Reflecting on the War

[Peeze]

Mostly been a religious debate hall lately and there hasnt been any war discussion sooo:
So the Iraqi war, although not over, is slowly winding down, or at least garnering less attention. It has been 5, or 6 years, and what really did America accomplish by its invasion of Iraq? I was reading :"Seven Fallacies of U.S. Plans to Invade Iraq," and the August 2002 Foreign Policy in Focus policy report found an interesting tidbit:

in the early 1980s, Washington dropped Iraq from its list of countries that sponsored terrorism so the U.S. could bolster Iraq's war effort against Iran. Baghdad was reinstated to the list only after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990, even though U.S. officials were unable to cite any increased Iraqi ties to terrorist groups...

Although Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld insists that Iraq is backing international terrorism, he has been unable to present any evidence that they currently do so. In fact, the State Department's own annual study Patterns of Global Terrorism did not list any serious act of international terrorism by the government of Iraq.

Hussein hated bin laden(the terrorist labeled responsible for 9/11)! Bin laden sent a courier to curry(no pun intended) favor from Hussein, and hussein cut off the couriers head and sent it back to him in a box. He wanted nothing to do with Al-Qaeda.
Not excusing Saddam from the wrongs he did, but was the war really necessary? What side of the issue are you on?

 

[Overload]

While I don't know a whole lot about politics and the war it wouldn't surprise me if they weren't telling us everything. "The War on Terror" basically translates to "This thing will never be over," in my opinion. It's so general and doesn't seem like something that can be accomplished. Kind of like the war on drugs.

 

[Jam Stunna]

I was thinking about something similar in regards to this, but it has more to do with American politics in regards to the war.

As many of you know, Senator Joseph Lieberman from Connecticut was defeated in the Democratic primary by challenger Ned Lamont in 2006, a man who's sole issue was his opposition to the war in Iraq. Lieberman went on to win the Senate seat anyway as a petitioning candidate.

Don't get me wrong, I have a very strong dislike for Lieberman. He used the party machinery when it suited him, but when it turned against him he took money and help from Republicans to win his seat back, and then had the nerve to call himself an "independent". I think he's a self-righteous, self-serving opportunist who will do anything to cling to power.

That said, I must say that I was surprised at how quickly the voters and the Democrats in general turned on him over this one issue. Granted, it's a big one, but this is a man who has consistently voted with the Democrats over the course of his career. I think it speaks to the levels of groupthink that has infested the major political parties that a man that is a staunch Democrat on every issue except one (national defense) can get bounced so quickly.

 

[Atsu]

I can't debate about this very well since I've probably been corrupt by media and peer influence. This paired with my perception that I could care less about this "war" we had with Iraq makes me sorta useless here. But I still have a few views (that may be factually incorrect).

No war is truly "necessary." But with this one, I still sort of believe it was. I'm not too sure, since I haven't really followed the war, but we came to help liberate the people from a corrupt government seeking independence. When we gave them the grounds to do so, we retreated and let the remains of the government repair their walls that segregated (may not be the best term) them back to their near original bearings.

But I believe 9/11 bolstered the morale of the people, press, and government officials. This and the ordeals of Bin Laden and Hussein that Peeze discussed were portrayed in the wrong way to the American people. This led to us going to "war."

 

[Peeze]

I can't debate about this very well since I've probably been corrupt by media and peer influence. This paired with my perception that I could care less about this "war" we had with Iraq makes me sorta useless here. But I still have a few views (that may be factually incorrect).

No war is truly "necessary." But with this one, I still sort of believe it was. I'm not too sure, since I haven't really followed the war, but we came to help liberate the people from a corrupt government seeking independence. When we gave them the grounds to do so, we retreated and let the remains of the government repair their walls that segregated (may not be the best term) them back to their near original bearings.

But I believe 9/11 bolstered the morale of the people, press, and government officials. This and the ordeals of Bin Laden and Hussein that Peeze discussed were portrayed in the wrong way to the American people. This led to us going to "war."

Why is it America's job to "liberate" people. Hussein terrorized his own people, but so do other dictators like Kim jung il and castro, why doesnt america go to war with them. There's more evidence that those countries have WoMD than Iraq.

 

[LordoftheMorning]

My father is a Lt. Colonel that flies Predator Drones, which have become extremely useful in the operations there, in Iraq. According to him, the war is going somewhere, and he's angry that we're probably going to end up pulling out before the job is done. He said some things about an Oil for Food deal, the treaty after the war with Kuwait, corruption in the UN, and officials being told they couldn't inspect for weapons in Iraq that violated the treaty. I believe him, I guess. I doubt anyone I know has more knowledge about the war than he does.

It's not a war for oil. It pisses me off when people say that. We haven't gotten one drop of oil that isn't simply purchased, and we're not freakin' colonizing Iraq.

If nothing else, there hasn't been another successful terrorist attack in America since 9/11.

Why is it America's job to "liberate" people. Hussein terrorized his own people, but so do other dictators like Kim jung il and castro, why doesnt america go to war with them. There's more evidence that those countries have WoMD than Iraq.

Well, some would argue that U.S. hegemony is a good thing. We have the power to help, so why not help? I don't exactly agree with that argument though.
I think if a nation's instability threatens our own stability, we have good reason to "liberate".

 

[Jam Stunna]

A war with North Korea is unwinnable.

 

[Peeze]

Thank you Jam.
Thats the point exactly, America didnt go to "liberate" nothing, because countries like North Korea also need "liberating".
America went to better its own interests. The war in iraq brought in no terrorists responsible for 9/11.

It's not a war for oil. It pisses me off when people say that. We haven't gotten one drop of oil that isn't simply purchased, and we're not freakin' colonizing Iraq

Do you know this for a fact?

 

[Lore]

A war with North Korea is unwinnable.

Thanks for saying that.


Also, I do not see why people are calling this a war for oil, when really gas prices have been worse than ever (although they recently went back down) during the war. I don't see the correlation between Oil and the War in that way.

Personally, I think the war was necessary, to an extent. We needed to get Hussein out of there, but now we pretty much have the job done. We need to slowly start pulling out of Iraq and move on to more important places, like Iran. There are several countries who pose a much larger threat than Iraq right now.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

but we came to help liberate the people from a corrupt government seeking independence.

I doubt that the people in Iraq suffered as much under Husseins government as the press/media make people believe. The "liberation" is a completely flawed concept, that goes back to the time when european countries conquered african terretories in order to "liberate" them. Of course that doesn't mean they did. It's just a nice term to white-wash facts that shouldn't be given away to public. No war is held for that reason.

Iraq - at that time - wasn't in need of liberation in the first place. As Jam mentioned other countries would need a "liberation" much more than the Iraq did. But how do fight against North Corea?

I just doesn't work that way.

Why is it America's job to "liberate" people. Hussein terrorized his own people, but so do other dictators like Kim jung il and castro, why doesnt america go to war with them. There's more evidence that those countries have WoMD than Iraq.

I'm really not sure about this but I never heard about Hussein terrorizing his own people. I know he killed thousands of people living at the border between Turkey and Iraq but I always thought that live inside of Iraq was actually decent.

Even now there are lots of people in Iraq who say that Husseins time was the best by far.

It's not a war for oil. It pisses me off when people say that. We haven't gotten one drop of oil that isn't simply purchased, and we're not freakin' colonizing Iraq.

I find that hard to believe. For what reason would the USA attack the Iraq then?

Well, some would argue that U.S. hegemony is a good thing. We have the power to help, so why not help?

By killing thousands of people in the process? People who probably not even needed help worse than people in many other countries? Why Iraq?

...

It's a really complex subject and the biggest part of it is probably beyond us. Things like that require inside knowledge that only few people actually have. Coming from the EU, I really don't know much about US politics but I assume that there are many events linked to the war and the whole terrorism complex (like the former wars in Iraq and the government of Bush sen.) that we know not much about either. We'll probably never learn, although I'm sure that the war was unnecessary. Indeed, it would've been better the focus on the war in Afghanistan. Now Obama has to ask us for help in Afghanistan

 

[Atsu]

I doubt that the people in Iraq suffered as much under Husseins government as the press/media make people believe. The "liberation" is a completely flawed concept, that goes back to the time when european countries conquered african terretories in order to "liberate" them. Of course that doesn't mean they did. It's just a nice term to white-wash facts that shouldn't be given away to public. No war is held for that reason.

Iraq - at that time - wasn't in need of liberation in the first place. As Jam mentioned other countries would need a "liberation" much more than the Iraq did. But how do fight against North Corea?

I just doesn't work that way.

I'm a victim of the press .__.

When I think about all of this, you're right. Iraq isn't buried in a **** hole like North Korea or other countries. I do understand, though, that "liberation" is a way to help boost the morale of a certain percent of the United States.

There's more too the war, but those are things that are commonly mere opinions corrupted and influenced by that of the media, government, and what not. Some say we're in there for oil. Some say we are not. There just isn't enough evidence to base that off of. Oil Prices Skyrocketing is evidence, but it isn't enough to convince people. The world is greedy. Prices we're kept up for a long time until people gradually just stopped buying gas. They had an overstock from it and started lowering the prices so they can bring people back in. They're going to sell as high as they can to keep business profitable.

Anyways, there wasn't much of a war to begin with. If we had no care for the innocent lives there, we could have had more room to work with and be done with this in a matter of weeks or days. But did we help liberate their people? Yes, we did. But was that the reason of going in there? Nope. It's just one of their excuses.

We should have taken out our troops a long time ago. At this point, we're just a burden.

EDIT: On the little ordeal of the US's "Hegemony." The United States is perceived as one of the super powers of the world. Maintaining the fact or the illusion of hegemony plays a key role in maintaining this perception. Going to this so called 'war' with Iraq helped promote it.

There doesn't have to be a single reason for war. Sure, in the beginning it was for Bin Laden/Hussein/Whatever. But it evolved into new things.

 

[cman]

We might not have gotten any oil donations as a direct result of the war. However, a friendly nation in the Middle East would help ensure than it can at least be purchased. We also have a likely place where we would be able to put military bases in the near future. No nation ever does anything unless it benefits their own interests. Individuals or organizations might, but not countries. Keep that in mind when sifting through all the **** that people tell you. Whether or not it is bad that countries act only in self interest is debatable though.

 

[marthanoob]

A war with North Korea is unwinnable.

I disagree. We could use hundreds of nuclear warheads, it is not out of our scope, but that would be a bad idea in every single aspect imaginable besides winning the war.

I would call a war with North Korea "practically unwinnable".

My foreign affairs opinions is that we shouldn't stick our ugly heads in other people's business so much.
War at that distance is not as simple as invasion, occupation (without colonization), and "yay liberation". There MUST be cooperation from the indigenous. If not, then there will be constant turmoil in the form of guerilla warfare, corruption, and may quickly unstabilize back into a dictatorship.
Iraq is only improving because of recent indigenous cooperation and because we wiped out a lot of Al-Queda. Even so, we lost thousands of troops, and probably killed even more thousands of innocent civilians in the process. We should never have gone. Especially considering the deep sh** we are in terms of federal deficit and the falling economy.

Troops in Iran or Pakistan? Are you kidding me? Afghanistan is unwinnable as well. The Russians couldn't do it and look how close they were.

Foreign affairs should be done the diplomatic way, like UN sanctions and action in that regard.

 

[Atsu]

I disagree. We could use hundreds of nuclear warheads, it is not out of our scope, but that would be a bad idea in every single aspect imaginable besides winning the war.

I would call a war with North Korea "practically unwinnable".

Troops in Iran or Pakistan? Are you kidding me? Afghanistan is unwinnable as well. The Russians couldn't do it and look how close they were.

Foreign affairs should be done the diplomatic way, like UN sanctions and action in that regard.

So you disagree with your own statement? Although North Korea is winnable with "hundreds of nuclear warheads," Afghanistan is not?

But nuclear warfare isn't exactly "winning." If anything, it just gives you more and more problems. Although we have thousands of nukes (I think), using a 'hundreds' to bombard a country is just inhumane. It'd have to be a very extreme issue for anyone to do something like that (or just some psycho that wants to nuke things).

By nuking A, B gets mad and retaliates. If you nuke B, C gets made and retaliates. The alphabet just keeps going until we get some made-up letters. It just digs a deeper hole and just expands the war. Although there's always the intimidation factor and what not.

But I guess it all depends on your perception on what a 'win" is. Taking a whole entire country and turning it into a desolate wasteland and also getting the rest of the world on your *** just doesn't seem like a 'win.'

 

[Jam Stunna]

"Practically umwinnable" means unwinnable. Besides, a war in the Korean peninsula is theoretically unwinnable as well, which is why no one wants to even go near the place.

 

[Smooth Criminal]

"Practically umwinnable" means unwinnable. Besides, a war in the Korean peninsula is theoretically unwinnable as well, which is why no one wants to even go near the place.

Addendum to this statement:

It's not just sheer geography. North Korea has a HUGE helper that lies just north of their border.

Smooth Criminal

 

[Jam Stunna]

Not to mention the world's third largest standing army and largest artillery force.

 

[Crimson King]

Nuclear weapons are generally antiquated now because if anyone fires one, others will fire some in retaliation, and nobody on Earth wins a nuclear war; nuclear winter would set in.

As for the War in Iraq, it's an example of American imperialism at its best. We fist our way into the region, declare their ruler incapable and evil, much like our ruler at the time, and demand they institute democracy to "stabilize the region." Nevermind, the difference between the last election under Saddam Hussein and our most recent presidential was that we had one extra candidate to choose from (they only got Saddam, and third party votes are still a waste), but the fact is we are not a democracy-period. We are not even a democracy in theory because only selected people can run for office. In turn, from that pool of selected people, the electoral college votes for president. We have no real say in who becomes president. So, with Iraq, we are hypocritical *******es for going there to spread democracy.

So, why go? OH to liberate the people? That's why we are going after Rwanda, Dafur, and Sudan after this war, right? No... I guess it's not to liberate people because there are still a lot of oppressed people who actually asked for our help, whereas Iraq did not.

So, why go? Oil is PLENTIFUL in the region. It's no surprise that once we took out Baghdad that the first few people in Iraq were not Red Cross, but contract laborers, including Haliburton, an oil company.

With Iraq, we had a long standing enemy, with zero ties to 9/11. I love how every so often a NEW article, usually on FoxNews, states that Iraq WAS implicated with al-Qaeda, but that's pretty much bull****. All that stands is that Iraq gave us a place to get oil, when we were reaching an oil crisis.

Really though, whatever the reason we went, we need to pull-out. We are not the world police, we were never asked to be the world police, we can't afford to be the world police, and we should not want to be the world police. Thankfully, Bush is gone. Obama better be smart about foreign policy or the American empire will teeter closer to the brink of its own destruction.

 

[marthanoob]

So you disagree with your own statement? Although North Korea is winnable with "hundreds of nuclear warheads," Afghanistan is not?

I guess I should have put practically unwinnable for that too, but it would be harder than North Korea in that context because of the geography.
Lol, was joking for the most part.

 

[Jam Stunna]

I guess I should have put practically unwinnable for that too, but it would be harder than North Korea in that context because of the geography.
Lol, was joking for the most part.

NO JOKES IN THE DH!

 

[The 5th Horseman]

A war with North Korea is unwinnable.

^This but still... So is the war on terror. Maybe they can use the "WMD" excuse this time because they DO have them.

 

[Peeze]

So does half the civilized world, thats not a good reason to single out Iraq.
Besides how hypocritical is it that america has WoMd but doesn't want anyody else to have them.

 

[BFDD]

Besides how hypocritical is it that america has WoMd but doesn't want anyody else to have them.

Not hypocritical at all. Its called strategy. If the US has nukes and nobody else does, who is going to try to attack the US? If we limit the number of WMDs everyone else has but still keep ours then our military is going to be stronger.

I'm not saying I agree with this strategy, but from a military stand point it makes sense. I think the US would be better off not invading random countries because we feel like it.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

I think the US would be better off not invading random countries because we feel like it.

Did I miss something? I think that's exactly the point of Peeze (and those who agree with him). The US don't invade random countries just to liberate them, nukes or not. Other countries are in deeper need of liberation and have no nukes (African countries come to mind) at all.

Why did they chose to invade Iraq then, a country that is proven to have no nuclear weapons? Were the citizens of the country that dissatisfied with Hussein? Unlikely. There must be another reason to invade a country, right?

 

[Crimson King]

Did I miss something? I think that's exactly the point of Peeze (and those who agree with him). The US don't invade random countries just to liberate them, nukes or not. Other countries are in deeper need of liberation and have no nukes (African countries come to mind) at all.

Why did they chose to invade Iraq then, a country that is proven to have no nuclear weapons? Were the citizens of the country that dissatisfied with Hussein? Unlikely. There must be another reason to invade a country, right?

Dissatisfaction does not lead to a necessity for outsiders to come in. If our government ever gets too overbearing, we should be expected to rebel as soon as possible, in as big of a manner as possible. Instead of aiding rebels by invading the country, the US should have sided with them in financial means and through supplies.

Chances are today, a lot of Iraqis are in more danger than they were under Saddam because we destabilized the whole area.