DescentBB

Will Robinson wrote:You understand Afghanastan because it fits your simplistic revenge template but you fail to grasp the much more complex long term goals of a war on all terrorists

Afghanastan was activly supporting terrorism. The Taliban were terrorists.
Saddam was not a terrorist, he was a brutal dictator. And by no means the most brutal or most dangerous on this planet.
Yes, Saddam participated in terrorism in a small way, but many of our allies participate in a much BIGGER and more open way.

And as for those who are NOT our allies, North Korea will sell weapons to any terrorists who have cash, and North Korea may actually HAVE a bomb (or at least their getting much closer that Saddam ever was)

The only possible connection between the war on Iraq and the war on terror is that once we invaded Iraq, all of the Islamic mal-contents in the world moved there to fight off the conquistadors. This is a strategy that I hardly find just. Lets just move the terrorism problem to someone else's country. They are moslems, so they deserve it anyway.

Well let's see about the UN's job.

Task: Post Desert Storm = Disarm Iraq
Bush & Co = UN not doing job. Saddam still has weapons at immediate disposal.
Discovery: Iraq has no weapons of any kind. All either destroyed or accounted for. Hence, the UN was doing it's job. There have been no shut down factories found, no material parts, no plans, no nothing. Isn't it hard to restart something from nothing?

You know Will, everyone else may have said the same thing, but they weren't the ones to send US soldiers to their deaths. The decision to go to war was made long before that March 21st night, long before.

Suicide bombers are NOW a concern of yours Will? When did the US care about what happened over there, ever? I didn't know the last 10 years of the fatah bothered anyone here in America. I mean, 20 people die on a bus and it's last page news.

The rush to war was not necessary. Obviously, more time could have been spent actually verifying the bad intel that Bush liked to spout.

Will Robinson wrote: If you actually believe that its hard to even respond seriously because there just is no logic behind your belief!
What good would it do Bush senior to have Saddam later removed? If Bush senior was wrong to let him stay, which I believe is true, then how does someone else going in to get him change the fact that he failed to deliver when he was in charge?
Maybe you think in schoolyard terms like back when we were 10 years old we thought that if we picked a fight with someone who then beat us up and then the next day our friends went and pounded the guy we somehow were vindicated....I don't know it just seems really stupid and I'm not ashamed to give both Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. a little more intilectual credit than that so please explain the revenge thing for me OK?

Actually I was being sarcastic. I do highly dought that it was for revenge. It is just a common joke. As for the oil, mabye it was a war for oil?

Will Robinson wrote:

Dakatsu wrote:In all seriousness to the Republicans, I agree on the Afganistan war, but not the Iraq war, as the Iraq war was BS. The Afganistan war's cause at least had a point. (although we did a ***** job, getting everyone EXCEPT Osama Bin Laden...)

Maybe you just don't understand the the reasons for the Iraq phase of the War on Terror, again the school yard mentality comes to mind. You understand Afghanastan because it fits your simplistic revenge template but you fail to grasp the much more complex long term goals of a war on all terrorists not just a few hiding in a cave in afghanastan.

Yes, I also see the fact that NORTH KOREA HAS A NUKE, AND IRAN IS GETTING A NUKE, AND WE ARE NOT DOING ★■◆●! Iraq was the wrong place to exhaust troops from such a way smaller threat than other countries in that region (Iran!).

Afganistan was openly sponsoring terror, that is why I agree with it. Osama could of tried for another attack. Saddam Houssein wasn't anywhere near a good leader, but we decided to get him, instead of open terror-supporting whackjobs like whatshisface in Iran and Kim Jong-il in North Korea.

Most of the intel on the IRAQ war turned out to be false. They had no WMDS at all. Oh, but they had artillery and tanks! Wow, name a country with NO millitary weapons AT ALL. The only one I could think of is Costa Rica, and that is just a guess. About every country has a millitary: artillery cannons, tanks, aircraft, missiles. But instead of choosing to target North Korea, with a large millitary and constructing a nuke, or Iran with the religious whachjob, you chose Iraq, a country already bombed to hell a while ago. Many of the insurgent fighters in Iraq came from Iran or another country. Iraq wasn't a threat when compared to North Korea or Iran!

Now, tell me if you still think between North Korea, Iran, and Iraq, that Iraq was the best target to go into and take over. If you say Iraq, you need some mental help.

Dakatsu wrote:NORTH KOREA HAS A NUKE, AND IRAN IS GETTING A NUKE, AND WE ARE NOT DOING *****!

Iraq taught an important lesson to rogue nations. Rogue nations fall into two groups. Those WITH nukes and those WITHOUT nukes. rogue nations in the "WITHOUT" group (Iraq) get invaded, those in the "WITH" group (N. Korea) do not. Iran learned the lesson well and is now trying to get into the "WITH" group as quickly as possible.

Remember the build up to war? Bush made it sound like if we didn't stop them IMMEDIATELY, we'd have nuclear war.

What Zuruck means by this is \"I wasn't listening very carefully, and I've forgotten what Bush actually said.\"

Bush's argument was made time and time again: we know Saddam had WMD (chemical, biological), we know he still has some of them, we know he's seeking more (including nuclear), and we don't trust him to hold back if he gets nukes, so let's go kick his arse now before he gets them. Waiting until the threat is \"imminent\" is a bad policy.

Only one part of the argument -- \"he still has some of them\" -- was wrong-ish... and it's the least relevant part!

IRAN IS GETTING A NUKE, AND WE ARE NOT DOING *****!

Where did you get your crystal ball into the inner workings of US actions in the middle east? What makes you sure we're not doing anything about it?

Lothar wrote:Where did you get your crystal ball into the inner workings of US actions in the middle east? What makes you sure we're not doing anything about it?

Umm... the fact that we havent bombed them yet.

Iraq: "Disarm all your weapons, or we will blow the ★■◆● out of you"
North Korea: "Lets talk about it, about your nuclear program"

I see a big difference here. Mabye it is because they are making the nukes, instead of making Saddam a moustache? I don't know, but we seem to be more careful going for the people who have weapons as apposed to the Iraqi's *overwhelming* arsenal of aluminum tubes.

Zuruck wrote:...Discovery: Iraq has no weapons of any kind. All either destroyed or accounted for....

Absolutely WRONG!!!
If they were accounted for we wouldn't have had the excuse to go in there! To this day...that's right, read it again! TO THIS DAY, there are numerous WMD and other banned weapons and related weapons material that ARE NOT ACCOUNTED FOR!
The U.N. had knowledge of them, some of them were even tagged for future disposal, but apparantly they have just disapeared because we still don't know where they are!
If Saddam had cooperated we would know where they are and we would have had no justification for enforcing the U.N. resolutions as a reason to invade!

So first you fix that part of your post that I quoted above, then try to reconcile the rest of your post with that fact, it will require changing your assumptions quite a bit, and then lets see where we are OK?!?

Here's a hint, it will be much closer to reality than where your head is right now!
Try reading the Dulfer Report and all the other related Iraqi weapons inspection reports instead of just relying on bits and pieces of it cherry picked for your partisan pleasure and you might actually see, for the first time, what the hell your talking about when you go off on this subject!

Dakatsu wrote:Yes, I also see the fact that NORTH KOREA HAS A NUKE, AND IRAN IS GETTING A NUKE, AND WE ARE NOT DOING *****! Iraq was the wrong place to exhaust troops from such a way smaller threat than other countries in that region (Iran!).

You must be kidding again right?!?

You didn't just suggest:
Iraq=minor threat
Iran=medium threat
N.korea=major threat
therefore we should have followed that order in prosecuting the War on Terror did you?!?

Well I guess you did. OK I'll play along.

The reason we don't go into N. Korea, besides the fact that, unlike Iraq, they are not in violation of a cease fire agreement from a war that technically hadn't ended due to their non-compliance with the terms of the ceasefire....
and because, unlike Iraq, N. Korea isn't in violation of some seventeen U.N. resolutions which provide for military force if they fail to comply...
but yea, besides those minor differences we don't attack N. Korea because N.korea has enough conventional weapons and troops aimed at S. Korea that they could take it down in a matter of weeks!

*A standing army of over 1 million persons strong with a reserve of over 7 million!
* Over seventy percent of those troops stationed within 145 kilometers of the Demilitarized Zone!
*An estimated 12,000 artillery tubes and 2,300 multiple rocket launchers that, from their current emplacements, are capable of raining 500,000 shells per hour on U.S. and South Korean troops.
*500 long-range artillery pieces are able to target Seoul, a mere 40 kilometers from the DMZ.

So even without a single nuke we have damn good reason to avoid an invasion of N. Korea.

Sure we could defeat them....sometime after S. Korea was destroyed along with almost everyone there! Or sometime after the nuclear cloud drifted off and the halflife of the radioactive fallout permitted us to go in and declare victory....

But even if we went through all that what would we gain in the War on Terror? Strategically and tactically not much really!

You say we aren't doing anything, well I beg to differ there. We took out Saddam who was a low hanging fruit on the tree. Easy pickings and in the world of politics justifiable to take down.
In the world of long range military planning strategically a sound investment.

By doing so we have a nice military presence next to Iran. We have many options from there to negotiate from a position of strength. What is more threatening to the Iranians, some words from all the way across the planet or some words from the commander of the army gathered just across his border?

We don't really want to experience the human wave attacks that the Iranians are known for anymore than we want to land in N. Korea but if you want to meet the Iranians at the negotiating table, G.W. Bush, with his army right next door, is a whole lot more serious threat than John Kerry with his army back in the U.S.

Well I hope you get the idea that we should and do pick our battles more carefully than your list criteria suggests and each and every possible enemy presents it's own unique circumstance. Instead of thinking you can just rate them as:
Iraq=minor threat
Iran=medium threat
N.korea=major threat
therefore we must invade N.Korea first, then Iran, then Iraq...
That would be pretty damn stupid to propose such a simplistic view of how and why we might engage each of those countries in battle!

Dakatsu wrote:Now, tell me if you still think between North Korea, Iran, and Iraq, that Iraq was the best target to go into and take over. If you say Iraq, you need some mental help.

Yes i'm quite sure that "Iraq was the best target to go into" in order to start a global war on terror where the focus of our efforts militarily would be in the Middle East and not the Korean peninsula which is what, some 2000 miles away!?! Strategically it was by far the superior choice, politically it was by far the superior choice, tactically it was by far the superior choice. And I don't need any help, I'm doing quite fine actually and even had the time and patience to help you to understand the big picture!

You must be kidding again right?!?

You didn't just suggest:
Iraq=minor threat
Iran=medium threat
N.korea=major threat
therefore we should have followed that order in prosecuting the War on Terror did you?!?

Well I guess you did. OK I'll play along.

No, I am saying Iraq was a stupid idea. We went into there for nonexistant WMD's, and even if it was just for a way to attack Iran.

Going in that order is a stupid idea. Just saying we need to use something called strategy. Not just surround them. Since we surrounded them, I guess we are going into Iran now, right?

Also, if we could get China to help, we would surround North Korea. Then we could go in there, right?

The reason we don't go into N. Korea, besides the fact that, unlike Iraq, they are not in violation of a cease fire agreement from a war that technically hadn't ended due to their non-compliance with the terms of the ceasefire....

Okay, so because Iraq was in violation of the ceasefire, unlike North Korea's nuclear arsenal.

and because, unlike Iraq, N. Korea isn't in violation of some seventeen U.N. resolutions which provide for military force if they fail to comply...

Okay, so North Korea is in violation of humanitarian rights, but because they are not something the UN thinks needs to be dealt with, we dont do it.

but yea, besides those minor differences we don't attack N. Korea because N.korea has enough conventional weapons and troops aimed at S. Korea that they could take it down in a matter of weeks!

Okay, so it is a matter of force. If there was a guy with a snap & pop who threatened to throw it at someone to cause terror, we would send an army after him and establish a new government on his house?

So even without a single nuke we have damn good reason to avoid an invasion of N. Korea.

Well, the republicans said that Iraq had WMD's, technically we should of never gone in because of this nuke.

Sure we could defeat them....sometime after S. Korea was destroyed along with almost everyone there! Or sometime after the nuclear cloud drifted off and the halflife of the radioactive fallout permitted us to go in and declare victory....

Okay, so we should nuke them first, according to your logic. As long as no American, or South Korean, or Chinese, or Japanese lives are lost, it is okay.

You say we aren't doing anything, well I beg to differ there. We took out Saddam who was a low hanging fruit on the tree. Easy pickings and in the world of politics justifiable to take down.
In the world of long range military planning strategically a sound investment.

A sound investment, yeah, tell that to the 300,000 dead and 500,000 injured. They will agree, especially the progress we have made as well!

By doing so we have a nice military prsence next to Iran. We have many options from there to negotiate from a position of strength. What is more threatening to the Iranians, some words from all the way across the planet or some words from the commander of the army gathered just across his border?

We don't really want to experience the human wave attacks that the Iranians are known for anymore than we want to land in N. Korea but if you want to meet the Iranians at the negotiating table, G.W. Bush, with his army right next door, is a whole lot more serious threat than John Kerry with his army back in the U.S.

Or, we could of just stopped at killing the terrorists responsible for 9/11 and fixing Afganistan. Then people would like America, hmmm?

Well I hope you get the idea that we should and do pick our battles more carefully than your list criteria suggests and each and every possible enemy presents it's own unique circumstance. Instead of thinking you can just rate them as:
Iraq=minor threat
Iran=medium threat
N.korea=major threat
therefore we must invade N.Korea first, then Iran, then Iraq...
That would be pretty damn stupid to propose such a simplistic view of how and why we might engage each of those countries in battle!

Well, I didn't make a damn list, I asked why of ALL of the other countries, Iraq? Pakistan was right below Afganistan, we could of went for it, as it is developing a nuclear program as well. Note the fact that the sad thing is these countries will never give up their nuclear arsenal, why give into us, after all, we have 20,000 nukes ready to fire, and plenty more in a bunker in Alaska.

Yes i'm quite sure that \"Iraq was the best target to go into\" in order to start a global war on terror where the focus of our efforts militarily would be in the Middle East and not the Korean peninsula which is what, some 2000 miles away!?! Strategically it was by far the superior choice, politically it was by far the superior choice, tactically it was by far the superior choice. And I don't need any help, I'm doing quite fine actually and even had the time and patience to help you to understand the big picture!

Man if that is the big picture, then your picture quality sucks.

Dakatsu wrote:No, I am saying Iraq was a stupid idea. We went into there for nonexistant WMD's, and even if it was just for a way to attack Iran. Just saying we need to use something called strategy.

We went there for a number of reasons, many of them have been listed here but if you want to misrepresent and ignore those reasons and instead rewrite history so your argument makes sense that's your problem but don't complain about a lack of strategy when it's the strategy and the basis for the strategy that you are willfully ignoring!

Dakatsu wrote:Since we surrounded them, I guess we are going into Iran now, right?

Wrong. (the answer to why you are wrong lies in the material you've been ignoring)

Dakatsu wrote:Also, if we could get China to help, we would surround North Korea. Then we could go in there, right?

Wrong. The reason we don't want to invade N. Korea was given in detail. the reason you have chosen to ignore it and instead offer some lame interpretation of the situation is probably because you can't deal with the reality and have a strong need for N. Korea to have been a more important military target than Iraq was. to understand why you have made this mistake please go back and read the material you.ve been ignoring....

Dakatsu wrote:Okay, so because Iraq was in violation of the ceasefire, unlike North Korea's nuclear arsenal.

Correct! N.Korea's arsenal is not, and does not put them, in violation of any ceasefire agreement with us! ergo their arsenal can't be used as a reason to invade where Saddams failure to comply with the ceasefire agreement did put him in violation. Very good, you got one right!!!

Dakatsu wrote:Okay, so North Korea is in violation of humanitarian rights, but because they are not something the UN thinks needs to be dealt with, we dont do it.

Partially right. The U.N hasn't placed the N.Koreans on notice that they will be subject to enforcement of any U.N. resolutions they fail to comply with. That doesn't neccessarily mean that we won't list human rights violations as a reason to invade. For example we bombed Bosnia without U.N. approval because of human rights violations.....yea, I know, the president back then had a "D" beside his name instead of an "R" so that made it OK for him to do but really it's the same thing.

Dakatsu wrote:

but yea, besides those minor differences we don't attack N. Korea because N.korea has enough conventional weapons and troops aimed at S. Korea that they could take it down in a matter of weeks!

Okay, so it is a matter of force. If there was a guy with a snap & pop who threatened to throw it at someone to cause terror, we would send an army after him and establish a new government on his house?

You sound really confused here, or are you just trying to be obtuse for lack of a better reply? It's real simple and has already been explained, we fashion each response uniqely.To see why go back and read the material you've been ignoring.

Dakatsu wrote: Well, the republicans said that Iraq had WMD's, technically we should of never gone in because of this nuke.

Wrong. Bush said we shouldn't wait until he has the capability to use nukes...and we didn't...and now he can't....
See how that worked? It's part of that strategy that you claim we needed. In fact we don't have a lack of strategy, you apparantly have a lack of ability to understand it though....

Dakatsu wrote:

Sure we could defeat them....sometime after S. Korea was destroyed along with almost everyone there! Or sometime after the nuclear cloud drifted off and the halflife of the radioactive fallout permitted us to go in and declare victory....

Okay, so we should nuke them first, according to your logic. As long as no American, or South Korean, or Chinese, or Japanese lives are lost, it is okay.

Wrong. I never implied we should nuke them in fact I said attacking N.Korea wouldn't be worth doing in the context of fighting the War on Terror. Why you keep trying to ascribe positions to me that are totally opposite from the ones I post is most likely because you can't find a decent response to the argument you face so you construct a strawman to fight against. I recommend you go back and read all the material ever published on the subject of this War on Terror because a mind is a terrible thing to waste.

Dakatsu wrote:

You say we aren't doing anything, well I beg to differ there. We took out Saddam who was a low hanging fruit on the tree. Easy pickings and in the world of politics justifiable to take down.
In the world of long range military planning strategically a sound investment.

A sound investment, yeah, tell that to the 300,000 dead and 500,000 injured. They will agree, especially the progress we have made as well!

You better take a good look at those numbers and find out just how many hundreds of thousands of them died before we ever invaded, how many of them are dead because of Saddams Oil for Weapons scam or his wholesale massacre of Kurds and other political enemies. You really should do some reading on the subject instead of mindlessly accepting radical leftwing talking points that are designed to be lapped up by idiots because it makes you look like one of them....

Dakatsu wrote:Or, we could of just stopped at killing the terrorists responsible for 9/11 and fixing Afganistan. Then people would like America, hmmm?

It's a War on Terror. Not a War-on-a-few-Terrorists-hiding-in-a-cave-somewhere-in-Pakistan!
If we just wanted some payback you'd have a point but we decided to do something much more effective. we decided to try and put a big damper on the way all terrorists were operating, the way they were being funded and given sanctuary and hence the name the War on Terror was chosen to represent the much bigger, broader goals. You must have thought we were fighting the War of Revenge on a Few People or something. No wonder you're so confused!!

Dakatsu wrote:Well, I didn't make a damn list, I asked why of ALL of the other countries, Iraq?

Yes, actually you did make a list;

Now, tell me if you still think between North Korea, Iran, and Iraq, that Iraq was the best target to go into and take over. - Dakatsu

and you really need to go read my answer to that question over and over until you understand the answer. Maybe get a tutor or see someone about learning disabilities because you have a serious problem focusing on reality!