What do you mean when you say you...

[dspen2005]

in all fairness to hot stuff's point -- even though i find that she is walking a thin line to being an American liberal - the administration's initial reasoning behind the War in Iraq was solely for the threat caused by WMDs and Saddam's violation of the UN Resolution 1441 (i believe, that's the number...??). There was, later, a supposed tie to Al Qaeda, which proved to be false.
The reasoning you presented, toledo, is good.... but it would have been better to have presented that to the American people up front, rather than having the administration couch it's premise upon something which ultimately was not true.

Now that we are in Iraq, we have a moral obligation to aid in its reconstruction and ultimate stability.

[God Conquers]

Sorry to jump in here, I just wanted to note an additional (let us say secondary) reason for the Iraq war, although not a public reason, is what anti-terror thinktanks call the "flypaper theory".

If there's a sweet sweet strip of paper in one room, why fly into another to land on some sugar?

Excuse me, sorry.

ahem:

If there are Americans in the Middle East killing my fellow muhajedeen, why would I go to America to try to kill Americans?

It's simply in our favor that they're attacking armed troops instead of helpless civilians.

[Jaime]

From Bush's State of the Union 2004

[quote]Some in this chamber, and in our country, did not support the liberation of Iraq. Objections to war often come from principled motives. But let us be candid about the consequences of leaving Saddam Hussein in power. We're seeking all the facts. Already, the Kay Report identified dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations. Had we failed to act, the dictatator's weapons of mass destruction programs would continue to this day. Had we failed to act, Security Council resolutions on Iraq would have been revealed as empty threats, weakening the United Nations and encouraging defiance by dictators around the world.[/quote]

[hierochloe]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Oct 3 2005, 09:00 PM']Pre emptive strikes against a country that was supposed to be a direct threat to the US.
[right][snapback]745156[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
When I view the larger picture, I find it hard to see the war as pre-emptive. It's seems to me to more appropriately fit as merely a resumption of hostilities as a result of Saddam refusing to live up to the terms of cease-fire in the Gulf War Treaty and Security Council resolutions tbh. I found the situation in Iraq, with regard to the handling of Security Council resolutions for one, to be very reminiscent of Versaille apathy, and we know how that worked out.

WMD and terrorism was a way to buy public approval for the war. While the threat of each coming out of Iraq may have been exaggerated, it was anything but lies (which some would have you believe). To be fair,one would be a fool to think there are not many other unfortunate motives related to oil, reconstruction business, political gain, etc wrapped up in the war as well.

Thanks to Toledo for presenting the larger and more accurate picture, even if it's not exactly the same as the marketing our gov't is using to sell it's agenda to...well, short-sighters.

Edited October 4, 2005 by hierochloe

[jasJis]

It's really frustrating to see how many opinions fail to face the facts or give benefit of the doubt. Motives are rarely the extreme choice others claim they are.

It's ridiculous to think a President would go to war to make money. There are so many other, less risky ways of making $$ as President with a lot less risk of getting caught, being hounded, etc. That's why Micheal Moore is an idiot. Halliburton is a huge company that negotiates contracts with the Government regularlly. I work for a small company that negotiates no-bid contracts with government agencies all the time. It's very common because there are certain types of work that has a very limited number of qualified contractors so it's more efficient to eliminate red-tape to negotiate. It's very complicated and is almost always a fair deal for the government and the contractor.

While I realize most of the posters here are young, I certainly hope the Gulf War is widely known and the many pre-emptive wars that Iraq started with Iran and the cr8p Saddam was constantly stirring up. The reasons were/are complex and multifacited. When someone sticks a gun in your face, you can shoot him in self defense. If you find out the gun was a fake, you still were probably justified in your actions. Consider that when talking about the WMD. Everybody, including other nations and the UN Weapon Inspectors, fully expected to find them. We didn't. I guess Sadaam should have done what he agreed to and cooperated with the UN.

Iraq did support the terrorists. Iraq agreed with the hatred of the West and of Judaism. Iraq supplied money, support, and areas for training. They were a refuge for many who left Afgahnistan. Though Iraq did not help Al-Quida with 9/11, they provided aid and comfort after the fact.

As muddled as some of the immediate judgement calls and different our opinions may have been to start the war, the US has acted and now must be committed to endure and do what's best for the bulk of the Iraqi people. At this time, we must stay there and help Iraq stabilize their country and governemnt so it can run and protect itself. It would be morally reprehensible to pull out and let power hungry madmen who attack civillians applying to be police and kidnap teachers and shoot them in the head because they want chaos so they can take over an entire Country.

[Jaime]

[quote]in all fairness to hot stuff's point -- even though i find that she is walking a thin line to being an American liberal - the administration's initial reasoning behind the War in Iraq was solely for the threat caused by WMDs and Saddam's violation of the UN Resolution 1441 (i believe, that's the number...??). There was, later, a supposed tie to Al Qaeda, which proved to be false.[/quote]

That's funny in a couple of ways!

Edited October 4, 2005 by jaime

[Sojourner]

Is there something I should know about you, hot stuff?

[Jaime]

Apparently I have an unconscious desire to become a liberal


and a woman

[CatholicAndFanatical]

toledo you are still missing the whole point that got us started in a war to begin with - 9/11. Suddenly Saddam had weapons of 'Mass Destruction' and was a direct threat to us..only AFTER 9/11 was he such a threat.

Do I belive Saddam should of been taken out of authority? Absolutly!

Do I think we should of given up on Osama for Saddam? No Way.

Osama is nothing but a Mob Boss that tells others what to do.

Do the FBI go after those that are in the Mob that are given orders and NOT the Mob Boss too? No, they go after both.

They dont just say 'The Mob Boss' is not important as an individual, because in matters such as this the individual assumes less and less importance..we'll just let him go.


Again, I ask you Toledo, since you know so much:

Can you honestly give me a straight answer as to WHY we went there?
If you can, you are fortunate and must know the secret 'handshake' because ALOT of people, including the soldiers that are there, have no clue why were there.

[dspen2005]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Oct 4 2005, 09:07 AM']
and a woman
[right][snapback]745632[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

my mistake -- i went to search, but wasn't able to find an answer as to your sex... i apologize -- wholeheartedly on THAT point....

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='CatholicAndFanatical' date='Oct 4 2005, 09:32 AM']toledo you are still missing the whole point that got us started in a war to begin with - 9/11. Suddenly Saddam had weapons of 'Mass Destruction' and was a direct threat to us..only AFTER 9/11 was he such a threat.

Do I belive Saddam should of been taken out of authority? Absolutly!

Do I think we should of given up on Osama for Saddam? No Way.

Osama is nothing but a Mob Boss that tells others what to do.

Do the FBI go after those that are in the Mob that are given orders and NOT the Mob Boss too? No, they go after both.

They dont just say 'The Mob Boss' is not important as an individual, because in matters such as this the individual assumes less and less importance..we'll just let him go.
Again, I ask you Toledo, since you know so much:

Can you honestly give me a straight answer as to WHY we went there?
If you can, you are fortunate and must know the secret 'handshake' because ALOT of people, including the soldiers that are there, have no clue why were there.
[right][snapback]745639[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Ok, I'll say it in less muddled language. There is [b]NO STRAIGHT ANSWER[/b] as to why we went. People who want straight answers usually don't deserve any.

Saddam was the dictator of an aggressor nation. Osama is a rich Saudi terrorist whose organization operates in quasi independent cells, and who is now at a point where his continued existence does not effect the continuation of al-Qaeda policy. [b]OSAMA IS NOT RELEVANT TO THE EQUATION[/b]. Saddam was the locus of aggressive state power in an unstable region, and needed to be taken out.

The war on terrorism is going to last for a long time. Our sons will fight in it. The problem is that our enemies know America is only successful if the public is interested in what's going on and supports it.

It's not 1 2 3 we're done, democracy works. Transition from dictatorship to democratic pluralism will be LOOOONG and tough. However, [b]SHORT TERM THINKING WILL DEFEAT OUR LONG TERM GOALS[/b]. You aren't going to see dividends right away.

I agree with dspen2005 that if the gov't wanted people to understand they should have just told people the actual reasoning behind their decisions. Problem is, most people are not educated to the point where they will understand finer political science. Therefore, my conclusion is that the American people do not need to know all the whys and wherefores of our involvement there, only that it is in their best interests.
Unpopular view, I know. The terrorists know it's unpopular too. So did the Nicaraguans. So did the North Vietnamese. They know that [u]if they can outlast Joe Sixpack's interest in this conflict they can seriously damage the American war effort[/u].


[b]There's no secret handshake, man. It's just simple, introductory course political science. [/b] Ok?

[dspen2005]

[quote name='toledo_jesus' date='Oct 4 2005, 04:20 PM']
I agree with dspen2005 that if the gov't wanted people to understand they should have just told people the actual reasoning behind their decisions.  Problem is, most people are not educated to the point where they will understand finer political science.  Therefore, my conclusion is that the American people do not need to know all the whys and wherefores of our involvement there, only that it is in their best interests. 
Unpopular view, I know.  The terrorists know it's unpopular too.  So did the Nicaraguans.  So did the North Vietnamese.  They know that [u]if they can outlast Joe Sixpack's interest in this conflict they can seriously damage the American war effort[/u]. 
[b]There's no secret handshake, man.  It's just simple, introductory course political science.  [/b]  Ok? 
[right][snapback]746002[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

of course the people are not going to understand "finer political science". however, the people do understand honesty -- even if it isn't completely congnizable. True, we do not need to know the full detail of reasoning for military action -- to advocate such a stance is ludicrous and endangers the national security of the country.

I think the point of this debate is whether or not one can decry the war -- which was condemned by the Holy Father -- and support the troops at the same time. From a logical stance -- it is complicated because we are open to questions concerning whether or not support for troops, indiirectly supports the war -- if this is the case, then we collapse ourselves into a contradiction -- we do not support the war, at the same time, we do support the war (in an indrect sense). This is a logical fallacy.

I think that is the underlying question -- is support the troops, support for the war??? do these 2 notions equate with the other?

[hierochloe]

[quote name='dspen2005' date='Oct 4 2005, 03:30 PM']I think that is the underlying question -- is support the troops, support for the war??? do these 2 notions equate with the other?
[right][snapback]746010[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
There is not a single element of doubt, however miniscule, that supporting our men and women in service is EVER in contradiction with one's non-support of the war itself. To find a contradiction here is like condemning all of Catholicism as a result of a minority of priests' peodphile ways.

[hierochloe]

9/11 emotion was harnessed to fuel support for the war in Iraq, and in some ways rightly so.

An adversary rendered impotent and obsolete is a far more effective victory than one provided martyr status.

[Paladin D]

How can you support our troops, if you don't support their cause? Isn't that like saying you like your home team, but want them to lose?

Not in an insultive matter, just curious.

[Era Might]

If I disagreed with the war, I wouldn't say I "support" the troops, although I would respect them, seeing as different people can reasonably disagree.

There are obvious exceptions, of course. (For example, I wouldn't see Nazi soldiers the same way).

[Jaime]

[quote name='jasJis' date='Oct 4 2005, 07:37 AM']
It's ridiculous to think a President would go to war to make money.  There are so many other, less risky ways of making $$ as President with a lot less risk of getting caught, being hounded, etc.  That's why Micheal Moore is an idiot.  Halliburton is a huge company that negotiates contracts with the Government regularlly.  I work for a small company that negotiates no-bid contracts with government agencies all the time.  It's very common because there are certain types of work that has a very limited number of qualified contractors so it's more efficient to eliminate red-tape to negotiate.  It's very complicated and is almost always a fair deal for the government and the contractor.

While I realize most of the posters here are young, I certainly hope the Gulf War is widely known and the many pre-emptive wars that Iraq started with Iran and the cr8p Saddam was constantly stirring up.  The reasons were/are complex and multifacited.  When someone sticks a gun in your face, you can shoot him in self defense.  If you find out the gun was a fake, you still were probably justified in your actions.  Consider that when talking about the WMD.  Everybody, including other nations and the UN Weapon Inspectors, fully expected to find them.  We didn't.  I guess Sadaam should have done what he agreed to and cooperated with the UN.

Iraq did support the terrorists.  Iraq agreed with the hatred of the West and of Judaism.  Iraq supplied money, support, and areas for training.  They were a refuge for many who left Afgahnistan.  Though Iraq did not help Al-Quida with 9/11, they provided aid and comfort after the fact.


[right][snapback]745609[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Yes Michael Moore is an idiot.

But what is also true is that Bush takes care of those who've supported him. That isn't such a bad thing sometimes. However (and this is a big however) The direct connection between Cheney and Haliburton should not be brushed off so easily. The people who supported Bush are reaping the benefits of us going to war.

Do I believe that Bush went to war to line the wallets of his cronies? I honestly don't know why he dragged us into war. I don't know why he would think about going to war with Iraq without consulting his father. I don't know why he would think about going to war with Iraq without having any semblance of an exit strategy. But I do not believe that he led us to war for the reason(s) he's given us. I don't believe that for a second.

This was the first test of the pre-emptive doctrine and it failed. Are we ethically bound to stick around and clean up after ourselves? Absolutely. That is why I can say I support the troops and not the war. I want them to be successful and come home safely. But we are in a worse place now because of Bush's decision.

We are less safe as a nation.

Edited October 4, 2005 by jaime

[crusader1234]

I agree with Paladin, that if you don't support a persons objectives, its poor wording to say you support the troops that were there. You can hope for their wellbeing, but thats not the same.

[hierochloe]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Oct 4 2005, 05:23 PM']If I disagreed with the war, I wouldn't say I "support" the troops, although I would respect them, seeing as different people can reasonably disagree.

There are obvious exceptions, of course. (For example, I wouldn't see Nazi soldiers the same way).
[right][snapback]746112[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Love the sinner, not the sin.

Support the troops, if not the cause for which they fulfill their duty in fighting. There is nothing wrong with use of the word "support" in this way.

Edited October 4, 2005 by hierochloe

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Oct 4 2005, 06:39 PM']
This was the first test of the pre-emptive doctrine and it failed.  Are we ethically bound to stick around and clean up after ourselves?  Absolutely.  That is why I can say I support the troops and not the war.  I want them to be successful and come home safely.  But we are in a worse place now because of Bush's decision.

We are less safe as a nation.
[right][snapback]746118[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

You are still thinking in terms of a few years, not decades.
To say the doctrine of preemptive war has failed after only 4 years is very short-sighted. We won't know whether it worked until we are older, perhaps 20 years from now.
As far as preemptive war is concerned, we kicked Saddam's behind. Now the difficulty is transitioning Iraq from dictatorship (which generally runs smooth, violence notwithstanding) to democracy (which is chaotic and potentially deadly at first, but pays off big in the long run). Preemptive war has resulted in a successful military campaign.
If we want to put on our blinders and focus on what is directly in front of us we can do that. However, the old saying about the Vatican working in centuries applies to the politics of today. Perhaps it works in terms of generations, not centuries, but it is not something we will see resolved within a Presidential term or two. Decisions regarding Vietnam spanned from Truman to Nixon. I would expect the war on terror to last for the rest of our lives.

If it makes you feel better, Americans have never been enthusiastic about long engagements. Historically we've never had a standing army except to keep our borders secure. Before the 1840s we mostly relied on militias...peculiarity of American thinking.