Standing up for what is right!

[kirottu]

George Bush didn

[Guard Dog]

Taks, the only war I would define as illegal is a forgien conflict lasting longer than 100 days that was not authorized by congress. It has never happened and I do not think it ever will.

[taks]

true, but "illegal" only has meaning w.r.t. the US Constitution in the context that you're mentioning, guard dog.

 

personally, i'm not a 100% fan of the war powers act, either. i think that was an unconstitutional relinquishment of powers by congress, but that's another story...

 

taks

[Volourn]

"I think it's great that the American public is fed up with war"

 

They're only 'upset' because the war and its aftermath wasn't clean or quick. They'renot mad because they disagree with the reasoning behind the war; but because it wasn't/hasn't been easy.

Edited January 4, 2007 by Volourn

[astr0creep]

"I think it's great that the American public is fed up with war"

 

They're only 'upset' because the wra and its aftermath wasn't clean or quick. They'r enot mad because they disagree with the reasoning behind the war; but because it wasn't/hasn't been easy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I thought they were mad because of the big Viet Nam flashback.

"

[taks]

the media and associated activists would like us to think that, but really that's not that much of an issue. vietnam was MUCH bigger, and, the primary conflict never ended. i.e. we didn't "win the war but lose the aftermath" in vietnam... we never made it to the aftermath.

 

taks

[Volourn]

Shh.. Taks... don't use facts to prove your point. :crazy:

[taks]

oh, sorry dude, you're right. it might rip a hole in the fabric of space-time itself. good news everyone! we're going to... (futurama rip)

 

taks

[Rosbjerg]

"I think it's great that the American public is fed up with war"

 

They're only 'upset' because the war and its aftermath wasn't clean or quick. They'renot mad because they disagree with the reasoning behind the war; but because it wasn't/hasn't been easy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I've heard that more and more people are starting to argue wether or not the war was just.. meaning - if the reasons were sufficient. Maybe they are questioning it due to the fact that thing have gone as they have - but this still leads me to think that USA will be even more careful next time it's about to embark on international war. Which I think is at least a positive outcome..

[SteveThaiBinh]

...but this still leads me to think that USA will be even more careful next time it's about to embark on international war.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, for the next ten or twenty years or so. By the end of that time, they'll have recovered their confidence, rewritten history so that Iraq was someone else's fault and wasn't a failure anyway, and be ready to give it all another go.

 

I think that of the many people who are now saying the war was a mistake, not all are saying it was unjust as well, and I don't think they really need to. The anti-war camp was always a mixed bag, with some people objecting to the war because it was illegal or unjust, and others who thought it was 'just', but who foresaw the mess that we now have and believed it would make security worse.

[metadigital]

I think that's a bit harsh, Steve; talking of Vietnam, the US hasn't revised the mistakes made there (by the government, too) but in fact made quite a bit deal about it (e.g.) ...

[213374U]

Yes, for the next ten or twenty years or so.  By the end of that time, they'll have recovered their confidence, rewritten history so that Iraq was someone else's fault and wasn't a failure anyway, and be ready to give it all another go.

This seems to imply that you think the war was a failure. Please, explain how so.

[kirottu]

Yes, for the next ten or twenty years or so.  By the end of that time, they'll have recovered their confidence, rewritten history so that Iraq was someone else's fault and wasn't a failure anyway, and be ready to give it all another go.

This seems to imply that you think the war was a failure. Please, explain how so.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Vietnam war? Simple really: US soldiers had to pay for booty. We all know that true winners get booty for free.

[Sand]

The war in Iraq wasn't a failure, but it was wrong. George W. Bush and his kronies stated that Iraq had WMDs that could threaten the lives of US citizens. That was his justification. Lo and behold, what did we find? No WMDs. What did Bushie do next? Stated that Hussein had ties to Al Qaeda. No evidence that supported that claim were found and both Hussein and Al Qaeda had nothing to do with each other.

 

Bush misled the US people, either on purpose or by incompetence, and no soldier should pay the price of his or her life based on a lie or stupidity. 3000 soldiers dead. Each one died a meaningless death.

[kirottu]

Each one died a meaningless death.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I

[Hurlshort]

Again, people seem to miss the point that Saddam Hussein was seriously asking for it. It takes two to tango fellas.

[Sand]

I

[kirottu]

I

[Sand]

There is right and there is wrong. For a president to mislead his people to invade a nation on false pretenses is wrong. Plain and simple. If a soldier stands against this wrong then more power to him.

[Guard Dog]

Bush misled the US people, either on purpose or by incompetence, and no soldier should pay the price of his or her life based on a lie or stupidity.  3000 soldiers dead.  Each one died a meaningless death.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sand, you seem like a pretty reasonable guy most of the time but you are wrong on this. Whatever you think of Bush(I voted for him in 2000 but voted Libertarian in 2004) he is obligated to act on the information he has. The CIA, MI6, the Mossad, the KGB, the FFI, and a number of other groups all agreed Saddam was attempting to build nuclear weapons. Heck even Saddam thought he was. There is no doubt in anyone's mind that if he had them he would have hit Tel Aviv, of had one smuggled into the US. Or used it as a deterrant to the US while he re-invaded Kuwait or Saudi Arabia. There are hundreds of scenarios each worse than the last. Bush acted on the best info they had. If it was incompetance there is plenty of blame to spread aroun all over the world. I doubt it was deliberate, the US does not lack for enemies if he was just looking for a fight.

 

As for our troops dying meaningless deaths you could not be more wrong. Pull out a map and imagine for a moment that Iraq is secure. The US will have forces in Iraq and Afgahnistan. Uzbekistan and Pakistan are with us. Where does that leave Iran? Surrounded. Think of it like a game of chess. Sometimes you need to take a square not because it is important now but because it will be important later. Two thousand marines died within the first two hours of the landing at Tarawa. But the allies needed the airfields to support the retaking of the Phillipenes and begin clearing the bases that protected Japan. Did those men die a meaningless death because the war was not won after Tarawa? No.

[SteveThaiBinh]

This seems to imply that you think the war was a failure. Please, explain how so.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Okay. Feel free to add things to either list and take issue with any that are wrong. I haven't debated all of this for a while now, as it's not something you can really discuss openly living where I do...

 

On the negative side:

 

It's led to chaos in many parts of Iraq.

It's provided an arena where Islamist terrorists can gain combat experience which they will later take back to destabilize their home countries.

There have been thousands of casualties, civilian and coalition.

It hasn't made the US safer.

It's cost a huge amount of money for little or no gain, security or otherwise.

It's cost the US its position as leader of the free world.

It's cost the leaders of the US and UK the respect and trust of many of their people.

It's convinced many Muslims that the US is engaged in a war on their religion.

It's helped terrorists persuade moderate muslims to radicalize.

It's weakened the position of Arab governments who are allies of the US, and have had to deal with a backlash from their own people.

It's made the US look weak when there are other threats that may need to be faced, such as Iran and North Korea.

It exposed US intelligence as incompetent.

It's distracted attention away from solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and dealing with global terrorism.

It looks like a failure, whether or not you think it actually is one, and that makes the US look weak.

It led to Abu Graib, and the world image of the US army as torturers, an image they will be decades trying to lose.

 

On the other hand:

 

It's removed from power a dictator who deserved to be removed.

It's saved the lives of those he would have harmed.

It's freed the Iraqi people from tyranny (although then immediately plunging them into chaos).

It's removed from power a leader who openly wanted to acquire weapons of mass destruction (but who was effectively being prevented from doing so).

 

On balance, I think I'd have to call that a failure. The only way to call it a success is to define the aims in very narrow terms, and ignore all the unintended consequences.

 

Edit: I'm assuming you meant the Iraq War, not the Viet Nam War. Plus this is getting a bit off-topic, as this thread has more to do with whether the war was right, rather than whether it was successful.

Edited January 4, 2007 by SteveThaiBinh

[Sand]

No. he should have verified the information and used the UN to handle the matter. Iraq was posturing to make sure its rivals, Turkey and Iran, would not invade. That was obvious. I stated before we went to war, I stated during the invasion, and it was proven afterwards that Iraq had no WMDs. Iraq was no threat tot he US.

[kirottu]

There is right and there is wrong.  For a president to mislead his people to invade a nation on false pretenses is wrong.  Plain and simple.  If a soldier stands against this wrong then more power to him.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You have no proof of him lying.

 

And Hussein did the very stupid thing and kicked out(couple of times) the UN sanctioned guys who where there to check if he had weapons of mass destruction.

[Sand]

And Bush had no solid proof of Hussein having WMDs.

[alanschu]

oh, sorry dude, you're right.  it might rip a hole in the fabric of space-time itself.  good news everyone!  we're going to...  (futurama rip)

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Isn't that when Fry was responsible for giving up like 200 points in a few minutes of a basketball game?

 

 

As for our troops dying meaningless deaths you could not be more wrong. Pull out a map and imagine for a moment that Iraq is secure. The US will have forces in Iraq and Afgahnistan. Uzbekistan and Pakistan are with us. Where does that leave Iran? Surrounded. Think of it like a game of chess. Sometimes you need to take a square not because it is important now but because it will be important later. Two thousand marines died within the first two hours of the landing at Tarawa. But the allies needed the airfields to support the retaking of the Phillipenes and begin clearing the bases that protected Japan. Did those men die a meaningless death because the war was not won after Tarawa? No.

 

Heh, as a funny aside, in my War in the Pacific game, I just invaded Tarawa for just that reason :D

Edited January 4, 2007 by alanschu