|
Post by Archangelwolf on Jul 21, 2003 4:09:50 GMT -5
So, how does everyone think that this "operation" has turned out? I know that there are still some insurgents "throwing rocks at us," but for most intensive purposes, this war is over. However, the riff raff is not. America is under a lot of scrutiny over the fact that there were no chemical weapons. Even Great Britain is questioning their own government for going along with America.
America is losing a lot of prestige among other nations of this world, my friends. The next few months, and years for that matter, will be very interesting.
|
|
|
Post by Archangelwolf on Jul 22, 2003 17:16:34 GMT -5
Wow!
Is it just me, or is there a sentiment that noone wants to touch this subject with a ten-foot pole.
Come on! This is an almost free country. We can share our opinions about the war.
|
|
|
Post by michaeldark on Jul 22, 2003 18:07:45 GMT -5
Did i agree with the war when it started? No. Do I like Bush? Nope,I don't trust anyone with ties to Big Oil that goes to war in the Middle East. Am I happy with the results of the war and support what our troops did? HELL YES. I come fgrom a military family,I'm more or less obligated by blood to support the troops,and I tell anyone that doesn't the flat out truth:Get the *insert expeletive here* away from me before I kick your arse. I feel very strongly about that.
And of course I'm pleased with the outcome,we freed the Iraqui people,and we did it with a very low body count(civilian or enlisted men) on both sides. More people died in Bosnia,Kosovo,and Desert Storm I think than did in this war. So yeah,that's something to be very proud of,and something I will be proud even if you don't find the WMD's. But I am upset we haven't found them,and that with the Yellowcake,we know that Iraq has not tried to purchase any of it from Niger for at least the last decade. But do I think Bush lied or Blair lied to reach their ends? No. They got their information from the CIA and NSA,and the MI branches-believe it or not MI6,the British Secret Service,is a real agency,not something Ian Flemming made up when making James Bond,who is loosely based on his brother,an MI6 agent doing WW2 behind German lines.
Back on topic now,they got that info from Italy,who got it from an Niger informant I think. So if there was anyone to blame,it's the Italians for not verifying their source.
|
|
|
Post by xcstud05 on Jul 22, 2003 19:03:39 GMT -5
I'm extremely happy that this was so quick!!
I've always supported Pres Bush. So I feel bad for him that we didn't find any WMD. I believe that he thought we really had some. Besides, we needed to kick Sadaam out anyways. He was a filthy rotten person, and he was so awful to the Iraqis. That should have been reason enough to go to war with Iraq.
|
|
|
Post by Himmel on Jul 23, 2003 23:49:53 GMT -5
"Sigh".....I'm not sure if beating this dead horse will do any good since the damage has already ben done. I was angry about this stupid war, (then again I hate all wars!) Now all I feel is great sadness. So many lives were lost on both sides and so many of our young soliders were killed. For what I don't know. I don't feel any more secure of free. Sadam might be gone and his nasty sons killed, but the people in Iraq don't seem happy with their liberation, as seen by demonstrations and the fact their still picking us off in ambushes. It will take a lot of time and money to clean up the mess and stablize the country. A report on tv said it cost a billion dollars a week to keep us there.. I hope the taxpayers feel they got their money's worth because we're going to be paying into this pit for a long time.
|
|
|
Post by michaeldark on Jul 23, 2003 23:56:48 GMT -5
"Sigh".....I'm not sure if beating this dead horse will do any good since the damage has already ben done. I was angry about this stupid war, (then again I hate all wars!) Now all I feel is great sadness. So many lives were lost on both sides and so many of our young soliders were killed. For what I don't know. I don't feel any more secure of free. Sadam might be gone and his nasty sons killed, but the people in Iraq don't seem happy with their liberation, as seen by demonstrations and the fact their still picking us off in ambushes. It will take a lot of time and money to clean up the mess and stablize the country. A report on tv said it cost a billion dollars a week to keep us there.. I hope the taxpayers feel they got their money's worth because we're going to be paying into this pit for a long time. May I ask where you get the "So many" from? Because actually the loss of life was pretty dang low. Only like 238 coalition and like 500 Iraqi. Now civilian causulaties...lower than in Desert Storm,but still higher than I like,I think over 100,and we aren't even 100% sure they're all our fault.
|
|
|
Post by Archangelwolf on Jul 24, 2003 3:03:03 GMT -5
I, too, am against war of all kinds. But I also believe that what is done, is done.
I am very supportive of the reconstruction efforts that the US is leading in Iraq. I just fear there may be repercussions for a few years before the country is stabilized; and I hope that we can get other nations to help us foot the bill.
My biggest concern is the stature that America holds in foreign affairs. Many nations did not like us before this war; but they loved our money. Now, a lot of nations think that we are a "big bully" superpower.
Strange coincidence: America today reminds me of a man who served as our President exactly 100 years ago at this time. A man named Theodore Roosevelt. One of his slogans was to "speak softly and carry a big stick." It seems that America is living by that slogan today. We speak peace, but we hold the mighty "stick" of our military in our hands. Interesting!
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Jul 24, 2003 5:28:32 GMT -5
xcstud05 I've always supported Pres Bush. So I feel bad for him that we didn't find any WMD. I believe that he thought we really had some.
Thought that Saddam had some? How about Saddam's admission that he had them? Does that count? I don't know where you and the author of this thread are getting your information from, but you need another source. As far as this being over, you've got to be kidding. The war on terror is going to be fought wherever terrorists are found. This is just the beginning, and hopefully the terrorists will see that no place will be safe for those who attack America. Have you forgotten why we went to Iraq in the first place?[/color]
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Jul 24, 2003 10:17:17 GMT -5
genesda
rUSH HAD A GOOD POINT THE OTHER DAY. He spoke about the liberal news media and the way they were reporting on US casualites in Iraq. I don't want to see any American die or injured, but when the liberals in the media report, "another american soldier was killed today", just what are they doing? The point is on any given day, there are numerous people killed in traffic accidents, drownings, murders, falls, electrocution and many other ways of dying. They don't report on any individual deaths anywhere except in Iraq. I think they are trying to sway public opinion and turn the public against President Bush as they do with other Republicans, such as Newt Gingrich for example. The casualites in Iraq are muniscule compared to other wars the USA has been involved in, and have been made necessary by 9/11. Would I grieve if one of my sons were killed in Iraq? I pray that I am not faced with that situation, and I'm sad when I see the families of those who do have to face that. The point is what do we do about those who attack us? Casualites are to be expected and we should be able to look at the news without the liberal slant to everything that can be turned a political issue.[/color]
|
|
|
Post by woodyblueeyes on Jul 24, 2003 10:25:43 GMT -5
So, how does everyone think that this "operation" has turned out? I know that there are still some insurgents "throwing rocks at us," but for most intensive purposes, this war is over. Those "rocks" as you call them, are killing our soldiers, killing our brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers, sons and daughters. I'm not against war when deemed necessary (i.e. Pearl Harbor, etc.) but I have had mixed feelings about the president urging us to handle a problem that his father could not handle when he was president. Hussein is a bad dude, and probably was making nuclear weapons, but with all of the technology that the United States has at it's disposal, don't you think we'd be able to sneak in and just take him away instead of "going to war" to take him out...and the US STILL hasn't found him? I realize some will state that the reason for the war was not to personally TAKE HIM OUT, but I would disagree...I think this "war" was as much personal as it was in the pretenses of protecting the United States.
IMHO
Woody[/color]
|
|
|
Post by xcstud05 on Jul 24, 2003 13:26:54 GMT -5
xcstud05 I've always supported Pres Bush. So I feel bad for him that we didn't find any WMD. I believe that he thought we really had some. Thought that Saddam had some? How about Saddam's admission that he had them? Does that count? I don't know where you and the author of this thread are getting your information from, but you need another source. As far as this being over, you've got to be kidding. The war on terror is going to be fought wherever terrorists are found. This is just the beginning, and hopefully the terrorists will see that no place will be safe for those who attack America. Have you forgotten why we went to Iraq in the first place?[/color][/quote] Sorry, it was a typo. I didn't realize it until I re-read my post. I meant: I think that Pres Bush really thought that IRAQ had WMD, not that "we" had them. Sorry about the confusion!
|
|
|
Post by Senior Wing Commander on Jul 24, 2003 14:21:42 GMT -5
Again, i feel compelled to list out some FACTS. As usual I expect no response as usual when I present facts. I will express opinion and I will differentiate between the two.
1). THE WAR ISN"T LEGAL
This war was perfectly legal. Many have said it was not. President Bush ask for Congressional approval and received it. Under the War Powers Act (article II or III I think) Congressional approval is equivelant to a decleration of war.
2) IT's AGAINST INTERNATIONAL LAW
International Law it was also technically legal. At the end of the 1st Gulf War Iraq signed many provisions as part of the Gulf War Cease Fire. Of the many provisions the following were not followed by Iraq.
A) unfettered access to all potential WMD sites. Access was denied and when granted was controlled/delayed.
B) Repatraition of displaced people. 600 Kuwait's and 1 American pilot are still unaccounted for.
C) Controls on imports and exports. Iraq has violated both import and export controls buy selling black market oil to finance more weapons purchases, mainly from N. Korea and China.
2) Subsequent UN resolutions provided for "no fly zones" for allied air patrols to prevent Iraq from the following: Further attacks on Iraqi minorities, allowing safe distribution of aid. Movement of military equipment to positions to threaten neighbors. Iraq continue to attempt to violate the above AND routinely fired upon the allied aircraft...an act of war.
3) In fact the 1st gulf war never technically ended. There was "cease fire". On March 1st or 2nd 1991, Bush made his "suspension of offensive combat operations" statement. Which means that we aren't attacking any more, but will respond to any threat posed by the Iraqi's. Almost every violation in the last 10 years could have legally cause "offensive combat operations" to begin again. Clinton did this at least twice with air strikes, Bush did it by carring it on the way. Still technically legal, and this is why we didn't push for a second and third UN resolutions. The previous ones allowed for an Allied attack.
3) DADDY BUSH SHOULD HAVE FINISHED IT THE FIRST TIME>
This is fact and opinon with this response.
Yes, maybe he should of. Most military sources state that had the US continued the offensive for 24-48 hours longer, ALL of the Republican Guard would have been destroyed. By stopping when we did about half of the Republican Guard got away. The result: Saddam was able to brutally put down the uprisings in both the North by the Kurds and in the South by the Shia. Had the Guard been completely destroyed by the US ARMY Saddam MIGHT have been overthrown from within that year by his own people. And our continued presence in the region probably would have been very small if any. And had there been no presence of US forces, Osama might have not been so peeved at us.
Why did we stop short in the first gulf war?
1) After the "Highway of Death" incident Bush and Powell were afraid of the US looking like they were brutalizing a retreating army. The "retreating" army was stealing everything they could from Kuwait, taking their arms and doing what is called a "fighting withdrawl". In other words some units continued to fight while others were trying to get away..or reposition for a better defense or counter attack.
A second reason of we stopped short (this is speculation but has been confirmed by many who worked in the White House at the time) was that we wanted to leave Iraq with a fairly capable military to ward off any attack by Iran. We did not want Iran to become the dominant regional power. So we MAY have let some of the Iraqi Divisions to escape so that there was some counter balance to Iran. We were in a real catch 22.
4) WHY DIDN'T WE GO TO BAGHDAD THE FIRST TIME AND GET SADDAM.
The UN resolutions and the US congressional resolutions were to liberate Kuwait, not to overrun Iraq. We did not want to go to Bagdhad because we did not want to be in the situation we find ourselves in now, running Iraq and fighting a guerilla action. Had we did it then, you would have seen all the liberals screaming "we were only supposed to help Kuwait" etc. and we would probably still be there runnig it, which is exactly were we are now. The reason we did it now is the threat of Saddam helping Al Quieda. 9/11 changed everything.
OK i could probably right a bunch more, but I'll let everyone chew on this before I do.
Overall I think the operation was needed and probably a good idea, although a part of me is starting to question some of our motives, and if oil isn't more involved then I initially thought. Obviously, we wouldn't be in the middle east if it wasn't for Isreal and Oil and thats just the way it is. BUT now because of the security issues after 9/11 we have that on top of the other reasons.
|
|
|
Post by nick77vet on Jul 24, 2003 15:23:30 GMT -5
Here is my take on the way the world is viewing America:
There is a growing hate for us because there have been no WMD found... yet they conveniently overlook that one of the most ruthless dictatorships in the world is gone.
Everyone gets all up in arms, pardon the pun, about civilian casualties. Guess what? They were minimal. People die in war. You cannot take a stance of supporting a war as long as bystanders are safe. That's not reality. How many countries could have gone into Iraq and freed the nation with incurring or receiving so few casualties? Few, if any. And the US with Britain's help did this.
Pro war or anti war... everyone should admit to themslelves that the loss of life and damage to the country was sensationally low.
For those against the war because they think it had something to do with oil or Osama... which it probably did have to do with both... should think about the average person in Iraq.
How about the husbands who were forced to watch their wives be raped by Sadam's evil sons... And if the husband protested or tried to stop it he would be shot to death.
Sound like a good place to live? Think on the people who live there and how they live before making a judgement on the US actions. The US certainly didn't mean to kill bystanders... but the US is condemned by the world for it... yet the US receives no thanks outside of Iraq for freeing millions of people from a ruthless dictatorship in the safest manner possible and to the lowest cost of life possible.
I see many people are against war of any kind... I would ask this question to them....
If Saddam and his sons were going to kill thousands in the next decade... and we could end it with a war that took less than a thousand lives... would that be a good war?
Obviously peace on earth is a fabrication of some crazy person's imagination. Sadam was not going to suddenly be all nice and actually work for his people instead of for more money.
The fact is... people are going to kill people. Killing a few to prevent the death of a lot is ok in my book.
Taking the stance "I'm against war of all types" is a cop out. It's an unrealistic stance. War is real. War will happen again. No, I am not saying war is good. I wish people would just get along, too. But that isn't reality.
|
|
|
Post by Archangelwolf on Jul 25, 2003 3:56:40 GMT -5
War is avoidable. How? Because of current technology.
I know for a fact that law enforcement in major economical cities, (yes, the local police departments) have the technology to locate, infiltrate, and catch leaders of organized crime, gangs, etc. If local authorities have this power, then I guarantee the protectors of national security do as well.
The way intelligence tracked down the bunkers in Baghdad was the affirmation I needed for years of speculation as to the technology that I have always believed the US military had. They just would not use it.......at least, until 9/11.
There was a time when the American government used technology in this way. It was in the late 1960's and early 1970's. It was found that J. Edgar Hoover used many so-called illegal tactics in his tenure as head of the FBI. That is just the tip of the iceberg. But then, Watergate happened. Suddenly, the American public did not view our American government with such a high standing. The whole intelligence/espionage program came to a halt. Suddenly, protection of privacy became an issue.
This is the way it was.........until 9/11.
In the spring of 2002, I read in the paper about a bill that was pkmtyolped that blew my mind. Congress approved a bill allowing law enforcement to use recording devices in their investigations of suspected terrorists internet sites, phone lines, etc WITHOUT THE ISSUE OF WARRANTS. This is huge. Had this bill been on the floor on September 10, 2001, it would have died a quick death. In that spring of 2002, about 5 months AFTER 9/11, it pkmtyolped UNANIMOUSLY.
Wham! Just like that, privacy is an issue of the past. National security is of utmost importance. We think that the new security at the airports is inconvenient, it is only going to get worse.....or better depending on your point of view.
So, how does this make war obsolete?
If we do not already, we will soon have the capability of locating and arresting any individuals who pose a threat to national security, regardless of their whereabouts. Eventually, this intelligence will be worldwide. Any person deemed responsible for acts of war, hate, or anything that violates human rights, will be able to be found.
The world is changing. Our technological advances are farther along than any of us can possibly realize. War is changing.
|
|
|
Post by xcstud05 on Jul 25, 2003 11:51:42 GMT -5
We should have started using that technology after the attack on the USS Cole.
|
|