Forums | MacLife

resedit wrote:

Pariah wrote:

Trying to paint our invasion of Iraq as some sort of humanitarian effort is despicably dishonest.

No. It's not.

We supposedly went there to get their WMDs. BEFORE the invasion, I didn't hear one bit of "we gotta free these people from Saddam!" It was ALL about the horrible things they were going to do with their imaginary WMDs.

Key word there being "imaginary."

Pariah wrote:

Bottom line is Bush was wrong. He was either mistaken or incompetent, take your pick, either one is unforgivable when you are committing our nation to war..

He was possibly wrong about WMD's being there.
He was right to remove Saddam from power.

resedit wrote:

Pariah wrote:

Bottom line is Bush was wrong. He was either mistaken or incompetent, take your pick, either one is unforgivable when you are committing our nation to war..

He was possibly wrong about WMD's being there.
He was right to remove Saddam from power.

He was definitely wrong about WMDs being there. There's no "possible" involved. The U.S. found squat.

Sadam was a tyrant and his sons? Depraved is the only word for those two.
But over his 25 year reign he is accused of killing about 35,000 of his own people and used chemical agents in battle.
He was a war criminal in the truest sense of the word.
So ya, he was a VERY bad man.
But....
Over 300,000 civilians were killed as a result of us invading their country. In the absence of any threat to ourselves, who the hell are we to decide for those 300,000 people that being dead is better than being oppressed?
Was going from a dictatorship to an oppressive pseudo-democracy bound by the tyranny of Shiira worth 300,000+ lives worth that?
Was making Iran stronger good for anyone?
Whats going to happen is after we draw back completely the Iranians will quietly take over and then we will have two, large, resource heavy countries in the middle east with nukes and a bad attitude.

And often ours.

resedit wrote:

You are blaming us for the actions of Al Queda which started a war in Iraq after Saddam was taken out, involving soldiers and arms often imported from surrounding countries.

And, as conquerors, it was our obligation to prevent that very thing from happening. That place is worse off now than it was seven years ago.

And they're doing a bang-up job of that, too.

I can't believe this is even a debate. At all. smurf.

Graphic Autist wrote:

resedit wrote:

Graphic Autist wrote:

We supposedly went there to get their WMDs. BEFORE the invasion, I didn't hear one bit of "we gotta free these people from Saddam!" It was ALL about the horrible things they were going to do with their imaginary WMDs.

Key word there being "imaginary."

WMD's was what Bush used to sell it to the public, that is true.
That doesn't make our commitment to give the Iraqi people the opportunity to form their own government any less real.

Holy smurf, debating with you is a farce, going by that first sentence.

Why?

That wasn't our "commitment." You can't sell "freedom" after the fact, unless that's what they are. They're more "free" to get blown/shot up now than they ever were before we blessed them with "freedom."

Freeing the people of Iraq was always an objective from the start.
It isn't what Bush used to sell the action to the public, but it was always an objective.

resedit wrote:

Graphic Autist wrote:

resedit wrote:

WMD's was what Bush used to sell it to the public, that is true.
That doesn't make our commitment to give the Iraqi people the opportunity to form their own government any less real.

Holy smurf, debating with you is a farce, going by that first sentence.

Why?

That wasn't our "commitment." You can't sell "freedom" after the fact, unless that's what they are. They're more "free" to get blown/shot up now than they ever were before we blessed them with "freedom."

Freeing the people of Iraq was always an objective from the start.
It isn't what Bush used to sell the action to the public, but it was always an objective.

Then he's a liar, no? You said yourself you believe he used the WMD angle to "sell" the war.

Why were the people of Iraq more deserving of liberation than far more oppressed people under other regimes?

Graphic Autist wrote:

resedit wrote:

Graphic Autist wrote:

Holy smurf, debating with you is a farce, going by that first sentence.

Why?

That wasn't our "commitment." You can't sell "freedom" after the fact, unless that's what they are. They're more "free" to get blown/shot up now than they ever were before we blessed them with "freedom."

Freeing the people of Iraq was always an objective from the start.
It isn't what Bush used to sell the action to the public, but it was always an objective.

Then he's a liar, no? You said yourself you believe he used the WMD angle to "sell" the war.

Why were the people of Iraq more deserving of liberation than far more oppressed people under other regimes?

No. Liar implies he knew there weren't WMD's there.
I believe he really thought they were there. Clinton thought they were there, pretty much all of congress did.

Our intelligence was lessened because Clinton neutered the CIA and pulled inspectors out of Iraq so he could bomb them with Desert Fox, intelligence pointed to them being there and Saddam did nothing to dispell that. He wanted us to think he had them. Dumb move on his part.

robco wrote:

I opposed military action in Afghanistan. The military is a blunt instrument and we needed a scalpel. Personally I think our intelligence agencies needed to have taken the lead with small military special forces units as needed. We can't defeat AQ through military might, it just isn't going to happen. That being said, I wasn't as enraged as I was when US troops invaded Iraq.

The .mil is there to give other sections breathing room to train local forces to take up the fight. There arent enough special forces out there to take on the task of "surgically" operating on the entire country of afghanistan.

Today, we've been there for eight years with little to show for it. There's no strong economy, no revenue to share among different factions. There's little hope of building a government that can truly govern.

Actually there is quite a bit to show for it. The ANA has several top rated units capable of independent operations. Other ANSF are coming along as well. Its definitely a long process, but one that can result in a fully independant security force that is able to defend Afghanistan against terrorists on its on. The economy is getting better as well. The streets of many cities are packed with commerce and construction of modern structures is constantly improving conditions.

But ultimately we need to recruit people who can infiltrate terrorist organizations and provide information or carry out targeted assassinations.

The intell community has been trying this for many, many years. Its not a new idea. Its just exceedingly difficult.

resedit wrote:

Steyr AUG wrote:

The intell community has been trying this for many, many years. Its not a new idea. Its just exceedingly difficult.

From what I understand, the people who generally can infiltrate such organizations are often very nefarious themselves.

The most reliable human intelligence sources are those that freely volunteer out of a sense of duty and morality that is contrary to the ideals of their organization. Not the type of people that will join or be let in to a terrorist organization at any signfigicant level.