• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

To the people that think we shouldn't have gone in.

MrsWildweasel said:
One of the reasons we did not go into Rwanda,I'm sure everyone remembers Somalia, and how that turned out.

So... does that mean we only go in where we can win? We don't fight for a just cause if we feel we'd lose?

I don't like the thought of that; certainly we didn't know we'd prevail against Nazi Germany or the Japanese Empire. We fought because we had to.
 
I wouldn't go that far,but I am sure that is in the backs of their minds,when they have to concider going in to some place like that.
 
Ross brings up an interesting and philosophical point. How do you choose who to liberate from oppression when there are many countries out there that are oppressing their citizens? Some that are as harsh as if not more so than Sadam Hussein.

I ain't bitching Derek. Honest! :)

[wink] Most of the time I like to sit back and enjoy the game but sometimes I like to get the ball bouncing. [lol]
 
Jarhead said:
Ross brings up an interesting and philosophical point. How do you choose who to liberate from oppression when there are many countries out there that are oppressing their citizens? Some that are as harsh as if not more so than Sadam Hussein.

I ain't bitching Derek. Honest! :)

[wink] Most of the time I like to sit back and enjoy the game but sometimes I like to get the ball bouncing. [lol]

We can't fight them all at one time, the government has to prioritize.
 
So the both of you are advocating that no matter what with out weighing the risks, we need to go into all of these 3rd world crap holes and be the peacekeepers of the world. Think we'll be able to leave Bosnia anytime soon? I don't. So we learn from Somalia, and Bosnia,and weigh our options. Glad you guys don't have the power to send our men and women in uniform all over hell and back. [evil]
 
dwarven1 said:
So... does that mean we only go in where we can win? We don't fight for a just cause if we feel we'd lose?

I don't like the thought of that; certainly we didn't know we'd prevail against Nazi Germany or the Japanese Empire. We fought because we had to.

We would never choose to send soliders in to China no matter what they were doing. Would we use other means such as ICBM's? Probably if we had to. We probably would only step foot in China if they attacked us.
 
Id like to see the kind of spending done on this operation done domestically.

we could solve the friggin energy crisis if we put 30-50 billion a month into private research here. the savings made from dependency from oil alone would fund the next 100 wars.. we could free the whole damn planet from tyranny,
 
MrsWildweasel said:
So the both of you are advocating that no matter what with out weighing the risks, we need to go into all of these 3rd world crap holes and be the peacekeepers of the world. Think we'll be able to leave Bosnia anytime soon? I don't. So we learn from Somalia, and Bosnia,and weigh our options. Glad you guys don't have the power to send our men and women in uniform all over hell and back. [evil]

SUE!!! That is NOT what I said! Please don't put those kind of words into my mouth.

What I've been asking is "What are the criteria that made it acceptable to go into Iraq?". And by extension, made it NOT acceptable to go into Rwanda... or Cuba, or Venezuela? IOW, can we quantify what will get us involved somewhere?
 
Ross, I think it was simply the recent history with Iraq, it's history of WMD, and at the time it's current refusal to allow the UN Inspectors to see dozens of weapons factories.

Iraq was at the top of the hot list and it needed to be dealt with.
 
Saddam had been given every opportunity to comply with the UN's demands. He didn't he blew them off, and figured he could keep doing what he was doing with out any checks and balances. So instead we took care of it. Plus he was at the very top of the list.
 
MrsWildweasel said:
Saddam had been given every opportunity to comply with the UN's demands. He didn't he blew them off, and figured he could keep doing what he was doing with out any checks and balances. So instead we took care of it. Plus he was at the very top of the list.

Guess I'm just dense... the only difference I can see is the President. Clinton wouldn't do anything but Bush did.

Well... as I said, we're there now, and the only way we can leave with our honor intact is with a free and democratic Iraq in the rearview mirror.
 
dwarven1 said:
Guess I'm just dense... the only difference I can see is the President. Clinton wouldn't do anything but Bush did.

That's right Ross. Clinton didn't do a damn thing about any of the attacks on us. Not one. Oh wait...he did bomb the asprin factory to get our minds off of Monica. I clearly remember hearing about the USS Cole, and that a$$hat promising that the responsible people would be found and brought to justice. Yup...he paid his respects to the fallen sailors from that attack, bit his lower lip and only shed a tear when the f'ing camera was on him.

Sorry...I'm not bashing you, but that set off a raw nerve with me, as you can tell.
 
Lynne said:
That's right Ross. Clinton didn't do a damn thing about any of the attacks on us. Not one.

IIRC, he did send a couple of cruise missiles "up a camel's ass" was the way I heard it phrased. Didn't do anything useful.

Tell you guys what. I'm still missing something here, but it's tired and I'm getting late, so I'm going to table this thread for now and look at what else has been posted. Besides... no matter how we got there and how the decision was made, we ARE there... and the job has to be finished.
 
MrsWildweasel said:
One of the reasons we did not go into Rwanda,I'm sure everyone remembers Somalia, and how that turned out.
Rwanda was not a threat and Somalia was a UN Dog and Pony show.

Iraq was a target of opportunity, post 911. People like Saddam want us dead. We needed to make a stand and to show these Despots that we were not going to stand by and let it happen. It just as easily have been Iran or Syria. Iraw drew the short straw. WMD's, genocide, threats, harboring terorists, they just all added up to make the case.
 
JonJ said:
We needed to make a stand and to show these Despots that we were not going to stand by and let it happen.

THANK YOU!!!

That's kind of what I'd suspected all along. Nice to know that I'm not the only one who believes that.
 
There is actually several reasons why Iraq.

Saddam was a despot that needed removal.

Saddam was a threat to the region and globaly.

Saddam had Chemical and Biological weapons, and was trying to acquire Nukes.

Saddam would actually use said WMD to destabilize the Mid East. (Hint, it wouldn't be the first time)

Saddam was supporting Global Terrorism, including the 9/11 WTC Attack, he let Al Queda train people in Iraq.

Saddam had openly stated that he was going to bring down the US.
 
It amazes me how so many people have such short memories in this country...I suspect it's because the media keeps rewriting history.

We went into Iraq for ONE reason:

The UN and THE REST OF THE WORLD world determined that Saddam had WMD and demanded he get rid of it and prove it. He wouldn't, and despite umpteen orders from the UN (the last saying 'OR ELSE'), he continued to throw the inspectors out and tell everyone to shove it.

Think back and you'll remember that this went on for 10 YEARS !

The UN didn't have the balls to do anything about it because Russia, France and Germany were secretly making money off of Saddam, so GWB, being the only person of integrity around, said, 'screw you UN, we're not gonna let you idiots sit around and play with yourselves while this idiot continues doing what he wants and endangering us and the rest of the world.

We gave the 'OR ELSE' some teeth !

Once there we couldn't just leave the place totally unstable, so that's why we're STILL there.

The media wants you to forget that and keep calling it an unlawful war. The Congress approved it.

So let's stop debating why we're there and think back thru the media and Democrat induced fog. It's all in the history books, maybe.

Sorry for sounding LOUD but I'm tired of this debate.
 
This has been a most interesting and impassioned thread.

My biggest issue, is not whether we are there or not, because we are, but if we are resourced to continue. I am also distressed somewhat, that we are playing world policeman, again we are not resourced to do this.

We ignored the courageous Hungarians in 1956 (and the East German uprising in 1952), we ignored Rawanda, we failed to support the Bay of Pigs, we let Pol Pot carry out one of the worst genocidal acts in history, then there is Somalia, we pulled out there, and of course we pulled out of Viet Nam. Korea, we fought to a draw. We gave away Eastern Europe to the Soviet Union in 1945. So why Iraq ? I must give Pilgrim kudos for a very cogent post, however, I cannot help but believe that OIL and our access to it was the main reason we went to Iraq. The possiblity of war over diminishing natural resources has long been predicted.

But just how long can we continue to fight ? I am guessing that we have enemies to fight that haven't even been born yet. If the Iraqi War depletes our treasure and our manpower, we cannot sustain the effort.

The trial is an outrage. If any of us acted the way Saddam does, we would be bound and gagged. Why we didn't kill him "when he reached for his gun" (that's my story and I'm sticking to it said the soldier who killed him...I wish) is beyond my utter comprehension. Why he is being tried by the Iraquis, is also beyond my utter comprehension. He should get the same deal as the Nazi's at Nuremburg: a U.S. Military Tribunal, and he should then be executed by hanging or firing squad. Instead we are trying to teach the Iraqis good citizenship.

Nobody has ever asked me what I would do. I think you think that the anwer is cut and run....well that is the pragmatic solution to be sure, but if I were king for a day, I would change our policy from an army of liberation to an army of occupation. Let's take Falujah, for instance, well under Mark's Doctrine, there would be no Falujah, it would be totally destroyed. When a suicide bomber kills some of our troops, and we know where he is from, we kill his relatives or level his village....because in 6000 years, that is all they really understand over there. It's a given that we are going to be hated anyway, so why not go balls to the wall, kick ass and eventually wean the Iraqis to democracy via the iron boot. Then we get the oil production going.

Simplistic ? Yes, Cruel ? Yes.....but in the end if we are to extend the Pax Americana througout the world, we must learn from the Pax Romana. Un-american, you say....well we have good historical precedence in the 19th Century American West, and Cuba and the Phillipines.

caveat lector,

Mark
 
mark056 said:
Nobody has ever asked me what I would do. I think you think that the anwer is cut and run....well that is the pragmatic solution to be sure, but if I were king for a day, I would change our policy from an army of liberation to an army of occupation. Let's take Falujah, for instance, well under Mark's Doctrine, there would be no Falujah, it would be totally destroyed. When a suicide bomber kills some of our troops, and we know where he is from, we kill his relatives or level his village....because in 6000 years, that is all they really understand over there. It's a given that we are going to be hated anyway, so why not go balls to the wall, kick ass and eventually wean the Iraqis to democracy via the iron boot. Then we get the oil production going.

Hard to argue with that. It's a shame we can't do that.
 
mark056 said:
The trial is an outrage. If any of us acted the way Saddam does, we would be bound and gagged. Why we didn't kill him "when he reached for his gun" (that's my story and I'm sticking to it said the soldier who killed him...I wish) is beyond my utter comprehension. Why he is being tried by the Iraquis, is also beyond my utter comprehension. He should get the same deal as the Nazi's at Nuremburg: a U.S. Military Tribunal, and he should then be executed by hanging or firing squad. Instead we are trying to teach the Iraqis good citizenship.

I would not be surprised to see Saddam completely bulldozing the Judge & jury and being declared innocent of all charges - because 20+ years of cowering to him has to be an ingrained habit by now.

Surprised? No. Disappointed? Hell yes. He comes under the heading of "No doubt here" - go ahead and behead him.
 
mark056 said:
however, I cannot help but believe that OIL and our access to it was the main reason we went to Iraq. The possiblity of war over diminishing natural resources has long been predicted.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922041.html

If we were going to invade a country for oil, why bother with #14?

That being said, I agree the issue of why is MOOT, we're there, and your way of finishing it works for me.

And guys, I think Saddam will be found guilty in the end. Then executed, hopefully publicly. The hand wringers will hate that. If we deal with him, he becomes a Martyr to some folks. If the Iraqis deal with him, he's just another dead shitbag.
 
We ignored the courageous Hungarians in 1956 (and the East German uprising in 1952), we ignored Rawanda, we failed to support the Bay of Pigs, we let Pol Pot carry out one of the worst genocidal acts in history, then there is Somalia, we pulled out there, and of course we pulled out of Viet Nam. Korea, we fought to a draw. We gave away Eastern Europe to the Soviet Union in 1945. So why Iraq ?

Because with those other cases, there was no perceived threat to the security of the US. Bush acted in a way consistant with his responsibility of office. To interfere in those other places is not within the pervue of his Constitutional obligations.

We let the Russians take over the east of Europe - particularly Berlin, so we wouldn't have to do the dirty work our selves. Letting them take the losses of door to door fighting in Berlin was better than us having to do it. If the Russians had not come in from the east and taken over that part of Europe, the war would have dragged on for who knows how long, along with resulting heavy loss of life on our side. Letting the Russians have the eastern countries that really had no 'value' to us, was a no brainer.


We were wrong going to Kosovo and Somalia. Those were unconstutional incursions and didn't benefit the US at all.

Who was President then ???
 
Not to stir this up again, well...maybe just for that reason, but I happened to be hunting and missed this thread during its passion so I'll opine now.

A few good points and questions have been raised. However, everyone must have missed my post in another thread about this subject. Why, you ask? For the same reason this issue keeps rearing its ugly head - no one wants to know or accept the truth of the matter.

Firts, we have certain individuals saying we shouldn't be the world's police force, then, in the same breath, ask why we don't do something in every region of the world where atrocities exist. Which way do you want it people??

Now, you cannot talk about when and how to leave Iraq without understanding why the f*** we are there in the first place! Sorry for the language - it was used as an attention-getter.

Why did we ally with the USSR in WW II only to be enemies with them later?

Why did we supply training and arms to Hussien during the Iran / Iraq war?

Why did we supply training and arms to [aint] Bin Laid In [several years] during the Russia / Afghan war?

Why didn't we "go finish the deal in the first Gulf War" like everyone now wants to bitch about?

ALL for VERY good reasons.

Now, our current conflict in Iraq:

Did we go there to secure a supply of oil? Partially, yes. Is that bad? No. Unless you don't mind paying $7 per gal gas, ten-fold expenses for heating oil, electric bills, all types of plastics used on a daily basis and a host of other products derived from the petroleum industry.

Did we go there to free a nation? Partially, yes.

Did we go there because of 9/11 and his role in terrorism? Partially, yes.

Did we go there because of Hussien's imposed threat to the U.S? Partially, yes.

It is complete idiocy to think if we leave everyone else alone, they will leave us alone. That may have worked 60 years ago but the life all of us have come to know is completely dependant upon a World market and protecting the assests of the U.S. in whatever region that may be. Sound selfish and self-serving? You bet your ass it is! That is the truth of it that peace-loving soccer-mom type liberal asshats can't deal with. They want their bread, they just don't want to know what it takes to bake it!

Now, many un-free nations hate and despise the U.S. NOT because of what we have, but what they don't have - Freedom. This is disassociated hatred. Meaning, it's misplaced towards something (US) they are willing to do (terrorism) rather than against a dictator government that they cannot (death, torture, no freedom of speech - except against the U.S., death of their families if they speak out or resist, etc).

The effectivness of our military has been in question by the world for many, many years. Beginning with Korea and McCarthy's debacle, perpetuated by Viet Nam, and all of the lack of responses to the terrorist attacks against us over the last two decades. Desert Storm was the only show of strength and it was over too quickly to remain in anyones mind for very long.

By the way, ask yourself what made our military so effective during the early and mid 20th century. Was it a large standing Army with the latest technology? Hell no! Our omnipotent leaders skeletalized our troops after every conflict. It was the patriotism of the American people who rose to the challenge and took up arms as nation to take on any comers. We lost that during Viet Nam and have not gotten it back (as a nation). And, the World knows it.

Now, because of the misplaced hatred by many, a growing disrespect for our military effectivness, and our own internal implosion this nation is ready to be plucked by some adventurous tyrant somewhere. No longer is the ideology that America can't be invaded becuase of a rifle behind every blade of grass.

We fought China once to an emabarassing (on both sides) draw. China's looking for a rematch and using N. Korea as the catalyst, once again. Iran has nuclear technology and if they gain the means to deliver them, they will. Take a friggin' look at a world map and the reason we are involved in the places we're currently at might get a little clearer!

We will stay in Iraq the same as we did in Japan and Germany solely to protect our assests, but more importantly to protect our soveriegnty. Now, Mark, you ask how will we be able to sustain this longevity. We WON'T unless the unpatriotic cowards of this nation get off their collective apathetic asses and show a little intestinal fortitude and resecure this nation. It is as much reponsiblity of EVERY citizen to participate in the security of this nation as it is the government's.

Thus endeth today's lesson.

Enlightenly Respectful,
 
Back
Top Bottom