Iraqis still ask if U.S. invasion was worth it

[mkemse]

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Five years after U.S. and British forces swept into Iraq and toppled Saddam Hussein, many Iraqis are asking if the violence and upheaval that turned their lives upside down was worth it.

The human cost is staggering -- anywhere between 90,000 and 1 million Iraqi civilians killed, according to various estimates; nearly 4,000 U.S. soldiers dead; while 4 million Iraqis are displaced.

Keep in Mind That this conflict is now Costing the United States $12billion Dollars a Month, yes billion not Milion and yes per month not per year

What is your opinoin on what the Iraqi's think, has the Human cost and the Finicail cost been worth it, with no apparent end in sight??

[TomOfSweden]

As far as the Iraquis are concerned they're still in minus from the invasion. But it's a bit short-term view to see it in. Democracy takes many years to evolve into something useful. Right now everything sucks ass in Iraq. They have less safety and less protection from the law than they had before. I still support the invasion.

[mkemse]

thanks for your reply and comments

[Ozme52]

Well, as is typical, you only quoted (and emphasized) the parts you like.

Here's the rest of the article. Good and bad. One must decide if the good outweighs the bad... if the historical parallels justify the means. Ask Cuban expatriots and they'd tell you they feel let down because we didn't follow through and oust Castro.

Damned if you do... damned if you don't.


BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Five years after U.S. and British forces swept into Iraq and toppled Saddam Hussein, many Iraqis are asking if the violence and upheaval that turned their lives upside down was worth it.

The human cost is staggering -- anywhere between 90,000 and 1 million Iraqi civilians killed, according to various estimates; nearly 4,000 U.S. soldiers dead; while 4 million Iraqis are displaced.



On the bright side, Iraqis are rid of one of the 20th
century's most ruthless dictators. They held free elections and
have a new constitution.

For Iraqis, deciding if the invasion was worth the sacrifice
depends partly on their sect and ethnicity and where they live.

Saddam, a Sunni Arab, persecuted the country's majority
Shi'ites and Kurds. Shi'ites now hold the reins of power while
once-dominant Sunni Arabs have become marginalised.

In Baghdad, epicentre of a sectarian war in 2006 and 2007
that nearly tore Iraq apart, people long for the safe streets of
Saddam's era. In the Shi'ite south, they no longer fear Saddam's
henchmen, but rival Shi'ite factions competing for influence.

In the north, the economy of largely autonomous Kurdistan is
flourishing in a region that Kurds call "the other Iraq".

Foreign Minister Hoshiyar Zebari, a Kurd, said Iraq was
moving in the right direction. Those who felt the invasion was a
mistake should remember Saddam's atrocities, he said.

Zebari said proof that a majority of Iraqis supported the
overthrow of Saddam was their participation in 2005 elections.

"The brutality of Saddam's regime deformed society in many
ways so we have to be patient," he told Reuters in an interview.

"Compared to the experience of other nations I think we have
done very well. But yes, it has been very, very costly."

Um Khalid, a 40-year old Baghdad hairdresser, said violence
was so random that no one knew if they would be its next victim.

"No, no, no. What happened was not worth it. Those who say
things are better are lying," she said.


KILLED OVER THEIR NAME

Many Iraqis vividly recall the chaotic months after the
invasion on March 20, 2003, symbolised by the toppling of a big
statue of Saddam in central Baghdad.

Their euphoria at new freedoms and hopes the United States
would transform Iraq into another rich Gulf Arab state were
dashed as Sunni Arabs rose up against their new rulers and car
bombs turned markets and mosques into killing fields.

In February 2006, suspected al Qaeda militants blew up a
revered Shi'ite mosque in the town of Samarra, unleashing a wave
of sectarian violence that meant being a Shi'ite or a Sunni in
the wrong neighbourhood could be a death sentence.

"Before 2003, we lived under a tough regime, no one can deny
that," said Abu Wasan, 55, a former army brigadier-general and a
senior member of Saddam's disbanded Baath party.

"But at least we never heard of bodies getting dumped on
garbage just because people had a Sunni or a Shi'ite name."

The worst of the sectarian carnage is over, at least for
now. A year ago, police would find up to 50 bodies in the
streets of Baghdad each day. That number has dropped to single
digits thanks to the deployment of additional U.S. troops and
ceasefires by many Shi'ite and Sunni Arabs militants. Also in
many Baghdad areas ethnic cleansing has already been completed.


GRIM NUMBERS

The latest tolls from the widely cited human rights group
Iraq Body Count show up to 89,000 civilians have been killed
since 2003. Research conducted by one of Britain's leading
polling groups, however, puts the death toll at 1 million.

The U.S. military death toll stands at 3,975.

Other statistics make for grim reading.

The United Nations estimates 4 million Iraqis are struggling
to feed themselves while 40 percent of the country's 27 million
people have no safe water. The Iraqi doctors' syndicate says up
to 70 percent of spe******t doctors have fled abroad.

Iraq's national power grid, devastated by years of war and
sanctions, leaves millions in the dark. The country has the
world's third largest reserves of oil, but motorists sometimes
queue at petrol stations for hours.

"I have been in this queue since dawn waiting to fill my
car," said Abdullah Ahmed, 53, a taxi driver in the northern
city of Kirkuk, which sits atop huge reserves of oil.

"What democracy? What prosperity? When the statue fell, we
thought we would live like the Gulf, but that was just words."

People with such views are overlooking the joy of speaking
freely, said Ahmed Sebti, 39, owner of a kebab restaurant in the
southern Shi'ite city of Najaf.

In the past, making fun of Saddam could have deadly
consequences. The current president, Jalal Talabani, has a keen
sense of humour and loves satire.

"Before, civil servants couldn't eat kebabs. Now my income
depends on them. Living standards are better," said Sebti.

Some Iraqis fear the invasion has set into motion political
forces that could lead to the partition of Iraq into Shi'ite,
Sunni Arab and Kurdish regions -- a prospect that would
inevitably be bloody and may drag in neighbouring countries.

But Iraq is no longer a threat to its neighbours.

It is also one of the few countries in the region to hold
free elections, something unheard of in neighbouring Gulf Arab
countries. Provincial elections that could redraw Iraq's
political map are expected later this year.

Sheikh Fatwa al-Jerboa, a Sunni Arab tribal leader in the
northern city of Mosul, said there was plenty to be happy about.

"I feel grateful to the British and Americans for ousting
this dreadful dictator. Now we enjoy freedom of speech and the
freedom to choose our own leaders," he said.

Yousif Kamil, 25, in the northern city of Baiji, disagreed.

"It was a big mistake by America. We will remember it as
they remember Vietnam," he said.



Link to the Reuters Article (http://www.gulfinthemedia.com/index.php?m=reuters&id=856166&lang=en&)

[Ozme52]

As far as the Iraquis are concerned they're still in minus from the invasion. But it's a bit short-term view to see it in. Democracy takes many years to evolve into something useful. Right now everything sucks ass in Iraq. They have less safety and less protection from the law than they had before. I still support the invasion.


I tend to agree... but still would have preferred dealing with the actual terrorist organizations first. There still has been no proof (imo) that Hussein was involved with 9/11...

If this country needed Hussein out of power, we should have done it when we pushed him out of Kuwait. Bush senior was as indecisive and ill-advised then as Bush junior appears arrogant and ill-advised now. Neither is a quality I like to see in a president.

[mkemse]

Well, as is typical, you only quoted (and emphasized) the parts you like.

Here's the rest of the article. Good and bad. One must decide if the good outweighs the bad... if the historical parallels justify the means. Ask Cuban expatriots and they'd tell you they feel let down because we didn't follow through and oust Castro.

Damned if you do... damned if you don't.





Link to the Reuters Article (http://www.gulfinthemedia.com/index.php?m=reuters&id=856166&lang=en&)

Thank you for your kind remarks

[mkemse]

I tend to agree... but still would have preferred dealing with the actual terrorist organizations first. There still has been no proof (imo) that Hussein was involved with 9/11...

If this country needed Hussein out of power, we should have done it when we pushed him out of Kuwait. Bush senior was as indecisive and ill-advised then as Bush junior appears arrogant and ill-advised now. Neither is a quality I like to see in a president.


after 5 years and currenty spending $12 billion a month i hardly see ANY Bright Spot

[mkemse]

Terrorism would still exisit today if we did not go into Iraq,we just aggrivated the situation by going there, and until we got there there was NO Al Qudia, they were and are based for the most part In The Tora Bora Mountains and in Afghanistan where ALL our efforts should be and have been remained after 9/11
Only after we Invaded Iraq was Al Quida there

[mkemse]

i do not want to get into a debate ver us being in Iraq, everyne has there own opnion of should we or not i wassimply tryingto point out part of a story about how Iraqi's People feel about it, andfelt that the portion of the story posted was sufficeint to explain, therst was not intentionalnot post but was not viewed as relelvant, the statics showed in the begiging ofthe article were main main reson for the post

my sincereest apologies to anyone who felt they were mislead, that was not the intention, but to simply point out Iraqi's Citizens feeling on the war and our being there, i was not taking sides

[Ozme52]

Thank you for your kind remarks


Ah. Sarcasm!

[Ozme52]

after 5 years and currenty spending $12 billion a month i hardly see ANY Bright Spot

Don't complain to me. Go tell Reuters. It is their report you used to start this conversation and it is their right to show both sides of the debate.


They used the term 'bright side'

[mkemse]

Ah. Sarcasm!

it was not or inteneded to be sarcasim i just wanted to thank you for your remarks, i have at times a more diffuckut exression myself without it coming out that way, turst me it was mean as nothing otherthen a sincere thank you

[mkemse]

Don't complain to me. Go tell Reuters. It is their report you used to start this conversation and it is their right to show both sides of the debate.


They used the term 'bright side'

i know they used that term, that was a genric remark directed at them not you, i know it was their report not yours

[Ozme52]

Terrorism would still exisit today if we did not go into Iraq,we just aggrivated the situation by going there, and until we got there there was NO Al Qudia, they were and are based for the most part In The Tora Bora Mountains and in Afghanistan where ALL our efforts should be and have been remained after 9/11
Only after we Invaded Iraq was Al Quida there

That's irrelevent. And inaccurate. All you can say is they began fighting us there after we ousted Hussein. You have no way to validate the statement that they didn't operate in Iraq under Hussein.

Nor can you validate that they wouldn't have hidden in Iraq (or any other sympathetic country) if we had poured all our efforts into eradicating them in Afganistan. No more than I can say they would have. It's all "what if" supposition.

[Ozme52]

i do not want to get into a debate ver us being in Iraq, everyne has there own opnion of should we or not i wassimply tryingto point out part of a story about how Iraqi's People feel about it, andfelt that the portion of the story posted was sufficeint to explain, therst was not intentionalnot post but was not viewed as relelvant, the statics showed in the begiging ofthe article were main main reson for the post

my sincereest apologies to anyone who felt they were mislead, that was not the intention, but to simply point out Iraqi's Citizens feeling on the war and our being there, i was not taking sides


Obviously... because you left out anything that pointed out anything good. Did you READ anything beyond the one-sided statements you posted?

[Wind_Walker25]

Freedom Will Always Coast! How many must die, How Much Is Freedom Worth!!!

[mkemse]

That's irrelevent. And inaccurate. All you can say is they began fighting us there after we ousted Hussein. You have no way to validate the statement that they didn't operate in Iraq under Hussein.

Nor can you validate that they wouldn't have hidden in Iraq (or any other sympathetic country) if we had poured all our efforts into eradicating them in Afganistan. No more than I can say they would have. It's all "what if" supposition.


all i was trying to point out is that we should have used and should now only be usiing our Military rescourses to fight Al Quida in Afghansistan after 9/11 and not have invaded Iraq, at the time of 9/11, Al Quida was in Afghansistan that is where the Taiban was and is still there, and the Taliban is part of Al Quida, they ran the Afghan Governement at the time of 9/11 they did not run Iraq,

[Wind_Walker25]

You are right! But thousands of Curds if I spelled that right, are free and they thank US every day

[Alex Bragi]

Gentleman, please let's keep it cool and calm.

mkemse, you are entitled to quote portions of the article. Oz, you are entitled to post the full article.

All opinions on the topic are welcome. Negative opinions of other members are not.

[Wind_Walker25]

This is one of those times, when you are both right. I wish we did not go into Irag.
But we are there Now. I say get the job done. If we do not we will pay in ways I do not want to think about!

[Thorne]

I tend to agree... but still would have preferred dealing with the actual terrorist organizations first. There still has been no proof (imo) that Hussein was involved with 9/11...
True enough. As far as I can determine, the only possible connection between Saddam and Al-Qaeda was financial support, probably indirectly. If that justified invasion then virtually every Islamic nation would have to be targeted.


If this country needed Hussein out of power, we should have done it when we pushed him out of Kuwait. Bush senior was as indecisive and ill-advised then as Bush junior appears arrogant and ill-advised now. Neither is a quality I like to see in a president.
I have to disagree with you here, Oz. While I agree it would have been nice for Bush Sr. to finish him off, the UN mandate for the war was to push him out of Kuwait. Once that was done the job was done. If we'd tried to go further chances are we would have alienated the meager support from those Arab countries which were supporting us. We would have been virtually alone in the attacks and with no supply base or local air bases for support. It's even possible that Iran, which remained neutral and out of the way while Iraq was pummeled, may have sent troops across the border to prevent us from getting to Baghdad. It could have been a disaster.

[Ozme52]

I have to disagree with you here, Oz. While I agree it would have been nice for Bush Sr. to finish him off, the UN mandate for the war was to push him out of Kuwait. Once that was done the job was done. If we'd tried to go further chances are we would have alienated the meager support from those Arab countries which were supporting us. We would have been virtually alone in the attacks and with no supply base or local air bases for support.


That was certainly the reasoning and the rationalization at that time... and it was short sighted. Hussein continued to persecute shiites, kurds, and anyone in Iraq who vocally objected to his methods. He cheated on the oil for food agreements he made with the UN. And he almost certainly used that money to support terrorism worldwide under the presumption that creating chaos was to his advantage.

It amazingly paralleled the apeasement policies that allowed Hitler to rearm Germany in the 1930's... but that's certainly debatable.

If Iraq had been subdued then, everything would have been different... maybe worse, but more likely better.


It's even possible that Iran, which remained neutral and out of the way while Iraq was pummeled, may have sent troops across the border to prevent us from getting to Baghdad. It could have been a disaster.

At the time, Iraq and Iran were beligerents, enemies. Iran would have welcomed Hussein's elimination, and they did when it finally happened. Iran (supporting insurgents) presumably stepped into vacuum we left by not getting the occupation right in the first place.

The Wehrmacht took Yugoslavia with a minimal force and couldn't control the population with 400,000 troops. Those who ignore the mistakes of history are doomed to repeat them. Personally, I rolled my eyes when Bush claimed victory on that aircraft carrier.

[Thorne]

That was certainly the reasoning and the rationalization at that time... and it was short sighted. Hussein continued to persecute shiites, kurds, and anyone in Iraq who vocally objected to his methods. He cheated on the oil for food agreements he made with the UN. And he almost certainly used that money to support terrorism worldwide under the presumption that creating chaos was to his advantage.

It amazingly paralleled the apeasement policies that allowed Hitler to rearm Germany in the 1930's... but that's certainly debatable.

If Iraq had been subdued then, everything would have been different... maybe worse, but more likely better.
I'm reminded more of 1945, following the surrender of Germany. Supposedly George Patton advocated rearming the Wehrmacht and pushing on against the Russians, under the assumption that we were going to have to fight them sooner or later anyway, it might as well be right then when we had the manpower and equipment in place to do it. Would it have been the smart thing to do? Possibly, but probably not. The same holds true for Iraq in '91. In hindsight it might have been wiser to go on and depose him, but probably not.


At the time, Iraq and Iran were beligerents, enemies. Iran would have welcomed Hussein's elimination, and they did when it finally happened. Iran (supporting insurgents) presumably stepped into vacuum we left by not getting the occupation right in the first place.
True, Iran would probably not have joined with Saddam, but they wouldn't have stood by and let "The Great Satan" move into the region. Iran in 1991 was much more belligerent and threatening than they are now.


The Wehrmacht took Yugoslavia with a minimal force and couldn't control the population with 400,000 troops. Those who ignore the mistakes of history are doomed to repeat them. Personally, I rolled my eyes when Bush claimed victory on that aircraft carrier.
Yeah, and we're having the same problems the Germans did: our troops are not trained or equipped to fight a guerilla war. And the Germans had the chetniks to help them.
BTW, I'm not sure I would qualify an invasion by 21 German divisions as a "minimal force" but I understand your meaning.

[DOMLORD]

can you really train an army to fight against guerilla and follow the geniva conventions? people will be in an up roar about that if we ever did something like that. however violence is down in iraq (a little bit, but still not much) and its up in afghanistan. i think if we could make a difference in afghanistan we can do it in iraq, but then again that's just my natural optomist.

[Thorne]

can you really train an army to fight against guerilla and follow the geniva conventions? people will be in an up roar about that if we ever did something like that. however violence is down in iraq (a little bit, but still not much) and its up in afghanistan. i think if we could make a difference in afghanistan we can do it in iraq, but then again that's just my natural optomist.

I doubt that you could train an army to fight against them, but an elite group of commando-type fighters might be able to make a difference. The problem is doing it within the "Rules of War", if there is such a thing. I think the only real way to fight that kind of battle is to infiltrate the guerrilla groups and execute their leaders, as brutally and publicly as possible. Don't try to capture them, don't try to reason with them, don't ever let them off the hook. You go in and grab hold and kill them, one at a time or in groups, until the units wither away and die.
It wouldn't be pretty, it probably wouldn't be legal and, if the US news media found out about it they would castrate (figuratively, hopefully) the soldiers doing the work, the generals who sent them out and the lawmakers who appropriated the funding. But if you consistently take out the leadership you will eventually have a group of guerrillas who won't know how to carry on fighting.

[TomOfSweden]

Patton is a great example of a great military leader who would have been a terrible political leader.

It's important for a soldier to be decisive a strong. It's important for a politician to have popular support. These are very different qualities.

Collateral damage is not a term used in civilian matters. Anybody caught up in any conflict will in political debate and in the press be judged as unacceptable.

There was that blog that kid in Baghdad wrote during the war where he exemplified the ambivalent Iraqi position. He was pretty clear that he hated Saddam Hussein and wanted to be rid of him. But at the same time he did not forgive USA for any civilian casualties. No matter how much we may rationally may understand how unreasonable this demand is, this is how normal people think. I do. If there's a war on and a friend or relative of me dies, and the attacker is from some completely alien source, in my head I'd blame the aliens for their death.

So basically the Iraqi's will blame USA for everything bad happening but assume anything good happening is a result of their own work. Just plain human dumb-ass nature. We're all guilty of this thinking. USA knew that going in and will naturally have to deal with taking the blame for all eternity for anything bad every happening in Iraq from the war onward.

That is a large reason why I thought it was idiotic by the USA to attack with such a small coalition. If it would have been more countries in the invading force there would have been more countries to take the blame. A large group always turn into an anonymous mass, and USA wouldn't have to deal with all this animosity.

Just in the same way, US citizens will in general be completely non-plussed about the Iraqi reaction and just assume they're ungrateful and think collateral damage should be acceptable for the Iraqi's. Just really dumb ass positive thinking.

All in all, when it comes to our own, we all have a tendency to be really stupid and short sighted. All of us.

[GS42]

'You can't fight for a cause! A cause is just a thing!' said Rincewind.
'Then we are fighting for the peasants,' said Butterfly. She'd backed away. Rincewind's anger was coming off him like steam.
'Oh? Have you ever met them?'
'I - have seen them.'
'Oh, good! And what is it you want to achieve?'
'A better life for the people,' said Butterfly coldly.
'You think you having some uprising and hanging a few people will do it? Well, I come from Ankh-Morpork and we've had more rebellions and civil wars than you've had ... lukewarm ducks' feet, and you know what? The rulers are still in charge! They always are!'
They smiled at him in polite and nervous incomprehension.
'Look,' he said, rubbing his forehead. 'All those people out in the fields, the water buffalo people . . . If you have a revolution it'll all be better for them, will it?'
'Of course,' said Butterfly. 'They will no longer be subject to the cruel and capricious whims of the Forbidden City.'
'Oh, that's good,' said Rincewind. 'So they'll sort of be in charge of themselves, will they?'
'Indeed,' said Lotus Blossom.
'By means of the People's Committee,' said Butterfly.
Rincewind pressed both hands to his head.
'My word,' he said. 'I don't know why, but I had this predictive flash!'
They looked impressed.
'I had this sudden feeling,' he went on, 'that there won't be all that many peasants on the People's Committee. In fact ... I get this kind of ... voice telling me that a lot of the People's Committee, correct me if I'm wrong, are standing in front of me right now?'
'Initially, of course,' said Butterfly. 'The peasants can't even read and write.'
'I expect they don't even know how to farm properly,' said Rincewind, gloomily. 'Not after doing it for only three or four thousand years.'
'We certainly believe that there are many improvements that could be made, yes,' said Butterfly. 'If we act collectively.'
'I bet they'll be really glad when you show them,' said Rincewind. [...] He wanted to say: how can you be so nice and yet so dumb? The best thing you can do with the peasants is leave them alone. Let them get on with it. When people who can read and write start fighting on behalf of people who can't, you just end up with another kind of stupidity. If you want to help them, build a big library or something somewhere and leave the door open.

Terry Pratchett, Interesting Times

The whole debate often reminds me of this passage. I think Terry captured the problem rather well: you can't drive out one dictator and force people you never met to lead themselves. I think the envasion should never have happened, but since it has, you can't retreat now. Too late...

[wmrs2]

Great acknowledgment of the way things are Terry Pratchett. I wish everybody could see what you seel The whole debate reminds me of this passage. I think Terry captured the problem rather well:

you can't drive out one dictator and force people you never met to lead themselves. I think the envasion should never have happened, but since it has, you can't retreat now. Too late...

Now that things are the way they are, we have to deal with it from what we know about today. I think all respondents on this thread have correctly identified the mistakes America has made in the War. Isn't hindsight great? Now, we must try hard to not repeat the mistakes we have collectively pointed out.

It would have been super if President Bush had handled the invasion better by not dismantling the army of Iraq but rather having kept them together to help bring stability to the country. It would would have been better than starting from scratch in building a new army. Having failed to do this, it would have been better to have brought more soldiers to keep the peace strong in Iraq until the civilian population could recover. Isn't hindsight wonderful?

It took us too long to realize that the surge was necessary. I hope every citizen wants the surge to work. But, there is that group of citizens who seek political advantage by seeing our national interest fail in Iraq. That may have something to do with why the House in Congress refuses to vote on legislation related to the war effort. If the war was to wind down in Iraq because Al Queada was being pushed out of Iraq, it would hurt a lot of politicians' arguments.

Right or wrong, regardless of the mistakes we have made, it is costing us too much money to continue the war. However, we can not afford to pull out and leave Iraq to Al Queada or the Iranians, both of whom have said they would fill the vacuum with the departure of the Americans. I like what Obama said on NBC News that if Al Queada established a stronghold in Iraq that he would send the troops back in, if he were President.

There may not be a perfect option, but would it not be less expensive in the long run to pull together and make sure the job is done quickly and completely. Our enemies know no borders and to defeat them, we have to go where they are or else they will come to us. Our country can't just say we stop the war because it is too expensive. The enemy will not stop killing us regardless. Although we know that the enemy has a fall back tactic, which is to ruin our economy. This is another good reason to act quickly and decisively.

One more thing, without meaning insult to anybody, I do think it less than patriotic to use the war as an avenue to gain political advantage. When Al Queada kills our citizens around the world and in Iraq, they do not ask if you are a Democrat or Republican. They simply want to kill Americans. We need so badly to have a united effort against our enemies so much that Al Queada is not a cheerleader for whomever wins the election.

[mkemse]

When ever ANY President goes to War be they a Democrat or a Republican you must have an end plan, how do you pla nto end the War, NOT when but how

If anyone goes back to the time when GWB went on TV and annouced his plans for his shock and Awe bombing atthe beginnig ofthe Invaion, he said he pplans were to go into Iraq, get the job done and be out in 90 days, then 4 year ltaer he says "We misjudged our enemaies"
Well Mr. Bush, when you go inot ANY WAR you can't misjudge you enemay, you must know at all time who you are fighiting, why you are fighting them and how many of you enemay you are fighiting against, THIS WAS NEVErR DONE
When peole say he mis maganged thewar, they are saying,you went in, dropped bombs, had no lcue who you enemy was beyond Hussien, then say we misjudhed the enemey, the number in the enemy had ect
You have to have some calculated idea how many peole you are going to be figihitng against, their basic location, what there steengths are, weakenss are and plan that way and not just go in to complete a job the maybe Bush Sr. never dd but to go into ANY War with only a plan to invade and nothing else is like going Chrismtas shopping ghen half way throughthey day saying, "Gee we neevr planned or decided on how much money to spend on gifts"
If you go to War go in with a PLan or do not go in
The War currently costs the United States $1.2 Billlion Dollars a month that is ore then all our other war combines as I understand it, we have lost over 4,200 Men/Women and children
Al Quida will KILL anyone who does not believe in their distored views of the Koran, and even Muslim Clerks in this country has said that the Koran expresedly Forbids and Prohibits killing of anyone, in anyway for anyreason so the Terrorists rational of the Koran holds no water and theur view in interpret their own Religious Holy Book in a very distored way
Be you Canandian, American, Russian, Chinese, Viet Namese, Italian ect ect, if you do not believe what and supportwhat the Terrorists believe in, you are a Target for them
They Kill woh they kill simply because the have no respect for humanity, and because other do not agreee with their views on Islam
If we never Invaded Iraq, who si to say that Al Quida would ahve even go there, they were not their til we invaded, and if they were, they were in small numbers and hidingso well ,their precense would have made no difference
No the amswer is not to pull together to getthe job done not at $1.2 Billlion US Dollars everything 30 days, when we have Amercians who have no medical insurence, can'tafford gas, are loosing their homes to forclusre, that $1.2 milloin couuld go to help them
The smartest thing GWB could have done was not go into Iraq, unles he has undiniable proof and evidence that WMD's exsisted, people outside his admistration that would in fact veryify they really did exist, and show picutres of the WMD not pictures of where they MAY BE STORED but the actualy WMD's, and certainly not have lanaded on an Air Craft Carrier 3 years ago, jump out of a fighter jet in a Flight Suit, with a huge Banner acrsoo the site ofthe Air Craft Carrier that reads "Mission Accomplished" if it fact it was accomplished why are we still there, if it was NOT accompished then the President lied to the American People, very clear cut, we either didi our joband came home or did not do our job but are advertizing we did

if they could offer ground photos whic they did of the alleged storable places of WMD's why not go in andsee if they exisit
If a crime is committted, and the Police investigate it, they will never ever arrest anyone til the have enough evidence that a particular persaon commmited the crime evidence that shows the person did commmit it and not just "We though th e didso we arrested him" that rarely happens in this country so why should it happen in Iraq
A Disrect Attorney will not charge ayone with a crime til the evidenc the have is so over whelmng there is no wat that person did not commit the crime, why did GWB nottakethe same approach and tell histeam of Security Experts ect "I will aprroive the Invasion of Iraq, but before I do i want Indeputable evidencethat WMS' do exist, indepsutable evdience the Al Quida is hiding in Iraq and if this evidencecan not be presented, we do not invade and they say Ohsorry or info ou intellience was faulty, oyu makesure it is not faulty before you go in not after you are in

[mkemse]

Monday, March 10, 2008

Exhaustive review finds no link between Saddam and al Qaida

WASHINGTON — An exhaustive review of more than 600,000 Iraqi documents that were captured after the 2003 U.S. invasion has found no evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime had any operational links with Osama bin Laden's al Qaida terrorist network.

The Pentagon-sponsored study, scheduled for release later this week, did confirm that Saddam's regime provided some support to other terrorist groups, particularly in the Middle East, U.S. officials told McClatchy. However, his security services were directed primarily against Iraqi exiles, Shiite Muslims, Kurds and others he considered enemies of his regime.

The new study of the Iraqi regime's archives found no documents indicating a "direct operational link" between Hussein's Iraq and al Qaida before the invasion, according to a U.S. official familiar with the report.

He and others spoke to McClatchy on condition of anonymity because the study isn't due to be shared with Congress and released before Wednesday.

President Bush and his aides used Saddam's alleged relationship with al Qaida, along with Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction, as arguments for invading Iraq after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld claimed in September 2002 that the United States had "bulletproof" evidence of cooperation between the radical Islamist terror group and Saddam's secular dictatorship.

Then-Secretary of State Colin Powell cited multiple linkages between Saddam and al Qaida in a watershed February 2003 speech to the United Nations Security Council to build international support for the invasion. Almost every one of the examples Powell cited turned out to be based on bogus or misinterpreted intelligence.

As recently as last July, Bush tried to tie al Qaida to the ongoing violence in Iraq. "The same people that attacked us on September the 11th is a crowd that is now bombing people, killing innocent men, women and children, many of whom are Muslims," he said.

The new study, entitled "Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents", was essentially completed last year and has been undergoing what one U.S. intelligence official described as a "painful" declassification review.

It was produced by a federally-funded think tank, the Institute for Defense Analyses, under contract to the Norfolk, Va.-based U.S. Joint Forces Command.

Spokesmen for the Joint Forces Command declined to comment until the report is released. One of the report's authors, Kevin Woods, also declined to comment.

The issue of al Qaida in Iraq already has played a role in the 2008 presidential campaign.

Sen. John McCain, the presumptive GOP nominee, mocked Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill, recently for saying that he'd keep some U.S. troops in Iraq if al Qaida established a base there.

"I have some news. Al Qaida is in Iraq," McCain told supporters. Obama retorted that, "There was no such thing as al Qaida in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade." (In fact, al Qaida in Iraq didn't emerge until 2004, a year after the invasion.)

The new study appears destined to be used by both critics and supporters of Bush's decision to invade Iraq to advance their own familiar arguments.

While the documents reveal no Saddam-al Qaida links, they do show that Saddam and his underlings were willing to use terrorism against enemies of the regime and had ties to regional and global terrorist groups, the officials said.

However, the U.S. intelligence official, who's read the full report, played down the prospect of any major new revelations, saying, "I don't think there's any surprises there."

Saddam, whose regime was relentlessly secular, was wary of Islamic extremist groups [/B[B]]such as al Qaida, although like many other Arab leaders, he gave some financial support to Palestinian groups that sponsored terrorism against Israel.According to the State Department's annual report on global terrorism for 2002 — the last before the Iraq invasion — Saddam supported the militant Islamic group Hamas in Gaza, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command, a radical, Syrian-based terrorist group.

Saddam also hosted Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal, although the Abu Nidal Organization was more active when he lived in Libya and he was murdered in Baghdad in August 2002, possibly on Saddam's orders.

An earlier study based on the captured Iraqi documents, released by the Joint Forces Command in March 2006, found that a militia Saddam formed after the 1991 Persian Gulf war, the Fedayeen Saddam, planned assassinations and bombings against his enemies. Those included Iraqi exiles and opponents in Iraq's Kurdish and Shiite communities.

Other documents indicate that the Fedayeen Saddam opened paramilitary training camps that, starting in 1998, hosted "Arab volunteers" from outside of Iraq. What happened to the non-Iraqi volunteers is unknown, however, according to the earlier study.

The new Pentagon study isn't the first to refute earlier administration contentions about Saddam and al Qaida.

A September 2006 report by the Senate Intelligence Committee concluded that Saddam was "distrustful of al Qaida and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al Qaida to provide material or operational support."

The Senate report, citing an FBI debriefing of a senior Iraqi spy, Faruq Hijazi, said that Saddam turned down a request for assistance by bin Laden which he made at a 1995 meeting in Sudan with an Iraqi operative

[John56{vg}]

A report that shows we were lied into the war came out from the Pentagon today. But, because Bush intervened and called the Pentagon, the report will not be distributed as originally planned, to reporters and the public.

Bush is now playing politics, while laughably accusing Congress of doing so, with the FISA Bill. He says the bill is necessary to save lives, However, he states that without giving corporations immunity from their illegal wiretaps he will veto the bill. SO, does that mean he will make it unsafe for Americans by vetoing the bill. His broken record tactics are a cowardly attempt to keep himself from prosecution for the crimes he has committed against Americans and the Nation.

He has just forced the resignation of a Haddon (that may not be spelled correctly), one of the COmmanders that he says he listens to, because Haddon said he thinks war with Iran would be disastrous.

And Bush is sending Cheney to the Middle East to negotiate a Peace Treaty. Now who thinks that CHeney wants to negotiate peace with anyone.

Bush is a Patriot? He has done more in the last eight years to destroy America and American values than any enemy we have faced. He is setting up a strike on Iran I fear before he leaves office.

And regarding Iraq. Al Qaida did not exist in Iraq until we moved in. Plus, Al Quaida In Iraq is not the Al Quaida that attacked us, the group took that name but have never been associated with Iraq.

These are some facts AND I am tired of the people who try to change this country back into a country we can ALL be proud of being called un-patriotic by the people supporting the men and women who attempt to politicize and destroy this country's values.

[mkemse]

Removed as per request from mkemse-- posted in error (wrong thread). :)

[mkemse]

A report that shows we were lied into the war came out from the Pentagon today. But, because Bush intervened and called the Pentagon, the report will not be distributed as originally planned, to reporters and the public.

Bush is now playing politics, while laughably accusing Congress of doing so, with the FISA Bill. He says the bill is necessary to save lives, However, he states that without giving corporations immunity from their illegal wiretaps he will veto the bill. SO, does that mean he will make it unsafe for Americans by vetoing the bill. His broken record tactics are a cowardly attempt to keep himself from prosecution for the crimes he has committed against Americans and the Nation.

He has just forced the resignation of a Haddon (that may not be spelled correctly), one of the COmmanders that he says he listens to, because Haddon said he thinks war with Iran would be disastrous.

And Bush is sending Cheney to the Middle East to negotiate a Peace Treaty. Now who thinks that CHeney wants to negotiate peace with anyone.

Bush is a Patriot? He has done more in the last eight years to destroy America and American values than any enemy we have faced. He is setting up a strike on Iran I fear before he leaves office.

And regarding Iraq. Al Qaida did not exist in Iraq until we moved in. Plus, Al Quaida In Iraq is not the Al Quaida that attacked us, the group took that name but have never been associated with Iraq.

These are some facts AND I am tired of the people who try to change this country back into a country we can ALL be proud of being called un-patriotic by the people supporting the men and women who attempt to politicize and destroy this country's values.


Chenney going to the Mid East to negotiate for lower Oil Prices is like Eliot Spitzer going to the Bunny Ranch in Las Vegas

[mkemse]

And if Al Quida was in fact "hiding out" in Iraq before we invaded, as much distrust and dislike as Saddam had or Al Quida he would have had them rooted out by his military
Saddams main Terrorists intrestes were support those who wanted to attack Israel he supported Hamas, Hezbola (excuse me if my spelling is wrong on their names) and similar organizations who main enemey was Israel and their destruction

[wmrs2]

Let's say that all these things that John56 and mkemse say about President Bush are true and exactly like they infer these things to be. We are still left with a national problem that must be dealt with. My statement about Obama saying he would send the troops into Iraq was complimentary towards him. It took a lot of courage for him to admit that he would handle the war in the same manner as President Bush has. Our war is not with Iraq but with Al Quiede. It bothered me a lot to think that America would elect a President that would not defend our national interest. After hearing Obama state his real position on the war, I figured it would not be the end of the world if Obama won the election in 2008.

Patriots need to do the best we can to make things easier for Obama, if and when he is elected. We do not need to prolong the war, witness more of our precious youth wasted on the battle fields, and see our economy wreaked; weakening the support for our army is not the answer. Do you think our enemies enjoy the arguments between the Democrats and Republicans over the war? Is it to their advantage to see this contention among our citizens. Long after Bush is gone, we are still going to be forced to fight Al Queada. I urge all Americans to put the past in the past. Bush can not be re-elected and he can't hurt you anymore.

[mkemse]

Let's say that all these things that John56 and mkemse say about President Bush are true and exactly like they infer these things to be. We are still left with a national problem that must be dealt with. My statement about Obama saying he would send the troops into Iraq was complimentary towards him. It took a lot of courage for him to admit that he would handle the war in the same manner as President Bush has. Our war is not with Iraq but with Al Quiede. It bothered me a lot to think that America would elect a President that would not defend our national interest. After hearing Obama state his real position on the war, I figured it would not be the end of the world if Obama won the election in 2008.

Patriots need to do the best we can to make things easier for Obama, if and when he is elected. We do not need to prolong the war, witness more of our precious youth wasted on the battle fields, and see our economy wreaked; weakening the support for our army is not the answer. Do you think our enemies enjoy the arguments between the Democrats and Republicans over the war? Is it to their advantage to see this contention among our citizens. Long after Bush is gone, we are still going to be forced to fight Al Queada. I urge all Americans to put the past in the past. Bush can not be re-elected and he can't hurt you anymore.

Obamas statement right noe is hypothectical for 2 reasons

Obama has not been elected Prseident and 2 we have no KNOWN plan to invade Iran,
I am not as concerd about Iran as Iraq becaue within the last 2 weeks even Russian Prime Minster Putin told Iran to stop wha they were doing and Russia and Iran are allies, Putin told Iran to stop it's nuculear enrichment program

We are in Iraq we are not in Iran

Our War in Iraq turned into a war with Al Quisa, because they arrived in Iraq after we did, the war in Iraq id not longer a Military War, it can not and will not be won Militarily, Iraq needs all i's Religiou Factions to Unify behin 1 governement, and untillthat happens the War could go no for years
It is a Civil War not a Military War now

Yes I give Obmam credit fo his remarks, but i also feel he would use factual doumented evdicende befroe we went in ans would make 100% sure his efifdence was actualy and not "Faulty" he would demans and righlty so acutaly evidence that we need to go in and make sure it was verfied, he would also go in knowing who are eniies was there, how strong they are andwhat we would need to do to defeat them which BUSH has not done

[mkemse]

before we invaded Iraq we had satitlite photos of "allged" mobil weapons labs, everyone assumed they were loaded with weapns, nobody bothetred to verify if they were infact mobil labs or just models of ones
Maybe all they were, where railcars made ro look liki mobil labs because mobil labs looked like that, when inspectors went in, they said they look like mobil labs but no weapons were found
Your neighbor is outside in fronr of your jouse smoking what looks like a joint, maybe in reality if you got closer you couldtell by the dmell if it was in fact pot, or maybe all it was , was a filterless cigarette i know lots of peole who roll there own smokes they sue no filters and yes they look like joints, but that does not mean they are joins
Never assume or accuse if there is no prooof, ifi call the plice on my neigbor overthis or that, and he says did you see him do it or hearhim do it, no i did not i just assumed he did, the offier will not asrrest his as he has no solid evidence of what i said only my word
The actual Blame ofr not taking out BinLaden falss on Bill Clinton who himself addmitted he has avarious chances to take him out and neer did, if Clinton has taken out BinLaden when the chace was there, is it possible that 9/11 ma not have happened, no way to know since Osama is stil alive, but yes, I blame Clintom for not taking bin laden out when he has the chance but Clinton at least acknowleldge that yes, he blew it and should have done it, that is called taking responsiilty, taking ownership for what you should have done and didn't do

[mkemse]

Clinton has taken ownership and responsisbility for what he should have done and didn't do, BUSH will never do that

[mkemse]

also, this past week 10 of the World Top Economists including Waren Buffet have all said The United States in now in a Recession, Bush says we are not, it seems to me that 10 Of The Worlds Most Renowned Econinists are far more qualified to say we are then Bush is to say we are not

[Ozme52]

I'm reminded more of 1945, following the surrender of Germany. Supposedly George Patton advocated rearming the Wehrmacht and pushing on against the Russians, under the assumption that we were going to have to fight them sooner or later anyway, it might as well be right then when we had the manpower and equipment in place to do it. Would it have been the smart thing to do? Possibly, but probably not. The same holds true for Iraq in '91. In hindsight it might have been wiser to go on and depose him, but probably not.
In hindsight...from our own perspective, No. 1) We needed those troops in the Pacific. 2) No one has ever 'successfully' attacked Russia from the west. 3) Because though the relations were tense, we never had that head to head war Patton was predicting... AND 4) They were our allies. You have to do your best to stand by your allies... even if you don't particularly like them.


True, Iran would probably not have joined with Saddam, but they wouldn't have stood by and let "The Great Satan" move into the region. Iran in 1991 was much more belligerent and threatening than they are now.
That would have been the perfect time to invade, conquer, and leave Iraq's neighbors as occupation troops. No Great Satan. No that would have been the great in-and-out campaign the Shrub was hoping for.


Yeah, and we're having the same problems the Germans did: our troops are not trained or equipped to fight a guerilla war. And the Germans had the chetniks to help them.
BTW, I'm not sure I would qualify an invasion by 21 German divisions as a "minimal force" but I understand your meaning.

Hmmm... the Yugoslav and the Greek campaigns both started on April 6th 1941 and I think the 21 divisions was for both campaigns combined... but no reason to quibble as the point is... It takes far more troops to hold territory than it takes to conquer it.

[Ozme52]

can you really train an army to fight against guerilla and follow the geniva conventions?

Sure. Why not? But the cost is stupendous. It just takes too many troops to fight an effective campaign against guerillas. The Geneva Convention rules can easily be followed so long as you have enough troops and an effective internal intelligence machine in situ to crush and capture guerilla cells.

But better yet... do what you need and leave. Then deal with whomever takes over... and if they put the hammer down on their own people... do it again. :rolleyes: I realize that may seem like an endless proposition but after one or two governments are replaced by force, you will end up with one that is more concerned with progress than power... and in the long run, that might be cheaper in terms of human lives lost than the way we're doing it now.

[Thorne]

In hindsight...from our own perspective, No. 1) We needed those troops in the Pacific. 2) No one has ever 'successfully' attacked Russia from the west. 3) Because though the relations were tense, we never had that head to head war Patton was predicting... AND 4) They were our allies. You have to do your best to stand by your allies... even if you don't particularly like them.
#1 - At the time this was believed true, but in hindsight the atom bombs did the job much better. Few, if any, of the regular troops from Europe made it to the Pacific in time to do any serious fighting.
#2 - I agree with you here. But remember, Napoleon did take Moscow, defeating the bulk of the Russian army at Borodino. The remnants of the Russian forces just sat it out in the steppes and Urals until winter drove the French out.
#3 - No, we didn't, and we're all glad about that! I didn't mean to imply that I agreed with Patton. He was a political nightmare, but a remarkable soldier.
#4 - I agree here, as well. Which is why...


That would have been the perfect time to invade, conquer, and leave Iraq's neighbors as occupation troops. No Great Satan. No that would have been the great in-and-out campaign the Shrub was hoping for.
... it would have been the WRONG time to invade. Our allies at the time, Saudi Arabia and the smaller Arab countries, did NOT want Iraq taken out at that time, mainly because it was an excellent buffer against the Iranians.


Hmmm... the Yugoslav and the Greek campaigns both started on April 6th 1941 and I think the 21 divisions was for both campaigns combined... but no reason to quibble as the point is... It takes far more troops to hold territory than it takes to conquer it.
The Italians invaded Greece at the end of October, 1940, because Mussolini was "jealous" of Hitler's successes in Europe. When the Greeks drove them back into Albania, humiliating the Fascists in Italy, Hitler added Greece to his plans against Yugoslavia in order to help Mussolini save face. The bulk of the German forces drove into, and through, Yugoslavia first, forcing the surrender in about 12 days. It took another 10 days to drive the British out of Greece.

[mkemse]

Thorne,

thanks for your reply and post

[Ozme52]

... it would have been the WRONG time to invade. Our allies at the time, Saudi Arabia and the smaller Arab countries, did NOT want Iraq taken out at that time, mainly because it was an excellent buffer against the Iranians.
I still think that's debateable. If anything, and strictly an opinion, the Saudi's would have loved to control Iraq... and buffer states are still buffers so long as you control them.

I think that whole "our allies didn't want us to" thing was a rationalization.


The Italians invaded Greece at the end of October, 1940, because Mussolini was "jealous" of Hitler's successes in Europe. When the Greeks drove them back into Albania, humiliating the Fascists in Italy, Hitler added Greece to his plans against Yugoslavia in order to help Mussolini save face. The bulk of the German forces drove into, and through, Yugoslavia first, forcing the surrender in about 12 days. It took another 10 days to drive the British out of Greece.

True... but... 22 days to conquer. Forever to control.

[Thorne]

True... but... 22 days to conquer. Forever to control.

No question! The German's never really learned that their heavy-handed occupation strategy could never do more than incite the civilian populations to revolt.

[wmrs2]

A report that shows we were lied into the war came out from the Pentagon today. But, because Bush intervened and called the Pentagon, the report will not be distributed as originally planned, to reporters and the public.

Bush is now playing politics, while laughably accusing Congress of doing so, with the FISA Bill. He says the bill is necessary to save lives, However, he states that without giving corporations immunity from their illegal wiretaps he will veto the bill. SO, does that mean he will make it unsafe for Americans by vetoing the bill. His broken record tactics are a cowardly attempt to keep himself from prosecution for the crimes he has committed against Americans and the Nation.

He has just forced the resignation of a Haddon (that may not be spelled correctly), one of the COmmanders that he says he listens to, because Haddon said he thinks war with Iran would be disastrous.

And Bush is sending Cheney to the Middle East to negotiate a Peace Treaty. Now who thinks that CHeney wants to negotiate peace with anyone.

Bush is a Patriot? He has done more in the last eight years to destroy America and American values than any enemy we have faced. He is setting up a strike on Iran I fear before he leaves office.

And regarding Iraq. Al Qaida did not exist in Iraq until we moved in. Plus, Al Quaida In Iraq is not the Al Quaida that attacked us, the group took that name but have never been associated with Iraq.

These are some facts AND I am tired of the people who try to change this country back into a country we can ALL be proud of being called un-patriotic by the people supporting the men and women who attempt to politicize and destroy this country's values.

Play politics! I hate the game also but that is what politicians do.
When Obama, Hillary or Ralph takes over will they use wire taps? Will they have anything like the Patriot Act? I have been trying to find out their plans for national security. Have they released these and elaborated on these as yet?

I would not like anybody calling me unpatriotic also. Hillary said several times she was tired of people saying she was unpatriotic because she did not support the president but yet supported the troops. Several times she said this but I tried to think of a Republican that said that about her but I could not. I have not heard anybody say that about her. Who did it?

Haddon did not say he was forced out but if he disagreed sharply with the President, he should have retired, don't you think? I think Bush thought Haddon was a very important man and was probably sorry to see him go. I agree that war with Iran would be disastrous. Would it also be disastrous if Iran had the bomb? Perhaps we could trust them to not use it on Israel or one of their neighbors. Do you know whether Hillary or Obama has taken war with Iran off the table? I thought I heard both of them say that they did not favor Iran having a bomb but I could be wrong. You sure could not go to war with every country that developed the bomb because all these small countries will eventually have the bomb. Many of them do already.

You failed to mention which values Bush destroyed. Which ones did he destroy? He'll be gone soon. Do you think we can repair all this moral damage he has done? If we all work together, maybe!

God bless.

[wmrs2]

also keep in mind that the above study was FUNDED BY THE UNITES STATES GOVERNMENT

Nice spin.

[Ozme52]

No question! The German's never really learned that their heavy-handed occupation strategy could never do more than incite the civilian populations to revolt.


Let's chalk that up to the Nazis and not the Germans per se.

The Wehrmacht loyaly carried out policy, even those they clearly (from contemporary writings and memoirs) didn't agree with...

Now if you meant the SS (commanders and troops...) they were malignant zealots imo.

[mkemse]

Nice spin.

my error, the other post was govrnement sponsored, my apologies for this, i got your reply here mixed up with another post i made

[Thorne]

Let's chalk that up to the Nazis and not the Germans per se.

The Wehrmacht loyaly carried out policy, even those they clearly (from contemporary writings and memoirs) didn't agree with...

Now if you meant the SS (commanders and troops...) they were malignant zealots imo.

Yes, you're absolutely correct. My apologies to the German people. It was the Nazi leadership which imposed the brutal occupations. And in Eastern Europe, at least, it was primarily SS and Gestapo units which enforced them.

But turning this back to the current situation, as a soldier how do you keep from implementing the leadership's policies if you believe they are faulty? We are seeing military leaders either voluntarily or forcefully resigning over the situation in Iraq. How does the common soldier, who certainly knows more about it than some general sitting in Washington, pull himself out of it? The Wehrmacht couldn't do it in WW2. Our soldiers can't do it now.

[mkemse]

Yes, you're absolutely correct. My apologies to the German people. It was the Nazi leadership which imposed the brutal occupations. And in Eastern Europe, at least, it was primarily SS and Gestapo units which enforced them.

But turning this back to the current situation, as a soldier how do you keep from implementing the leadership's policies if you believe they are faulty? We are seeing military leaders either voluntarily or forcefully resigning over the situation in Iraq. How does the common soldier, who certainly knows more about it than some general sitting in Washington, pull himself out of it? The Wehrmacht couldn't do it in WW2. Our soldiers can't do it now.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I am not sure Soldiers have the same options s their Comaders when vocing their opinoin, even if they strongly do not support the WAr, they may feel they need to look andact like they do to avoid a "Dishonorable Discarge" perhaps
Comanders seem to have more flexiblitiy and remarks they make Soldiers do not seem to have that right, or atleast not til they return and know they wil see no further action, but i could be very wrongon this, i would find it very. very difficult to belivethat 100% of all those Figihting aupport the wart, butthey may have limited option and may have even ben advised by the Comanders "If youdo not support the War, kindly keep those feelings private and to yourself" to avoid decsion in the ranks

[Thorne]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I am not sure Soldiers have the same options s their Comaders when vocing their opinoin, even if they strongly do not support the WAr, they may feel they need to look andact like they do to avoid a "Dishonorable Discarge" perhaps
Comanders seem to have more flexiblitiy and remarks they make Soldiers do not seem to have that right, or atleast not til they return and know they wil see no further action, but i could be very wrongon this, i would find it very. very difficult to belivethat 100% of all those Figihting aupport the wart, butthey may have limited option and may have even ben advised by the Comanders "If youdo not support the War, kindly keep those feelings private and to yourself" to avoid decsion in the ranks

Yeah, that's my point. The officers, especially general officers, can always resign, if they're not fired. The soldiers who have to do the work, though, are stuck! Agree or disagree, they are there for the duration.

I don't know what you can do about this, though. After all, you can't have a war if the only one's fighting are those who think it's necessary, can you?

Wouldn't that be an interesting sight? GW and Osama facing off together? Rhetoric at 30 paces!

[Thorne]

I've never been in the military, but I've spoken with some who have (Viet Nam) and read accounts by others, from many different wars. Once you come right down to it, very few soldiers are fighting for some nebulous "cause" dreamed up by politicians and generals who are safe behind the lines. They overwhelmingly state that they are fighting for their buddies, the guys next to them in the foxhole, or the tank, or the plane. There sole motivation, besides saving their own lives, is saving the lives of those fighting with them.

Here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_truce is a story I remembered about an occurrence in WW1. Supposedly, this shocked and dismayed the politicians and higher officers who feared it could demoralize troops and bring an early end to hostilities! To me, it points out the problems of the common soldier, forced to fight for a cause which he may or may not believe in, which may or may not make for a better life for him and his family, against other men who feel exactly the same way. And the ones who benefit the most are the one's least likely to be harmed.

[wmrs2]

Yes, you're absolutely correct. My apologies to the German people. It was the Nazi leadership which imposed the brutal occupations. And in Eastern Europe, at least, it was primarily SS and Gestapo units which enforced them.

But turning this back to the current situation, as a soldier how do you keep from implementing the leadership's policies if you believe they are faulty? We are seeing military leaders either voluntarily or forcefully resigning over the situation in Iraq. How does the common soldier, who certainly knows more about it than some general sitting in Washington, pull himself out of it? The Wehrmacht couldn't do it in WW2. Our soldiers can't do it now.

Hitler was a master at national psychology. He had the whole German nation worked up into a frenzy perpetuated by total fear of ridicule and punishment for rejecting any part of his party plan. Any military officer who disagreed with the party line could not resign in protest but he could be shot. Can you imagine Hitler saying to his citizens that the army would be a volunteer army and only those who felt patriotic enough had to join? That is one reason GW does not have to worry about disloyalty among the troops now. The troops are in Iraq because they want to implement the national policy and that is why so many sign up for a second and third term.

Today it is not the military that believes the policies of war are faulty but rather many of the political leaders and citizens that remained at home. There can be no doubt that many politicians withhold support for the war without being shot or thrown into prison. Can you imagine a German politician saying to Hitler that his national policy was unpatriotic? Yet, Americans are allowed to stand up to the President during war time and call him a liar, a traitor, as thief, and a cheap thug. Many use the war as an effort to overthrow the President and make political hay out of the President's abuse. Try that with Hitler.

One thing we learn from comparing the situation today to the German society of WWII is the fact America really won WWII. All Americans be proud that President Bush allows the freedoms that our soldiers fought and died for in WWII. Although I am opening myself up for criticism, sarcasm. and personal attack, I am honored to stand up for a man that will go down in history as a great President, a man who stood by his principles and left office while leaving our country with a history.

God bless America and thank God for our great leaders.

[mkemse]

Hitler was a master at national psychology. He had the whole German nation worked up into a frenzy perpetuated by total fear of ridicule and punishment for rejecting any part of his party plan. Any military officer who disagreed with the party line could not resign in protest but he could be shot. Can you imagine Hitler saying to his citizens that the army would be a volunteer army and only those who felt patriotic enough had to join? That is one reason GW does not have to worry about disloyalty among the troops now. The troops are in Iraq because they want to implement the national policy and that is why so many sign up for a second and third term.

Today it is not the military that believes the policies of war are faulty but rather many of the political leaders and citizens that remained at home. There can be no doubt that many politicians withhold support for the war without being shot or thrown into prison. Can you imagine a German politician saying to Hitler that his national policy was unpatriotic? Yet, Americans are allowed to stand up to the President during war time and call him a liar, a traitor, as thief, and a cheap thug. Many use the war as an effort to overthrow the President and make political hay out of the President's abuse. Try that with Hitler.

One thing we learn from comparing the situation today to the German society of WWII is the fact America really won WWII. All Americans be proud that President Bush allows the freedoms that our soldiers fought and died for in WWII. Although I am opening myself up for criticism, sarcasm. and personal attack, I am honored to stand up for a man that will go down in history as a great President, a man who stood by his principles and left office while leaving our country with a history.

God bless America and thank God for our great leaders.


Bush is NOT the only President to have our Freedoms fought for
It was done during the Revolutionary War, as well as others Wars, Korean,
Viet Nam to name just a few, ect But please don't give credit only to George Bush, give it to ALL our Presedients, be they Repubilcan or Democrat And All are Freedoms that ALL our Men and Women have so galanty Fought To defended over all the years
Credit goes to all of all our Presdents over the years no just George Bush

[wmrs2]

also keep in mind that the above study was FUNDED BY THE UNITES STATES GOVERNMENT

I just checked your source out. Did the report say Bush lied or is that just the spin you put on the report? Let's be honest now.

[mkemse]

my error, the other post was govrnement sponsored, my apologies for this, i got your reply here mixed up with another post i made

no as i mentioned that reply was for another thread not this one, i have requested that it be moved to the right thread, it was an post error by me i made a mistake when i posted the reply it was too late to delete it and move it to the correct thread, that answer goes to another question NOT THIS THREAD read my post about it

[mkemse]

i have sent a pm to tan ADm. explaining that i repleid to the wrong post and would they move it to the correct thread

[mkemse]

"also keep in mind that the above study was FUNDED BY THE UNITES STATES GOVERNMENT"

this reply goe to another post and thread not this one

[Thorne]

One thing we learn from comparing the situation today to the German society of WWII is the fact America really won WWII. All Americans be proud that President Bush allows the freedoms that our soldiers fought and died for in WWII. Although I am opening myself up for criticism, sarcasm. and personal attack, I am honored to stand up for a man that will go down in history as a great President, a man who stood by his principles and left office while leaving our country with a history.

I was not in any way trying to compare our President with Hitler. There can be no comparison. If you took it that way I'm sorry. I was merely pointing out the problems with ANY military force when faced with serious political infighting at home.

And I would never use sarcasm or a personal attack just because of your political views. Criticism, perhaps. I just cannot agree with your opinion of the current administration. But I will agree that you have a right to that opinion, just as those who disagree with you have a right to their's.

[wmrs2]

I was not in any way trying to compare our President with Hitler. There can be no comparison. If you took it that way I'm sorry. I was merely pointing out the problems with ANY military force when faced with serious political infighting at home.

And I would never use sarcasm or a personal attack just because of your political views. Criticism, perhaps. I just cannot agree with your opinion of the current administration. But I will agree that you have a right to that opinion, just as those who disagree with you have a right to their's.

I appreciate your reply. I know you were not comparing Hitler to our President. The comparison was mine which I think could be made to all our Presidents. Even Presidents and citizens I disagree with are full and complete Americans participating in the freedoms of debate and speech.
God bless . . . .

[Moonraker]

To get back to the original question and away from WW2, I would say that the invasion definitely wasn't worth it to anybody, other than oil companies and military contractors. At the time of Abu Ghraib scandal the joke doing the rounds in Iraq was the prison is doing business as usual, just under new management. That perhaps gives the man on the street view of the American liberation.

For all that is written about Iraq I'm shocked how little is about the suffering of the Iraqi people. They suffered in the Iran War, they suffered through 13 years of crippling sanctions, they suffered in the Iraq invasion, they suffered after the invasion and are facing the prospect of 10+ years more suffering. Suffering for 27 years and no end in sight. And now the focus of US attention is on how much Iraq is costing America and the 4,000 US fatalities. How many Iraqis have died?

Life under Saddam was not so bad; livings standard were good (until the Iranian war), religious freedom, women rights etc. Compare that to our friend and ally Saudi Arabia where Christians are arrested for worshipping and women aren't allowed to even drive a car. True Saddam had his secret police/torture chamber and came down hard on any who threatened his rule. Isn’t that's the same under any dictator. Saudi Arabia has is secret police (not to mention religious police) and its torture is so effective the US "renders" its prisoners there. When I lived in Saudi people would look with envy at the freedoms and lifestyle enjoyed by Iraqis under Saddam. Saddam at least held the country together, which is not easy as the US is finding out and yes he did that by "whatever means necessary".

Iraqis may wonder where it all went wrong and Saddam must have wondered how he went from hero to zero so fast. When Iraq went to war with Iran the USA lavished praise on him and armed his military. But the Kuwait invasion was to change all that. After the war Kuwait demanded repayment of war loans, lowered oil prices thus reducing Iraqi revenues and even stole Iraqi oil by slant drilling into Iraqi oil fields. Not to mention Iraq had historic territorial claims on Kuwait. Iraq was in a difficult position and Saddam wanted to improve the welfare of his people, unlike many dictators who impoverish their own people to enrich their Swiss Bank accounts.

The US ambassador April Galaspie gave Saddam the infamous green light by saying "we (the USA) have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait" which indicated the USA would not get involved. (http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/glaspie.html) Then the shit hits the fan for Iraq. Incidentally, it’s no surprise Saddam with a weak army and impoverished nation wanted the Iranians to believe he had WMD. What is a surprise is that CIA agents were on “independent” UN weapons inspections.

I cannot help but see oil and US Presidents, from an oil state and with extensive oil interests and connections, at work behind the scenes here. I would say most Iraqis would prefer life under Saddam to life now and think that had sanctions been lifted then life could have been back to normal and no worse than under any Arab state.

Saddam ordered a reprisal against a village whose people tried to assassinate him. Saddam was executed for the reprisals. Bush ordered a reprisal against a country whose president tried to assassinate his father. Bush was re-elected for the invasion.

It's a strange world we live in.

[Moonraker]

And if Al Quida was in fact "hiding out" in Iraq before we invaded, as much distrust and dislike as Saddam had or Al Quida he would have had them rooted out by his military
Saddams main Terrorists intrestes were support those who wanted to attack Israel he supported Hamas, Hezbola (excuse me if my spelling is wrong on their names) and similar organizations who main enemey was Israel and their destruction

There is an arabic proverb "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". Given that the US is seen by many Iraqis to be an enemy it's no surprise Iraq is now a fertile recruiting field for Al Qaeda.

Saddam would never support Al Qaeda for the simple reason it promotes theocracy which would threaten Saddam's position as a secular leader.

[mkemse]

There is an arabic proverb "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". Given that the US is seen by many Iraqis to be an enemy it's no surprise Iraq is now a fertile recruiting field for Al Qaeda.

Saddam would never support Al Qaeda for the simple reason it promotes theocracy which would threaten Saddam's position as a secular leader.

Thank you, that is why I posted to remark from an article on the Web, the "Aledged" links to Al Quida is just one of many reasons Bush used to invade Iraq and that as well as the supposed WMD's which were proven not to exist either, again a case of "Faulty Intelligence" and when you go to War you need to know who your enemey is and what thieir strengths and weakness are to fight a succefull War you do not invade a country on assumption you invade if you do based on documented fact, and most important you MUST verify your Intelliegence, not just assume it is correct, you have to know it is

"Well, they looked like portable weapons labs, so we assumed they were" not real good logic there

"Hey, it looks like rain or snow is comnig" well let's see if it does before we send salt rucks out and as the sky'sa get darker and snow starts to fluury down, then you start the salting, because then you know it is going to snow

And there are some who have said Bush would have ised any excuse in the world to Invade Iraq once he had his ind set on doing so whic he did, History now speaks for itself

[Moonraker]

all i was trying to point out is that we should have used and should now only be usiing our Military rescourses to fight Al Quida in Afghansistan after 9/11 and not have invaded Iraq, at the time of 9/11, Al Quida was in Afghansistan that is where the Taiban was and is still there, and the Taliban is part of Al Quida, they ran the Afghan Governement at the time of 9/11 they did not run Iraq,

I question to what extent there is an Al Qaeda as portrayed by the USA and whether there is too much misplaced focus on this "enemy".

The US seems to be promoting the idea of a Smersh type organisation with a central leadership controlling cells around the world. You cut off the head and the snake dies. Really the problem is fundamental Islamic militancy. So the enemy is more of a concept than a single group. It's like the mafia, if you capture the Don of a New York family have you eradicated organised crime throughout the world? I suspect that, aside from 911, Bin Ladins importance was that he had money and experience. So if you had a scheme you could go to him and if he supported the plan you could get financing for it.

[mkemse]

[QUOTE=Moonraker;582337]I question to what extent there is an Al Qaeda as portrayed by the USA and whether there is too much misplaced focus on this "enemy".

The US seems to be promoting the idea of a Smersh type organisation with a central leadership controlling cells around the world. You cut off the head and the snake dies. Really the problem is fundamental Islamic militancy. So the enemy is more of a concept than a single group. It's like the mafia, if you capture the Don of a New York family have you eradicated organised crime throughout the world? I suspect that, aside from 911, Bin Ladins importance was that he had money and experience. So if you had a scheme you could go to him and if he supported the plan you could get financing for it.[/QU

i believe that most Islamic Terrorists view Bin Ladin as a "Savior" or "God" and thus will do anything he asks them
And I amn not an expert on the Quran, but I have heard Islamic Clerks say infact that the Quran specificly prohbits killing or violence of any kind for any reason, thus BinLaden does not even follow his own holy book
and amaziing enough in the late 1980's Bin Laden was hired by the United States Governement (The CIA) to help fight off Russia when they invaded Afghanistan in 1989, now he is attacking us

[TomOfSweden]

i believe that most Islamic Terrorists view Bin Ladin as a "Savior" or "God" and thus will do anything he asks them


Pure George Bush propaganda. I'm convinced there's no basis for this belief. You're mythologising the "enemy". I'm guessing you're reducing them to some evil fantasy creature to enoble yourself. To make you feel better about yourself and your countries actions. Few things pisses me off as much as this.

Islamic terrorists are just a bunch of half-wit losers. I mean, just check out Richard Read!!! There's no coherent ideology behind any of them. It's just random bouts of lunatic ramblings from poor and uneducated people who want at least a moment in the spotlight. I'm sure Bin Laden sees himself as some kind of prophet. I'm very doubtful anybody else does.

You do realise that by talking about Al Qaeda as some kind of international conspiracy of Islam, you're giving these poor sods in run down Ghettoes n the world an incentive to do terror? A method to make a mark in life. If everybody would assume that these guys are just random pathetic losers acting completely alone with very little support, (which the evidence in most cases seems to indicate) they'd have no incentive to carry out any acts of terror. Because then people would just feel sorry for them instead of feeling fear.... which is their goal.



And I amn not an expert on the Quran, but I have heard Islamic Clerks say infact that the Quran specificly prohbits killing or violence of any kind for any reason, thus BinLaden does not even follow his own holy book
and amaziing enough in the late 1980's Bin Laden was hired by the United States Governement (The CIA) to help fight off Russia when they invaded Afghanistan in 1989, now he is attacking us

I've studied both the Koran and the Bible. I'm very interested in religious history. The Bible and the Koran are interchangeable. The Koran is just less vague. But not a lot.

[Moonraker]

Thank you, that is why I posted to remark from an article on the Web, the "Aledged" links to Al Quida is just one of many reasons Bush used to invade Iraq and that as well as the supposed WMD's which were proven not to exist either, again a case of "Faulty Intelligence" and when you go to War you need to know who your enemey is and what thieir strengths and weakness are to fight a succefull War you do not invade a country on assumption you invade if you do based on documented fact, and most important you MUST verify your Intelliegence, not just assume it is correct, you have to know it is

I am not disagreeing with you merely supporting your view. Everybody agrees that political decisions should be based on the available intelligence and that in this case the decision had already been made (according to reports well before 911) and intelligence was manipulated to justify that decision. Cart before horse if you will.

In the UK it was the same (coincidence we ask) we had the "Dodgy Dossier" which built the case for war on dubious facts and outright lies such that intelligence officers refused to put their names to it and one even commited suicide as a result. (sceptics think how convenient for the government)

[mkemse]

I am not disagreeing with you merely supporting your view. Everybody agrees that political decisions should be based on the available intelligence and that in this case the decision had already been made (according to reports well before 911) and intelligence was manipulated to justify that decision. Cart before horse if you will.

In the UK it was the same (coincidence we ask) we had the "Dodgy Dossier" which built the case for war on dubious facts and outright lies such that intelligence officers refused to put their names to it and one even commited suicide as a result. (sceptics think how convenient for the government)

thanks

[Moonraker]

And I amn not an expert on the Quran, but I have heard Islamic Clerks say infact that the Quran specificly prohbits killing or violence of any kind for any reason, thus BinLaden does not even follow his own holy book

I have read the Quran but cannot offhand point you to relevant texts. Suffice it to say that since beheading is the Sharia penalty for certain crimes and Mohammed fought several wars killing you may be in error here.

This seems to be a popular US tactic, trying to use the Quaran to prove terrorist are not "real" muslims and thereby isolate them. I see this tactic as potentially counter-productive. If you are wrong about a terrorists act being "haram" (prohibited in the Quaran) it will just reenforce the view that westerners know little about Islamic culture religion and are telling lies all the time. This then alienates mainstream muslims pushing them closer to the extremists.

Similarly portraying them as crazies (as Tom of Sweden does) is also a risky tactic. For sure the suicide bombers are pawns but I don't think the planners who know precisely the optimum floor for the plane to hit its target are that stupid. It is often considered foolhardy to underestimate your adversary and I would hope those responsible for counter terrorism dont believe their own propoganda.

[Thorne]

I have read the Quran but cannot offhand point you to relevant texts. Suffice it to say that since beheading is the Sharia penalty for certain crimes and Mohammed fought several wars killing you may be in error here.
If, as Tom says, the Bible and Quran are virtually interchangeable, then the prohibition against killing seems only to apply to other Arabs (Quran), Jews (Old Testament) or Christians (King James Bible). In virtually every culture throughout history, killing of barbarians, heretics, outsiders, just "those who are not like us" has always been looked at differently than killing within the community. This is, after all, what makes wars possible.


Similarly portraying them as crazies (as Tom of Sweden does) is also a risky tactic. For sure the suicide bombers are pawns but I don't think the planners who know precisely the optimum floor for the plane to hit its target are that stupid. It is often considered foolhardy to underestimate your adversary and I would hope those responsible for counter terrorism dont believe their own propoganda.
Crazy does not necessarily equate with stupid. It's crazy to strap a bomb to your chest and explode it, knowing you are going to die. It's crazy to fly an airplane into a building, knowing you are killing hundreds of people, including yourself. It does take some intelligence to learn to fly that plane, even marginally, well enough to crash it. And it takes a lot of intelligence to plan and coordinate all the intricate elements of such a plan.

But I don't care how smart they are, I doubt very much that any of the planners truly expected the towers to fall as they did. I don't think anyone could have predicted that. It's only in hindsight, after much analysis, that we understand just how that happened.

[mkemse]

If, as Tom says, the Bible and Quran are virtually interchangeable, then the prohibition against killing seems only to apply to other Arabs (Quran), Jews (Old Testament) or Christians (King James Bible). In virtually every culture throughout history, killing of barbarians, heretics, outsiders, just "those who are not like us" has always been looked at differently than killing within the community. This is, after all, what makes wars possible.


Crazy does not necessarily equate with stupid. It's crazy to strap a bomb to your chest and explode it, knowing you are going to die. It's crazy to fly an airplane into a building, knowing you are killing hundreds of people, including yourself. It does take some intelligence to learn to fly that plane, even marginally, well enough to crash it. And it takes a lot of intelligence to plan and coordinate all the intricate elements of such a plan.

But I don't care how smart they are, I doubt very much that any of the planners truly expected the towers to fall as they did. I don't think anyone could have predicted that. It's only in hindsight, after much analysis, that we understand just how that happened.

I agree and when it come to Islamc Terroistss, please Allah(hope i spelled that right) and dying for him and the cause seems more important to most Islamic Terrosits the anything else, Islamic Terrorsists have no regard for any human life

[Moonraker]

Crazy does not necessarily equate with stupid. It's crazy to strap a bomb to your chest and explode it, knowing you are going to die. It's crazy to fly an airplane into a building, knowing you are killing hundreds of people, including yourself. It does take some intelligence to learn to fly that plane, even marginally, well enough to crash it. And it takes a lot of intelligence to plan and coordinate all the intricate elements of such a plan.

But I don't care how smart they are, I doubt very much that any of the planners truly expected the towers to fall as they did. I don't think anyone could have predicted that. It's only in hindsight, after much analysis, that we understand just how that happened.

I agree crazy and stupid are not the same but I still think it unwise to underestimate or misrepresent your foe. You say the suicide bomber is crazy because he is going to a certain death. Does this mean the americans, military and civilians, who have willingly sacrificed their lives for a cause were also crazy. As regards 'no regard for human life' (mkemse) muslims ask the same question in regard to the countless hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who died as a result of sanctions or bombs (90+% of which weren't smart). Portraying terrorists as crazy is bound to invite comparison with the actions of western countries. Were the IRA crazy terrorists when they bombed shopping malls. The USA didn't seem to think so, the IRA were openly raising funds in the US and weren't a proscribed organisation. Terrorist or freedom fighter is well covered debate topic, the IRA, ANC, PLO and Zionist Haganah have all been described as terrorists.

Until such time as you look at the cause of terrorism and address grievances there is no military solution. Many muslims accuse the west of having double standards and by simply writing isalmic terrorists off as crazies only confirms that belief and make it easier for the terrorists to convince potential recruits that he West is anti-Islam and the only thing it understands is the use of force.

PS - Yes nobody expected the Towers to collapse but the planes carried maximum fuel and hit where maximum damage would result.

[mkemse]

thanks

[Moonraker]

i was reading an opinion poll of Iraqis at the BBC website http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6983027.stm and then somehow stumbled across this site which has various polls http://www.iraqanalysis.org/INFO/55.

[mkemse]

Moonraker,

Thanks for your post, I appreciate your controbution to the thread