What is the reason now to be killing people in Iraq?

[sirio11]

No weapons of mass destruction, no ties to Al-qaeda, so what is the reason now, just because "We're already there"

And whatever the reason is, How many more lives (Iraqis and American) is gonna take?

Whatever the purpose is, Are all this lives worth it?

David

[Felix_Nietsche]

"No weapons of mass destruction"
****Maybe, other than a few Sarin gas shells and lots of hidden WMD program documents nothing has been found. Perhaps it might be more accurate to say there are no MORE WMD in Iraq. We DO know Iraq had WMD, for we have pictures of gassed Kurds and Iranians to prove it. Since Iraq has broken almost every tenet of the armistice, it should be understandable we don't take they word that they voluntarily destroyed all WMD without any UN supervision. If you believe they did on their on accord then may I ask do you believe in the Easter Bunny?...

"no ties to Al-qaeda"
****Wrong...one of the buildings in Faluja(sp?) said "Al-qaeda Headquarters". Al-qaeda is all over Iraq. Iraq may not have been tied to 9/11 but Iraq DID have ties to Al-qaeda. Since the war, al-qaeda has been flooding into Iraq in greater numbers. Kill them there instead of in the US.....

"so what is the reason now"
****To kill enough of them so that there will be a stable govt in Iraq. Kill enough of those kidnapping-head-chopping scum and you'll be surprised how peaceful Iraq will become. A radical Sunni cleric was assassinated yesterday. Perhaps some Iraqis are taking matters into their own hands. I hope so... Many mosques are just brainwashing factories...that produce mindless killers.

"How many more lives (Iraqis and American) is gonna take?"
****I think we can expect another 2000 American dead. Since our troops kill about 20 insurgents for everyone of our dead, I think we can expect another 40-50,000 dead insurgents plus another 1,000 collateral damage deaths by the US troops. The insurgents will murder probably another 10,000 Iraqis... Total deaths...about 63,000.

"Whatever the purpose is, Are all this lives worth it?"
****Were all those dead Americans "worth it" to win WW2? I'd say so. If you are a Nazi, then you might disagree with me. As for Iraq, if we can accomplish a stable and free iraq, yes, it will be worth it... Remember, we had 3,000 people die just in ONE DAY from an attack from al-qaeda. We CAN NOT STICK OUR HEADS IN THE SAND and pray that radical islam will leave us alone. The Dutch just found this out and now they are getting serious about muslim radicals.... These are not nice people. You can not bargain with them. You can not reason with them. This is KILL OR BE KILLED.... Do an internet search on the material that is taught in muslim schools. After viewing this material, you will understand why this people are so homicidal.

Iraq will have elections in January. US troops will stay at least until the end of the Bush43 presidency. Hopefully the new Iraqi govt will be able to stand on their own two feet. If not, then I hate to be an ordinary Iraqi when the govt falls......

Is that good enough for you?

[jimdmcevoy]

[ QUOTE ]

Maybe, other than a few Sarin gas shells and lots of hidden WMD program documents nothing has been found. Perhaps it might be more accurate to say there are no MORE WMD in Iraq. We DO know Iraq had WMD, for we have pictures of gassed Kurds and Iranians to prove it. Since Iraq has broken almost every tenet of the armistice, it should be understandable we don't take they word that they voluntarily destroyed all WMD without any UN supervision. If you believe they did on their on accord then may I ask do you believe in the Easter Bunny?...


[/ QUOTE ]

Did they find any Sarin? Or was it just STHWMD's (stuff that holds weapons of mass destruction)?

And it is very obvious Iraq had WMD's in the past, Americans gave them some for starters.

[ QUOTE ]

Wrong...one of the buildings in Faluja(sp?) said "Al-qaeda Headquarters". Al-qaeda is all over Iraq. Iraq may not have been tied to 9/11 but Iraq DID have ties to Al-qaeda. Since the war, al-qaeda has been flooding into Iraq in greater numbers. Kill them there instead of in the US.....


[/ QUOTE ]

If you found a building in America that had the title "Alqaeda Headquarters" that was hidden away in the mountains or something, would that make America have ties to Alquada? This could be a problem, America would have to invade itself....

[ QUOTE ]

To kill enough of them so that there will be a stable govt in Iraq. Kill enough of those kidnapping-head-chopping scum and you'll be surprised how peaceful Iraq will become. A radical Sunni cleric was assassinated yesterday. Perhaps some Iraqis are taking matters into their own hands. I hope so... Many mosques are just brainwashing factories...that produce mindless killers.


[/ QUOTE ]

Good Idea, once we kill all the Iraqis it should become quite peacefull.

Seriously, you think we'll ever get to a point where it is peacefull?

[ QUOTE ]

I think we can expect another 2000 American dead. Since our troops kill about 20 insurgents for everyone of our dead, I think we can expect another 40-50,000 dead insurgents plus another 1,000 collateral damage deaths by the US troops. The insurgents will murder probably another 10,000 Iraqis... Total deaths...about 63,000.


[/ QUOTE ]

This would seem in the neighborhood if American withdraws in the next few years or so, do you reckon they will?

[ QUOTE ]

Were all those dead Americans "worth it" to win WW2? I'd say so. If you are a Nazi, then you might disagree with me. As for Iraq, if we can accomplish a stable and free iraq, yes, it will be worth it... Remember, we had 3,000 people die just in ONE DAY from an attack from al-qaeda. We CAN NOT STICK OUR HEADS IN THE SAND and pray that radical islam will leave us alone. The Dutch just found this out and now they are getting serious about muslim radicals.... These are not nice people. You can not bargain with them. You can not reason with them. This is KILL OR BE KILLED.... Do an internet search on the material that is taught in muslim schools. After viewing this material, you will understand why this people are so homicidal.


[/ QUOTE ]

Well, for starters I wouldn't mind a link to this material you mention. But in my opinion there are both sides believing this is "kill or be killed", the only way out is for a better understanding of the other side, and for a for everyone to have a better understanding of their own sides. But suppose I am wrong, do you suppose we kill all Muslims in the world? I mean after all, you said yourself, the material taught in Muslim schools teaches them to kill us, so you reckon there's no other way eh? Maybe you shouldn't kill them, that's a bit extreme to begin with, just put them in fenced in communities run by U.S. troops, where they will work for a living...

Btw I agree we cannot stick our head in the sand, but I also reckon we shouldn't put it up our [censored].

[ QUOTE ]

Iraq will have elections in January. US troops will stay at least until the end of the Bush43 presidency. Hopefully the new Iraqi govt will be able to stand on their own two feet. If not, then I hate to be an ordinary Iraqi when the govt falls......


[/ QUOTE ]

I doubt Americans would be out by then, I'd be willing to lay 2-1 odds...

[MMMMMM]

US troops just found 40 vials of Sarin in Fallujah.

[jimdmcevoy]

Would you mind posting a link to some news on it or something? When I google it I only find people saying it might be sarin gas or a test kit or something. But my google-ing skills are lacking.

Btw, was your statement implying something else or was it just a genuine response to my question?

These are honest questions of mine to be taken as litteral, I am not trying to instigate an argument or anything.

Thanks in advance

[Abednego]

May I suggest a subscription to The Limbaugh Letter. It is full of informative articles that address your questions. If you don't want to spend any money he has a daily 3 hour radio program you can tune into. 12-3 eastern and it is free.

[Cyrus]

No Weapons of Mass Destruction, as admitted by all the administration people who should know (except for some expired sausages in an old freezer - how exciting). Colin Powell leaves office with a permanent stain on his record, for anyone who has teached his wretched performance at the UN Security Council, waving around vials with white liquid stuff.

No ties to 9/11, although a substantial percentage of Americans still think there are! Ah, the liberal media is working wonders...

No ties to anti-American terrorism whatsoever. Lots of people confuse anti-Israel terrorists, which Saddam indeed gave refuge to in Baghdad, and anti-American terrorists. I concede that taking out Saddam was a tremendous boon for Israeli national security.

No nothing!

So, ultimately, after all the reasons have been quietly dropped (except for a few stalwarts like Felix here), it's a fight for democracy in Iraq. Aye, this brings a tear to my eyes.

Let the killing continue.

[duk]

Well, it turns out some idiot ordered his troops to invade Iraq, which the led to the downfall of the government (which was clearly not the best of governments, yes) that had been maintaining the order. As a result, thousands of non-Iraqis intent on attacking things related to the United States have flooded into the country, blowing things up and killing people. So, the American military has to be there to clean things up as best they can.

[MMMMMM]

I posted a link and picture when they were found recently; it was part of a slide show on www.usatoday.com (http://www.usatoday.com) I think. Sorry I didn't save the exact URL. Now, maybe they haven't been tested yet, but the vials were shown in a box labelled Sarin and had English, German and Cyrillic writing on the box/instructions.

[Daliman]

Florida has ties to al-qaeda. At least 3 of the 9/11 hijackers trained and lived there. Invade and remove the leader.

[nicky g]

"it should be understandable we don't take they word that they voluntarily destroyed all WMD without any UN supervision. . If you believe they did on their on accord then may I ask do you believe in the Easter Bunny?"

The UN inspectors said they had verified the destruction (either through witnessing it or documentation and follow-up) of 95% of Iraq's WMDs. In the late 90s they were about to give Iraq a total clean bill of health on WMDs until political pressure had their head fired and replaced by the belligerent Richard Butler who made them start all over again. It is just amazing how widespread the lie that there was no documented destruction of WMD is. And even after all studies show the did voluntarily destroy their WMD, as far back as 1991, you compare such a belief to the Easter bunny? How propagandised can one get?

"Since the war, al-qaeda has been flooding into Iraq in greater numbers"

Uh right. This is an argument to have toppled Saddam.

[jokerswild]

there has never been any other reason.

[MMMMMM]

Jeez, Nicky.

5% of Iraq's WMD's could easily have killed a truly catastrophic number of people. That 95% were gone would have been small comfort if the remaining 5% were not.

[MMMMMM]

Adios and I have posted showing that Kellog, Brown & Root is having trouble making money in Iraq. Since the venture has proved scantly profitable for Halliburton and/or KBR, why would the U.S. remain there, at colossal expense, if only to keep the oil flowing for the company's relatively small profits in Iraq.

Your assertion does not appear to mesh well with the facts.

[nicky g]

"5% of Iraq's WMD's could easily have killed a truly catastrophic number of people."

Actually, they could not have, as it was nearly universally ageed that they would have long degraded beyond usefulness.

Furthermore, the inspectors were not asserting they still existed. They were saying they couldn't adequately account for them, although there was much evidence even at the time that they had been destroyed (for instance, for one batch of I foget what, the Iraqis took them to a field where they said they had destroyed it. The UN inspectors agreed that there were traces of the substance there, but neither they nor the Iraqis had any means of verifying how much). It now seems that they were indeed largely destroyed and that the odd one that remained (eg the sarin shell that insurgents looted and used against troops a while ago, thinking it contained explosives) had as predicted, degraded.

[MMMMMM]

The degradation point is separate. If the degradation argument were true (and it might well be), then it oughtn't to have mattered if even 100% of Iraq's WMD's remained, eh? My point is that 95% is no comfort. Degradation however might be.

[nicky g]

" The degradation argument were true (and it might well be), then it oughtn't to have mattered if even 100% of Iraq's WMD's remained, eh? "


I'm not sure if it applied to all categories of WMD that were ever in Iraq's possession, but it was repeatedly pointed out that it applied to the bulk of what Bush and Blair kept banging on about as unaccounted for ("10,000 litres of anthrax" etc). But broadly, yes: the real issue was whether Iraq was producing or obtaining new stocks of WMDs, not whether they retained any of their pre-Gulf War I stocks. The fact that Bush and Blair kept going on about the non-issue of WMD caches that had been almost entirely verifiably destroyed and/or long degraded to the point of harmlessness shows how pathetically weak their case was.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
The fact that Bush and Blair kept going on about the non-issue of WMD caches that had been almost entirely verifiably destroyed and/or long degraded to the point of harmlessness shows how pathetically weak their case was.

[/ QUOTE ]

The joker in this is the and/or. Again, if 5% remained and were not degraded to the point of ineffectiveness, then there was a real problem.

Also, the case was based on more than past stocks; it included more recent developments. The case was not weak since every country which mattered believed practically the same thing. Yes, some data was flawed, but you can't fault Bush and Blair for their assessment without also faulting Putin, Chirac, Israel, Australia, German intelligence, Clinton, Kerry, and on and on. I call this tactic by the anti-Bush/anti-war crowd "selective faulting";-)

[nicky g]

"The joker in this is the and/or. Again, if 5% remained and were not degraded to the point of ineffectiveness, then there was a real problem. "

As, I say, all the WMD in the the 5% was as far as I remember likely to have degraded, and there was significant evidence that much of it had been destroyed.


"The case was not weak. "

The case was incredibly weak. If it were not, they would not have spent so much time banging on about pre-Gulf War I stocks which they had to have known were essentially irrelevant.

"since every country which mattered believed practically the same thing. Yes, some data was flawed, but you can't fault Bush and Blair for their assessment without also faulting Putin, Chirac, Israel, Australia, German intelligence, Clinton, Kerry, and on and on."

I haven't reviewed every piece of intelligence every intelligence agency the world produced on Iraqi WMDs; perhaps I should. But I have looked at the British intelligence, and up to August 2002 it presented a picture of a Saddam who in their judgement probably had some precursor equipment, "may" (the JIC's words) have had small amounts of WMD (in battlefield munition form), was only likely to use them in the case of an invasion, and who had not succeeded in presenting a threat to his neighbours, never mind the world. Hardly what one would have thought from the threats of doom, or indeed Blair's words at the time which directly contradicted what his intelligence briefings were telling him.

After Blair and Bush took the decision to invade in August 2002, British intelligence appraisals of the threat hardened dramatically, despite no apparent new leads etc. If you don't think that was a result of political decisions, I have some swampland in etc etc.

[MMMMMM]

All through the Clinton years, otherwise liberal American politicians were spouting off about Saddam's WMDs and the danger he posed. Many of these quotes have been posted on this board numerous times. In the late 90's German intelligence unequivocally stated that Saddam absolutely would have a nuke within 5 years at the latest. There is much more but I'm going to sleep.

[nicky g]

Well I trust Clinton and his pals on Iraq little more than I do Bush; it was his administration that inserted spies in the inspection teams, that blocked the inspectors resolving the issue etc.

If German intelligence thought that, it was clearly out on a limb. Certainly British intelligence thought nothing of the sort. What evidence did the Germans offer?

[jimdmcevoy]

[ QUOTE ]

The case was not weak since every country which mattered believed practically the same thing. Yes, some data was flawed, but you can't fault Bush and Blair for their assessment without also faulting Putin, Chirac, Israel, Australia, German intelligence, Clinton, Kerry, and on and on.


[/ QUOTE ]

Well I'm glad you think Australia is a country that matters, but what makes you think Australia thought they had WMD's?

It was definitely not what the majority of the population here thought, so you must be refering to what an intelligence organisation from Australia thought?

Our country is very small economically, we only have about 17 million people so I doubt we spend much on intellegence. So although I have heard of no intelligence Australia has gathered about WMD's I may be wrong, but you'd have to prove it to me that we did have some.

If you are refering to the fact that our prime minister supported Bush (which didn't make most people here happy) then I don't think that means much.

On a side note, Our prime minister is from the liberal party (which is equivilent to America's Republican party, our other major party is called the labor party, equivilent to Democrats) and was re-elected just recently just as Bush was.

I find this amazing since the clear majority here do not like Bush and are against the whole Iraq thing. He has supported Bush with most of this invade Iraq stuff. So for all you Democrats over there in the states, I feel your pain.

[zaxx19]

WAAAAAAAAA...

BERKELY IS CALLING ..4 MORE YRS 4 MORE YRS 4 MORE YRS

[A_C_Slater]

[ QUOTE ]
No weapons of mass destruction, no ties to Al-qaeda, so what is the reason now, just because "We're already there"

And whatever the reason is, How many more lives (Iraqis and American) is gonna take?

Whatever the purpose is, Are all this lives worth it?

David

[/ QUOTE ]

It's for Freedom.

Duhhhhhhh. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Toro]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No weapons of mass destruction, no ties to Al-qaeda, so what is the reason now, just because "We're already there"

And whatever the reason is, How many more lives (Iraqis and American) is gonna take?

Whatever the purpose is, Are all this lives worth it?

David

[/ QUOTE ]

It's for Freedom.

Duhhhhhhh. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Iraquis not Americans are supposed to make the sacrifice if they want to be free.

[MMMMMM]

I don't know, Nicky; I certainly don't keep news clippings over many years.

Funny you would trust the UN (inspectors) more than the US, though; the UN is a distinctly corrupt organization. Oil-for-food was one of the biggest cons in history.

[MMMMMM]

I am talking about what the Australian government believed.

[CORed]

Well, to pull out now and leave the Iraqi people to fend for themselves would require admitting that we made a massive mistake and that bringing "Freedom and Democracy" to Iraq (while undermining them at home) was a pipe dream. Do you really think GWB will do that?

[CORed]

If that's the motivation (and I don't believe it is) it hasn't worked very well so far.

[MMMMMM]

Withdrawal would be a very dirty trick to play on the Iraqis this time around, a much larger version of what happened after the war in '91.

Democracy in Iraq might indeed turn out to be a pipe dream, but as we've gone this far we owe it to everyone to see if it can succeed or not. I don't think it would be rational or fair to simply "proclaim" it is a pipe dream and withdraw at this point without giving it a chance. For that matter there is simply no way to know at this point whether democracy will succeed in Iraq or not.

[Toro]

They kept saying the same thing about Vietnam. The strong will survive and ultimately control that country unless we want to stay indefinitely.

[MMMMMM]

But in Vietnam, the other side was much more numerous. The insurgents and fanatics in Iraq are a much smaller, though very aggressive, percentage of the population.

[CORed]

Actually, although I believe that the decision to invade Iraq was a mistake, I am not yet ready to advocate abandoning Iraq. I think we have to try to salvage the situation. I am not, however optimistic that we will succeed, I think there is at least a 50% probability that we will withdraw in 5-10 years with the situation not substantially better than it is now. I hope I am wrong, but occupying a country in the face of a determined guerilla insurgency is a difficult thing to do, and most who have tried have failed. I would be satisfied if the end result is a dictator who is not hostile to our interests and less brutal than Sadam. I think there is a much better chance of this than of making a democratic government stick. I have also seen very little evidence that this administration has the ability to succeed in Iraq. They have done little right since Sadam's fall.

[CORed]

In Vietnam, the other side also had the benefit of virtually unlimited resupply from the Soviet Union and China. This is one thing that makes me believe that we have some chance of success in Iraq. The problem is that to win, we have to completely crush the insurgents. For the insurgents to win, they just have to keep making trouble for us until we finally decide it's not worth it and go away.

[MMMMMM]

I agree.

[Gamblor]

Lots of people confuse anti-israel terrorists, which Saddam indeed gave refuge to in Baghdad, and anti-American terrorists. I concede that taking out Saddam was a tremendous boon for israeli national security.

Lots of people confuse the two, probably because if you were to ask said terrorists which country he is fighting against, you'd like hear a lot of "they're the same thing, no?".

[Cyrus]

"If you were to ask terrorists which country they are fighting against, you'd like hear a lot of "they're [Israel and America] the same thing, no?"."

I wouldn't know.

Your friends want it that way, no?

[tek]

It's part of the conditioning for acceptance of worldwide fascism.

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Iraq will have elections in January. US troops will stay at least until the end of the Bush43 presidency. Hopefully the new Iraqi govt will be able to stand on their own two feet. If not, then I hate to be an ordinary Iraqi when the govt falls......


[/ QUOTE ]

I doubt Americans would be out by then, I'd be willing to lay 2-1 odds...

[/ QUOTE ]
I seriously doubt the US will be totally out of Iraq by 2012, maybe 2016.

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
It's part of the conditioning for acceptance of worldwide fascism.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, it's because "they hate our freedoms".