General discussion

Locked

Iraq Aftermath

By TheChas ·
After seeing a blurb on CNN Headline News about Walter Cronkite's opinions about the war in Iraq, I just could not help myself.

Check out this article:

http://tinyurl.com/qj8h

I quote from the article:

"worst policy decision this nation has ever made."

Walter Cronkite is perhaps the most trusted newsman to ever anchor the US evening news.
If he is so concerned about the Bush administrations Iraq policies, I believe it is time for anyone who still supports the actions taken to re-evaluate their position.

In foreign policy issues, we cannot afford to use the ends justify the means rebuttal that the Bush administration is attempting to use in the face of mounting world criticism.

Yes, Saddam is a ruthless person who terrorized his people to stay in power.
Under that justification, what country will we decide to invade next?

Bush is already focusing on deposing Fidel Castro's government in Cuba.

It is time for the US people to demand no new US aggression against foreign leaders without clear evidence of a imminent threat to the US or our allies.

Chas

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

168 total posts (Page 3 of 17)   Prev   01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05   Next
| Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

I admit by biases and voice my opinion as well

by maxwell edison In reply to Pot calling the Kettle bl ...

And show me a person who claims to not have biases, and I'll show you a person in denial.

Look through all of my threads, and you'll see by biases very clearly. I admit what they are, while others don't.

Why do you feel superior enough to "defame" me, while criticizing me for, as you put it, "defaming" others? (defame - your word, not mine.)

Sure, give someone the right to voice an opinion or observation - I'm all for it. But give others who disagree the same courtesy. It's not defaming. It's disagreeing.

Too many people take things out of context and/or fail to put forth the whole story. (NATO commander versus fired NATO commander - big difference.)

You don't know the first thing about Michael Moore, but sure feel superior enough to comment on my opinion of him. You've probably read ZERO of Walter Cronkite's editorial columns, but you feel superior enough to comment on my opinion of him, even though I've read probably all of them.

Oz, you really are naive, but you sure are vocal about it.

(Okay, go ahead, attack me some more. That is what you do best, after all.)

Collapse -

You still don't have a clue who I really am do you?

by Oz_Media In reply to I admit by biases and voi ...

"You don't know the first thing about Michael Moore, but sure feel superior enough to comment on my opinion of him. You've probably read ZERO of Walter Cronkite's editorial columns, but you feel superior enough to comment on my opinion of him, even though I've read probably all of them."

Cronkite, yes I have seen and heard many of his comments but not as many as one with your higher intelligence. My point was not to say these people were right or wrong, just that you flame a POST based on it's sources, then provide your own sources that are extremely one sided. What is to make YOUR ststements and beliefs better than another? Michael Moore, although I haven't followed his every move since birth, I feel he has made MANY statements that I do see as valid. I also see his right wing views going to far sometimes and realize that he usually has full editing control over his public statements. Doesn't everyone else though? It's a matter of taking what's said as it is and sorting out the BS for yourself.

I have neither a positive or negative view towards Moore but won't turn down his statements because of WHO HE IS and that he doesn't fit my political parties objectives.

YOU DO have a right to YOUR opinjion, but oh so often seem to deny anyone else's opinion by stating that thier sources are incredible, however, you rebut this with a bunch of one sided poilitical opinions by those that YOU agree with.

That's not a debating skill, it's defamatory to the person who made the original statement in declaring them to be invalid statements because others that YOU believe in disagree.

Collapse -

Message from the President of the U.S.

by maxwell edison In reply to Iraq Aftermath

THE PRESIDENT:

Good morning. This weekend in Iraq, 750 Iraqi citizens completed their military training and became the first battalion of the new Iraqi army. For decades, Iraq's army served the interests of a dictator. Today a new army is serving the Iraqi people. And less than a year from now, Iraq will have a 40,000-member military force, trained and dedicated to protecting their fellow citizens.

Our coalition is helping to train and equip Iraq's new army, so that Iraqis can take over border protection and other security duties as soon as possible. Soldiers in the new battalion join more than 80,000 other Iraqis who are defending their country's security. Iraq now has a Civil Defense Corps of nearly 2,500, a border guard force of 4,700, and a facility protection service of over 12,000. And more than half of the Iraqis under arms are police officers, instructed by professionals like New York City's outstanding former police chief, Bernard Kerik. Iraq's neighbor, Jordan, has announced that it will help Iraq train additional police officers.

For three decades, the police in Iraq were the feared enforcers of a dictatorship. Now Iraq's new police are enforcing the just laws of an emerging democracy. Already the Iraqi police are assuming greater responsibility, and greater risks. This week, Iraqi officers aided a series of joint raids by American troops, leading to the arrest of more than 50 suspected criminals and terrorists. We're on the offensive against the desperate holdouts and Saddam loyalists who oppose progress in Iraq. The free nation we are helping to build will be free of them.

The United States is standing with the Iraqi people as they move toward self-government. My wartime funding request to Congress includes more than $5 billion [thousand million] to help the people of Iraq take responsibility for their own security. These funds will be used to prepare the Iraqi army, to train public safety and emergency personnel, and to establish a fair and effective judicial system.

Greater security is essential to Iraq's future. A secure Iraq will protect the nation's schools, and the hospitals that are opening, and the roads that are being built, and the water and power facilities we are repairing. Across Iraq, our coalition is turning over responsibility to the future leaders of that country. Those leaders include women. Just this weekend, a conference is being held at the University of Babylon to affirm the vital role of women in the Iraqi society.

The transition to self-government is a complicated process, because it takes time to build trust and hope after decades of oppression and fear. Yet we are making steady progress, and we will keep our promise to fully return Iraq's government to Iraq's people as soon as possible.

The men and women of our coalition have shown bravery and skill and compassion in Iraq. And they know their mission. They know that we are fighting terrorists in Iraq so that we will not have to face them and fight them in the streets of our own cities. Our forces know that a secure and sovereign Iraq will be a setback for terrorists, and an inspiration to all who dream of freedom in the Middle East. And the world can be certain, this essential mission in the war on terror will be completed.

-George W. Bush
President of the United States of America
October 4, 2003

Collapse -

And yet

by GuruOfDos In reply to Message from the Presiden ...

>>Our coalition is helping to train and equip Iraq's new army, so that Iraqis can take over border protection and other security duties as soon as possible. Soldiers in the new battalion join more than 80,000 other Iraqis who are defending their country's security. Iraq now has a Civil Defense Corps of nearly 2,500, a border guard force of 4,700, and a facility protection service of over 12,000. And more than half of the Iraqis under arms are police officers, instructed by professionals like New York City's outstanding former police chief, Bernard Kerik. Iraq's neighbor, Jordan, has announced that it will help Iraq train additional police officers.<<

Add to that some 23,000 coalition troops. Then add all the figures up.

On CNN tonight (yes we have it here in Blighty) the evening news was one continuous story about a bombing of a hotel in Baghdad. Every day on CNN, Sky, ITN and BBC we hear about another assault on American troops, or more coalition casualties.

Whatever Dubya may say, or indeed what ANYONE may say, the situation 'on the ground' in Iraq is very different from anything we've heard from the politicians. Whatever their intentions, whatever the grand visions, no amount of words can stop a 7.62mm round hitting a US Marine or a kilo of C4 blowing the wheels off a HUMV if some Iraqi decides that he doesn't like Bush or Blair.

The decision to go to war was based on false premises and 'sexed up' (to coin the BBC phrase) intelligence. Having 'done' Iraq, no WMD's have been found...in 4 months of searching! Yes, there were other motives not connected with threats to the West. President Hussein had NO capability with which to carry out a 'direct' attack on the Western world and at worst, all he could have reasonably done would be to stir up regional conflict, terrorise his own people or attack Western oil interests in Saudi, Oman, Qatar or Kuwait.

But, WMD's don't have to be 'weapons' in the context of gas, nerve agents or nukes. The biggest and most threatening WMD in the Iraqi arsenal was President Hussein himself. He was directly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and Kurds in the country over the years. Perhaps removing him from power DID justify the Coalition action. However, nature abhors a vacuum, especially a power vacuum. The Iraqi people are glad to see an end to Mr Hussein's reign of hate and fear, but as we debate this, the 'power vacuum' is being filled by 'infidels' in the eyes of the Iraqi public. Winning the war isn't enough. We now have to win the peace. But more than that, we have to hand Iraq back to the Iraqis and do it in such a way that it preserves their national identity AND prevents another Saddam Hussein ever coming to power again. The Iraqis are a proud people with a long history, and they want to move forward learning from history, but preserving their beliefs. They do not want to be another ;rogue nation' quelled into submission and paying lip service to both Bush and 'big business'.

Collapse -

Balance and Perspective

by Oldefar In reply to And yet

You make some excellent points. I personally thought the case existed regardless of the WMD aspect, and that too much was made of this.

Two things that seem missing in much of the public discussion around Iraq.

Given that Iraq has some 24 to 25 million citizens, an opposition to a new Iraqi state or fanatical opposition to any outside intervention is still 250 thousand individuals. This number seems much larger than the number of individuals involved in guerilla tacktics against the coalition forces. A 10% general dislike of foreign involvement offers up 2.5 million unhappy Iraqis to interview for the evening news. It also frames a 10:1 to 100:1 range of odds faced by the coalition forces on the ground.

As for winning the peace, this too is a time issue. Compare the schedule with the time spans in other relatively recent issues such as the troubles in Ireland, the Baltic situation, Japan and Germany following WWII, or the transition from colonial rule to full self government and stability in any number of Asian and African nations. An expectation that success with peace will accelerate the way success on the battlefield has seems overly optimistic.

Add to this the inherent criminal element in every society. It seems to me that a dictatorship or opressive government does keep a lid on "ordinary" criminal activity, so to that extent the lid is off in Iraq.

On the positive side, considerably more infrastructure was left in place by coalition forces in this most recent conflict than historically occurs, and self inflicted damage seems to be the greatest problem.

I don't see how a realistic assessment of progress with the peace can be made in less than 18 months.

Collapse -

Gee you're kidding?

by Oz_Media In reply to Message from the Presiden ...

George W Bush is SUPPOSED to have ONE focus on his agenda, 'To please the American public and get reinstated for another term.'

With the entire world looking down their nose at him and claiming he's a warmongering loser that makes rash and uneducated decisions that kill the American public, it's about time he woke up and faced the music.

Canadian soldiers are still in Afghanistan cleaning up the last mess.
Canadian and German soldiers are now working on peace keeping and security missions in Baghdad.

Perhaps, just perhaps, good ole WBjr is feeling a little pressurs to live up to his statements and expectations, if he doesn't make a move now to appease the people he may not be re-elected. This given, I think it's too little too late. Just like every other war **** 'em all up and claim victory after the rest of the world's finished cleaning up the messes.

Collapse -

GWB 21 Sep, 2001

by road-dog In reply to Gee you're kidding?

The world knew what this was about before the invasion of Afghanistan. GB, Germany and several other countries went in knowing what this was going to be like. This was never described as a speedy or painless process. Any who try to say that this was going to be quick and neat is either acting on abject stupidity or intellectual dishonesty.

Transcript of speech:

Now, this war will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago, with a decisive liberation of territory and a swift conclusion. It will not look like the air war above Kosovo two years ago, where no ground troops were used and not a single American was lost in combat.

Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes visible on TV and covert operations secret even in success.

The following is a link to a synopsis if pre-Iraq statements by members of the Bush Administration.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/957955.asp

Just because something is difficult, it doesn't mean it isn't worth doing.

Oz, this is specifically directed to you:

You seem to have some grudge against the USA, and seem to resent it's projection of influence around the world.

What nation would you approve of as a suitable substitute for the US on the world stage? Don't give the chickenshit non-answer "no one", because nature abhorrs a vacuum. If not the US, then whom?

You spend a lot of time and effort to hammer the US on any issue available. Let's hear your vision.

Collapse -

Why should a single country...

by Oz_Media In reply to GWB 21 Sep, 2001

Be responsible for policing the world? That's just plain arrogance. What is best for your people is best for all?

"...USA, and seem to resent it's projection of influence around the world."

Of course, why should any country project it's influence around the world? Why have you appointed YOURSELVES as that country? Who did it last time?
I think that may be a solo opinion of yours, I don't think any other country (since Hitler's Nazi Germany in WW2) has felt it neccessary to invade and bomb a country in order to push it's beliefs and government on it (Saddam aside, unless you are comparing your actions with his now).

Collapse -

Projection of Influence

by road-dog In reply to Why should a single count ...

This is a concept that is based on a basic component of the human condition. In the absence of power, nations or even groups / factions will assert themselves. In the absence of the US or any other nation playing a dominant role, terrorist groups and nations using terrorist groups as instruments of foreign policy have filled the void.

The idea of equality and "live and let live" on a global scale is simply a fallacy. To assert that such is not the case shows a lack of understanding of basic human nature.

The UN was once the hope of the world in filling the void of global influence with a "democratic" international body. This has been a miserable disappointment, as the clash of cultures has resulted in paralysis from within and abject failure to employ influence to a mutually beneficial end.

With the current clash of cultures, radical islam has declared war on all that is not radical islam, including more moderate practitioners of their own faith. These types do not acknowledge the right of any other belief systems to exist.

This is effectively demonstrated by the fact that nearly all armed conflicts in the world involve islam as one side of the fighting...
http://www.lander.edu/atannenbaum/Tannenbaum%20courses%20folder/POLS%20103%20World%20Politics/103_huntington_clash_of_civilizations_full_text.htm

Unless something better comes along, the US can and must assert power. The alternative is conversion at swordpoint by intolerant and violent practitioners of a faith that causes misery and death wherever it comes to power.

Collapse -

That's absurd !

by Oz_Media In reply to Projection of Influence

Saying that I don' think that the USA should be 'THE' dominant power does not mean that everyone is to just take a back seat and let terrorists attack them.

If terrorists thought that attacking America would have the rest of the world at arms, they'd probably think twice.
Knowing that most countries won't join George on a rampage due to fear, they push fear upon America, where it is expected and drilled into people from birth. This creates a situation that most would ignore and the USA will retaliate against, ALONE. Other countires do not impress fear into the citizens in order to justify action the way that the American administration seems to do so often.
FEAR of Canadian Beef, FEAR of SARS, FEAR of terrorism, FEAR of being different, FEAR of... the list goes on and on.

In Canada, nobody was scared of beef, it was blown well out of proportion in the USA.
In Canada, VERY few people have a fear of SARS, in the USA (and Canada via American networks) it was plastered on every channel until people stopped visiting Toronto, just visiting Toronto will do that though.

The Taliban were one of the first to attack America on American soil. They were removed (even if still in the process)and will have a VERY hard time to rebuild thier terrorist regime.

Now we got the war bandwagon rolling, hey Saddam might sometime in the future, possibly be able to attack. So now you attack Baghdad.

Who's next?

Instead of the USA being seen as a world protector, they are showing themselves to therest of the world as the Self-appointed World police, that will attack any country it deems worthy of agression. In order to stifle POSSIBLE agression, the USA is agressive.
So, if I see a guy in the bar who MAY be able to pick up my girlfriend and take her home, should I be thinking about punching him out before he makes a move? Preventative medicine?

What is the difference? He has threatened to disrupt my life (or possibly could do), isn't it comlpetely legal for me to kill him first? Why not? How is this different from attacking a country based on it's supposed ability to attack yours?

England doesn't get attacked, they aren't the world police. Germany doesn't get attacked, they aren't world police. So why does America get attacked and claim they are the world's saviour, nobody else feels threatened. Why does the USA?

Then why does the USA feel it is their DUTY to protect the world from ...? What are they protecting ME from and why should I support their actions?

Do you REALLY think that if Saddam launched an attack on the USA that others would idly sit by and watch it happen? Maybe they should just sit idly by and then you would all be justified in your fears.

Back to Community Forum
168 total posts (Page 3 of 17)   Prev   01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05   Next

Related Discussions

Related Forums