Why are we in Iraq - A different view.

[jfields 0]

Quote

What do mean by short sighted, hypocritical and misguided? Examples...

I've been busy at work. Anyway, Mikkey did a pretty good job on a lot of the points. I'll pick a few:

Quote

There are around the world thousands of Islamic fanatics who want to kill Americans because they believe Allah is down with that.

And our war against them is different in what ways? God, justice and right have been tossed about in our "defensive" attack of a foriegn country that hasn't been linked to the terrorist acts against us.

Quote

These people are taught from the time they are children that Jews and Americans are undeserving of life on this planet.

Like bashing Muslims, calling them towel heads, or bashing the French and serving "Freedom Fries". We have not only claimed Iraqi lives are less important than American ones, we've acted on it, unlike the despot we deposed. When did he attack America, other than verbally?

Quote

Iraq used to be a terrorist enabler

Like giving weapons to rebels in Central Amerca, Iraq, Afghanistan, southeast Asia, etc.? Whoops. That was us.

Quote

Just the huge CIA presence in Iraq alone, gives the USA a major advantage in learning about terrorist operations

Our operations or theirs?

Quote

President Bush should level with the American people about the duplicity of France and, to a lesser extent, Germany.
I know this would cause an uproar but what the French have done to hurt America and Israel is unconscionable.

What about Bush leveling with the American people about the real reasons we are over there? The solid evidence of the weapons we supposedly went there to get? The clear plan for the reconstruction of Iraq?

No, that would be too honest. It is far easier to continue the charade and point fingers at France and Germany, for example.

Quote

The Bush administration has the correct global view regarding terrorism but poor communications skills both within the country and abroad.

I think the administration's view is totally screwed up, but I agree that they are indeed poor communicators.

Quote

And this time there's no Geneva Convention and no limits on deadly weaponry. This time there is no "exit strategy."
It's us or them.

So because they don't like us, we should dislike them too, and try to kill as many of them as possible using any means possible. Once again, please tell me how this differentiates us from them.

[mikkey 0]

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


BTW do you agree with Bill O's last paragraph regarding "no rules"? I find this the worst part of the article. You loose the moral high ground if you think/act like that.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Here Bill shows he is no politician, but, to some degree I agree. If another 9/11 happens in the USA, I for one am a supporter of a no rules conflict. Terrorist do not follow rules, that is obvious, and if it is the only way to stop them, then I am onboard. Are we to that point yet? NO i don't think so. Could it get to that? Yes, IMO it could.

I can only say: danger, danger, danger. The terrorists have won, the day you start behaving like them. And bombing civilians, killing innocents is no different from 9/11.
The Geneva convention is also extremely important as a "value" - are you fighting to protect you way of live, your constitution, your moral values, democracy? or do you just want to revenge? "Revenge" is what drives the terrorists. If you lower youself down to their level - you lost.

This is why I am concerned about the detention of Al Qaeda suspects and taleban fighters on Cuba. Excluding them from both the Geneva convention and US law is problematic. 20 month without trial or charges. No presumption of innocense or rights you give any US serial killer. And we can not assume they all are big time terrorists.

Be careful not to loose by winning.....

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[storm1977 0]

Quote

And our war against them is different in what ways?

Well first off our intended targets are not civilians. Our intensions are not to wipe out the entire country nor their religion. Our war was a calculated war agianst the leadership which breeds unfounded hatred toward a non agressive people (american civilians)

If you even think that there is a comparison between 9/11 and the war in Iraq in a sense that they are both "terrorist" in nature, that I can not have this discussion with you. Simply because it shows you are not a rational person. Now, if I am misunderstanding what you are saying, please clear it up with me so I can continue.

Chris

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

[jfields 0]

Quote

Our war was a calculated war agianst the leadership which breeds unfounded hatred toward a non agressive people (american civilians)

So we foster peace and love by going over there and killing them? Think about that logic for a minute. How does starting a war do anything other than perpetuate their hatred? If that is the reason, it is pathetic.

Quote

comparison between 9/11 and the war in Iraq

The two aren't that connected at all. So why are we fighting Iraq? Other than being pissed off at the last time we attacked them, what have they done to us? I'm not saying I like them, or that their goverment was good, but what American civilians have they hurt? Al Qaeda has, but they have dropped from public awareness completely. What are we doing about that? Why are we diverting so much of our financial and military resources to a secondary target? Iraq is really a minor peripheral factor in a real "war on terror". That goes back to figuring out why we are really there.

Side question:
As far as intent to injure, what is the difference between dropping a smart bomb in a housing complex and blowing yourself up in a crowded market?

[Lefty 0]

You know, making the U.N. a worthless force is a great idea. That is, if it's not worthless already. The articles you provide (especially the first one) actually reinforce what I said about the U.S. being the brains and muscle. If that's true, what's the point of having the U.N. around?

- Lefty

Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin

[Hummusx 0]

I don't have the time (I'm at work) to get to into any of these points, but I just can't NOT say anything on a couple of points here.

The UN is largely 'worthless' already, as a couple other people have already stated. They have no real power of their own. Nor do I want them to have much more than they do. It's difficult enough dealing with the US Government wihout having to worry about International Courts and all that crap. And yes, the US funds the UN almost by itself.

As to the US vetoing numerous UN resolutions, if you ever bother to look at a lot of them, many of them are pretty anti-US in nature, if not overtly.

Any comparison of WAR to TERRORISM is just plain stupid. I'm sorry, I usually am pretty good about listening to what people think and respecting their opinions, but if you can't distinguish the utter difference between specifically targetting helpless, unarmed civilians for slaughter and military combat, we don't have any basis on which to carry on a discussion. This is one of the things that drives me nuts about the Isreal/Palestine conflight. Blowing yourself up in a crowded supermarket and firing rockets into a military complex are no the same thing! Don't try to compare them.

/rant

____________________________________
It’s like selling a million grills all at the same time…with extended warranties. -Hank Hill

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Any comparison of WAR to TERRORISM is just plain stupid.

Can you tell me why, then, that Iraqi's who are attacking US troops in Iraq are being labeled as terrorists?

[jfields 0]

Quote

Any comparison of WAR to TERRORISM is just plain stupid.

And how was our "shock & awe" display anything but a carefully planned measure to try to instill fear of our overwhelming firepower and terrorize them into submission?

Sometimes the main difference seems to be the technology and cost of the methods, rather than the intent.

[juanesky 0]

Chris,

These people will keep pointing out that US is behaving wrongfully and ATTACKING terrorist states without cause, and sufficient evidence, and even refute that all those terrorist states sympathizers, are finally agreeing to deal with terrorism within their own borders, thanks to the actual demonstration that US means business dealing with terrorism.

12 Long years of not following UN resolutions to the letter, the British, US Spain, and others agreed that it was time to do something, the treat of Saddam willing to use his KNOWN WMD, and willingness to also get new allies to fight an all terrorist campaign in Israel, are just figment of our imaginations. And yes, we deserved to have 9/11 by all means, it was totally warranted, despite the efforts made by US in seeking a peaceful solution to the Palestinian issue.

The war in Afghanistan, liberation and procurement of democracy over there, at least we know that there are not more killings in soccer fields over there. We are guilty on not giving them 12 or more years to think about getting tough on terrorism, it was ok to wait under these circumstances.

Us is now root of all that is wrong with the world today, and GWB is the main promoter of all of it. It is very clear, and convincing, not that any Islamic nation is capable of torturing and killing their own, blaming Israel and the US for their problems, and willing to harbor (in the very recent past) terrorist and support them, that is also a figment of our imagination, and just a cause to fuel our immediate imperialistic demands.

News about WMD Just to prove that still they are trying to detail all the findings.

News on the new course of action by terrorist supporting nations And this just out to prove that Iraq and Afghanistan has had no positive effect, no wait! this is biased media too.

The sad part is that no one is listening to the claims of all those people that actually get to be living on these places, who want freedom, and do not want their current leaders on power, and have kissed and embraced the troops as soon as they got to their home lands.


I totally agree with you that it will take time, it always have, look into Germany, Japan and all those countries, and the true imperialistic history the US has.

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[juanesky 0]

They will always compare it to serve their purposes, and they don't even realize that the ones attacking US troops in Iraq, same ones attacking the UN, and destroying the elctric and water supplies capabilities, one must assume they really don't like to bathe in there...

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[Hummusx 0]

Now we are talking semantics. Yes, the whole idea was to "terrorize" them into submission. The important point is who 'them' is. Them in this case was the Iraqi army. The idea was to scare them so much that the soldiers would surrender instead of fight so that we wouldn't have to kill so many of them. And it worked very well. Thousands of Iraqi soldier surrendered with little to no resistance, and they were sent home almost immediately, no harm done.

Obviously, at least to me, there is a difference between dropping bombs on military targets and flying airplanes into the twin towers. Just look at the intent. The latter was designed specifically to kill as many innocent civilians as possible. The former was designed to avoid as much loss of life as possible, civilian AND MILITARY.

____________________________________
It’s like selling a million grills all at the same time…with extended warranties. -Hank Hill

[storm1977 0]

Well Juanesky,

If I ever walk into battle, I know who's got my back. I would be afraid some of these other "Americans" my shoot me instead.

Chris

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

[jfields 0]

Quote

Just look at the intent. The latter was designed specifically to kill as many innocent civilians as possible.

Really? How are you certain of the intent and reasoning behind their actions? If they had been going for the maximum death count, they could have done the same action when the buildings were at full occupancy. The Pentagon didn't have the density of people many other targets would have.

My take is that they were going for symbolism. Rather than killing the most Americans, they targeted the symbols of America, to terrorize and show our vulnerabilities. Of course, I don't know that for certain either, but it sure looks that way.

Quote

Now we are talking semantics.

Yes and no. To go further, we need mutually accepted definitions of "terrorist", "soldier" and "war". Then we can start to talk about what the differences are between people and situations.

[juanesky 0]

Oh don't worry. It is all useless to even argue so we can just talk among ourselves. For one, I am a Nazi Sympathyzer, adn a bigot who happens to hate terrorists.

I will defend you and THEM and shoot all those TH that will attack us.

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[Hummusx 0]

Quote

If they had been going for the maximum death count, they could have done the same action when the buildings were at full occupancy.

They did pick a time when the building would be extremely full. If the intent was to make a statement with minimal loss of life, they wouldn't have done it just AFTER most people show up for work.

Quote

Yes and no. To go further, we need mutually accepted definitions of "terrorist", "soldier" and "war". Then we can start to talk about what the differences are between people and situations.

Yeah.

____________________________________
It’s like selling a million grills all at the same time…with extended warranties. -Hank Hill

[juanesky 0]

Quote

Quote

If they had been going for the maximum death count, they could have done the same action when the buildings were at full occupancy.

They did pick a time when the building would be extremely full. If the intent was to make a statement with minimal loss of life, they wouldn't have done it just AFTER most people show up for work.

Quote

Yes and no. To go further, we need mutually accepted definitions of "terrorist", "soldier" and "war". Then we can start to talk about what the differences are between people and situations.

Yeah.

LMAO.....We need to revise the Webster NOW....

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[SkydiverRick 0]

Quote

Now we are talking semantics. Yes, the whole idea was to "terrorize" them into submission. The important point is who 'them' is. Them in this case was the Iraqi army. The idea was to scare them so much that the soldiers would surrender instead of fight so that we wouldn't have to kill so many of them. And it worked very well. Thousands of Iraqi soldier surrendered with little to no resistance, and they were sent home almost immediately, no harm done.

Obviously, at least to me, there is a difference between dropping bombs on military targets and flying airplanes into the twin towers. Just look at the intent. The latter was designed specifically to kill as many innocent civilians as possible. The former was designed to avoid as much loss of life as possible, civilian AND MILITARY.

Be careful Ben, if you make a logical point the libs will start yelling and name calling. They will change the subject on occasion though. Probably bring up something that happened four hundred years ago to justify they're mis-guided views.

never pull low......unless you are

[SkydiverRick 0]

They did pick a time when the building would be extremely full. If the intent was to make a statement with minimal loss of life, they wouldn't have done it just AFTER most people show up for work.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Be careful Ben, if you make a logical point the libs will start yelling and name calling.

You mean kind of when we try to make our points, we're called un-American traitors who should leave the country?

[jfields 0]

Quote

LMAO.....We need to revise the Webster NOW....

No. You just need to read it.

• Quote

[wmw999 2,534]

Quote

They did pick a time when the building would be extremely full.

They went after the WTC in part very possibly because of the whole "unfinished business" thing that has in part been bandied about as one of the reasons for GWB going into Iraq.

Everything I've read (not all of it here on dz.com ) says that the WTC were picked as a symbol of western capitalism. The times they picked were probably for strategic purposes -- reasonably simultaneous flights that weren't too full (easier to control a smaller number of people).

The people were collateral damage of attacking symbols of American capitalism and militarism. Highly acceptable collateral damage (we're not talking about nice guys here), but not the whole purpose.

And someone saying they are a "bigot because of hating terrorists" (not you Hummusx) is taking liberties with threads. Using epithets that are commonly seen as bigoted (towelhead) and ascribing your own meaning to it ("everyone else uses it for Indians/Pakistanis/Arabs, but I'm using it for Islamic terrorists") is kind of like me saying that prison isn't so bad, because I define prison as a high-paying job that I'm not too fond of.

Wendy W.
edited to clarify a paraphrase, and to make what I meant clearer

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[kiltboy 0]

Quote

They did pick a time when the building would be extremely full. If the intent was to make a statement with minimal loss of life, they wouldn't have done it just AFTER most people show up for work

I thought the timing was more to do with taking control of a long distance flight so the plane would be well fueled but with few passangers.

As for choosing the impact point there was video of OBL discussing who was more optimistic of the damage inflicted.

David

[SkydiverRick 0]

Quote

Quote

Be careful Ben, if you make a logical point the libs will start yelling and name calling.

You mean kind of when we try to make our points, we're called un-American traitors who should leave the country?

You've never heard that from me. I think that everyone has a right to their opinions, regardless of how mis-guided they may be.

never pull low......unless you are

[kiltboy 0]

Quote

Obviously, at least to me, there is a difference between dropping bombs on military targets and flying airplanes into the twin towers. Just look at the intent. The latter was designed specifically to kill as many innocent civilians as possible. The former was designed to avoid as much loss of life as possible, civilian AND MILITARY.

No I believe that precision bombing is the most efficient way of bringing military force to bear. Wrecking command and control is a surgical strike and if you do it correctly then you don't repeatedly jeopardise assets such as pilots and aircraft for what are well defended targets.
Infantry/ military formations/vehicles/gun positions in the open can and are cluster bombed for maximum effect or just shelled with gusto.
Minimising the loss of enemy combatants is not a consideration when hitting a military target. Survivability of the asset doing the strike is.

David

[SkydiverRick 0]

Minimising the loss of life is not a consideration when hitting a military target. Survivability of the asset doing the strike is.

David