Should we be better than this

[Joe]

It's a matter of perspective: After you've watched someone's head explode in your scope sight, pissing on their corpse can be perceived as less barbarous.

I like Col Kurtz's line Apocalypse Now, "We train young men to drop fire on people, but we won't let them writ f__k on the side of their planes because it's obscene." War is contradictory and insane.

I'm quite sure they held the values of an honorable warrior at one time. But how long can we reasonably expect those standards to hold? How many tours have these guys done? When's the last time they felt civilized? The picture says that their identity and value system has dissolved to the point where now they perceive themselves simply as killers - accountable only to their brothers-in-arms.

[Joe]

In the wake of the incendiary bombing of Hamburg 40,000 people died in the napalm-fueled firestorm and another 37,000 were injured in one week. There would have been no insurgency had we bombed Iraq similarly.
From a military perspective, the insurgency was enabled by our generosity of restraint. In retrospect, we should have struck like Jehovah and left no doubt as to our supremacy.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Joe

There would have been no insurgency had we bombed Iraq similarly.

Correct, it would have not been an insurgency isolated to Iraq.

More likely it would have erupted into a broader war across the entire middle east.

-spence

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Joe

In retrospect, we should have struck like Jehovah and left no doubt as to our supremacy.

I think the connection between wwii and Iraq is a stretch. The German's were the aggressors with a clear plan for world domination. Such a campaign in Iraq would not have been supported by the American people or the global community because of the lack of clear reasons for the war and the false pretenses presented by the president and his cronies. Demonstrates why it to stupid to make up reasons to go to war.

[ecduzitgood]

Originally Posted by zimmy

I think the connection between wwii and Iraq is a stretch. The German's were the aggressors with a clear plan for world domination. Such a campaign in Iraq would not have been supported by the American people or the global community because of the lack of clear reasons for the war and the false pretenses presented by the president and his cronies. Demonstrates why it to stupid to make up reasons to go to war.

False pretenses? I know WMD's has the left insinuated was the only reason we went in. It wasn't the only reason we went in, how many resolutions should we have let them violate before taking action, how many of our planes needed to be shot at before we responded?
And they had WMD's because we sold them to Iraq. where did they go? It's a giant litter box over there do you think they might have buried them? They had months to hide/dispose of them before we actually invaded, so they knew we were coming.
Also if you claim finding WMD's was the only reason technically we did:

Wikileaks documents show WMDs found in Iraq Hot Air

Saddam’s WMDhave been found

http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=15918

I don't see things through a political affiliation type filter, I don't like either party.

http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripert...me-change.html

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by ecduzitgood

I don't see things through a political affiliation type filter, I don't like either party.

http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripert...me-change.html

Really, yet you get your info from hotair.com? Ever hear of PNAC? The plan for invasion was laid out long before 9/11 and Bush used every excuse he could think of to moved forward with the "cavalry on the new American frontier." Even in the months prior to the war, when one reason didn't stand up, they found a new one.

[ecduzitgood]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Really, yet you get your info from hotair.com? Ever hear of PNAC? The plan for invasion was laid out long before 9/11 and Bush used every excuse he could think of to moved forward with the "cavalry on the new American frontier." Even in the months prior to the war, when one reason didn't stand up, they found a new one.

Actually that just came up in a fast search so I posted it along with other links pointing out the lame attempt to discredit the republicans. Repeating it over and over won't work when there are facts that totally discredit the no WMD's argument.
Nice attempt at deflecting though....bump

Which party perpetuated lies and still has followers believing them??????

[Joe]

They did have WMD, but they did not release evidence to the extent to which they had them. I know somebody who was involved personally.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Joe

They did have WMD, but they did not release evidence to the extent to which they had them. I know somebody who was involved personally.

Involved in the discovery of wmd's?

And EZ, if the weapons were there, it is a free press with plenty of conservative outlets and a (there was a) Republican controlled government. It would have been front page news on the wall street journal for weeks. A limited # of mustard gas casings from 1991 does not match what was presented to the American people or congress. The thing that is crazy about this is that even the most staunch supporters of the war that I know, including active military people, one of which who was an army colonel at the time, say we were completely wrong about the state of wmd's. I guess they just didn't report it on msnbc for them to hear about it.

[ecduzitgood]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Involved in the discovery of wmd's?

And EZ, if the weapons were there, it is a free press with plenty of conservative outlets and a (there was a) Republican controlled government. It would have been front page news on the wall street journal for weeks. A limited # of mustard gas casings from 1991 does not match what was presented to the American people or congress. The thing that is crazy about this is that even the most staunch supporters of the war that I know, including active military people, one of which who was an army colonel at the time, say we were completely wrong about the state of wmd's. I guess they just didn't report it on msnbc for them to hear about it.

Who said what again? Is this a credible source or not? Ok so it's not the lack of WMD's, now it's the type and amount didn't match what we were told...They had 6 months to hide/dispose them before we invaded.
Defense.gov News Article: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says

[spence]

Originally Posted by ecduzitgood

Who said what again? Is this a credible source or not?
Defense.gov News Article: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says

Credibility of the source isn't an issue. But I'd ask if you even read it?

The munitions addressed in the report were produced in the 1980s, Maples said. Badly corroded, they could not currently be used as originally intended, Chu added.

If anything this should be classified as a Superfund site, not used as justification for a very long and costly war.

-spence

[ecduzitgood]

Originally Posted by spence

Credibility of the source isn't an issue. But I'd ask if you even read it?



If anything this should be classified as a Superfund site, not used as justification for a very long and costly war.

-spence

Were there WMD or not? The left simply will not admit there were WMD's because they are to concerned with deflecting and changing the parameters of their previous accusations.

They had 6 months to hide/dispose of the majority of WMD's before we invaded, could it be possible they moved them and perhaps even altered the areas that the inspectors weren't allowed to search after they knew it was imminent that we would invade?

If your answer to either of these questions is not a yes or no I am done with this discussion, I am not going to read through a bunch of BS...as they say "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance baffle them with BS" please dazzle me with a simple yes or no with a minimum amount of BS..

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by ecduzitgood

Who said what again? Is this a credible source or not? Ok so it's not the lack of WMD's, now it's the type and amount didn't match what we were told...They had 6 months to hide/dispose them before we invaded.
Defense.gov News Article: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says

Did you read it?

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Joe

They did have WMD, but they did not release evidence to the extent to which they had them. I know somebody who was involved personally.

By the way, that contradicts what George Tenent and David Kay testified to the senate arms committee.

[spence]

Originally Posted by zimmy

By the way, that contradicts what George Tenent and David Kay testified to the senate arms committee.

Well, it pretty much contradicts what anyone who's investigated the matter has reported...even Dulfer.

This issue has been beaten to death

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

This issue has been beaten to death

-spence

I agree with Spence on this...please don't

[ecduzitgood]

It wouldn't have mattered what the reason was the left and the main stream media will never give the right any credit. They want to see the republicans gone, which I also would like by the way except I want them gone also.
Obama and the democrats had total control for 2 years and couldn't get squat accomplished because they had their eye's on the up coming elections and didn't want to take a chance of losing control.
This current president has spent more money than all previous presidents and yet he may get voted back in. What do you think is going to happen if he gets back in and the democrats regain total control?
Part of me would like to see this happen because I think it would in the end cause enormous damage to the democratic party for years to come, the other part of me fears what will happen to this country.
I want both parties gone and a complete over haul of the system starting with privatization of many public sector jobs.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Raven]

i still think they got moved to Syria
never ever! should our boots hit the ground there
nothin but a shell game

[ecduzitgood]

That song from Jeopardy is playing in my head.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Use the search, my opinion on the issue is well documented
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[ecduzitgood]

Originally Posted by spence

Use the search, my opinion on the issue is well documented
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And now your lack of ability to make a decision is documented
I will now refer you to the last line below this post , thanks for playing.

[spence]

There is no inability to make a decision, in fact the question has already been answered.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[ecduzitgood]

See I can say your right, a fine example of straight forward communication.

It's your inability to follow directions that is documented now which I mistook for your inability to make a decision, oh wait it's both come to think of it.

[ecduzitgood]

Isn't everyone biased? I suppose I am because I don't feel the need to invest my time searching for information to support your perspective, especially when I was considerate enough to save you the time searching for where I got my information, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised the left wants you to do the work for them.
I can only think of Nixon (R) off hand without looking into it, and I haven't looked up impeachment procedures either it just seemed to me if what you say was true it would be an impeachable offense.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by ecduzitgood

Isn't everyone biased? I suppose I am because I don't feel the need to invest my time searching for information to support your perspective, especially when I was considerate enough to save you the time searching for where I got my information, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised the left wants you to do the work for them.
I can only think of Nixon (R) off hand without looking into it, and I haven't looked up impeachment procedures either it just seemed to me if what you say was true it would be an impeachable offense.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It isn't about supporting my perspective. It is about the facts that came out after we invaded and the proposals by pnac before Bush was even elected. The scattered weapons found, by every account, were pre-Gulf war. Rumsfeld even admitted there was no wmd program. You may feel that you saved me the time by "searching... where I got my information." I spoke specifically to the points you made based on freely available information . It is not a question of you doing the work for me. The whole left/liberal spin you put on things is a bit comical. If you are curious, you can look into it. I suggest you start with Project for the New America and Cheney's role.

As an aside, two presidents were impeached: Andrew Johnson and Clinton. It is hard to do. You might remember what the circus was like with Clinton and that was a case of perjury about sex acts. A bit harder to prove Bush intentionally misrepresented the truth. More likely he was just simple minded enough to be bullied to do whatever Cheney suggested.

[ecduzitgood]

Originally Posted by zimmy

It isn't about supporting my perspective. It is about the facts that came out after we invaded and the proposals by pnac before Bush was even elected. The scattered weapons found, by every account, were pre-Gulf war. Rumsfeld even admitted there was no wmd program. You may feel that you saved me the time by "searching... where I got my information." I spoke specifically to the points you made based on freely available information . It is not a question of you doing the work for me. The whole left/liberal spin you put on things is a bit comical. If you are curious, you can look into it. I suggest you start with Project for the New America and Cheney's role.

As an aside, two presidents were impeached: Andrew Johnson and Clinton. It is hard to do. You might remember what the circus was like with Clinton and that was a case of perjury about sex acts. A bit harder to prove Bush intentionally misrepresented the truth. More likely he was just simple minded enough to be bullied to do whatever Cheney suggested.

It's not just me reading these post. I would think others who may be trying to follow the derailment into the no weapons of mass destruction found and Bush lied perspective that you proposed would also not be willing to look further. Even Spence who intimidates the hell out of me with his knowledge has probably left them wanting more substantiated points to show how incorrect I am but he chose to play games and lost my interest.

I thought Nixon was impeached but I guess I was wrong. I honestly don't like political discussions anymore and it is rare for me to stick my nose in here; primarily because of the round and round, chase your tail, I won't admit I may be wrong type of augments that I find from both sides, it's too frustrating. Nothing gets accomplished and I don't want to waste my time anymore. I would also have to start listening to both sides on the radio and the tv in order to be better prepared for the discussions, which never accomplish anything so it is just wasting more of my time.
I am nobody that can make any difference in anyones life and people who think of me otherwise are mistaken. I don't matter, and my opinion when you come right down to it shouldn't matter either. If anything my stupidity for getting involved in these discussions probably cause me more harm than good. I do hope people will find it entertaining at least reading my post and perhaps even post themselves, after all it's good for the site to have the traffic.
I may look into the impeachment issue because you have peaked my interest and I thank you for that. I believe this horse is dead now, yes?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by ecduzitgood

It's not just me reading these post. I would think others who may be trying to follow the derailment into the no weapons of mass destruction found and Bush lied perspective that you proposed would also not be willing to look further. Even Spence who intimidates the hell out of me with his knowledge has probably left them wanting more substantiated points to show how incorrect I am but he chose to play games and lost my interest.

I thought Nixon was impeached but I guess I was wrong. I honestly don't like political discussions anymore and it is rare for me to stick my nose in here; primarily because of the round and round, chase your tail, I won't admit I may be wrong type of augments that I find from both sides, it's too frustrating. Nothing gets accomplished and I don't want to waste my time anymore. I would also have to start listening to both sides on the radio and the tv in order to be better prepared for the discussions, which never accomplish anything so it is just wasting more of my time.
I am nobody that can make any difference in anyones life and people who think of me otherwise are mistaken. I don't matter, and my opinion when you come right down to it shouldn't matter either. If anything my stupidity for getting involved in these discussions probably cause me more harm than good. I do hope people will find it entertaining at least reading my post and perhaps even post themselves, after all it's good for the site to have the traffic.
I may look into the impeachment issue because you have peaked my interest and I thank you for that. I believe this horse is dead now, yes?

Don't underestimate yourself. Most Americans don't have even a small portion of interest in our political system that you're showing here. That you have the courage to express yourself, knowing there are other supposedly "wiser" people ready to rebut your opinions is the essence of the first ammendment, and if we don't use that freedom of speech to actually speak, we fall prey to the demagogues who think they know it all.

Your intuition is not wrong here. Nobody has "proved" that Bush lied in order to invade Iraq. There are no "facts" to support a "lie,"--just "evidence" that could mean whatever you wish it to mean. Only Bush knows if he lied. And you're right, there were a number of "reasons" to invade Iraq, not just WMD. And if he knew there weren't WMds, he would indeed have been incredibly stupid to declare there were then order his troops to search for them, KNOWING none would be found. PNAC certainly supported regime change, as did Clinton who signed the Iraq Liberation Act. But PNAC, I don't think, ever stated that there were no WMDs. All the so-called "facts" could imply the possibility of a lie, if one chose to conjure up that possibility, especially for political purposes. The fact that there was a great desire to remove Sadaam, by ALL SIDES, doesn't come close to even hinting that Bush lied. Without actual proof it's just politics--that high quality dirt that Spence likes.

What is amazing is that all the objectives of the Iraq Liberation Act that Clinton signed have, with that Irag war, been achieved. And here we are, still arguing about whether Bush lied or not. Some might say that eventually Sadaam would have been removed as have other dictators in the area, but others might say that Iraqi freedom may well have been a motivating force or, at least, a catalyst behind the "Arab Spring." Who knows? It certainly is farther advanced down the road to democracy, and maybe with a better chance to be free of Islamist Fundamentalist rule. Who knows?

Don't be intimidated. Keep on expressing your opinion.

[ecduzitgood]

Thanks detbuch, I just look at myself in the mirror and know if a book was written about me it wouldn't cost more than 44 cents to send in the mail.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Your intuition is not wrong here. Nobody has "proved" that Bush lied in order to invade Iraq. There are no "facts" to support a "lie,"--just "evidence" that could mean whatever you wish it to mean. Only Bush knows if he lied. And you're right, there were a number of "reasons" to invade Iraq, not just WMD. And if he knew there weren't WMds, he would indeed have been incredibly stupid to declare there were then order his troops to search for them, KNOWING none would be found. PNAC certainly supported regime change, as did Clinton who signed the Iraq Liberation Act. But PNAC, I don't think, ever stated that there were no WMDs. All the so-called "facts" could imply the possibility of a lie, if one chose to conjure up that possibility, especially for political purposes. The fact that there was a great desire to remove Sadaam, by ALL SIDES, doesn't come close to even hinting that Bush lied. Without actual proof it's just politics--that high quality dirt that Spence likes.

In the hundreds of pages of debates on this site over the years I've never asserted that Bush lied.

I do think he surrounded himself with people who were heavily biased towards war with Saddam. I also think he surrendered too much diligence to others without showing much curiosity to their processes.

The result was pretty disturbing. While the threat of WMD were used to justify the invasion to the general public, the real motivation was liberalization of the Middle East. The facts were indeed being fit around the policy...There's enough good investigation and first hand accounts to have a very clear picture of what really happened.

Yes, Clinton and a host of other prominent Democrats were bullish on regime change in the 1990's, but stopped short of using the US Military to demand it, nor did Clinton's scope ever go beyond Saddam.

What is amazing is that all the objectives of the Iraq Liberation Act that Clinton signed have, with that Irag war, been achieved.

Big difference, the Iraq Liberation Act forbid the direct use of force to achieve regime change. The Act provided a few million dollars in funding to aid resistance groups.

By contrast we've spent nearly a trillion dollars on Operation Iraqi Freedom and lost around 4500 personnel to create this fledgeling democratic institution...not very "amazing" in this context. If Iraq does maintain a peaceful democracy we may well be lucky...they've got a ways to go.

-spence

[Joe]

I think it had to be done. I don't agree with the method. Shock and Awe was just the blowing up of unoccupied government buildings. Going door-to-door clearing neighborhoods was very costly.
I think it comes down to what we can do, and what we shouldn't do. We could have bombed to a much greater extent. We elected not to, and instead engaged the enemy in such a way as to reduce civilian casualties, and then engaged in a protracted occupation which left a teetering democracy in its wake.
We could have gotten away with inflicting significantly more collateral civilian casualties and preserved our honor, rather than rely on torture. Torture inflicted upon a few is less honorable than collateral death imposed on many.
Iraq is little more than lines on a map drawn by colonial powers of the last century. The Iraqi people do not posses a national identity like the USA does. People are more aligned along tribal and religious lines. We should have let the Kurds have self-determination and their own country. If the Shia and the Sunnis can't live in peace together, then they should not live together. We should not have been so insistent on imposing a national unity that never existed of its own volition, but only under the iron rule of a dictatorship.
There had to have been a better way. Let's hope we can find it before the next occupation becomes necessary.