What is your political affiliation?

[cute fuzzy bunny]

A couple of fine points I think might be worthy of inserting here. Note that I'm not going to suggest that Hussein was a sweet guy or anything. I think it might be worthwhile to note that the first thing a nation does when it goes to war is demonize the other guy.

Saddam Hussein did kill a hell of a lot of people who were trying to overthrow him. He used gas on them. Abraham Lincoln killed a hell of a lot of people who just wanted to secede from his country and do things differently. His troops used gas on those people too. Woodrow Wilson also authorized US troops to use gas on our enemies during the first world war.

Hussein made and used weapons of mass destruction and would likely have made and used more if given the opportunity. He had a handful of major insurgent population groups within his own borders. He had a handful of neighbors that would have invaded his country and killed him in a heartbeat if they thought his ability to strike back was weak. So he probably had a to walk a thin line between self preserving chest thumping and not giving the US/UN the idea that he actually had something and was going to use it.

Hussein is such a violent madman that we supported him and his regime through war efforts and due to his charity work he was given the keys to the city of Detroit.

As we're finding out, its hard to keep a thumb on the crazy people in Iraq without being pretty tough with them. As we're going to find out, its going to be a real treat to keep a thumb on Iraq's neighbors without the buffer that Hussein provided between Iran and Saudi Arabia/Israel.

The bottom line is that we had whittled Husseins military and influence in the area to a nub. He had nothing and no real way to do anything to us, although I guess anythings possible. We left him there as long as we could to act as a buffer and when it became obvious that he could no longer perform in that role, we moved in to secure the area for a variety of economic and political reasons. I just dont think that the prospect of his using or sponsoring an attack on the US was in the top three.

Freebird, I actually dont agree with a good number of things you said, but respect your opinion. You might want to leave out the 'naive' comments until you do a little more reading in perspective, or at least spell it correctly

 

[retire@40]

The US is only doing what every dominating government in history has tried to do: preserve power. Other governments in the world either feel a sense of comfort knowing their system is protected by the US, or they feel they need to overcome the US and make themselves the new dominating government.

No matter what you think of the recent history of Afganistan and Iraq (and Libya for that matter), those countries will not attack us in the foreseeable future, just like Europe and Japan will not attack us in the foreseeable future.

Next on the plate are Iran and North Korea, and maybe some other pain-in-the-ass country that wants to get closer to equalized (or greater) military power with the US.

No matter who is president, the US will always try to preserve power by curtailing the military ambitions of other countries, otherwise we are doomed.

 

[haha]

A couple of fine points I think might be worthy of inserting here.  Note that I'm not going to suggest that Hussein was a sweet guy or anything.  I think it might be worthwhile to note that the first thing a nation does when it goes to war is demonize the other guy.

Saddam Hussein did kill a hell of a lot of people who were trying to overthrow him.  He used gas on them.  Abraham Lincoln killed a hell of a lot of people who just wanted to secede from his country and do things differently.  His troops used gas on those people too.  Woodrow Wilson also authorized US troops to use gas on our enemies during the first world war.

Good golly, Miss  Molly, this does put it in a new light.

 

[eridanus]

that if Al Gore had been president after 9-11 he too would have most certainly attacked Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

What is the link between 9/11 and Iraq again? Other then it's kinda close to where the terrorists came from (Saudi) and where the head honcho was residing (Afghanistan).

 

[Martha]

Bush's attack on Iraq did not have much of anything to do with the war on terror. And there are plenty of other countries adverse to us with weapons of mass destruction, North Korea for one.

Bad, bad mistake at best.

 

[FreeBird]

Saddam Hussein did kill a hell of a lot of people who were trying to overthrow him.  He used gas on them.  Abraham Lincoln killed a hell of a lot of people who just wanted to secede from his country and do things differently.  His troops used gas on those people too.  Woodrow Wilson also authorized US troops to use gas on our enemies during the first world war.

Wow! Saddam, Abraham, and Woodrow all paralleled in the very same paragraph. Sometimes silence is the best response as your paragraph speaks volumes.  :

Freebird, I actually dont agree with a good number of things you said, but respect your opinion.  You might want to leave out the 'naive' comments until you do a little more reading in perspective, or at least spell it correctly

Thanks for the compliment and likewise ... and perhaps the accusation of "naive" is a bit too powerful (Hey, I think I spelled nieve "currect" this time!  ) as you're definitely knowledgeable but on the other hand I'm confident that most readers 'n lurkers can draw their own "perspective" between Hussein, Lincoln, and Wilson.

Posted by: Martha :

Bush's attack on Iraq did not have much of anything to do with the war on terror.  And there are plenty of other countries adverse to us with weapons of mass destruction, North Korea for one. 

Bad, bad mistake at best.

Throughout time, right or wrong, great leaders have made many difficult decisions... that is what courage and leadership are all about. In the end the Iraqi people must choose to fight for their own freedom and only time will tell for sure. If the Iraqis' do choose a representative government  then GWB will most definitely be recorded in history alongside the greatest, just as Ronald Reagan stood up to the USSR despite a lot of peoples belief that he was cultivating WWIII, but that wall did come down and the historians are begining to record the truths about this peace driven man!

If freedom in Iraq fails then it will not be the fault of the coalition leaders and the very brave soldiers who provided them with one of the most unique opportunities for their future that has ever come down the pipe during thousands of years of turmoil. It's their choice.  And if the last two free elections are any indication then things are looking good as indicated by hundred's of thousands of beautiful purple thumbs!

Edited to add something to actually answer your question (Ole dopey me ) All I can say is that George W. Bush, Tony Blair, most of congress, and myself did see a powerful connection with Saddam Hussein and terrorism after 9-11, but I do respect your opinion! See the details of my previous posts for details.

And note that I draw a very big difference in "attacking the good people of Iraq" and the madman Saddam Hussein. Big difference!

 

[eridanus]

All I can say is that George W. Bush, Tony Blair, most of congress, and myself did see a powerful connection with Saddam Hussein and terrorism after 9-11, but I do respect your opinion! See the details of my previous posts for details.

The Downing Street memo, the uranium details pulled out of the speech and put back in, and the Plame mission indicated that there was no connection.

What "powerful" connection was there that mis-led everyone? Thanks.

"Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html

 

[Howard]

So, when are you Yanks invading North Korea, or the fact that they have a huge Army and Air Force dissuade you

Madass was a ruthless Dictator, so is Muwgabe, so are any more than a dozen others, Iraquis did not attack the US , Saudies did, so is the real reason Oil

The US and the UK will pull out of Iraq, the country will descend into chaos, the people will long for the certainty of Madass's reign.

Afghanistan, don't worry, we Canadians are there, UN Mandate, J2 are in country.(they make your Green Berets look like Boy Scouts).

Sorry to be so blunt.

 

[Dreamer]

I can only speak for this Yank, and I hope the answer is never! I would love to see all war end everywhere! Just because we live in a country, does not mean that we agree with everything that is done by our leaders. I personally will keep voting and I will pray for guidance and wisdom for whomever our elected leaders are at the time. Not sure what else we can do.

 

[Jarhead*]

So, when are you Yanks invading North Korea, or the fact that they have a huge Army and Air Force dissuade you??

Korea has already been done. (To a point).

But Canada, there's an idea.


Jarhead, who agrees with ReWahoo, that Texas is the best college football team in the country.

 

[REWahoo]

But Canada, there's an idea.

 

[Eagle43]

I'll see your three and double 'em.

 

[haha]

So, when are you Yanks invading North Korea, or the fact that they have a huge Army and Air Force dissuade you

Madass was a ruthless Dictator, so is Muwgabe, so are any more than a dozen  others, Iraquis did not attack the US , Saudies did, so is the real reason Oil

The US and the UK will pull out of Iraq, the country will descend into chaos, the people will long for the certainty of Madass's reign.

Afghanistan, don't worry, we Canadians are there, UN  Mandate, J2 are in country.(they make your Green Berets look like Boy Scouts).

Sorry to be so blunt.

Blunt and ignorant. Without the USA, you Canucks would be welcoming your new leaders from across the pole. The only sensible thing you have said is -"Hey, you guys should have won the War of 1812."

Ha

 

[bruce1]

I can only speak for this Yank, and I hope the answer is never! I would love to see all war end everywhere! Just because we live in a country, does not mean that we agree with everything that is done by our leaders. I personally will keep voting and I will pray for guidance and wisdom for whomever our elected leaders are at the time. Not sure what else we can do.

Wise words in my opinion Dreamer. Howard's comments are not well thought out and are more anti American than pro Canadian. IMO

Bruce

 

[Martha]

If the Iraqis' do choose a representative government then GWB will most definitely be recorded in history alongside the greatest. . .

If freedom in Iraq fails then it will not be the fault of the coalition leaders and the very brave soldiers who provided them with one of the most unique opportunities for their future that has ever come down the pipe during thousands of years of turmoil. It's their choice.

I see you position yourself so that Bush was right no matter what happens. If a representative government is elected, Bush is a great president. If not, it is Iraq's fault, "their choice."

Spin.

Man, I have got to stay out of these political discussions.

 

[FreeBird]

Man, I have got to stay out of these political discussions.

You sure hit the nail on the head with that one!! 
I love it when we can find common ground but I'm such a sucker when it comes to politics!

Just like Larry the Cable Guy, I know that I'm gonna do it again and again so I'll go ahead and say it... "Lord, I appologize for that." 

"Yes, you are right--I am a moralist in disguise; it gets me into heaps of trouble when I go thrashing around in political questions."
                        Mark Twain

 

[FreeBird]

I regret that some of the recent posts' have lowered the bar to name calling and insults.

As for our northern friends, I will always be grateful for their contribution over the years for just causes and especially the Canadian blood that was spilled in abundance as part of the "Greatest Generation" during WWII. "We" truely did save the world.

No, Canada didn't join "the coalition of the willing" during "Operation Iraqi Freedom" but that's OK, there were still plenty of leaders, right or wrong, willing to lead from countries which were attacked or were high probability targets. There have been no atacks on US soil since 9-11 so evidently somebody is doing something right.

Regardless, if Toronto is ever attacked by a dirty nuclear detonation, chemical bomb, or something as crude as a boeing 737 human missile... I guarantee you that "we" will be there for you. 

God Bless The America's!

 

[TomSimpsonAZ]

I think winning/ending a war without gaining respect/fear is almost impossible.

I'm half Japanese and can honestly say that the Japanese of the 40's probably aren't that different from people in the middle east today. Japan took a huge blow from the U.S. after Pearl Harbor that wiped out their military manufacturing and basically took them out of the war, but they didn't surrender. That is when we nuked them, killing plenty of innocent people. The U.S. might have killed a lot of people, but gained their respect. Today, the people of Japan are our allies, and are a very advanced society.

I love what we are doing in Iraq and I feel it is almost the same as what we were doing in Japan. I draw parallels to what is going on with Afghanistan/Iraq as what went on with Germany/Japan, but on a smaller scale. I just don't agree with this pursuit of perfection that we have. The coddling of nations we don't play well with, I'd rather be respected and honored.

Honestly, as an American, I feel like a scummy used car salesman. Discussing financing while raising the price of the car, extending loan terms, low balling a trade in, etc etc etc. Basically just wanting to be someone's buddy while trying to come out ahead on the whole deal. We meddle too much, our "help" should come at such a high cost that we are only called upon when it is truly necessary. We should be a sleeping giant once again, we have many more important problems here at home, socially and fiscally.

 

[haha]

Amen, Tom! Walk softly and carry a big stick- and occasionally use it to destroy some nasty nation which is really and truly bothering us. If all they need is nation building, let them build their own damn nations, with their own money.

Ha

 

[Jarhead*]

Tom: Agree with you on the "early" Iraq situation, but I'm beginning to feel that we would be best served, at this point, to start winding it down over there. (Expecting that area to get along with each other, (Mid-East),
doesn't fly with the history of the last 1,000 years or so.

Ha: Yep. We are the world's ass-kickers, and should stay out of the social work area.
At this point, I wish we'd start a phase out in Iraq, and start concentrating on North Korea.

McArthur is probably spinning in his grave. (He tried his damndest to convice old Harry that North Korea was going to be a problem for a long time.

 

[hodadus]

I hate it that this my first post to this fine service, but I had to throw in my two pennies.  I will post an introduction later.

OK, these are just my comments and opinions to anyone that believes that the war in Iraq is justified.

If you believe the so-called war on terror in Iraq is so right, then why aren't you over there serving and protecting our freedom?  Or did you get a deferment?  Oh that's right you only need a deferment when there is a draft.  This war is all voluntary,... then why not volunteer?

Please do a little history search and find out when saddam actually attacked the US,... I think you'll find out that it was on May 17, 1987 when the USS Stark (FFG-31) while operating in the Persian Gulf, was hit by a missile fired by an Iraqi F-1.  The Stark lost 37 sailors defending the world's oil supply.  Nothing new today as service men and women give their life in Iraq for oil.  In 1987, we never got a real apology and we didn't invade Irag,... well not until they invaded Kuwait.  Funny how the killing of 37 American Servicemen and the damage of American property was not enough to invade Iraq, but when saddam invaded Kuwait, it was? Please explain that to me.  Kind of makes one cynical.  I know,... back then,... the enemy of my enemy.....  Ayatollah was our nemisis.  Still didn't sit well with me.

Sometimes the only thing that keeps me sane when I listen to the pro-Iraq war opinions, is that I know there is a antidote to the Kool-aid that has been gulped down by so many of the masses.  That antidote is information from more than one source and real life experience, and then using that to make an informed decision.

Believe it or not, but this is my first post to any internet discussion board.  I came here for personal ER information, not politics.  I really like this place and hope to use it for a long time.

Thanks for letting me vent.
ae

 

[retire@40]

...Funny how the killing of 37 American Servicemen and the damage of American property was not enough to invade Iraq, but when saddam invaded Kuwait, it was?  Please explain that to me.  Kind of makes one cynical.

... I came here for personal ER information, not politics.

Funny how you came to this forum for personal ER information, not politics, yet your first post is on politics.

 

[HFWR]

I was kinda hopin' this thread had died...

There are some pretty smart assed folks on this forum, and a variety of opinions. Must mean there's not really one answer, but a continuum...

IMHO, of course...

 

[yakers]

I don't know what "Board General" (hall monitor?) can call time out but I suggest if this goes on longer we start on kayaks, bunnies & dryer sheets.

 

[Martha]

Hodadus, welcome to the board. Big risk to take in making your first post polical! Stick around and post an introduction.

Now, for our message from our Other Topics Bored General: