Hi Logan, here we go:

quote:

my continued support for the Iraq conflict in the face of mounting criticism.

Can you tell me about that?

miles,

quote:

Can you tell me about that?

Why do I feel like lying down on a couch and spilling my inner child?

I'll articulate it as best as I can.

No really, I only want to know. I don't intend on spilling MY 2cts here, I've done so more than enough. And in order to understand what the Hell is going on in general, I need to understand the opinion of people that I might disagree with. Besides, I think it's a matter of respect to ask after someone's opinion in stead of charging at first glimpse.

Miles,

Here we go.

Starting it off I was for the war on many ground none really that were expressed on the run up to GW2. I have always felt that the US really screwed up when they stopped at the border of Iraq in GW1 because of political instability in the region. We should have gone all the way to Baghdad. We signed our peace accords and set the UN to the task. Ten years and multiple justifications later in a post “unmentionable series of numbers” world we went on the offensive. For the record, I did not and do not believe Saddam had anything to do with “unmentionable series of numbers”. Do I believe that Saddam is a terrorist and also supports terrorism? Yes I do. Ultimately, after all the back and forth motions of pre-gulf war it boils down to Saddam called our bluff. So that is the generalized background.

My current and ongoing support for this conflict is rooted in the belief (feel free to question the sanity of it) that this conflict although settles old issues that will vastly change the dynamics of the Middle East for the better. War in and of itself is not a pretty endeavor. Considering that this conflict is the most covered conflict in the history of the world. This conflict is pretty. My grandfather was in WWII pacific and my Uncle was Vietnam. The stories of the carriage from their memories of just the ones they would actually talk about were horrifying. If America had the level of media coverage in any of those wars they would have lasted a week. We live in unprecedented level of media coverage but we also live in unprecedented level of political divisiveness. A single act, word, sentence, picture or event is package with graphics, mood music and commentary and sent around the world. “If it bleeds it leads” isn’t that the media slogan. I actually have to really search the internet or deep into stories to find out the good news going on Iraq. There is all kind of Good going on in Iraq but nobody ever want to report on it because it will never get printed. I can’t imagine anybody liking war. I at least understand war. Can any sane person condone Abu Grav(?). NO. Should we abandon everything because of it? NO. War is not something that should be decided in the coffee house across the world. I actually like that fact that Bush is not swayed by politics or opinion polls on something so important. In a nutshell, I can see the global implications of a free and democratic Iraq if all the pieces fall into place. Was going into Iraq correct. Yes. Do I feel that “overall” we are currently handling Iraq correctly. YES. Do I feel that Iraq will ultimately stabilized and because a citizen of the world. I believe so.


This should give you enough ammo to get the ball rolling. Keep it civil.

quote:

This should give you enough ammo to get the ball rolling. Keep it civil.

I'm not trying to 'get ammo', I'm trying to understand your point of view. I can assure you I do NOT intend to attack it. I'm not going to either.

I'll address your post later, probably tomorrow, because right now I have to go and do stuff, but thank you for your exposé. I'll be around shortly.

However, I have a short question: what, according to you, is a terrorist? I think we had a discussion about this before, and someone came up with a workable definition, but I have no idea where to find it and the search engine in this site does all sorts of pretty things except search. So, what's your definition?

Fair enough... I await it.

Open space - Never been this fair down the list before.

sorry for the above edit...

quote:

Originally posted by LOGANTHOR:Starting it off I was for the war on many ground none really that were expressed on the run up to GW2. I have always felt that the US really screwed up when they stopped at the border of Iraq in GW1 because of political instability in the region. We should have gone all the way to Baghdad. We signed our peace accords and set the UN to the task. Ten years and multiple justifications later in a post “unmentionable series of numbers” world we went on the offensive. For the record, I did not and do not believe Saddam had anything to do with “unmentionable series of numbers”. Do I believe that Saddam is a terrorist and also supports terrorism? Yes I do. Ultimately, after all the back and forth motions of pre-gulf war it boils down to Saddam called our bluff. So that is the generalized background.

Hang on. Lemme get this right.

You wanted to push into Baghdad when Bush I was fighting his media war. You do not believe that the UN was up to the task of establishing peace. And you didn't bother to explain why you supported GW1 in the first place.

Then you say that Saddam wasn't engaging in Serbian genocide in Iraq, much like the Holocaust nay-sayers. And you turn around and call him a terrorist and a terrorist supporter, but you again fail to cite any support for those opinions. Do you believe Saddam was funding militant Islamists during his regime's secular reign?

What bluff are you talking about? Last time I checked, Saddam engaged in no aggression against the United States, and was not harboring nor training terrorists. He didn't have WMDs, and was no threat to the US. He was contained, and intelligence from the time supported that belief by and large. Cherry-picking of intelligence reports (giving preference to distrusted and discredited sources) presented a different viewpoint, and that one was rabidly advanced by the White House and the Corporatist media.

I think you're confused

As for the next paragraph, sounds like a lot of media rhetoric with no purpose. But perhaps I am confused here.

No, I think you're still confused. Here's the litmus test: For what noble purpose did the US send its sons and daughters to die in Iraq? We on the left have been puzzling out this one for 3 years now, and we're coming up empty. All of the purposes we've identified are not noble--they're Ameri-centrist, corporatist, and racist, but not noble.

Point being, who determines if a society should be democratic or not? Obviously, if power rests with the people, they decide. And when left to their own devices, the people of Iraq seem to be selecting theocracy as their system of government. This must be considered valid to the American perspective, because the Iraqi people chose it. However, that doesn't mean we shouldn't bring pressure to bear, especially UN pressure, to ensure that the resulting government is treating all of its citizens humanely.

Going off to a war in which the great loser is the civilian population is not the way to go, guy. It's kind of what warfare was supposed to prevent.

Miles,

quote:

So, what's your definition?

I though I already posted that on your thread about defining terrorist some time ago. I'll see if I can find it again.

So much for finding a quite corner to chat. I'll hold off responding to GymgeekAus until you weight in on my overview.

If I may.

The action in Afghanistan was probably justified. As I posted on this board prior to GW2, I opposed the invasion of Iraq on unhumanitarian grounds. I didn't and don't believe that Saddam ever posed a threat to US interests. I don't believe that chemical or biological weapons are WMD although it should be obvious to anyone with half a brain that Saddam had them and used them against the Kurds and Iranians.

The reason I objected to the war was that, like everyone else who opposed the war, I don't give two craps about the Kurds and the way Saddam treated them. I would be better off with Saddam in power although the Kurds would be worse off. If you oppose the war, this has to be your default position. I am opposed to rebuilding the power grid in Iraq when we could use a new one in California.

That brings us to today. We can't stuff pandora back in her box. We can't kill people and break things without some measure of rebuilding. It goes against my beliefs and is contrary to the historical actions of the US in every conflict which we have entered and won. In other words, we are stuck. We have to see this to the end. Just pulling our troops out at this point and time would guarantee a catastrophe in Iraq the size of which the world hasn't seen since Cambodia and Pol Pot.

In the interim, I believe that we have to learn from history and not treat those who have served the country the same way vets of the Viet Nam era were treated. In addition, our troops must stay until Iraq is politically stable and able to defend itself.

The mistake of entering the war won't be rectified for years. We have to end it the right way which we will eventually find after trying all the wrong ways.

I can't remember where I heard this, a few days ago, but what I heard was that the reason the US didn't go all the way in GWI was that that was part of the agreement with the coalition. Without that agreement, we wouldn't have had the International Coalition we had.

I don't have the backup information on it, but I believe the person who said this was in a position to know whether this was true or not.

Regards - Howard

Miles,

Man just because it almost midnight in Holland does not mean you can sleep on this. O well, I’ll hold my tongue till morning. I most likely will be hung over and a bit grumpy. My Irish friend from clan O'Connor and I have some catching up to do tonight. Your terrorism issue, Believe or not, I still had the link to my source.
Is One Man’s Terrorist Another Man’s Freedom Fighter?

Bush 1 said the reason they didn't remove Saddam in the first Gulf war was that the UN mandate only gave him authority to remove Iraq from Kuwait.

quote:

Originally posted by Sawdust:That brings us to today. We can't stuff pandora back in her box. We can't kill people and break things without some measure of rebuilding. It goes against my beliefs and is contrary to the historical actions of the US in every conflict which we have entered and won. In other words, we are stuck. We have to see this to the end. Just pulling our troops out at this point and time would guarantee a catastrophe in Iraq the size of which the world hasn't seen since Cambodia and Pol Pot.

Link please? Oh nevermind--there is no evidence, merely conjecture. The US has systematically destroyed anything of the old government structure the Iraqis had in place before the invasion. "If we leave, it will be anarchy!" Well, if it isn't anarchy now, then what is it? A civil war with us in the middle? Is that the preferred US position in conflict? Whoa, sounds like a job for the UN to me.

I have an immediate withdrawal option for you to ponder. The US goes to the UN. We admit that we engaged in pre-emptive war without justification, renounce our permanent position on the Security Council (we demonstrated that we don't deserve the veto afterall), bring Mr. Bolton home in disgrace, and subject our leadership to the judgement of the World Court, if the UN feels that is warranted. We hand over the entire Iraqi region to the UN, continue to pay for the reconstruction under their supervision, and continue to provide security under their umbrella--not as US soldiers, but as US soldiers engaged in a UN peacekeeping action. And we educate the rest of America about what happened, and increase public support for the impeachment of the fascists who have taken over the government.

Ta daa! Now we can see it to the end, because now we've got a plan to make it end. Right now, there is no plan but perpetual war--the President isn't even pretending anymore that it isn't. It won't be his administration that oversees the Iraq withdrawal, afterall.

quote:

In the interim, I believe that we have to learn from history and not treat those who have served the country the same way vets of the Viet Nam era were treated. In addition, our troops must stay until Iraq is politically stable and able to defend itself.

The mistake of entering the war won't be rectified for years. We have to end it the right way which we will eventually find after trying all the wrong ways.

Which is empty rhetoric, three years into an occupation which was not legal or legitimate to begin with. Sorry, but this is war-apologetics.

Our best shot at regaining face here is to stand up for American principles, and show the rest of the world that we still remember what we were talking about back in the late 1700s.

Waiting

Waiting


Waiting


Waiting


You awake Miles..... Hello. I know it's 1AM there. No No No get some sleep... I'm not going to do it. I'll wait for you. Gym is going to have to wait.

quote:

"If we leave, it will be anarchy!" Well, if it isn't anarchy now, then what is it?

Dick Morris had an interesting take the other day, he said it's negotiation Iraqi style.

Look Buckwheat, you got a better idea, there isn't anything stopping you from spewing it. You can ask for links and call ideas empty this and empty that, but the truth is you have nothing that works in the real world. Fact is, I wish we hadn't got involved but now that we are, the only thing that will rehabilitate our image if we pulled out now is a few decades and everyone living there now dieing. If you think we can go there, bust the hell out of everything and then haul ass, leaving the country vulnerable to it's crazy neighbors, you are more gullible than I believe you are.

As for the UN, they are impotent, inneffective, corrupt with despots and terrorist states sitting on the security council. You want links? Here you go:

Wonderful job in Rwanda Already failed in Iraq Drew raves in Yugoslavia Crapped out in the Sudan Took a shit in the Congo Screwed the pooch in Darfur

I could go on but if you think the UN is good for anything but giving away wheat, you are one confused individual.

Sawdust,

Miles and I are attempting a greater understand on this thread. So I am trying not to get involved with GymGeekAus that would spin the conversation elsewhere. I soooo want to.

But in breaking my silence.....

You got style. Thumbs up on the UN hit.

quote:

terrorism is the intentional use of, or threat to use violence against civilians or against civilian targets, in order to attain political aims.

Good enough for me.

So Seahawk, you were right about the quiet corner thing. Many people have many things to scream. Okay, just let them, maybe we can still have this conversation.

Ok, next question:

How do you feel about the fact that no convincing proof has been provided that Saddam had WMD's? And do you think Bush, Cheney and Rove knew or should have known this beforehand?

Just for the record: I'm only asking a question, I'm NOT passing judgement. Seriously, I want to get this and I don't think interjecting MY 2cts each chance I get will in any way bring us closer toghether.

PS> to everybody ELSE who thinks they have something to say about this: thanks people! This really helps a lot!

I am, of course, being IRONIC here.

Miles,

Good Morning,

quote:

How do you feel about the fact that no convincing proof has been provided that Saddam had WMD's?

"Had" Dangerous word. Certainly you are not claiming he never had them, just he did not have them when we got there the second time. Because I have VERY convincing proof he HAD them. If you would like I could find again the laundry list of what he HAD. OR we can settle on he had them and that by the time we got there in GW2 those WMD's were destroyed/moved/missing or other.

As Jonah Goldberg put it:

The fact that Hussein turned out to be bluffing about WMD isn't a mark against Bush's decision. If you're a cop and a man pulls out a gun and points it at you, you're within your rights to shoot him, particularly if the man in question is a known criminal who's shot people before. If it turns out afterward that the gun wasn't loaded, that's not the cop's fault.

Miles,

Sorry I guess I missed the second part of you question.

quote:

And do you think Bush, Cheney and Rove knew or should have known this beforehand?

What they knew or should have known is only the information that they had at hand. Neither of the three to my knowledge worked undercover in-country in Iraq. If memory serves me correctly, that a majority of the intelligence community, including the UN, believed at the time Saddam was still packin. Every report was inconclusive, even from the famed Scott Ritter said he was 90-95% sure Saddam disarmed. Saddam was not overly helpful in helping the UN for whatever his reasons. How would any of those three guys know at that time that which the world believed he still had. The last UN resolution put the burden of proof on Saddam. It would appear he failed to convince.

They weren't undercover themselves, obviously, but the CIA DID h