Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why We Are in Iraq

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Smiling,

    You do exactly as you mind tells you. Do it with finesse and not otherwise (if you know what I mean). Justify as I do (hopefully!).

    I doin't want to go through with the hassle of finding out how the world likes the US poilcies, but I think you are rather out in the 49-50 pizzaz.

    Let me tell you that it is not because they are against war on terror. It is because the rationale to attack Iraq doesn't appear honest and transparent. That's all. Thart Saddam was a pain, of that there is no doubt. That the Arab leaders all are pains, of that too there is no doubt.

    Take a poll on war opn terror and Bush's policy. It will be 89% for Bush, leaving the Islamic countries.
    Last edited by Ray; 15 Dec 04,, 20:35.


    "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

    I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

    HAKUNA MATATA

    Comment


    • Originally posted by mididoctors
      Horowitzs piece is weird.. the main thrust of it appears aimed at those who are opposed to the war..
      Thats because Horowitz is weird. He went from being a nut-case on the far left to being a nut-case on the far right. It just goes to prove leftwing and rightwing extremists are two sides of the same coin.

      In the '60s Horowitz was buddies with Tom Hayden of the SDS and Huey Newton of the Black Panthers. He was editor of the Berkeley Radical rag "Ramparts" and wrote a book "The Free World Colossus" (you can buy it on Amazon) blaming the Cold War on the US.

      The reason Horowitz hates Michael Moore so much is because MM is Horowitz's mirror image. In fact, MM is exactly what Horowitz was 30 years ago. It wouldn't surprise me if, in a few decades, MM is also writing far-right columns or filming right-wing movies branding those on the left as "traitors".

      Horowitz, in his piece, cannot conceive of anyone opposing the Iraq war except if they are traitors who want to see victory for fundamentalist Islam. The thought that a war in Iraq would be counterproductive to US interests is beyond his imagination.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by mididoctors
        If you think they construct there speeches without this in mind you are naive?
        So, when they say something that makes them look bad, it's "constructed" too? Sorry, I'm not into conspiracy theory, I'm interested in what can be proven. As I said, Blair did not say that, and I have yet to be proven wrong.
        Originally posted by mididoctors
        Why didn't they make this argument then?
        I've heard that argument since the late 80s. Often made by the UN and other human rights organizations. You tell me why nobody cared enough to do something about it. Like I allready said, direct threat was the answer, and Saddam made himself look like a threat. He should have complied, but I would still have supported his removal by anyone from anywhere.
        No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
        I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
        even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
        He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

        Comment


        • frankly i find this whole report as silly..
          its more rhetorical, with blaming everything on leftist.. i mean its not the coldwar era any more.. blame it on someone else!
          -Tito

          Comment


          • Please do not resurrect threads from 2004 or even 2006

            Comment


            • et al,

              However it was that we wound-up in Iraq, we are there.
              [indent]
              Originally posted by THREAD 2nd September 2008 14:13
              Why We Are in Iraq
              [indent]

              (COMMENT)
              Originally posted by Victory in Iraq is Defined in Stages - NATIONAL STRATEGY
              http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archiv...y_nov2005.html[list][*]Short term, Iraq is making steady progress in fighting terrorists, meeting political milestones, building democratic institutions, and standing up security forces.[*]Medium term, Iraq is in the lead defeating terrorists and providing its own security, with a fully constitutional government in place, and on its way to achieving its economic potential.[*]Longer term, Iraq is peaceful, united, stable, and secure, well integrated into the international community, and a full partner in the global war on terrorism.

              Iraq making steady progress in fighting terrorists, meeting political milestones, building democratic institutions, and standing up security forces, are KEY to even the most basic short term objectives. What we find today is something somewhat different.
              • The Iraqi Constitution calls for Islam to be the source of all legislation. (Islamic State) All we need is a radical cleric to be in charge.
              • Iraq had its elections late.
              • Iraq’s elections were 7 months ago with no government in place yet.
              • Former PM wins, but is blocked-out.
              • Current PM loses, but is still in power.
              • Current PM makes a deal with Terrorist Cleric via Iranian intervention.
              • Currently, SOI/Awakening element are slipping away (from the GOI/ISF) back to the insurgents.

              This puts in question the most basic Democratization Efforts (GOI), and the military up-grading of the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF).
              DOD is considering selling Iraq and addition $4 Billion in arms; as the US attempts to usher in a new-era for the Iraqi military. Additional Military Sales to provide other nations in the Persian Gulf region with massive infusions of advanced weaponry to stand up to Iran.

              And it opens up an entirely different discussion on how the US should proceed; given the greater influence of the anti-American Cleric Moktada al-Sadr, and the internal reach of Iran.

              In any event, given the intent the US originally had for Iraq, how does this alter the decisions now being considered?

              Most Respectfully,
              R

              Comment


              • Thread: Why We Are in Iraq
                To answer the original question:......................>

                There are many reasons why the War in Iraq came about; and I will share
                my own personal opinion, which is based upon personal observations:............>

                As is the case with almost all wars....there are those who's needs and greed
                require that their fellow citizens take up arms against a declared enemy;
                thereby, the "Prophets of Profit" keep the military industrial complex going
                full-steam...at least until the masses begin to voice objection strong enough
                to put the fear into their hearts.

                Of course, this does not mean that a nation always goes to war for economic
                reasons, or without just cause at times; fore, there are times which demand
                retribution and retaliation; however, regardless of the circumstance that take
                a nation into war....the "Prophets of Profit" are always there to seize the opportunity,
                and squeeze every single red-cent that they can out of the treasury.

                Uncle $am ( a.k.a. / d.b.a. "BIG Brother"...i.e...*Corrupt Corp-Govt* ) is what drove the
                U.S. into this current Iraq War; in spite of the fact that Saddam Hussein was a ruthless
                dictator, and would have to eventually be "taken care of"....one way or another.

                Once again, merely my own personal opinions.

                __________________________________________________ _____________________

                Comment


                • CommiCzar; et al,

                  I actually like the phrase.
                  Originally posted by CommiCzar View Post
                  • "Prophets of Profit"
                  (COMMENT)

                  Aside from the the industrial military complex (defense industries and contractor services), what keeps the gravity holding a huge commitment in Iraq?

                  There is the question of Iraq, and its right to choose thier own destiny. Should the West (particularly the US) stay out of the internal affairs of the Iraq government?

                  If Iraq falls under the influence of Iran, would that pose any significant threat (militarily, economically, or otherwise) to any nations outside the Region?

                  Most Respectfully,
                  R

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by RoccoR View Post
                    Aside from the the industrial military complex (defense industries and contractor services), what keeps the gravity holding a huge commitment in Iraq?

                    There is the question of Iraq, and its right to choose thier own destiny. Should the West (particularly the US) stay out of the internal affairs of the Iraq government?

                    If Iraq falls under the influence of Iran, would that pose any significant threat (militarily, economically, or otherwise) to any nations outside the Region?

                    Most Respectfully,
                    R
                    Look at who's won the contracts in Iraq and tell me how the US is dictating what's going on?
                    "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by RoccoR View Post
                      CommiCzar; et al,

                      I actually like the phrase.
                      (COMMENT)

                      Aside from the the industrial military complex (defense industries and contractor services), what keeps the gravity holding a huge commitment in Iraq?

                      There is the question of Iraq, and its right to choose thier own destiny. Should the West (particularly the US) stay out of the internal affairs of the Iraq government?

                      If Iraq falls under the influence of Iran, would that pose any significant threat (militarily, economically, or otherwise) to any nations outside the Region?

                      Most Respectfully,
                      R
                      If yu would, stop by the intro thread and tell us a little about yourself. Thanks.

                      Comment


                      • Shek, et al,,

                        Yes, this is a common theme.
                        Originally posted by Shek View Post
                        Look at who's won the contracts in Iraq and tell me how the US is dictating what's going on?
                        (QUESTION)

                        Do you believe the “contractor” is the energy behind the centrifugal power that keeps US involvement active in Iraq?
                        • Do you believe that the contractor (not the PNAC or Ruling Elite) has a legacy influence that has an imprinted on the Foreign Service and DOD to desperately cling for military and diplomatic solutions in achieving the desired outcomes in the National Strategy for the Victory in Iraq (NSfVI)?
                        • Is it still possible to achieve the desired outcomes in the NSfVI?


                        (POINTS of CONSIDERATION)
                        • There is the question as to whether the force is driven because the US Government does not want to see Iraq democratization efforts fail. Such a failure would place into question whether such evangelistic effort should be similarly implemented in the future.
                        • There is the question as to whether the US should intervene in the internal matters of an stagnant nation whose general indigenous population shows no effort in confronting or correcting there own government; which is protected by elements of the indigenous population.
                        • There is a question as to whether the US should be involved in “nation building” as a non-recoverable major investment?


                        (SIDEBAR)

                        There is the sidebar issue as to whether the US has the knowledge, skills and abilities in the Foreign Service and Department of Defense, to pursue post-conflict restoration efforts in the aftermath of a regime change. Many believe that the US should NOT engage in these efforts as the US has not been able to adequately demonstrate the required leadership and management skills to affect a viable, democratic nation following the removal of a dictatorial government.

                        Most Respectfully,
                        R

                        Comment


                        • RoccoR,
                          You didn't answer the question.
                          "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

                          Comment


                          • Shek, et al,

                            That is because I don't understand the question.
                            Originally posted by Shek View Post
                            RoccoR,
                            You didn't answer the question.
                            (COMMENT)

                            Tell me who won the contracts and the implied inference. I don't understand if this is a serious question or a conspiracy question.

                            Most Respectfully,
                            R

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by RoccoR View Post
                              Shek, et al,

                              That is because I don't understand the question.
                              (COMMENT)

                              Tell me who won the contracts and the implied inference. I don't understand if this is a serious question or a conspiracy question.

                              Most Respectfully,
                              R
                              Ok RoccoR,

                              You are before my time but not before Pearl Harbour. If you have read through this subforum, you would know my arguements but let me rephrase them.

                              Saddam never disarmed.
                              11 Sept 2001 taught Saddam that he actually hurt the US.
                              Saddam WANTS to hurt the US.
                              Saddam had every intention to lie to everyone.
                              Saddam hid, not stop, his WMD programs.

                              I can prove each and every single point that I just posted. Will you evaluate your position?

                              Comment


                              • Good Morning Officer of Engineers, et al,
                                Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                                Ok RoccoR,

                                You are before my time but not before Pearl Harbour. If you have read through this subforum, you would know my arguements but let me rephrase them.
                                • Saddam never disarmed.
                                • 11 Sept 2001 taught Saddam that he actually hurt the US.
                                • Saddam WANTS to hurt the US.
                                • Saddam had every intention to lie to everyone.
                                • Saddam hid, not stop, his WMD programs.


                                I can prove each and every single point that I just posted. Will you evaluate your position?
                                (COMMENT)

                                These are adjudications you have made based on your knowledge and experiences. Mine differ based on my knowledge and experiences.
                                • Saddam never disarmed.
                                  • IMO this is partially true. He did NOT intentionally disarm. But he was effectively disarmed.
                                • 11 Sept 2001 taught Saddam that he actually hurt the US.
                                  • Iraq and Saddam had no effective part in the planning or execution of the 9/11 Attacks, while he (as well as others) might have been sympathetic to the effort.
                                • Saddam WANTS to hurt the US.
                                  • Politically, Saddam wanted to be the strongman in the Middle East and Persian Gulf. Confronting the US (a recognized external power) was merely a badge of honor.
                                • Saddam had every intention to lie to everyone.
                                  • Agreed!
                                • Saddam hid, not stop, his WMD programs.
                                  • Saddam effectively halted (not because of US or UN demands) his WMD R&D in the early 1990s. He effectively hid the fact that he had no productive WMD R&D Effort for Regional Political reasons.


                                There were other Regional players that had every reason to promote a confrontation between the US and Iraq. And they often worked, both independently and in concert, to project the impression that Iraq was a significant threat; conventionally, unconventionally, and in the realm of terrorist WMD. But the hegemonic push was primarily driven by US domestic concern correlated to the PNAC. Coupled with poor intelligence collection, poorly framed analysis, and myopic tunnel vision - together with a broken National Security Decision Making Process, circumstantial and anecdotal evidence lead the US to its fateful decision to go to war.

                                But these are more orbital issues pertaining to the reasons for going to war, and not really relevant to the issues of the day: The conduct of post-combat and post-occupation activities emerging now in Iraq.

                                My experience has shown, that it is futile to attempt to change peoples minds on these types of highly charged and emotionally entangled perceptions. I've discovered that once formed rather than try and change them, it is better to move-on to what might be done to correct ongoing unintentional outcomes.

                                Most Respectfully,
                                R

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X