Related Information to Post War Iraq

Post War Iraq - Page 22

Cause and effect can always be determined; it's a matter of how far back in history we want to go back to. The cause would best be interpreted not by the parties with vested interest in the equation, but by third parties who are able to see over a wider horizon.

And in this case, the majority of the world's nations believe that the US/UK were too hasty in attacking Iraq. And the war on terrorism went after the alleged protagonist after 9/11 without addressing the deeper root cause of the Palestinian plight (or fight for a homeland). If that was addressed, the Al Qaeda organisation would be nothing to the common man but a criminal band. As it is now, the issue has become a rallying cry for the middle east and young men are so attracted by this religious jihad. The war on terrorism and the attack on Iraq has NOT diminished the Israeli-Palestinian problem a single bit.

As for cause and effect, the Bush administration claimed that Iraq cooperated with or harbored Al Qaeda elements. Well, not there definitely seems to be Al Qaeda operatives there ..... which is the cause, which is the effect? Iraq has been turned into the 'OK Corral' for the terrorists, thanks to the coalition of the willing.

Iraq War Post

"There is nothing more dangerous than to build a society, with a large segment of people in that society, who feel that they have no stake in it; who feel that they have nothing to lose. People who have a stake in their society, protect that society, but when they don't have it, they unconsciously want to destroy it."

The above quote is credited to Martin Luther King Jr. And I feel it is so appropriate for the US Administrator for Iraq, Bremmer to think about this quote when he goes about with the task of rebuilding Iraq.

Post War Iraq History & Civil Business Politics

:spock: Good quote Fireduck. I know what the effects of British colonialization can do to a country, and I would like to see what happens in US 'colonialization'. Believe it or not, I think that the Iraqi news is starting to die now, it will take major events for it to take front line news again.

Page 22 Iraq War Post

I wonder if the US is really so trusting of the people they are going to recruit or maybe it is a redemption thing... 'do this or else...'?

U.S. RECRUITING SADDAM'S AGENTS
Authorities with the U.S.-led occupation have begun a covert campaign to recruit
and train agents with the once-dreaded Iraqi intelligence service to help
identify resistance to American forces here after months of increasingly
sophisticated attacks and bombings, according to U.S. and Iraqi officials.
https://deseretnews.com/dn/view/1%2C1249%2C...49260%2C00.html

Iraq War Post

QUOTE

It really makes me mad and sad at the same time. The UN is for peace, has been and will always be.

Actually, the UN has always been about world rule.  It promotes socialism at the expense of personal liberty, and the sovereignity of independant nations.

QUOTE

Oh, and remember the challenge from President Bush? "Bring 'em on" he said back then about the sporadic attacks on the coalition troops.  That must be one of the most arrogant and stupid statements ever. The terrorists are definitely bringing 'em on into Iraq!

Yes, they are going in to Iraq.  That means that they, who are trained and ready to murder innocent civilian women and children, are going in to an area where real soldiers, carrying real weapons are waiting for them.  Those who are in Iraq are NOT planting bombs in Bali, Trinidad, Brazil, England, or the US.  They are NOT strapping bombs on themselves and blowing up busses full of children.  They are getting themselves killed by the score, while they take out one or two American soldiers at a time.

What is very interesting about this situation is - the terrorist don't have any choice in this matter.  If a free, democratic nation is established in Iraq, it will destroy the surrounding nations much more effectively than if we bombed them.  The terrorists MUST keep trying to stop this birth before it happens.


I haven't been able to read all of this thread, it is too long.  So I am just going to make a few general observations.  It also looks like I am not going to be too popular in my point of view.

I have severe reservations about our involvement in Iraq.  Those are based on the idea that the US Constitution doesn't seem to justify what we did.  Having said that, I notice that it doesn't justify any of what the former president did during his 8 years in office.

I served in Saudi Arabia in the winter of 1991.  We should have and could have taken care of Iraq then.  We didn't, for reasons mostly having to do with the political situation in the surrounding Muslim nations.

Now a new generation has to do it.

From what returning military members are saying, the Iraqi people are very happy that we went in there, in general.  Yes, there are those who don't like it.  Mostly they are the ones who profited from the former regime.  The common people know that under the US, their lives will improve significantly.  Afghanistan, for example, is already experiencing a much higher standard of living than it had under the Taliban.  People are starting up businesses, making products, growing food, and generally living, finally.

Assyrian Christians, especially, have a chance to live now.  There are about 1.5 million of these people living in Iraq.  They have been praying for a very long time for the US to come in and free them.  Why the US?  Because they know that the US will allow them to practice their religion, and live their culture.  If Sharia law is once again emplaced in Iraq, these Christians will be destroyed.  Their only hope is a Constitutional Republic, with very strong boundaries.

There is absolutely NO DOUBT that there were WMDs in Iraq.  The only question is, what happened to them?  Everyone wants proof of their existence.  The weapons inspectors in the early '90's had/have proof of their existence, there was just no evidence of their destruction.

Yes, we are going to be in Iraq for quite a while yet.  Yes, it is going to be ugly, and US soldiers are going to die.  But they are protecting not only the US, but all the rest of the world.  The terrorists didn't only kill Americans on 9/11.  They didn't only kill Americans in Bali, in Manilla, in all these other attacks.  They are wicked, merciless people.  If we don't fight against them, who will?

NightHawk

Post War Iraq

Here are some thoughts from the people of ABC News, same questions, just put in a different way I guess:

ABCNEWS Nightline:

'I think that measuring wars through casualty counts is something of a modern invention. The casualties in World War II were horrific, but my sense, and I may be wrong, is that the outcome was important. That doesn't mean that the number of casualties wasn't on everyone's minds, of course it was. But then during Vietnam, the body count became a weekly, or even daily, yardstick used to measure progress. In a war where there weren't fixed lines, and progress couldn't be measured in ground taken or lost, the body count, more of them dead than us, became one of the measures.

I think that we have come to expect low numbers of casualties in conflicts now. Grenada, Panama, Desert Storm, compared to earlier conflicts, were as many have described them, relatively painless. I cannot, however, think of a phrase that could be any more painful to the loved ones of those who are killed in that "relatively painless" battle.

Since President Bush put on that flight suit and went to the aircraft carrier to announce that major combat operations were over, American soldiers have been dying in ones or twos almost every day. And that brings us to this unfortunate milestone. And what has been accomplished? The administration says that we are safer now, and that the Iraqi people are better off. No question of the last part, but we didn't go to war because the Iraqi people were suffering. That idea only came up later. But before the war, one of the rationales was the fear that Iraq was working with al Qaeda or other terrorist groups. Whether that was true or not, it seems to be more true now. There are plenty of reports of foreign fighters moving into Iraq to fight the Americans. And WMD? If Iraq had them, and we can't find them, is it possible that the war prodded Saddam to give them or sell them to someone else, something that we were rightfully fearful of? And how long will the casualty count continue to rise?'

-- End

:spock: That brings up a good point, suppose Saddam really did want to get rid of the WMD, but thought, 'I do not have to keep them, I can just give them to someone else who will carry on what I want to do.' Think about it, that would be a win for Saddam really, for one he would get rid of the WMD and be free of that charge (it did not work, because he still is forced on the run now) and also he would get someone else to do the dirty work.

Nighthawk wrote

QUOTE

If we don't fight against them, who will?

I believe the main theme of this thread is that everyone believes that Iraq needs to be liberated, but what was the rush for the US and UK to do it without the backing of the UN because if it were another nation doing this to someone else, the US would have been the first to say, 'You need UN approval' (Please see the thread... 'USA Nations or United Nations')

Post War Iraq - Page 22

QUOTE

I believe the main theme of this thread is that everyone believes that Iraq needs to be liberated, but what was the rush for the US and UK to do it without the backing of the UN because if it were another nation doing this to someone else, the US would have been the first to say, 'You need UN approval'

That may be.  I couldn't care less about the UN.  It has shown itself to be absolutely worthless.  It passed 17 resolutions, each threatening the destruction of Iraq.  When Iraq ignored each one, the UN passed another.

The US asked the UN to live up to its resolutions.  It refuesed, saying that another, more harsh resolution would be passed, and that we should be happy with it.

I'm sorry, it wasn't the UN that had three loaded airplanes deliberatly crashed into its financial and defense 'headquarters', it was the US.  The US and the UK are leading the fight against terrorism, and the UN is sitting there with its hands waving in the air.

The UN is irrelevant, impotent, and totally evil.  Any action that the UN urges can be almost automatically opposed on purely moral grounds.

The UN is not about peace.  It is about world domination of the socialist ideology.  It is about destroying the US, Christianity, and all moral ideals.

But this thread is about Iraq, not the UN.  The UN was against us going in to Iraq for only one reason.  That is that the UN was making a LOT of money on the 'Oil-for-Food' program, and all that money was being controlled directly by the Secretary General's office.  It wasn't about lack of international consensus, it wasn't about humanitarian concerns.  The UN, Germany, France, and Russia were all making huge economic gains from the continued situation in Iraq.  Thus, they didn't want the boat to be rocked.

Now they are upset that since the US took most of the risk, the US is controlling who does business with Iraq for the restoration.  After all, they now want to get back into the economic benefits.

The Iraqi people are thrilled that we did what we did.  They are making huge strides towards having a free Constitutional Republic in place within a year.

The US and the UK waited over a year after deciding that Saddam had to go.  They gave the UN all kinds of chances to do something.  What more do you want?  Do you all want us to just be wimps and let them continue to kill everyone?

NightHawk

Post War Iraq Politics Business Civil & History - Page 22

QUOTE

But this thread is about Iraq, not the UN.  The UN was against us going in to Iraq for only one reason.

Correct, please refer to the other thread to continue those lyrics. However, like I said, if you do not like the UN, then do not call their name only when it suits.... understand? (please respond in the other thread for the UN talks)