Iraq

[michaelsbagley]

I hate my complete inability to avoid getting sucked into discussions like this...

Okay, HarbourMaster, you state that Islam spans half the globe. Why is that a problem? Islam isn't the problem, it's the extremists that are the problem. Your comments seem to hint that you believe that Islam is the problem (please correct me if I am wrong, I do not wan't to put words into your mouth), saying another religion is the problem is only another form of extremism. Sorry but the Christians killed just as many innocent folks as the Muslims did in the Crusades. The Crusades were about which religion controlled the holy lands, not about one religion killing the other, the killing infedels was just the propaganda to help fuel that particular war, and both sides used it, just as they do today (just one side doesn't seem to be as honest about it today).

And if you think Christians aren't just as responsible for other innocent deaths throughout history, you might want to read up on the Spanish inquisition, Salem witch trials (although admittedly with a lower death count relatively speaking), hell good ol' Charlie Manson was screamin about Jesus and all of that as his lot conducted quite a few murders. Jonestown? Waco?

Don't blame religions, blame extremists, there is a huge difference, yeah there may be more Islamic extremists in the world at the moment, but guess what, there are more Islamic peoples. If Christians or another religion were in the majority, there would just be more extremists of that majority.

[Matusalem]

Salem witch trials

Mr Bagley, leave Cotton Mather out of it.....that old bloke did a good many uf us pirates in, partuclarly the crews of Bellamy, Kidd,and Tew.

[michaelsbagley]

Salem witch trials

Mr Bagley, leave Cotton Mather out of it.....that old bloke did a good many uf us pirates in, partuclarly the crews of Bellamy, Kidd,and Tew.

Okay sorry about that....

Poor choice of examples to make my point.... I'll go back to pretending to do some work at the office now.

I almost expected someone to pipe up in their best shrill John Cleese voice.

"Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition...."

[LongTom]

Funny you should mention that. There is a very interesting History Channel series, called "Crusades" by Terry Jones, of Monty Python fame, who despite that dubious credential, seems to have done a reasonably scholarly presentation of the subject. Definitely not the Crusades you learn about in grade school or Time-Life book series.

[CaptainSatan]

Funny how the leftists were all for going to war when it helped their poll numbers...

One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."

President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."

Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."

Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18,1998.

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."

Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."

Letter to President Bush, Signed by Joe Lieberman (D-CT), John McCain (Rino-AZ) and others, Dec. 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."

Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."

Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."

Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."

Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I b elieve that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."

Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."

Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002.

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"

Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weap ons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002.

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."

Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002.

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his contin ued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."

Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

-CS

[CaptainSatan]

Message posted twice. Wasn't sure how to delete it.

[CaptainSatan]

But the dude (bush) never served in the militayy...... (ok.... maybe a bit in the National Guard.... but he went AWOL from that....

Bush was never AWOL. That is misinformation spread by the vast left wing conspiracy. President Bush released his military records prior to running for president. Senator Kerry kept his records sealed. Perhaps he was embarrassed that he had a lower GPA than President Bush .There are plenty of complaints about President Bush that you could make without having to resort to making things up :)

Please tell me that you are not implying that the National Guard is not part of the military.

-CS

[Caraccioli]

You know, I was thinking about this the other day while I was reading about General Ridgeway. (you can see the article I was reading here.) In the article, they said,

"During one briefing, he listened while officers explained their defensive strategies. Finally, he asked about the attack plan. The startled staff said it had none. Within days, Ridgway replaced key officers."

I don't know much about the war, so I can't speak all that intelligently about most of it as I can on topics that interest me more, but this quote brought to mind something for me.

What is the objective of the conflict? Not in broad, hazy, "eliminate terrorism" terms (which is silly - the only way to do that is to confine everyone in the world to their rooms without supper), or overly-specific "take this specific sector" terms (although that is important for specific units.) Rather, what, specifically, are we trying to achieve at this point? What is our goal?

If you asked the people running the war, my suspicion is that that would be as startled as the officers responding to Ridgeway. It seems to me that for anyone to succeed at anything like this, an objective is required. (Not a timeline. A timeline is just a nice way to say "give up". Even the most unrealistic idealists must be able to comprehend that we're far too committed to do that at this point.)

I think we need a specific goal that people can rally around - soldiers and civilians alike. (Well, except for the rabid anti-Bush crowd. They won't like any solution unless it makes GWB look bad. But they view the war as a pawn in a chess game, so their suggestions are not to be trusted in my book.)

[Captain J. Savage]

Reasons we're in Iraq:

WMDs which were moved out of country before OIF1.

Remove a dictator, which believe it or not kept better control of the country than we have thus far. His methods cruel or not...

Oil is mentioned constantly but I've seen no evidence of this as far as our economy goes; I don't see cheaper prices or Citco pumping the fields...

Iraq is a major staging area for Saudi, Iran, and Syria.

...

Who's to say those are all the reasons?

The government keeps a lot of information from the public. Who's to say there's not a "need to know" list of reasons why we're there. That's why I remain neutral on the issue. How can I personally judge something that I may only know 20% of the information about?

[Caraccioli]

That's interesting, but we're already there, so I think the reasons are no longer the primary concern. (Sorry Patrick) What is our objective now? What, in a sentence, is our goal in Iraq at this point? (Or at least in a paragraph...)

[capnwilliam]

Reasons we're in Iraq:

WMDs which were moved out of country before OIF1.

Remove a dictator, which believe it or not kept better control of the country than we have thus far. His methods cruel or not...

Oil is mentioned constantly but I've seen no evidence of this as far as our economy goes; I don't see cheaper prices or Citco pumping the fields...

Iraq is a major staging area for Saudi, Iran, and Syria.

...

Who's to say those are all the reasons?

The government keeps a lot of information from the public. Who's to say there's not a "need to know" list of reasons why we're there. That's why I remain neutral on the issue. How can I personally judge something that I may only know 20% of the information about?

Weapons of Mass Destruction: never existed. By definition they never existed, because if they did, we'd identify them. Are they nuclear bombs? Intercontinental ballistic missiles? Chemical weapons?

A pair of six-shot revolvers, maybe?

"Weapons of mass destruction" = "Saturday Night Specials". Clever term. Devoid of meaning.

Saddam Hussein was a dictator. Most of the nations of the world are ruled by a dictator. So what did we oust him in particular?

Saddam Hussein was not religious. By ousting him we opened the country up to the Islamic fundamentalists in Iraq, and destroyed the counterweight to the Islamic fundamentalists in Iran. And, it's Islamic fundamentalism that we're worried about?

Capt. William

[Morgan Dreadlocke]

An what governments be fundin' the fundamentalism? Lets see, Iran has oil contracts wi' France, Russia an China, three permanet members 'o the UN Security Counsil. These three be the same whats financing the conflict in Sudan, opposin' any resolution to it. Now tell me, what political connections would those three countries be havin' in the US?