The five year anniversry

of the war in Iraq was yesterday.

That would make today the day after

I have been trying to think about this as simply as possible.

If there had been undisclosed chemical or nuclear arms or development of arms (as nearly every international intelligence agency had believed at the time) would the conflict have been worth it?

Would much if anything of what has happened on the ground in Iraq been different?


My answer is Yes to the first, No to the second. What do you think?

Dear God! When will the bloodshed END? Bring our troops home! :furious3:

Sorry, a little preemption there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

What do you think?

---

I think the intel was right, chemical we know of, and nuclair arms are small they can be everywhere. We have seen the silo's, we know there was a nuclair program.

More preemption for the Bush lied, people died crowd. Conspiracy theories don't survive truth.

Read it, I did. :book: Great fun I tell you. :zzz:

Based on the intel we made the right decision. Unfortunate realities plagued that honorable and correct decision. The situation on the ground, had there been said weapons, would have been the same type of quagmire after initial combat ended and we would still be left with a power vacuum to the present day after insurrection began.

I will agree that the decision against fortification with more ground troops after the blitzkrieg was seriously shortsighted. I was on the fence at the time. The blitz, however, was one of the greatest examples of the use of military force in human history.

But the idea that the war was a "bad idea" isn't historically fair.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Based on the intel we made the right decision. Unfortunate realities plagued that honorable and correct decision.

---

You believe the honorable part? Based on intel yes but there is no room for honor in any of this. Man is wolf to man.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

You believe the honorable part? Based on intel yes but there is no room for honor in any of this. Man is wolf to man.

---

I'm an American. Of course I believe there is honor in forced democratic transition from tyrrany.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

I have been trying to think about this as simply as possible.

If there had been undisclosed chemical or nuclear arms or development of arms (as nearly every international intelligence agency had believed at the time) would the conflict have been worth it?

Would much if anything of what has happened on the ground in Iraq been different?


My answer is Yes to the first, No to the second. What do you think?

---

I'd say No and No. The UN weapon inspectors should have been given time to go through everything and if they found something then everyone should have gone through Diplomatic channels. If that didn't work, then I suppose invasion was the best realistic option.

There is no way Saddam would have the guts to launch an attack on the world police; he'd be signing his own death.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

I have been trying to think about this as simply as possible.

If there had been undisclosed chemical or nuclear arms or development of arms (as nearly every international intelligence agency had believed at the time) would the conflict have been worth it?

Would much if anything of what has happened on the ground in Iraq been different?


My answer is Yes to the first, No to the second. What do you think?

---

probably no to the first, certainly no to the second. the weapons were pretext in the first place, so even if they had been found, the laser-guided democracy agenda would have gone about the same way.

as to the first question, would war have been the proper way to deal with the iraq problem? difficult to say in retrospect, but i have a feeling diplomacy would have worked better. or a smarter combination of diplomacy and armed forces. we had, at some point, the option of sending hussein into exile, right? wasn't he trying to broker some kind of deal at the last moment? a more peaceful transition to a provisional government under that rubric couldn't have been any worse than this war.

but assuming that was not an option, is there much benefit to the current 'democracy' in iraq over the previous regime? i'm sure you can find iraqis on both sides of that fence.

more importantly, though. does a saddam with certain weapons present a threat that justifies the risk of war? call me pollyanna, but i don't really think so.

There has not been a period of time since the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait that the US lead forces have not been at war with Iraq.
The first Gulf-war resulted in a truce… the war did not end.
This truce would be upheld if Iraq complied with a certain resolution which involved scraping together some documents within a time limit.
The Iraqi did not comply.
For 12 years Sadaam and his ilk defied the resolutions. The truce should have ended 14 days after it was set. That was the initial terms. Yet we looked through our fingers for 12 years.

The war was justified by all rules of war. No need to pull the WMD issue in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sigurd Fafnesbane

There has not been a period of time since the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait that the US lead forces have not been at war with Iraq.
The first Gulf-war resulted in a truce… the war did not end.
This truce would be upheld if Iraq complied with a certain resolution which involved scraping together some documents within a time limit.
The Iraqi did not comply.
For 12 years Sadaam and his ilk defied the resolutions. The truce should have ended 14 days after it was set. That was the initial terms. Yet we looked through our fingers for 12 years.

The war was justified by all rules of war. No need to pull the WMD issue in.

---

However, there's another thing that should trump all rules of war. It was clear before the war that going in for regime change would be utterly stupid, with predictably awful consequences. Whether or not the rules of war and diplomacy justify an action, surely the rules of common sense should prevail? Even with my bare knowledge of the regional politics there, I still predicted in 2002 that the war would go smoothly, but the subsequent breakup of Iraq would not be good. Others with rather more knowledge went into this in more detail, most of which has since come to be. The metaphor that summed up the situation was "tiger by the tail" - holding on makes the situation worse, but letting go results in an immediate savaging. The only thing to do in that case was to avoid grabbing the tail in the first place, but what do we know of these things?

Quote:

---

The war was justified by all rules of war. No need to pull the WMD issue in.

---

No because the truce was between UN mandated forces and Iraq , the coilition didn't invade in 2003 as a UN mandated force .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

forced democratic transition from tyrrany.

---

Forced democratic transition... That's, err... My words might be a little harsh, but give to someone not educated with "fooding" free access to all the food he wants at once, he'll get diabetis, fat, and die of a heart attack at the age of 35... I think that by giving "freedom" to people who were still thinking about "my community first, the other can all die", the "forced demaocratic transition" is not so good. too fast, and too many useless deads. Just read what you can find about what happens to christians in Irak now... they were better treated before. I'm not saying that it was not a tyrany, but Saudi Arabia has the same kind of tyrany. so I still think that the "before" was the "lesser bad", and that now many guerilla tactics have been developped, and now faced by the soldiers dying every day in Afghanistan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

No because the truce was between UN mandated forces and Iraq , the coilition didn't invade in 2003 as a UN mandated force .

---

Absolutely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

There is no way Saddam would have the guts to launch an attack on the world police; he'd be signing his own death.

---

He tried to assassinate a former president. That has been confirmed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

No because the truce was between UN mandated forces and Iraq , the coilition didn't invade in 2003 as a UN mandated force .

---

Oil for food. We can trust the UN, right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

No because the truce was between UN mandated forces and Iraq , the coilition didn't invade in 2003 as a UN mandated force .

---

Each signatore nation has the right to enforce the conditions of a truce. Be it under an United Nations Mandate or not. We have gone down this debate before, and the conclusion will be the same. The United Nations does not remove the soverignity of a nation to act on its own. Nations had to committed forces to the conflict, Nations operated under the flags of their nations and with a UN Flag. Under the Hague Conventions nations have the right to enforce truces and the resume warfare if the conditions are violated. All nations under the collation signed the truce accords at Safwon, it was not signed just as an United Nations document.

Now that opens up the counter for its a war of aggression, which would force the agruement about pre-emptive wars, and does a violation of a truce necessate a return to hostilities.

I wonder if they can match 15.25 years of Vietnam?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rythmic

I wonder if they can match 15.25 years of Vietnam?

---

No - it won't survive the election process by more then 2 years. 2010 should see a complete withdraw from Iraq

Quote:

---

Be it under an United Nations Mandate or not. We have gone down this debate before, and the conclusion will be the same.

---

Yes and your claim that fell apart was that America had not and never had signed as being under the authority of the UN .

Quote:

---

Each signatore nation has the right to enforce the conditions of a truce.

---

Since America was in violation of the conditions of the truce it cannot claim that as justification .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

He tried to assassinate a former president. That has been confirmed.

---

A former president as in someone who lost the election two months prior, and who currently were on Kuwaiti soil. ~:rolleyes:

War? What war? Congress hasn't declared war since Pearl Harbor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Yes and your claim that fell apart was that America had not and never had signed as being under the authority of the UN .

---

You can claim it fell apart because you wish to win the arguement, however your comment fails to address the key point - The United Nations does not remove the soverignity of any nation. The Hague Conventions deal with nations as individual enities not as some collective agency. The United Nations deals with nations as individual enities also. To claim that the initial conflict was solely a United Nations conflict is incorrect, it only further strenghten the legality of the event. Then United States went in as the United States Military, under United States Command Authority.

Are you attempting to claim that the United Nations trumps National Sovernity? Not even the United Nations has been that bold.

Quote:

---

Since America was in violation of the conditions of the truce it cannot claim that as justification .

---

one can claim a violation by another even while they are in violation, happens all the time. The legality of the issue does not change because one is also violating the truce. Now all you have done is demonstrated that Iraq was also entitled to return to war under the Hague Convention because of a violation by one of the signers of the truce.

You can't present two different types of arguements and debate the merits of both. Your second defeats the premise of you first arguement. Which could make one assume that you know that the first arguement in itself is incorrect.

Quote:

---

You can claim it fell apart because you wish to win the arguement, however your comment fails to address the key point - The United Nations does not remove the soverignity of any nation. The Hague Conventions deal with nations as individual enities not as some collective agency. The United Nations deals with nations as individual enities also. To claim that the initial conflict was solely a United Nations conflict is incorrect, it only further strenghten the legality of the event. Then United States went in as the United States Military, under United States Command Authority.

---

Oh the soveriegnty thingy the US command authority , how could I forget .
Hmmm two deployments wasn't there . One whose sole mandate was the expulsion of Iraqi forces under the auspices of UN authority , the second a US deployment to protect Saudi Arabia from invasion . Both passed by congress , one subjecting the forces actions to UN authority , one keeping US authority ...the one with US authority was very limited in scope and not relevant at all to the ceasefire .
Nice try though Red .

Quote:

---

Are you attempting to claim that the United Nations trumps National Sovernity?

---

If you act under an authority then the actions are under that authority , in this case the US ceded the authority to the UN , so the UN doesn't have to trump anything , the hand was given away .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Oh the soveriegnty thingy the US command authority , how could I forget .
Hmmm two deployments wasn't there . One whose sole mandate was the expulsion of Iraqi forces under the auspices of UN authority , the second a US deployment to protect Saudi Arabia from invasion . Both passed by congress , one subjecting the forces actions to UN authority , one keeping US authority ...the one with US authority was very limited in scope and not relevant at all to the ceasefire .
Nice try though Red .

---

Not an absolute rebuttal there Tribes. Remember that the Cease Fire was signed by Nations - not the United Nations. The collation put forces into the UN Resolution under their own national authority. The United Nations did not have command authority over the United States. The United States signed the cease fire, which makes it revelant to the ceasefire.

Quote:

---

If you act under an authority then the actions are under that authority , in this case the US ceded the authority to the UN , so the UN doesn't have to trump anything , the hand was given away .

---

Actually the United States did not cede authority to the United Nations. The United Nations does not grant authority, it grants something else.

Edit: Then again I see you dropped your second arguement completely with your response.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Then again I see you dropped your second arguement completely with your response.

---

Welcome back, Redleg. :bow:



https://img395.imageshack.us/img395/...elhardyyq1.gif
You probably missed Tribesman, huh? :beam:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

Welcome back, Redleg. :bow:

You probably missed Tribesman, huh? :beam:

---

LOL

Never really been away - new job keeps me very busy with lots of travel. Got sort of a mini vacation this week. One that doesn't cost me my vacation time but I still get paid.

Life is grand

Paid vacations are the bomb. And why is everyone so glum? It's been fire years of triumph!

Hitchens does a nice retrospective on our glorious victories in Iraq.

-edit-

Joe Klein has an astute evaluation of where the candidates are on Iraq:

So we now have a pattern. Obama's chief economic advisor (Austan Goolsbee) and a prominent foreign policy advisor (Power) have now told the truth on two important issues, trade and Iraq respectively. Their truth contradicted some of the overheated rhetoric their boss was using on the campaign trail. Hillary Clinton--whose actual positions on trade and Iraq are probably the same as Obama's advisors--has attacked Obama in both cases for saying one thing and believing another...when she is doing the exact same thing.

You'd hope for something better in a crucial election year, but hey, this is politics. For what it's worth, I score this contretemps slightly in Obama's favor: At least his advisors know the truth about these issues and are impolitic enough to be honest about it.

I am certainly disappointed that Clinton didn't use this opportunity to address the Iraq problem for real--to say, "Look, even though Samantha Power called me a monster, what she said about Iraq is true. Both Senator Obama and I would like to be able to pull a brigade a month out of Iraq, and I'm sure we'll both try to do that. But truth in advertising requires me to say to you that it's a best case scenario. I have no idea what the situation on the ground is going to be on January 20, 2009. I have no exact idea how we can use the prospect of our withdrawal to leverage the Iraqis into getting their political act together, but it's the only real leverage we have--and a new President needs to point the military and our diplomats in that direction. So my policy will be different from John McCain's, which is to use Iraq as a permanent U.S. base in the region. That's a bad idea. Permanent U.S. bases would be a permanent irritants in the region. So we're going to try to leave. But it won't be easy and it won't be as quick as we'd all like it to be."

Update: Matt Yglesias notices that John McCain has gone back to his old, irresponsible, incendiary baloney-slicing on Iraq. You may recall that on the night McCain won the Republican nomination, he--accurately--emphasized sectarian violence as the major threat if the U.S. didn't leave Iraq carefully. Now he's back to his utterly bogus "victory" or "defeat" in the war against Al Qaeda. Once again--and I'll keep on saying this as long as McCain keeps on trying to scare and hoodwink the public--Al Qaeda in Iraq is down to less than 5000 fighters...acccording to its own estimates in captured documents. There is a reason for that: most Sunnis in Iraq have turned against the salafist-jihadi extremists. To be sure, it will require a continuing effort to chase after the terrorist remnants, which is why both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton will keep a small residual special operations force in Iraq. But Al Qaeda in Iraq is--happily--no longer the biggest problem in Iraq. There is no chance that it will "win" or take over the country...even though it retains the capacity to launch suicide bombers, as was the horrific case today in Karbala.

The real problem we face now is that "Iraq" isn't really a country and "Iraqis" don't get along with each other very well. The big question is, how much bloodshed will it take to sort out that 90 year disaster...and how much more American blood should be contributed to this tribal struggle. It is outrageous and dishonorable that John McCain continues to purposely oversimplify this situation for imagined political gain.

Upshot: Everyone is saying things they don't mean to win the election. Shocking, I know.

Cherry picking Lemur's post.


Fear

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I don't get it: Who is afraid? When you hear the wolves howling in the wood and one of them attacks, you don't cower in fear, you hunt the wolves!

and




Blood

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Soldiers die all the time. No one cares about it in less it's thrown in their face.