PROGRESS in IRAQ...

[nesnut]

you analysis is lacking because it compares WWII to this "war on Terror"  In WWII we were fighting against nation states one of which was in the process of genocide.  Yes, i know Husssein technically commited genocide against the Kurds, but to waitover a decade to act on that is plain pretext.  WMD?  Ha!  I wont even address that bs.

Consder this, everythign this admin has said has proved to be false from global warming to mission accomplished to WMD to the insurgency is in its last throes.

WWII:  A global struggle against a despotic philosophy (Nazism) that at its core was about mass murder, degradation and denial of basic human rights.

War on Terror:  A global struggle against a despotic philosophy (Islamic fascism) that at its core is about mass murder, degradation and denial of basic human rights.


Yup, they're as different as night and day all right. 

A. One group is a state actor, another is entrenched and indeterminable in size, shape and has a variety of methods.

B. US knew the Nazis were bombing and taking over Europe for a real real long time, and before Pearl Harbor the Brits were already on their knees.  It seems the US was prepared for a Nazi Europe to me.

Gotta say Trojan may not be too far off with B on this one- the US certainly knew *&^% wa going down, but it appeared uneasy to enter the war.  Was it because it couldn't convince the public without first being attacked?  I really don't know...especially when you consider the number of americans who have made cash off the war...

[TrojanChispas]

you analysis is lacking because it compares WWII to this "war on Terror"  In WWII we were fighting against nation states one of which was in the process of genocide.  Yes, i know Husssein technically commited genocide against the Kurds, but to waitover a decade to act on that is plain pretext.  WMD?  Ha!  I wont even address that bs.

Consder this, everythign this admin has said has proved to be false from global warming to mission accomplished to WMD to the insurgency is in its last throes.

WWII:  A global struggle against a despotic philosophy (Nazism) that at its core was about mass murder, degradation and denial of basic human rights.

War on Terror:  A global struggle against a despotic philosophy (Islamic fascism) that at its core is about mass murder, degradation and denial of basic human rights.


Yup, they're as different as night and day all right. 

Do you hear what your saying?  War on Terror=War in Iraq.  Their completely different things.  Saddam was an enemy of Osama.  Your definition of the "war on Terror" is wrong.

Actually, that's not at all true.  It has been established through review of documents seized from the Iraqi intelligence Service that Iraq provided material support to the terrorist organization Abu Sayyef, which as we all know is a splinter group of Al Qaeda located in the Phillipines and headed by bin Laden's brother in law. 

So, following your logic, the Iraqi Intelligence Service provided material support to a terrorist organization headed by bin Laden, despite bin Laden and Hussein being enemies? How exactly does that work? 

In addition, Saddam Hussein aided Al Qaeda by broadcasting anti-government radio messages into Saudi Arabia.  Would Hussein do this for his enemy?

Here's the thing, it is almost always the case that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.  If Saddam could aid bin Laden in his quest to bring down the Saudi royal family and damage the United States, you really don't think he would do it?  When has Saddam exhibited that level of restraint, when he gassed the Kurds?  Or was it when he slaughtered the Shiites in the south (with helicopter gunships) after the Gulf War in 1991?

To believe that Saddam wouldn't aid Al Qaeda in hurting either the Saudi royal family or the United States, because of some kind of convaluted principled stance, is the height of naivete. 

Saddam Hussein is a Ba'athist, the Qutubist/Takfeeri Al-Qaeeda see him as an apostate who should be overthrown.     

Yes, but again who is the bigger satan in their eyes?  The ba'athists or the Americans who prop up the Jews and Saudi Royal family?  Again, the fact remains that internal Iraqi documents show material support from the former Iraqi regime to Abu Sayyef, which is a documented Al Qaeda splinter group headed by bin Laden's brother-in-law.  Sorry to be the one to destroy your world view with facts, but facts are funny that way.

seaman, your posts reak of imaturity.  we're adults here, not your plebes.  first, show some support for your "factual" assertion.  second, even if what you say is true, we did not know at the time that saddam and al qaeda were connected.  third, saddam had nothing to do with 9-11 and if you are saying it is ok to attack an ally of your enemy then we can attack everyone on the planet for some reason or another.  Doesnt Iran have allies?

how about stepping back from the situation and considering the options that were on teh table after 9-11.  The US is going to spend a trillion dollars in a country that seems largely unappreciative of our efforts.  We could have had every one on our side, rebuilt afghanistan, captured bin laden and established a permanent base in afgahnistan; all while holding the moral high ground.  now, we look like chumps and are losing the battle for hearts and minds.  Was that the wisest course of action?  Saddam Hussein did not present a threat close to or greater than Iran or NK or Syria.  *&^%, NK will soon be able to hit LA with one of their missiles, but that doesnt seem to concern anyone.

[Julie Fern]

julie has seen l.a.

[kmpnj]

you analysis is lacking because it compares WWII to this "war on Terror"  In WWII we were fighting against nation states one of which was in the process of genocide.  Yes, i know Husssein technically commited genocide against the Kurds, but to waitover a decade to act on that is plain pretext.  WMD?  Ha!  I wont even address that bs.

Consder this, everythign this admin has said has proved to be false from global warming to mission accomplished to WMD to the insurgency is in its last throes.

WWII:  A global struggle against a despotic philosophy (Nazism) that at its core was about mass murder, degradation and denial of basic human rights.

War on Terror:  A global struggle against a despotic philosophy (Islamic fascism) that at its core is about mass murder, degradation and denial of basic human rights.


Yup, they're as different as night and day all right. 

Do you hear what your saying?  War on Terror=War in Iraq.  Their completely different things.  Saddam was an enemy of Osama.  Your definition of the "war on Terror" is wrong.

Actually, that's not at all true.  It has been established through review of documents seized from the Iraqi intelligence Service that Iraq provided material support to the terrorist organization Abu Sayyef, which as we all know is a splinter group of Al Qaeda located in the Phillipines and headed by bin Laden's brother in law. 

So, following your logic, the Iraqi Intelligence Service provided material support to a terrorist organization headed by bin Laden, despite bin Laden and Hussein being enemies? How exactly does that work? 

In addition, Saddam Hussein aided Al Qaeda by broadcasting anti-government radio messages into Saudi Arabia.  Would Hussein do this for his enemy?

Here's the thing, it is almost always the case that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.  If Saddam could aid bin Laden in his quest to bring down the Saudi royal family and damage the United States, you really don't think he would do it?  When has Saddam exhibited that level of restraint, when he gassed the Kurds?  Or was it when he slaughtered the Shiites in the south (with helicopter gunships) after the Gulf War in 1991?

To believe that Saddam wouldn't aid Al Qaeda in hurting either the Saudi royal family or the United States, because of some kind of convaluted principled stance, is the height of naivete. 

Saddam Hussein is a Ba'athist, the Qutubist/Takfeeri Al-Qaeeda see him as an apostate who should be overthrown.     

Yes, but again who is the bigger satan in their eyes?  The ba'athists or the Americans who prop up the Jews and Saudi Royal family?  Again, the fact remains that internal Iraqi documents show material support from the former Iraqi regime to Abu Sayyef, which is a documented Al Qaeda splinter group headed by bin Laden's brother-in-law.  Sorry to be the one to destroy your world view with facts, but facts are funny that way.

seaman, your posts reak of imaturity.  we're adults here, not your plebes.  first, show some support for your "factual" assertion.  second, even if what you say is true, we did not know at the time that saddam and al qaeda were connected.  third, saddam had nothing to do with 9-11 and if you are saying it is ok to attack an ally of your enemy then we can attack everyone on the planet for some reason or another.  Doesnt Iran have allies?

how about stepping back from the situation and considering the options that were on teh table after 9-11.  The US is going to spend a trillion dollars in a country that seems largely unappreciative of our efforts.  We could have had every one on our side, rebuilt afghanistan, captured bin laden and established a permanent base in afgahnistan; all while holding the moral high ground.  now, we look like chumps and are losing the battle for hearts and minds.  Was that the wisest course of action?  Saddam Hussein did not present a threat close to or greater than Iran or NK or Syria.  sh*t, NK will soon be able to hit LA with one of their missiles, but that doesnt seem to concern anyone.

As for my alleged immaturity, thats kind of funny.  I didn't know that disagreeing with those on the left was a sign of immaturity.  Second, I never asserted that anyone was my plebe.  My only wish is that people do their own research and not drink the kool aid of the NY Times/CBS types who have been proven fraudulent throughout the Bush presidency.

As for a citation of my "Factual" assertion, sure.  Here's the link:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/011/990ieqmb.asp

Finally, maybe its my 4 plus years of experience as a cop.  Maybe its my 8 years of experience in the Military.  But I'm a firm believer in the addage that if it acts like a duck and quacks like a duck then its probably a duck. This metaphor fits Saddam Hussein like a glove.  Let's review the history...

a) continued engagement of US Air forces patrolling the northern and southern no-fly zones.

b)  $25,000 in cash to any terrorist's family that committed a suicide bombing that killed either a) an Israeli or b) an American

c)  Buying off 3/5 of the UN Security Council through the "Oil for Food" scandal which precluded the Security Council from approving use of force to enforce the sanctions against Iraq (If you seriously believe that France, Russia and China were motivated to vote against the U.S. and Great Britain out of any concern other than protecting their stream of billions of dollars, then there's no point in continuing this conversation).

d)  Continued slaughter, rape, torture of Shiites in the South and Kurds in the North

e)  Financial support of Abu Sayyaf, an Al Qaeda splinter group

f)  Broadcasting pro-Al Qaeda radio messages into Saudi Arabia

g)  The attempted assassination of a former United States President (an act of war according to the Geneva Convention)

If you've taken offense to my post, then I apologize.  However, all I did was recite a list of events that are documented in various places.  Was Saddam the biggest threat, no.  But he was a threat and to think otherwise is a concept that I just can't comprehend.  Again, I've seen groups that hate each other come together to fight a common enemy.  I believe that this is what happened with Saddam and Al Qaeda.  Whether or not Iraq had a hand in 9/11 is irrelevant.  If they were connected (which it now seems that they were), then President Bush was justified in invading Iraq.  Its like he said after 9/11 "If you aid the terrorists in anyway, we will make no distinction between you and the terrorists."


I'm done with this now.

[Alamo]

The thing I like about the pro-war argument is that it recognizes Hussein as a bad guy, the kind of egomaniac who would destroy America and take over the world in a second.  Under no circumstances do I believe that Iraq, long-term, is better off with a guy like that in power. 

However, that's just about the only thing I like about the pro-war argument.  Few if any Americans would like to have Saddam ruling a village, let alone a country, but as stated frequently, we don't have the means to take out all of our enemies, and if we did there are always negatives to doing so. 

Putting together a balance sheet of the plusses and minuses of the Iraq war, to me it looks like this:

Plus:
-Saddam Gone; Iraqi people now have many democratic freedoms
-Terrorists in Iraq, not US
-Some steps toward democratic reforms in Lebanon, Egypt and Saudi Arabia

Minus:
-Hundreds of billions of dollars (think international and domestic opportunity costs)
-Loss of U.S. allies
-Loss of US credibility
-Emboldened states opposed to U.S. (Iran, Venezuela, Palestine, etc.)
-A country less stable and secure than when Saddam ran it

Perhaps in a few years Iraq will be a functioning democracy, and regimes in the region will be starting to follow suit.  If this happens, I will be the first to credit the Bush administration as possessing keen political acumen.  At this point, however, I'd have to say that the war in Iraq is a big fat net negative.  The opportunity costs of the money and initiative we're putting into Iraq are downright staggering.  Our squandering of almost infinite post-9/11 goodwill makes me sick. 

I'm not even going to get into what's happening on the ground, and unless you've been there, I don't want to hear it from anybody else either.  None of us have any idea how various media outlets are manipulating facts on the ground; all we know is that there is some violence, and some progress.  Don't try to weigh the balance by simply echoing things you read somewhere, it's a waste of time for either side.

I'll freely admit that I opposed the war in Iraq (not the war on terrorists) from the start - too many things could've gone wrong, and many have.  I just wish that more of our congressmen had the courage to do the same when it could've helped.

And please, try to limit the ad hominem attacks; questioning kmpnj's "maturity" is just stupid.  It's not a maturity issue, it's a point of view issue - try to respect people with whom you disagree, it's the only way our world will ever make any progress, because you're never going to get everyone to agree on anything.

Any additions to either side of my balance sheet above are welcome.

[Freak]

Alamo, you've put forward the most (maybe only) objective assessment of the Iraqi war I've read on this board.

[! B L U E WAR R I O R..!]

The thing I like about the pro-war argument is that it recognizes Hussein as a bad guy, the kind of egomaniac who would destroy America and take over the world in a second.  Under no circumstances do I believe that Iraq, long-term, is better off with a guy like that in power. 

However, that's just about the only thing I like about the pro-war argument.  Few if any Americans would like to have Saddam ruling a village, let alone a country, but as stated frequently, we don't have the means to take out all of our enemies, and if we did there are always negatives to doing so. 

Putting together a balance sheet of the plusses and minuses of the Iraq war, to me it looks like this:

Plus:
-Saddam Gone; Iraqi people now have many democratic freedoms
-Terrorists in Iraq, not US
-Some steps toward democratic reforms in Lebanon, Egypt and Saudi Arabia

Minus:
-Hundreds of billions of dollars (think international and domestic opportunity costs)
-Loss of U.S. allies
-Loss of US credibility
-Emboldened states opposed to U.S. (Iran, Venezuela, Palestine, etc.)
-A country less stable and secure than when Saddam ran it

Perhaps in a few years Iraq will be a functioning democracy, and regimes in the region will be starting to follow suit.  If this happens, I will be the first to credit the Bush administration as possessing keen political acumen.  At this point, however, I'd have to say that the war in Iraq is a big fat net negative.  The opportunity costs of the money and initiative we're putting into Iraq are downright staggering.  Our squandering of almost infinite post-9/11 goodwill makes me sick. 

I'm not even going to get into what's happening on the ground, and unless you've been there, I don't want to hear it from anybody else either.  None of us have any idea how various media outlets are manipulating facts on the ground; all we know is that there is some violence, and some progress.  Don't try to weigh the balance by simply echoing things you read somewhere, it's a waste of time for either side.

I'll freely admit that I opposed the war in Iraq (not the war on terrorists) from the start - too many things could've gone wrong, and many have.  I just wish that more of our congressmen had the courage to do the same when it could've helped.

And please, try to limit the ad hominem attacks; questioning kmpnj's "maturity" is just stupid.  It's not a maturity issue, it's a point of view issue - try to respect people with whom you disagree, it's the only way our world will ever make any progress, because you're never going to get everyone to agree on anything.

Any additions to either side of my balance sheet above are welcome.

this is a very fine contribution...

you have bravely admitted some things others would not glean as positives.

aye would add as well that having uday and qusay out of the picture should be on the plus side...considering that they would be the heirs.

also the empowerment of oppressed people should be emphasized.

[TrojanChispas]

i was trying to keep the convo civil.

[! B L U E WAR R I O R..!]

some of us trying to keep real.

[Alamo]

i was trying to keep the convo civil.

I won't question your intentions, but look at the language you used: "seaman, your posts reak of imaturity.  we're adults here, not your plebes."  Can you not see how this is not constructive, and how if you were in the place of the accused, you might find it confrontational?