Can you support out troops and still be against the war?

[Voidwar]

Desert Stomp II was absolutely justified based on Saddam's ceasefire violations alone.

Add to this that he is a legitimate target in the War on Terror due to payola for palestinian martyrs, and giving Kidney treatment to the bastard (Abu Abbas) who shot the wheelchair bound man on the Achille Lauro.

Invasion and regime change was the "or else" of the '91 ceasefire agreement all along. After 9-11 the obvious terror assistance made more than enough causi belli.

Thus, only a person who is completely ignorant of the historical and legal context would characterize it as a "war without justification".

 

[Iriemon]

Desert Stomp II was absolutely justified based on Saddam's ceasefire violations alone.

Add to this that he is a legitimate target in the War on Terror due to payola for palestinian martyrs, and giving Kidney treatment to the bastard (Abu Abbas) who shot the wheelchair bound man on the Achille Lauro.

Invasion and regime change was the "or else" of the '91 ceasefire agreement all along. After 9-11 the obvious terror assistance made more than enough causi belli.

Thus, only a person who is completely ignorant of the historical and legal context would characterize it as a "war without justification".

Only a person who is completely ignorant of the historical and legal context would write your post.

 

[Voidwar]

I know why your response contains no substance, and is just an ad hom.

I attacked your assertion, easily proving it false, and showing it to be a position only the uninformed could adopt.

My simple facts disproved your silly assertion, so you attempt to discredit me via ad hom. I slammed the post, all you could do was slam the poster.

 

[Iriemon]

I know why your response contains no substance, and is just an ad hom.

LOL it had the same amount of "substance" as yours.

And you are crying about an ad hominem attack when I just repeated the "completely ignorant" phrase you first used on me? Classic.

I attacked your assertion, easily proving it false, and showing it to be a position only the uninformed could adopt.

My simple facts disproved your silly assertion, so you attempt to discredit me via ad hom. I slammed the post, all you could do was slam the poster.

I decline to accept your blather as "proof" or "facts." Maybe others will.

 

[Voidwar]

So are you saying you are ignorant of the Achille Lauro incident and where we found Abu Abbas ?

Are you saying that you are ignorant of the payments Saddam made to the families of Palestinian martyrs ?

Are you saying that you are ignorant of the terms of the '91 ceasefire or the violations thereof

All three are widely known and accepted in the public record and the three combined, are sufficient to completely disprove your assertion.

 

[Gibberish]

You most certainly can support the troops and not be for how the war is ran.

You do not have to agree with the coach to cheer for a football team.

 

[Topsez]

Nope



The aggressor being the US, yes.



I wouldn't use the word "liable." But yes , as Bush "mistakenly" and unjustifiably started a pretextual preemptive war, he and America as the agressor bare some responsibility for the consequences.



Are you saying that because the US was wrong about Iraq WMDs scores of thousands of Iraqis deserved to die. That's sick.



The aggressor is still causing damage.



Hostilities were started as Bush and the neocons used 9-11 for a plan to invade and control Iraq pursuant to their plan for US military influence and Bush rushed the country to war after misleading it about the circumstances.

Trying to argue this invasion was just a continuation of the 1991 is to lame to even respond to.



I wouldn't not say the US is totally responsible for the scores or hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths, but bears some responsibility. It will be a burden and cost on this country's goodwill for decades. What a tragerdy to have squandered the goodwill we had after 9-11.



Because when Bush and the neocons started this war without justification based on mistakes, they are responsible for the consequences.

You seem to be confussing my post you rebutted... you do not distinguish between Desert Storm and the restart of hostilities... suggest you revisit the post you rebutted and address the issues on timeline... Saddam invaded Kuwait ... wrong action... Saddam refused peaceful resolution... wrong action... Saddam lost the Mother of All Battles... wrong action again... Saddam refused to live up to his ceasefire agreement... wrong action again... at what point do you see America as the aggressor in this ONE War?

 

[Iriemon]

So are you saying you are ignorant of the Achille Lauro incident and where we found Abu Abbas ?

You mean the guy who renounced terrorism in the early 90s and Isreal let freely move thru its borders? That is dangerous terrorist Hussein was harboring that justified Bush's war of agression that has caused the deaths of scores of thousands?

Are you saying that you are ignorant of the payments Saddam made to the families of Palestinian martyrs ?

You mean providing a stipend thru a Palestinian organizatoin toall families of Palestinians who died fighting Isreal, like Saudi Arabia is doing? That was the terrorist act that justified Bush's war of agression that has caused the deaths of scores of thousands?

Are you saying that you are ignorant of the terms of the '91 ceasefire or the violations thereof

You mean disputes of the no-fly zone? Or the non-existent WMD? That was the act that justified Bush's war of agression that has caused the deaths of scores of thousands?

All three are widely known and accepted in the public record and the three combined, are sufficient to completely disprove your assertion.

Apparenlty not.

 

[MSgt]

No, I don't need an internet link. I already said my piece about the troops. I think I understand them just as much you GySgt, considering I got two Marine nephews located in Twenty-nine Palms and both have already done one tour in Iraq and both are due to go back next summer, unless they go to Afganistan. My husband is a military brat and his dad is a retired Colonel who served in Korea and is currently reliving the horrors of that war in his old age. My uncle is a retired sargent from the Air Force who quit flying because one of the missions he was piloting crashed and nearly killed all the men on board. While he remained with the Air Force, he quit flying because the thought of being responsible for the deaths of so many men was too much for him to bear. And last but certainly not least, my brother was a helicopter pilot who served in Vietnam and died in agony two years after returning home from what the military called "jungle rot'. Nobody and I mean nobody will ever convince me or my family that he didn't die from Agent Orange. So get off your friggin high horse GySgt, you ain't the only one who lives and breaths in this world who knows what our troops or their families go through. No sir, YOU DO NOT.

Your Nephews are a part of 7th Marines Regiment - my former unit. However, I'm curious as to why you have such disgust towards the military despite your family's history in it.....

Under the leadership of Bush, US soldiers have "murdered and slaughtered" all those that defied Bush's ideology of what the ME should be. In his name, US soldiers have "jailed, tortured and executed innocent people.". In his name, US soldiers have "raped women and murdered their fathers and husbands".

Calling it a civil war is much nicer than calling it a genocide don't you think?

http://www.debatepolitics.com/421194-post14.html

I guess you believe the hardships of military service is supposed to be for people outside your family. I wonder if this is how you "Support The Troop, But Not The War." All us rapists, torturors, executers, murderers, and genocidal maniacs are real appreciative of your support.

....and my horse is quite comfortable.

 

[MSgt]

LOL -- I love the conviction -- you are so sure of your point of view you don't even recognize it as a point of view. "It's not my point of view" and then you tell us your point of view.

Good call.

There are other options to dealing with the threat than stumbling in like a bull in a china store and smashing everything up indiscriminately.

Like the finess exhibited across Europe in 1943? War is what it is. Thge difference today is that we are determined to refrain from acting as if we are in a war and our determied enemies are fighting for superstitions and religious fundamentalism.

Of course there are options. One was chosen in the absence of any other. Like the Dems of the day...back then, they offered absolutely nothing. Two decades had gone by as Republicans and Democrats ignored the growing failures in the Middle East. 9/11 was our wake up call to no longer act in the same manner as our European "allies." It is also not feasable to merely hunt down individual terrorists after future inevitable 9/11s.

Critical Options after an act are not constructive.

That is just your point of view. Sorry if you think you are the know all of the Middle East, and I respect your opinions, but other reliable sources disagree. Reliable sources have shown that the US invasion of Iraq is perceived (with plenty of justification) as being a pretextual, pre-emptive pre-planned unjustified war that has caused the unnecessary deaths of scores if not hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. It is perceived as being for ill conceived purposes (controlling their resources and their religion) and that we are infidels occupying their holy land, which if nothing else, is an insult to evey Muslim. They know this Administration has been in Israels pocket. And that our indefinite occupation is fueling the insurgency, fueling growth in terrorism, and fanning anti-American hatred throughout the region and the world.

And other reliable sources state the opposite. If your point was to show how "experts" have different opinions based on there analysis and study and experience abroad within these cultures, then I get it. However, most "experts" have never even set foot in the Middle East and they simply write on things after the fact. Reliable sources that rely upon hind sight are very reliable as expert sources. They are mere reporters.

You discount all this. You refuse to acknowledge these factors in your analysis of the Iraq situation. That is why I disagree with your view, regardless of whether you think your view is rote fact or not.

I discount none of this. I simply do not allow headline news paint an erronious picture. The only mistakes made has been the execution of the occupation. The act of taking out Saddam and the mission that involves the entire region was not.

We can choose our fights. In Iraq Bush chose wrong.

I disagree. We did not choose to have a war against Radical Islam anymore than we chose to have a war with Japanese Imprerialism. They chose us to wage their imagined war for their God which is masked by simple impractical demands to justify their slaughter. They chose Iraq as a battle ground. Iraq was merely a means to an end for the Middle East and the administration failed to heed the uniformed and intellectual forecasting of issues to come with an occupation.

It's quite simple.....if Iraq was a mistake, then why do the international terrorists travel great distances to fight there? The truth is that any place would have been a rallying cry for Islam's most brutal adherents. We may as well have taken out Saddam while we had the chance.

I disagree with your view that we invaded Iraq because the "they" who performed deeds upon our civilians were in Iraq. No Iraq *ever* was implicated in a terrorist attack against an American.

There may be some "they" there now, but only because we picked a fight with them. If we pretextually invaded China Russia or England guess what? We'd find a lot of "they" there too.

This is not what I said and this stance is highly obtuse. This is a "War on Terror" not a "War on Al-Queda." "THEY" exist all over the region and beyond. "THEY" are mere symptoms of a disease. A civilization is failing and racing backward into superstition and fundamental religion and we are to only chase around terrorists as they attack our people? Without addressing the region and conditions that they come from, we are punching thin air. Terrorism existed in Iraq long before we got there. After the fall of Saddam we were faced with a society that unfortunately could not sustain itself without the brutalities of their former leadership (over half of the population has proved to not be a part of these human monsters). On top of this historical hate against each other, "THEY" started crossing the border to kill infidels and to disrupt the very thing "THEY" can't survive in. "THEY" have simply traveled to Iraq to make their stand just like "THEY" appear in Afghanistan. Those local Sunni that fight for Saddam inside Iraq have merely chosen to be our enemies. We do not offer them slavery and we do not offer them oppression. Those are the things they fight for.

To simply dismiss the misery and the anguish that exists in the Middle East (that manifests desperation and religious terrorism) simply because an Iraqi didn't attack us, is highly selfish and irresponsible. Aren't Liberals supposed to be the self-appointed voice for human rights? Now that we actually do for Muslims in the Middle East, Liberals choose to dismiss their own rhetoric and pass out bad gradee to those that have simply acted on their sentiments?

Why do you insist on bogging yourself down by pretending that you have to defend the notion that taking down Saddam had anything to do with an Iraqi terrorist against America? Despite the ramblings of a politician to get us there, it is not about a Saddam link to Al-Queda. Our quest is to apply the brakes on a regional civilization that is determined to create an environment of hell for itself. Iraq was merely the open door. This is generational. But as long as dictators and religious tyrants control the pulse of the oppressed we will have to accept mass religious terror against our civilians and military units stationed abroad.

 

[cherokee]

Do troops join the military for college money? Perhaps. But I think that people who fight for a country solely for money or otherwise how it benefits them are clearly mercenary. I can't change the definition of mercenary, and telling me to '"F" You' won't change it either. You're powerless to say up is down, and have people capable of reason agree with you. You're also powerless to draw me into an emotional, irrational pis*ing match.

I don't know why they joined and fight, so I can't know if they fit the definition, unless they tell me. I never said that I believe the troops are mercenaries. You have no idea what I believe about the matter. I might believe they all are, I might believe that some of them are, I might believe that none of them are, and I might believe that there are some that only partially fit the definition, while some of the others fully fit it. Who knows which is true? I don't. Do you? Nope.

Where is all this money you speak of? You better read the fine print...
I joined right out of High School.
The reasons why are clear to this day. I joined to serve my country. Period! I didn’t serve in the JROTC for three years then join the Marines to become a mercenary. We are not nor ever have been mercenaries!

Joining the military doesn’t make to a Merc! dipchit.
Saying so disgraces everyone who served and is still serving today.

But since you think we are Merc’s I guess I can say everyone who didn’t serve are cowards.

Originally Posted by Dezaad
If they do so because they want college money, then you are right, they are mercenaries.

Looks like you said it to me..
But then again I guess the oath you take to protect is worthless too huh?...:roll:

 

[cherokee]

Iriemon]That may be necessary. Are you supposing if we stay the course now there will be now future need to committ forces in the future?

If we cut and run then I see Iraq becoming another Somalia
Only this time with money.

Iriemon
IMO, the likelihood of a better and free Iraq emerging that outweighs the costs of staying the course is very remote, and not worth the risk.

Then I ask you again are you willing to do what’s necessary? Are any of you?

Posted by Cherokee
would you be willing to pick a side that wants to build a better Iraq, a free Iraq (maybe lesser of the evils) then lay waste to all others?

 

[Voidwar]

You mean the guy who renounced terrorism in the early 90s and Isreal let freely move thru its borders? That is dangerous terrorist Hussein was harboring that justified Bush's war of agression that has caused the deaths of scores of thousands?

We got video of the guy shooting the wheelchair occupant and tossing him overboard.

Thanks to my innate skepticism, and the concept of Al Takkeya, I quite simply reject his "renouncement" as outright irrelevant.

You mean providing a stipend thru a Palestinian organizatoin toall families of Palestinians who died fighting Isreal,

Deliberate misrepresentation.

Saddam stokes war with suicide bomber cash
March 26 2002
The Iraqi leader's payments to the families of dead Palestinian terrorists means more trouble for Yasser Arafat, writes Paul McGeough in the West Bank.
The hall was packed and the intake of breath was audible as a special announcement was made to the war widows of the West Bank - Saddam Hussein would pay $US25,000 ($47,000) to the family of each suicide bomber as an enticement for others to volunteer for martyrdom in the name of the Palestinian people.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/03/25/1017004766310.html

That was the terrorist act that justified Bush's war of agression that has caused the deaths of scores of thousands?

Not an act, but one of several ongoing programs and policies of aiding and abetting Terrorists.

This makes Iraq a "state sponsor of terror", putting Saddam's Regime squarely in the crosshairs of the War on Terror.

You mean disputes of the no-fly zone?

I mean shooting at and painting our aircraft with targetting radar, in direct and actionable violation of the cease fire agreement.

Or the non-existent WMD?

Much of this was moved to Syria, and some leftovers were found so this attempted argument holds no water.

That was the act that justified Bush's war of agression that has caused the deaths of scores of thousands?

You seem to be stressing that there must be one act to justify invasion.
I challenge you to prove this hidden assumption.
Prove that causi belli cannot be an accumulation / combination of several reasons.

 

[Iriemon]

We got video of the guy shooting the wheelchair occupant and tossing him overboard.

Thanks to my innate skepticism, and the concept of Al Takkeya, I quite simply reject his "renouncement" as outright irrelevant.

Good for you.

Deliberate misrepresentation.


http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/03/25/1017004766310.html

the truth.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2846365.stm

1. Giving money to families is not involvement in a terrorist attack.

2. He was giving money to Palestinians against Israel not the US. It did not justify Bush's war of agression that has caused the deaths of scores of thousands.

3. There has been no incident where any Iraqi was every implicated as being involved in a terrorist attack against the US, or any other nation that I am aware of.

Not an act, but one of several ongoing programs and policies of aiding and abetting Terrorists.

There was no example of Iraq aiding and abetting terrorist attacks based on reliable evidence I have ever seen. The evidence of Iraq supporting terrorists at all is scant; Abu Abbas whom even Israel allowed to move thru its territory; and giving money to Palestinian families.

There was no justification for Bush's war of agression that has caused the deaths of scores of thousands based upon Iraq being involved in terrorists or sponsoring terrorists.

This makes Iraq a "state sponsor of terror", putting Saddam's Regime squarely in the crosshairs of the War on Terror.

Quite the contrary. It proves the deception the neocons went to to mislead the country into an unfounded war of agression.

I mean shooting at and painting our aircraft with targetting radar, in direct and actionable violation of the cease fire agreement.

Did not justify Bush's war of agression that has caused the deaths of scores of thousands.

Much of this was moved to Syria, and some leftovers were found so this attempted argument holds no water.

Haha sure have some more koolaid.

You seem to be stressing that there must be one act to justify invasion.

You seem to be stressing very lame reasons to justify war.

I challenge you to prove this hidden assumption.
Prove that causi belli cannot be an accumulation / combination of several reasons.

I did not contest otherwise. You may believe that one nation can start a war causing the deaths of scores of thousands for these things. I do not. Iraq was never implicated in a terrorist attack, never sponsored any terrorist activity in any meaningful way, never sponsored any terrorist activity against the United States in any way, was not any urgent threat or any kind of meaningful threat at all, and had not done anything in 2003 to justify war made against it.

You warmongers may disagree. You're entitled to your opinion.

 

[Iriemon]

If we cut and run then I see Iraq becoming another Somalia
Only this time with money.

Could be. If it does we'll have to deal with it then. Too bad the neocons didn't see this in their fanatasy view of the world before misleading the country into war.

Then I ask you again are you willing to do what’s necessary? Are any of you?

Vague question.

 

[Iriemon]

Good call.

Like the finess exhibited across Europe in 1943? War is what it is. Thge difference today is that we are determined to refrain from acting as if we are in a war and our determied enemies are fighting for superstitions and religious fundamentalism.

In WWII we were not dealing with political issues involving many countries over a broad region. We had well defined nations we were at war with.

Of course there are options. One was chosen in the absence of any other. Like the Dems of the day...back then, they offered absolutely nothing. Two decades had gone by as Republicans and Democrats ignored the growing failures in the Middle East. 9/11 was our wake up call to no longer act in the same manner as our European "allies." It is also not feasable to merely hunt down individual terrorists after future inevitable 9/11s.

Critical Options after an act are not constructive.

Not looking critically at the situation and the context we are in it is foolish.

And other reliable sources state the opposite. If your point was to show how "experts" have different opinions based on there analysis and study and experience abroad within these cultures, then I get it. However, most "experts" have never even set foot in the Middle East and they simply write on things after the fact. Reliable sources that rely upon hind sight are very reliable as expert sources. They are mere reporters.

The concept that unjustified, ill-thought out and incompetently lead American bulliness and agression creating anti-American reaction, aside from being just plain common sense, has been shown by studies conducted in Saudi Arabia, Isreal, and more recently by the entire American intellegence community.

I discount none of this. I simply do not allow headline news paint an erronious picture. The only mistakes made has been the execution of the occupation. The act of taking out Saddam and the mission that involves the entire region was not.

Many disagree with you.

I disagree. We did not choose to have a war against Radical Islam anymore than we chose to have a war with Japanese Imprerialism. They chose us to wage their imagined war for their God which is masked by simple impractical demands to justify their slaughter. They chose Iraq as a battle ground.

That is bullshit. We chose Iraq as the battleground.

Iraq was merely a means to an end for the Middle East and the administration failed to heed the uniformed and intellectual forecasting of issues to come with an occupation.

Iraq was merely the product of the neocons controlling this Administration and their pre-programmed agenda to invade Iraq and use US military power to bully countries into our bidding.

It's quite simple.....if Iraq was a mistake, then why do the international terrorists travel great distances to fight there?

It's exetremely simple. Any country you wrongly invade will create a resistance. We could have wrongly invaded any other country and the same thing would be happening. We could invade Russia or China and *guess what* there would be terrorists fighting us there too.

So we wrongly invaded Iraq, displaced the group that was in power and they are resisting. What a shocker. You would have thunk it.

The truth is that any place would have been a rallying cry for Islam's most brutal adherents. We may as well have taken out Saddam while we had the chance.

Saddam was not a radical Islamists. His foreign minister was a Christian. He was not our enemy in the war on terror.

This is not what I said and this stance is highly obtuse. This is a "War on Terror" not a "War on Al-Queda." "THEY" exist all over the region and beyond. "THEY" are mere symptoms of a disease. A civilization is failing and racing backward into superstition and fundamental religion and we are to only chase around terrorists as they attack our people? Without addressing the region and conditions that they come from, we are punching thin air. Terrorism existed in Iraq long before we got there. After the fall of Saddam we were faced with a society that unfortunately could not sustain itself without the brutalities of their former leadership (over half of the population has proved to not be a part of these human monsters). On top of this historical hate against each other, "THEY" started crossing the border to kill infidels and to disrupt the very thing "THEY" can't survive in. "THEY" have simply traveled to Iraq to make their stand just like "THEY" appear in Afghanistan. Those local Sunni that fight for Saddam inside Iraq have merely chosen to be our enemies. We do not offer them slavery and we do not offer them oppression. Those are the things they fight for.

Are you really surprised? If someone invaded America I'd be one of "THEY" too.

To simply dismiss the misery and the anguish that exists in the Middle East (that manifests desperation and religious terrorism) simply because an Iraqi didn't attack us, is highly selfish and irresponsible. Aren't Liberals supposed to be the self-appointed voice for human rights? Now that we actually do for Muslims in the Middle East, Liberals choose to dismiss their own rhetoric and pass out bad gradee to those that have simply acted on their sentiments?

I don't dismiss the misery and anguish in the ME at all. Starting unnecessary wars that destablize the region and cause scores or hundreds of thousands of death and multiples more injured and civil war is not the way to reduce misery and anguish.

Why do you insist on bogging yourself down by pretending that you have to defend the notion that taking down Saddam had anything to do with an Iraqi terrorist against America?

I don't know. Someone said that we were in Iraq because of a war on a tactic.

Despite the ramblings of a politician to get us there, it is not about a Saddam link to Al-Queda. Our quest is to apply the brakes on a regional civilization that is determined to create an environment of hell for itself. Iraq was merely the open door. This is generational. But as long as dictators and religious tyrants control the pulse of the oppressed we will have to accept mass religious terror against our civilians and military units stationed abroad.

If that is our quest, then wake up, we are failing miserably in achieving our quest with the current strategy and leadership and making things worse.

Most Americans get it. Which is why the Dems control Congress today.

 

[AcePylut]

In WWII we were not dealing with political issues involving many countries over a broad region. We had well defined nations we were at war with.

Gotta call foul on this.

In WW2, we dealt with far more political issues than today.

What everyone forgets, when referencing WW2 to today, is that in a great majority of our "allies" countries, they broke down into Civil War after the so-called "end" of WW2.

Like China. Greece. India. Yugoslavia. for example. Not to mention, that within 5 years after WW2, India and Pakistan had fought a war, and formerly allied to US China's puppet North Korea launched an invasion of South Korea, or the invasion of Israel in 1948.

About the only countries that didn't experience any post-WW2 instability were US, UK, Japan, Germany, and USSR. Go figure.

 

[AcePylut]

Could be. If it does we'll have to deal with it then. Too bad the neocons didn't see this in their fanatasy view of the world before misleading the country into war.

That's what the cut-and-runs don't see now.

They also apparently don't watch MidEast TV when Israel left Lebanon, or they'd understand that "redeploying" won't be viewed as "victory" by the arabs, but abject defeat.

So given the choice of dealing with it now, or having my children deal with it in 20 years,

I'd rather "deal with it now" instead of "pass the buck to our children".



I don't buy into your argument of "no justification" for Iraq. The justification was there "1000 ways to 1". That all the media focused on was one item, does not remove the multitude of reasons existing, nor does it remove the justification of that one reason.

 

[Voidwar]

1. Giving money to families is not involvement in a terrorist attack.

Saddam Hussein would pay $US25,000 ($47,000) to the family of each suicide bomber as an enticement for others to volunteer for martyrdom in the name of the Palestinian people.

2. He was giving money to Palestinians against Israel not the US. It did not justify Bush's war of agression that has caused the deaths of scores of thousands.

War on Terror is not limited to the U.S.

War on Terror is targetted at those who bombed in Madrid as much as htose who bomb in Tel Aviv.

War creates casualties, as did Saddam's rule. People die either way.

3. There has been no incident where any Iraqi was every implicated as being involved in a terrorist attack against the US, or any other nation that I am aware of.

Saddam Hussein would pay $US25,000 ($47,000) to the family of each suicide bomber as an enticement for others to volunteer for martyrdom in the name of the Palestinian people.

There was no justification for Bush's war of agression that has caused the deaths of scores of thousands based upon Iraq being involved in terrorists or sponsoring terrorists.

You beat this drum way too much, it is old and false.

The ceasefire violations alone are perfectly legal causi belli.

Invasion and regime change were and are the legally required consequences for said violations.

Thus it is a legal fact that the invasion was justified.

Many brave Americans died to depose Saddam, and during occupation.

Many Iraqis have died in the war as well. Many Iraqis were dying under Saddam prior to that.

Deaths happen in War, and in unstable countries. The revolution in America against the British Crown caused scores of thousands of deaths and was still a worthwhile endeavor. Beating a drum about the simple fact of Human mortality just makes you sound repetitively dull, it does not gain you any moral high ground.

You seem to be stressing very lame reasons to justify war.

The legal ceasefire agreement is lame eh ?

The obviously provable support of terrorists is lame eh ?

The WMD's we found and the ones moved to Syria are lame eh ?

Lame, is not much of an argument.

I did not contest otherwise.

You phrased several questions asking if this or that was the act that justified it, so you attempted to imply it whether you know it or admit it.

You may believe that one nation can start a war causing the deaths of scores of thousands for these things. I do not.

You have some learning to do then, because it has been done.
Saddam's Iraq violated the ceasefire and payed the martyrs and had the WMD's, so they were invaded and "regime changed". You can go ahead and start "believing" it, because it is a fait accompli.

 

[Iriemon]

Iriemon. In WWII we were not dealing with political issues involving many countries over a broad region. We had well defined nations we were at war with.

Gotta call foul on this.

In WW2, we dealt with far more political issues than today.

What everyone forgets, when referencing WW2 to today, is that in a great majority of our "allies" countries, they broke down into Civil War after the so-called "end" of WW2.

Like China. Greece. India. Yugoslavia. for example. Not to mention, that within 5 years after WW2, India and Pakistan had fought a war, and formerly allied to US China's puppet North Korea launched an invasion of South Korea, or the invasion of Israel in 1948.

About the only countries that didn't experience any post-WW2 instability were US, UK, Japan, Germany, and USSR. Go figure.

I wasn't referring to our allies. In WWII, our enemies were defined nations with national forces. They even wore uniforms and used equipment with symbols to let everyone know exactly who they were.

That is not the same situation in as in our current war on a tactic. The enemy is fanatic anti-Americanism, an attitude spread in varying degrees among people interspersed among a billion people in a score of countries that each have different political persuasions, characteristics and attributes.

You cannot compare WWII -- an action against defined nations with defined national forces, with the war on a tactic, which is based on a mindset without defining national characteristics, and then analogize tactics and strategy for the former as sound for the latter.

 

[Stinger]

Only a person who is completely ignorant of the historical and legal context would write your post.

Only a person in utter denial would write yours. You are aware of the Iraq Liberation Act?

 

[Stinger]

In WWII we were not dealing with political issues involving many countries over a broad region. We had well defined nations we were at war with.

You have just proven your ignorance of the subject with that statement.

 

[Stinger]

Gotta call foul on this.

In WW2, we dealt with far more political issues than today.

That anyone would have posted the statement you are responding to is laughable. WW2 was the most political event of our time. The negoatiations and restrictions we faced with other countries and the fact it was a WORLD WAR, it touch every corner of the world. I'm still sitting here in amazement at what I read. I guess some still think WW2 was like what the movies at the time made it out to be. No mistakes, everything which just as planned and everyone agreed with everyone. Hardly.

 

[Iriemon]

That's what the cut-and-runs don't see now.

They also apparently don't watch MidEast TV when Israel left Lebanon, or they'd understand that "redeploying" won't be viewed as "victory" by the arabs, but abject defeat.

So given the choice of dealing with it now, or having my children deal with it in 20 years,

I'd rather "deal with it now" instead of "pass the buck to our children".

I don't buy into your argument of "no justification" for Iraq. The justification was there "1000 ways to 1". That all the media focused on was one item, does not remove the multitude of reasons existing, nor does it remove the justification of that one reason.

Fair enough. Everyone is entitled to their opinions.

 

[Iriemon]

Only a person in utter denial would write yours. You are aware of the Iraq Liberation Act?

What about it?