Why war with Iraq is happening

Here's the quote, Squiggy...

as for Iraq and the "war on terrorism", there's NO doubt whatsoever that the Iraq part of it IS absolutely about oil......it's also about a multitude of other things...revenge figures in even..but oil is a major component...
Click to expand...

.....technically, yes...everything else IS "alluded" to...but I think anyone reading this would have to say that I've covered an awful lot of ground BEYOND both oil and revenge...sure, I could have specifically named each and every one, but I haven't the time to write a book about it. In any case, that same person reading would have to come to the conclusion that in fact THAT quote of MINE was an acknowledgement for the purpose of argument that, yes, oil is a part of this equation....

fuck me for agreeing with you on that.....

Further, if you'd have bothered to read read beyond the first two sentences which apparently ran over your puppy today, you'd have arrived at the tiny little end to that tract which posited that my opinion was that this action is only a START....Iraq is hardly the only participant in state sponsored terrorism....but that isn't what we were specifically arguing about, was it?

Finally, I don't need any education about whats contained in the oath taken by all US service people...Neither I nor anyone else in this thread has EVER argued that it's in any way about "...protecting America's wealthy and comfortable.... "

to suggest that is at best crass and at worst a cheap obfuscation.

I like ya, Squiggy...much of what you say in the threads here and all over the site has been interesting, pertinent,well thought out, and sometimes hilarious....but in this thread I sense some deep passion for the plight of the serviceman that doesn't really have a whole lot to do with the conflict in Iraq. Much of the coverage I've seen, and the letters home to the family from MY own relatives in both the Navy and Marines, indicate that THEY feel what they are doing makes some difference for the better....

...go figure, but taking a stand one way or the other is not any more or less legit depending on whether the writer is THERE or not. That's as flawed as saying anyone who wasn't born here in this country can't possibly understand the American perspective, and thus has no business commenting on it...

MADrin
 
Ever hear of Pearl Harbor or 09/11? Both instances of the American people getting attacked. At least the Japanese had the integrity to wear their colors to the ball.
Click to expand...

...sure, Gonz, I've heard of Pearl Harbor....I think in THAT exchange , Squiggy and I were debating the proper powers and response of the US Military in WAR, and as it applied to protection of the general public and "American soil". I'm not sure a non-state, and a military base at that, applies in that argument...

...as for 9-11...no, apparently I'm the only American who hasn't heard about it. Now I hate the US military since clearly they should have been actively protecting whatever 9-11 was all about...plus they should have told us all about that war that had been declared sometime before that date...

...those slackers....

MADrin
 
as for Iraq and the "war on terrorism", there's NO doubt whatsoever that the Iraq part of it IS absolutely about oil......it's also about a multitude of other things...revenge figures in even..but oil is a major component...
Click to expand...

It was just that quote that set in my mind that you felt it was fine to kill and risk American lives for oil. Perhaps I interprated it different from its intent, but that is what brought on the argument of participation. This whole 'terrorism' tag that the administration is advertising has left us surrendering rights faster than the French at knife point. I've yet to read a good reason by anyone who supports attacking Iraq. Yes, he is a "bad man". But we have our share of those too.

As for the oath of the serviceman, it does not say "truth, justice, and the American way"...Thats Superman you're thinking of...Its the American serviceman that gets to bleed and die for whatever reason we want to send him/her to war. I, for one, won't hesitate to insist those reasons be honorable and justified...

You spoke of a time to debate and discuss and then you said "we did that". Well the consensus was/is that we shouldn't go.. Did we just go through the motions, or were those discussions supposed to count?
 
Yeah, Squiggy...I thought that was the one probably badly phrased premise that got ya going on this line of questioning. I'm not on a roll today as that goes, being a bit ill and all, but , no, I wouldn't suggest that it'd be ok to risk American lives just for oil...

....only that oil is certainly part of this that NO ONE can deny. Oil is also part of the French and German opposition to it....a LARGE part of that...

I think there have been some very clear "honorable and just" reasons for sending US troops to remove the current Iraqi regime, but in many cases they've been drowned out by much tastier stories of human shields, internal strife, and peace marches....that's unfortunate.

I approach the question in this way...if we intend to maintain presence in the geographical area, presumably for a host of reasons including treaty obligations, security assignments, etc...and IF we intend to do this with the expectation that some stability is achieved because of this, then of course there must be identification and termination of parties which offend or threaten those plans. Iraq is surely the most obvious party. Clearly they intend to pull a perpetual end run around every requirement placed on them under the terms of their "surrender" the first time.

This is really where I take some issue, Squiggy, with UN posturing, international war angst, and disingenuous political dialogue. American lives were lost in the Gulf War. For whatever reason anyone cares to come up with, those lives were lost, but the conflict ended up with the capitulation of Iraq....

It was, at that time, a conquered nation. Now you and I and most people here know thats not REALLY the case, because if it were conquered we wouldn't find ourselves in this regrettable position currently....but in any case, there were terms of surrender, and they were specific. What comes to mind immediately are the Al Samoud missiles which directly violate not only current terms of several UN resolutions, but also direct terms of cease fire signed by the Hussein regiat the conclusion of the Gulf War. It seems to me to dishonor those lives lost by simply turning away and saying , "ah well...lets just forget about those terms and move on...", because if that's really the attititude to be taken then I question coming to the aid of Kuwait at all.....or even having any sort of presence whatsoever in the middle east.

If it could be as easy as a magic formula for determining the legitimacy of war we'd all be a lot happier I suppose. Obviously there isn't one. We can't even rely on history. In this case history is repeating itself to some extent...even as we MAKE history with an unheard of tactical plan that is so open ended and undefined.

It's odd and somewhat spooky....

In the end I think it goes back to what I said before. You either believe the regime is a force for geo-political instability or not. If it is the former, and if you subscribe to the notion of state sponsorship of terrorism then Iraq is a legit target. If not, then there'll be many sound arguments against that notion.

This whole 'terrorism' tag that the administration is advertising has left us surrendering rights faster than the French at knife point.
Click to expand...

UGH!!! Don't EVEN get me started on that one. That's a separate dynamic altogether. It is nothing more than tacit admission that the terrorists accomplished each and every one of their goals...thus they won their battle. It is capitulation by proxy....

Finally, as for consensus, I do not think at all that the consensus was to NOT go. Rather, I think it was that in fact with respect to Iraq, it HAD violated terms of peace, it HAD continued to act belligerently, and it HAD doen all it could to circumvent prohibitions designed to isolate it and keep it from being a significant factor in the sponsorship of any number of zealous groups whose charters demand the blood of Americans and "infidels" in particular.

One thing that I find interesting is that when asked by the media from any number of different countries, peace marchers, human shields, and agitators all have this recurring answer to the problem....namely that America should pack it up and go home...utterly and completely....

...hmmm..wonder how that'd go?

MADrin
 
madrin said:
as it applied to protection of the general public and "American soil". I'm not sure a non-state, and a military base at that, applies in that argument...
Click to expand...

It was a protectorate of ours so it has to apply.:shrug:

madrin said:
plus they should have told us all about that war that had been declared sometime before that date...
Click to expand...

Yep It started in 1993 with the first bombing of the towers. Too bad our Commander in Chief was lying to the American public & the courts so he forgot to pass word on to the brass to make ready.

My point was, we've been attacked several times. On our soil, it's technically twice in the last 100 or so years, but there are embassies & ships & soldiers quarters & more that we've overlooked.

madrin said:
Now you and I and most people here know thats not REALLY the case, because if it were conquered we wouldn't find ourselves in this regrettable position currently....
Click to expand...

This is an American dilemna. How many times have we stopped before the end result was truly accomplished? Korea, Iraq, more-hell, throw Cuba & Iran in for good measure? They've all come back to bite us in the ass at some point.
If the pols want to start a war, they need to let the military finish the SOB. If that means every man & woman of this country is required to serve, then so be it. Either that or return to the heyday od isolationism & let the world be damned.
 
well Gonz..we could go over and over what defines "war", but in the end we'd have two extremes and we'd likely still be no closer to the answer. This is a different age...one which has no prior guidance.

Are theses "attackers" guerillas? Or..are they actual state sponsored combatants, and by that I mean people who could be seen as actual instruments of a sovereign nation? Are they religious soldiers, solely?....something else?

..can war be declared on anything other than a sovereign nation anyway?

can war be declared on a faith?

Many many questions....but I do have to go with the notion that once begun, a war should be finished, to it's natural conclusion....

MADrin
 
Squiggy said:
Every argument I've heard so far about "terrorism" dictates that we need to wipe out Saudi Arabia. Not Iraq.
Click to expand...

I believe you have been presented with an argument about terrorism which dictates that such a move would be unwise at best, disastrous at worst. Or have you forgotten all of that discussion?
 
Not forgotten. But the argument still points at attacking SA. Only the scenerio (plan of choice) determined that we wait. I'm sure a scenerio exists that had us hitting SA first.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top