|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
bballfan4life
Star Player
Joined: 17 Sep 2005
Posts: 1307
Location: Sitting on top of the world... with my laptop!
|
 Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2006 1:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| angel wrote: | | bballfan4life wrote: | | Well it's always open for debate when 2 powerful nations attack another on thier own devices without a proper UN approved backing, shouldnt be a suprise... |
This wasn't about two nations. It was an International force going into Iraq, because UN resolutions were violated. We had our own interests, but we didn't go in alone. |
was such a thing ever approved by the UN? What portion of the ground forces were either nor american or british?
_________________
"this game doesnt build character; it reveals it so be strong in body clear in mind and lofty in your ideals."
RIP Jayden Odom |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Tony Montana
Star Player
Joined: 18 Apr 2005
Posts: 2962
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2006 1:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| angel wrote: | | bballfan4life wrote: | | Well it's always open for debate when 2 powerful nations attack another on thier own devices without a proper UN approved backing, shouldnt be a suprise... |
This wasn't about two nations. It was an International force going into Iraq, because UN resolutions were violated. We had our own interests, but we didn't go in alone. |
Hmmm....
We sure went in with a lot less help internationally than we did in '91.
Resolutions may have been violated, but that does not necessarily justify use of force at that time. U.N. resolutions are violated all the time. There were other avenues available... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
angel
Franchise Player
Joined: 31 Jul 2004
Posts: 14226
Location: city of angels
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2006 1:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ocho wrote: | | TheRod wrote: | | angel wrote: | | TheRod wrote: | | angel wrote: |
Again, it's a matter of public record what our intentions and reasoning for going into Iraq were. It was publically stated in advance. Saddam was clearly a monster, who had to be taken out. |
This I'm in agreement with. My only issue is that he should have been taken out 15 years ago in the first gulf war... I guess we just have a different point of view on history. It's also a little premature to discuss the Iraq War because we really can't put it into a proper context for lack of sources, and classified information. This discussion would be more productive 10-15 years from now. |
I believe part of the problem is that we didn't have scientific evidence to prove chemical weapons had been used to commit genocide on the Kurds in 1988 until after the First Gulf War. That evidence would not come until 1993, which is after the first Gulf War. It is the nature of a dictatorship that information is difficult to obtain. I think the Senior Bush thought they might be able to get the job done by bombings without getting into a costly ground war. An airstrike aimed at Muammar Gaddafi in Libya had been very effective in obliterating terrorist activities in that country. We haven't heard much from Gaddafi after that airstrike in 1986. When you see the cost of a ground war today, it is understandable why a quicker, easier and less costly approach was tried first. It made sense to try everything short of a ground war first. How popular would a ground war have been if airstrikes had not been tried? The agreements and violations by Saddam created a basis for invading Iraq. Did we really want a ground war if we could avoid it? These guys in the Middle East have been fighting for how long? It was a costly decision I wish didn't have to be made. I don't think we were ready to go in Iraq until after 9-11. In first Gulf War we had significant support from some of the Arab countries. Would they have supported an invasion of Iraq? They wanted Saddam neutered, but they didn't really want a more permanent US presence in Iraq. The US wanted International concensus and a quick and clean solution if possible. That didn't happen. |
After the first Gulf War, Iraq was essentially broken up into three distinct sections. Saddam lost a lot of his power grip over his country, losing the northern territory to Kurdish usurpers, and the south to the Shi'a majority. In order to re-consolidate his grip over the country Saddam assigned his son Qusay to the task of systematically murdering the Shi'a. It was genocide. The United States was aware of this, and did nothing about it until a few years after 9/11. That's the hipocracy that angers me the most. The united states claims that human rights violations was a driving force that initiated the Iraq war...well...where was this driving force 10 years ago, when the Shi'a and Kurds needed it most? America is not naieve...I'm certain that intelligence agents provided detailed reports on Saddam, his agenda, and his atrocities following the first gulf war, if not prior to that. That's the way that this country operates. |
not to mention the genocide in darfur that doesn't seem to bother us much. and i think it is funny when we bring up "human rights violations" while our president praises the virtues of torturing our prisoners.
check out this quote from George H.W. Bush re: the decision not to take out sadaam during the gulf war.
"Had we gone into Baghdad--we could have done it. You could have been there in 48 hours. And then what? Which sergeant, which private, whose life would be at stake in perhaps a fruitless hunt in an urban guerilla war to find the most secure dictator in the world? Whose life would be on my hands as the commander-in-chief because I, unilaterally, went beyond the international law, went beyond the stated mission, and said we're going to show our macho? We're going into Baghdad. We're going to be an occupying power--America in an Arab land--with no allies at our side. It would have been disastrous." |
Does the US have the resources to fight every wrong in the world at the same time? Aren't we busy enough with the war on terrorism without picking another fight?
_________________
"Darkness cannot drive out darkness. Only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate. Only love can do that." ~~Martin Luther King Jr.~~ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bballfan4life
Star Player
Joined: 17 Sep 2005
Posts: 1307
Location: Sitting on top of the world... with my laptop!
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2006 1:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| angel wrote: | | ocho wrote: | | TheRod wrote: | | angel wrote: | | TheRod wrote: | | angel wrote: |
Again, it's a matter of public record what our intentions and reasoning for going into Iraq were. It was publically stated in advance. Saddam was clearly a monster, who had to be taken out. |
This I'm in agreement with. My only issue is that he should have been taken out 15 years ago in the first gulf war... I guess we just have a different point of view on history. It's also a little premature to discuss the Iraq War because we really can't put it into a proper context for lack of sources, and classified information. This discussion would be more productive 10-15 years from now. |
I believe part of the problem is that we didn't have scientific evidence to prove chemical weapons had been used to commit genocide on the Kurds in 1988 until after the First Gulf War. That evidence would not come until 1993, which is after the first Gulf War. It is the nature of a dictatorship that information is difficult to obtain. I think the Senior Bush thought they might be able to get the job done by bombings without getting into a costly ground war. An airstrike aimed at Muammar Gaddafi in Libya had been very effective in obliterating terrorist activities in that country. We haven't heard much from Gaddafi after that airstrike in 1986. When you see the cost of a ground war today, it is understandable why a quicker, easier and less costly approach was tried first. It made sense to try everything short of a ground war first. How popular would a ground war have been if airstrikes had not been tried? The agreements and violations by Saddam created a basis for invading Iraq. Did we really want a ground war if we could avoid it? These guys in the Middle East have been fighting for how long? It was a costly decision I wish didn't have to be made. I don't think we were ready to go in Iraq until after 9-11. In first Gulf War we had significant support from some of the Arab countries. Would they have supported an invasion of Iraq? They wanted Saddam neutered, but they didn't really want a more permanent US presence in Iraq. The US wanted International concensus and a quick and clean solution if possible. That didn't happen. |
After the first Gulf War, Iraq was essentially broken up into three distinct sections. Saddam lost a lot of his power grip over his country, losing the northern territory to Kurdish usurpers, and the south to the Shi'a majority. In order to re-consolidate his grip over the country Saddam assigned his son Qusay to the task of systematically murdering the Shi'a. It was genocide. The United States was aware of this, and did nothing about it until a few years after 9/11. That's the hipocracy that angers me the most. The united states claims that human rights violations was a driving force that initiated the Iraq war...well...where was this driving force 10 years ago, when the Shi'a and Kurds needed it most? America is not naieve...I'm certain that intelligence agents provided detailed reports on Saddam, his agenda, and his atrocities following the first gulf war, if not prior to that. That's the way that this country operates. |
not to mention the genocide in darfur that doesn't seem to bother us much. and i think it is funny when we bring up "human rights violations" while our president praises the virtues of torturing our prisoners.
check out this quote from George H.W. Bush re: the decision not to take out sadaam during the gulf war.
"Had we gone into Baghdad--we could have done it. You could have been there in 48 hours. And then what? Which sergeant, which private, whose life would be at stake in perhaps a fruitless hunt in an urban guerilla war to find the most secure dictator in the world? Whose life would be on my hands as the commander-in-chief because I, unilaterally, went beyond the international law, went beyond the stated mission, and said we're going to show our macho? We're going into Baghdad. We're going to be an occupying power--America in an Arab land--with no allies at our side. It would have been disastrous." |
Does the US have the resources to fight every wrong in the world at the same time? Aren't we busy enough with the war on terrorism without picking another fight? |
Eh some would argue that was done when they invaded iraq or at least that resources could've been used better...
_________________
"this game doesnt build character; it reveals it so be strong in body clear in mind and lofty in your ideals."
RIP Jayden Odom |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
angel
Franchise Player
Joined: 31 Jul 2004
Posts: 14226
Location: city of angels
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2006 2:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | UNESCO gave Saddam an award. There were also ambitious drives to build schools, roads, public housing, and hospitals. Iraq created one of the best public-health systems in the Middle East. There was admiration in the West during those years, for Saddam's accomplishments if not for his methods. After the Islamic fundamentalist revolution in Iran, and the seizure of the U.S. embassy in Tehran in 1979, Saddam seemed to be the best hope for secular modernization in the region.
Tales of the Tyrant -- Atlantic Monthly Article Online |
| Quote: | Saddam was personally bestowed the highest United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) award for spreading literacy. Land reforms were strictly implemented, eliminating landlordism. The oil sector was nationalised, earning Iraq the enmity of the West. The revenues from the oil sector helped finance the ambitious programmes that the government had undertaken. Iraqis came to enjoy one of the highest standards of living in the region. The Iraqi dinar was among the strongest currencies in the world. --
The rise and fall of Saddam |
Saddam's award from the UN is also a matter of public record. Many did see him in a positive light. Granted, he was likely doing things behind the scenes that were bad we didn't know about, but early in the game, he was getting some good press. Saddam was viewed as better than those in Iran who had taken American hostages. What is at issue is not whether or not Saddam was good by American standards. He lived in a rough neighborhood. His International image was good. It goes back to the question why we were arming him. He was our ally. They would not have given him the UN award if he had a bunch of human rights violations on file. When we helped him, he was viewed in a more positive light.
_________________
"Darkness cannot drive out darkness. Only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate. Only love can do that." ~~Martin Luther King Jr.~~ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ocho
Retired Number
Joined: 24 May 2005
Posts: 53929
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2006 2:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| angel wrote: | | ocho wrote: | | TheRod wrote: | | angel wrote: | | TheRod wrote: | | angel wrote: |
Again, it's a matter of public record what our intentions and reasoning for going into Iraq were. It was publically stated in advance. Saddam was clearly a monster, who had to be taken out. |
This I'm in agreement with. My only issue is that he should have been taken out 15 years ago in the first gulf war... I guess we just have a different point of view on history. It's also a little premature to discuss the Iraq War because we really can't put it into a proper context for lack of sources, and classified information. This discussion would be more productive 10-15 years from now. |
I believe part of the problem is that we didn't have scientific evidence to prove chemical weapons had been used to commit genocide on the Kurds in 1988 until after the First Gulf War. That evidence would not come until 1993, which is after the first Gulf War. It is the nature of a dictatorship that information is difficult to obtain. I think the Senior Bush thought they might be able to get the job done by bombings without getting into a costly ground war. An airstrike aimed at Muammar Gaddafi in Libya had been very effective in obliterating terrorist activities in that country. We haven't heard much from Gaddafi after that airstrike in 1986. When you see the cost of a ground war today, it is understandable why a quicker, easier and less costly approach was tried first. It made sense to try everything short of a ground war first. How popular would a ground war have been if airstrikes had not been tried? The agreements and violations by Saddam created a basis for invading Iraq. Did we really want a ground war if we could avoid it? These guys in the Middle East have been fighting for how long? It was a costly decision I wish didn't have to be made. I don't think we were ready to go in Iraq until after 9-11. In first Gulf War we had significant support from some of the Arab countries. Would they have supported an invasion of Iraq? They wanted Saddam neutered, but they didn't really want a more permanent US presence in Iraq. The US wanted International concensus and a quick and clean solution if possible. That didn't happen. |
After the first Gulf War, Iraq was essentially broken up into three distinct sections. Saddam lost a lot of his power grip over his country, losing the northern territory to Kurdish usurpers, and the south to the Shi'a majority. In order to re-consolidate his grip over the country Saddam assigned his son Qusay to the task of systematically murdering the Shi'a. It was genocide. The United States was aware of this, and did nothing about it until a few years after 9/11. That's the hipocracy that angers me the most. The united states claims that human rights violations was a driving force that initiated the Iraq war...well...where was this driving force 10 years ago, when the Shi'a and Kurds needed it most? America is not naieve...I'm certain that intelligence agents provided detailed reports on Saddam, his agenda, and his atrocities following the first gulf war, if not prior to that. That's the way that this country operates. |
not to mention the genocide in darfur that doesn't seem to bother us much. and i think it is funny when we bring up "human rights violations" while our president praises the virtues of torturing our prisoners.
check out this quote from George H.W. Bush re: the decision not to take out sadaam during the gulf war.
"Had we gone into Baghdad--we could have done it. You could have been there in 48 hours. And then what? Which sergeant, which private, whose life would be at stake in perhaps a fruitless hunt in an urban guerilla war to find the most secure dictator in the world? Whose life would be on my hands as the commander-in-chief because I, unilaterally, went beyond the international law, went beyond the stated mission, and said we're going to show our macho? We're going into Baghdad. We're going to be an occupying power--America in an Arab land--with no allies at our side. It would have been disastrous." |
Does the US have the resources to fight every wrong in the world at the same time? Aren't we busy enough with the war on terrorism without picking another fight? |
no of course not. which is why you have to be very careful in the fights you pick. when there are greater atrocities, and greater threats....and you sink THIS much money and lose THIS many lives, it starts to look like a giant mistake. when you don't anticipate what happens after you invade and take over the government, it starts to look like the people in charge are not the right people. more care needs to be taken so mistakes like this don't continue, and leaders need to be selected who do not dig the hole deeper out of stubbornness in "staying the course" when it has been established that that plan doesn't work.
_________________
14-5-3-12 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
angel
Franchise Player
Joined: 31 Jul 2004
Posts: 14226
Location: city of angels
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2006 2:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Tony Montana wrote: | | angel wrote: | | bballfan4life wrote: | | Well it's always open for debate when 2 powerful nations attack another on thier own devices without a proper UN approved backing, shouldnt be a suprise... |
This wasn't about two nations. It was an International force going into Iraq, because UN resolutions were violated. We had our own interests, but we didn't go in alone. |
Hmmm....
We sure went in with a lot less help internationally than we did in '91.
Resolutions may have been violated, but that does not necessarily justify use of force at that time. U.N. resolutions are violated all the time. There were other avenues available... |
We had more International support the first time, because the scope of the mission was more limited. The plan was heavy bombardment. Even our allies in the region don't like the idea of an invasion and occupation. It's messy. It's expensive.
_________________
"Darkness cannot drive out darkness. Only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate. Only love can do that." ~~Martin Luther King Jr.~~ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ocho
Retired Number
Joined: 24 May 2005
Posts: 53929
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2006 2:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| angel wrote: | | Tony Montana wrote: | | angel wrote: | | bballfan4life wrote: | | Well it's always open for debate when 2 powerful nations attack another on thier own devices without a proper UN approved backing, shouldnt be a suprise... |
This wasn't about two nations. It was an International force going into Iraq, because UN resolutions were violated. We had our own interests, but we didn't go in alone. |
Hmmm....
We sure went in with a lot less help internationally than we did in '91.
Resolutions may have been violated, but that does not necessarily justify use of force at that time. U.N. resolutions are violated all the time. There were other avenues available... |
We had more International support the first time, because the scope of the mission was more limited. The plan was heavy bombardment. Even our allies in the region don't like the idea of an invasion and occupation. It's messy. It's expensive. |
well when bush's own father recognizes that it's a mistake to invade baghdad...can you blame the international community for not wanting to take part in this disaster?
_________________
14-5-3-12 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TACH
Retired Number
Joined: 03 Nov 2005
Posts: 28461
Location: Chillin on the Delaware.. from the Jersey Side
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2006 2:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Bottomline.... we had no business going into Iraqi. Sadddam was an evil ma before 9-11,... how come we did invade then? This Administration used 9-11 to justify going into Iraqi. Mean while, the mastermind behind 9-11 is still free.
Saddam was not a threat to the US.
Link - Checkout Chapters 2 and 3....
Last edited by TACH on Sun Dec 31, 2006 2:59 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
angel
Franchise Player
Joined: 31 Jul 2004
Posts: 14226
Location: city of angels
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2006 2:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ocho wrote: | | angel wrote: | | ocho wrote: | | TheRod wrote: | | angel wrote: | | TheRod wrote: | | angel wrote: |
Again, it's a matter of public record what our intentions and reasoning for going into Iraq were. It was publically stated in advance. Saddam was clearly a monster, who had to be taken out. |
This I'm in agreement with. My only issue is that he should have been taken out 15 years ago in the first gulf war... I guess we just have a different point of view on history. It's also a little premature to discuss the Iraq War because we really can't put it into a proper context for lack of sources, and classified information. This discussion would be more productive 10-15 years from now. |
I believe part of the problem is that we didn't have scientific evidence to prove chemical weapons had been used to commit genocide on the Kurds in 1988 until after the First Gulf War. That evidence would not come until 1993, which is after the first Gulf War. It is the nature of a dictatorship that information is difficult to obtain. I think the Senior Bush thought they might be able to get the job done by bombings without getting into a costly ground war. An airstrike aimed at Muammar Gaddafi in Libya had been very effective in obliterating terrorist activities in that country. We haven't heard much from Gaddafi after that airstrike in 1986. When you see the cost of a ground war today, it is understandable why a quicker, easier and less costly approach was tried first. It made sense to try everything short of a ground war first. How popular would a ground war have been if airstrikes had not been tried? The agreements and violations by Saddam created a basis for invading Iraq. Did we really want a ground war if we could avoid it? These guys in the Middle East have been fighting for how long? It was a costly decision I wish didn't have to be made. I don't think we were ready to go in Iraq until after 9-11. In first Gulf War we had significant support from some of the Arab countries. Would they have supported an invasion of Iraq? They wanted Saddam neutered, but they didn't really want a more permanent US presence in Iraq. The US wanted International concensus and a quick and clean solution if possible. That didn't happen. |
After the first Gulf War, Iraq was essentially broken up into three distinct sections. Saddam lost a lot of his power grip over his country, losing the northern territory to Kurdish usurpers, and the south to the Shi'a majority. In order to re-consolidate his grip over the country Saddam assigned his son Qusay to the task of systematically murdering the Shi'a. It was genocide. The United States was aware of this, and did nothing about it until a few years after 9/11. That's the hipocracy that angers me the most. The united states claims that human rights violations was a driving force that initiated the Iraq war...well...where was this driving force 10 years ago, when the Shi'a and Kurds needed it most? America is not naieve...I'm certain that intelligence agents provided detailed reports on Saddam, his agenda, and his atrocities following the first gulf war, if not prior to that. That's the way that this country operates. |
not to mention the genocide in darfur that doesn't seem to bother us much. and i think it is funny when we bring up "human rights violations" while our president praises the virtues of torturing our prisoners.
check out this quote from George H.W. Bush re: the decision not to take out sadaam during the gulf war.
"Had we gone into Baghdad--we could have done it. You could have been there in 48 hours. And then what? Which sergeant, which private, whose life would be at stake in perhaps a fruitless hunt in an urban guerilla war to find the most secure dictator in the world? Whose life would be on my hands as the commander-in-chief because I, unilaterally, went beyond the international law, went beyond the stated mission, and said we're going to show our macho? We're going into Baghdad. We're going to be an occupying power--America in an Arab land--with no allies at our side. It would have been disastrous." |
Does the US have the resources to fight every wrong in the world at the same time? Aren't we busy enough with the war on terrorism without picking another fight? |
no of course not. which is why you have to be very careful in the fights you pick. when there are greater atrocities, and greater threats....and you sink THIS much money and lose THIS many lives, it starts to look like a giant mistake. when you don't anticipate what happens after you invade and take over the government, it starts to look like the people in charge are not the right people. more care needs to be taken so mistakes like this don't continue, and leaders need to be selected who do not dig the hole deeper out of stubbornness in "staying the course" when it has been established that that plan doesn't work. |
Be my guest. Build a case for why we should be in Dafur instead of Iraq. Why is it in our national interests more than Iraq? Are there terrorist ttraining bases there? Is there state sponsored terrorism there?
_________________
"Darkness cannot drive out darkness. Only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate. Only love can do that." ~~Martin Luther King Jr.~~ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ocho
Retired Number
Joined: 24 May 2005
Posts: 53929
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2006 3:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| angel wrote: | | ocho wrote: | | angel wrote: | | ocho wrote: | | TheRod wrote: | | angel wrote: | | TheRod wrote: | | angel wrote: |
Again, it's a matter of public record what our intentions and reasoning for going into Iraq were. It was publically stated in advance. Saddam was clearly a monster, who had to be taken out. |
This I'm in agreement with. My only issue is that he should have been taken out 15 years ago in the first gulf war... I guess we just have a different point of view on history. It's also a little premature to discuss the Iraq War because we really can't put it into a proper context for lack of sources, and classified information. This discussion would be more productive 10-15 years from now. |
I believe part of the problem is that we didn't have scientific evidence to prove chemical weapons had been used to commit genocide on the Kurds in 1988 until after the First Gulf War. That evidence would not come until 1993, which is after the first Gulf War. It is the nature of a dictatorship that information is difficult to obtain. I think the Senior Bush thought they might be able to get the job done by bombings without getting into a costly ground war. An airstrike aimed at Muammar Gaddafi in Libya had been very effective in obliterating terrorist activities in that country. We haven't heard much from Gaddafi after that airstrike in 1986. When you see the cost of a ground war today, it is understandable why a quicker, easier and less costly approach was tried first. It made sense to try everything short of a ground war first. How popular would a ground war have been if airstrikes had not been tried? The agreements and violations by Saddam created a basis for invading Iraq. Did we really want a ground war if we could avoid it? These guys in the Middle East have been fighting for how long? It was a costly decision I wish didn't have to be made. I don't think we were ready to go in Iraq until after 9-11. In first Gulf War we had significant support from some of the Arab countries. Would they have supported an invasion of Iraq? They wanted Saddam neutered, but they didn't really want a more permanent US presence in Iraq. The US wanted International concensus and a quick and clean solution if possible. That didn't happen. |
After the first Gulf War, Iraq was essentially broken up into three distinct sections. Saddam lost a lot of his power grip over his country, losing the northern territory to Kurdish usurpers, and the south to the Shi'a majority. In order to re-consolidate his grip over the country Saddam assigned his son Qusay to the task of systematically murdering the Shi'a. It was genocide. The United States was aware of this, and did nothing about it until a few years after 9/11. That's the hipocracy that angers me the most. The united states claims that human rights violations was a driving force that initiated the Iraq war...well...where was this driving force 10 years ago, when the Shi'a and Kurds needed it most? America is not naieve...I'm certain that intelligence agents provided detailed reports on Saddam, his agenda, and his atrocities following the first gulf war, if not prior to that. That's the way that this country operates. |
not to mention the genocide in darfur that doesn't seem to bother us much. and i think it is funny when we bring up "human rights violations" while our president praises the virtues of torturing our prisoners.
check out this quote from George H.W. Bush re: the decision not to take out sadaam during the gulf war.
"Had we gone into Baghdad--we could have done it. You could have been there in 48 hours. And then what? Which sergeant, which private, whose life would be at stake in perhaps a fruitless hunt in an urban guerilla war to find the most secure dictator in the world? Whose life would be on my hands as the commander-in-chief because I, unilaterally, went beyond the international law, went beyond the stated mission, and said we're going to show our macho? We're going into Baghdad. We're going to be an occupying power--America in an Arab land--with no allies at our side. It would have been disastrous." |
Does the US have the resources to fight every wrong in the world at the same time? Aren't we busy enough with the war on terrorism without picking another fight? |
no of course not. which is why you have to be very careful in the fights you pick. when there are greater atrocities, and greater threats....and you sink THIS much money and lose THIS many lives, it starts to look like a giant mistake. when you don't anticipate what happens after you invade and take over the government, it starts to look like the people in charge are not the right people. more care needs to be taken so mistakes like this don't continue, and leaders need to be selected who do not dig the hole deeper out of stubbornness in "staying the course" when it has been established that that plan doesn't work. |
Be my guest. Build a case for why we should be in Dafur instead of Iraq. Why is it in our national interests more than Iraq? Are there terrorist ttraining bases there? Is there state sponsored terrorism there? |
you missed my point. i was addressing the fact that an excuse to go to war was that there were human rights violations going on. there are far greater examples of human rights violations going on throughout the world but we chose iraq.
i understand the ideals for going into iraq. i understand that they thought they could accomplish great things and we'd be greeted as liberators, and we'd find the weapons, and we could do it with a small amount of troops and the middle east would all of a sudden abandon every thing they stand for and their entire culture and just adopt democracy etc. i get that they thought that and i get that they could use a number of things for justification. the problem is they were wrong. and now they refuse to admit they were wrong, and rely on platitudes instead of having an honest discourse with americans about the problem that's costing us billions of dollars and thousands of lives.
_________________
14-5-3-12 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
angel
Franchise Player
Joined: 31 Jul 2004
Posts: 14226
Location: city of angels
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2006 3:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ocho wrote: | | angel wrote: | | Tony Montana wrote: | | angel wrote: | | bballfan4life wrote: | | Well it's always open for debate when 2 powerful nations attack another on thier own devices without a proper UN approved backing, shouldnt be a suprise... |
This wasn't about two nations. It was an International force going into Iraq, because UN resolutions were violated. We had our own interests, but we didn't go in alone. |
Hmmm....
We sure went in with a lot less help internationally than we did in '91.
Resolutions may have been violated, but that does not necessarily justify use of force at that time. U.N. resolutions are violated all the time. There were other avenues available... |
We had more International support the first time, because the scope of the mission was more limited. The plan was heavy bombardment. Even our allies in the region don't like the idea of an invasion and occupation. It's messy. It's expensive. |
well when bush's own father recognizes that it's a mistake to invade baghdad...can you blame the international community for not wanting to take part in this disaster? |
You are taking the Senior Bush out of context. He wasn't referring to the second Gulf War, but the first. He was referring to his mission in the first. If the first Gulf War had achieved all of the objectives, why would there be a second? It's like a player, who hoped he would recover by the beginning of the regular season. It didn't work. He had to go back for another surgery with another surgeon doing more than was done the first time.
_________________
"Darkness cannot drive out darkness. Only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate. Only love can do that." ~~Martin Luther King Jr.~~ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ocho
Retired Number
Joined: 24 May 2005
Posts: 53929
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2006 3:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| angel wrote: | | ocho wrote: | | angel wrote: | | Tony Montana wrote: | | angel wrote: | | bballfan4life wrote: | | Well it's always open for debate when 2 powerful nations attack another on thier own devices without a proper UN approved backing, shouldnt be a suprise... |
This wasn't about two nations. It was an International force going into Iraq, because UN resolutions were violated. We had our own interests, but we didn't go in alone. |
Hmmm....
We sure went in with a lot less help internationally than we did in '91.
Resolutions may have been violated, but that does not necessarily justify use of force at that time. U.N. resolutions are violated all the time. There were other avenues available... |
We had more International support the first time, because the scope of the mission was more limited. The plan was heavy bombardment. Even our allies in the region don't like the idea of an invasion and occupation. It's messy. It's expensive. |
well when bush's own father recognizes that it's a mistake to invade baghdad...can you blame the international community for not wanting to take part in this disaster? |
You are taking the Senior Bush out of context. He wasn't referring to the second Gulf War, but the first. He was referring to his mission in the first. If the first Gulf War had achieved all of the objectives, why would there be a second? It's like a player, who hoped he would recover by the beginning of the regular season. It didn't work. He had to go back for another surgery with another surgeon doing more than was done the first time. |
...and in the process rupturing arteries and making his injury worse than before.
_________________
14-5-3-12 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ocho
Retired Number
Joined: 24 May 2005
Posts: 53929
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2006 3:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
angel- honest question. what do you feel we have accomplished there? and was it worth the amount of money spent and the amount of blood spilled? do you think that other middle east countries will adopt democracy as originally hoped by the US? do you think our post-war strategy was successful? do you think its a good idea to "stay until the job is done" even when you've been told by the baker comission and several decorated generals that the strategy simply is not working?
_________________
14-5-3-12 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
angel
Franchise Player
Joined: 31 Jul 2004
Posts: 14226
Location: city of angels
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2006 3:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ocho wrote: | | angel wrote: | | ocho wrote: | | angel wrote: | | ocho wrote: | | TheRod wrote: | | angel wrote: | | TheRod wrote: | | angel wrote: |
Again, it's a matter of public record what our intentions and reasoning for going into Iraq were. It was publically stated in advance. Saddam was clearly a monster, who had to be taken out. |
This I'm in agreement with. My only issue is that he should have been taken out 15 years ago in the first gulf war... I guess we just have a different point of view on history. It's also a little premature to discuss the Iraq War because we really can't put it into a proper context for lack of sources, and classified information. This discussion would be more productive 10-15 years from now. |
I believe part of the problem is that we didn't have scientific evidence to prove chemical weapons had been used to commit genocide on the Kurds in 1988 until after the First Gulf War. That evidence would not come until 1993, which is after the first Gulf War. It is the nature of a dictatorship that information is difficult to obtain. I think the Senior Bush thought they might be able to get the job done by bombings without getting into a costly ground war. An airstrike aimed at Muammar Gaddafi in Libya had been very effective in obliterating terrorist activities in that country. We haven't heard much from Gaddafi after that airstrike in 1986. When you see the cost of a ground war today, it is understandable why a quicker, easier and less costly approach was tried first. It made sense to try everything short of a ground war first. How popular would a ground war have been if airstrikes had not been tried? The agreements and violations by Saddam created a basis for invading Iraq. Did we really want a ground war if we could avoid it? These guys in the Middle East have been fighting for how long? It was a costly decision I wish didn't have to be made. I don't think we were ready to go in Iraq until after 9-11. In first Gulf War we had significant support from some of the Arab countries. Would they have supported an invasion of Iraq? They wanted Saddam neutered, but they didn't really want a more permanent US presence in Iraq. The US wanted International concensus and a quick and clean solution if possible. That didn't happen. |
After the first Gulf War, Iraq was essentially broken up into three distinct sections. Saddam lost a lot of his power grip over his country, losing the northern territory to Kurdish usurpers, and the south to the Shi'a majority. In order to re-consolidate his grip over the country Saddam assigned his son Qusay to the task of systematically murdering the Shi'a. It was genocide. The United States was aware of this, and did nothing about it until a few years after 9/11. That's the hipocracy that angers me the most. The united states claims that human rights violations was a driving force that initiated the Iraq war...well...where was this driving force 10 years ago, when the Shi'a and Kurds needed it most? America is not naieve...I'm certain that intelligence agents provided detailed reports on Saddam, his agenda, and his atrocities following the first gulf war, if not prior to that. That's the way that this country operates. |
not to mention the genocide in darfur that doesn't seem to bother us much. and i think it is funny when we bring up "human rights violations" while our president praises the virtues of torturing our prisoners.
check out this quote from George H.W. Bush re: the decision not to take out sadaam during the gulf war.
"Had we gone into Baghdad--we could have done it. You could have been there in 48 hours. And then what? Which sergeant, which private, whose life would be at stake in perhaps a fruitless hunt in an urban guerilla war to find the most secure dictator in the world? Whose life would be on my hands as the commander-in-chief because I, unilaterally, went beyond the international law, went beyond the stated mission, and said we're going to show our macho? We're going into Baghdad. We're going to be an occupying power--America in an Arab land--with no allies at our side. It would have been disastrous." |
Does the US have the resources to fight every wrong in the world at the same time? Aren't we busy enough with the war on terrorism without picking another fight? |
no of course not. which is why you have to be very careful in the fights you pick. when there are greater atrocities, and greater threats....and you sink THIS much money and lose THIS many lives, it starts to look like a giant mistake. when you don't anticipate what happens after you invade and take over the government, it starts to look like the people in charge are not the right people. more care needs to be taken so mistakes like this don't continue, and leaders need to be selected who do not dig the hole deeper out of stubbornness in "staying the course" when it has been established that that plan doesn't work. |
Be my guest. Build a case for why we should be in Dafur instead of Iraq. Why is it in our national interests more than Iraq? Are there terrorist ttraining bases there? Is there state sponsored terrorism there? |
you missed my point. i was addressing the fact that an excuse to go to war was that there were human rights violations going on. there are far greater examples of human rights violations going on throughout the world but we chose iraq.
i understand the ideals for going into iraq. i understand that they thought they could accomplish great things and we'd be greeted as liberators, and we'd find the weapons, and we could do it with a small amount of troops and the middle east would all of a sudden abandon every thing they stand for and their entire culture and just adopt democracy etc. i get that they thought that and i get that they could use a number of things for justification. the problem is they were wrong. and now they refuse to admit they were wrong, and rely on platitudes instead of having an honest discourse with americans about the problem that's costing us billions of dollars and thousands of lives. |
You are making a staw man and then knocking him down. The US didn't expect it to be easy. They knew it would be a nasty job. That is why they first tried more strictly an air war in the first Gulf War. Some would greet the troops as liberators, but they did know there would be resistance. Why did they wear gas masks if they thought it would be easy? I don't think they expected every terrorist in the Middle East to hone in on Iraq, but they knew it would not be easy. I'm glad terrorist resources are being expended there, because we have not had to endure another 9-11 in the US.
_________________
"Darkness cannot drive out darkness. Only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate. Only love can do that." ~~Martin Luther King Jr.~~ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ocho
Retired Number
Joined: 24 May 2005
Posts: 53929
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2006 3:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
^^actually i do think they thought it would be easy in large part. that's why they didn't send enough troops, proclaimed "mission accomplished" early on and didn't plan for the inevitable civil war.
_________________
14-5-3-12 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
angel
Franchise Player
Joined: 31 Jul 2004
Posts: 14226
Location: city of angels
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2006 3:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ocho wrote: | | angel wrote: | | ocho wrote: | | angel wrote: | | Tony Montana wrote: | | angel wrote: | | bballfan4life wrote: | | Well it's always open for debate when 2 powerful nations attack another on thier own devices without a proper UN approved backing, shouldnt be a suprise... |
This wasn't about two nations. It was an International force going into Iraq, because UN resolutions were violated. We had our own interests, but we didn't go in alone. |
Hmmm....
We sure went in with a lot less help internationally than we did in '91.
Resolutions may have been violated, but that does not necessarily justify use of force at that time. U.N. resolutions are violated all the time. There were other avenues available... |
We had more International support the first time, because the scope of the mission was more limited. The plan was heavy bombardment. Even our allies in the region don't like the idea of an invasion and occupation. It's messy. It's expensive. |
well when bush's own father recognizes that it's a mistake to invade baghdad...can you blame the international community for not wanting to take part in this disaster? |
You are taking the Senior Bush out of context. He wasn't referring to the second Gulf War, but the first. He was referring to his mission in the first. If the first Gulf War had achieved all of the objectives, why would there be a second? It's like a player, who hoped he would recover by the beginning of the regular season. It didn't work. He had to go back for another surgery with another surgeon doing more than was done the first time. |
...and in the process rupturing arteries and making his injury worse than before. |
A more accurate description is the cancer of terrorism had spread more than could be contained by non-invasive therapy. Since it was a later stage than first thought, we had to go in to cut out the spreading malignancy.
_________________
"Darkness cannot drive out darkness. Only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate. Only love can do that." ~~Martin Luther King Jr.~~ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bballfan4life
Star Player
Joined: 17 Sep 2005
Posts: 1307
Location: Sitting on top of the world... with my laptop!
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2006 3:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
i'll answer the question about the middle east countries adopting democracies: Heck No!  My only sympathy is for the troops and thier families and all the innocent iraqis who arent radicals or terrorists, just people trying to live thier daily lives without fear and bloodshed and fear... This was part of what the Americans were to deliver. Sadly, i cant say they have. This adminstration has always made the point of bieng one that doesnt waver and from what i see that is playing in the part in the downfall as well. It'll be intersting to see how history remebers them, b/c they have done somne good things which will probably be overshadowed by this HUGE mistep they decided to take in a region that's always been volatile.... The one recurring image i have is George Bush stepping of that aircraft with that infamous "Mission Accomplished" banner in the background.  Where's your swagger now dubya?
_________________
"this game doesnt build character; it reveals it so be strong in body clear in mind and lofty in your ideals."
RIP Jayden Odom |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ocho
Retired Number
Joined: 24 May 2005
Posts: 53929
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2006 3:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| angel wrote: | | ocho wrote: | | angel wrote: | | ocho wrote: | | angel wrote: | | Tony Montana wrote: | | angel wrote: | | bballfan4life wrote: | | Well it's always open for debate when 2 powerful nations attack another on thier own devices without a proper UN approved backing, shouldnt be a suprise... |
This wasn't about two nations. It was an International force going into Iraq, because UN resolutions were violated. We had our own interests, but we didn't go in alone. |
Hmmm....
We sure went in with a lot less help internationally than we did in '91.
Resolutions may have been violated, but that does not necessarily justify use of force at that time. U.N. resolutions are violated all the time. There were other avenues available... |
We had more International support the first time, because the scope of the mission was more limited. The plan was heavy bombardment. Even our allies in the region don't like the idea of an invasion and occupation. It's messy. It's expensive. |
well when bush's own father recognizes that it's a mistake to invade baghdad...can you blame the international community for not wanting to take part in this disaster? |
You are taking the Senior Bush out of context. He wasn't referring to the second Gulf War, but the first. He was referring to his mission in the first. If the first Gulf War had achieved all of the objectives, why would there be a second? It's like a player, who hoped he would recover by the beginning of the regular season. It didn't work. He had to go back for another surgery with another surgeon doing more than was done the first time. |
...and in the process rupturing arteries and making his injury worse than before. |
A more accurate description is the cancer of terrorism had spread more than could be contained by non-invasive therapy. Since it was a later stage than first thought, we had to go in to cut out the spreading malignancy. |
how exactly did we stop terrorism? there aren't terrorists in iraq now? new terrorists aren't created every day by our actions?
you can't stop terrorism. you can't invade it. it's an idea. the only way to deal with it is to protect the homeland which we are not doing very well.
_________________
14-5-3-12 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bballfan4life
Star Player
Joined: 17 Sep 2005
Posts: 1307
Location: Sitting on top of the world... with my laptop!
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2006 3:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| angel wrote: | | ocho wrote: | | angel wrote: | | ocho wrote: | | angel wrote: | | ocho wrote: | | TheRod wrote: | | angel wrote: | | TheRod wrote: | | angel wrote: |
Again, it's a matter of public record what our intentions and reasoning for going into Iraq were. It was publically stated in advance. Saddam was clearly a monster, who had to be taken out. |
This I'm in agreement with. My only issue is that he should have been taken out 15 years ago in the first gulf war... I guess we just have a different point of view on history. It's also a little premature to discuss the Iraq War because we really can't put it into a proper context for lack of sources, and classified information. This discussion would be more productive 10-15 years from now. |
I believe part of the problem is that we didn't have scientific evidence to prove chemical weapons had been used to commit genocide on the Kurds in 1988 until after the First Gulf War. That evidence would not come until 1993, which is after the first Gulf War. It is the nature of a dictatorship that information is difficult to obtain. I think the Senior Bush thought they might be able to get the job done by bombings without getting into a costly ground war. An airstrike aimed at Muammar Gaddafi in Libya had been very effective in obliterating terrorist activities in that country. We haven't heard much from Gaddafi after that airstrike in 1986. When you see the cost of a ground war today, it is understandable why a quicker, easier and less costly approach was tried first. It made sense to try everything short of a ground war first. How popular would a ground war have been if airstrikes had not been tried? The agreements and violations by Saddam created a basis for invading Iraq. Did we really want a ground war if we could avoid it? These guys in the Middle East have been fighting for how long? It was a costly decision I wish didn't have to be made. I don't think we were ready to go in Iraq until after 9-11. In first Gulf War we had significant support from some of the Arab countries. Would they have supported an invasion of Iraq? They wanted Saddam neutered, but they didn't really want a more permanent US presence in Iraq. The US wanted International concensus and a quick and clean solution if possible. That didn't happen. |
After the first Gulf War, Iraq was essentially broken up into three distinct sections. Saddam lost a lot of his power grip over his country, losing the northern territory to Kurdish usurpers, and the south to the Shi'a majority. In order to re-consolidate his grip over the country Saddam assigned his son Qusay to the task of systematically murdering the Shi'a. It was genocide. The United States was aware of this, and did nothing about it until a few years after 9/11. That's the hipocracy that angers me the most. The united states claims that human rights violations was a driving force that initiated the Iraq war...well...where was this driving force 10 years ago, when the Shi'a and Kurds needed it most? America is not naieve...I'm certain that intelligence agents provided detailed reports on Saddam, his agenda, and his atrocities following the first gulf war, if not prior to that. That's the way that this country operates. |
not to mention the genocide in darfur that doesn't seem to bother us much. and i think it is funny when we bring up "human rights violations" while our president praises the virtues of torturing our prisoners.
check out this quote from George H.W. Bush re: the decision not to take out sadaam during the gulf war.
"Had we gone into Baghdad--we could have done it. You could have been there in 48 hours. And then what? Which sergeant, which private, whose life would be at stake in perhaps a fruitless hunt in an urban guerilla war to find the most secure dictator in the world? Whose life would be on my hands as the commander-in-chief because I, unilaterally, went beyond the international law, went beyond the stated mission, and said we're going to show our macho? We're going into Baghdad. We're going to be an occupying power--America in an Arab land--with no allies at our side. It would have been disastrous." |
Does the US have the resources to fight every wrong in the world at the same time? Aren't we busy enough with the war on terrorism without picking another fight? |
no of course not. which is why you have to be very careful in the fights you pick. when there are greater atrocities, and greater threats....and you sink THIS much money and lose THIS many lives, it starts to look like a giant mistake. when you don't anticipate what happens after you invade and take over the government, it starts to look like the people in charge are not the right people. more care needs to be taken so mistakes like this don't continue, and leaders need to be selected who do not dig the hole deeper out of stubbornness in "staying the course" when it has been established that that plan doesn't work. |
Be my guest. Build a case for why we should be in Dafur instead of Iraq. Why is it in our national interests more than Iraq? Are there terrorist ttraining bases there? Is there state sponsored terrorism there? |
you missed my point. i was addressing the fact that an excuse to go to war was that there were human rights violations going on. there are far greater examples of human rights violations going on throughout the world but we chose iraq.
i understand the ideals for going into iraq. i understand that they thought they could accomplish great things and we'd be greeted as liberators, and we'd find the weapons, and we could do it with a small amount of troops and the middle east would all of a sudden abandon every thing they stand for and their entire culture and just adopt democracy etc. i get that they thought that and i get that they could use a number of things for justification. the problem is they were wrong. and now they refuse to admit they were wrong, and rely on platitudes instead of having an honest discourse with americans about the problem that's costing us billions of dollars and thousands of lives. |
You are making a staw man and then knocking him down. The US didn't expect it to be easy. They knew it would be a nasty job. That is why they first tried more strictly an air war in the first Gulf War. Some would greet the troops as liberators, but they did know there would be resistance. Why did they wear gas masks if they thought it would be easy? I don't think they expected every terrorist in the Middle East to hone in on Iraq, but they knew it would not be easy. I'm glad terrorist resources are being expended there, because we have not had to endure another 9-11 in the US. |
i beg to differ. If they did NOT think this was going to be a quick easy thing, how do you explain bieng woefully unprepared for the aftermath. What a country with different fractions with deep rooted resentment would just all of a sudden start getting along b/c you've 'saved' them from a tyrant? 
_________________
"this game doesnt build character; it reveals it so be strong in body clear in mind and lofty in your ideals."
RIP Jayden Odom |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ocho
Retired Number
Joined: 24 May 2005
Posts: 53929
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2006 3:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bballfan4life wrote: | | i'll answer the question about the middle east countries adopting democracies: Heck No! My only sympathy is for the troops and thier families and all the innocent iraqis who arent radicals or terrorists, just people trying to live thier daily lives without fear and bloodshed and fear... This was part of what the Americans were to deliver. Sadly, i cant say they have. This adminstration has always made the point of bieng one that doesnt waver and from what i see that is playing in the part in the downfall as well. It'll be intersting to see how history remebers them, b/c they have done somne good things which will probably be overshadowed by this HUGE mistep they decided to take in a region that's always been volatile.... The one recurring image i have is George Bush stepping of that aircraft with that infamous "Mission Accomplished" banner in the background. Where's your swagger now dubya? |
i think we were a bit arrogant in assuming not only that democracy would spread in that region...but that they would want it in the first place!
_________________
14-5-3-12 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bballfan4life
Star Player
Joined: 17 Sep 2005
Posts: 1307
Location: Sitting on top of the world... with my laptop!
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2006 3:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ocho wrote: | | bballfan4life wrote: | | i'll answer the question about the middle east countries adopting democracies: Heck No! My only sympathy is for the troops and thier families and all the innocent iraqis who arent radicals or terrorists, just people trying to live thier daily lives without fear and bloodshed and fear... This was part of what the Americans were to deliver. Sadly, i cant say they have. This adminstration has always made the point of bieng one that doesnt waver and from what i see that is playing in the part in the downfall as well. It'll be intersting to see how history remebers them, b/c they have done somne good things which will probably be overshadowed by this HUGE mistep they decided to take in a region that's always been volatile.... The one recurring image i have is George Bush stepping of that aircraft with that infamous "Mission Accomplished" banner in the background. Where's your swagger now dubya? |
i think we were a bit arrogant in assuming not only that democracy would spread in that region...but that they would want it in the first place! |
 it's almost like assuming most of them were some sorta savages who just needed to see the light... I think not 
_________________
"this game doesnt build character; it reveals it so be strong in body clear in mind and lofty in your ideals."
RIP Jayden Odom
Last edited by bballfan4life on Sun Dec 31, 2006 3:43 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ocho
Retired Number
Joined: 24 May 2005
Posts: 53929
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2006 3:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bballfan4life wrote: | | ocho wrote: | | bballfan4life wrote: | | i'll answer the question about the middle east countries adopting democracies: Heck No! My only sympathy is for the troops and thier families and all the innocent iraqis who arent radicals or terrorists, just people trying to live thier daily lives without fear and bloodshed and fear... This was part of what the Americans were to deliver. Sadly, i cant say they have. This adminstration has always made the point of bieng one that doesnt waver and from what i see that is playing in the part in the downfall as well. It'll be intersting to see how history remebers them, b/c they have done somne good things which will probably be overshadowed by this HUGE mistep they decided to take in a region that's always been volatile.... The one recurring image i have is George Bush stepping of that aircraft with that infamous "Mission Accomplished" banner in the background. Where's your swagger now dubya? |
i think we were a bit arrogant in assuming not only that democracy would spread in that region...but that they would want it in the first place! |
it's almost like assuming most of them were some sorta savages who hust needed to see the light... I think not  |
if you read bob woodward's "state of denial" you get an idea for how limited bush's knowledge is/was of foreign affairs. the only excuse i can think of for thinking democracy would spread in that region is lack of understanding. and of course, stubbornness.
_________________
14-5-3-12 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bballfan4life
Star Player
Joined: 17 Sep 2005
Posts: 1307
Location: Sitting on top of the world... with my laptop!
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2006 3:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
well "democrat", "republican", "independent," " i really dont care," they would all have to admit George Bush isnt the most academic president the U.S. has ever had Besides i hear wifey is the reader in the family...
_________________
"this game doesnt build character; it reveals it so be strong in body clear in mind and lofty in your ideals."
RIP Jayden Odom |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
angel
Franchise Player
Joined: 31 Jul 2004
Posts: 14226
Location: city of angels
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2006 3:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ocho wrote: | | angel- honest question. what do you feel we have accomplished there? and was it worth the amount of money spent and the amount of blood spilled? do you think that other middle east countries will adopt democracy as originally hoped by the US? do you think our post-war strategy was successful? do you think its a good idea to "stay until the job is done" even when you've been told by the baker comission and several decorated generals that the strategy simply is not working? |
I dislike dealing with Middle Eastern countries. Wars have been going on there a long time. There are no easy solutions, but a lot more has been accomplished than you think. Democratic concepts have been brought to the Middle East during the Gulf Wars. Kuwait is an oasis in the Middle East. Iraq has a chance to survive as a democracy if our exit isn't too hasty. There is no doubt we have to leave, but not by cutting and running. I don't know if all the recommendations made by the group headed by Baker should be done. You will find that not all of the generals agree. The general in charge of operations in Iraq has clearly stated there should not be a strict timetable.
_________________
"Darkness cannot drive out darkness. Only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate. Only love can do that." ~~Martin Luther King Jr.~~ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
