Iraq: The Civil War
Can anyone tell me they still think invading Iraq was a good idea? Come on, we went there with a weak case against WMD's that proved to be false. Then the administration started to spin it as part of the "War on Terror" —which it is…now. But originally it was about WMD's and Saddam. The real War on Terror was being fought —and won, in Afghanistan. We then ruled that a "check" when we should have made sure it was a "checkmate" before even considering turning our attention to Iraq. So we went ahead and started a war that nobody needed and those of us with half a brain wanted. We forged ahead and when we found no WMD's we rolled it into the War on Terror —which it wasn't…up to that point. I say "wasn't" because when we invaded there were not foreign fighter in the country. It wasn't until we rolled into town that we became the shit for the flies. The situation there is certainly far from stable and the future is even further from certain. And now I've finally seen some beginning to call it for what it appears to be coming; a civil war.
Don't get me wrong, Saddam was a brutal dictator and he needed to go. But do you really believe he was such an urgent threat to the United States that we really needed to start a war that some of our greatest allies advised against? Yeah, what do they know. Saddam was under our collective thumb and was going nowhere. He was contained and wasn't a serious threat to anyone since the end of the Gulf War. Which is when we probably should have taken him out of power. So now what? We've grown these incredibly huge balls to compensate for the ones we didn't have back in 1991 when we should have!
And before you start blasting me about my "liberal views", I'm a registered Republican. But unfortunately my party has been hijacked by the far right and likely isn't every coming back. And no, I don't support the far left "lets bring our boys home" mantra either. That's not realistic. I'm not sure how we can ever fix the situation and bring them home —God knows they didn't deserve this one. But we can't just cut and run. When your let your dog out of the yard and he shits on the neighbors lawn, you're still responsible for cleaning it up.
The best thing that is likely to come out of this —beyond Saddam being removed from power, is that George W. Bush will go down in history as one of our worst presidents ever.
Jeanne Rhea said:
You are right on with this one. We can only hope things begin to turn around soon.
solid said:
The media in this country loves to see scandal and failure. I remember reports of widespread rape and murder in the superdome after Huricane Katrina. It turned out that no one was raped and the only deaths in the superdome were natural. The media relied on rumor and passed it on as fact. In an age where the media can manufacture documents to support any story they want (IE Dan Rather and the National Guard) and they don't do the very simplest fact checking (IE Katrina), what makes you think you are hearing a realistic unbiased presentation of the facts out of Iraq (half a world away where the media rarely leaves their hotels)? If you really want to know straight Dope talk to the troops here on leave. Some of the stories they tell sound like they must be happening on another plannet other than the one that the New York times and 60 Minutes is reporting on.
Kevin said:
solid,
You're right...maybe I'm not getting the full picture, but boys are still coming home in body bags are they not? And why is that? Because George W. Bush put us in a war we did not need to be in. There's a lot to be said for patience, something this President sorely lacks apparently. I'm not saying we wouldn't have wound up invading, but there was no need to do it when we did...alone and without our allies. They were skeptical for a reason and I believe the fact that no WMD's were EVER found proves they had a valid point. Saddam was not an imminent threat, period. We are in a war we didn't need to start.
I would also like to thank you for stopping by and voicing your opinion in an intelligent and rational manner. :)
Solid said:
For starters, they are not boys. They are men. I take great offense to the constant demeaning of the soldiers by calling them "boys" and portraying them as helpless pawns. The men in our Armed forces are the best among us. They do a job that no one wants to do in the worst parts of the World. Being that I am the only Male member of my family not to be in the armed forces, I love and admire all those who are willing to fight and die for what made this country great. As far as them comming home in body bags, My brother was a member of the US army Military untill early 2004. I understand what it is like to fear the worst and not hear anything for weeks. War is ugly. Many great men are lost so others can enjoy what they held as the greatest cause they could fight for. As far as Patience, I think 12 years of waiting and 14 UN resolutions is the equivilant of infinite patience. We weren't the only country fooled into thinking that Sadaam had wmds. The french and germans believed it. Iran believed it. In fact, Sadaam did everything he could to appear to be hiding something. I still believe he did have them. Did you know that the entire Stock of Serin that Sadaam was reported to have could have fit into a carry-on suit case? Iraq is the size of california and Sadaam had 12 months to hide whatever he needed to. Follow my Logic here. Natalie Halaway's body has still not been found in Aruba, Maybe she was never there. That is the same reasoning we are using for WMDs. Iraq is huge and WMDs are relatively small and very mobile.
On an unrelated note, Kevin please email me concerning the development of polarblog I have a proposition for you.Solid
Kevin said:
Point taken. You are very right in correcting me in referring to them as "boys". Your assertion that they are men is most certainly true. These men are in the military by their own choice and deserve the utmost respect from all of us. I do not believe I have maligned or demeaned them in any way beyond my now corrected statement of calling them boys. They have done the job they were asked to do, no doubt to the best of their abilities. A job that I and many others wouldn't or couldn't do. I have the utmost respect for their sacrifice. By problem is not with the men and women of the armed forces of this country.
My issue is with the administration that put them in harms way in what I believe was an unnecessary action. From shortly after 9/11 this adminstration began building a case to link Saddam to that horrific day's events. They couldn't do it because the links didn't exist at that time. But they would not be detered and began building a case for invading because of the WMD's that appeared to not exist and later were proven to not exist. They played on people's fears and have lead them into an unnecessary military action. By their own admission the teams sent to Iraq to find the WMD's found none. They did find a few lesser violations (missiles that exceed allowable ranges, etc.), but no WMD's, period. They quit looking for them long ago.
I also believe that the US Congress shoulders a portion of the blame for handing the President what amounted to open ended permission to go wage war wherever he felt we needed too in the "war on terror". Shame on them for shirking their responsiblities.
And part of the war on terror is what this has become. And why is that? Because we unnecessarily invaded a country on weak intelligence, failed to secure it after overthrowing the previous government and then allowed foreign fighter to stream into the country. (Although at this point reports are that most of the insurgents are not foreigners.) That's how this became part of the war on terror, but now has become a civil war with the Unites States stuck right in the middle of it.
Solid said:
Kevin, Actually the links between alqueda and sadaam are numerous. Sadaam's fascination with Mass murder is also well documented. Did you know that We DID find weapons of mass destruction? We found serin gass in an improvised roadside bomb near bagdad airport in late 2004. The device did not explode because the shell they used was not an explosive shell; it was toxic agent delivery shell. It turns out that is was in fact full of serin about the size of a Zepher hills bottle. It looked like all the other explosive shells which is probably why it was accidentally used in a roadside bomb. The shell was completely unmarked which makes me wonder how many unmarked missles in Sadaam's arsenal might have been WMDs and they were overlooked because they looked like every other Al Samood missle. Sometimes the best place to hide something is in plain sight. Like I said, Just because we did not find them does not mean they were never there or aren't still.
Kevin said:
I dispute that there were any substantial links between al Qaeda and Saddam. My understanding was that there were some contacts, but basically their views differed largely because of the Sunni vs. Shite struggle. Which is pretty much the problem now, thus civil war.
I do recall the serin IED which was as you said, simply someone thinking it was a conventional bomb. There likely is still some of that around from the pre-Gulf War era. But there was still nothing found that appeard to be intend for use against anyone. So yes, they definately were there at some point in the past and there may still be some, but older than dirt. Which in some case may still be harmful.
Regardless, I still feel we shouldn't have gone when we did. That we should have finished up in Afganistan. And that the situation is at or near a civil war status in Iraq.