Your opinion, is the war in Iraq warranted?

[fernandezh]

I was wondering what everybody's opinion is on the impending war on Iraq. Working in the military, everybody around me is pretty skewed to the "bomb them until living in caves becomes a standard of living" mentality. I personally think that this war is warranted but the timing is very bad.

The reason I think Bush has his reasons in making a war in a time of domestic economic turmoil, and risking his political career just before an election year. I sincerely hope he has his reasons such as he has undeniable proof of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) constuction in Iraq. I sincerely hope the reason he has not revealed his undeniable proof is because he does not want to reveal or risk losing his intelligence gathering sources. This is a lot of trust we are putting into the guy. I have no choice but to support him and have to have faith that he is making sound decisions based on facts that aren't publically known.

I feel the timing is wrong for several reasons. I feel that this war will make new enemies for the US within the Arab/muslim world and this action against the 2nd Muslim dominant nation in a year will give the ideological support budding terrorist or muslim extremist groups will need to recruit new members and perform new acts of terrorism at an unprecidented level.
It is a general consensus within the Muslim world that U.S. political policy is geared against Muslims because of the seemingly eternal problem with Israel, the Palestinians, and Israel's neighbors. Let's face it, the persecution against Palestinians is reminicant to that that Jews faced in Nazi Germany. Currently there are over 1 million Palestinians that have been displaced currently living in squalid refugee camps in the middle of the deserts of Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan. Palestinians were literally forced out of their homes so that Jews from other countries could move in that same day.
The USA has given Israel approximately $6 billion a year to support its existance and Israel would not enjoy its relative prosperity without the USA. Arab neighbors look at the USA as Israel's big brother who helps Israel kill civilians in the occupied territories. I myself have seen this with my own eyes. As I was unlucky enough to be there just as this new Palestinian uprising was getting out of hand.
In my honest opinion, before the USA began initiating a war with Iraq, what we should had done was create a peace in Israel with a suitable solution for the Palestinians such as:

1. Creation of a closed border between Israel and the occupied territories. The border is small enough that it can be fenced in and monitored with UN military observers. Allow controlled access points that check for weapons or bomb materials to allow Palestinians to cross into Israel to work.

2. Create a Palestinian state. This is all the Palestinians have ever really wanted. Why not.

If the USA brokered a peace in Israel as opposed to turning a blind eye to battalions of soldiers fighting house to house with hundreds of civilians killed as "collateral damage", the USA will have a much better impression in the middle east, and it will take away any ideological foundation the Arabs may have against the USA to support terrorist activities. Arab countries such as Egypt and Jordan even said that they would support actions against Iraq only if the Palestinian situation was solved first. The Palestinian situation as we know it today been going on for over 50 years, while the USA chooses to take on a situation that has been going on only for about 12 years with Iraq.


Bottom Line: I support a war in Iraq, I just would have prefered it be after a peace agreement in Israel.

Hector


What is everybody's take on this? We also have an Israeli on this site ericd, and I am curious what his take on this is. . .

[BobK]

The Palestinians have certainly suffered, as had the Israelies before them. But, eventually, you must take responsiblity for your actions no matter what happened to you in the past. I think that the Palastinians are obligated to totally stop their terrorism before there can be any significant peace agreements. But, if they actually did stop the terrorism, I feel that Israel would be obligated to help them put together a viable state. It's probably going to require some strong leadership on both sides for that to happen, and I don't see such leadership in place right now.

As far as Iraq, we need to start, and end, the war now. At this point, the world, the stockmarket, and all the petroleum companies are reacting to the expected upcoming war in bad ways. If we just went ahead and HAD the war, then began the rebuilding/occuption, the issue would fade away. Right now we are starting to look like we don't have the resolve we claim to have, and that doesn't help our image in the world either.

Obviously, my 0.02

[fernandezh]

Originally posted by BobK
I think that the Palastinians are obligated to totally stop their terrorism before there can be any significant peace agreements. But, if they actually did stop the terrorism, I feel that Israel would be obligated to help them put together a viable state. It's probably going to require some strong leadership on both sides for that to happen, and I don't see such leadership in place right now.

Obviously, my 0.02


For a number of years, there were relatively few or no terrorist attacks in Israel following the Oslo peace accords where the Israelis agreed to the establishment of a Palestinian state in exchange for peace. Well, this peace came for a number of years, and the Israelis failed to pull out of the West Bank as promised in the accords. In fact, the Israeli's continued to build settlements in the occupied territories seemingly to spite the Palestinians. These new settlements were a sign to the Palestinians that any promise of statehood was just lip service.
IMHO, what the Palestinians are going to need to do to gain their independance is to make their fight non-violent much like Gandi of India, or the Anti-Apartheid movement in S. Africa. Through non-violent protests, they are more likely to gain the sympathy of the international community instead of coming across like a bunch of maniacs and thugs.

What is your take?

[subdude]

In that I was in the 33 FW when terrorist bombed Khobar Towers, killing 11 members of my unit. I think it shoulda been done when Khobar was bombed or when the Cole was bombed. There is NEVER a good time for war so now is as good as it is going to get.

That is based on the belief that Sadam is supporting UBL and others like him.

I am NOT objective about this. I work in a place that teaches warriors from all branches of the US military and I have not forgotten the 3k civilians that were recently killed.

subdude

[fernandezh]

Originally posted by subdude

I am NOT objective about this. I work in a place that teaches warriors from all branches of the US military and I have not forgotten the 3k civilians that were recently killed.

subdude


From your description, I take it you work at the Air Force Special Operations School out of Hurlbert field. Am I right? I did some training out there several years ago with a cross cultural communications course as well as some other stuff along the way. I about got bed sores on my ass from sitting in class so long.

[subdude]

Yea I am an audio-video tech (teachers pet??) here, retired after 20 yrs USAF.

It has expanded from the USAF Special Ops School to the Joint Special Ops University.

subdude

[100days-a-year]

I can't imagine what someone could say to a victim of a future attack if NBC material from Iraqi sources was used.Uh...Gee.....uh ....I guess he really did have some.After George Sr. whupped his ass what better time to show the world he's a player in his sick mind.Israel is a seperate issue,but there are some big disparities in our foreign policy that need to be addressed.

[dothanfrogman]

Honestly there is never a good time to go to war. With that thought I say this "At present we are in a no win situation,(terrorism, opec not using oil reserves, and being called pansies for not doing it) we goto war and lose human life, we dont go to war and lose human life". Just remember that as soon as this is over N. Korea is still waiting.

[junior]

Al Qaeda, Iraq, Iran, N. Korea, China, etc. are all a problem for the U.S. How to solve them without creating more problems is tricky I think. It's obvious that we could go in and kick the living shit out of Iraq. No big deal, except that trully innocent people will certainly die as will some of our soldiers. Kicking their ass is one thing, but I honestly have an unwavering doubt that Dubya is incapable of having anything to do with putting that place back together after all is said and done. Think Afghanistan. Oh yeah, that place :D. What is the hold up on getting that place funded? All I'm saying is that I am concerned that all we will do is kick their asses and then leave them in a situation where disenfranchised individuals begin to build up significant contempt for the U.S. and this will defeat our purposes to some degree. Sure, we can probably get rid of the weapons we're worried about, but who needs those when you have enough hatred to give your own life to inflict pain and suffering. I really think it is sad that the only leaders this world can find lack the ability to get in a ring and fight it out to the death amongst themselves. I heard something once about Vietnam that "it was a place were old men lied to young men." So we blow 'em up. None of us should be impressed by the fact that the world's strongest economy builds the most powerful fighting machine the world has ever known and uses it against a third rate military force full of unwilling soldiers because the leader of that country won't do what the world asks. We should just assasinate that ****er. I'm feelin' better already:cool:

[IyaDiver]

Coming from a third world country with the world's biggest Moslem population, this war if it does happen will effect my country a great deal. The pro-Irak here is strong, not that they love Saddam but Moslem believe strongly in brotherhood. No matter what Bush said and the memory of Kuwait being ruined and taken over by Irak in Gulf War I, the pro-Irak is "making" this coming II war like a US against Moslem subject. With the 9/11 and Laden being hunted down, the US immigration being tight on people from Moslem countries and ect ect, they think USA is against Moslem. The US siding Israel a great deal like a Godfather is also something a Moslem hate. If I am not wrong the Koran also mentioned the dislike the Moslem have against the Jews.

Sooner or later if the war really happens and escalate, it will have a global effect.

I was very curious over the word JIHAD. One day our minister of religion ( literal translation ) was asked by a reporter on the meaning of JIHAD. He had trouble explaining in a smooth fashion because the core information is that Moslem allows killing in the name of revenge. To die to protect Islam will guarantee you a ticket to heaven. To protect or fight a war with other in defence of Islam is holy. These "guidelines" are the things that scare me the most.

So I figure, if US starts the Gulf II and Irak civilian gets killed, no way to avoid 100% collateral damage anyway, the other Moslem population world wide will use the excuse to hurt USA in typical terrorist fashion ( it's easier than open war ) because a few innocent Moslem in Irak got killed. If Sadam is the one being killed, the world won't really mourn, he is a soldier and that's his risk.

I agree with JUNIOR, just smart-bomb Sadam and spare civilian casualties. I am sure CIA has that capabilty.

Religion is a very powerful thing, it can unite people of all races and background, it too can make war.

If only this world has only one religion, I think one big problem solved. Let dispute be pure dispute.

Sad world we live in.........

[BobK]

I think the defining moment in the Iraq war will be when it is over. If the US maintains the peace and actually helps the Iraqi people transition to a stable government and economy, the general impression of the US by the rest of the Arab world will become much more favorable.
If we do not put serious effort into rebuilding Iraq, we will leave a poor impression on the rest of the Arab world.
Given that, and given that much of Iraq can be rebuilt using their own oil resources, I find it hard to believe that we would not put in the effort. We could end up with a stalwart friend in the region which would help moderate some of the other countries.

[BobK]

IMHO, what the Palestinians are going to need to do to gain their independance is to make their fight non-violent much like Gandi of India, or the Anti-Apartheid movement in S. Africa. Through non-violent protests, they are more likely to gain the sympathy of the international community instead of coming across like a bunch of maniacs and thugs.

Exactly. If they had remained non-violent, but had appealed to the international community, Israel would look like the bad guy and would probably have been forced by now to concede a state for them. But everytime the news shows some women or children blow up, sympathy for Israel grows. Once the Palestinians understand that, and move into non-aggressive but persistent protest as you suggest, their standing in the world will grow.

[fernandezh]

Originally posted by BobK
Exactly. If they had remained non-violent, but had appealed to the international community, Israel would look like the bad guy and would probably have been forced by now to concede a state for them. But everytime the news shows some women or children blow up, sympathy for Israel grows. Once the Palestinians understand that, and move into non-aggressive but persistent protest as you suggest, their standing in the world will grow.

The problem is that they don't have a "Gandi" Instead they have Arafat who somehow feels he won't get any respect unless the PLO continues to blow themselves up.

[Marcus]

IMHO...I think Bush has really turned this into a cluster****. He's making America look like a bunch of arrogant imperialistic assholes. This whole thing could've been done a whole lot smoother. If so, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion.

[fernandezh]

Originally posted by Marcus
IMHO...I think Bush has really turned this into a cluster****. He's making America look like a bunch of arrogant emperialistic assholes. This whole thing could've been done a whole lot smoother. If so, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion.


I wouldn't have used those words in particular but I personally feel you make a valid point about the arrogant imperialistic part. Looking back, perhaps in November as we were making the push for re-newed inspections they should have included something to the effect that "if Iraq doesn't come clean and totally comply within ____ months then the UN will sanction an attack" But hindsight is 20/20 and you can only make your decisions based off of what you know on hand.

My concern is that Iraq will use chemical or possibly nuclear weapons against our troops. If he does resort to this, I am almost 100% positive the US will retaliate with a small tactical nuke. I am wondering where the president would have it detonate. This time around Saddam is not going to make the mistake he made last time by fighting out in the open desert where the US had unrestricted reign to drop bombs on his troops. He is going to try to take advantage of the US's reluctance to have civilian casualties and he is going to imbed his troops in people's homes and schools. Taking this into consideration, I wonder what the US's contingency plan is if there is a Nuclear detonation on the part of the Iraqi's. Would he really consider dropping it into the center of Baghdad?


Hector

[f94gator]

My general thoughts:

That area has been in turmoil for thousands of years. As a result, I'm pretty skeptical of it ever transforming into a peaceful region. A peace agreement with Israel would be great, but it doesn't seem like anyone really wants to work with the other. Waiting for a peace agreement would take a looong time.

So the war with Iraq. Is it warranted? I think so. I don't know if the timing will ever really improve. My biggest concern about this war is that I don't think it's going to be the Gulf War, Part II. I think we'll go in, we'll kick some ass and win, but it will be a lot messier and a LOT more of our soldiers are going to get killed. The goal in 1991 was to free Kuwait, not depose Saddam. He's going to keep his throne by any means necessary and that could get ugly.
But what's our alternative? Sit around, let Iraq build up weapons and wait for them to use them? That happens and the US gets criticized for not taking them out before they got really dangerous. I'll take a quote from Jeremy Foley, UF's athletic director, "What MUST be done eventually should be done as soon as possible"
I don't think Bush is a war-mongering madman, I think he's pretty ****ing convinced that Saddam can't be trusted and that a disaster far worse than 9/11 is waiting to happen if we don't do something about it.

Just my .02. I'm just a civilian and might not know what the **** I'm talking about. I don't think war is 'glamorous' in any way, and I'm certainly not looking forward to one even if my ass isn't going to be on the front line. But when someone asks me if war is necessary, I keep coming back to the question, do we really have much of a choice? Is there really a feasible solution to the Iraqi mess otherwise?

EDIT: Didn't read Hector's post before submitting mine, but that's what I'm talking about. Saddam is ****ing nuts and will make the conflict as bloody as possible. I hadn't considered the possibility that the US would use tactical nukes, though.

[Steel Shootin']

The issues between Israel and the Palestine’s are so complex and longstanding, that I do not think there is an easy or quick solution. The Israelis themselves were not above terrorism, especially when their "homeland" was colonized by the Brits (e.g., the bombing of the King David Hotel).

There will be very little sympathy for the Palestinian cause as long as Arafat remains the figurehead. Frankly, I have little sympathy for anyone's plight when their M.O. is to walk into discos, pizza parlors, and shopping districts, killing innocent people.

Keep in mind that prior to 9/11, the President’s position on the issue was “hands off.” This was one of the key debate issues that sticks out in my mind when Gore and Bush debated multiple times. It is only because of 9/11 that Bush must now confront the issues that Clinton tried to deal with.

As for your question on the timing of the war, I think you raise a lot of good points. We have to blindly believe that our leaders have intelligence that they don’t want to divulge. This point is especially true in light of Hans Blix’s report to the United Nations last week, which, in my opinion, sounded fairly pro-Iraq, and did nothing to intimate the existence of weapons of mass destruction. Don’t get me wrong; I think he does have them, and that we'll see that during the armed conflict. I just wish there some evidence besides “intelligence.” And if there is such evidence, then why wouldn’t the U.S. share that information with the weapon’s inspectors?

My biggest concern for the country concerns our foreign policy. The bombing of Iraq is going to happen, but what will be left of the United Nations in the absence of a resolution approving the attacks? The rhetoric that “we’ll attack Iraq with or without your approval” may sound great, but it is going to leave the security counsel in a state of shambles, and the U.N. as a whole as nothing more than an outdated idea.

The bottom line is that we could enter an era in which America is more hated and mis-trusted than any other time in our history, making us a popular target for the muslim extremists. That would be a fairly paradoxical effect to bombing Iraq back to the stone age.

I'll support the war and our troops in anyway I can, but with a lot of lingering concerns about our foreign policy.

[subdude]

Originally posted by IyaDiver
... I was very curious over the word JIHAD. ...


Following is from a Muslim:

Jihad is derived from the Arabic word al-Jahd meaning a struggle or striving. And the word Jahada means ‘he has struggled or exerted himself. Jihad does not necessarily mean resorting to the use of sword and the shedding of blood as is misunderstood by some people. The word Jihad, therefore , is so comprehensive that is also includes striving and undergoing hardship and forbearing in great difficulties, while standing firm against one’s enemies. The actual words for war in Arabic are al-Harb and al-Qital.
In the Qur’an, therefore, the word Jihad as a holy War, is used in respect of waging it for defense against any aggression or taking an offence in unavoidable circumstances when the onslaught of enemies is imminent. The circumstances alone can make a war morally justifiable.



subdude

[fernandezh]

Originally posted by f94gator
My general thoughts:

Don't worry about it, because you are a civilian you are entitled to an opinion like everybody else. It is good to see that you are putting that UF education to use :p Hell, some of the smartest people I know are civilians who never went to college. Although conflict in the region has been going on for a very long time, I still believe there can be a lasting peace there but it would definitely take a lot of resources to do so. Maybe it won't happen in the next several years because of the people who are currently in power in both Israel and Palestine but I am convinced it will happen eventually.

I totally agree that war in Iraq is necessary to prevent a terrorist attack in the future. I just hope for the reputation of this country that after all the smoke clears from the war, that we will be able to prove to the world that we were right and there are huge underground stockpiles of chemical weapons and there is a nuclear weapon facility there.

[BobK]

Let's just hope we don't get validation on the chemical and biological weapons by clouds of gas floating over the countryside. This could get very messy, but I agree with many that it will only get messier if we wait.

[f94gator]

Originally posted by fernandezh
I just hope for the reputation of this country that after all the smoke clears from the war, that we will be able to prove to the world that we were right and there are huge underground stockpiles of chemical weapons and there is a nuclear weapon facility there.


Wow, imagine the backlash if there weren't!! :eek: :eek: I'm sure Bush is aware of the consequences as well; another reason I believe he's got to have some serious dirt on them to be so adamant about attacking.

[junior]

It seems unwise to try and get into the head of someone such as Saddam. Bush and company are most likely playing the escalation game according to what has worked inthe past. Note the differences in policy between Iraq, N. Korea, China, Libya and Cuba to name a few. Playing that game with Saddam with a few hundred thousand of our guys running around in the desert just reaks of disaster. I just hate to think what kinda big 'ole bad ass stuff Bush would feel obligated to pull out if the Iraqis dumped some bio/chem/nuke type shit on our guys. Just like Hector was saying, where would Bushy drop the big bomb?? I still say we assasinate the guy a couple of times and then see what happens.

[Marcus]

8yr old Necrothread bitch!:D

Found this gem while searching for something else. It's a window thru time archived for 8 years. I found it interesting....and I forgot what I was originally searching for. Damn!:slap:

BTW, the guy who started this thread is veteran of Iraq and Afghan. He's been stabbed in the neck with a knife almost paralyzing him, watched his buddy die from a rifle slug to the face in a cave, and has had to shoot a 15 yr old boy with a gun in his hand in a house in Iraq...and no WMD's were found.

[ocean_314]

8yr old Necrothread bitch!:D

Found this gem while searching for something else. It's a window thru time archived for 8 years. I found it interesting....and I forgot what I was originally searching for. Damn!:slap:

BTW, the guy who started this thread is veteran of Iraq and Afghan. He's been stabbed in the neck with a knife almost paralyzing him, watched his buddy die from a rifle slug to the face in a cave, and has had to shoot a 15 yr old boy with a gun in his hand in a house in Iraq...and no WMD's were found.

It was never about WMDs. That’s phase was used because it was something the left wing very biased press would report to the American people.

Eight years ago high speed internet was relatively new and fox news was just getting started.

The left wing socialist press was the only information source for most Americans so WMDs where used as the catchy thirty second simple excuse to invade Iraq.

[donkeys4hire]

While I do support the troops 100%. I do not agree with sending them there.