Iraq General Thread

[kapkomet]

And 100,000's of thousands died at the hands of Hussein to repress anyone who might take over the government, well over what THE UNITED STATES have caused over there. Remember, they are blowing themselves up, not us. And again, that's all our fault, huh?

 

What if Saddam would have gotten overthrown, without anything we did? It would still be this way today, most likely... and we would STILL be over there.

 

Nice logic.

 

They could CHOOSE to live peacefully and harness the opportunities we gave them to be a "free" country. Or, they might not. We're partially to blame, but not all to blame - and it disgusts me that some of you here think this is entirely our fault.

[NorthSideSox72]

Amazing.

 

There were that many people and more getting killed every day by Saddam's regime.

 

Now, the good 'ol US of A is TOTALLY responsible for the mess over there. Not Al Queda, not repressed people lashing out because they can, not idiots hell-bent on creating a civil war, THE US is responsible for all of this.

Not even close. Since 2003, that's 4 years, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died (not even to mention thousands of non-Iraqi soldiers like ours, and contractors as well). You can add up all the maniacal stuff Saddam did in his 30 years and it wouldn't touch that number. In fact, while Iraq was no heaven, they did have power, schools, business, and some degree of safety on the street.

 

Sorry Kap, but WE turned that country into what it is today. We invaded it, we made it a battle ground. There are lots of reasons for having done it, some maybe even have some legitimacy. But there is no denying that its in the shape it is because of us.

 

[BigSqwert]

And 100,000's of thousands died at the hands of Hussein to repress anyone who might take over the government

So before 9/11 you were outspoken in having our government ousting Sadam?

[kapkomet]

So before 9/11 you were outspoken in having our government ousting Sadam?

Actually, I was. For the simple fact that he kept breaking all of the UN resolutions by shooting at our planes all of the time, and never let the inspectors REALLY do what they needed to (OH BUT WAIT!!! ... Saddam was an ANGEL and by the goodness of his hear, he let the inspectors back in a year or so before the invasion... and of course, they weren't going to find anything anyway, because they were getting tipped off because the UN was getting fat $$$$$ in the oil for food program.)

[kapkomet]

Not even close. Since 2003, that's 4 years, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died (not even to mention thousands of non-Iraqi soldiers like ours, and contractors as well). You can add up all the maniacal stuff Saddam did in his 30 years and it wouldn't touch that number. In fact, while Iraq was no heaven, they did have power, schools, business, and some degree of safety on the street.

 

Sorry Kap, but WE turned that country into what it is today. We invaded it, we made it a battle ground. There are lots of reasons for having done it, some maybe even have some legitimacy. But there is no denying that its in the shape it is because of us.

So we go over there, try to maintain the peace, and get blamed for messing the whole country up? Nice.

 

 

[BigSqwert]

Actually, I was. For the simple fact that he kept breaking all of the UN resolutions by shooting at our planes all of the time, and never let the inspectors REALLY do what they needed to (OH BUT WAIT!!! ... Saddam was an ANGEL and by the goodness of his hear, he let the inspectors back in a year or so before the invasion... and of course, they weren't going to find anything anyway, because they were getting tipped off because the UN was getting fat $$$$$ in the oil for food program.)

I didn't mean before we invaded. I meant pre 9/11.

[StrangeSox]

They could CHOOSE to live peacefully and harness the opportunities we gave them to be a "free" country. Or, they might not. We're partially to blame, but not all to blame - and it disgusts me that some of you here think this is entirely our fault.

 

That's a rather beneign way of stating a foreign army overthrowing a government, occupying, and running the country for over 4 years.

 

We didn't give them much opportunity when we completely destroyed ability to form a government and stable security forces early on (de-Baathification and disbanding the army).

[BigSqwert]

So we go over there, try to maintain the peace, and get blamed for messing the whole country up? Nice.

You have seriously become delusional.

[StrangeSox]

So we go over there, try to maintain the peace, and get blamed for messing the whole country up? Nice.

We went over there, invaded a country and overthrew a government. This wasn't a peacekeeping mission, ala Bosnia or Somalia.

[kapkomet]

You have seriously become delusional.

 

Ok, I'll stop. Honestly, and you all know I say this all the time. The truth is somewhere in the middle. Most of you want to come in here and take the tact that we're all at fault for everything bad that happens in Iraq. The truth is, we are trying to stabalize the country - but the fanatics over there aren't going to let it happen, not easily anyway. To say that we're totally responsible for the chaos is not the truth. To say we're partially responsible because we didn't have a plan to maintain the balance of power, yes, that's right. You all have to see that much, instead of totally, 100% blaiming the Bush Administration, like a lot of you like to do.

Edited August 2, 2007 by kapkomet

[kapkomet]

I didn't mean before we invaded. I meant pre 9/11.

Seriously, I meant before 9/11. I thought in about 1998 or so we needed to take care of business, based on the Clinton administration's findings of him having WMD's and continuing to break UN resolutions.

 

[StrangeSox]

 

Ok, I'll stop. Honestly, and you all know I say this all the time. The truth is somewhere in the middle. Most of you want to come in here and take the tact that we're all at fault for everything bad that happens in Iraq. The truth is, we are trying to stabalize the country - but the fanatics over there aren't going to let it happen. To say that we're totally responsible for the chaos is not the truth. To say we're partially responsible because we didn't have a plan to maintain the balance of power, yes, that's right. You all have to see that much, instead of totally, 100% blaiming the Bush Administration, like a lot of you like to do.

 

We are 100% responsible for creating the situation, not neccesarily for perpetuating it. I don't see how it can be argued that the US didn't create the instability that allowed the ensuing insurgency, sectarian violence, and civil war fester and grow into what it is today.

 

It has taken them over 4 years to get together a decent plan and to try to put it to use.

 

We won World War 2 in less time.

Edited August 2, 2007 by StrangeSox

[kapkomet]

We are 100% responsible for creating the situation, not neccesarily for perpetuating it.

 

It has taken them over 4 years to get together a decent plan and to try to put it to use.

 

We won World War 2 in less time.

And this part, I totally agree with... there should have been a "surge" about 3.5 years ago.

 

You cannot compare WWII with this sort of war... because it's not the same thing at all.

[Texsox]

For the average person living in a country, a war zone is much worse than what most evil dictators attempt. We have destroyed much of that country for reasons that shift like the sand and may have been fradualant at worse and misleading at best. No WMD and there are far more countries that pose bigger risks.

 

But we have this mess and need to fix it. It is our moral obligation to the innocents. I wish we could agree on a path out, but we first have to get some to admit we should be out.

 

In a twisted sort of way, one ha to be impressed that a mismatched, poorly trained, poorly equiped, group of fighters could be battling US Troops this long. When one is fighting for more than a paycheck and GI bill perhaps they are inspired.

 

One more lost American life is too much. We watched as the citizens of Vietnam would not pick up their end and here it is again. With so little help from them I have no problem seeing us leave and allowing the pieces to fall. Then we can talk about humanitarian efforts to restore their country.

[kapkomet]

For the average person living in a country, a war zone is much worse than what most evil dictators attempt. We have destroyed much of that country for reasons that shift like the sand and may have been fradualant at worse and misleading at best. No WMD and there are far more countries that pose bigger risks.

 

But we have this mess and need to fix it. It is our moral obligation to the innocents. I wish we could agree on a path out, but we first have to get some to admit we should be out.

 

In a twisted sort of way, one ha to be impressed that a mismatched, poorly trained, poorly equiped, group of fighters could be battling US Troops this long. When one is fighting for more than a paycheck and GI bill perhaps they are inspired.

 

One more lost American life is too much. We watched as the citizens of Vietnam would not pick up their end and here it is again. With so little help from them I have no problem seeing us leave and allowing the pieces to fall. Then we can talk about humanitarian efforts to restore their country.

Oh goodie. Another Vietnam and Iraq comparison.

 

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Oh goodie. Another Vietnam and Iraq comparison.

While some aspects of said analogy are tenuous at best, other major parts do resonate quite loudly.

 

Justin Raimondo new column about the armament sales to other Mid East countries, the war in Iraq, etc.

http://antiwar.com/justin/

[Texsox]

Oh goodie. Another Vietnam and Iraq comparison.

 

Waaay better than the Hitler - Saddam comparisons. ;-)

 

If the country won't help their own asses, then Americans shouldn't be dying.

 

We can learn from our history or be doomed to repeat it. The choice is ours to make.

[Rex Kickass]

Today the House Democrats voted a bill through that would guarantee our military a guaranteed home leave rest period equal to their tour of duty in a combat theater.

 

Currently, in Iraq, the average US soldier is given a 15 month term. They are then given only 12 months home leave service time. A change that was made within the last two years IIRC. With the new bill, the terms would equalize at 15 months. With the national guard, the home leave service time would be triple. (IE National Guard troops would see 15 months of service followed by 45 months of home leave service).

 

This would force the military into one of two options. 1. Increase overall military size, 2. Reduce troop presence in Iraq.

 

The president has threatened to veto this measure.

The president has also threatened to veto a defense spending budget bill for the next fiscal year that would give military men and women a roughly 3.5% pay increase for the next year. (Because it's not the exact same budget he submitted to Congress.)

 

Just thought you should know...

[kapkomet]

Today the House Democrats voted a bill through that would guarantee our military a guaranteed home leave rest period equal to their tour of duty in a combat theater.

 

Currently, in Iraq, the average US soldier is given a 15 month term. They are then given only 12 months home leave service time. A change that was made within the last two years IIRC. With the new bill, the terms would equalize at 15 months. With the national guard, the home leave service time would be triple. (IE National Guard troops would see 15 months of service followed by 45 months of home leave service).

 

This would force the military into one of two options. 1. Increase overall military size, 2. Reduce troop presence in Iraq.

 

The president has threatened to veto this measure.

The president has also threatened to veto a defense spending budget bill for the next fiscal year that would give military men and women a roughly 3.5% pay increase for the next year. (Because it's not the exact same budget he submitted to Congress.)

 

Just thought you should know...

Nice spin.

 

[Rex Kickass]

What's spinning about the fact that the President has threatened to veto any spending bill that comes to his desk that doesn't exactly state the terms he left in his budget?

[kapkomet]

What's spinning about the fact that the President has threatened to veto any spending bill that comes to his desk that doesn't exactly state the terms he left in his budget?

Because it's not that simple and you know it.

 

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Because it's not that simple and you know it.

Well, a lot of money is going to private contractors (read: mercenaries) like those from Blackwater USA. They are a private company of former special ops, Green Berets, etc. making lots of money in taxpayer dollars with little to no oversight of their activities. Blackwater was awarded the prize contract in Iraq to provide security for the original head of the U.S. occupation, Paul Bremer. At the time, it was a $21 million contract, but more important than the money was the prestige that came with being the guys who were guarding the head of the U.S. occupation. They have continued to work there as 'private contractors' making much, much, much more than the US soldiers who enlisted. How is it that the US government (Congress, the President) can find this incredible amount of money to pay mercenaries but is dragging its heels and threatening to veto a pay raise for US soldiers who are in it for the defense of their country rather than simply making the almighty dollar in the quickest way possible like the mercenaries?

[kapkomet]

It's always about the sinisterism of George W. Bush and his administration, but never about Congress. MMMMMMMMkay. Why can't people admit that it's the whole damn government? Both sides of the aisle?

 

Because, "MY" people can do no wrong. BLECH.

 

[LowerCaseRepublican]

It's always about the sinisterism of George W. Bush and his administration, but never about Congress. MMMMMMMMkay. Why can't people admit that it's the whole damn government? Both sides of the aisle?

 

Because, "MY" people can do no wrong. BLECH.

When did I say it was just Bush? I just wonder how the entire US government can pay this explicit, obscene amount of money to mercenaries but not to soldiers who volunteer for the defense of their country rather than simply going after the almighty dollar.

[kapkomet]

When did I say it was just Bush? I just wonder how the entire US government can pay this explicit, obscene amount of money to mercenaries but not to soldiers who volunteer for the defense of their country rather than simply going after the almighty dollar.

You didn't. I was just saying.

 

Our whole government is so corrupt, it's unreal.