64% Say Iraq War Not Worth Fighting, etc.

[grandpa]

Man must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression, and retaliation.
– Martin Luther King, Jr

Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way: stop participating in it.
– Noam Chomsky



64% Say Iraq War Not Worth Fighting:
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/inde...em/itemID/9718
"(Angus Reid Global Scan) – Many adults in the United States believe their federal administration should not have launched the coalition effort, according to a poll by CBS News. 64 per cent of respondents believe the result of the war with Iraq was not worth the loss of American life and other costs."

Insurgents' Ranks Quickly Replenished:
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/13084531.htm
"WASHINGTON - U.S. and Iraqi forces have killed more than 1,300 insurgents in Iraq and detained 9,000 suspected fighters since last January's election for an interim government, but the estimated size of the insurgency remains the same, according to American military officials."
[That is a hell of a lot of people, isn't it?]

Bush Orders Staff to Attend Ethics Briefings:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...402040_pf.html
"President Bush has ordered White House staff to attend mandatory briefings beginning next week on ethical behavior and the handling of classified material after the indictment last week of a senior administration official in the CIA leak probe."
[Do my eyes deceive me?]

Thousands of GIs Launch New Offensive Near Syria Border:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4409332.stm
"Several thousand US and Iraqi troops have begun a new operation on Iraq's Syrian border against militants from the al-Qaeda in Iraq group."

Italian Intel Names 'Occasional Spy' as Source of Forged Niger Docs:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1104/dailyUpdate.html
"Italy's chief of military intelligence Thursday named Rocco Martino, an 'occasional spy,' as the source of the forged documents that said Saddam Hussein was trying to buy uranium from Niger. The New York Times reports that Mr. Martino has 'long been suspected' of being the person responsible for 'peddling' the documents on the Iraq-Niger connection that were ultimately proved to be false."

Grandpa h.

[Jack]

an 'occasional spy,'

What the hell? Even espionage has become a part-time job?
In regard to Iraq, I'm waiting for an official White House statement saying, "It seemed like a good idea at the time."

[grandpa]

Quote by: Shattered x One This war is not worth fighting at all. And I am not afraid to say this only because we are out there killing Iraqis' for oil.

I'm frustrated that some Americans continue to support the war.
We couldn't ask for a better opportunity to see how badly informed some Americans are.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Shattered x One Yes I know. You couldn't have said this any better.

Thanks. I try.

Grandpa h.

[Apeman81]

There was a time when a higher percentage of people felt slavery should be allowed. Were they right?
Policy is not set by polls, thankfully.
Moot point. We are there. Let's finish the job.
Or do you really want to create another VietNam?

[Sonart]

Quote by: Apeman There was a time when a higher percentage of people felt slavery should be allowed. Were they right? Policy is not set by polls, thankfully.

Says who? When the higher percentage of people felt slavery should be allowed, it was. When a higher percent felt it should be abolished, it was. Simple enough.

Quote by: Apeman Or do you really want to create another VietNam?

LBDubya and Rumsnamara already have. That's the point.

.

[Apeman81]

Quote by: Sonart Says who? When the higher percentage of people felt slavery should be allowed, it was. When a higher percent felt it should be abolished, it was. Simple enough. LBDubya and Rumsnamara already have. That's the point. .

So...When the war had majority support we should have fought it and now we should just pack up and leave? Brilliant!

LBDubya? Rumsnamara? Amusing, but not even close. C’mon. I'm no Bushaphile, and I don't believe the war has been fought as forcefully as it should have been, but this ridiculous comparison just doesn’t hold water.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Apeman81 So...When the war had majority support we should have fought it and now we should just pack up and leave? Brilliant!

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?"

LBDubya? Rumsnamara? Amusing, but not even close. C’mon. I'm no Bushaphile, and I don't believe the war has been fought as forcefully as it should have been, but this ridiculous comparison just doesn’t hold water.

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.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Apeman81 There was a time when a higher percentage of people felt slavery should be allowed. Were they right? Policy is not set by polls, thankfully. Moot point. We are there. Let's finish the job. Or do you really want to create another VietNam?

Damn straight. Let's get another 58,000 killed for absolutely nothing!

The American public is right. The war is wrong and has always been wrong. The longer we stay the larger the insurgency has grown. And Bush says we are making progress? Complete insanity. If we stay long enough we will be leaving by helicopter from the embassy roof.

The first rule of holes - when you get yourself in one - stop digging.

[Sonart]

Quote by: Apeman So...When the war had majority support we should have fought it and now we should just pack up and leave? Brilliant!

Since I've been opposed to this war since they first began whispering the possibility in the summer of 2002, I assume it simply took average Americans this long to figure out what I knew all along.

Quote by: Apeman LBDubya? Rumsnamara? Amusing, but not even close. C’mon. I'm no Bushaphile, and I don't believe the war has been fought as forcefully as it should have been, but this ridiculous comparison just doesn’t hold water.

Why? You say it yourself. This war has been micromanaged by Bush and his war minister to the tune of one massive screw up after another, just like in Vietnam. But the biggest screwup was launching it in the first place. You read Sun Tzu? History? For the hundred and tenth time... our military is brilliant at taking territory, but even the greatest superpowers are powerless to hold ground indefinitely against a determined insurgency, particularly when they're supplied from outside, which is exactly what Bush's intelligence community told them would happen. Bush pinned the heart of our military down at the furthest reaches of our supply lines, in a large, hostile nation surrounded on three sides by even more hostile populations, in a part of the world where terrorist guerilla warfare is a practised artform. In military terms -- tactically and strategically -- it was a bad, bad idea, advised against by Bush's senior military and the exact reason Bush's father didn't chase Hussein to Baghdad. It was a lesson we should have learned from Vietnam, from Reagan in Beirut, from the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan and from Somalia. What part of this is so hard for you to understand?

If this war were indeed about WMD and our national security, then yes, the sacrifice would probably be worth it. But Bush screwed that up too, just like Johnson did with the Tonkin Gulf... it's not about WMD and the American people have now decided the war is not worth the price we're paying and will apparently continue to pay indefinitely.

.

[Jenny317]

I don't think this war is worth fighting AT ALL!!! People are dying for what I think is nothing. Supposedly, Bush new about the attack of 911, so it's his problem that it happened because he could have prevented it, but no; he didn't bother to warn anyone about ti or anything, so for his mistake, he's making thousands of people die for nothing. And if it isn't true about Bush not knowing about it, then fine, but this isn't worth it, thousands and thosands of people are dying FOR NOTHING! Of course soldiers sign up to be int he army or whatever to "serve and protect" and fight willing to die for their country, but for a war worth figthing for, and to me, this war isn't worth fighting and losing people for.

[Clarence]

Welcome Jenny. Is there a war worth fighting for? Did you ever agree with the war?

[Jenny317]

There are wars fighting for, but not this one, definitely not this one.

[MIAshado]

Yeah, I don't really have much to say except for that I believe the war is unjust as well. Everything else I can immediately think of has already been mentioned.

[Apeman81]

Quote by: Jenny317 There are wars fighting for, but not this one, definitely not this one.

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

[Sonart]

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

If Jenny won't, I will....

I supported Desert Storm from the gitgo. Saddam Hussein was clearly the aggressor in brutally invading, without justification, our ally, Kuwait. In the process he was directly threatening not only our interests by militarily threatening the entire Gulf Oil region, but those of our allies in Europe and Asia, and of potentially holding that intensely vital region hostage.

I supported Bush pére's incursion into Somalia. I thought it was the right thing to do for the right reasons, the elimination of mass suffering due to the collapse of a national government. Alas, in the end it became yet another abject lesson in the limits of superpower's ability to occupy hostile territory... a lesson Bush's son would foolishly ignore 12 years later.

I supported Clinton's incursion into the Balkan's. It was a civil war that was threatening to escalate throughout the region, which Europe, Russia, the UN and the Moslem mideast seemed incapable of resolving and who were begging us to step in and solve it for them, which we did in short order, ending the genocide and ethnic cleansing, causing Milosovic to be removed from office and tried for war crimes, and without the loss of American lives.

And I supported Bush the younger's invasion of Afghanistan. That's where the people who attacked us on 9/11 were and the government of Afghanistan was harboring them.

.

[Apeman81]

Having supported the Gulf War, you then must know that the cessation of hostilities between the U.S. lead coalition and Iraq was in the form of a cease-fire that left Saddam in power as long as he continued to cooperate with Coalition demands. Among those demands were defined north and south No-fly zones. Also was full cooperation with weapon’s inspectors. These only two of many. Many, in fact, that spurred the UN to reprimand him in the form of 17 resolutions ordering to come back into compliance or face the consequence of breaking a cease fire agreement. As you may know, breaking a cease fire results in the resumption of hostilities

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. Not only did he violate the No fly zones, but he did so on occasion to lure U.S. Fighters to respond, then firing upon them with Surface to Air Missiles. That action, in case that escapes you, is an act of war.

Disregarding the 9/11 attacks, Saddam, through his actions, had invited upon himself the resumption of hostilities. War to topple Saddam was more than simply justified, his actions demanded it.

Post 9/11, he definitely fit into the “if not for us, against crowd”. His well known propensity for supporting terrorists in Israel, combined with his active desire to keep and maintain chemical weapons, his desire to acquire other WMDs, made his defiance of the UN orders and the, at least tentative contacts with Al Qaeda, made him a viable threat.

This new, post 9/11 threat plus his Pre 9/11 defiance of the cease fire conditions, made the need for regime change an imperative. He was given the chance to do so peacefully. The offer for him to step down was made many months before the first bomb dropped. Nations offered asylum, and we know he had the wealth. He refused, hoping, it seems, that the U.S. would act as it had in the previous 11 years, and would back down.

Saddam earned the attention given him. His maniacal ego would not spare his people the pain of war. But he never had cared for his people.

[RickSp]

Repeating the same tired con men's pitch is hardly convincing. Not now, when the lies are all too clear.

Saddam never attacked us. Saddam was no threat to us. The no-fly zones were of questionable legality and "were not authorised by the UN and they [were] not specifically sanctioned by any Security Council resolution."

All the claims about his chemical and biological weapons were either a decade old and discounted through inspections or were fabricated from raw intel by Doug Feith's office in the Pentagon. The claims about Iraqi nuclear program were entirely from intel that was known to be wrong well before it was used as justifaction by Bush, Cheney and their gang. The Niger yellow cake, the aluminum tubes has all been debunked but they used it anyway.

The claims about AlQaeda/Iraq contacts were also known to be false, yet the Bush administration repeated them over and over. To speak plainly, the Bush cabal used bad intel knowingly - they lied us into war.

The claim that it was really Saddam's fault that Bush invaded his country would be laughable, (Bush would have invaded regardless of what Saddam did), were it not for the deaths and maiming of tens of thousands of good Americans and the slaughter of tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians.

And soon it will be Bush's turn to account for his actions. He has earned the attention that will be given him. His ego would not spare his people the pain of war. But he never had cared for his people.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Sonart If Jenny won't, I will.... I supported Desert Storm from the gitgo. Saddam Hussein was clearly the aggressor in brutally invading, without justification, our ally, Kuwait. In the process he was directly threatening not only our interests by militarily threatening the entire Gulf Oil region, but those of our allies in Europe and Asia, and of potentially holding that intensely vital region hostage.

I didn't support it because I thought it was a setup to allow us to go in for reasons not disclosed. Remember, Kuwait was slant-drilling into Iraqi oil fields and Saddam threatened to take action and Kuwait told him to pack sand. Saddam met with April Glaspie and asked if we had any problems with this and she told him NO, we had no interest in his border disputes. Then a member of the royal family lying about incubators being stolen right from under Kuwaiti babies and the $5 million the royals spent with a New York PR firm during Desert Shield. All these things smelled SO bad I couldn't believe there was a reason for us to invade Iraq. (No links, just memory)

This is probably why anything to do with Iraq and the Bush family seems suspect.

[Sonart]

Quote by: Scribbler I didn't support it because I thought it was a setup to allow us to go in for reasons not disclosed.

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.

Quote by: Apeman 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. Not only did he violate the No fly zones, but he did so on occasion to lure U.S. Fighters to respond, then firing upon them with Surface to Air Missiles. That action, in case that escapes you, is an act of war.

So? The only thing that ever resulted from his firing on our aircraft, as we surveiled his country with impunity, was instant death for the poor dumb sunzubitches ordered to shoot the missiles. You've just shown reasons to continue keeping Iraq contained the way we were, not reason to cut our own throats by occupying a hostile country smack in the middle of Jihad central.

Quote by: Apeman Disregarding the 9/11 attacks, Saddam, through his actions, had invited upon himself the resumption of hostilities. War to topple Saddam was more than simply justified, his actions demanded it.

No they didn't. He had no weapons and no military to speak of. He was threatening no one, attacking no one. He was basically sticking his tongue out at us, being a pain in the butt, a geopolitical nuisance. Bush's intel and senior military were warning him that invading and occupying Iraq was an invitation to a quagmire, and an invitation to every Jihadi from every surrounding country to join an Intifada on steroids, which is exactly what we got.

In other words, creating a vastly larger problem out of a minor one, which again, is EXACTLY what Bush has accomplished.

Quote by: Apeman Saddam earned the attention given him. His maniacal ego would not spare his people the pain of war. But he never had cared for his people.

Again, so what? I' reminded of Br'er Rabbit, arrogantly thinking we can punch out the Tar Baby for not showing proper respect.

.