Hmm, Good question Ha Ha. Let me ask one. What benifit would it have been if the US and our allies had gone into Nazi Germany in say the early or mid 30's when Hitler was just starting to show what he was all about.

I mean the whole lets wait and see atitude sure worked back then right? ( rolls eyes )




Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.

HAHAhaha said "So aside from a renewed anger toward the US from the mid-east, and a crop of new enemies, what benefit has this war provided to the people of the US?

The only thing I can think of is the possibility of securing oil reserves. Of course that will not be reflected at the pump, so was it really a benefit?"


look at the long term dude. right now, the benefits are little more than regional stability. the middle east is better off without Saddam, despite your best efforts to say we should have never gone in. But in the long run don't you think the real Iraqi people (not the terrorists trying to bring the country back down to Saddam-type rule) would look back and appreciate the sacrifice we have made? It seems as though you anti-war, anti-military, anti-america, naysaying defeatists are just looking for any way possible to downplay any good that may come out of this. The benefit is about having a future friend in the region as opposed to a brutal dictator who has to be babysat to make sure he doesen't go and start gassing his own people again.

I answered your question. Now how bout' you answer mine? How would the world be better off if Saddam was still in power?

Steve


My other car is an interceptor.

Steve, Thats what I was getting at with my couple posts but they can't answer us because they know they are wrong. Saddam is better off in prison where he is now that we did what we had to rather then still lose to do God knows what. The whole region will benifit from a democratic govt that we are helping the Iraqie people to set up.

Oh well these are the types that would preferr us to bury our heads in the sand and hope for the best.

Gam put it best I think in the Off Topic forum....... PEACE AIN"T CHEAP. Just remember that and stop bitching as that what were working to get over there.




Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.

There is no regional stability in Iraq or the mid east. Hussein was an oppressive influence definitely, but, he was HANDLED. He had no programs for CBRN weapons, he had no outward mobility unless he wanted the entirity of the UN raining down on him in the morning.

Wanna know where all these terrorists were before Iraq fell? Saudi Arabia, Iran, Yemen, Oman, and elsewhere. The area was far more stable with Hussein in place. Real Iraqi people are getting indoctrinated with same anti-west radical Wahabi and Shi'ite teachings that spawned the Taliban and Iranian Muslim gov'ts. The middle east is now just that much more radicalised with Iraq in it's current state.

Unless you've missed it, Iraq is still not secure. The original plan was to have 3-4 months of occupation, and minimal troop involvement once the Iraqi Military was trained... They're trained, they're out fitted, and they're on the ground... and the US is STILL in there. Frankly, at this point, I don't see how you can assert that Iraq is a friend, or that it's stable, or that its a mediating influence. People are still dying, terrorists are still getting into the country, no one is safe, and the oil isn't making a dent in the world market... Just what was the reason for invading the country again?








Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

So by handled you mean able to do whatever he wanted without anyone saying BOO to him ?

Dude the UN is a worthless pile of crap now ! There is more corruption in the one organization then in the whole world and you think they would be able or willing to police him ? PUH LEEZ !!! Its been proven the UN was makeing MILLIONS off Saddam so why would they want to stop him ? Hell haveing him there was good for business. And as for ALL those terrorists that are there now they make up 1 tenth
of 1% is what they were saying on CNN and they are being killed everyday. Just wait
a bit and they'll be mostly all gone.

But your right about the pull out Gam. But let me ask you, How long after WWII ended did we leave Germany ? Oh wait ! We're still there ! Ok bad example. How about
Korea ? Oh wait ! We're still there too ! Hmm.

Tell me exactly how fast can you re-build a country and give it back to its people. No guessing no conditions or anything, how fast ? Can you answer that ?




Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.

jack: you're not in Germany as a defensive force aginst communism. It's more of a staging area than anything. S.Korea is a UN Mission. Both have militaries of their own.



And, what exactly did hussein do in 12 years that was aggressive?



Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:And, what exactly did hussein do in 12 years that was aggressive?

To answer you that you must first answer me how many times he kicked out UN inspectors, how many times his forces fired on our planes in the no fly zone and how many times he sought chemicals for weapons.

Answer me those questions and you will have answered your own as well.

Convenient Huh?






Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.

Meant aggressive as in against other countries in the 12 years.



Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

Oops, sorry I forgot to re-ask you Gam because apparently you missed the first time I asked it. How long does it take to re-build a country so it can be given back to its people so they can govern themselves ?




Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.

Depends...

There is no set time frame that works for everyone. This is something that the Bush administration should have been clued into.

The problem is that with Iraq, there hasn;t been any positive action against the terrorists yet that has been lasting.



Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

AH HA !! So then stop asking why we are not out yet !!! GEEZ ! We're there till the job is done . Its that simple.

And haven't had any lasting positive effects in fighting the terrorist ? REALLY ? Might
I point out that terrorist activity has been steadily dropping over there. That there are reports that Zarcowee is dead ( spell wrong on purpose )

Oh and then theres the fact that they now have to live in caves rather then openly in the country. And that Iraqi people are actualy turning in the terrorists and are helping us more then they are fighting agaist us.

Yeah that sounds like were doing nothing. ( eyes )



Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:Meant aggressive as in against other countries in the 12 years.

Oops missed that question, sorry. Um, FIRED ON OUR PLANES ! Thats not very nice!




Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.

Jack, I never asked why you're not out yet... I know precisely why... I've also said you're going to be in Iraq for about another 10 years. 'member?

Terrorist activity is actually on the rise and has been since about 8 months after the invasion. Again, the Wahabi muslim schools have replaced state run facilities.

And, there aren't that many caves in Iraq... just fyi



Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

Oh I know we'll be there for a while no surprise there. And actually after the spike at the wars end terrorist activity has been steadily declining.

Yes they may be in Iraq but the difference is that now it doesn't support them anymore. right back at ya!




Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.

Iraq was never a state-sponsor for terrorism. Not like Iran, or Saudi Arabia or Korea...

I haven't seen any report of abatement of terrorist strikes or instances, but I haven't been paying very keen attention to that aspect... I've been looking at where the money is going, and trying to figure out why Usama Bin Laden hasn't been captured yet..


Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

Well unlike you we get bombarded with crap about Iraq every day and night and according to the news agencies the rate of attacks has been steadily declineing.
True or not I couldn't tell you but thats what they're saying. And NO not Fox news either,
ALL of them.

Now about Bin Laden, I agree Bush screwed the pooch when he let those Afgan freedom fighters try and get him themselves. Big mistake in my book. Rather I would have liked to have seen repeated carpet bombing of the areas where he was known to have been hideing. I don't care how deep a cave goes if he couldn't get out its called a tomb.

But right now according to news agencies Zarcowee is a much bigger threat then Bin Ladden is any more. Bin Ladden is isolated and in deep hideing where as this Zarcowee guy has tons of cash and contacts all over Iraq. Thats why his bounty is just as high as Bin Laddens. Bin Ladden where I would dearly love to see him burned alive slowly Hes yesterdays news, Zarcowee is tomorrows threat and hes the one we are currently hunting in Iraq.




Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.

Steve Webb wrote:HAHAhaha said "So aside from a renewed anger toward the US from the mid-east, and a crop of new enemies, what benefit has this war provided to the people of the US?

The only thing I can think of is the possibility of securing oil reserves. Of course that will not be reflected at the pump, so was it really a benefit?"


look at the long term dude. right now, the benefits are little more than regional stability. the middle east is better off without Saddam, despite your best efforts to say we should have never gone in. But in the long run don't you think the real Iraqi people (not the terrorists trying to bring the country back down to Saddam-type rule) would look back and appreciate the sacrifice we have made? It seems as though you anti-war, anti-military, anti-america, naysaying defeatists are just looking for any way possible to downplay any good that may come out of this. The benefit is about having a future friend in the region as opposed to a brutal dictator who has to be babysat to make sure he doesen't go and start gassing his own people again.

I answered your question. Now how bout' you answer mine? How would the world be better off if Saddam was still in power?


Steve

The only reason there is stability is because we are there. As soon as we leave guess what right back to normal. Nobody wants to give GW a reason right now to go and start bombing them. He has made references in the past that he wasnt afraid to go start bombing another country. The United States has no right decided what countries should be run in what ways. Was Saddam a bad man yes. Was Saddam a world wide threat? Nope. What was is the rational fear that we in US had to fear Saddam? To me North Korea is a bigger threat than Iraq was to us. As far as securing the Oil fields and their supplys nope dont buy it. If that were the case why would we care about what is going on in the rest of the contry. Sure it would look bad but if it were just the oil supply why not just go in and take over the oil reserves and let the country go about itself. If it was just a matter or ousting Saddam you mean to tell me in 12 years there was never an opportunity for a sniper to pick the guy and his kids off? Could it have made thing worse sure... Could it have made things better who knows. What I do know is there are a lot of dead people in Iraq both Iraqis and the US soldiers, our allies and private contractors.

Well, the comparison to WWII is true. After that war ended, american and allied forces had to put up with many of the same things our soldiers are now having to put up with in Iraq. roadside bombs, assasination attempts,and basic querilla warfare were all commonplace. The pro nazi group responsible for most of this was "the werewolves", maybe you have heard of them. they were organized by some former nazii SS soldiers to sabotage and destroy the occupying forces. this lasted for around 5 years AFTER the war was over in europe. With persistance and courage these terrorists were hunted down and executed. This is what must be done.

These kind of things take time. Wars are not won overnight. No war has ever unfolded exactly the way it was planned. The Iraqi troops are trained yes, but they do not have the cohesion of an actual national army. The air force consists of like 3 helicopters and a couple of transport planes. They do not currently have the means to defend themselves from much. They are getting better by the week. and in many parts of the country they are taking on a much more involved role.


look at it this way. If you are teaching your daughter to ride a bike, and she is just starting to get going down the road, do you let go of her right away? or do you jog alongside for a little ways to make sure she has the balance right?


i"m going snowboarding< catch you all later




My other car is an interceptor.

Steve if I were gay I think I'd be falling in love with you now.


THANK GOD I'M NOT ALONE !!!! and that some else actualy has a memory and can use it as to what happened after WWII. And we all see how well that turned out don't we ? So STFU and stop your GD crying some things need to be done no matter how painful.

Just like getting your wisdom teeth removed, you know its gonna suck ass going in and you'll be hurting for a while afterwards but you are better off doing it BEFORE you have major problems.




Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.

Jack: you can admit it... just don't tell your wife

okay back to this Iraq @!#$...

I'm not convinced that this isn't a precursor to a renewed terrorist offensive... this same kind of thing happened in Afghanistan with the Soviets. Ebb, flow, ebb, massive offensive. It's how the Russians got dragged deeper into the war than they ever planned to go.

As far as the Iraqi army, and other security forces, they need a lot more equipment, people, time and loyalty... estimates make out roughly 25% of the people to be either pro-saddam or pro-al-quaeda. That's not good considering the fact that Iran has been sponsoring al-quaeda for the last 20 some-odd years, and the border patrol is still functionally non-existant.

I'm not saying that Iraq can't be won over, I am saying that it's going to take a helluva lot more of a commitment in terms of people (Gen. Tom Franks asked for 300,000 troops and got 150,000), intel (like getting someone that is willing to tell the president things he doesn't want to hear, but needs to know), and better security measures to stop the influx of al-quaeda operatives.

I don't think it's a wise idea to traipse off to another country (remember Afghanistan? I guess that's how un-chic it is.. it's still a UN mission) without finishing the job first.




Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

Jack: you can admit it... just don't tell your wife

okay back to this Iraq @!#$...

I'm not convinced that this isn't a precursor to a renewed terrorist offensive... this same kind of thing happened in Afghanistan with the Soviets. Ebb, flow, ebb, massive offensive. It's how the Russians got dragged deeper into the war than they ever planned to go.

As far as the Iraqi army, and other security forces, they need a lot more equipment, people, time and loyalty... estimates make out roughly 25% of the people to be either pro-saddam or pro-al-quaeda. That's not good considering the fact that Iran has been sponsoring al-quaeda for the last 20 some-odd years, and the border patrol is still functionally non-existant.

I'm not saying that Iraq can't be won over, I am saying that it's going to take a helluva lot more of a commitment in terms of people (Gen. Tom Franks asked for 300,000 troops and got 150,000), intel (like getting someone that is willing to tell the president things he doesn't want to hear, but needs to know), and better security measures to stop the influx of al-quaeda operatives.

I don't think it's a wise idea to traipse off to another country (remember Afghanistan? I guess that's how un-chic it is.. it's still a UN mission) without finishing the job first.




Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:Jack: you can admit it... just don't tell your wife

okay back to this Iraq @!#$...

I'm not convinced that this isn't a precursor to a renewed terrorist offensive... this same kind of thing happened in Afghanistan with the Soviets. Ebb, flow, ebb, massive offensive. It's how the Russians got dragged deeper into the war than they ever planned to go.

As far as the Iraqi army, and other security forces, they need a lot more equipment, people, time and loyalty... estimates make out roughly 25% of the people to be either pro-saddam or pro-al-quaeda. That's not good considering the fact that Iran has been sponsoring al-quaeda for the last 20 some-odd years, and the border patrol is still functionally non-existant.

I'm not saying that Iraq can't be won over, I am saying that it's going to take a helluva lot more of a commitment in terms of people (Gen. Tom Franks asked for 300,000 troops and got 150,000), intel (like getting someone that is willing to tell the president things he doesn't want to hear, but needs to know), and better security measures to stop the influx of al-quaeda operatives.

I don't think it's a wise idea to traipse off to another country (remember Afghanistan? I guess that's how un-chic it is.. it's still a UN mission) without finishing the job first.

Wait so your saying that we went after Iraq who was a questionable supporter or the alleged attackers of 9/11 even though there is another state IRAN that has been known to support the alleged attackers of the US on 9/11 come on say it isnt so....

Ok, apparently this is hard for you monday morning quarter backs to understand, Let
me see if I can help you guys get it.

When we went in Iraq we had what we thought at the time was 100% correct intell about his involvement with terrorists and his WMD's. Even the greatest president of ALL time your friend and mine ( gag ) William Jefferson Davis Clinton said Saddam HAD WMD's and was a threat to the US and our allies and our interests in the region.
And that the US can not sit back and do nothing against the riseing threat that is Saddam Husain.

Now EVEN Clinton believed the intell that we had and said we needed to go in hell everyone did !!

SO. What we were supposed to just leave when we found no WMD's ( yet ! ) OR strong ties to terrorists ?

We have no choice now but to stay and make Iraq a better place.


But don't forget EVERYONE was SOOOO gung ho about get Saddam till it became
un-cool to be there. So stop crying about we had no proof everyone at the time thought we did.



Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.

Jackalope wrote:Now EVEN Clinton believed the intell that we had and said we needed to go in hell everyone did !!

But Clinton didn't start a war.

Jackalope wrote:SO. What we were supposed to just leave when we found no WMD's ( yet ! ) OR strong ties to terrorists ?

If the reason is to search for WMD's and we've found none, the right thing to do is apologise and leave. If the police have a search warrant for your house suspecting you have guns, then search your house and find none, do they put you in jail anyway because they don't want to be embarassed?

Jackalope wrote:We have no choice now but to stay and make Iraq a better place.

When there's so many problems in the USA, we have no business dictating to another country what they can or can not do.

Jackalope wrote:But don't forget EVERYONE was SOOOO gung ho about get Saddam till it became un-cool to be there. So stop crying about we had no proof everyone at the time thought we did.

I was never in favor of going after Saddam. Before Kuwait Saddam wasn't our enemy. His staff even asked the US diplomats what the US position would be if he decided to invade Kuwait before he did anything. Our response was that the USA would not take sides in that dispute. That was not true, as soon as we could the USA sent troops to Kuwait and there's the beginning of the overthrow of a government. As part of Saddam's retreat from Kuwait he was supposed to allow these UN inspections.

Now we know he didn't have any WMD's. Imagine you were the leader of Iraq. You're surrounded by countries who are at war all the time. If you could convince the world you've got more weapons than you really do, you've bought some extra security for your country. Has anyone ever had to walk through an area where there's groups of punks looking for trouble? I stick my hand inside my jacket like it's on a pistol, walk with confidence and get through without issue. Someday that may get me in a situation I don't want to be in, but it gets me through for now.

And after these elections are over, and we put in whatever puppet we choose, (remember Florida's vote counting technique), we'll eventually leave and Iran, Afghanistan or any other country over there will attack Iraq.

We have done nothing but continue the violence in that part of the world. There is no end in sight, nor is Iraq a better place for us having been there.


John Wilken
2002 Cavalier
2.2 Vin code 4
Auto

John, Your still not getting it are you ? Everyone in the world thought Saddam had WMD's, everyone. Reps and Dems alike and even leaders of other nations we went off what everyones intell reported and what we thought we knew thats why we went in.
NO other country except I believe Gam said Canada believed he wasn't a threat save those countries that were selling him weapons. Hind sight is always 20 / 20 but untill someone, anyone even you John can predict the future 100% then stop complaining about the US and start complaining about the world and and everyone else that said Saddam had them.




Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.