Due to the length of the original post, (http://www.pcqanda.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=4&topic_id=50479&mesg_id=50479&page=),I'm starting a second post so that those who are on dial-up can contribute their thoughts, if they desire.

I'll start off by replying to Doctor Midnight's replies (reply #81)
----------------------------------------------------------------
ME: Yeah, it's great they got him.
I feel SO much safer now that we have removed him from power.
Was it worth having over 400 of our kids killed?

DOC: Anyone that believes this operation was centered only on removing Saddam from power is living in a fantasy world. As far as the number of deaths are concerned, the "worth" is already becoming apparant. After all, when was the last time you heard of a hundred or so Iraqi civilians being dipped in acid or summarily shot?

ME: Besides the 400 plus US servicemen and women, plus the admittedly unverified accounts of 1,500 to 3,500 (some even put the number at 10,000 plus) Iraqi civilians, plus the nearly 100 soldiers from other coalition numbers, plus those killed in terrorist activities over the last several days, the death toll continues to rise. It is my sincere belief that the reason given for the war by the Bush administration centered around the "fact" that Iraq possessed WMD's. Yes, there were other reasons given; for instance, one being a claimed direct tie to the WTC attacks and Bin Laden, that has yet to be proven. The Bush administration at one point claimed they had a document showing Saddam had tried to buy radioactive ingredients from Africa. This was discovered to be a forged, false document. There is the ongoing investigation regarding the identity of the source of the leak that identified the wife of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson as a CIA operative. Mr. Wilson believes this was done because his wife had information that showed Iraq did not have WMD's. Look, even if Bush unknowingly was using faulty intelligence upon which to base his decision, still doesn't make his decision the correct one.
Correct me if I am wrong, but me thinks this is the first time in history that the US invaded another country that was not DIRECTLY a threat to the United States. I am sure there are and have been other countries with diabolical leaders, and I don't see us invading them.
On the other hand, maybe we did scare the shit out of Libya.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

ME: Why do some of you feel this is the end of the war?

DOC: I've never met anyone that thought this was the end of the war. Please give me an example.

ME: I can't give you an example. I plead guilty to reading things into other's posts that weren't actually said, but were implied.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

ME: I support the troops, but they shouldn't be there in the first place. The violence isn't going to stop, and neither is terrorism. There is so much hate in the Arab world against the US that capturing Saddam is barely going to make a difference.

DOC: (edited to save space)
Taking the capture of Saddam in and of itself, and not relating it to popular support for the U.S. in the Arab world, seems to have given us (and in turn the Iraqi civilian population) a distinct advantage, the fruits of which are already being harvested. Just like any dictator, Hussein likened himself to a deity, a prophet of some unnamed religion which believed itself to be pure and above all others, even other Arabs (such as those from Kuwait, UAE, or even Egypt). Like Stalin's personality cult, Hitler's Volksgemeinschaft and "Hitler Myth", and Mussolini's National Identity, all power is derived directly from the leader, and all blame is placed on his subordinates. The invasion of Kuwait failed? It was the Generals, or the Shi'ites, or the Kurds. 4,000 were gunned down in Kerbala? Shia uprising, what else could be done? It is this absolute power that allows a single person to have total control over their subjects. It is also a weakness, in that once the leader has been exposed, people will slowly start to lose faith. To put it in Ronald Reagan terms "Support for Saddam will not go away overnight. But it will go away. It will go away because the Iraqi people WANT it to go away."

ME: Good points. I hope this turns out to be correct, but I don't know if it will be that simple. I think the fight against terrorism is going to be, like it has been pointed out, a never-ending battle, and it isn't going to fade away or diminish just because of Saddam's capture. I would think that somewhere out there in this big world is someone ready and willing to fill in his shoes.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

ME: Did you personally feel threatened by Saddam before the war started?

DOC: I feel threatened by anyone that can sleep at night knowing they have unjustly murdered thousands upon thousands of people. It would be insanity to NOT feel threatened.

ME: What about Guinea, where "The population is suffering heavily from the social and economic crisis, and the leadership continues to suppress critical voices through intimidation and state violence."?

What about Sudan, where "Most disturbing are increasing reports of major human rights violations in the west, where some 600,000 persons have been displaced in what resembles the government’s strategy in the oilfields over the last four years"?

What about Serbia, where "The incomplete peace in southern Serbia is further weakened by the continuing uncertainty over Kosovo’s final status. The international community will need to remain engaged, pressing both Belgrade and Albanian politicians to fulfil all aspects of the Konculj Agreement, while focusing more attention on economic development. The UN mission in Kosovo (UNMIK), the NATO troops there (KFOR) – particularly the U.S. contingent – and the Serbian government all need to reassess their performance."?

What about Georgia, Burundi, Rwandi, Uganda, Ethiopia, Somalia, Zimbabwe, Angola, Nepal, Pakistan, Kashmir etc, etc. ? What is so special about Iraq that their citizens rate higher on the "Let's Invade and Help" charts than those from other countries where people are dying needlessly? It wouldn't be that natural resource so abundant in Iraq, would it?

Sleep tight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

ME: Where are the WMD's that were the "reason" the war began in the first place? WHERE ARE THEY?

DOC: Anyone that needs to be shown a stockpile of WMD's to justify the invasion of Iraq is not, IMHO, going to be convinced by any reason. If anyone requires more proof than the brutality that the regime brought to Iraq, well that is just sad. There are some people that simply cannot defend themselves, and it sickens me that we live in a world where nothing is done until it's too late, when all we can do is claim "we didn't know it was happening." Well, we did know, we've known for a long time, and what better time than the present to do what we can to help out the proverbial little guy?

Speaking of helping out the little guys, see above answer.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
ME: Sure the world is a better place now that Saddam is kaput, but ask yourself, was it worth the billions of dollars and hundreds of lives that it cost to capture him?

DOC: Again, I believe this relates back to your assertion that someone out there believes that the capture of Saddam somehow signaled 2 minute warning. I don't know anyone who believes that, it is a foolish notion.

ME: I've come to the conclusion that these discussions in this forum don't change anyone's mind. We all come here with our beliefs held tight and no room for any other view point. Me included.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

To Newbee: you made the comment "THE LAST THING WE SHOULD DO NOW IS TO PULL OUT".

I've never said we should. Pulling out now doesn't resolve anything, other than saving some soldier's lives.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
One other tidbit: Number of US Senators with children serving in the military: One (Tim Johnson, Democrat of South Dakota)

Wow, we're on a roll now! First let me say that I'm glad you replied, and I wish you a Happy New Era of Time Description Based on the Popular Calendar of the Day!

ME: Yeah, it's great they got him.
I feel SO much safer now that we have removed him from power.
Was it worth having over 400 of our kids killed?

DOC: Anyone that believes this operation was centered only on removing Saddam from power is living in a fantasy world. As far as the number of deaths are concerned, the "worth" is already becoming apparant. After all, when was the last time you heard of a hundred or so Iraqi civilians being dipped in acid or summarily shot?

ME: Besides the 400 plus US servicemen and women, plus the admittedly unverified accounts of 1,500 to 3,500 (some even put the number at 10,000 plus) Iraqi civilians, plus the nearly 100 soldiers from other coalition numbers, plus those killed in terrorist activities over the last several days, the death toll continues to rise. It is my sincere belief that the reason given for the war by the Bush administration centered around the "fact" that Iraq possessed WMD's. Yes, there were other reasons given; for instance, one being a claimed direct tie to the WTC attacks and Bin Laden, that has yet to be proven. The Bush administration at one point claimed they had a document showing Saddam had tried to buy radioactive ingredients from Africa. This was discovered to be a forged, false document. There is the ongoing investigation regarding the identity of the source of the leak that identified the wife of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson as a CIA operative. Mr. Wilson believes this was done because his wife had information that showed Iraq did not have WMD's. Look, even if Bush unknowingly was using faulty intelligence upon which to base his decision, still doesn't make his decision the correct one.
Correct me if I am wrong, but me thinks this is the first time in history that the US invaded another country that was not DIRECTLY a threat to the United States. I am sure there are and have been other countries with diabolical leaders, and I don't see us invading them.
On the other hand, maybe we did scare the shit out of Libya.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
As far as I know, the deal with Libya started about 10 months ago, which is not coincidence.

OK, so back to the main point you are trying to make. Yes, there have been casualties, as there will be in any conflict. After all, if it were any other way it wouldn't be war, it would be just a nasty argument with a lot of pushing and shoving going on. Now, I'm not trying to defend Bush (because I think he did to some extent mislead people, but I don't entirely believe that it was his intention to mislead people.) Poor intelligence can lead to all kinds of disasters, (hey guys, this Enigma code is unbreakable!) but I don't think I have the ability to get into detail about a lot of these types of historical events. Believe it or not, American history is my weakest point.

All the other claims for an attack, for me personally, were footnotes in the broader scheme of things. If a person chooses to believe something is of more importance or urgency, that is their right, but it doesn't mean that everyone else thinks the same way.
---------------------------------------------------------------------



ME: Why do some of you feel this is the end of the war?

DOC: I've never met anyone that thought this was the end of the war. Please give me an example.

ME: I can't give you an example. I plead guilty to reading things into other's posts that weren't actually said, but were implied.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair enough. The biggest problem with text-based communication is that you can't see another persons facial expressions, hear their tone, etc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------


ME: I support the troops, but they shouldn't be there in the first place. The violence isn't going to stop, and neither is terrorism. There is so much hate in the Arab world against the US that capturing Saddam is barely going to make a difference.

DOC: (edited to save space)
Taking the capture of Saddam in and of itself, and not relating it to popular support for the U.S. in the Arab world, seems to have given us (and in turn the Iraqi civilian population) a distinct advantage, the fruits of which are already being harvested. Just like any dictator, Hussein likened himself to a deity, a prophet of some unnamed religion which believed itself to be pure and above all others, even other Arabs (such as those from Kuwait, UAE, or even Egypt). Like Stalin's personality cult, Hitler's Volksgemeinschaft and "Hitler Myth", and Mussolini's National Identity, all power is derived directly from the leader, and all blame is placed on his subordinates. The invasion of Kuwait failed? It was the Generals, or the Shi'ites, or the Kurds. 4,000 were gunned down in Kerbala? Shia uprising, what else could be done? It is this absolute power that allows a single person to have total control over their subjects. It is also a weakness, in that once the leader has been exposed, people will slowly start to lose faith. To put it in Ronald Reagan terms "Support for Saddam will not go away overnight. But it will go away. It will go away because the Iraqi people WANT it to go away."

ME: Good points. I hope this turns out to be correct, but I don't know if it will be that simple. I think the fight against terrorism is going to be, like it has been pointed out, a never-ending battle, and it isn't going to fade away or diminish just because of Saddam's capture. I would think that somewhere out there in this big world is someone ready and willing to fill in his shoes.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

I never said it would be easy! Nor did I say that terrorism as a concept and implementation of political force would go away completely. But I disagree strongly in that I firmly believe terrorism will eventually diminish. To what extent, I have no idea, but it will start to taper off. Unless WWIII comes along, in which case neither of us will have time to argue.

---------------------------------------------------------------------


ME: Did you personally feel threatened by Saddam before the war started?

DOC: I feel threatened by anyone that can sleep at night knowing they have unjustly murdered thousands upon thousands of people. It would be insanity to NOT feel threatened.

ME: What about Guinea, where "The population is suffering heavily from the social and economic crisis, and the leadership continues to suppress critical voices through intimidation and state violence."?

What about Sudan, where "Most disturbing are increasing reports of major human rights violations in the west, where some 600,000 persons have been displaced in what resembles the government’s strategy in the oilfields over the last four years"?

What about Serbia, where "The incomplete peace in southern Serbia is further weakened by the continuing uncertainty over Kosovo’s final status. The international community will need to remain engaged, pressing both Belgrade and Albanian politicians to fulfil all aspects of the Konculj Agreement, while focusing more attention on economic development. The UN mission in Kosovo (UNMIK), the NATO troops there (KFOR) – particularly the U.S. contingent – and the Serbian government all need to reassess their performance."?

What about Georgia, Burundi, Rwandi, Uganda, Ethiopia, Somalia, Zimbabwe, Angola, Nepal, Pakistan, Kashmir etc, etc. ? What is so special about Iraq that their citizens rate higher on the "Let's Invade and Help" charts than those from other countries where people are dying needlessly? It wouldn't be that natural resource so abundant in Iraq, would it?

Sleep tight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Almost all of those countries have natural resources that could be "acquired." The gold and diamond mines of Angola, oil fields in Kashmir, etc. Sure those countries have their problems, but you have to take a logical approach to things. The starvation in Ethiopia is an environmentally induced purge, the desert has been moving south for decades and people just refuse to leave because of whatever reasons. Most of Congo is still unihabited (partly because of war, partly because of it's wildlife and terrain) but it could support about a million more people. When a grocery store goes out of business, you don't hang around outside their doors saying "Well, shit, I'll just wait here til they reopen so I can get me some cheezy poofs and a grape soda!", you go somewhere else where food and supplies are more abundant!

What makes Iraq different is that their leader had possession of a large and fairly modern military, had previously shown he was capable of invading other countries, and most importantly (IMHO) the US could win. North Korea, which shares many of the same attributes, would be an example of a war which may or may not be won (excluding the use of Nukes, in which case "sleep tight" takes on a whole new meaning.)


---------------------------------------------------------------------

ME: Where are the WMD's that were the "reason" the war began in the first place? WHERE ARE THEY?

DOC: Anyone that needs to be shown a stockpile of WMD's to justify the invasion of Iraq is not, IMHO, going to be convinced by any reason. If anyone requires more proof than the brutality that the regime brought to Iraq, well that is just sad. There are some people that simply cannot defend themselves, and it sickens me that we live in a world where nothing is done until it's too late, when all we can do is claim "we didn't know it was happening." Well, we did know, we've known for a long time, and what better time than the present to do what we can to help out the proverbial little guy?

Speaking of helping out the little guys, see above answer.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

See my first response. It's in the eye of the beholder, I guess.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

ME: Sure the world is a better place now that Saddam is kaput, but ask yourself, was it worth the billions of dollars and hundreds of lives that it cost to capture him?

DOC: Again, I believe this relates back to your assertion that someone out there believes that the capture of Saddam somehow signaled 2 minute warning. I don't know anyone who believes that, it is a foolish notion.

ME: I've come to the conclusion that these discussions in this forum don't change anyone's mind. We all come here with our beliefs held tight and no room for any other view point. Me included.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

I've changed my mind on issues before, which would seem to indicate I will change it again.

I would like to add this. When I first started to hear Bush talking about invading Iraq, the main reason he gave was that Saddam was a threat to us. It wasn't until no WMD were found during the initial inspection that he started talking about the brutality of Saddam towards his people(although maybe I just wasn't hearing things correctly..lol)as a reason for invasion. That reason really ticked me off. I know I have said this before, but it bears repeating. China is a classic example of massive human rights violations that occur every day. Not only have I NEVER heard talk of invasion to "save the people of China from their Dictator", we continue to import products made in China every day. Not only that - we buy those products every day. I truly feel that this is the ultimate hypocrasy(sp?), which is why I have never ever believed these were the only reasons for this war. What I do feel now is fear. Fear that every time we stick our noses into another country we are asking for retaliation. Just my thoughts

A war with China is unwinnable, so diplomatic pressure is about the only thing we have to use. I can't really forsee any kind of conflict with China NOT resulting in all out destruction of the entire world, but at least we would be rid of Barbara Streisand.

>but at least we would be rid
>of Barbara Streisand.

Well I've held my tonuge on this topic till now because you both were right and had points with which even you both agreed on. I'll add more later but let me start with this:

< I've come to the conclusion that these discussions in this forum <don't change anyone's mind. We all come here with our beliefs held <tight and no room for any other view point. Me included.

Well I can tell you for a "FACT" that it does help to change others minds. There are groups out there that do nothing but look at these various Forums and report back to politicians as to the flow of information regarding different topics.
What I can't tell you for a fact is that this Forum is being monitored. But it never hurts to voice your opinion unless of course you are stepping on somebody else's rights.

There are a lot of things that are going on and have gone on that are wrong in IRAQ. But I am a firm beleiver that we needed to be there and still do.

The loss of life is a sad thing but it happenes. Just about all soldiers over there expect it as well as those outside of the war. I have lost friends of friends there and do not take it lightly. Throughout History different wars are debated by alot as to whether we needed to be there or not. When Japan attacked us it was apparent that we would now be envolved. It is no different than this except not all people believe that SADDAM is envolved. But I believe that it will come and so will the WMD and where they went or are.

The real sad part of our soldiers being there right now is the fact that a good percentage are doing nothing. Thats right nothing. And some of those being killed are doing nothing. There are officers and enlisted that check each of the units in IRAQ and report back to major commands. These reports have stated things like: Seen same group of soldiers in PX 5 days in a row ( they state have nothing else to do) , soldiers sleeping throughout the day (state when upon being awoken "I was bored nothing to do" , there are soldiers being used as cheap labor to help contracted civilian contractors , soldiers have built a golf course just outside of the airport in Bagdad, soldiers are being misused by young inexperienced 1st & 2nd Lt.'s sweeping streets and other medial tasks ( these unit leaders do not understand the prime training environment they are in. They could train their soldiers so that when needed they have the knowledge needed to survive.)

I could go on and on but you get my drift. I know that after 22.5 years of service myself that there will always be medial tasks that need to be taken care of. But it really seems outta hand in IRAQ. That has a lot to do with Leadership and I hope they really get a handle on it. Just like a lot of the vehicle accidents you heard about right after the fall of Bagdad. Because the (not most - but those that were pretty lose to begin with) soldiers went off half cocked. They slowed down when the Leadership got envolved. You seen a couple of what I'm talking about if you seen BAND OF BROTHERS.


I quess I have rattled on long enough. But I must say that right or wrong the thing to do now is support our troops. Because we disagree/agree with our present leadership they had no choice they went and are for the most part(98%) doing a fantastic job.
(I didnt even get into the issue of our RESERVE troops )

>Correct me if I am wrong, but me thinks this is the first
>time in history that the US invaded another country that was
>not DIRECTLY a threat to the United States.


You mean besides the Philippines? Dominican Republic? Grenada? Haiti? France? Italy? Germany? Holland? The Solomans? Vietnam? Korea? Algeria? Panama? Kuwait?

I think you might want to open a history book, MadDad.

In the context of it being the first time we invaded a country without direct provocation, is what I intended to say,
I will say though, that that does not appear to necessarily be the case.

http://truthnews.com/world/2003030077.htm

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/14815.htm

Worth reading.

President Bush said the evening of 911 when he gave his speech to Congress and the nation, that we would show no difference between the terrorists and those governments that harbor them: Binladin had at least 2-3 camps set up in Iraq. That’s provocation enough for me. That speech was a warning to Saddam that Saddam chose to ignore, as did the Afghanistan government. Why was it Ok to go into Afghanistan after Binladin’s people but not Iraq. ALL AND ANY governments harboring Binladin’s people have been warned, now they’ll have to pay the consequences.

Acadia

Acadia.....provide proof of the Bin Laden camps in Iraq, please.