• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Question about Iraq..

DiavoTheMiavo said:
My Opinion; Saddam had WMD, Saddam used WMD against the Iranians and his own people, Saddam was a Bad Bad Man, and I thought they would find the generic WMD. I am really suprised they have not found any, and I am sure that at some point in time they will find some buried in an old bunker or something. I was one of those rare people who thought that it wasn't about the WMD----It was about the urgency of the threat. The Threat level introduced by our government suggested that Saddam was at least an "Urgent" Threat, if not imminent. The fact of the matter is that if he had them or did not have does not MATTER. We are in Iraq right now, debating why we got there is no longer an issue.

You see, no one is going to talk me out of believing that the greatest threat to the world in March 2003 was not Iraq. It was another country whose human rights violations are almost a kept secret in America, and its connections to those who would hurt us are much greater than Saddam would or could ever be. Alas, they have no oil, and they could fight back.

Let me quote from Cato, a conservative group:

Why Hasn't Saddam Killed Us All?
by Doug Bandow

(snip)

The best evidence that Iraq can be deterred is that we are alive today. Unfortunately, seeking to oust Saddam removes any leverage to prevent him from conducting the sort of attack that the administration claims to most fear. Attacking Iraq will make more, and more dangerous, terrorist attacks more likely.

http://www.cato.org/dailys/02-20-03.html

So, don't let facts convince you. We are always better off if we are swayed by emotion than if we listen to facts or logic. Right?
 
Iriemon said:
Explain please. What would be "full measures"?
I would suggest that you consider World War II as an exemplar. The US is currently using half-measures in the WoT to placate political correctness.

Example. 99% of those responsible for listening to NSA Arabic intercepts from the Middle East are Arab. Although there are many Christian and Jewish citizens of the US that can speak Arabic (myself included), the US government will not hire these non-Arab interpreters because of political sensitivity and ::gasp:: blackmail. The NSA Arab interpreters have threatened to quit en-mass if even one Jewish Arabic interpreter is hired. What you have then, are Arab NSA interpreters (many are foreign nationals poorly vetted) deciding unilaterally and without oversight which intercepts are valuable and which are not. This is hardly an effective way to harvest possible crucial information. There is no oversight here... no internal checks to measure the reliability ratio between what is fully translated and what is summarily dismissed. There is also no metric here to determine if classified interpreted intercepts remain within government confines. In essence, the current situation is decidedly a dangerous half-measure.
 
ProudAmerican said:
you are still dodging.

I will concede that one didnt invade. Thats obvious. He would have rather terrorized asprin factories than actually deal with the issue. But it doesnt change the fact that they BOTH MADE THE SAME CLAIMS.

No, they didn't. The claim that is in qustion isn't about wmds or Saddam being bad or even being a threat. The claim made by Bush was that Saddam was growing and gathering. This is a specific claim, showing him gaining strength and getting more dangerous and making it look as if he could attack at any minute. He couldn't and no one else made that claim. And even if they did, it wouldn't make it true. And Bush, the president who chose to use that claim to go to war would still be the only person accountable because he is the decider.

Add to this the things his adminstration said, like that we knew exactly where the wmds were when in fact not only did we not know, we had no intel saying we did. Follow the nuclear comments about not waitng for a mushroom cloud when Tenet called that the weakest part of their argument. Again, these are lies. Also keep in mind that others at that time were only getting the intel Bush chose to let them see.

So, you cannot escape that for good or ill Bush is responsible what Bush says and does. Red herrings and efforts to blame others are meaningless.
 
Tashah said:
I would suggest that you consider World War II as an exemplar. The US is currently using half-measures in the WoT to placate political correctness.

That is a pretty broad example. The US firebombed German cities and nuked Japanese cities. Is that what you mean? Can you be more specific as to what you think the US should be doing?

Example. 99% of those responsible for listening to NSA Arabic intercepts from the Middle East are Arab. Although there are many Christian and Jewish citizens of the US that can speak Arabic (myself included), the US government will not hire these non-Arab interpreters because of political sensitivity and ::gasp:: blackmail. The NSA Arab interpreters have threatened to quit en-mass if even one Jewish Arabic interpreter is hired. What you have then, are Arab NSA interpreters (many are foreign nationals poorly vetted) deciding unilaterally and without oversight which intercepts are valuable and which are not. This is hardly an effective way to harvest possible crucial information. There is no oversight here... no internal checks to measure the reliability ratio between what is fully translated and what is summarily dismissed. There is also no metric here to determine if classified interpreted intercepts remain within government confines. In essence, the current situation is decidedly a dangerous half-measure.

You are proposing that people who work for the NSA are traitors? And this is the organization the Administration is using to secretly wire tap American's telephones?
 
Iriemon said:
This post being a prime example.

"Fact - We just wanted to get rid of Saddam and to set up a government of the people."

Sure. Had nothing to do with "weapons of mass destrction" and urgent threats. That's just liberal revisionist history.

Hahaha. Like I said, dwelling on the words of politicians as your source of what is happening in the world around you would be your problem. Not mine. I could care less how our politicians stumble about.


Iriemon said:
Four legs good; two legs better.

I don't really know what this means, but you seem to like it. Enjoy it, I guess.
 
Last edited:
GySgt said:
I love the "Bush apologists" part. A sure sign of a lack of vision, the adherence to BS politics above all, and too much opinion based on headlines. Whining about the typical *** coverings of politicians will not change the fact of the reality we face. Nor will calling on your vast experience in one war that had nothing to do with Radical Islam give you insight into what study can easily provide.

Fact - We just wanted to get rid of Saddam and to set up a government of the people.
Fact - The administration ignored the warnings of a Radical insurgency and we payed for it.
Fact - Iraq became the front on this "War on Terror," because most of the insurgency are Radicals that are fighting their "God's" war. Now we are obligated to finish this.
Fact - Iraq is not the only location where our troops are deployed in this "War on Terror."
Fact - Americans and the world is still learning what exactly a "War on terror" means - this also means our dopey politicians.

Any other whines and exhaustive complaints being paraded around where politicians have tripped all over themselves is pointless. It does not change the facts of the reality and what we can achieve for our security regarding the entire region if Iraqis are successful.

In my opinion, the lack of knowldege and study that so many individuals display, yet declare wisdom, is exactly what is wrong with America ALWAYS.

Jeesh, I did not know you were associating yourself with those I named in that post. You seem to have all the answers, although you hardly answer any questions. I wish politicians had balls to talk openly about the stupidity being displayed. I wish the points and mistakes were actually focused on.

Oh yeah, Saddam was not a raical Islamic Fundementalist either. One war? You not only revise history, you revise my words. The only "War" I was involved in "WAR" minf you, was against Saddam------you know, where we are fighting the Central Front of the War on Terror. Cuz it would have happened anyway. So, you not only revise history and subject the present to words in one post that mean one thing and then you change them in another post to fit the new view. Please, go back to your computer with the Firewall and google some more info that fits you side argument this time.

The more I debate you, the more I am convinced I have forgotten more about the military and history than you will ever know.
 
Iriemon said:
That is a pretty broad example. The US firebombed German cities and nuked Japanese cities. Is that what you mean? Can you be more specific as to what you think the US should be doing?

Unbelievable. Why do you insist on always wishing to re-invent this discussion?

The US needs to stop fighting with kid gloves on. This is a war of attrition. Until we start treating it like what it is, we are only prolonging the inevitable and stringing out the death count. Nazi Germany and Hirohito Japan were beaten into submission beacuse we pulled no punches when we needed to and "firebombed German cities and nuked Japanese cities." Until we decide to beat Radical Islam into submission, we are punching thin air. The time to decide when necessity trumps "right and wrong" is not when our religiously fanatical enemies have nuclear weapons. It is bad enough their "martyrs" can bring down entire buildings with our own airliners.

War is not fought on a checkerboard.
 
DiavoTheMiavo said:
Jeesh, I did not know you were associating yourself with those I named in that post. You seem to have all the answers, although you hardly answer any questions. I wish politicians had balls to talk openly about the stupidity being displayed. I wish the points and mistakes were actually focused on.

Oh yeah, Saddam was not a raical Islamic Fundementalist either. One war? You not only revise history, you revise my words. The only "War" I was involved in "WAR" minf you, was against Saddam------you know, where we are fighting the Central Front of the War on Terror. Cuz it would have happened anyway. So, you not only revise history and subject the present to words in one post that mean one thing and then you change them in another post to fit the new view. Please, go back to your computer with the Firewall and google some more info that fits you side argument this time.


"Saddam was not a raical Islamic Fundementalist" ...and? Have I claimed otherwise? You are still trying to see one country when our problem is an entire region.

My posts are all consistent and without partisan whining. I address the real world issues not the constant whining of where politicians mess up.

DiavoTheMiavo said:
The more I debate you, the more I am convinced I have forgotten more about the military and history than you will ever know.

:roll: ...sad. So far you haven't offerred too much of anyhting to debate against. You continue to declare erronous things and parade around on headlines rather than truth.
 
Last edited:
GySgt said:
"Saddam was not a raical Islamic Fundementalist" ...and? Have I claimed otherwise? You are still trying to see one country when our problem is an entire region.

My posts are all consistent and without partisan whining. I address the real world issues not the constant whining of where politicians mess up.



:roll: ...sad. So far you haven't offerred too much of anyhting to debate against. You continue to declare erronous things and parade around on headlines rather than truth.

Ok, I'll play, name one erroneous thing I claimed that you have not countered with anything other than your opinion that it is not true? Screw the History books, Gunny googles a website and all of a sudden he is a history expert and really into foreign policy.

You are not a whiner, you are misinformed and hubris, that's much worse. And you even believe yourself when you change subjects, refuse to answer, and act as if that uniform means you are right. Saddam is not a fundamentalist, but because of the mistakes made, Iraq is now the Central Front of the War on Terror, so NOW it is a battle with religious nut bags. Please, you spend way too much time behind a desk Gunny. You're a Realist huh? That you can spend so much time during the work day playing that you know the deal, just because you google well does not fool me. I never had time to sit behind a desk. Headlines? While you are coming up with the "erroneous things", grab one of the so-called Headlines I used. You confuse me with somebody who thinks you pull all the crap you spew out of your own mind.

You aren't a Bush Guy, but you support the Central Front on the War on Terror despite the statistical information available to you at the DOD's own website which proves their own claims are Bull Crap. I know the problem, it's too much actual research for you, isn't it google boy? Come back when you know more than just the cliff notes son. When you can actually come up with something on your own that does not contradict a past post. When you use your own words. Sad is right. It wouldn't be so sad if you were not so bright.
 
GySgt said:
Unbelievable. Why do you insist on always wishing to re-invent this discussion?

The US needs to stop fighting with kid gloves on. This is a war of attrition. Until we start treating it like what it is, we are only prolonging the inevitable and stringing out the death count. Nazi Germany and Hirohito Japan were beaten into submission beacuse we pulled no punches when we needed to and "firebombed German cities and nuked Japanese cities." Until we decide to beat Radical Islam into submission, we are punching thin air. The time to decide when necessity trumps "right and wrong" is not when our religiously fanatical enemies have nuclear weapons. It is bad enough their "martyrs" can bring down entire buildings with our own airliners.

War is not fought on a checkerboard.

I insist on asking because again and again I hear the cons talking about how we need to stop "pulling punches" or being "PC" or "fighting with kid gloves on" or "half-measures to placate the vagarities of domestic and international political correctness."

The proposition is that our troops are not doing all they should be in Iraq. Yet when I ask for details, specifically what the troops should be doing that they are not, all I get is vague references to WWII. As if that is relevant.

You are another one who will not state what you think the troops should be doing that they are not now doing.

I would suppose the troops are doing the best they can. I'm still not sure what these vague references mean.

What I see is this: The con/neocons urged us to waltz into Iraq, placating us with drivel about how the Iraqis would welcome us, peacefully embrace our new government, it would be a virtual love-fest while we set US companies up in their oil fields. That of course has not happened. The reasons we invaded were false, and a great portion Iraqis are unhappy about us being there. And they resist.

The cons/neocons, having already committed us to war in a mistake, are too proud to back down now. Their pride won't let them admit they made a mistake, and get out. That would make us "losers", you hear people here saying it all the time. So instead we stay there, to defend a mistake, as a matter of pride. At least we will under this administration, which will pass the buck of the fiasco it created rather than face up to its own errors.

And now instead, we hear more and more con/neocons saying the problem is we are too PC (here they go again, blaming the liberals for their failures) and we'd win if we just fought the war "properly."

Which means firebombing and nuking the very people whose nation we are occupying on the grounds that we are supposedly trying to help them. I guess. I'm still not sure what it means for most people. When I say that I get rebuked -- "I never said that!" So maybe you can clarify it for us.
 
Iriemon said:
I insist on asking because again and again I hear the cons talking about how we need to stop "pulling punches" or being "PC" or "fighting with kid gloves on" or "half-measures to placate the vagarities of domestic and international political correctness."

The proposition is that our troops are not doing all they should be in Iraq. Yet when I ask for details, specifically what the troops should be doing that they are not, all I get is vague references to WWII. As if that is relevant.
Firstly, I am not a con as you assume. If you look at my ranking I am a Centrist, which denotes that I embrace selected ideology from both the liberal and conservative platforms.

Secondly, you are putting ghost words in my mouth. Nowhere did I mention either Iraq or our troops. Here are my exact words with bold emphasis by me:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/314845-post152.html
Tashah said:
I would suggest that you consider World War II as an exemplar. The US is currently using half-measures in the WoT to placate political correctness.
Clearly, I was referring to the War on Terror (WoT) and not explicitly or exclusively to the war in Iraq, which is a subject class all by itself. I provided one poignant example (NSA) of where an effort to combat Islamist terrorism is not what it should be due to political correctness. I could easily name dozens of other areas in which the security concerns of the US are token half-measures that only serve to placate the body politic and please foreign lobbyists.

As for the WWII exemplar, one sentient lesson from this past bloody struggle against totalitarianism would be military conscription. US forces are stretched far too thin to effectively combat the current and global totalitarian threat... Islamist fundamentalism and terrorism.

Sadly, I have come to the conclusion that it will require at least one and possibly two additional prototype 9/11 attacks before the core reality of the situation thoroughly permeates the consciousness of the American public and its governmental institutions.

Perhaps you should digest and ponder what someone is actually saying before unjustly affixing a faux label and taking them to task.
 
Hornburger said:
Sorry I'm going to ask a noob question lol.

But if Saddam had the power to make the weapons, and the materials, and the plans, just didn't start building them yet, why is everyone saying how Bush ****ed up in getting us there? Isn't a good thing that we caught him before he started? I mean, building the weapons is like the only choice he could take up with having those materials and plans and all...

So what I'm asking is why everyone thinks it is so wrong that we went into Iraq...

There's this place, maybe you've heard of it. It's called "North Korea".
 
Tashah said:
Firstly, I am not a con as you assume. If you look at my ranking I am a Centrist, which denotes that I embrace selected ideology from both the liberal and conservative platforms.

Fair enough, my reply was referring to a general political position tho' I did use your quote; and am I being unfair to say your position on this issue fits with the neocons or conservatives?

Secondly, you are putting ghost words in my mouth. Nowhere did I mention either Iraq or our troops. Here are my exact words with bold emphasis by me:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/314845-post152.html

Clearly, I was referring to the War on Terror (WoT) and not explicitly or exclusively to the war in Iraq, which is a subject class all by itself. I provided one poignant example (NSA) of where an effort to combat Islamist terrorism is not what it should be due to political correctness. I could easily name dozens of other areas in which the security concerns of the US are token half-measures that only serve to placate the body politic and please foreign lobbyists.

I'm sorry I misunderstood your reference to a the US using half measures to placate political correctness in the WOT to apply to Iraq. So that I understand, is your position that the US forces are or are not being too "PC" in Iraq? If so how so? What should they be doing?

When you refer to PC are you talking about the way the anti-terrorrism effort is being waged offensively, or are you just talking about homeland security?

As for the WWII exemplar, one sentient lesson from this past bloody struggle against totalitarianism would be military conscription. US forces are stretched far too thin to effectively combat the current and global totalitarian threat... Islamist fundamentalism and terrorism.

Conscription -- you want US kids involuntarily shoved into wars agains Muslems -- that has pluses and minuses in my mind. But I'm not sure how that helps me understand how the US should be fighting the WOT in a less PC manner. Is there an implication to your concern that US forces are stretched to thin? We need more troops in Iraq? We need to invade other Muslem nations?



Sadly, I have come to the conclusion that it will require at least one and possibly two additional prototype 9/11 attacks before the core reality of the situation thoroughly permeates the consciousness of the American public and its governmental institutions.

Perhaps you should digest and ponder what someone is actually saying before unjustly affixing a faux label and taking them to task.

Already explained -- my reply was not you but to GySgt. Your WOT position appears however closely aligned to the "neocon" camp IMO.
 
Iriemon said:
Fair enough, my reply was referring to a general political position tho' I did use your quote; and am I being unfair to say your position on this issue fits with the neocons or conservatives?
I would say that your question in itself is a perfect example of the current miasma common to many Americans. The WoT is not a political issue at all... it is a national issue. Myself? I have serious problems with the way the Bush administration (read neocons and conservatives) are prosecuting this struggle.

Iriemon said:
I'm sorry I misunderstood your reference to a the US using half measures to placate political correctness in the WOT to apply to Iraq. So that I understand, is your position that the US forces are or are not being too "PC" in Iraq? If so how so? What should they be doing?
I have no problem with the military. US forces in Iraq are doing the very best they can under very trying circumstances.

Iriemon said:
When you refer to PC are you talking about the way the anti-terrorrism effort is being waged offensively, or are you just talking about homeland security?
I am talking about both. Ask yourself... why is the NWFP of Pakistan allowed to be a sanctuary for al-Qa'ida? Ask yourself... why were the Muslim rulers of Sudan allowed to engage in genocide in Darfur? Ask yourself... why is profiling against the law at US airports? Ask yourself... why are radical Muslim clerics allowed to indoctrinate prisoners in the US penal system? The answer to all of these questions is... insipid political correctness.

Iriemon said:
Conscription -- you want US kids involuntarily shoved into wars agains Muslems -- that has pluses and minuses in my mind. But I'm not sure how that helps me understand how the US should be fighting the WOT in a less PC manner. Is there an implication to your concern that US forces are stretched to thin? We need more troops in Iraq? We need to invade other Muslem nations?
Think outside the box. Conscription would not necessarily entail military duty. I would prefer that the US military remain a voluntary endeavor. Those who do not wish to enlist voluntarily would be conscripted for other duties that would free up the fighting soldiers. In other words, two entities. An active military component to engage the enemy with overwhelming force, and a passive component that would do everything else except fight. It is primarily the passive force that would work to instill peace and prosperity post hostilities, not US soldiers trying to do things they are not trained for. Iraq is an abject lesson. The US is not doing things there optimally and to accomplish its long-term goals in Iraq, another and very different kind of component would be optimal. The military of course wins the battles, but it is essentially the post-conflict humanitarian efforts that the military cannot provide which serve to soften the hearts and minds of people. Think about this.
 
Your last messages in this thread, Tasha, exactly fit the following widespread stereotype:
"wily Israelites incite American simpletons against the world of Islam"
 
arussian said:
Your last messages in this thread, Tasha, exactly fit the following widespread stereotype:
"wily Israelites incite American simpletons against the world of Islam"
Your messages in this thread exactly fit the following widespread stereotype:
you are zalupa. Zalupil your brain?ne trogai tasha, kozel ebanai. kozli ne skachut v Amerike. ebal tvoi islam, zasun ego sebe v jopu. anamerican.
 
sorry, people. I just said a bunch of very bad words to arussian.the worst of whatever had been said on this site for all times.
 
justone said:
sorry, people. I just said a bunch of very bad words to arussian.the worst of whatever had been said on this site for all times.
Methinks the not-so-wiley arussian deserved some attention.
 
justone said:
Your messages in this thread exactly fit the following widespread stereotype:
you are zalupa. Zalupil your brain?ne trogai tasha, kozel ebanai. kozli ne skachut v Amerike. ebal tvoi islam, zasun ego sebe v jopu. anamerican.

your reaction is funny
 
Tashah said:
I would say that your question in itself is a perfect example of the current miasma common to many Americans. The WoT is not a political issue at all... it is a national issue. Myself? I have serious problems with the way the Bush administration (read neocons and conservatives) are prosecuting this struggle.

I have no problem with the military. US forces in Iraq are doing the very best they can under very trying circumstances.

I am talking about both. Ask yourself... why is the NWFP of Pakistan allowed to be a sanctuary for al-Qa'ida? Ask yourself... why were the Muslim rulers of Sudan allowed to engage in genocide in Darfur? Ask yourself... why is profiling against the law at US airports? Ask yourself... why are radical Muslim clerics allowed to indoctrinate prisoners in the US penal system? The answer to all of these questions is... insipid political correctness.

Think outside the box. Conscription would not necessarily entail military duty. I would prefer that the US military remain a voluntary endeavor. Those who do not wish to enlist voluntarily would be conscripted for other duties that would free up the fighting soldiers. In other words, two entities. An active military component to engage the enemy with overwhelming force, and a passive component that would do everything else except fight. It is primarily the passive force that would work to instill peace and prosperity post hostilities, not US soldiers trying to do things they are not trained for. Iraq is an abject lesson. The US is not doing things there optimally and to accomplish its long-term goals in Iraq, another and very different kind of component would be optimal. The military of course wins the battles, but it is essentially the post-conflict humanitarian efforts that the military cannot provide which serve to soften the hearts and minds of people. Think about this.

Fair enough -- labels do get thrown around too easily -- like "neocon" and "politically correct."
 
Back
Top Bottom