64% Say Iraq War Not Worth Fighting, etc.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Sonart I think the answer there is that Bush senior had the chance to do exactly that and wisely didn't. And remember that this was back when Saddam DID have a massive army and did have chemical weapons, AND was clearly on record as still promoting his dream of a Saddam led, oil financed Greater Arab Empire. Had we not acted, and had Saddam moved south... taking the UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, and possibly the Saudi oil fields, which all lie in a relatively small area, we and all our allies would have been behind the oil barrel.

I'm not so sure he would have moved anywhere. On the one hand, he seemed concerned about what our reaction would be if he acted against Kuwait which would seem to indicate he would not have done much about those other countries if we had told him we would stop him. Remember, out of ALL the leaders in that region, Saddam knew us probably better than anyone else and we DID help him against Iran. On the other hand if he was capable of taking over half the area, why did he even NEED us to help him with Iran? I think a lot of his supposed military might may have been more posturing than anything else. When we DID invade the first time we were not met with anything near what we were told back here at home.

Too many questions and not enough answers made me question this whole thing from the start, and the true believers haven't done anything but create more questions.

[Sonart]

Quote by: Scribbler I'm not so sure he would have moved anywhere.

Maybe he would have, maybe he wouldn't. The fact was, he HAD moved on Kuwait and now had their oil revenues in addition to his own to continue arming, and had we not moved, what was there to stop him from moving south, whether sooner or later? Again, once he had the Gulf oil fields, he'd have the entire west by the balls. Burning kuwaits fields was one thing... holding the entire Gulf Oil region hostage is quite another.

Quote by: Scribbler On the other hand if he was capable of taking over half the area, why did he even NEED us to help him with Iran?

Well I doubt he figured he'd need our help when he first started the war, but since we were already so dead pissed at Iran, we were probably knocking on Saddam's door OFFERING to help. Why turn down free superpower help?

Quote by: Scribbler I think a lot of his supposed military might may have been more posturing than anything else. When we DID invade the first time we were not met with anything near what we were told back here at home.

No doubt. It was still enough to invade and occupy Kuwait, tho.

.

[Boetie]

Scribbler1, the following story may be the one you are trying to remember:

The following article about the Office of Strategic Information (OSI) was written by Lou Morano for United Press International (February 26, 2002). It is hereby reprinted in the spirit of fair use.

The Pentagon's publicized plans to create the propaganda bureau sparked a hailstorm of debate. A few days later, a two-sentence article in the Financial Times (London) reported that the Pentagon planned to close the OSI.

Propaganda: Remember the Kuwaiti babies?
By: Lou Morano


If you liked the lie about the murder of Kuwaiti babies after Iraq's invasion of the oil-rich emirate in 1990, you'll love the Office of Strategic Information.

That is, if the Pentagon's new office of shadow plays survives in the form it had been envisioned.

Last week The New York Times reported that the Defense Department is paying the Rendon Group, a Washington-based international consulting firm, $100,000 per month to help the OSI with a broad campaign that would include "black" propaganda, or disinformation -- commonly known as lies.

This brought to mind one of the most notorious pieces of disinformation promulgated the last time the government wanted to build public support for a war against Iraq. It was fabricated by Hill and Knowlton, one of the world's largest public relations firms. This is the story that in 1990 invading Iraqi soldiers pulled Kuwaiti premature babies from their incubators and left them to die on the cold floor. The Bush administration has scrambled away from the storm of criticism sparked by the Times' report, and the president promised Monday that his government would not lie about defense policy. On Sunday, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said on NBC's "Meet the Press": "The person in charge is debating whether it should even exist in its current form, given all the misinformation and adverse publicity it has received."

The OSI was created shortly after Sept. 11 to build public support abroad for the U.S. war on terrorism.

On Wednesday, Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith told reporters that the Pentagon would never lie to the public. But United Press International's Pentagon correspondent Pamela Hess wrote that Feith "refused to rule out the possibility that hired guns -- private lobbying or public relations firms with more legal latitude -- would spread misinformation on the Pentagon's behalf."

On Monday a spokeswoman in the Office of the Secretary of Defense said Feith's words had been misconstrued.

"I don't think he said that we might hire 'hired guns,'" said Army Lt. Col. Catherine Abbot. "I think that's a misinterpretation of what he said."

But the transcript of the Feb. 20 Defense Writers' Group breakfast meeting supports Hess' interpretation. Feith was asked twice if he had ruled out the possibility of contractors spreading disinformation, and he evaded the question both times.

The Rendon Group said it would not lie.

Spokeswoman Jeanne Sklarz declined to discuss the nature of Rendon's contract with the Pentagon. "Let me just say that we have a confidentiality/nondisclosure agreement in place" with the Department of Defense. "We don't speak about the work we do for clients," she told UPI.

"The only thing I can say is that we have not, do not, and will not engage in disinformation."

According to The New York Times, "the Rendon Group has done extensive work for the Central Intelligence Agency, the Kuwaiti royal family and the Iraqi National Congress, the opposition group seeking to oust President Saddam Hussein. ... The firm is well known for running propaganda campaigns in Arab countries, including one denouncing atrocities by Iraq during its 1990 invasion of Kuwait."

Reminded of Hill and Knowlton's incubator story -- which echoed World War I Allied propaganda that invading German soldiers had bayoneted and mutilated Belgian babies in 1914 -- Sklarz said: "We would not do that. ... (President) John Rendon really believes that you don't need anything other than the truth to deliver messages."

UPI asked Hill and Knowlton if it now acknowledges the incubator story as a deception. "The company has nothing to say on this matter," media liaison Suzanne Laurita replied. When asked if such a deception would be considered part of the public relations business, she answered: "Please know again that this falls into the realm that the agency has no wish to confirm, deny or comment on."

The Iraqi invaders were guilty of enough acts of gratuitous cruelty, as numerous eyewitnesses reported, that one wonders why inventing an atrocity was considered necessary.

Hill and Knowlton did not produce the deception under a federal contract, but rather on behalf of the oil-rich Kuwaiti government. An appearance of U.S. government validation, however, came from a hearing of the Congressional Human Rights Caucus on Oct. 10, 1990.

In his 1992 book "Second Front: Censorship and Propaganda in the Gulf War," Harpers magazine publisher John R. MacArthur wrote that the caucus is not a committee of Congress, before which it would be a crime to lie under oath. "Lying from under the cover of anonymity to a caucus is merely public relations."

The 15-year-old star witness was indeed anonymous, identified only by her first name of Nayirah. "According to the caucus, Nayirah's full name was being kept confidential to prevent Iraqi reprisals against her family in occupied Kuwait," MacArthur wrote.

In fact, she was a member of the Kuwaiti royal family, and her father -- ambassador to the United States Saud Nasir al-Sabah -- sat listening in the hearing room. Sobbing, Nayirah described how she, as a volunteer at al-Addan Hospital in Kuwait City, had seen Iraqi soldiers remove 312 babies from their incubators and leave them to die on the floor.

On Jan. 12, 1991, the U.S. Senate approved support of the war against Iraq by a narrow, five-vote margin. Did the story about the murdered babies make the critical difference?

Let's hope we don't get any "stories" like this from contractors working for the Office of Strategic Information.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Sonart Maybe he would have, maybe he wouldn't. The fact was, he HAD moved on Kuwait and now had their oil revenues in addition to his own to continue arming,

You didn't read what I wrote then. April Glaspie TOLD him we had no problem with what she termed a border dispute, which was the same as saying do whatever you want, we will not get involved.
And as reported by Time magazine a couple of weeks BEFORE Iraq invaded Kuwait (I don't have the issue but I remember it), Kuwait was accused by Iraq of "slant drilling" under the border and stealing IRAQI oil. It wasn't about Kuwait's oil, it was about them stealing Iraq's oil!

and had we not moved, what was there to stop him from moving south, whether sooner or later? Again, once he had the Gulf oil fields, he'd have the entire west by the balls. Burning kuwaits fields was one thing... holding the entire Gulf Oil region hostage is quite another.

He didn't DO that, did he? What if's don't justify invasion. In the rational, pre-Bush world a country had to DO something to merit retaliation.

Well I doubt he figured he'd need our help when he first started the war, but since we were already so dead pissed at Iran, we were probably knocking on Saddam's door OFFERING to help. Why turn down free superpower help?

You're speculating whether Iraq needed our help or not. From what I heard even WITH our help it was not an easy war.

No doubt. It was still enough to invade and occupy Kuwait, tho.

KUWAIT
Military manpower—fit for military service:
males age 15-49: 425,126 (1999 est.)
http://www.photius.com/wfb1999/kuwai..._military.html
And I don't think they had nearly enough hardware to match Iraq regardless of troop strength. Besides, it was pretty obvious they didn't have enough to fight the United States and I don't believe they would have risked it if Glaspie said we would step in on Kuwait's behalf. And where the hell IS Glaspie?

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Boetie Scribbler1, the following story may be the one you are trying to remember:

Yes, that's it. And a LOT more than I could remember. Thanks.

[GodBlessAmerica]

Quote by: Scribbler1 The support was based on lies and therefore we shouldn't have gone there in the first place. Don't you believe the old saying, "two wrongs don't make a right?" How "forcefully" do you fight people in a country you just invaded who don't WANT you in their country? They don't want us there and we went in based on lies. All our leaving would do is let the Iraqis return to their inevitable little tribal wars a little sooner than if we stayed.

At least in America, the Democrats have been doing nothing but bad mouthing the President, the war, the soldiers and touting the terrorists as powerful and undefeatable for half a year now.
This just lets the people of America know why they must stop Democrats from gaining power.
If you want lies, look to the left. They are the masters and even today lied about wanting to remove right away the troups from Iraq. They had the chance to back up their rhetoric and they fled like the dogs they truely are.


"Our troops have become the enemy." said Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania, a Democrat
Jean Schmidt recounted a message a Marine colonel wanted to send to Murtha. She said he told her that "cowards cut and run, Marines never do."

[RickSp]

Anyone who calls John Murtha a coward is a fool.

[Sandy]

I have given up on partisan politics. I find the Republicans and Democrats on the wrong track involving our place in Iraq, our domestic problems, our border disasters and just about everything facing us at this time.

I saw the vote last night on pulling out of Iraq and I have a serious question for the GOP who obviously wants to keep our troops fighting the terrorists. Do these people realize we are outnumbered in the Middle East? No matter if we fight in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria or anywhere, we are out numbered! The more we kill, the more show up and we must never forget that we Americans are the infidels that they must kill!

Do any Republicans realize our borders are wide open to Muslims moving into our cities by they thousands? Do our Republican leaders care whether we fight terrorists in our own neighborhoods? May I assume that Republicans are content with the Bush Administration and will continue to reelect the congress and senate until we find ourselves totally outnumbered here at home?

Is there anyone in either party who is considering the options of where we go from here? Bush made it clear that we are in for the duration…..of what? How is it possible for our troops to kill all the terrorists when we end up training them to take over when we leave? Does anyone else see a losing fight in Iraq? Will this continue until the terrorists move into our own streets and send their suicide bombers into our schools and churches? This may have already started but nobody seems to care.

I see no leadership in the house, senate or white house. I don’t even see much in the Governor’s seat in our states. Has ignorance and apathy taken over the minds of the voters who keep returning these people into power?

Has anyone noticed the condition of our moral values? The Democrats have no fight for or against anything and the Republicans will give up everything to protect Bush. Is there nobody who can stand up for our Nation’s Sovereignty and Constitution?

We are seriously in jeopardy of losing our country’s security by sending our troops to another Crusader war. Why can’t we leave the Middle East to the Muslims and find oil somewhere else? Let them worship their Allah in their own way. Didn’t we learn in Vietnam, that America is not king of the hill anymore?

Can we open a dialog here to discuss how we get out of the Middle East and focus on the mess we’ve made in America?

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: GodBlessAmerica At least in America, the Democrats have been doing nothing but bad mouthing the President, the war, the soldiers and touting the terrorists as powerful and undefeatable for half a year now.

That's wrong and you ought to know it. Most of the criticism of the President has been to say he was WRONG in invading Iraq. It's called criticism and is the responsibilty of every free-thinking American. It is NOT "bad mouthing." Admittedly, lately it HAS gotten more insulting and personal but that's because he continues to do the wrong thing and frustrates the majority of the people who want him to admit his error and stop wasting our soldiers lives, our money and our global trust and prestige.

I like the hypocricy of the right wingers. Saying Bush is wrong is "bad mouthing" but calling Clinton all kinds of names even 5 YEARS after he left office is somehow "Good mouthing"?

And you know the opposition to Bush in no way confined to Democrats. Nice parrot job.

"Our troops have become the enemy." said Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania, a Democrat Jean Schmidt recounted a message a Marine colonel wanted to send to Murtha. She said he told her that "cowards cut and run, Marines never do."

Marines are not SUPPOSED to, but their leaders are SUPPOSED to know what the hell they are doing and not send these good men and women into harms way for no reason. A soldier's job does not include the ability to decide whether his CinC is an inept failure or not. That's OUR job and THAT is what Murtha evidently sees in Bush's mismanaged adventure.

Nice flag waving, GBA, but is it the American flag or the Bush flag that you wave?

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Apeman81 Now we both know that he did not cooperate in either instance. He played with the weapons inspectors, disallowing them the ability to do their jobs.

The Bushbots continue to claim this, but I have never seen a link to any source that can identify a single site in Iraq that the inspectors were denied access to. Perhaps you could provide some evidence that there were sites the inspectors were barred from?? Wouldn't "thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas" be fairly easy to find, after all, it would have had to be stored in secure, guarded locations?

[Sonart]

Quote by: GodBlessAmerica "Our troops have become the enemy." said Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania, a Democrat.

To the Iraqis, yes, they have. It's not the fault of our troops, it's the fault of our President who, against the advice of his intelligence agencies and his senior military, placed them in an unteneble situation.

Quote by: GodBlessAmerica Jean Schmidt recounted a message a Marine colonel wanted to send to Murtha. She said he to her that "cowards cut and run, Marines never do."

Is that right? Has Jean Schmidt ever served in combat? And would that include when Saint Ronald of Reagan placed our Marines on Beirut Airport, surrounded on three sides by enemy held high ground, until they found the wherewithall to blow 240 of our bravest to kingdom come, then promptly cut and ran? Answer, please, GBA.

No one's accusing our troops of anything... they salute smartly, do their duty and do us proud. It's our political leaders giving them idiotic orders that's the problem.

Quote by: Scribbler You didn't read what I wrote then. April Glaspie TOLD him we had no problem with what she termed a border dispute, which was the same as saying do whatever you want, we will not get involved.

I'm well aware of Glaspie's chat, Scribbler. I don't think that changes what Saddam wanted to accomplish. It's why he invaded Iran in the first place... oil and Arab leadership. No one's ever accused him of being particularly bright.

Quote by: Scribbler He didn't DO that, did he? What if's don't justify invasion. In the rational, pre-Bush world a country had to DO something to merit retaliation.

C'mon Scribbler, what he DID do was invade Kuwait. That in itself was justification. Unlike the current war, where Saddam had no military to speak of and was invading no one and threatening no one, Saddam did, if fact, invade and occupy Kuwait. You're simply resetting the bar by suggesting that he hadn't yet taken the next step. We couldn't wait for the next step, since he'd already taken the first.

Quote by: Scribbler You're speculating whether Iraq needed our help or not. From what I heard even WITH our help it was not an easy war.

And like I said, no one's ever accused Saddam of being overly bright. It's now three consecutive wars that Saddam has lost, so apparently Saddam has never been much of a judge of whether or not a war will be winnable.

Quote by: Scribbler KUWAIT Military manpower—fit for military service: males age 15-49: 425,126 (1999 est.)

You're point being what? That Kuwait was a pushover for Iraq? After Iran, I suspect that was the idea. So would the Gulf Oil region have been a pushover. Saudi Arabia had an army of around 70,000 troops vs. Iraq's estimated half million.

Quote by: Sandy Can we open a dialog here to discuss how we get out of the Middle East and focus on the mess we’ve made in America?

Exactly right on everything you said, Sandy. All of this was known, and Bush was warned of exactly these problems before the war by his own intelligence services and his senior military. And that's the insidiousness of what Boy George and the Neo Cons, and his gung ho Republican Congress and the acquiescent Democrats, have done. We've painted ourselves into a corner and can't unpaint ourselves without screwing up something.

.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Sonart I'm well aware of Glaspie's chat, Scribbler. I don't think that changes what Saddam wanted to accomplish.

If you are correct in what Saddam wanted to accomplish, I agree. But that looks like simple speculation is all.

It's why he invaded Iran in the first place... oil and Arab leadership. No one's ever accused him of being particularly bright.

You might be right, he MUST be an idiot because IRAQ has all the oil between those two countries. Iran doesn't sit on an ocean of crude like Iraq. If Saddam wanted Iran's oil he must be even dumber than you think.

C'mon Scribbler, what he DID do was invade Kuwait. That in itself was justification.

For what? Whether you buy it or not, Iraq HAD a justification. In fact, it looks like a more solid justification than US invading Iraq three years ago.

Unlike the current war, where Saddam had no military to speak of and was invading no one and threatening no one, Saddam did, if fact, invade and occupy Kuwait. You're simply resetting the bar by suggesting that he hadn't yet taken the next step. We couldn't wait for the next step, since he'd already taken the first.

If there WAS a "next step" which you have not proven. I'm not saying your speculation is wrong, I'm just pointing out it IS speculation and I prefer more legal ground to stand on if we invade a country.

[Sonart]

Quote by: Scribbler If you are correct in what Saddam wanted to accomplish, I agree. But that looks like simple speculation is all

I remember back in the early days of the Internet -- or was it PBS? -- anyway, apparently Saddam had made a series of speeches that clearly spelled out his wet dreams of a Greater Arab Empire. It was sobering. Where bin Laden's message is about Muslim independence and solidarity, Hussein's was about Arab nationalism. Islam was something he paid occassional lip service to, since most Arabs were also devoutly Muslim. After losing his second humiliating war in Kuwait, Hussein's legitimacy among Arabs was fairly dissolved, the new mantle of Arab leadership being taken up by our dear friend, Osama. With 9/11, Osama accomplished what Hussein couldn't. A Victory.

Quote by: Scribbler You might be right, he MUST be an idiot because IRAQ has all the oil between those two countries.

{{sigh}} Such is the nature of meglomania. Nothing's ever enough.

.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Sonart I remember back in the early days of the Internet -- or was it PBS? -- anyway, apparently Saddam had made a series of speeches that clearly spelled out his wet dreams of a Greater Arab Empire. It was sobering. Where bin Laden's message is about Muslim independence and solidarity, Hussein's was about Arab nationalism.

Whatever works in politics, whether it's Bush, Blair, Hussein or Bin Laden, they will say what gives them the most desired response and old Saddam was no different. The problem is he was mostly talk for a long time but whenever Bush or his supporters find themselves boxed in they can honestly pull out the fact that Saddam was a prick. This is why so many people support Bush, IMO, because Saddam WAS a rotten bastard and it was too easy to make the connection between him being a rotten bastard and being a threat to US, which he was not. It's tough to accept that we could do anything wrong concerning such a bad character. But we did, and not only that, we screwed up everything related to this war.

Islam was something he paid occasional lip service to, since most Arabs were also devoutly Muslim. After losing his second humiliating war in Kuwait, Hussein's legitimacy among Arabs was fairly dissolved, the new mantle of Arab leadership being taken up by our dear friend, Osama. With 9/11, Osama accomplished what Hussein couldn't. A Victory. {{sigh}} Such is the nature of megalomania. Nothing's ever enough. .

Agree on the megalomania part but disagree that he was a threat to ANYONE when we invaded. After a decade of being bottled in by us ( a major loss of face to the Klingons...er, the Arab neighbors) he was nothing.

[GodBlessAmerica]

Quote by: Scribbler1 That's wrong and you ought to know it. Most of the criticism of the President has been to say he was WRONG in invading Iraq. It's called criticism and is the responsibilty of every free-thinking American. It is NOT "bad mouthing." Admittedly, lately it HAS gotten more insulting and personal but that's because he continues to do the wrong thing and frustrates the majority of the people who want him to admit his error and stop wasting our soldiers lives, our money and our global trust and prestige. I like the hypocricy of the right wingers. Saying Bush is wrong is "bad mouthing" but calling Clinton all kinds of names even 5 YEARS after he left office is somehow "Good mouthing"? And you know the opposition to Bush in no way confined to Democrats. Nice parrot job. Marines are not SUPPOSED to, but their leaders are SUPPOSED to know what the hell they are doing and not send these good men and women into harms way for no reason. A soldier's job does not include the ability to decide whether his CinC is an inept failure or not. That's OUR job and THAT is what Murtha evidently sees in Bush's mismanaged adventure. Nice flag waving, GBA, but is it the American flag or the Bush flag that you wave?

The Democrats keep providing stupid sound bites to terrorists that al-Zarqawi keeps pointing to as American weakness and that keep getting replayed from Democrats on Al Jazerra.
It is ignorant to make claims this President doesn't know what the hell he is doing, he knows what he is doing and nobody elected you.
I bet you can't even tell me what the basic Bush plan was for Iraq and he has been repeating it since we first went in years ago.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: GodBlessAmerica It is ignorant to make claims this President doesn't know what the hell he is doing, he knows what he is doing and nobody elected you.

Your hero knows what he is doing and nobody elected me, huh? Wow, I guess that's why you're so good at this here debatin' stuff, huh?

I bet you can't even tell me what the basic Bush plan was for Iraq and he has been repeating it since we first went in years ago.

Which one?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_in...Iraq#Rationale

"Throughout 2002, the U.S. administration made it clear that removing Saddam Hussein from power was a major goal, although it offered to accept major changes in Iraqi military and foreign policy in lieu of this. Specifically, the stated justification for the invasion included Iraqi production and use of weapons of mass destruction, links with terrorist organizations and human rights violations in Iraq under the Saddam Hussein government, issues that are detailed below.

To that end, the stated goals of the invasion, according to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, were:

* Self-defense
o find and eliminate weapons of mass destruction, weapons programs, and terrorists
o collect intelligence on networks of weapons of mass destruction and terrorists
* Humanitarian
o end sanctions and to deliver humanitarian support (According to Madeline Albright, half a million Iraqi children had died because of sanctions.)
* United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Resolution
o Resolution 1205, made in 1999.
* Regime Change
o end the Saddam Hussein government
o help Iraq's transition to democratic self-rule
* Other
o secure Iraq's oil fields and other resources"

On a similar note, I also found what his FATHER said:

http://www.thememoryhole.org/mil/bushsr-iraq.htm

"While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome."

But you know so much, there was probably no point in posting this.

[Jenny317]

Quote by: Apeman81 So, give us an example of what kind of war is "worth" fighting for?

Honestly, I'm not going to front, I can't say right now, what kind of war is worth fighting for. But I do believe that this one isn't one worth fighting. At first, yes, I agreed with soldiers being sent over there to fight back for what happened, but it's been too long. I feel like it is worth fighting for but not this long, it has been too too long; these troops need to be sent back home. I honestly didn't think it'll go on for so long. I know I'm not the only one who feels this way, so why you chose me to quote; I don't know lol . But i've said all that I could, and I'm not going to lie, I cant say right now what kind of war is worth fighting.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Jenny317 Honestly, I'm not going to front, I can't say right now, what kind of war is worth fighting for. But I do believe that this one isn't one worth fighting. At first, yes, I agreed with soldiers being sent over there to fight back for what happened, but it's been too long. I feel like it is worth fighting for but not this long, it has been too too long; these troops need to be sent back home. I honestly didn't think it'll go on for so long. I know I'm not the only one who feels this way, so why you chose me to quote; I don't know lol . But i've said all that I could, and I'm not going to lie, I cant say right now what kind of war is worth fighting.

I for one appreciate that kind of honesty.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Jenny317 Honestly, I'm not going to front, I can't say right now, what kind of war is worth fighting for. But I do believe that this one isn't one worth fighting. At first, yes, I agreed with soldiers being sent over there to fight back for what happened, but it's been too long. I feel like it is worth fighting for but not this long, it has been too too long; these troops need to be sent back home. I honestly didn't think it'll go on for so long. I know I'm not the only one who feels this way, so why you chose me to quote; I don't know lol . But i've said all that I could, and I'm not going to lie, I cant say right now what kind of war is worth fighting.

This is a war that wasn't worth fighting from day 1, let alone how long it's taken by now. Thousands, think about that, thousands of people would be alive and unmaimed today if we had just continued to let the inspectors poke around in Iraq. What was the big rush to start this war?? saddam couldn't have done a thing with inspectors running around interrupting things.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Zeebadee This is a war that wasn't worth fighting from day 1, let alone how long it's taken by now. Thousands, think about that, thousands of people would be alive and unmaimed today if we had just continued to let the inspectors poke around in Iraq.

Randolph Bourne once wrote an essay called "War is the health of the nation."
It appears the United States is taking that title to heart.
That aside, the hypocritical nature of this war is almost poetic.
To liberate Iraqis from the Butcher of Baghdad (who we supported in one war and fought against in two others), we apparently had to slaughter thousands of people who were already crippled or even killed by UN sanctions. Oh, and exposing a damaged country to insurgents and foreign fighters is always an excellent way to revive a populace.
And all this based on WMD's (the kind we sold to Saddam) and atrocities we backed financially.
And how about those elections that thousand sof Iraqis protested to have? I'm glad bombs and elections solve everything and that Iraq is becoming secular.
Satire is what that is.

Grandpa h.