Saddam and 9/11 - Page 4

cuba · 02-27-2008, 01:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JAD_333

This statement is a little backwards(...)

I believe that what you are saying is somewhat backwards.

Unfortunately, i don't believe that there was that much grounding for the invasion of Iraq. Bush wanted oil and he wanted to settle his vendetta with Saddam after the first gulf war.

I also think that Iraq has spawned terrorists since Saddam was overthrown. During the first Gulf War. Bush senior was strongly advised not to go for Saddam during for a variety of reasons, one of them being the civil war which would likely have occurred between the Sunnis and the Shi'ites. This is exactly what is going on now and would not have happened if Saddam was still in control. His callous reppression of his people ensured stability in the country which has since been lost.

I don't think you can ever justify the invasion of Iraq in spite of the atrocities that Saddam committed.

(Of course this is my own opinion. I hope it didn't sound too political or offensive!

)

S-2 · 02-27-2008, 01:26 AM

"Bush wanted oil and he wanted to settle his vendetta with Saddam after the first gulf war."

Is that what you've learned by studying econ. How much oil did Bush get paid? How much oil did America get paid? How do we get our oil? Is there an oil-for-war account?

You seriously believe that the POTUS sent our nation to war as a personal "vendetta"?

Pathetic.

JAD_333 · 02-27-2008, 01:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cuba

Unfortunately, i don't believe that there was that much grounding for the invasion of Iraq.

Why unfortunate?

Quote:

Bush wanted oil and he wanted to settle his vendetta with Saddam after the first gulf war.

Love to see your sources.

Quote:

During the first Gulf War. Bush senior was strongly advised not to go for Saddam during for a variety of reasons, one of them being the civil war which would likely have occurred between the Sunnis and the Shi'ites.

Ya don't think it might have had something to do with an agreement made with the Islamic nations who joined us in throwing Saddam out of Kuwait to stop short of a full invasion?

Quote:

I don't think you can ever justify the invasion of Iraq in spite of the atrocities that Saddam committed.

You can, but we didn't. It was a good fallout, though, don't you think?

Herodotus · 02-27-2008, 02:34 AM

Saddam, WMD, democracy were all objectives worth consideration. "...kill Islamic terrorists..." in Iraq is a simple requirement of establishing local security for the Iraqis. This poll-thread so far has largely said that terrorists weren't a viable pre-invasion issue. Their post-invasion presence may well be a product of our bungled Phase IV implementation. Their current presence is an undeniable though diminishing fact that is best addressed kinetically.

TWO examples of Iraq. Consequences of "bad, bad Iraq" to paraphrase nanheyangrouchuan fav anti-PRC rant and the shining beacon of new Iraq. First one was immediately understood by Gaddafi. The second needs some polishing. Objectives though, if unstated. So all excepting salafi-wahabbist A.Q. type terrorists. Ansar-al-Islam doesn't really quite work. I don't really know how to describe that relationship w/ Iraq. Tenuous, perhaps.

I would probably quibble with you some over Qaddafi's rationale in giving up his WMD program. I think there were a variety of reasons, Iraq may have been one of them, but maybe not the deciding factor.

Not at all. Parliamentary elections and constitutional referendums in an arab state are too unusual to casually dismiss as EXPECTED order of business. Hardly short shrift that Iraq has had a government hold office...

I would still argue that they were imperfect parliamentary elections since they were drawn along sectarian lines and during a time when a sizable minority tried to reject the results.

Allawi took the interim P.M. position sometime in 2004. Jaffari. al-Maliki in 2006. True power is derived from competent institutions. There were none under Saddam. Perhaps that might be different now. That's TBD.

A year after the invasion and only because it was feared Sistani would call a fatwa.

Don't be so limp-wristed. Those seven words are values. Communication of these values is occurring. The "al-Anbar Awakening" is a reflection of this grass-roots re-emergence. But it's not as tame as forced school-bussing in Boston, that's for sure. Still, there's been considerable movement in the villages, towns, districts, and provinces which you've chosen to ignore I suspect.

I've heard something about grass roots politics in Iraq (or is that desert roots), but I don't think it has shown much in results, save for the fighting against al Qaeda:

World Politics Review | Iraq Resconstruction Teams Struggle to Sustain Grassroots Projects

Finally, one-third of the nation was COMPLETELY prepared to "bottom-up" from the get-go. Kurdistan. Most Kurds would suggest that-

Yes, yes the Kurds, well that's an entirely different story. I have warmed up to your ideas about partition. It would be a nice place to have an American base, or two.

Imperfect. Yazidis suffered badly recently. Kurds have fared better.

And Christians, Sunnis, Turkmen, Azeri...Jews?

That's changing quickly or will you not acknowledge that?

Yes, so far the "surge" or the Awakening seem to be working, now we are down to 2005 levels of violence. But is this indicative of a wider trend, or are various factions taking a step back only to re-arm and start fighting again?

I'd call the presence of an Iraqi parliament and constitution, by themselves, overwhelming evidence to the contrary. There's been much more since.

The Sunnis aren't very happy with it, or at least they weren't. Kirkuk hasn't been resolved, or oil sharing. I am encouraged by the reversal of de-Baathification...baby steps I suppose.

Whatever. "no" is absolute. That you use absolute phrasing repeatedly suggests you've departed from considered discussion of issues based on relevant and current conditions. I sense within some articles of faith to which you cling in the face of contrary observations.

This is an important point though, and the reason that radical Islam cannot be wedded with democratic change. Islamic fundamentalists deal in absolutes, so we should probably understand why that is. An Iraq with sharia does not make it a democracy no matter how many people go to the polls. Anyway I do take more of an academic view on this subject since I have read too many books/articles on why Islamic (and Confucian) societies don't mix well with democracy. (Yes, yes I know look at Turkey...or for that matter Kurdistan, but we've had this discussion before).

Something closer to Turkey than Saudi Arabia for starters. I like our chances there. Especially if it includes an Incirlik or two.

Okay, fair enough.

No. I didn't say that-least of all "any". Not by a country mile. Many have already been realized. No WMD. Neighbors safe from invasion. Kurds and shias safe. No baath party. Far more than you mentioned that are immediate benefits to the neighborhood.
[/b]

Those goals are all tied to the removal of Saddam, or were just confirmed after the initial invasion.

Rhetorical. You've already answered this for yourself. Prove weariness and beware of polls.
[/b]

Fair enough.

If you can't imagine worse than the present then you've not studied history at all. Note the absolutism of that comment by me.

Oh I can imagine much worse. I should have figured you wouldn't fall into my trap.

YOUR worse-case scenarios may not be the only imaginable. Our presence guarantees nothing. I think it's clear that our departure guarantees a highly unstable Iraq vulnerable to external and internal forces which it is only now averting with some success.

Well as I said above I'm sure I can think of worse things to happen in Iraq, and as you say our presence guarantees nothing. Though I wish it weren't so, what's done is done vis-a-vis Iraq; how to remove ourselves without further damage should now be the goal.

Too many questions now and I know you too well, Herodotus. You're cherry-picking the edges to avoid an open declaration of your views for which you might be pummeled.

Well yes, I would prefer a non-pummeling, and I would like to stay on these boards for a little while.

Take the big step and give us the Herodotus Manifesto of American Adventurism.

All in good time, all in good time. My views on foreign policy are in the minority, and I'm not sure folks here want to hear them.

You need to practice some "boilerplate assumptions" avoidance.

I'll just have to think of more clever questions to ask you.

Walter- My bowling partner. Good man. He can get you a toe in three hours.[/quote]

Well if anything S-2 you have impeccable taste in at least one movie.

Herodotus · 02-27-2008, 03:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JAD_333

I wasn't going to reply to the last post you directed at me because I felt a bit like blues--we aren't going to get anywhere with the legalistic approach. But since you say you are trying to understand why we are in Iraq, perhaps the discussion isn't at a dead end afterall.

Your statement, that understanding why we are in Iraq will allow us to form a "more" coherent strategy, is somewhat backwards. Perhaps when you understand the reason we are there, you will see that the strategy is indeed coherent. Well, anyway, whatever is beyond the limits of one's
understanding, is an open question. Wouldn't you agree?

This statement is a little backwards, too, because if we DO know why we are in Iraq, then we'll know when we've won.

Does this suggest, perhaps, that the limit of your understanding is the WMD rationale? As we've all said in very different ways, the essential reason for going into Iraq was much more than WMD and even more than Saddam's villany. In a nutshell, it was to confront a threat to our national security, namely a non-national, political movement that uses terror tactics to advance an agenda which specifically identifies us as its enemy. It's goal is to re-establish a centuries-old, strict Islamic culture throughout the ME and, in due course, to wipe out Israel. This movement knows that the US is a roadblock to its goals. So, it directs its terror attacks at us, at any coalition member, and at any Islamic country that associates with us on a friendly basis.

It might help to understand why we are in Iraq if you ask yourself how this movement could succeed. It'll take a stretch of imagination, but suffice it to say that it could happen and, therefore, it must be regarded as a threat, particularly since it has been growing gradually since well before 9/11. A policymaker simply cannot ignor a growing threat, however small it may yet be. And history has shown us over and over that failure to confront a threat early can be disastrous.

Some people ask, "what threat"? Like you when you asked what can 20,000-30,000 terrorists org. fighters do. You believe our presense in Iraq led to those numbers. That's incorrect. Our presense in Iraq may have drawn them there, but the reason they exist at all is because AQ and other terror orgs converted them to their ideology, and they'll go where we are whether its Iraq or NYC.

So, if you want to understand why we are there, look beyond all the confetti like WMD, Saddam the butcher, claims on Kuwait, who actually triggered the Iraq-Iran war, and especially the logjam of ineffective UN resolutions.

The problem I have had with the rationale for the war, is that prior to the war the Bush administration based almost its entire public case on WMD and Saddam's non-compliance, and the fear that another 9/11 could happen if he wasn't stopped/removed, whatever. Very little attention was given toward democracy promotion except for a little noted speech Bush gave at AEI in Feb. 2003, where he talked all about democracy in Iraq, and by that time Bush had made up his mind about Iraq. I wasn't posting on the Internet back then so I cannot say what rationale you or any other poster was using to justify the war, but WMD was all the rage at the time.

If I read you correctly you think we went to war there in Iraq in order to confront radical Islam, which is prone to terroristic outbursts against Western/non-Moslem countries, or secular Islamic countries. That's fine, but let me ask you this; what is the impetus for Islamic terrorism against the US? Has it always been the case that Islamic fundamentalists have "hated" the US; ever since say the Barbary Wars? Or is this hatred a more modern manifestation; say after 1967, 1973, or 1982?

What is the exact start date for Islamic terrorism, against the US, against Israel? Has Middle Eastern terrorism always been Islamic in nature or have there also been manifestations of Palestinian nationalism in the guise of Marxism that utilized terrorism? In other words, is there a difference between Arafat and bin Laden? Terrorism, at least modern terrorism, is usually either ideologically driven or nationalistic in its nature. Ideological terrorism is dying out, but nationalistic terrorism is still fairly strong in some places. So my final question is: What is Islamic terrorism; is it ideological, nationalistic, or both? I know Islam is a religion so stating Islamic terrorism is religiously based is a tautology; what is it besides being religiously based?

BTW--No offense is taken by you laughing at S-2's line. I have a thick skin, and it was a good line.

S-2 · 02-27-2008, 04:03 AM

"Iraq may have been one of them, but maybe not the deciding factor."

Of the innumerable "variety of reasons", I bet it stands right at the top of the list.

"they were imperfect parliamentary elections since they were drawn along sectarian lines and during a time when a sizable minority tried to reject the results."

I agree. The next election will further exercise their growing political and institutional skills. Bet the sunni sing a different tune. If so, is that a reconciled gesture of some note? If not, it's at least part of the continuum of progress.

Still, I anticipate a large turnout of Sunnis, particularly in al-Anbar. NOW. Compare the liklihood of setting voting booths up in Haditha, Ramadi, Tal Afar, and Fallujah in March, 2005? It would have been suicide. Not now and the sunni will be damned sure that their vote happens and is counted.

"A year after the invasion and only because it was feared Sistani would call a fatwa."

You quibble. Konrad Adenauer took office as Chancellor of W. Germany in 1949-four+ years after defeat. One year doesn't sound unreasonable for any reason.

"I don't think it has shown much in results, save for the fighting against al Qaeda"

One of those unintended benefits of this war has been the attraction of irhabists worldwide, largely under the banner of al-Qaeda. It's Iraq's misfortune that their baathist insurgency opened the doors for al Qaeda's entry. Were it not for the emergance of Zarqawi, we might have faced a greater and smarter threat.

Still, this was no empty battlefield and these beasts targeted the Iraqi citizenry of all sects to incite sectarian civil war. We know these things now so much better than when you and I first fought elsewhere. The Iraqis bear the burden here but global irhabists bear the guilt.

They make war among one another as much as the U.S. military. That Iraqis permit the presence of global irhabists invites down upon themselves FROM THESE SAME PEOPLE the bombings, intimidations, assassinations, and all the sectarian motivations unleashed by these brutal provocations.

Whacking them is good. Iraqis being hurt is bad. Americans being safe is good. Our guys can't help it but, when we travel in the middle east, our Army seems to attract every jerk w/ an AK in sight. Herodotus, for some reason I sleep better knowing that.

"Kirkuk hasn't been resolved, or oil sharing. I am encouraged by the reversal of de-Baathification...baby steps I suppose."

It IS wobbly, uncertain, difficult baby-steps. We've got to be extrordinarily mature. Increasingly we seem to be the guarantor from whom all expect a fair mediation. That's both good and bad. There's parliamentary movement and, however tentative, it's noticable compared to the absolute stagnancy heretofore.

"how to remove ourselves without further damage should now be the goal."

No. It shouldn't. OUr main goal now should be how to optimize our presence, however it diminishes, to best nat'l and Iraqi effect. Until we are convinced of Iraqi bad faith and utter incorrigible insincerity to build a stable, secure, emerging democracy, we should help however they wish to the greatest extent possible for ourselves.

"Well if anything S-2 you have impeccable taste in at least one movie."

Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

Herodotus · 02-27-2008, 12:44 PM

I'll let Jad decide if he wants to respond or not, but in the meantime let me get back to the original reason I posted on this thread. What do we know? I don't think anybody "knows" anything unless they have a Ph.D. and spent 30 years studying a particular subject, and even then there is doubt that he or she know everything about that subject. Granted there are certain mathematical equations and scientific laws that are immutable, but they exist whether we acknowledge them or not.

People do have opinions, but these are like certain body parts, and everyone has one. How does one arrive at an opinion? It is shaped by opinion makers, teachers, loved ones, and one's own biases, to name a few. One can find enough evidence to inform his opinion, or re-enforce it, especially if it is a widely held belief. On the Iraq war people certainly have opinions about why it was fought, and how it should be won, myself included. But what do we really "know" about the war? People have all kinds of opinions as to why Napoleon lost at Waterloo, some of them really well-informed, but as an old history professor of mine once said, it could have been any variety of factors including the fact that he was suffering from gout that day, which could have led him to make bad tactical decisions.

So in posting on this thread I wanted to challenge people's basic assumptions (opinions) about the war, and the reasons we are there. It seems that most of you are self-assured that this is war was the right course of action, the execution may have been off slightly, but the strategy (such as it has been defined) is flawless. Confidence or stubbornness, I'm not sure which it is. I suppose none of you had any moments of introspection during the past four or five years as to why we are in Iraq.

Anyway just some thoughts, I don't pretend to have hidden knowledge, or any new way of thinking about the war. But if you'd like to share opinions about the war, or the war strategy, I am more than willing to listen. Because though I have opinions, I try to also keep an open mind, since in reality I don't "know" anything.

**Officer of Engineers** · 02-27-2008, 13:00 PM

I took a very long time before deciding to support the war. It was not an easy decision to come to. Believe me, the question "what if we're wrong" came up more than once. Can we live with the consequences of being wrong?

Ironically, it was the other question that finally decided for me. Can we live with the consequences of being right?

Whatever material evidence there is about Saddam's threat, two things remained clear. His intentions and his stupidity. He was stupid enough to carry out his intentions. This was the man who was stupid enough to attempt to assassinate Bush Sr. 11 Sept opened his eyes to undreamed possibilities of hitting the US. His past performances left me no doubt he would try again. In short, after 11 Sept, Saddam had became an intolerable strategic threat.

T_igger_cs_30 · 02-27-2008, 14:35 PM

Having lived most of my life under threat of a terrorist attack, both as a civilian and as a soldier, you do learn to be cautious and not make hasty decisions, sometimes decisions are taken out of your hands, as a civilian, you have a choice or should I say more time to come to your decision regarding acts such as "supporting the invasion of Iraq" also as a civilian you have the luxury of being able to easiy change your mind. As a soldier you do not have those luxuries, you trust in your leaders, that is the choice you make as a soldier.I did not join the military to invade Iraq, nor to "take out Sadam" or any other indivdual terrorist I do not know personally, I joined the military after many discussions with my father, and I realised I wanted to be ready to be able to protect my family, country and way of life should it be necassary.
I agree with you in principle about "really knowing nothing" (me too) but I do know this after my 50+years the majority of them as a Soldier, sometimes you cannot have a "perfect scenario" sometimes you have to say "enough is enough, there is enough there to warrant what we intend to do and PREVENT any further actions against you/us" ...........9/11 changed the world as we know it, anybody who even remotley was involved in prior to and after 9/11, iregardless of colour, race or religion, you made your choice to support terrorism as I and many others did to take you down..............we all have to live with the consequences of our actions.

Kansas Bear · 02-27-2008, 15:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by T_igger_cs_30

I agree with you in principle about "knowing nothing".........

That is horseshit. I've had numerous conversation with you T_igger and I know you are not ignorant.

T_igger_cs_30 · 02-27-2008, 16:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kansas Bear

That is horseshit. I've had numerous conversation with you T_igger and I know you are not ignorant.

Thanks KB, so nice of you to say, my comment though was really in context with Herodotus's comment in post #52....maybe I should edit my post a bit

**Parihaka** · 02-27-2008, 17:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Herodotus

All in good time, all in good time. My views on foreign policy are in the minority, and I'm not sure folks here want to hear them.

You've shown yourself capable of rational discourse. People here may disagree with you, but that hasn't put you off so far

Herodotus · 02-28-2008, 18:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Parihaka

You've shown yourself capable of rational discourse. People here may disagree with you, but that hasn't put you off so far

Thanks for the comments, this is a friendly enough board, and so if there are no objections I will continue.

Now that I have established my philosophy about opinion vs. "knowing" something in absolute terms, (so everyone can take what I saw with a big grain of salt...no ego here) let's get back to this argument. It seems from the poll taken and judging by responses to this thread that posters here have dismissed the connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11 (that is to say if he had a hand in it or not), but also judging by the responses 9/11 is linked to the war in Iraq, since it "changed" the world (debatable since for some people it certainly did change the world-victims, families of victims, and for others it didn't really change anything at all--but I digress, a debate for another time).

So let's say it did change America's outlook, and its focus on a new (old) threat. What is the threat? Terrorism, radical Islam? Some definitions are in order that should be universally agreed upon so there can be no semantic arguments.

Terrorist...what is a terrorist? A practioner of terrorism...what is terrorism? The use of violence for politcial purposes, the killing/targeting of non-combatants for political purposes, the unlawful use of violence for political goals, or something similar. We know politics (as opposed to money/revenge) is the primary motiviation, we know that civilians or non-combatants are targeted, and we know violence is used...seems fair enough.

It's nice to say we are there in Iraq to change the culture but what culture are we trying to change...Islam, radical Islam? What is radical Islam, who are radical Muslisms? Terrorists (haha, just kdding). But seriously what is a good definition of radical Islam...is it Wahabisim, and followers of Wahabisim; so does it follow necessarily that all practioners of Wahabisim are radical and thus prone to violence? What about radical Shiite Muslims? Anybody who is Muslim and opposes American policies? What's the dividing line between who we need to change and who we don't need to change? Or do we change everybody, just to be on the safe side?

Sorry, I ask a lot of questions, but I think they are pertinent to what our strategy is in Iraq. We can say we are winning all we want, but at the end of the day what exactly do we win? S-2 says we will win if we make Iraq more like Turkey; but Arabs are not Turks, and that change came from within, and only because Islam and Islamic parties are kept at bay. So can it really be the case that Iraq will be democratic...and is this a necessary good?

T_igger_cs_30 · 02-28-2008, 18:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Herodotus

It seems from the poll taken and judging by responses to this thread that posters here have dismissed the connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11 (that is to say if he had a hand in it or not)

I think you will find I have not if you read my earlier post, my "opinion" (and it is ok to have an opinion about things, just as long as you accept others)
However without question , Bluesman is one of a few who's statements regarding such matters I will read, digest and accept without question as he has proved through this board to me that he is sincere and has integrity(not to say you do not H) Also given his position, and experience that helps to validate his posts.
So just to argue my "opinion" against his documentation and experience would be an insult to him and this board.
I have to keep it as an opinion as I cannot break certain confidences to validate it as anything else, other than an "opinion" at this time.

Herodotus · 02-28-2008, 19:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by T_igger_cs_30

I think you will find I have not if you read my earlier post, my "opinion" (and it is ok to have an opinion about things, just as long as you accept others)
However without question , Bluesman is one of a few who's statements regarding such matters I will read, digest and accept without question as he has proved through this board to me that he is sincere and has integrity(not to say you do not H) Also given his position, and experience that helps to validate his posts.
So just to argue my "opinion" against his documentation and experience would be an insult to him and this board.
I have to keep it as an opinion as I cannot break certain confidences to validate it as anything else, other than an "opinion" at this time.

[B]So do you believe that Saddam had some hand in 9/11? Ah yes, here is your post, my apologies:

[i]It has been proved that an absolute direct link is difficult to prove, but I think it is fair to say there was some "indirect" links to 9/11, support for AQ, terrorism in general is beyond doubt, Wolfowitz possibly had his own agenda, but I think was on the money

[b]Bluesman's first post stated that he thought Saddam's Iraq was taken by surprise by 9/11, and I thought most other posters agreed. However if he, or you, or anyone has evidence to the contrary about the rationale for the war they are more than welcome to share it if it doesn't violate sources and methods.

(I may have misinterpeted your post T igger, I thought you were referring to Bluesman's knowledge of the rationale for the Iraq war, now I think you are referring to his comments on the 9/11-Iraq link. If I have misinterpeted you sorry.)

View Poll Results: Did Saddam help or harbor Al Qaeda terrorist with 9/11
Yes	7	13.73%
No	44	86.27%
Voters: 51. You may not vote on this poll

02-27-2008, 01:26 AM	#47 (permalink)
S-2 *Military Professional* Join Date: 09-11-06 Location: Bend, Oregon Posts: 1,916 Country:	Cuba Reply "Bush wanted oil and he wanted to settle his vendetta with Saddam after the first gulf war." Is that what you've learned by studying econ. How much oil did Bush get paid? How much oil did America get paid? How do we get our oil? Is there an oil-for-war account? You seriously believe that the POTUS sent our nation to war as a personal "vendetta"? Pathetic. __________________ "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski

02-27-2008, 04:03 AM	#51 (permalink)
S-2 *Military Professional* Join Date: 09-11-06 Location: Bend, Oregon Posts: 1,916 Country:	Herodotus Reply "Iraq may have been one of them, but maybe not the deciding factor." Of the innumerable "variety of reasons", I bet it stands right at the top of the list. "they were imperfect parliamentary elections since they were drawn along sectarian lines and during a time when a sizable minority tried to reject the results." I agree. The next election will further exercise their growing political and institutional skills. Bet the sunni sing a different tune. If so, is that a reconciled gesture of some note? If not, it's at least part of the continuum of progress. Still, I anticipate a large turnout of Sunnis, particularly in al-Anbar. NOW. Compare the liklihood of setting voting booths up in Haditha, Ramadi, Tal Afar, and Fallujah in March, 2005? It would have been suicide. Not now and the sunni will be damned sure that their vote happens and is counted. "A year after the invasion and only because it was feared Sistani would call a fatwa." You quibble. Konrad Adenauer took office as Chancellor of W. Germany in 1949-four+ years after defeat. One year doesn't sound unreasonable for any reason. "I don't think it has shown much in results, save for the fighting against al Qaeda" One of those unintended benefits of this war has been the attraction of irhabists worldwide, largely under the banner of al-Qaeda. It's Iraq's misfortune that their baathist insurgency opened the doors for al Qaeda's entry. Were it not for the emergance of Zarqawi, we might have faced a greater and smarter threat. Still, this was no empty battlefield and these beasts targeted the Iraqi citizenry of all sects to incite sectarian civil war. We know these things now so much better than when you and I first fought elsewhere. The Iraqis bear the burden here but global irhabists bear the guilt. They make war among one another as much as the U.S. military. That Iraqis permit the presence of global irhabists invites down upon themselves FROM THESE SAME PEOPLE the bombings, intimidations, assassinations, and all the sectarian motivations unleashed by these brutal provocations. Whacking them is good. Iraqis being hurt is bad. Americans being safe is good. Our guys can't help it but, when we travel in the middle east, our Army seems to attract every jerk w/ an AK in sight. Herodotus, for some reason I sleep better knowing that. "Kirkuk hasn't been resolved, or oil sharing. I am encouraged by the reversal of de-Baathification...baby steps I suppose." It IS wobbly, uncertain, difficult baby-steps. We've got to be extrordinarily mature. Increasingly we seem to be the guarantor from whom all expect a fair mediation. That's both good and bad. There's parliamentary movement and, however tentative, it's noticable compared to the absolute stagnancy heretofore. "how to remove ourselves without further damage should now be the goal." No. It shouldn't. OUr main goal now should be how to optimize our presence, however it diminishes, to best nat'l and Iraqi effect. Until we are convinced of Iraqi bad faith and utter incorrigible insincerity to build a stable, secure, emerging democracy, we should help however they wish to the greatest extent possible for ourselves. "Well if anything S-2 you have impeccable taste in at least one movie." Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

02-27-2008, 13:00 PM	#53 (permalink)
Officer of Engineers Moderator Scotch taster Join Date: 08-06-03 Posts: 14,874 Country:	I took a very long time before deciding to support the war. It was not an easy decision to come to. Believe me, the question "what if we're wrong" came up more than once. Can we live with the consequences of being wrong? Ironically, it was the other question that finally decided for me. Can we live with the consequences of being right? Whatever material evidence there is about Saddam's threat, two things remained clear. His intentions and his stupidity. He was stupid enough to carry out his intentions. This was the man who was stupid enough to attempt to assassinate Bush Sr. 11 Sept opened his eyes to undreamed possibilities of hitting the US. His past performances left me no doubt he would try again. In short, after 11 Sept, Saddam had became an intolerable strategic threat. __________________ Chimo

02-27-2008, 14:35 PM	#54 (permalink)
T_igger_cs_30 *Military Professional* Join Date: 01-04-07 Location: Canada Posts: 1,943 Country:	Having lived most of my life under threat of a terrorist attack, both as a civilian and as a soldier, you do learn to be cautious and not make hasty decisions, sometimes decisions are taken out of your hands, as a civilian, you have a choice or should I say more time to come to your decision regarding acts such as "supporting the invasion of Iraq" also as a civilian you have the luxury of being able to easiy change your mind. As a soldier you do not have those luxuries, you trust in your leaders, that is the choice you make as a soldier.I did not join the military to invade Iraq, nor to "take out Sadam" or any other indivdual terrorist I do not know personally, I joined the military after many discussions with my father, and I realised I wanted to be ready to be able to protect my family, country and way of life should it be necassary. I agree with you in principle about "really knowing nothing" (me too) but I do know this after my 50+years the majority of them as a Soldier, sometimes you cannot have a "perfect scenario" sometimes you have to say "enough is enough, there is enough there to warrant what we intend to do and PREVENT any further actions against you/us" ...........9/11 changed the world as we know it, anybody who even remotley was involved in prior to and after 9/11, iregardless of colour, race or religion, you made your choice to support terrorism as I and many others did to take you down..............we all have to live with the consequences of our actions. __________________ $<img src=http://C:\Documents and Settings\Wayne Smith\My Documents\002...My Pictures border=0 alt= />$ FEAR NAUGHT I don't work here ...I am an analyst! Last edited by T_igger_cs_30 : 02-27-2008 at 16:39 PM.

02-27-2008, 02:34 AM	#49 (permalink)
Herodotus Patron Join Date: 04-05-07 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 153 Country:	Saddam, WMD, democracy were all objectives worth consideration. "...kill Islamic terrorists..." in Iraq is a simple requirement of establishing local security for the Iraqis. This poll-thread so far has largely said that terrorists weren't a viable pre-invasion issue. Their post-invasion presence may well be a product of our bungled Phase IV implementation. Their current presence is an undeniable though diminishing fact that is best addressed kinetically. TWO examples of Iraq. Consequences of "bad, bad Iraq" to paraphrase nanheyangrouchuan fav anti-PRC rant and the shining beacon of new Iraq. First one was immediately understood by Gaddafi. The second needs some polishing. Objectives though, if unstated. So all excepting salafi-wahabbist A.Q. type terrorists. Ansar-al-Islam doesn't really quite work. I don't really know how to describe that relationship w/ Iraq. Tenuous, perhaps. I would probably quibble with you some over Qaddafi's rationale in giving up his WMD program. I think there were a variety of reasons, Iraq may have been one of them, but maybe not the deciding factor. Not at all. Parliamentary elections and constitutional referendums in an arab state are too unusual to casually dismiss as EXPECTED order of business. Hardly short shrift that Iraq has had a government hold office... I would still argue that they were imperfect parliamentary elections since they were drawn along sectarian lines and during a time when a sizable minority tried to reject the results. Allawi took the interim P.M. position sometime in 2004. Jaffari. al-Maliki in 2006. True power is derived from competent institutions. There were none under Saddam. Perhaps that might be different now. That's TBD. A year after the invasion and only because it was feared Sistani would call a fatwa. Don't be so limp-wristed. Those seven words are values. Communication of these values is occurring. The "al-Anbar Awakening" is a reflection of this grass-roots re-emergence. But it's not as tame as forced school-bussing in Boston, that's for sure. Still, there's been considerable movement in the villages, towns, districts, and provinces which you've chosen to ignore I suspect. I've heard something about grass roots politics in Iraq (or is that desert roots), but I don't think it has shown much in results, save for the fighting against al Qaeda: World Politics Review \| Iraq Resconstruction Teams Struggle to Sustain Grassroots Projects Finally, one-third of the nation was COMPLETELY prepared to "bottom-up" from the get-go. Kurdistan. Most Kurds would suggest that- Yes, yes the Kurds, well that's an entirely different story. I have warmed up to your ideas about partition. It would be a nice place to have an American base, or two. Imperfect. Yazidis suffered badly recently. Kurds have fared better. And Christians, Sunnis, Turkmen, Azeri...Jews? That's changing quickly or will you not acknowledge that? Yes, so far the "surge" or the Awakening seem to be working, now we are down to 2005 levels of violence. But is this indicative of a wider trend, or are various factions taking a step back only to re-arm and start fighting again? I'd call the presence of an Iraqi parliament and constitution, by themselves, overwhelming evidence to the contrary. There's been much more since. The Sunnis aren't very happy with it, or at least they weren't. Kirkuk hasn't been resolved, or oil sharing. I am encouraged by the reversal of de-Baathification...baby steps I suppose. Whatever. "no" is absolute. That you use absolute phrasing repeatedly suggests you've departed from considered discussion of issues based on relevant and current conditions. I sense within some articles of faith to which you cling in the face of contrary observations. This is an important point though, and the reason that radical Islam cannot be wedded with democratic change. Islamic fundamentalists deal in absolutes, so we should probably understand why that is. An Iraq with sharia does not make it a democracy no matter how many people go to the polls. Anyway I do take more of an academic view on this subject since I have read too many books/articles on why Islamic (and Confucian) societies don't mix well with democracy. (Yes, yes I know look at Turkey...or for that matter Kurdistan, but we've had this discussion before). Something closer to Turkey than Saudi Arabia for starters. I like our chances there. Especially if it includes an Incirlik or two. Okay, fair enough. No. I didn't say that-least of all "any". Not by a country mile. Many have already been realized. No WMD. Neighbors safe from invasion. Kurds and shias safe. No baath party. Far more than you mentioned that are immediate benefits to the neighborhood. [/b] Those goals are all tied to the removal of Saddam, or were just confirmed after the initial invasion. Rhetorical. You've already answered this for yourself. Prove weariness and beware of polls. [/b] Fair enough. If you can't imagine worse than the present then you've not studied history at all. Note the absolutism of that comment by me. Oh I can imagine much worse. I should have figured you wouldn't fall into my trap. YOUR worse-case scenarios may not be the only imaginable. Our presence guarantees nothing. I think it's clear that our departure guarantees a highly unstable Iraq vulnerable to external and internal forces which it is only now averting with some success. Well as I said above I'm sure I can think of worse things to happen in Iraq, and as you say our presence guarantees nothing. Though I wish it weren't so, what's done is done vis-a-vis Iraq; how to remove ourselves without further damage should now be the goal. Too many questions now and I know you too well, Herodotus. You're cherry-picking the edges to avoid an open declaration of your views for which you might be pummeled. Well yes, I would prefer a non-pummeling, and I would like to stay on these boards for a little while. Take the big step and give us the Herodotus Manifesto of American Adventurism. All in good time, all in good time. My views on foreign policy are in the minority, and I'm not sure folks here want to hear them. You need to practice some "boilerplate assumptions" avoidance. I'll just have to think of more clever questions to ask you. Walter- My bowling partner. Good man. He can get you a toe in three hours.[/quote] Well if anything S-2 you have impeccable taste in at least one movie.

02-27-2008, 12:44 PM	#52 (permalink)
Herodotus Patron Join Date: 04-05-07 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 153 Country:	I'll let Jad decide if he wants to respond or not, but in the meantime let me get back to the original reason I posted on this thread. What do we know? I don't think anybody "knows" anything unless they have a Ph.D. and spent 30 years studying a particular subject, and even then there is doubt that he or she know everything about that subject. Granted there are certain mathematical equations and scientific laws that are immutable, but they exist whether we acknowledge them or not. People do have opinions, but these are like certain body parts, and everyone has one. How does one arrive at an opinion? It is shaped by opinion makers, teachers, loved ones, and one's own biases, to name a few. One can find enough evidence to inform his opinion, or re-enforce it, especially if it is a widely held belief. On the Iraq war people certainly have opinions about why it was fought, and how it should be won, myself included. But what do we really "know" about the war? People have all kinds of opinions as to why Napoleon lost at Waterloo, some of them really well-informed, but as an old history professor of mine once said, it could have been any variety of factors including the fact that he was suffering from gout that day, which could have led him to make bad tactical decisions. So in posting on this thread I wanted to challenge people's basic assumptions (opinions) about the war, and the reasons we are there. It seems that most of you are self-assured that this is war was the right course of action, the execution may have been off slightly, but the strategy (such as it has been defined) is flawless. Confidence or stubbornness, I'm not sure which it is. I suppose none of you had any moments of introspection during the past four or five years as to why we are in Iraq. Anyway just some thoughts, I don't pretend to have hidden knowledge, or any new way of thinking about the war. But if you'd like to share opinions about the war, or the war strategy, I am more than willing to listen. Because though I have opinions, I try to also keep an open mind, since in reality I don't "know" anything.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread: