Democrats versus Republicans

[Freesail99]

I do not believe that there is any connection between 9/11 and Iraq. I believe that the 9/11 commission agreed with me on that point also. Fact it Bush had it in for Saddam.

Read the back issues of the newspapers at the time and all Bush did was look for a reason to invade. We both know that is why Powell quit after he discovered the pack of lies he had to sell to the UN.

[Freesail99]

Wow Free, do you really believe that?

Yes I do, you have one president lie about a blow job and gets impeached and another's lies lead to the direct death of 4000 Americans, and nothing happens !!!
You bet your ass I believe that.

[SailKing1]

Originally Posted by Freesail99

Please explain to me, how that keeps them out of America or at least acknowledge that Bush did this entire war for his own personal glory/vision of what is right and used whatever misinformation that he could to get others to believe in him. "I'll make you proud Daddy" comes to mind.

EDIT: I forgot we went there to find WMD's when we couldn't find them we went to battle the terrorist.

Wow Free, do you really beleive this?

[SailKing1]

sorry it posted twice.

[PBzeer]

First of all, I didn't say 9/11 was a reason for being in Iraq. I brought it up as the most significant symbol of the larger war on terror. Nor, am I trying, nor will I attempt, to prove or disprove, Bush's reason for the war. You asked why should we be there, I'm simply telling you why I think we should. The war in Iraq, is not a stand alone piece. It's part of a much broader strategy.

Nor am I going to bring up the UN sanctions that were ignored, or any other component, prior to sending the troops. Nor am I going to bring up the Bush Lied meme. (it's almost like arguing religion)

The question still remains, do you believe the US faces an active threat from radical Islam?

[Freesail99]

The question still remains, do you believe the US faces an active threat from radical Islam?

Radical Islam yes, but I don't belive Iraq was radical Islam until we invaded it and even now, I have a hard time thinking it to be so.

[sailaway21]

Free's latest is unfortunately the type of argument that only serves as red meat for the true believer but, let's play it his way for a moment.

In a colossal mistake the Bush administration invades Iraq in pursuit of Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction. Having found Saddam, some evidence of the remains of WMD's but nothing capable of current use, what should the US do?
1. Say oops and immediately pull out.
2. Continue the war and the stabilization of Iraq for new leadership, hopefully democratic in nature.
3. Admit it was really all about Saddam and not the WMD issue and withdraw immediately.
4. Nuke the place because it's obviously a quagmire.
5. Ignore the fact that al-Qaeda are flocking to Iraq to fight and kill the infidel (read, US soldiers) and withdraw immediately.

From where I am sitting those seemed to be the only options available to us at the time. As Powell said in a previous conflict, "you break it, you bought it".

Now we happen to be living in 2008 and not 2002 or 2003. If Free wants to make an argument worthy of respect he should acknowledge history. that the history since then is one of success should not cloud any vision for the future he has to offer. Many factors caused the US and the Iraqi government to achieve success and not just the surge. About the only thing that can be reliably pointed to as anti-success has been the leadership of the Democrat party. But the voters will deal with that matter.

Al-Qaeda is on the run with the Iraqi's hating them more than we do. Democracy of sorts and at least peace is breaking out all over Iraq. The Afghanistan conflict drags on but then Afghanistan is only really an issue in terms of being a homeland to al-Qaeda. It is otherwise of no strategic interest to the US. And we do not pick up our daily papers to read of more terror attacks on western nations. Something is better than it was four, six, or even eight years ago. What caused it?

The point of 4000 deaths of US servicemen and women is not without merit and is regrettable. But the point in fact is that the US military exists to protect the USA. I'd wager that if you'd polled the population of the US and asked them if they thought we'd lose 5000 men in preventing further terror attacks on the civilian populations of western democracy on or about September 11, 2001 they'd have said overwhelmingly that, while regrettable, it was a price we must be willing to pay.

Don't bother with a long response about Iraq not being Afghanistan and no al-Qaeda being there, etc... Reality is that the whole thing is part and parcel of a comprehensive addressing of our problems with the Middle East. An addressing that has been put off way too long. And we're enjoying success for the moment. If you'd like to enter 2008 you might offer thoughts on what the incoming administration plans to do about Iran because that one doesn't seem to be going away any time soon. Perhaps you might start with an offering on what we should do, after Europe and we do nothing, and Israel bombs them.

These are the issues of the day. What prompted the Iraqi invasion is no more an issue than what prompted General McClellan to sit in camp with the Army of the Potomac.

And one last point. Your assertion that 4000 men and women died in service of a lie is beneath you. Whatever you may believe those men and women died in service to their country and their sacrifice, their very willingness to sacrifice, is what allows us peace at home now, just as it always has done. I find it passing ironic that you fail to mention the deaths at the Khobar towers, the embassies, and the USS Cole while that impeached president was busy lying under oath. I guess some deaths matter more than others, eh?

[PBzeer]

Well crap, now I have to type.

There are two primary rules of military strategy. The first is surprise, the second is pick the field of battle. There was not going to be any surprise, so it remained to pick the field of battle. Even a casual review of history would show that Afghanistan is not hospitable to invading armies. Nor was it central to the Mid East region. Tactically, logistically, and strategically, Iraq was the best choice to take the battle to them, rather than play defense at home. (and remember, this is my opinion)

I will say here, because it's unavoidable, that Iraq was given an explicit warning to conform to the previous UN resolutions, or face the consequenses. This was enough reason for me.

He choose not to comply, so in we went. Things went as expected (other than not finding a large cache of WMD's, though smaller amounts where found) and then Bush and his advisors screwed up. By attempting to leave a small footprint, they were unprepared for the ensuing violence, and continued to address it inadequately. The hope for establishing a democratic bastion in the center of the Mid East looked doomed. That is the vital part of the whole effort there.

It is, and was vital. There were specific things that doing so would accomplish (and whether they have because or in spite of Bush, is immaterial) One, we needed to re-establish that we would not back off (ala 'Nam). Two, we needed to engage in their backyard, not ours. And three, we needed to set up a first domino (think Poland) to topple the theocracies supporting the terrorists.

The first two have been accomplished, the third has been given the chance to, but it really isn't up to us if it does.

Might has no purpose, if your enemies know you won't use it. Now they know we will, and that we will through good or bad. al-Queda has been decimated. The money and resources that would have been used to plan more attacks, have been used up in the deserts of Iraq, and there have been no attacks on American soil. That to me, seems a pretty good reason to be there.

[Freesail99]

But the simple fact remains al-Qaeda wasn't in Iraq until we invaded it. Saddam in his own sick way policed his little piece of the world. As far as finding any Wmd, I seem to recall the news media and the administration jumping on anything that would justify us being there.

Sailaways 5 points are very good ones and is the main reason stupid people shouldn't be president. Or people with an agenda for that matter. It is just one more reason to think 3 times before you vote in November.

This entire war thing upsets me greatly, and I am really having chest pains typing answers. So I will beg out for awhile.

[PBzeer]

For when you come back.

al-Queda is just one component of the war. It doesn't matter if they were in Iraq before we came. You engage the enemy where you have the best chance of defeating them, and whatever connection Saddam did or did not have to Islamic terrorists, is immaterial to him being a part of the larger Mid East problem.

You don't win military engagements on defense, ask the folks at the Alamo. You win with offense. We needed to go on offense, and the troops were put in the best possible place to be successful. To send them to Afghanistan, would have been to put them in the place most likely for them to fail. From the British in the 1800's on up to the Soviets, Afghanistan has been a black hole swallowing up all who enter.

If you don't believe that freedom is a basic human instinct, then we shouldn't have gone to Iraq. I believe it is, and only when people are free, can there be peace.