At Ask Me Help Desk you can ask questions in any topic and have them
answered for free by our experts. To ask questions or participate in
answering them you must register for a free account. By registering you
will be able to:
Get free answers from experts in any of our 300+
topics.
ordinaryguy,
I spent 6 month in Iraq as a Marine infantryman. We crossed the border early March of 2003 and didn't see a single person in iraqi military uniform. We were even fighting Palestinians at one point. Bottom line...we weren't sure who we were fighting.
Those are some pretty big accusations; 'delusional fool' and' pathological liar.' Do you think that they possibly had more information than we have that helped them make a decision about invading Iraq.
How about WW-2. Japan attacked us, but we joined the war against Germany first. Do you criticize that? The bottom line is that Germany and Japan were both enemies. Do you deny that Iraq was an enemy of the U.S.? Ever since Desert Storm, Saddam had plenty of chances to comply with the UN, but he chose to string them along, and reject the regulations. Do you think that after we stopped Saddam from taking over Kuwait, that he said, "Oh you are probably right. I shouldn't attack defenseless countries."
The U.S military is criticized for using sleep depravation as a form of coercion, but are you aware that Saddam's sons would place people through conveyor belts and run them through a meat grinder FEET FIRST, just because the disagreed?
Do you deny that Al Queda and Iraq (and Iran for that matter) are fighting for the same cause?
You reject preemptive war, but given the opportunity to prevent WW-2 or 9-11, do you still reject the idea of a preemptive strike?
You criticize gazelleintense for swallowing the 'neocons' propaganda' but could one argue that you too have swallowed someone's propaganda.
Why are we still arguing WHY we went to Iraq and not focusing on HOW to fix it (no, pulling out immediately is not an answer)?
Bottom line: People will always criticize decisions made by the government and other institutions. It's called Monday morning quarterbacking. The United States is still criticized in history books for waiting too long to enter WW-2. I don't doubt that if we entered earlier, we would have been criticized for that instead. People criticize the Bush administration and FEMA for casualties due to Katrina. Focus of the VT shootings is largely on the shoulders of the University and loose gun laws. Or, Clinton had the chance to get Bin Laden a long time ago.
It is clear that you are not a fan of Pres. Bush and Cheney, and that's fine. That's what's great about America; the diversity of opinion.
If you want to settle the debate, we DID find biological weapons in Iraq. It was set up in a van designed to be mobile. Fox News covered it. Nobody else did, which is why most people never heard of it.
I am very proud of our troops, they are doing a hard job without the support to do anything needed to end the fighting. If we were allowed the same abiltiy to fight as we had in WWI and WWII the war would have been over long ago. But playing around with rules that the other side does not follow and policing actions like we tried in Nam just does not work.
And I am sick when I see Americans not supporting our troops or the policies of America. Eupope has showed its inability to protect itself time and time again, and too many want America to weaken itself to that level.
It jsut scares me to death that the day will come when America will not be the major power that he became. And yes my son did three tours in the middle east and he tells me of the oppression of the people there, he tells me how glad the average person is to have us helping them.
But sadly many did not know what to do with the freedom they were given, they were taught for generations to merely kill those who were not the same, so you have small numbers, sometimes fueled by outsiders, trying to keep deatha nd destruction going. for that, it can not be stoped, since anywhere one or two crazed people can always kill dozens if and when they want to.
I agree with FR Chuck and I support he men and women who have a very difficult job to do, rules dont win wars, since one side will not follow them anyway.
Fr Chuck is is right on point, if the troops were allow to do the same as WWI & II this would have been over years ago.
This is what scares me. I have a good friend who was a veteran of the Vietnam war.
During a cab ride a few years ago, my friend mentioned that he served in the Vietnam war. The cab driver immediately pulled to the side of the road (on the highway, mind you), yelled obsenities, and forced him out of the cab. Vietnam was a little different, but it seems like people's attitudes are headed that way.
What do you think?
I am proud of my service and I don't want to have to selectively choose when I associate myself with the military, to avoid getting dropped off in the middle of nowhere, for example.
yes as a Veteran myself and a proud member of the American Legion we had a local gas mart have a employee refuse to wait on a family member of one of our local national guard, they started a protest of thier store that day, blocked thier drives till the police made them move, then they camped on a empty lot for a few weeks, and put pressure on anybody shoping them, we almost closed that store, the owner finianlly fired that worker, and made all sorts of appologies to the guard and the American Legion.
But yes, alot of things went wrong in Nam, but then it was a political war, not a real war, this war is worst than that.
Before I respond to any of your points, I want to say that I respect you and other military people. I recognize that yours is a very difficult job, one that often puts you in danger, physically, psychologically, and ethically. I know that the overwhelming majority of you bear these burdens honorably and do your duty courageously, and I thank you for that. In our system of government, the civilian leadership controls the military, so the responsibility and accountability is theirs to bear if they order the armed forces to fight ill-advised wars. A great many military people did see going in that invading Iraq was a fools errand, and said so, but the civilian leadership overruled them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Auttajasi
ordinaryguy,
I spent 6 month in Iraq as a Marine infantryman. We crossed the border early March of 2003 and didn't see a single person in iraqi military uniform. We were even fighting Palestinians at one point. Bottom line...we weren't sure who we were fighting.
Yes, well, might that have something to do with being in too much of a hurry to take the time to develop reliable intelligence?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Auttajasi
Those are some pretty big accusations; 'delusional fool' and' pathological liar.' Do you think that they possibly had more information than we have that helped them make a decision about invading Iraq.
As it turns out, they had a lot of information, but since it didn't support their agenda or bolster their case, they ignored and supressed it, while hyping the nuclear bomb threat and the Al Queda connection, both of which the CIA told them were bogus.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Auttajasi
How about WW-2. Japan attacked us, but we joined the war against Germany first. Do you criticize that? The bottom line is that Germany and Japan were both enemies. Do you deny that Iraq was an enemy of the U.S.?
The problem isn't solved as soon as an "enemy" is designated. There's still the practical question of how to reduce the damage they can do while sacrificing as little as possible of what we value.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Auttajasi
Ever since Desert Storm, Saddam had plenty of chances to comply with the UN, but he chose to string them along, and reject the regulations. Do you think that after we stopped Saddam from taking over Kuwait, that he said, "Oh you are probably right. I shouldn't attack defenseless countries." The U.S military is criticized for using sleep depravation as a form of coercion, but are you aware that Saddam's sons would place people through conveyor belts and run them through a meat grinder FEET FIRST, just because the disagreed?
Without a doubt, Saddam Husein was a cruel tyrant. His regime clearly posed a major threat to the Kurdish and Shiite populations in Iraq, since he had shown a willingness to use the most ruthless means available to suppress them. He also posed a significant threat to his neighbors in the area. But he did not pose a significant imminent threat to the United States. He certainly was not cooperating with Al Queda. He feared Osama Bin Laden probably more than we did before 9/11 because he understood him better.
Being a despicable tyrant puts Saddam in a class of at least several dozen other leaders of nations in the world. That by itself does not mean that is in the US's interest to invade the country and depose the tyrant. The CIA got it wrong about Saddam's chemical and biological weapons; they were dead-on right about the likely consequences of invading the country (chaos, sectarian violence) but nobody was listening to that part.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Auttajasi
Do you deny that Al Queda and Iraq (and Iran for that matter) are fighting for the same cause?
Who do you mean by "Iraq"? Saddam's regime before the war? Yes, I do deny that they were fighting for the same cause as Al Queda.
Al Queda in Iraq at the present time? I agree that they are allied with Osama Bin Laden's folks in Pakistan/Afghanistan.
The Sunni insurgency? Relations are becoming strained, apparently.
Sunni tribal leaders? Less so as time goes on, it seems.
The Shiite majority government in Iraq at the present time? Definitely not.
The Shiite militias? No way.
The Kurds? No.
The Shiite government in Iran? No, their clients are the Shiite militias.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Auttajasi
You reject preemptive war, but given the opportunity to prevent WW-2 or 9-11, do you still reject the idea of a preemptive strike?
If it's possible to disrupt a specific attack that's in the making by a small group of individuals (a la 9/11), sure, do it. That's a whole different thing than a full fledged invasion of a sovreign nation. After you invade a country, there's no way to know what you prevented. Japan's strike on Pearl Harbor is a classic case of a preemptive attack. What do you think that prevented?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Auttajasi
If you want to settle the debate, we DID find biological weapons in Iraq. It was set up in a van designed to be mobile. Fox News covered it. Nobody else did, which is why most people never heard of it.
The rest of the news media did cover it. The reason it didn't make much of a splash is that the evidence didn't support the conclusion that it was part of any significant biological weapons program.
Linear Mode
