The Issues: The War in Iraq

[Phishfan]

How else do we explain those who push so hard for a pull out while not even being willing to discuss the likely adverse consequences?  Short-sighted?

That's funny. That is the same way I describe those who pushed to invade a country without considering the likely adverse consequences. Short-sighted.

[run_to_win]

That's funny. That is the same way I describe those who pushed to invade a country without considering the likely adverse consequences. Short-sighted.

Now we go back to 11 independent countries all coming to the same conclusion based on their own intelligence.  Perhaps they were all wrong.  And the President's top advisers telling him that it was a "slam dunk".  They could have been wrong too.

[Phishfan]

No run. I said nothing about intelligence did I? I simply said they did not consider the the adverse consequences. You are trying to make a completely different argument now. Stay with me.

[Dave Gray]

This is what I was talking about in my original post about a clear goal.  If we knew they had weapons, and the goal was to go in and destroy or remove those weapons, fine.

Because when you're done, you can go home.

But removing a government means that you have to stay around and replace the pieces.  How did they think this was going to go, once they got Saddam?

And that continues to be my problem with this war.  There is no end in sight, ever.

[run_to_win]

No run. I said nothing about intelligence did I? I simply said they did not consider the the adverse consequences. You are trying to make a completely different argument now. Stay with me.

Sorry for expanding on your argument.

Do you really want to narrow the argument that much? 

It's analagous to disputing gravity because when you throw something up in the air when it reaches it's zenith and is momentarily not rising or falling.  If we're only allowed to discuss that point of it's flight then yes, we could come to a conclusion that gravity does not exist.

[run_to_win]

But removing a government means that you have to stay around and replace the pieces.  How did they think this was going to go, once they got Saddam?

Right after Saddam was ousted didn't Cheney say something to the effect, "We're still in for a long, hard slog."

There are always those who keep on fighting after their government is toppled.  It went on in Germany for some time. 

Take the foreign fighters coming from around the region out of the equation and this would pretty much be over. 

[Dave Gray]

^ Bad analogy.

You're talking about justification for war now.
Phishfan was talking about aftermath and consequences.


Whether or not Saddam had weapons still doesn't change the fact that once he was removed, there was no effective plan to correct their government.

[MaineDolFan]

Take the foreign fighters coming from around the region out of the equation and this would pretty much be over. 

Iraq's borders are more wide open than Pamela Anderson's legs when Kid Rock comes to town.  This, my friend, won't happen.  And it should have been accounted for when the invasion happened in the first place.

[Dave Gray]

Right after Saddam was ousted didn't Cheney say something to the effect, "We're still in for a long, hard slog."

Perhaps he did, but at that point, it's too late.  I don't want you to make that determination after you've already removed him.

Didn't Cheney also say "It may take 6 days, 6 weeks...I doubt 6 months"?    Beforehand...when it mattered.

[Phishfan]

Sorry for expanding on your argument.

Do you really want to narrow the argument that much? 

It's analagous to disputing gravity because when you throw something up in the air when it reaches it's zenith and is momentarily not rising or falling.  If we're only allowed to discuss that point of it's flight then yes, we could come to a conclusion that gravity does not exist.

I don't care to expand an argument to a stance I don't take. I don't refute the stance that a lot of countries thought there were WMDs. My problem is and always has been that teh war in Afghanistan was already going on and was more important to finish.

[run_to_win]

^ Bad analogy.

You're talking about justification for war now.
Phishfan was talking about aftermath and consequences.

Could we have ignored the intelligence from 11 independent nations and done nothing?  Let's let go of our 20/20 hindsight for just a moment.  At the time the fear was Saddam developing a nuclear weapon and letting a terrorist group use it.  That was the adverse consequence that we were trying to avoid.  

Whether or not Saddam had weapons still doesn't change the fact that once he was removed, there was no effective plan to correct their government.

We met with and advised them for a year of more and then let them have a vote.  Lt. Bryan Suits was in many of those meetings.  He'd sit in the back with his interpreter and wait until a question was asked or advice was sought.  

What we might not have anticipated was the extent of foreign involvement trying to undermine the democratically elected government.

[Dave Gray]

Maybe I'm not the guy to ask.  I was against going into Iraq even when the assumption was that he had WMDs.

But, that's not even really what this thread is about, and what I feared happened.

I don't care WHY we're there, or whether or not it was justified at this point.  We're there and we have to deal with it.  The question is how do we best handle our current situation?

[run_to_win]

Perhaps he did, but at that point, it's too late.  I don't want you to make that determination after you've already removed him.

Didn't Cheney also say "It may take 6 days, 6 weeks...I doubt 6 months"?    Beforehand...when it mattered.

"On the war in Iraq:   "It may take 6 days, 6 weeks,  I doubt 6 months."  
Donald Rumsfeld said this on February 7,  2003

Invasion: March 19
Saddam overthrown: ?
Saddam captured: Dec 13
Iraq stable: ?

I won't quibble between the war (ousting Saddam) and occupation (stabilizing Iraq).

My point is that when Saddam was captured and many thought the war was over it was Cheney who said (paraphrasing here) 'Whoa, hold on there.  We have a lot of work left to do.'

[Dave Gray]

You're right, it was Rumsfeld.

But we're clearly still in the War in Iraq.  The job of ousting Saddam was done well before he was captured.  Actually catching him was just a morality boost.  It's not like he was going to start waging war from his spider-hole.

Regardless, we're there now.  What do you suggest we do to fix the situation?

[run_to_win]

I don't care WHY we're there, or whether or not it was justified at this point.  We're there and we have to deal with it.  The question is how do we best handle our current situation?

Very realistic attitude and a great question.

What happens if we leave vs what happens if we don't.

I'm all for pulling out IF the war doesn't follow us home ... again.  I fear that the only way to live in peace with Muslim fanatics is to kill every last one of them.  


American Deaths from Terrorism

7/19/82 kidnappings in Lebanon (13 killed)
4/18/83 US embassy Beirut (17)
10/23/83 Beirut barracks (241)
12/12/83 US embassy Kuwait (5)
9/20/84 US embassy Beirut (24)
12/3/84 Kuwait Airways Flight 221 (2)
4/12/85 Madrid Spain (0)
6/14/85 TWA flight 847 (1)
10/7/85 Achille Lauro (1)
4/2/86 TWA flight 840 (4)
4/5/86 West Berlin disco (2)
12/21/88 Pan Am Flight 103 (259)
2/26/93 World Trade Center (6)
4/19/95 Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building (Oklahoma City) (168)
11/13/95 Saudi Arabia (5)
6/25/96 Khobar Tower barracks (19)
8/7/98 US embassy Tanzania (11)
8/7/98 US embassy Kenya (213)
10/12/00 USS Cole (17)
9/11/01 World Trade Center (2,792)
9/11/01 Pentagon (188)
9/11/01 United Airlines Flight 93 (40)
6/14/02 American consulate, Karachi, Pakistan (12)
5/29/04 Riyadh, Saudi Arabia (1)
6/11/04 Riyadh, Saudi Arabia (1)
12/6/04 American consulate, Jiddah, Saudi Arabia (5)