Related Information to Post War Iraq

Post War Iraq - Page 46

I read an article in the Deseret News a few months ago that talked about how there was a possibility that everyone could have been frauded about the WMD. It said that Hussain's scientists were taking his money and telling him they were building the WMD, but they weren't developing them at all. So he thought he had them, and the world thought he had them.

If not, you can only imagine how much desert there is in Iraq and how many hiding places there must be. They once found a fleet of heavy aircraft buried beneath the sand by happenstance because the sand blew off one of the aircraft. It wouldn't be too far-fetched to think that maybe the WMD were hidden in the same way. I guess the rationale that there was WMD is based off the fact that Saddam didn't let the UN in and instead risked his leadership position.

And now my two sense on the war.

The war was necessary and people overlook many of the good things that have come out of it, because the media tends to like examining the bad and the scandalous instead. My brother was a Marine and he fought in Iraq and patrolled Baghdad. He didn't enjoy being there because it's war - it's destructive and bloody. Poor guy still had trouble sleeping at night months and months after he returned home. However, he's adamant about the fact that he's glad he went, because he saw the poverty and oppression and he also saw it all beginning to turn around. He saw the goodness the war brought to the people first hand. He saw how badly the Iraqi people needed to be freed from the oppressive situation they had been in so long. I won't argue that many people died, and that's definitely not something positive, but the majority of the Iraqis who died did so because they were posing a considerable threat to the troops. The troops generally followed the rule that they didn't fire on anyone unless they were fired upon first. But I can tell you that from first-hand accounts, Iraq has been much better since the war than it was before it.

About the way things are now, it is a no-win situation for the US. I think they need to stay in certain areas until things die down a bit more. I don't think they are in it for the oil at all, I thought that was a ridiculous claim the first time I heard it. The whole purpose was to change a totalitarian, oppressive, terrorist-harboring nation into a place that could be in more control and work towards the betterment of its people. I think that Bush could have said, "well we aren't going to do anything" and we would have been sitting ducks. Instead, he decided that he'd had enough, and I respect him for trying to make the world better instead of being intimidated.

People hate the US and always will. I went to Europe a few years ago and for the most part, people weren't fond of Americans. And that was a few years ago.

As for the hate spreading in the US, I haven't really seen it happening too much. If anything, I've noticed many people have become more interested in Islam and being educated on what it is really about. If people have grown to hate more, that is because of their own prejudices, and it is not something the President can control.

The Middle East is in a very fragile situation right now. I think that Bush is doing what he can to prevent at least one country from falling into the hands of a self-interested dictator again.

Iraq War Post

First, its funny how you only manage to come across articles that is pro-Bush or pro-Iraq war. Does that already show a bias in your 'search' or 'research'?

And perhaps, that is compounded by the fact that you still believe that the Old West way is the way to go in dealing with situations. "Bang! Thats for staring at me!", "Bang! Thats for snoring!" Sigh* What can I say ......after all, Bush is also of Texan stock, the proud Lone Star state.

And how convenient the wat you bundle those countries together in your argument. Poland, Australia, Britain ..... all happen to be very supportive of the Iraq occupation. But I think using them as examples for that particular context is totally flawed. Australia didn't have to deal with any barbarity; in fact the only barbarity was those exacted on the Aborigines by the new convict immigrants back then. Britain slaughtered indigenous natives everywhere they landed in their quest to build their empire. So, tell me .... were the natives (they had their own cultures to begin with) threatening them then? Who came to threaten whom? Poland had undergone an oppressive communist regime, and it was the people (I repeat here ... The People) who revolted and brought down their own regime. Not because the US or anyone else invaded their country and brought them freedom. In fact, if anything, Poland should be able to comprehend how the Iraqis feel as they were also overran by foreign invading forces back during WWII.

I would totally agree if Poland was used as an example for Iraq to follow .... and that is to show the Iraqis that it is possible to change their country's oppressive government, but they have to take the initiatives themselves!

I would also agree if Britain's experiences were used as an example of how the government can be changed peacefully via non-violent means..... again, if only the people would take the initiatives themselves. Think India and Gandhi. Think Malaysia and Tunku Abdul Rahman. I know this is too small a fact for you all to know, and probably not even in any western history books save those in Britain, but we are very proud of the fact that Malaysia back in 1957 negotiated our independence from the British bloodlessly, while having to fight communist insurgency at the same time. And we did it on our own, and in our own way.

If the US is not so hung up on their own perceived supremacy, and if only they will stop and take a deep breath before they spew their bellicose, then only will they see that the rest of the world has had centuries of experiences in dealing with all kinds of human conflicts and stirves. They may perhaps be able to draw on some of those experiences. Maybe even a small nation like Malaysia may be able to share how we managed to effectively win the war against insurgency. America, after all, only has two centuries worth of experience to draw down on ... the rest of the world had milleniums. However, I cannot end this post without mentioning a great American, and I must give credit where credit is due. The US would not be the US now ..... if not for Abraham Lincoln showing compassion to the vanquished, and to extend out the hand of friendship to the other side, and to get them to partake in nation building.

If Bush would only follow his predecessor and show a bit of compassion to the rest of the world and listen to their input. Don't just haughtily tell them "our way or the highway". Such lack of respect deserves no respect in reciprocity.

Post War Iraq History & Civil Business Politics

I don't think that's what he said, that he believes in the lawless Old West. What he said, in my view, was that that area now is *like* the Old West was. Not that he thinks that is the way to go.

Offtopic but, Welcome back! It's good to see you again

Roz

Page 46 Iraq War Post

The Old West was tamed by a variety of means, including the Colt (people taking personal responsibility for their own defense), the Army, and the Law. When people began to respect the rule of law, the West settled down. No, it wasn't a matter of "Bang. That's for snoring." It was, "Bang. That's for stealing your neighbor's cattle." and, "Bang. That's the penalty for murder."

In Iraq right now, you have al Sadr, who is a lawless element, funded and supported by the Mullahs in Iran, and the Sunni Baathists in Fallujah, who would really prefer to go back to the good old days of oppression BY them.

It means that everywhere I read, I see all the anti-Bush, anti-war articles. You all paraphrase them continuously. So, to counter that, I try to show that there is another side to the argument.

According to polls done in Iraq, the majority of Iraqi people are happy that the US invaded. Only 15% want the US to leave right away. The majority of them respect and admire the US soldiers there. For the first time in decades, all the schools in the country are running. More people have electricity than at any time in the past. Freedom is expression is available. Satellite dishes are sprouting up all over the country, as the people are able, for the first time in over 3 decades, to hear what other countries are saying.

Internet cafes are sprouting up all over, as well.

Find and read a few of the blogs of Iraqi people. They will really open up your eyes.

Iraq War Post

Polls are interesting. They are soley based on the people that take them. Do we know how many of the people in Iraq answered the poll and how many live there? It would be nice to know the actual percentage of people that responded in the poll.

I honestly have not decided whether to vote for Bush this year....... I am not sure that anyone else is better at this point. What do ya'll think?

Post War Iraq

This thread is about Iraq, not Bush specifically. I believe you will find the discussion you are looking for in The Next US President

Post War Iraq - Page 46

I thought this was an interesting post from another forum.

" GSR_tufelhunden
The Master of All...you shall all perish under my might

Registered: Aug 2002
Location:
Posts: 946

... 3. and lastly, some have made the argument that there was no case to go to war. those who make that argument have vision on the history of conflict. The fact is, the U.S. was already at war, but the U. S. was actually on the defensive the whole time. Allow me to briefly describe the changes in modern conflict from the misconception of past conflict.

Early wars were fought as hand to hand, and as the bowmen came to be present in conflict, hand to hand started to fade, and distance between the conflicting sides grew. As the distance grew, it became essential that the side that could strike the furthest woul be the victor, byt being able to inflict damage in a position where the opposition could not reach. As gunpowder enterd the scene, this distance became even greater. Yet with all the advances in ranging, men still lined up to face each other before battle, and the battle was pretty much won by the side that didn't flee. This was apparent during WWI in France where each side was entrenched and not until one side finally gave up their position did the other become victorious. Many lives were lost by sensless charging of the opponent's line of defense. As technology grew, so did the weapons of war. Distances could now be covered in a relatively short time with the advent of the tank, jeep, airplane, ect. This brought about a new concept in warfare, rendering past defensive positions such as the French Majino line obselete. Standing in one position and fighting gave way to maneouvering and tactics. As the decades wor one, it became evident that the side with the most maneouverable and speedy machines was the victor. Then towards the mid 1950's, this all changed once again. The French were outdone in the far east asia country of vietnam....by an enemy that was inferior in technology and equipment, but fought a whole diffrent type of war. Gurellia warfare was beginnign to make it's way to the forefornt of the major battlefield. The answer to this was lightning strikes by air mobile assault forces. During the 1960's through the 1980's, this was the norm, and every nation that prepared for war prepared to fight gurilla type conflicts in the terrain of Central Europe, even the U.S. The concept that an invading army would ever be fought on american soil was hardly ever rehearsed. The thought process was that missles would be the attack, long range intercintinental missles. (as you see here the thinking dating back to the midevil times of distance and range of the bow and arrow) forgotten though was the gurellia tactics of the modern enemy, who continued to train and attack targets of his enemy around the world. There were aproximately 13 diffrent attakcs by the same terrorist core from 1983 to 1993. All of these attakcs however happened away from the homeland of the US citizen. A false sense of security enveloped most everyone, and the biggest worry on each person's mind was what color to buy my new SUV in, completly oblivious to the fact that there were millions of people on the other side of the world that would rather die killing americans than fournacate. Attacks at specif targets against the US began to pop up, the WTC, the USS cole, embassy bombings, planes shot down, hijackings. For 8 years the aggression of the "enemy" steadily increased, while the U.S. sat on it's laurels picking it's nose and realatively unaffected by these "little" tantrums of a class of people that considered themselves at "war" with the U.S. The U.S. of course did not cinsider itself at war because the concept of war was still that of "lets face each other and see who drops first". September 11, 2001 was an awakening. Realization set in that there are people in the world who hate the U.S. so much, that all people of the U.S., not just soldiers, wer ethe enemy, adn that they would do everything they could to kill them. This generated a complete new understanding of modern conflict, never before concived by the average person. With the new understanding also come new methods. The history of the U.S. dating all the way back to it's beginning has been one of defense and retaliation. Preemptive strikes against a potential hostile target were unthinkable. 9/11 proved that noone, in any nation, on any continent can afford to be passive. It was Passiveness which gave rise to Napoleon, hitler, Stalin, Usman Bin Laden, and yes, Saddam. Of course with any conflict there are peace mongers who believe that UBL had every right to attack the U.S., because our beliefes and views infringed upon his ideals.

The person who believes that is an idiot, and the person who believes preemtive strkes are wrong is an idiot also.

In 1932, if France had been preemptive instead of defensive, the holocaust would never have happened.............


"


https://www.gsrclan.com/comcenter/showthrea...15&pagenumber=1

Edited: moo on 25th Apr, 2004 - 3:45am

Post War Iraq Politics Business Civil & History - Page 46

why doesnt america get rid of its own dictator (G.Bush) and Sharon the israeli prime minister who watched a masaccar froma tower and was smiling as he seen the arab women and children been beaten up in sabra america should of got rid of binladen i wish they find him and beat him up sooo bad saddam was a dictator but so is tonyblair why not free the weed over 76% want to even though im fro the 24% against it but anyway where is democrecy!!!!