of the woodwork yet. Watergate, on the other hand, was definitely a public matter because Nixon, as President, set up surveillance equipment to spy on the Democratic National Convention.

 

China is now financing the US foreign debt.

 

This is HUGE, but not many people realize it is a fact. Not only are our manufacturing jobs leaving for China and Mexico, but by refusing to allow their currency to float, the Chinese continue to allow U.S. companies to build plants and pay laborers there for a lot less money than if they kept the jobs in the U.S.

 

Plus, what if China decides they are going to annex Taiwan? If I remember correctly, the U.S. has some sort of agreement to protect Taiwan's independence. How do you go to war with the country that is propping up your enormous debt?

 

But I've said enough about my war strategeries.

[metadigital]

The major international issue of the first Bush administration -- just prior to 9/11 -- was the build up of tensions between China and Taiwan in the Taiwanese Sea (wasn't there a plane shot down, or something -- nothing as major as the US "accidentally" bombing the Chinese Embassy in the Balkans ...)

 

It is amazing that the EU is actually considering lifting the ban on selling arms to China, considering they will undoubtably be using them against the West in this confrontation with Taiwan, which will happen soon.

 

Then again, the UK and the US have quite an established history of selling weapons to countries and then going to war against them ...

[Cantousent]

There was a plane that was forced to make an emergency landing on Chinese Island. It was a pain getting the crew and plane returned. I'm not even sure if the plane were ever returned.

 

In regards to China, they aren't all bad. They've been kind enough to be inept. They're gaining power, it's true, but they've made a number of significant mistakes over the years.

[Walsingham]

One of the neat things about being in a diff time zone is coming back and seeing so much written overnight.

 

Okay.

 

Quick and simple point first. We (meaning the US and UK) didn't sell Saddam Hussein his arms. Fact. The sales were (in order of magnitude) Soviet, French, and Chinese; with China eating up increasing percentages as time went on. My source is the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute reports for the period around 1989 and 1991. Some US and Uk firms collaborated, certainly, but we were NOT big retailers. And the UK provided some officer training at the low level following the age old (and possibly bollocks) principle that doing so moderated the views of the officers we trained.

 

 

Second point is that I think it was a terrible error to lie about the terrorism angle. Nobody even vaguely concerned with terrorism found it plausible. I think it says a lot about the poor regard the Bush administration has for the people of America that they even tried it. But that's just my opinion, not a fact.

 

I'd agree with Eldar that Iraq is not a Vietnam. But that is the game plan of the opposition, and if we haver on the issue it WILL get worse. Speaking of which I think it's great that no-one here is arguing for bugging out. Because that would precipitate a civil war. One that would go on as long as they usually go on, with very very high civilian casualties.

 

China is a whole huge kettle o fish noodles. they are presently stacking everything they can up so they can precipitate a crisis that will fall out in their favour. Hence their bulking up their airforce, and buying US dollars. They have also been ostentatiously training for amphibious operations. Expect something to happen there. And for the time being we can't do squat to stop them. But it might hurt their economy and jeopardise the Olympics. So I think they will be aiming to bully Taiwan into voluntarily rejoining China for fear of a war.

[metadigital]

This sh*t with Iraq is developing now just because G.W.Bush's daddy and the joint chief of staff then turned chicken and didn't finish the job during Desert Storm.....during that operation Americans and their allies conquered the whole southern Iraq in 48 hours, and many US commanders in the field said they could of been in Bagdad in the next 24hours.....

Especially the Iraqi people thought then that that was the end of Saddam Hussein......so the Kurds in the north and Shiites in the south thought the hour of freedom has comed and they turned rebelious against the Sadam regime clashing with police and with army....but the Americans turned their backs on them and  left, leaving them to be brutaly slaughtered and gased by Saddam resulting in deaths of hundred of thousands, even milions ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually they were forbidden from entering Iraq except to repel the Iraqi forces from Kuwait; the Arab League would certainly have left the coalition and the UN did not sanction the invasion for the purposes of toppling Hussein.

 

It's a pity, because -- as you imply -- it probably would have resulted in a much better outcome than the mess we have now.

[Kaftan Barlast]

They were also quite aware of the fact that keeping Saddam in power would ensure that he kept the Kurds and (cant remember if its Shia or Sunni moslems) from rebelling and disturbing oil operations.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

It's a pity, because -- as you imply -- it probably would have resulted in a much better outcome than the mess we have now.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Thats what happens when you leave a job half done.

 

It's easy enough to win a war with the sort of forces they sent in. It's quite another thing to keep a peace. For that you needed a force at least twice the size of the one over there.

[SteveThaiBinh]

China is a whole huge kettle o fish noodles. they are presently stacking everything they can up so they can precipitate a crisis that will fall out in their favour. Hence their bulking up their airforce, and buying US dollars. They have also been ostentatiously training for amphibious operations. Expect something to happen there. And for the time being we can't do squat to stop them. But it might hurt their economy and jeopardise the Olympics. So I think they will be aiming to bully Taiwan into voluntarily rejoining China for fear of a war.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

China's attitude is quite complex. From their point of view, they are threatened by a US which has no regard for international law and seemed to single out Iraq (rather than Iran, Cuba, North Korea, Syria etc.) for 'regime-change' on no comprehensible grounds. When you have a rogue superpower that doesn't like you (and Bush made it clear in his first election campaign that he saw China as a rival), it makes sense to arm yourself. They also see US troops in Central Asia, South Korea and Japan, and feel surrounded. It's highly unlikely that they wish to provoke a war, or even risk war to recover Taiwan so long as Taiwan doesn't move towards independence. They don't want war, because they're winning the economic race already. It's not in their interests.

 

China (like any powerful country) wishes to extend its influence in its own region, and I know that some countries in South-East Asia are worried. However, the Chinese government's behaviour is usually very consistent and predictable. The danger and potential source of disaster is the unpredictability and irrationality of Mr. Bush.