Conquer Club

I just lost my fifth friend to the war with Iraq. He was redeployed for the third time about three months ago, and now he's dead. I am just curious what people's opinions are about this war. I'm sure there are other threads out there, but i'm to lazy to use the search button, or go looking...

we can't blame bush for all the problems. like he said, we can't cut and run. we finish what we start- but the entire notion of the war is wrong. so far we have 21,000 injuries and counting, and i believe 3,000 deaths. 100 civilians get killed everyday, all to instill democracy into Iraq. sure, it works for us, but not for Iraq. look what happened when Saddam Hussein went out of power. all hell broke loose. the iraqis are used to being controlled, and giving them freedom is not the best idea at this time.
however, that doesn't matter since this is a war for oil anyways.
i am against the war and its purpose(s)
but i am also against pulling out now

The only good thing to come from that war was still death , and that was the death of a cruel leader . Isnt that the only thign about war ...... death

I think that the war was a big mistake. There were no weapons of mass destruction, the war was started for other issues using that excuse.

However once that the war went ahead it would be another mistake, and something unfair for the Iraqis if the Americans and British were to pull out. You can't plunge a country into civil war and leave it like that. I think the Coalition forces will have to face the consequences of war and stay there until the situation is stabilised. Unfortunately this will mean the death of more soldiers and Iraqi civilians.

About the loss of soldiers and innocent lives I think it's tragic. It must be horrible to lose persons you love fighting in another country. I express my solidarity to anyone who has suffered such losses.

The US administration fucked up, it's as simple as that. There were no WMDs in Iraq in the first place, they had no clear exit strategy, the de-Baathification of the Iraqi army and administration was a HUGE mistake to say the least.


They fucked up, and the US of A has to pay the price.

I believe the Bush administration (with a little help from the British government) outright lied over the reasons for going to war. That's where I differ from a lot of people opposed to the war - many people still say that the Blair/Bush administrations were genuinely mistaken in thinking Iraq had WMD's, when in fact they just falsified a great deal of "evidence" because they knew there were no WMD's.

Furthermore, the other reasons for war given were also deceitful, and in no way were mistakes on the Bush govt's part. Eg, the "connection" between terrorism and Saddam, Saddam's "involvement" in 9/11, and so on.

This invasion has ruined the lives of millions of people, and has made the world a more dangerous place. Britain and the USA's continued presence is only making things worse in Iraq - many high-ranking British soldiers accept that the occupiers should leave, and as quickly as possible. The UK and USA are not keeping a lid on the continuing violence - they are causing it.

MeDeFe wrote:Tthe de-Baathification of the Iraqi army and administration was a HUGE mistake to say the least.


They fucked up, and the US of A has to pay the price.

Spot on. Once the speedy victory was achieved, the US top brass went against the advise of pretty much every foreign policy and military advisor (particularly the British, I might add), and removed the already functioning administration and army. The only real hope was to leave the Baath party where it was and to leave the army as it was in the hope that these existing structures could control the country, and just prune the bad stuff away, gradually reform whilst not letting the nation slip into sectarian violence (check) and civil war(check).

Unfortunately, we ripped Iraq to pieces and left it wide open to the horrific problems we are experiencing today.

Unfortunately now we're they're we're in it for the long run. We've messed up this country and these people's lives and we've got to sort it out for them, whether that talekes 3 years, 5 years or 15 years.

This 'quick-exist' talk is complete idiocy. The only way we can make it WORSE now is to leave. The one point I agree with Dubya on is that we need to get more moots on the ground and stop the cycle of violence. Lets not pussy out now. We've made our (humongous) mistake lets fix it.

Guiscard wrote:Unfortunately now we're they're we're in it for the long run. We've messed up this country and these people's lives and we've got to sort it out for them, whether that talekes 3 years, 5 years or 15 years.

This 'quick-exist' talk is complete idiocy. The only way we can make it WORSE now is to leave. The one point I agree with Dubya on is that we need to get more moots on the ground and stop the cycle of violence. Lets not pussy out now. We've made our (humongous) mistake lets fix it.

I couldn't disagree more. Having the US and the UK stay in Iraq is just making the same mistake that some of the original neo-cons made when they thought they knew what was best for Iraq. Very often, what seems like liberal humanitarianism to Westerners just looks like more "we-know-best" imperialism to Iraqis. After all, this whole thing has been an old-fashioned imperial adventure.

I wouldn't object to a UN force or maybe a Pan-Arab force taking over from the US, but, given there's no chance of that happening, and there's no reason to suppose the US wants it to happen - even now - the best thing would be for the occupiers to leave as quickly as possible.

The UK and US still have to pay for what they have done, so they should give continuing large amounts of aid to Iraq, including military and other training, but the armies' continued presence is worse than useless.

Ruben Cassar:

There were no weapons of mass destruction, the war was started for other issues using that excuse.


... You see, that's the problem with topics like these. If you're going to say such a thing, you should be specific. Why then was the war started? And where is the specific evidence to back up your claim? Mind, you may very well be right, but just saying it doesn't make it true.

and..

You can't plunge a country into civil war and leave it like that.


... There is no civil war. The present situation does not fit the definition, which requires defined groups with specific goals and definate, identifiable leaders. It's mass chaos to be sure, but civil war... no.

Stopper:

... when in fact they just falsified a great deal of "evidence" because they knew there were no WMD's.


... And there we go again. Pray tell, what was falsified? You might be right, but huge accusations with no evidence serve no purpose. Tony Blair is gay, don't you know? I said it, so it must be true.

... That said, MeDeFe is right. It was, and is, a huge blunder, and we'll be paying for it for years.

.... Not to be an arse, guys, but I hear all this shite from people all the time, and none of them can take their argument beyond that first sentence.

... Cheers.

s.xkitten wrote:I just lost my fifth friend to the war with Iraq. He was redeployed for the third time about three months ago, and now he's dead. I am just curious what people's opinions are about this war. I'm sure there are other threads out there, but i'm to lazy to use the search button, or go looking...

very sorry to hear about your friends.

Nobunaga wrote:Ruben Cassar:

There were no weapons of mass destruction, the war was started for other issues using that excuse.


... You see, that's the problem with topics like these. If you're going to say such a thing, you should be specific. Why then was the war started? And where is the specific evidence to back up your claim? Mind, you may very well be right, but just saying it doesn't make it true.

and..

You can't plunge a country into civil war and leave it like that.


... There is no civil war. The present situation does not fit the definition, which requires defined groups with specific goals and definate, identifiable leaders. It's mass chaos to be sure, but civil war... no.

Stopper:

... when in fact they just falsified a great deal of "evidence" because they knew there were no WMD's.


... And there we go again. Pray tell, what was falsified? You might be right, but huge accusations with no evidence serve no purpose. Tony Blair is gay, don't you know? I said it, so it must be true.

... That said, MeDeFe is right. It was, and is, a huge blunder, and we'll be paying for it for years.

.... Not to be an arse, guys, but I hear all this shite from people all the time, and none of them can take their argument beyond that first sentence.

... Cheers.

As far as i know it was documented that Iraq had no WMD. Even the UN officials said that. Even the US admitted that!

And who are you kidding about civil war? Maybe it does not fit some textbook definition of civil war (like there must be 100,000 deaths to define it a civil war or something like that) but it is a country in disarray. Sects fighting each other. It is civil war. I am sick of hearing on the news that X number of people have died today in Iraq. People are dying like insects over there...

Hitman079 wrote:we can't blame bush for all the problems. like he said, we can't cut and run. we finish what we start- but the entire notion of the war is wrong. so far we have 21,000 injuries and counting, and i believe 3,000 deaths. 100 civilians get killed everyday, all to instill democracy into Iraq. sure, it works for us, but not for Iraq. look what happened when Saddam Hussein went out of power. all hell broke loose. the iraqis are used to being controlled, and giving them freedom is not the best idea at this time.
however, that doesn't matter since this is a war for oil anyways.
i am against the war and its purpose(s)
but i am also against pulling out now

Actually it was him and his cabinet's idea, we dshouldn't take the blame. I hoipe this is the last 'police action' the United States will do.

... Hey, I'm with you on that one.

... Let me tell you bout a friend of mine, this young, very friendly, very nice girl. She's an activist, big time. She sends me e-mails all the time about the evils of Bush and all that typical tripe (she send them to like a hundred people). Well, if you ask her to back up any argument with a single fact, she just can't do it... And I see this a lot, especially with young Americans.

... If we're going to oppose something and make arguments, facts are helpful. That's all I'm saying. My friend looks pretty ridiculous, as super-active an activist as she is... who might very well not be able to find Iraq on a map with no labels.

... And back to you, kitten, I'm sorry you lost your friend. I can't even imagine what that would put a family through.

Nobunaga wrote:Let me tell you bout a friend of mine, this young, very friendly, very nice girl. She's an activist, big time. She sends me e-mails all the time about the evils of Bush and all that typical tripe (she send them to like a hundred people). Well, if you ask her to back up any argument with a single fact, she just can't do it... And I see this a lot, especially with young Americans.

I'm young, and I can prove to you that this bullshit war is crap -

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070226/truthdig

Nobunaga wrote:Stopper:

... when in fact they just falsified a great deal of "evidence" because they knew there were no WMD's.


... And there we go again. Pray tell, what was falsified? You might be right, but huge accusations with no evidence serve no purpose. Tony Blair is gay, don't you know? I said it, so it must be true.

I don't know about Mr Blair. I have a half-baked theory that he took the UK into the war, so he would be known as a war leader, like Churchill, and that would help cover up for his secret homosexual tendencies - which he feels so guilty and dirty about. I think he might be attracted to crap Christian pop singers and louche, vulgar Italians. Like I say, it's still half-baked, so I'll need to come back on that one, give it a year or so.

As to the evidence provided for the war, the first things that spring to mind are

- the "yellow cake from Nigeria" scandal,

- the rip-off of the PhD doctoral thesis,

- the heavy-handed manipulation of the dossier justifying the war on Iraq by the UK government's spin-doctors,

- Although not strictly "evidence", the UK attorney general's apparent volte-face in his judgement on whether the war was legal,

- The Butler inquiry's pretty pathetic conclusion that the PM's office indulged in "sofa government". By "Sofa government" he meant that no-one in the PM's coterie wrote down the minutes of high-level discussions, or had proper meetings. Normal people call this "making sure you leave absolutely no trace whatsoever of things said that might incriminate you."

There's definitely more, but that's just what I remember off the top of my head, and much of this was well-covered in most of the "quality" British press, so it's all easily traceable.

Where I differ from a lot of people is that I believe that the case as far as WMD was concerned was outright falsification - lots of people want to put it down to hubristic thinking amongst a small group of people at the top, and certainly a serious lack of judgment amongst those people.

It's not as if falsifying a case for war is unprecedented in history, I mean - the Manchurian Incident and the Gulf of Tonkin incident spring to mind. Bush wanted a casus belli for the war, and it's not unusual for countries (even democratic ones) just to make one up.

Stopper wrote:It's not as if falsifying a case for war is unprecedented in history, I mean - the Manchurian Incident and the Gulf of Tonkin incident spring to mind. Bush wanted a casus belli for the war, and it's not unusual for countries (even democratic ones) just to make one up.

That's so sad, to kill so many people you don't know in lands you don't know just to get fame, or oil, or revenge, or LAND!(wtf?)! Humanity is so greedy is bullshit.

Stopper wrote:I believe the Bush administration (with a little help from the British government) outright lied over the reasons for going to war. That's where I differ from a lot of people opposed to the war - many people still say that the Blair/Bush administrations were genuinely mistaken in thinking Iraq had WMD's, when in fact they just falsified a great deal of "evidence" because they knew there were no WMD's.

Furthermore, the other reasons for war given were also deceitful, and in no way were mistakes on the Bush govt's part. Eg, the "connection" between terrorism and Saddam, Saddam's "involvement" in 9/11, and so on.

This invasion has ruined the lives of millions of people, and has made the world a more dangerous place. Britain and the USA's continued presence is only making things worse in Iraq - many high-ranking British soldiers accept that the occupiers should leave, and as quickly as possible. The UK and USA are not keeping a lid on the continuing violence - they are causing it.

A UN or pan-arab force is simply not going to happen. If we withdraw we leave a vacuum which will be filled by an endless cycle of violence followed probably either by an invasion by Iran or another dictaror. I agree that we are contributing to the violence, and new more workable policies need to be put in place, but what do you think it would be like if we left! Look at Somalia for an example. Endless militias, lawlessness and eventually there would be a definable civil war. Whatever the cost in the threats to security in Britain and the death of British soldiers that will be multiplied tenfold if we make a quick exist just for the sake of saving face.

As for Nobunaga, the evidence is very much out there in the mass media, I'd have thought this one was reasonably obvious (although Stopper has done a good job of summarising some of the points from a British perspecitve).

The only thing that is keeping Iraq from fitting the traditional definition of Civil War is the western forces in charge. Otherwise it would be Sunni vs Shia on the one hand, a and secularist vs Islamist on the other for control of the country. For one, the Kurds would fight for a seperate state, and if that isn't civil war then I don't know what is.

Stopper wrote:

Nobunaga wrote:Stopper:

... when in fact they just falsified a great deal of "evidence" because they knew there were no WMD's.


... And there we go again. Pray tell, what was falsified? You might be right, but huge accusations with no evidence serve no purpose. Tony Blair is gay, don't you know? I said it, so it must be true.

I don't know about Mr Blair. I have a half-baked theory that he took the UK into the war, so he would be known as a war leader, like Churchill, and that would help cover up for his secret homosexual tendencies - which he feels so guilty and dirty about. I think he might be attracted to crap Christian pop singers and louche, vulgar Italians. Like I say, it's still half-baked, so I'll need to come back on that one, give it a year or so.

As to the evidence provided for the war, the first things that spring to mind are

- the "yellow cake from Nigeria" scandal,

- the rip-off of the PhD doctoral thesis,

- the heavy-handed manipulation of the dossier justifying the war on Iraq by the UK government's spin-doctors,

- Although not strictly "evidence", the UK attorney general's apparent volte-face in his judgement on whether the war was legal,

- The Butler inquiry's pretty pathetic conclusion that the PM's office indulged in "sofa government". By "Sofa government" he meant that no-one in the PM's coterie wrote down the minutes of high-level discussions, or had proper meetings. Normal people call this "making sure you leave absolutely no trace whatsoever of things said that might incriminate you."

There's definitely more, but that's just what I remember off the top of my head, and much of this was well-covered in most of the "quality" British press, so it's all easily traceable.

Where I differ from a lot of people is that I believe that the case as far as WMD was concerned was outright falsification - lots of people want to put it down to hubristic thinking amongst a small group of people at the top, and certainly a serious lack of judgment amongst those people.

It's not as if falsifying a case for war is unprecedented in history, I mean - the Manchurian Incident and the Gulf of Tonkin incident spring to mind. Bush wanted a casus belli for the war, and it's not unusual for countries (even democratic ones) just to make one up.

... This is what I'm talking about. Thanks, Stopper. I've heard of some of this stuff, but not all of it. More stuff to look at for me.

yay, people posted...yay...okay, moving back to the topic at hand...

technically, the first time we went into iraq (this would be with the UN) there was the possibility for Iraq to make WMD, or they had them, depending on who you talk to. so we put Saddam Houssain in as the president type person. then he kicked the US monitoring people out, and then all of the UN investigative force. the UN should have gone in then, but they didn't. bush because president, 9/11 happened, the US was all ready to go "kick some terrorist butt" and bush decided that Iraq would be better and used the WMD as an excuse. so now we are in a war that like 23% of the population supports, getting our boys killed over a pointless thing. at least, thats how its taught at my school...no idea if its right or not, it is a catholic school after all

s.xkitten wrote:technically, the first time we went into iraq (this would be with the UN) there was the possibility for Iraq to make WMD, or they had them, depending on who you talk to. so we put Saddam Houssain in as the president type person. then he kicked the US monitoring people out, and then all of the UN investigative force. the UN should have gone in then, but they didn't.

Pretty much all wrong...

We didn't put Saddam in power after the first Gulf War, he's been in power since 1979.

As for the reasons for invasion, we didn't go in in 1990 'with' the UN, we went in 'as' the UN under a UN directive to use all neccessary force, and it was becuase he had used chemical weapons on the Kurds, nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction in the sense you are thinking of. There was a sort of ongoing battle bwteen the UN inspectors and the Iraqi administration. If I remember rightly, right up to the team under Hans Blix were still looking, and there were all kind sof crazy theories such as movebale factories, secret underground bunkers etc. etc.

The UN shouldn't have gone in becuase they had NOT ascertained a cause for intervention. The cause for intervention by the US and the UK was given as the fact that they could prove Saddam had WMDs aimed which could reach the UK in forty minutes (or something to that effect) but that ultimately turned out untrue (as Stopper showed with some references to the proof). They should have waited for a UN resolution, as they did in 1990, but they didn't.

AAFitz wrote:

s.xkitten wrote:I just lost my fifth friend to the war with Iraq. He was redeployed for the third time about three months ago, and now he's dead. I am just curious what people's opinions are about this war. I'm sure there are other threads out there, but i'm to lazy to use the search button, or go looking...

very sorry to hear about your friends.

Me also. I have too friends currently serving there (and one just back) and I would be devastated if anything happened to them, so I feel for you.

P.S. To the WMD thing, this is one area where I've got to respect the USA's integrity, I was very cynical about the war (as I also opposed the first gulf war) and did not buy into the WMD thing at all (hell the weapons inspectors weren't even allowed to finish their job first before the troops were in) so I fully expected the US to "turn up" some chemical/biological ready scud missiles. But fair play to the Yanks - even when they couldn't find anything at all and were embarrassed the world over and the illegality of the war was proven, they refused to falsify the evidence.

Guiscard wrote:...As for the reasons for invasion, we didn't go in in 1990 'with' the UN, we went in 'as' the UN under a UN directive to use all neccessary force, and it was becuase he had used chemical weapons on the Kurds, nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction in the sense you are thinking of....

Just to be pernickety, the given reason the UN went to war with Iraq was to remove the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait. WMDs were definitely mentioned at the time, but I don't remember it being a big issue until well after the war.

In fact, I don't think the US and other countries said much about the gassing of the Kurds at the time, and nor for a long time afterwards (though I'll accept a correction on that). It seemed only to be brought up by governments when something further was needed to demonise Saddam Hussein's regime.

BTW, I'm not suggesting Saddam Hussein's shouldn't be thought of as anything less than foul, because of the number of people he killed, and the unnecessary wars he started with Iran and Kuwait, but as is well known, the USSR and the US didn't complain much about him when he was on their sides, trying to put down the Islamic revolution in Iran.

flashleg8 wrote:P.S. To the WMD thing, this is one area where I've got to respect the USA's integrity, I was very cynical about the war (as I also opposed the first gulf war) and did not buy into the WMD thing at all (hell the weapons inspectors weren't even allowed to finish their job first before the troops were in) so I fully expected the US to "turn up" some chemical/biological ready scud missiles. But fair play to the Yanks - even when they couldn't find anything at all and were embarrassed the world over and the illegality of the war was proven, they refused to falsify the evidence.

A backhanded compliment if ever I heard one!

Guiscard wrote:
The UN shouldn't have gone in becuase they had NOT ascertained a cause for intervention. The cause for intervention by the US and the UK was given as the fact that they could prove Saddam had WMDs aimed which could reach the UK in forty minutes (or something to that effect) but that ultimately turned out untrue (as Stopper showed with some references to the proof).

The famous "dossier" - turned out to be based on a PhD students dissertation! Also what happened to David Kelly? One of the authors of the dossier - mysterious suicide after talking to the BBC.

Hitman079 wrote:we can't blame bush for all the problems.

Yes we most certainly can. This is HIS war. When Enron failed, we went after the leaders as they were ultimately responsible, as is he.

A fish rots from the head down.

Hitman079 wrote:like he said, we can't cut and run. we finish what we start-

This "cut & run" bullshit is just macho chest thumping. Did we "cut and run" in Vietnam? Should we have stayed 20 more years to "finish the job"? The problem is that nobody, even Mr. Bush can define what constitutes "finishing the job".

Hitman079 wrote:but the entire notion of the war is wrong. so far we have 21,000 injuries and counting, and i believe 3,000 deaths. 100 civilians get killed everyday, all to instill democracy into Iraq. sure, it works for us, but not for Iraq.

Lets also not forget that you, I and our children's children's children have paid $367,429,847,323.00 and counting to the tune of 18 Million dollars every hour we remain. This massive black hole of spending should alarm every American.