You do know that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11, right? And that nearly all the hijackers were Saudis? Please tell me you're not one of those idiots who thinks Iraq was responsible for 9-11.
Karly
· 3 years ago
America isn't at war. This isn't a war, it's a sad pathetic attempt to garner the resources of other countries and to continue to subjugate them in order that America feels they have a place in the world as some sort of glorified saviour. Stupidity and greed at its finest.
Pauley
· 3 years ago
No, I do not believe Iraq was directly responsible for 9-11.
I do believe that Hussein had connections to al Qaeda, and was in the process of gaining resources to manufacture weapons of mass destruction. I do believe that more Iraqi citizens were being killed by Hussein's government in a month/week/insert-time-period-here than are dying now as a result of terrorist actions. I do believe that even if Saddam's regime had no physical WMDs in stock, they had the technical know-how to make them, or provide info to terrorist groups on how to make them.
I believe that 26 million Iraqi citizens are now liberated from the oppression of a tyrant. And I believe that was a goal worth fighting for.
-- Pauley
Pauley
· 3 years ago
The United States isn't trying to subjugate the Iraqi people. America has a successful record of nation-building (Germany, Japan, Panama...), and we never tried to make those countries colonies or the 51st state.
-- Pauley
Linz
· 3 years ago
If they're "liberated" then why do they keep blowing up our troops, even though the mission has supposedly been accomplished?
And why aren't we in Tajikistan or Zimbabwe or Sudan, etc. liberating their people from tyrannical oppresion? You're kidding yourself if you really believe the US invaded Iraq just to liberate the Iraqi people.
Andrew
· 3 years ago
The only war on terror with any feasible legitimacy is in Afghanistan, and even the success of that mission is still suspect. That is where American troops should be, not Iraq. Iraq is an attempt to create a pro-western centre to keep the Middle East in order, without needing to deal with the Saudi leadership, or going through a country like Turkey, which is already struggling to assert itself in Europe, and wants nothing to do with the Middle East.
Iraq was an easy target...Saddam only truly controlled about 2/3rds of his country, And despite lip service to the Shi'ites, was a pragmatic, secular (quasi-socialist) dictator similar to Castro.
I'll say it again...the U.S. should be hunting down Usama Bin-Laden, not liberating the Middle East on shaky evidence that doesn't prove anything beyond that satellite pictures are pretty.
Pauley
· 3 years ago
The bulk of the ones that are blowing up US troops aren't Iraqi nationals, they're foreign fighters, allied with or members themselves of al Qaeda.
No, I don't believe that was the entire reason the US invaded Iraq, but it was a nice side effect. The primary reason for the invasion was to eliminate a threat of weapons of mass destruction, which Saddam's regime was known to have.
Weapons of mass destruction held by Saddam's government don't necessarily take the form of completed weapons. The knowledge of how to create such weapons isn't something that can be simply confiscated. Say we'd just taken all the weapons away and left them be. They still know how to make them, and just need to acquire more resources -- bam, fresh nuclear/biological/chemical weapons ready to point at Israel, or North America, or to sell to someone else more willing to destroy us.
We invaded Iraq to stop the threat of use and/or proliferation of weapons that could be used to attack us, and wound up with a newly liberated democratic nation. Tajikistan, Zimbabwe and Sudan don't pose military threats to the United States. I wouldn't be surprised to see, however, oppressed peoples like those of the countries you mentioned rise up against their leaders once Iraq starts to operate on its own, and demonstrate how much better a democratic system works.
-- Pauley
Pauley
· 3 years ago
The invasion of Iraq was very much an attack on terror. Saddam's regime murdered anywhere from (depending where you check your numbers) 300,000 to 1,000,000 of his own citizens. He used poison gas both on Iranian soldiers during the Iran-Iraq War, and on unarmed Iraqi Kurds.
Saddam supported and sponsored terrorism, compensating families of Palestinian suicide bombers up to $25,000 when the bombers murdered Israeli civilians on buses and in restaurants, and sheltering members of Abu Nidal and the Palestine Liberation Front -- the group headed by Abu Abbas, who led the group that hijacked the Achille Lauro in 1985, and killed a US citizen in a wheelchair.
The US hasn't abandoned the mission in Afghanistan. A large multi-national force is still in the region, working to track down and either capture or kill bin Laden. I think it's an advantage that we can task our military to perform two different operations simultaneously.
-- Pauley
Andrew
· 3 years ago
"The invasion of Iraq was very much an attack on terror. Saddam’s regime murdered anywhere from (depending where you check your numbers) 300,000 to 1,000,000 of his own citizens. He used poison gas both on Iranian soldiers during the Iran-Iraq War, and on unarmed Iraqi Kurds."
Yes, and we already had a Gulf War in the early 90's as a result. That is hardly justification for a post 9/11 conflict.
"Saddam supported and sponsored terrorism, compensating families of Palestinian suicide bombers up to $25,000 when the bombers murdered Israeli civilians on buses and in restaurants, and sheltering members of Abu Nidal and the Palestine Liberation Front — the group headed by Abu Abbas, who led the group that hijacked the Achille Lauro in 1985, and killed a US citizen in a wheelchair."
This was his attempt to keep the religious regimes off his back, but is harly any worse than the dozens of regimes in the 'stans nad Africa that do much of the same.
"The US hasn’t abandoned the mission in Afghanistan. A large multi-national force is still in the region, working to track down and either capture or kill bin Laden. I think it’s an advantage that we can task our military to perform two different operations simultaneously."
That's a ridiculous assertion...the U.S. undermanned Afghanistan, and is forcing the limited resources of nations like Denmark and Canada to stabilize a region the U.S. should be focusing on. BIn Laden is the major head of the terrorist organization that perpetrated 9/11, yet the vast majority of American forces are in Iraq? How is Afghanistan's Taliban forces less dangerous than Saddam, who was argueably on his way out as a dictator, much in the same way Castro is in Cuba?
The U.S. has, essentially, abandoned Afghanistan, as it isn't stable yet, Opium is still a huge problem, and the Taliban are resurging. That doesn't provide a lot of evidence that the U.S. was capable of multiple war fronts in the first place.
Pauley
· 3 years ago
Yes, and we already had a Gulf War in the early 90’s as a result. That is hardly justification for a post 9/11 conflict.
Yes. A Gulf War that was ended in part because Saddam agreed to give up his WMD programs and prove to the UN he had done so. He had over a decade to comply, and he failed to do so.
This was his attempt to keep the religious regimes off his back, but is harly any worse than the dozens of regimes in the ’stans nad Africa that do much of the same.
I fail to see any justification for supporting those who deliberately murder unarmed civilians.
the U.S. undermanned Afghanistan, and is forcing the limited resources of nations like Denmark and Canada to stabilize a region the U.S. should be focusing on.
No one is being forced to do anything. The United States isn't working alone in Afghanistan; many countries joined the coalition in an attempt to stop al Qaeda voluntarily. As far as undermanning... battle plans are fluid. They have to be, because it's impossible to absolutely know ahead of time what your enemy is going to do. If the Defense Department determines that the changing situation requires more troops there, then I would agree, more should be deployed. I'm not a military strategist, though, and I'll leave those decisions to those with more knowledge of how to run a war.
-- Pauley
Andrew
· 3 years ago
"Yes. A Gulf War that was ended in part because Saddam agreed to give up his WMD programs and prove to the UN he had done so. He had over a decade to comply, and he failed to do so."
I have yet to see any solid evidence that he even had capable armaments. The only evidence of WMDs were spent mustard gas shells from the first gulf war.
"I fail to see any justification for supporting those who deliberately murder unarmed civilians."
Then why is Iraq so special? What about the Massacre in Sudan, Mugabe, Kim Jon Il, the unstable situation among the various 'stans, and the continued presence of the Taliban in Afghanistan? ALl those seem to be as important, or more important, than Iraq pre-invasion.
"No one is being forced to do anything. The United States isn’t working alone in Afghanistan; many countries joined the coalition in an attempt to stop al Qaeda voluntarily. As far as undermanning… battle plans are fluid. They have to be, because it’s impossible to absolutely know ahead of time what your enemy is going to do. If the Defense Department determines that the changing situation requires more troops there, then I would agree, more should be deployed. I’m not a military strategist, though, and I’ll leave those decisions to those with more knowledge of how to run a war."
That's a poor dogde that fails to actually address the outright failure of the U.S.'s commitment to capture Bin Laden and properly liberate Afghanistan. It's clear to anyone that the U.S. has bungled in Afghanistan and has failed to properly supply coalition forces in the region to ensure that the Taliban were properly dealt with, and now those volunteer forces are stuck there for many more years, and are experiencing many more deaths than they should have. How can IRAQ be more important than the elimination of the forces that shielded the main perpetrator of 9-11? Is that nota greater goal in the war on terror? Saddam has a history of atrocities, but he was no immediate threat to the U.S., whereas there are many regimes that were, and still are, a major threat.
Pauley
· 3 years ago
I have yet to see any solid evidence that he even had capable armaments. The only evidence of WMDs were spent mustard gas shells from the first gulf war.
The Interim Progress Report of October 2003 (issued after the invasion) had already indicated dozens of WMD-related activities and equipment related to them had been hidden from UN weapons inspectors. Former Iraqi Survey Group head David Kay testified before the US Senate in January 2004 that Saddam had a missile program capable of delivering WMDs as warheads, and was intent on restarting a nuclear weapons program, in defiance of UN resolutions.
Then why is Iraq so special? What about the Massacre in Sudan, Mugabe, Kim Jon Il, the unstable situation among the various ’stans, and the continued presence of the Taliban in Afghanistan? ALl those seem to be as important, or more important, than Iraq pre-invasion.
Iraq was invaded because it posed an imminent threat, and had verifiable links to al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. And no, as I stated above, I'm not of the belief that Saddam was behind 9/11. He did, though, have have contacts and links to bin Laden and other senior members of al Qaeda.
The other countries you mentioned have not justified military action at this time, though diplomatic efforts are underway by a number of parties (not just the United States) in most of those theaters.
That's a poor dogde that fails to actually address the outright failure of the U.S.'s commitment to capture Bin Laden and properly liberate Afghanistan. It's clear to anyone that the U.S. has bungled in Afghanistan and has failed to properly supply coalition forces in the region to ensure that the Taliban were properly dealt with, and now those volunteer forces are stuck there for many more years, and are experiencing many more deaths than they should have. How can IRAQ be more important than the elimination of the forces that shielded the main perpetrator of 9-11? Is that nota greater goal in the war on terror? Saddam has a history of atrocities, but he was no immediate threat to the U.S., whereas there are many regimes that were, and still are, a major threat.
Saddam was indeed a threat. He had technology, knowledge, and funding to provide support to al Qaeda, as well as an intent to resume development of weapons of mass destruction.
It's impossible to know for a fact in advance how long an operation, especially one as large as the one in Afghanistan, is going to take. Like I said, battle is fluid, and things are constantly changing, and things take time. FDR in 1941 didn't propose a timetable to win WWII -- he simply proposed winning it.
Like I said before, I can't speak to specific highlights or shortcomings of the US strategy and battle plans in Afghanistan. People with access to more intelligence (as in information, not as in brainpower) than I can better determine the proper course of action. My impression, however, of our current military leaders does not lend them to a position wanting to see their operations fail, and I don't think they're going to just let Afghanistan crumble if there's something they can do about it.
Truth is, I haven't heard a lot about Afghanistan lately. Iraq is evidently a juicier news story.
-- Pauley
Karly
· 3 years ago
Well, I've heard a lot about Afghanistan lately because every week I hear about another group of Canadian soldiers who have died at the hands of bombers. America practically abandoned Afghanistan to other countries in order to skip off into Iraqi oil fields. If Afghanistan was the true focus of the American military there would be more people to keep such activity at bay and to focus on the nation building that needs to occur there.
All Comments
I do believe that Hussein had connections to al Qaeda, and was in the process of gaining resources to manufacture weapons of mass destruction. I do believe that more Iraqi citizens were being killed by Hussein's government in a month/week/insert-time-period-here than are dying now as a result of terrorist actions. I do believe that even if Saddam's regime had no physical WMDs in stock, they had the technical know-how to make them, or provide info to terrorist groups on how to make them.
I believe that 26 million Iraqi citizens are now liberated from the oppression of a tyrant. And I believe that was a goal worth fighting for.
-- Pauley
-- Pauley
And why aren't we in Tajikistan or Zimbabwe or Sudan, etc. liberating their people from tyrannical oppresion? You're kidding yourself if you really believe the US invaded Iraq just to liberate the Iraqi people.
Iraq was an easy target...Saddam only truly controlled about 2/3rds of his country, And despite lip service to the Shi'ites, was a pragmatic, secular (quasi-socialist) dictator similar to Castro.
I'll say it again...the U.S. should be hunting down Usama Bin-Laden, not liberating the Middle East on shaky evidence that doesn't prove anything beyond that satellite pictures are pretty.
No, I don't believe that was the entire reason the US invaded Iraq, but it was a nice side effect. The primary reason for the invasion was to eliminate a threat of weapons of mass destruction, which Saddam's regime was known to have.
Weapons of mass destruction held by Saddam's government don't necessarily take the form of completed weapons. The knowledge of how to create such weapons isn't something that can be simply confiscated. Say we'd just taken all the weapons away and left them be. They still know how to make them, and just need to acquire more resources -- bam, fresh nuclear/biological/chemical weapons ready to point at Israel, or North America, or to sell to someone else more willing to destroy us.
We invaded Iraq to stop the threat of use and/or proliferation of weapons that could be used to attack us, and wound up with a newly liberated democratic nation. Tajikistan, Zimbabwe and Sudan don't pose military threats to the United States. I wouldn't be surprised to see, however, oppressed peoples like those of the countries you mentioned rise up against their leaders once Iraq starts to operate on its own, and demonstrate how much better a democratic system works.
-- Pauley
Saddam supported and sponsored terrorism, compensating families of Palestinian suicide bombers up to $25,000 when the bombers murdered Israeli civilians on buses and in restaurants, and sheltering members of Abu Nidal and the Palestine Liberation Front -- the group headed by Abu Abbas, who led the group that hijacked the Achille Lauro in 1985, and killed a US citizen in a wheelchair.
The US hasn't abandoned the mission in Afghanistan. A large multi-national force is still in the region, working to track down and either capture or kill bin Laden. I think it's an advantage that we can task our military to perform two different operations simultaneously.
-- Pauley
Yes, and we already had a Gulf War in the early 90's as a result. That is hardly justification for a post 9/11 conflict.
"Saddam supported and sponsored terrorism, compensating families of Palestinian suicide bombers up to $25,000 when the bombers murdered Israeli civilians on buses and in restaurants, and sheltering members of Abu Nidal and the Palestine Liberation Front — the group headed by Abu Abbas, who led the group that hijacked the Achille Lauro in 1985, and killed a US citizen in a wheelchair."
This was his attempt to keep the religious regimes off his back, but is harly any worse than the dozens of regimes in the 'stans nad Africa that do much of the same.
"The US hasn’t abandoned the mission in Afghanistan. A large multi-national force is still in the region, working to track down and either capture or kill bin Laden. I think it’s an advantage that we can task our military to perform two different operations simultaneously."
That's a ridiculous assertion...the U.S. undermanned Afghanistan, and is forcing the limited resources of nations like Denmark and Canada to stabilize a region the U.S. should be focusing on. BIn Laden is the major head of the terrorist organization that perpetrated 9/11, yet the vast majority of American forces are in Iraq? How is Afghanistan's Taliban forces less dangerous than Saddam, who was argueably on his way out as a dictator, much in the same way Castro is in Cuba?
The U.S. has, essentially, abandoned Afghanistan, as it isn't stable yet, Opium is still a huge problem, and the Taliban are resurging. That doesn't provide a lot of evidence that the U.S. was capable of multiple war fronts in the first place.
Yes. A Gulf War that was ended in part because Saddam agreed to give up his WMD programs and prove to the UN he had done so. He had over a decade to comply, and he failed to do so.
I fail to see any justification for supporting those who deliberately murder unarmed civilians.
No one is being forced to do anything. The United States isn't working alone in Afghanistan; many countries joined the coalition in an attempt to stop al Qaeda voluntarily. As far as undermanning... battle plans are fluid. They have to be, because it's impossible to absolutely know ahead of time what your enemy is going to do. If the Defense Department determines that the changing situation requires more troops there, then I would agree, more should be deployed. I'm not a military strategist, though, and I'll leave those decisions to those with more knowledge of how to run a war.
-- Pauley
I have yet to see any solid evidence that he even had capable armaments. The only evidence of WMDs were spent mustard gas shells from the first gulf war.
"I fail to see any justification for supporting those who deliberately murder unarmed civilians."
Then why is Iraq so special? What about the Massacre in Sudan, Mugabe, Kim Jon Il, the unstable situation among the various 'stans, and the continued presence of the Taliban in Afghanistan? ALl those seem to be as important, or more important, than Iraq pre-invasion.
"No one is being forced to do anything. The United States isn’t working alone in Afghanistan; many countries joined the coalition in an attempt to stop al Qaeda voluntarily. As far as undermanning… battle plans are fluid. They have to be, because it’s impossible to absolutely know ahead of time what your enemy is going to do. If the Defense Department determines that the changing situation requires more troops there, then I would agree, more should be deployed. I’m not a military strategist, though, and I’ll leave those decisions to those with more knowledge of how to run a war."
That's a poor dogde that fails to actually address the outright failure of the U.S.'s commitment to capture Bin Laden and properly liberate Afghanistan. It's clear to anyone that the U.S. has bungled in Afghanistan and has failed to properly supply coalition forces in the region to ensure that the Taliban were properly dealt with, and now those volunteer forces are stuck there for many more years, and are experiencing many more deaths than they should have. How can IRAQ be more important than the elimination of the forces that shielded the main perpetrator of 9-11? Is that nota greater goal in the war on terror? Saddam has a history of atrocities, but he was no immediate threat to the U.S., whereas there are many regimes that were, and still are, a major threat.
The Interim Progress Report of October 2003 (issued after the invasion) had already indicated dozens of WMD-related activities and equipment related to them had been hidden from UN weapons inspectors. Former Iraqi Survey Group head David Kay testified before the US Senate in January 2004 that Saddam had a missile program capable of delivering WMDs as warheads, and was intent on restarting a nuclear weapons program, in defiance of UN resolutions.
Iraq was invaded because it posed an imminent threat, and had verifiable links to al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. And no, as I stated above, I'm not of the belief that Saddam was behind 9/11. He did, though, have have contacts and links to bin Laden and other senior members of al Qaeda.
The other countries you mentioned have not justified military action at this time, though diplomatic efforts are underway by a number of parties (not just the United States) in most of those theaters.
Saddam was indeed a threat. He had technology, knowledge, and funding to provide support to al Qaeda, as well as an intent to resume development of weapons of mass destruction.
It's impossible to know for a fact in advance how long an operation, especially one as large as the one in Afghanistan, is going to take. Like I said, battle is fluid, and things are constantly changing, and things take time. FDR in 1941 didn't propose a timetable to win WWII -- he simply proposed winning it.
Like I said before, I can't speak to specific highlights or shortcomings of the US strategy and battle plans in Afghanistan. People with access to more intelligence (as in information, not as in brainpower) than I can better determine the proper course of action. My impression, however, of our current military leaders does not lend them to a position wanting to see their operations fail, and I don't think they're going to just let Afghanistan crumble if there's something they can do about it.
Truth is, I haven't heard a lot about Afghanistan lately. Iraq is evidently a juicier news story.
-- Pauley