Invasion of Iraq

Since many people really seem to want to talk about this in other threads I thought it wise to start a thread completely dedicated to this subject. It is also the hot topic of the world as of late.

I for the record believe it is imperitave that we overthrow Saddam as soon as we possibly can in order to avoid a massive Nuclear, Biological, or Chemical weapon catastrophe.

At what cost? Are you ready to give your life or that of a family member or friend. Why should WE have to be the ones? Why not someone else? Like his own people.

Then what? Will we deal with his successor in the same manner if that person is equal to or worst than him? When do you purpose the circle ends? How long do WE go about removing people from office we don't like and label an enemy of the state and humanity?

Just curious ...

What 'massive Nuclear, Biological, or Chemical weapon catastrophe' are you talking about?

So far, the only nation I know that has all these weapons fit to destroy the entire world 10 times over is US. Not to forget, UK manufactures Chemical weapons as well.

Is this the typical american then? Don't know what's that, but lets shoot it anyway kind of attitude.

On the other hand, I agree with you that Saddam should buzz off. But instead of blitzing the whole of Iraq killing millions of innocents, why don't you help them overthrow him instead. Who in the world wants to support the US initiative when everytime you go there, people die? And then you say, oh sorry, its just a mistake.

I say your list is a bit short don't you think? How about Pakistan, India, China, North Korea and Russia? Hmmmm?

And no .. this is not a typical American. Just one in a few of millions who'd rather not go to war again. That's my two cents anyway.

ahmad abas (Abasan) wrote: What 'massive Nuclear, Biological, or Chemical weapon catastrophe' are you talking about? So far, the only nation I know that has all these weapons fit to destroy the entire world 10 times over is US. Not to forget, UK manufactures Chemical weapons as well. Is this the typical american then? Don't know what's that, but lets shoot it anyway kind of attitude. On the other hand, I agree with you that Saddam should buzz off. But instead of blitzing the whole of Iraq killing millions of innocents, why don't you help them overthrow him instead. Who in the world wants to support the US initiative when everytime you go there, people die? And then you say, oh sorry, its just a mistake.

We've tried to get his own people to overthrow him, inciting both opposing religious factions and the Kurds. Didn't work, although we did, as a consequence, get the TurkishKurds riled up, and that did nothing to help the Turkish Kurds, or our position with Turkey.

We're working like crazy on other factions within the country...don't know that it will be much better. However, in the 1980's, we liked him well enough to sell him arms with an almost limitless line of credit.

There's a little problem with targeting a head of state...they might turn around and target ours...heads of state tend not to want to get into THAT kind of contest, they prefer the dying to be within the ranks of soldiers.

I have noticed an alarming trend, both in the 91 war and now, of civilians who have never fought in a war, will never fight in a war, will never have someone they love fight in a war, be very much excited about the thought of going over 'there' and "kicking some butt." I've wondered how so many Americans can treat this like some kind of football game, seemingly oblivious to the deaths of our troops, and the deaths of so many women and children that war brings. I guess it is a combination of the sanitized war you all got on CNN, and the fact that with an all volunteer force, Americans have come to see the military as expendible mercenaries, rather than the husbands, wives, parents and children that they are to their familites. If there were a draft, and less loopholes that so many of our leaders of today used in the 60's and 70's, I wonder if so many would still think an unprovoked attack was a good thing.

148 Americans died in battle in the last Gulf War, and a great number more from accidents, and 476 wounded in action (similarly, a great number more injured from accidents). Of those battle deaths and injuries, 23 percent of the dead (35) and 15 percent of the injured (72) were friendly fire. And the main reason our numbers were low---we stopped. Air wars are safer for our troops, looks good when you have to do body counts, but a lot of innocent civilians die in them, and unless you want to level a country, you need to put troops on the ground. A prolonged ground war, with a goal of taking the cities in urban warfare, is going to cost us a lot.

And still, civilians are going to die in great numbers, especially the children. We target key infrastructure to win a war, you want to knock out power. Unfortuantely, that also takes out power to the hospitals, to water treatment plants, etc. In Kabul, disease and diarrhea is growing in alarming numbers; most of the pumping stations and treatment plants cannot run---the power stations are nearly all destroyed.

I'm concerned about Hussein's NBC stash, but I'm also concerned about ours. So far only one country has used nuclear weapons (plural) against another.

So what has changed that makes this so imperitive now? I wish more Americans would pay attention to the rights they once had, that are being slowly (and quickly) eroded, and a little less to trying to control who leads Arab nations.

ca wrote:

"I have noticed an alarming trend, both in the 91 war and now, of civilians who have never fought in a war, will never fight in a war, will never have someone they love fight in a war, be very much excited about the thought of going over 'there' and "kicking some butt." I've wondered how so many Americans can treat this like some kind of football game, seemingly oblivious to the deaths of our troops, and the deaths of so many women and children that war brings."

Right on, Colleen! And right on to your parting shot - why does it give us all such wood to kill Iraqis while all the while our democracy is becoming increasingly ornamental?

I am angry that this administration thinks we are stupid enough to believe that it's in our best interests to enter into a war that will further bungle our relationship to the middle east, further strain our relationship with our own allies, that will do more to eradicate democracy in Asia than terrorism...

I'm even angrier that it seems to be working.

So much power-mongering, so much taking over the world.

Hi, guys.

I think that if one has a great power or strenght, like America has, has the moral duty to protect, other countries too.. but, people's head is strange: you help'em and they think "why did he do it? what's his gain?"..I think simply they don't understand.

Here in Italy, a lot of people think that America goes everywhere there is to shoot and only to protect its interests, claiming that it's to protect: they always say "Oh, Americans, you know, John Wayne, CIA.." and always see "something behind"; this make'em blind, you know, after 11 September someone say, well, they always are in war, they searched it and now they found it.

So I think, that's sad but.. maybe is better stay home but ready to strike back if someone makes the first move: "memo me impune lacessit", that is, nobody stroke me without have my vengeance.

Hope I've been clear, my English is not so good.

Bye

Erminio

BTW: I saw "Black Hawk Down" and I do appreciate it, but someone said "hah, here comes the cowboys..".What did you think of it?

Michael, if you are so concerned about "massive nuclear and chemical catastrophe," I suggest you look to our own backyard: we are still in the same nuclear stand-off with Russia(!) with thousands of nuclear weapons pointed at each other on hair-trigger alert, with a President who has stated that nuclear weapons could conceivably be used in conventional battlefield conditions (totally against their avowed "deterrent" purposes) and who obviously wants to use US troops without the consent of Congress, in effect making himself a little dictator with his own private army.

Oh! That's right! But we're the GOOD guys!! I nearly forgot...!

As an Aikidoka, I don't want anyone, anywhere to suffer. In the face of adversity, sometimes the situation will call for a tenkan, sometimes it will call for an irimi.

Unfortunatly, world leaders traditionaly lack the wisdom, or desire, to decide which option to choose.

Remember that the world government is an anarchaic system. In anarchy, it is everyone for themselves. This is not right, it is not wrong, it simply is. We should simply do our best to redefine power and success in our immediate environment and pray it cathes on.

Peace,

Chad Sieger

Wow, see I knew people really wanted to talk about this.

At what cost? Are you ready to give your life or that of a family member or friend. Why should WE have to be the ones? Why not someone else? Like his own people. Then what? Will we deal with his successor in the same manner if that person is equal to or worst than him? When do you purpose the circle ends? How long do WE go about removing people from office we don't like and label an enemy of the state and humanity? Just curious ...

His own people are incapable of overthrowing him if we left it to them then we would be waiting forever. I don't think we are going to accept anything less than a democratic form of government in Iraq, so it will be difficult for another Saddam to come to power. But of course there are no guarantees, but so what.

What 'massive Nuclear, Biological, or Chemical weapon catastrophe' are you talking about? So far, the only nation I know that has all these weapons fit to destroy the entire world 10 times over is US. Not to forget, UK manufactures Chemical weapons as well. Is this the typical american then? Don't know what's that, but lets shoot it anyway kind of attitude. On the other hand, I agree with you that Saddam should buzz off. But instead of blitzing the whole of Iraq killing millions of innocents, why don't you help them overthrow him instead. Who in the world wants to support the US initiative when everytime you go there, people die? And then you say, oh sorry, its just a mistake.

Very absurd comparison. When do we go around shooting anything that moves or launch nukes and chemical weapons at people?

Colleen, many "civilians" join the military to serve and protect the interests of the United States, why would you join the military if yuo did not expect to have to do military things.

I am angry that this administration thinks we are stupid enough to believe that it's in our best interests to enter into a war that will further bungle our relationship to the middle east, further strain our relationship with our own allies, that will do more to eradicate democracy in Asia than terrorism... I'm even angrier that it seems to be working. So much power-mongering, so much taking over the world.

And you are going to continue to get more and more angry because it is only a matter a time before it is going to happen. I disagree with your characterisation of the President and his motivations and I hope that we get going with it ASAP.

And Neil, yes we are the good guys, in every respect.

Michael,

I joined to defend our country (which in my book does not include an unprovoked attack on another country nor the potential first use of nuclear weapons); that does not mean I agree with the decisions being made by a man who did not even have the majority of this country behind him in the election. He is my CINC, so as long as orders do not violate Human Rights and the Geneva Convention, I will carry them out. But that doesn't mean I won't work toward ensuring the next elected officials think more in line with me.

Your comment about "well, you chose to join" is similar to those I've heard from other civilians about going to war, keeping POWs in open dog cages in GITMO, etc...too many civilians, who know they will never have to pay for wrong military decisions, see no problem because they know it doesn't affect them, and that's what 'they are paying the military to do'. Losses from this volunteer force will not be felt the same as it has been in others wars, there's no risk to the majority of Americans that they might also have to pay that price. So if those Americans don't care how many servicemen are lost, nor about foreign lives (military or civlian) it is going to be a bloody bill to pay.

The fact that despite our efforts, some countries leadership does not change should tell us something. And saying, well, so what, who cares who takes over next is what led to the Taliban taking power after we meddled in Afganistan. Other dictators and strongmen given to the world courtesy of us knowing best (either supported by or taking advantage of a vcuum we engineered): Chaing Kai-shek, Ferdinand Marcos, Ngo Dihn Diem, Nguyen Khanh, Nguyen Van Thieu, General Lon Nol, General Suharto, General Chun Doo-hwan, General Roh Tae-woo, General Pinocet.

I'd say we have a big stake in being responsbile for what grows out of ground we till.

As for "launching nukes or chemical weapons...": Hiroshima. Nagasaki. Agent Orange.

Of course we care if we lose servicemen, but that does not mean that we should never act.

Colleen I also don't believe that you are in any position to make decisions whether or not to act if you happen to believe that what you are doing might violate someone's human rights. That is a decision that is made in Washington or by your CO, not yourself. If you do not trust your superiors judgement then I don't understand why you are in the service.

BTW, Clinton seemed to like to use the military alot more then Bush. Did you have any problems with his wars?

Our duty as military members is to obey the LAWFUL orders of our superiors. Unlawful is defined as those violating human rights and the articles of war under the Geneva Convention. I guess the idea is to avoid things like actions of the SS, or massacres like My Lai...'hey, I was just following orders'...although I'm sure some would prefer the miltary just be killing machines.

I think close to 80 cruise missles, at $750,000 apiece, to hit a pharmaceutical plant and and empty training camp was not the best use of resources, but they weren't wars. I don't know that our involvement in the Balkans has done any good in the long run, and may have done some significant bad.

By your questioning of Clinton's role, I understand you see this as a Republican-Democrat thing. It is not, both parties have shown they can get us into questionable conflicts. But certainly, one of the companies that profits most from war these days is Brown and Root, a subsidiary of Hallibuton. And oil interests in the area can't be ignored.

Democrats seem to lean towards poor judgment over sides to choose, while Republicans make war with the bottom line in sight at all times.

Michael Neal (virginia_kyu) wrote: Wow, see I knew people really wanted to talk about this. His own people are incapable of overthrowing him if we left it to them then we would be waiting forever. I don't think we are going to accept anything less than a democratic form of government in Iraq, so it will be difficult for another Saddam to come to power. But of course there are no guarantees, but so what. Colleen, many "civilians" join the military to serve and protect the interests of the United States, why would you join the military if yuo did not expect to have to do military things. And you are going to continue to get more and more angry because it is only a matter a time before it is going to happen. I disagree with your characterisation of the President and his motivations and I hope that we get going with it ASAP. And Neil, yes we are the good guys, in every respect.

Define "good?" We seem to be using different dictionaries...

Great post, Colleen. Your convictions, and vets who share your views of personal responsibility give me greater respect for our military (this from a sometime "peacenik" ).

There you go, speaking up for ppl whom you have no idea what they want, Michael.

The Iraqi's do not want war and will support their leader, just as ppl will do when threatened: rally round a leader (just as we did).

"Of course there are no guarantees, so what."

Yeah, so what if we lose a few thousand Iraqi citizens, they're just numbers, right? So what if we try to install some deli owner from New York in an unstable region shared by 3 ethnic groups? It's not OUR problem the Iraqi children have suffered under 5 years of an embargo, and NOW they will have to endure several months of the tender mercies of the US military, of which we will receive little-to-no input from the mainstream media!

So WHAT?

But your arguments share one thing with the Pres and VP: a certain cavalier disregard for documentation, or the facts. Cheney's response to charges that Saddam really doesn't have nuclear weapons? "Oh, we can't consider that. If we do, it buys him time to build more weapons."

Why let a little thing like reality get in the way, when it is so much easier to march to the tune of the status quo?

Unfortunately, I do agree with you one thing, Michael. There WILL be an invasion, whether we like it or not. Many ppl will die. There will be much misery, most of which we won't hear about. Instead of spending it on education, alternative energy sources or social programs, we will, once again, send the deadliest army on earth to cause violence to an Arabic people (doesn't this song EVER get old???).

Maybe, though, this time ppl will fight the status quo that allows such casual murder to pass, in whatever fashion they can.

That is my hope: that the blanket corruption finally wakes enough souls up!

...P.S. Republicans? Democrats? Who cares? Clinton was worse, in some ways, than shrub. Gore and Shrub could hardly find any ground to debate it the elections: just 2 sides of the same corrupt coin.

When we take the $$ out of politics, only then will it work.

Well Colleen I don't think anyone is asking you to slaughter thousands of unarmed people indiscriminately. There might be occasions that there will be collateral damage but I don't think you will get out of your job with that excuse.

In fact you guys are really huffing and puffing about this being some huge war where hundreds of thousands will die and all evidence cleary shows that it will be a very short conflict with minimal loss of life.

The Iraqi's do not want war and will support their leader, just as ppl will do when threatened: rally round a leader (just as we did).

No they will surrender very quickly as they did in the Gulf War.

Democrats seem to lean towards poor judgment over sides to choose, while Republicans make war with the bottom line in sight at all times

How do you know this Colleen? That Republicans wage wars in order to make money? Give me a break.

I am personally sick of the multitudes of conspiracy theories coming from you guys without any evidence to back it up. All of these sinister plots that you are painting in our heads are pure political propaganda and nothing more.

Yes I know you guys would rather spend our tax dollars on granola bars and "medical" marijuana but I personally would rather be safer from future terrorist attacks.

Anyway, sorry for the granola bar and "medical" marijuana comment, I might not be that far off base but I am just getting silly. I think I have been spending way too much time in these forums,I am going to try posting less frequently before I get too involved in hundreds of different discussions.

'I am personally sick of the multitudes of conspiracy theories coming from you guys without any evidence to back it up. '

How about iraq being the country with the second largest oil resource in the world? If you want, I can email you something written by John Pilger, a quite reknown journalist. Maybe it'll open your eyes a bit.

But, as the saying goes... though you can bring a camel to the well, you can't make it drink.

Collateral damage are dead civilians---women and children. Is it inevitable in war? Yes, one reason I think caution should be exercised in entering into war. Since in the last war, we managed to hit our own troops fairly regularly, do I think we'll be more accurate when targeting the enemy? No. Since we've hit a Red Cross storage facility twice AFTER they gave us their coordinates, do I think we'll hit other non military targets? yes. Since we've hit several civilian groups in the Afghan war, and managed to kill the first Canadians in combat since the Korean war, do I think other mistakes will happen? yes. These are the prices of war, and if we have to go to war, so be it. But we should be honest that we know this price will be paid, and that we are certain it is worth it. Denying culpability doesn't make it go away.

I am not trying to get out of my job, I already said I would do it, as long as orders were lawful...you were the one who said I should do it regardless of lawful orders. Luckily, I don't take my orders directly from you. Unfortunately, I indirectly take orders from all Americans, many of whom think like you.

To those who are taking the fact that I am in the military too much to heart (in either direction) these are NOT THE VIEWS OF THE USAF, THE DOD, OR THE US GOVERNMENT. They are my own personal views, which is why I try to post in the general voice about the military (except when asked why I joined, how I could refuse unlawful orders, etc). Many others would agree with Michael, which is a good thing that both agreement and dissent can be voiced by all Americans, from those in uniform to the Secretary of State.

Oh, and the Iraqis surrendered Kuwait. Surrendering Bagdad is probably going to feel a bit different...kind of like leaving Saigon vs. Arlington, VA.

I guess it wasn't enough for Colleen, Abasan and a few others that "Saddam Insane" killed his own with chemicals, placed innocent non-military people out in the desert to face the US military while he played hide-in-seek within the safety of the civilians of Bagdad (putting women and children at great risk) Lobbed scud missiles indiscriminately at the Israeli population. Continues to threaten our fighter pilots. He also had to invade Kuwait, killing and raping, then destroying good old mother nature by blowing the oil wells when they finally had to run for cover….. I guess this isn't enough "just cause" to take him out huh?

Ok, well, lets do it your way then Colleen, lets all sit back and wait for someone else to take action. Meanwhile, don't worry, I'm sure he probably won't lob a nuke or chemical weapon at Israel and kill the multitudes……or assist osama's group in doing that to us.. after all, he has SUCH an admirable track record doesn't he? .. duh!

I personally believe it's at a point now where America should recall ALL the aide it provides the rest of the world. Bring all the money back into the US and help the farmers and teachers make a decent living. Dump those billions of dollars into alternative energy sources and get us away from our dependency on oil. Bring back all the military personnel providing security to those nations that can't defend themselves in order to set new perimeters and have them REALLY guard the borders of US interests. Bring back all the missionaries to assist the elderly and needy here at home. Rid ourselves of ALL foreign students and open those seats up to underprivileged American students, those that aren't afraid to stand up and say the pledge of allegiance in a public place! Let the rest of the world work out their own problems. I would give anything to see this done! It's way over due!!

But then, people like Abasan wouldn't have a target to point at and criticize. Oh wait a minute, that's right, if we were to pull all military aide, Abasan probably wouldn't be running his cake hole from where he is today, because where he is today wouldn't exist... Sorry, my bad….

byteme,

-Mongo

Every day in the United States there are around 1,000 fatalities on our roadways. That means a "9/11" every four days.

My point is, you, or someone you know, is "a million times" more likely to be killed by our own devices than a forign threat.

Starvation kills millions, even in America, yet our government pays our farmers NOT to grow food, simply to regulate the market value. Humane?

Aikido has taught me better to see cause/effect, motivations, and to generally be a better judge of situations. I don't know what Iraq is capable of, or what Hussein is hoping to achieve during his life other than what the American media reports. LOL. I have learned to take much of what they report with half a grain of salt.

I do know this, our country has problems. Problems so great in fact, that we have needless deaths within our own boundries. Perhaps we should reduce those realtities before we worry about possibilities.

Besides, the "invasion" of Iraq is just a smoke screen to cover the fact that our entire Executive branch in knee-deep in corrupt corporate ties.

Daniel Pokorny (Mongo) wrote: I guess it wasn't enough for Colleen, Abasan and a few others that "Saddam Insane" killed his own with chemicals, placed innocent non-military people out in the desert to face the US military while he played hide-in-seek within the safety of the civilians of Bagdad (putting women and children at great risk) Lobbed scud missiles indiscriminately at the Israeli population. Continues to threaten our fighter pilots. He also had to invade Kuwait, killing and raping, then destroying good old mother nature by blowing the oil wells when they finally had to run for cover….. I guess this isn't enough "just cause" to take him out huh? Ok, well, lets do it your way then Colleen, lets all sit back and wait for someone else to take action. Meanwhile, don't worry, I'm sure he probably won't lob a nuke or chemical weapon at Israel and kill the multitudes……or assist osama's group in doing that to us.. after all, he has SUCH an admirable track record doesn't he? .. duh! I personally believe it's at a point now where America should recall ALL the aide it provides the rest of the world. Bring all the money back into the US and help the farmers and teachers make a decent living. Dump those billions of dollars into alternative energy sources and get us away from our dependency on oil. Bring back all the military personnel providing security to those nations that can't defend themselves in order to set new perimeters and have them REALLY guard the borders of US interests. Bring back all the missionaries to assist the elderly and needy here at home. Rid ourselves of ALL foreign students and open those seats up to underprivileged American students, those that aren't afraid to stand up and say the pledge of allegiance in a public place! Let the rest of the world work out their own problems. I would give anything to see this done! It's way over due!! But then, people like Abasan wouldn't have a target to point at and criticize. Oh wait a minute, that's right, if we were to pull all military aide, Abasan probably wouldn't be running his cake hole from where he is today, because where he is today wouldn't exist... Sorry, my bad…. byteme, -Mongo

That is great stuff, I think Bush should consider putting you in his cabinet. Please consider running for office one day, I will move to your district and volunteer for your campaign. Keep it up.

Chad Sieger (chadsieger) wrote: I do know this, our country has problems. Problems so great in fact, that we have needless deaths within our own boundries. Perhaps we should reduce those realtities before we worry about possibilities. Besides, the "invasion" of Iraq is just a smoke screen to cover the fact that our entire Executive branch in knee-deep in corrupt corporate ties.

Chad,

Well no kidding! Show me a country that doesn't have problems...... anywhere people live, there are going to be problems. Welcome to the world..... and yes by the way, I do agree that more should be done to address the serious internal issues America faces.

The "invasion" of Iraq will not provide a "smoke screen" for the greedy butt-heads that are being caught with their hands in the cookie jar, but I have to tell you, we certainly haven't cornered the market on corporate corruption either. Investigate how business is done in other countries.... You might be surprised at the depth corruption can go.

Even with all the problems this great country faces, it's still one of the best places on earth to live. If you don't agree with that then either help correct it or leave. It's that simple...

-Mongo

Aren't you glad we found Aikido?

Mongo wrote:

Welcome to the world..... and yes by the way, I do agree that more should be done to address the serious internal issues America faces.

This is one of the most salient aspects of Aikido. Spreading Aikido betters not only our families, but also our town, coutry, and world. I gladly elect to spread Ueshiba's (among others) vision of peace being the ultimate bridge. Everyone in the world really just wants to find peace, even people that commit "unnatural" acts. The problem is, get confused or misled or simply their environent didn't allow them the luxury of seeing that love is a natural constant.

We as Aikidoka must always be training, even when off the mat. Train and spread.

Sieger