Republican or Democrat however, soldiers are just tools of the government expected to do as they're told right or wrong. That is not how it should be. People should not be forced to do things they believe are wrong because "its their job."
That is the point of the military. Somehow in the post-Vietnam world and especially in the 1990s, we changed the military into a being thought of as some kind welfare program (even during the most deployments in American history). It is not, it is a force, to be used lawfully as the federal government sees fit. I think there should be greater capability to end service early if you do not wish to continue the mission, but you should lose any benefits you would get if you stayed.
It is poor people fighting for their land. I know for a fact in their shoes I'd be mightily pissed off, probably enough to kill someone too. There's 2 sides to every story and everyone's done some fucked up shit. Plain and simple.
No, it isn't. You have Iran which is playing it's own game in Iraq. You have local thugs like al-Sadr who were taking advantage of a power vacuum. You have al-Qaeda and other foreign forces doing bombings and acting as the primary insurgent forces. These guys are not poor people hoping to keep their homes from the American marauders. This isn't a cut-and-dry, black-and-white, good-and-evil poor people uprising against the Great Satan.
another antiwar site has the number i posted for the death count
http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/ (yes i realize the internet is not necessarily the most reliable source but once again: hasty post, first number i saw)
It is important to note this passage:
JustForeignPolicy maintains a running estimate based on the Lancet study
Look into that Lancet study...
Civilians are not targets but havent we killed just as many of them as military?
No, we aren't barbarians.
Yes I meant WMD's; which was the original justification for going there: not "stopping saddams regime".
No, there were multiple justifications, just because you only want there to be one, or whatever strange reason only heard about one doesn't mean there was only one.
Didnt the gulf war end in say oh 1991 or so? Why the fuck are you bringing up an even older war acting like this isnt a new one?
Because it didn't end. The Gulf War was "ended" with a ceasefire, which Saddam violated. We proceeded to engage in war with Saddam for twelve years.
Look if Bush hadnt made Congress approve his war without the WMD thing; if he had said "Saddam is evil, we need to stop him, thats why we're doing it, its our job as a world super power."
Then...you made an "if" statement with no then. This is troubling since the "if" statement is
true.When this all started, as things progressed and more news came out, the reasons kept changing. You can watch George stumble and fumble on historic speeches that redefined this "operation" every week or so.
Again, just because you were not aware of the other reasons, doesn't mean they weren't there and weren't being given. I mean for goodness sake, look up some of the speeches, even with WMD at the forefront due to a desire for UN support, it's not the only thing being mentioned.
Bush in 2002 wrote:This same tyrant has tried to dominate the Middle East, has invaded and brutally occupied a small neighbor, has struck other nations without warning, and holds an unrelenting hostility toward the United States.
By its past and present actions, by its technological capabilities, by the merciless nature of its regime, Iraq is unique. As a former chief weapons inspector of the U.N. has said, "The fundamental problem with Iraq remains the nature of the regime, itself. Saddam Hussein is a homicidal dictator who is addicted to weapons of mass destruction."
...
And that is the source of our urgent concern about Saddam Hussein's links to international terrorist groups. Over the years, Iraq has provided safe haven to terrorists such as Abu Nidal, whose terror organization carried out more than 90 terrorist attacks in 20 countries that killed or injured nearly 900 people, including 12 Americans. Iraq has also provided safe haven to Abu Abbas, who was responsible for seizing the Achille Lauro and killing an American passenger. And we know that Iraq is continuing to finance terror and gives assistance to groups that use terrorism to undermine Middle East peace.
We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy -- the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.
...
Some have argued that confronting the threat from Iraq could detract from the war against terror. To the contrary; confronting the threat posed by Iraq is crucial to winning the war on terror. When I spoke to Congress more than a year ago, I said that those who harbor terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists themselves. Saddam Hussein is harboring terrorists and the instruments of terror, the instruments of mass death and destruction. And he cannot be trusted. The risk is simply too great that he will use them, or provide them to a terror network.
Terror cells and outlaw regimes building weapons of mass destruction are different faces of the same evil. Our security requires that we confront both.
Bush, earlier in 2002 wrote: These leaders have reached the same conclusion I have -- that Saddam Hussein has made the case against himself.
He has broken every pledge he made to the United Nations and the world since his invasion of Kuwait was rolled back in 1991. Sixteen times the United Nations Security Council has passed resolutions designed to ensure that Iraq does not pose a threat to international peace and security. Saddam Hussein has violated every one of these 16 resolutions -- not once, but many times.
Saddam Hussein's regime continues to support terrorist groups and to oppress its civilian population. It refuses to account for missing Gulf War personnel, or to end illicit trade outside the U.N.'s oil-for-food program. And although the regime agreed in 1991 to destroy and stop developing all weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles, it has broken every aspect of this fundamental pledge.
Today this regime likely maintains stockpiles of chemical and biological agents
...
Saddam Hussein's defiance has confronted the United Nations with a difficult and defining moment: Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced, or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purposes of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?
Another thought, why would Bush need to make the case that Saddam was "evil"? Only apologists denied that someone who put 300,000 in mass graves, tried to eradicate populations, and all the rest, wasn't. That wasn't the question. The question was "why, in regards to national security, is the Hussein regime to be removed?"
Alright, they were majority Saudi's. Do you see an Iraqi or an Afghani in the list you gave me of where they were from? No? Then you just proved my point.
What point? That citizens cannot act independent of their states? So if I fly down to Aussieland and shoot Jae in the kneecaps, that's an attack by the United States on Aussieland?
Why does there have to be an Iraqi or Afghani on the planes on 9/11 for their regimes to be supporting terrorism?
The reason 9/11 is the only reason to stop Islamism influenced terrorism is the fact that we as a country didnt give a shit until then.
This is completely illogical. So because people only started paying attention due to a major event, that's the only justification? We cannot ever do something because it is right?
"Saddam and Afghanistan have threatened us; we're taking them out" Ok fine, go for it. But what about Iran and North Korea? "We're starting a war on terrorism!" What about all the terrorism south of our border in central America and South America? Why dont we ever hear about military operations there?
So because you don't hear about something, it's not happening?
Also. We aren't gods. We have our limitations, we have to choose our priorities. A regime that had been a thorn in the side for twelve years, with legal, moral, and strategtic justifications* to remove, was chosen as the first priority.
I'm against being lied to about it from the start and going after what I believe were the smaller threats first (due to lack of WMD's etc.).
Are you saying that only Bush lied to you? What about the UN? The Clinton Administration? The Democratic Party? There was no disagreement on the "facts" between them.
Then again, what lie were you told? That Saddam had WMD programs? Because he did. That Saddam was a supporter of terrorism? Because he was. All of this is well documented. If there was overreaching by the
entire world by thinking Saddam had WMD stockpiles because he wouldn't confirm he destroyed them and was bluffing, that means they were wrong, not that they lied.
*
Legal Justifications:
-Violation of Gulf War cease-fire
-Endless UN resolutions, and Saddam's failure to abide by them
-Official US policy to remove Saddam from power (Iraq Liberation Act)
-The principle of self-determination
-Saddam's support of terrorism
Moral Justifications:
-Saddams' authoritarian state
-Saddams' effors to eradicate the Marsh Arabs and Kurds
-The principle of self-determination
Stategic Justifications:
-Saddam's long standing pursuit of WMD programs
-Saddam's support and harboring of terrorism
-Getting rid of a twelve year old war
-The nearing collapse of sanctions
