Iraq war

[Common Sense Al]

I'm tired of the Iraq war. At this point, I think we should leave in an orderly manner. It's gone on way too long and cost FAR MORE than what we were told it would cost. I'm interested to know what people think.

I use to consider myself a Republican, but I am now torn on some key issues.

Interesting:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iE2J ... QD8V1I6PO0

[josh]

I dont think a 2 response poll is adequate for this type of decision. With the significant improvements made since the "surge" started, it doesnt sound like we will need 100k troops over there any more. But if we pull out (orderly or not) then we will have the blood of millions of innocent people on our hands as that country will see a level of genocide not seen since Darfur. Look no farther than Vietnam to see what happens when we leave too early.


If you pay attention to what is happening now with our troop level, you could consider what we are doing now as orderly withdrawal. We are bringing back troops as the situation on the ground merits. That is the only type of withdrawal I am for. Don't let 2 years of misteps in the prosection of the war cloud you to the improvements made over the last year. It is night and day. I suggest reading some of the Iraqi bloggers or Michael Yon to get an inside look at what is happening throughout Iraq.

[skiing1974]

of course the surge works short term. even bigger surge will do even better. again, short term. what is the plan long term though? US can not have 140,000+ troops there for the next 100 years. the surge works, but the peace is not sustainable without that surge and without troop presence. I was never for the stupid war there, I am just analyzing what now after what's been done has been done. Miserable foreign policy continues, rule by force, arrogance and ignorance. Kosovo just another example.

[HEAD]

How about adding to your options"never should have gone at all".

[josh]

Never Should Have Gone?
What would your recommendation have been Mr President HEAD in the face of massive evidence of WMD (foget that it was ultimately not accurate - most everyone, Democrats included believed it was accurate), evidence of terrorist support, history of aggression against the US and US allies, and the fact that we had just been attacked by terrorists on our own soil? If you were president and you were faced with all of that evidence what would you have done?

9/11 changed everything. It was no longer safe to allow terrorists and counties who support terrorism to have a free pass. 9/11 forced us to confront the evilness of Islamofascism head on. You don't get a second chance at diplomacy once they have set off a nuclear weapon in the US. If a terrorist country or regime is pursuing nuclear/bilogical/chemical weapons you have to act. What did UN diplomacy get us in Iran...in Iraq...in North Korea?

So - what would your plan be Mr President?

[HEAD]

So - what would your plan be Mr President?

I would have focused all my attention on the people that attacked us, instead of going after a secular dictator who had nothing to do with 9/11. Was he a bad guy, sure he was. He didn't come forward about his WMDs becasue ie he did, he would have Iran and Turkey invading the next day. I'm not into nation building. IMHO, Iraq was planned before Bush took office. Powell, Chaney, Rumsfeld, all had 1 thing in common. They were all part of GW1. I had my suspisions back then. Bin Laden hated Saddam becasue of his secualr run gov't. The only thing they had in common was us. The funny thing is, we were in bed with both of them back in the 70's. We supplied both of them with weapons and support. Look where that got us.
All I'm saying is I thought it was a bad idea back then and I wish we could look into that chrystal ball to see how the world would be if we did things differently. Not saying I am right and anybody else is wrong. Just my opinion.

[Brian]

Never Should Have Gone?
What would your recommendation have been Mr President HEAD in the face of massive evidence of WMD (foget that it was ultimately not accurate - most everyone, Democrats included believed it was accurate), evidence of terrorist support, history of aggression against the US and US allies, and the fact that we had just been attacked by terrorists on our own soil? If you were president and you were faced with all of that evidence what would you have done?

9/11 changed everything. It was no longer safe to allow terrorists and counties who support terrorism to have a free pass. 9/11 forced us to confront the evilness of Islamofascism head on. You don't get a second chance at diplomacy once they have set off a nuclear weapon in the US. If a terrorist country or regime is pursuing nuclear/bilogical/chemical weapons you have to act. What did UN diplomacy get us in Iran...in Iraq...in North Korea?

So - what would your plan be Mr President?

Let me preface by saying that I am a Republican. Im saying that now because my next sentences will sound like a far left liberal...

The whole thing about Iraq was about oil. More specifically, how the control of that oil by an unstable regional area could tremendously affect our economy.

Why dont we invade Darfur or other areas in the world with Dictators, terrorist, and horrible atrocities going on?

Because it doesnt affect our economy over here.

I understand how valuable oil is to our country so I understand its impact and wont pretend to think that we dont have a huge vested interest over there.

Just dont lie to me. It gets old.

Regarding Iraq, we really dug ourselves into a hole over there. We cant pull out now or even put a timetable. If we leave, its a huge vacuum that allows any whack job to come in and reign again.

[josh]

If I am not mistaken, the "people who attacked us" burned up in the crash. So that meant that we had to go after those responsible for harboring, training, financing, and equiping such terrorists. And if you think that list begins and ends with Afghanistan then you do not pay much attention to world affairs.

The whole "then why dont we invade xxxxx" is not really an argument at all. The answer to EVERY global crisis is not war, just like the answer to EVERY global crisis is not diplomacy. It is funny that the same people who cry about not putting together a global coalition for Iraq seem to be the very ones wondering why we dont just go it alone in Darfur! The last I checked, and I check often, Darfur was neither developing WMD, exporting terrorists, financing terrorsts, or equiping terrorists. I could stop here with reasons why we didnt invade Darfur. But also, Darfur is not remotely similar to Iraq. Darfur is not subject to a single mad dictator who is oppressing people. It is a country torn apart by multiple ethnic and religious groups. Darfur is nothing like Iraq and to try and compare the two shows either an ignorance of the situation in Darfur or an attempt to try and deflect attention away from Iraq.

The world changed after 9/11. Before 9/11, secular dictators who just minded their own business (nevermind that their business included training and funding terrorism) would not get much scrutiny outside of certain inteligence units (and not even all intel units). But after 9/11 we understand what type of damage a country full of mud huts and goat farmers can do when they decide that they will become the worlds training grounds for terrorists. Bad enough when your country can only offer lots of land to train in and safe haven...worse when you throw in a country that has access to WMD. Sadam had nothing to do with 9/11 - arguable, but happy to concede that point. He had everything to do with financing and training others who would have been more than happy to pull off their own 9/11.

I don't have time now to dispell the Bin Laden hated Sadam myth...but when people recite that mantra, I know...not think...but KNOW that they have almost zero correct information about the workings of the Middle East.

[HEAD]

If I am not mistaken, the "people who attacked us" burned up in the crash. So that meant that we had to go after those responsible for harboring, training, financing, and equiping such terrorists. And if you think that list begins and ends with Afghanistan then you do not pay much attention to world affairs.

Never said it did. However, The US trained, financed, and equipped such terrorists. We did it to bin Laden during the Soviet/Afghan war and we did it to Saddam during the Iran/Iraq war.

Sadam had nothing to do with 9/11 - arguable, but happy to concede that point. He had everything to do with financing and training others who would have been more than happy to pull off their own 9/11.

And the proof is where????? And I am not talking about what Rush, Hannity or Coulter said.

I don't have time now to dispell the Bin Laden hated Sadam myth...but when people recite that mantra, I know...not think...but KNOW that they have almost zero correct information about the workings of the Middle East.

Why stop now. Unless you have no information to back any of your statements. By your last line, are obviously a scholar on the subject of radical Islam. I guess I was wrong to make my statement when Bin Laden himself called Saddam an Infidel on a tape that was reported by al-Jazeera and authenticated by the US. But what do I know. According to you, nothing.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0211-11.htm

[slider701]

Can we add another line to the poll:

Pull every single troop out in a 24 hr period. On the 25th hr drop about 5 glass makers (nukes) on the whole region and turn the whole place in one giant Coke bottle.

I bet you can find a few brothers of lost police and fireman in 9/11 to fly the plane and a few widows of other lost in the twin tower to pull the trigger on dropping the bombs.

Wait 6 months......send a team in to get the oil.

Its time to stop messing around with this....time to stop being involved in the middle of Holy wars. 99% of the people over there hate us anyways. Time to live up to the "evil American" reputation.

While we're at it...swing by Venezuela on the way home from Iraq and drop a few bombs on Chavez.....he is the next crazy b@#tard to start a war with the US.

[skiing1974]

Slider, I hope you were just being sarcastic, or I tried to see it that way...

[josh]

A credentialed scholar – no. But I spent the better part of two years studying the Middle East as I went through the application and vetting process to work in the intelligence industry. I don’t currently have first hand on the ground information, but I think I have pretty good reliable, open source mostly, information nodes about these things. I wouldn’t think of coming on here and making stuff up - not about this. Oh..and just because someone who you don’t like presents evidence that you don’t like - you can't summarily dismiss the evidence as inaccurate. Your request that I provide evidence other than something given by Rush, Hannity, et al is silly. I think that is what is called an ad hominem attack. You lose points in a debate for stuff like that.


Here are a few examples of why I think you don’t know what you are talking about when you state emphatically and unequivocally that Osama hated Saddam and would never work with him. And by the way – that link you posted must have been the wrong one. It didn’t even come close to proving your point that Osama would never work with Saddam. It merely called those types of “socialist governments” infidels. In fact, it proves just the opposite. Osama’s taped message was calling on ALL MUSLIM countries to attack the imperial aggressors. He didn’t say, “I call on only Wahabi Mulsims” to attack. Anyways…


You can google the following items for support (to make sure I didn’t make any up) – pretty easy to find:

In 1998 when the Clinton Justice Department indicted bin Laden, the indictment said, "In addition, al-Qaida reached an understanding with the Government of Iraq that al-Qaida would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al-Qaida would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq."


In October 2002, George Tenet warned the Senate, "We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaida going back a decade."


Nearly 80 senators also believed that connection when they cited reasons to go to war against Saddam: ". . . Whereas members of al-Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq."

Iraq not only gave sanctuary to Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas, but also paid the families of West Bank suicide bombers $25,000 rewards.

In addition to those examples of pre-war knowledge of Saddam’s ties to terror…post invasion, we have gathered more information about Saddam’s regime than we know what to do with (the DOCEX project). At the current rate – it would take another 30 years to translate all the documents we have. Some of those deal directly with your lack of belief regarding Saddam’s ties to terror, such as uncovering three well equipped and funded training camps in Samarra, Ramadi, and Salman-Pak (this particular camp had a commercial fuselage used in training).Most of the fighters at these camps were drawn from Northern Africa with close ties to AQ and included groups like GSPC and Sudanese Islamic Army. These camps trained around 2k terrorists each year for 3-4 years in the late 90’s.

Also – throughout the 90’s Saddam sponsored the "Popular Islamic Conferences" at the al Rashid Hotel that drew the most radical Islamists from the region to Baghdad.

Newsweek reported from one of these conferences that "Islamic radicals from all over the Middle East, Africa and Asia converged on Baghdad to show their solidarity with Iraq in the face of American aggression." One speaker praised "the mujahed Saddam Hussein, who is leading this nation against the nonbelievers." Another speaker said, "Everyone has a task to do, which is to go against the American state."


It is completely naïve (but fits nicely with the anti-war slogans) that Saddam had no ties to terrorism. None of this proves he had anything to do with 9/11 directly. But that is no longer the point in a post 9/11 world. As I said, the direct attackers died, one is sitting in supermax prison, and a couple more are hiding out in Northern Pakistan. Other than that, we can’t go after those directly responsible for 9/11 – but we can go after those planning the next 9/11. I am happy we finally had a leader willing to confront evil head on. The lack of such leader spans previous republican and democrat presidents alike. I hope and pray, that if for no other reason, Hilary and Obama do not get elected and pull us back into an “America First”, defensive stance. The risks to us and the Middle East are too grave

[HEAD]

In 1998 when the Clinton Justice Department indicted bin Laden, the indictment said, "In addition, al-Qaida reached an understanding with the Government of Iraq that al-Qaida would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al-Qaida would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq."


In October 2002, George Tenet warned the Senate, "We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaida going back a decade."


Nearly 80 senators also believed that connection when they cited reasons to go to war against Saddam: ". . . Whereas members of al-Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq."

Just because the federal gov't says something is fact, that doesn't mean that it is true.

Iraq not only gave sanctuary to Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas, but also paid the families of West Bank suicide bombers $25,000 rewards.

Yes he did, but that was for his hatred for Isreal.

I never said he was a nice guy. All I said was that in my opinion, Iraq was going to be invaded weather 9/11 happened or not. Once 9/11 happened, Iraq should have been put on the back burner and our efforts put on finding Bin Laden. Bush even said himself that he isn't too concerned about Bin Laden.
You have your opinion and I have mine. That is why we have this forum so we can discuss opinions in this manner.

[Common Sense Al]

of course the surge works short term. even bigger surge will do even better. again, short term. what is the plan long term though? US can not have 140,000+ troops there for the next 100 years. the surge works, but the peace is not sustainable without that surge and without troop presence. I was never for the stupid war there, I am just analyzing what now after what's been done has been done. Miserable foreign policy continues, rule by force, arrogance and ignorance. Kosovo just another example.

I agree with this. The miltary is stretched very thin and under a lot of stress. We just can't keep this up forever. I think it is time we forced (by leaving) the Iraq gov't and its police (that we have already spent years training) to get their problems worked out. We can't be there babysitting forever and have already been there too long.

The high estimates of what the war would cost were laughed at, but now we have far surpassed even those estimates.

Sometimes I think a few people (not all of course) in the military just want the war to go on so they can keep their jobs.

I think by being there we are creating more hate and doing very little good.

I don't think the Iraq war was about oil.

I don't think you can trust "gov't intelligence" anymore.

As for arming our enemies in Afghanistan, I saw and liked Charlie Wilson's War. Good movie and I recommend it.

I think Democrats will be in control again in 2009.

[neighbor]

The high estimates of what the war would cost were laughed at, but now we have far surpassed even though estimates.

Agree.

Sometimes I think a few people (not all of course) in the military just want the war to go on so they can keep their jobs.

Hmmm... maybe the sentiment of a few 'good old boy' Brigadears, but I don't think they has that much influence.

I think by being there we are creating more hate and doing very little good.

I tend tend to disagree. If all I went by was main stream media, I might agree. Coming from a military family, and personally knowing several military personnel, I have to disagree based on their (not mine) first hand, on the ground in Iraq, experience. They all say, in general, they are well received. One friend put it, for every bad guy, there are hundreds of appreciative citizens. They do say, however, the Iraqi citizens are divided on whether we stay there or not. But that is based on their desire for their government to take control of their country, not because of a dislike of our troop presence.

I don't think the Iraq war was about oil.

I agree with that one.

I don't think you can trust "gov't intelligence" anymore.

I would rephrase that to say, "can't trust what government intelligence is willing to tell us".

I think Democrats will be in control again in 2009.