Iraq Poll

[jt1]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not even sure what this refers to. Did Bush imply that Sadaam backed Al Qaeda? That would be bizarre. Sadaam & Al Qaeda were never friendly at all.

However, I can tell you from first hand knowledge that Sadaam backed terrorist training camps operating in Iraq prior to Desert Storm. I can also tell you from second hand knowledge (from a very close personal friend) that they were still operating shortly before the invasion of Iraq. In my mind, following 9/11 this was reason enough to invade Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]


This is good sh**. Every now and then I read something on this forum that shaps my opinions. MMMMM posted something the other day and also responding to other posters sometimes helps me better understand their point of view.

And to BluffTHIS!, this is why I favor being able to change your mind.

However, no offense to the ex-marine, but there are CIA documents strong doubting claims by Iraqi refugees that Saddam and Al Qaida were in cahoots. These documents are availalbe for public persual. Furthermore, even if you are a trustworthy source, Iran was a big player in the terrorist game too and their governments idealogy, intentions, and capabilities are more dangerous than Saddam's ever were.

But at the very least, we can agree that after conquering Iraq, Bush should have guarded the Syrian and Iranian border to prevent their governments from supplying any potential insurgencies, and he should have had a plan to prevent sectarian conflicts. He should also have prepared us for higher gas prices, thousands of casualties, an extended occupation: a decieved electorate can't be blamed for retreating when they were never told what an invasion would actually entail. DON'T BLAME THE JANITOR FOR QUITTING WHEN THE GUY WHO HIRED HIM SAID HE WAS TO BE A STOCK BROKER. Blame the guy who hired him

[ QUOTE ]
Invading Iraq was a correct move, but subsequent to the actual invasion has been a complete clusterfuck.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't vote. I see the intention of your poll. I think the clusterfuck began after GWB's numbnuts staff allowed the "Mission Accomplished" banner.

The original mission, neutralizing the Iraqi military and kicking SH's butt out, was accomplished. And I don't care what anyone thought about whether we should have gone in or not, you had to be impressed with and proud of, our military.

The clusterfuck, IMO, is a result of every friggin' scenario the brainiacs in that Puzzle Palace known as The Pentagon came up with was based on incomplete/fuzzy/faulty intel. (that's usually the only type we ever have) They simply weren't prepared for what resulted.

I dare anyone carping about, No plan for Peace; No plan for withdrawal; No this, that and whatever the hell else they're complaining about, to show me where, in their infinite wisdom, any of that crap was pointed to before the invasion.

War sucks. Sh*t happens. Kids die. Innocents die. It's always been that way and it ain't gonna change. That's why sane people don't want war. That's why no one I've ever known in the military, if given a choice, wants war.

Jeeze, I can't believe I'm sitting here posting this. I'm doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. The definition of insanity.

< ergo, i am insane. send in the white coats. put me away. he muttered to himself as he moved his mouse. positioning the arrow over the submit button. placing, forever, his rambling into the vast unknown called cyberspace >

[Gunny Highway]

[ QUOTE ]
However, no offense to the ex-marine, but there are CIA documents strong doubting claims by Iraqi refugees that Saddam and Al Qaida were in cahoots.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you saying they were or were not in cahoots? I'm saying they were not.

[ QUOTE ]
Furthermore, even if you are a trustworthy source, Iran was a big player in the terrorist game too and their governments idealogy, intentions, and capabilities are more dangerous than Saddam's ever were.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes. And Iran should've been invaded as well.

[ QUOTE ]
But at the very least, we can agree that after conquering Iraq, Bush should have guarded the Syrian and Iranian border to prevent their governments from supplying any potential insurgencies, and he should have had a plan to prevent sectarian conflicts.

[/ QUOTE ]
We can agree on the first part. I'm not sure how you prevent people in the middle east from having sectarian conflicts.

[ QUOTE ]
He should also have prepared us for higher gas prices, thousands of casualties, an extended occupation: a decieved electorate can't be blamed for retreating when they were never told what an invasion would actually entail.

[/ QUOTE ]
Providing for yourself and your family is your own responsibility. Anyone that wasn't both completely stupid and didn't have his head buried in the sand should have seen inflation in fuel prices coming.

As for the extended occupation, it never should have taken place. We should have committed the resources, gotten the job done months ago, and moved on to the next nest of snakes.

[jt1]

[ QUOTE ]
I dare anyone carping about, No plan for Peace; No plan for withdrawal; No this, that and whatever the hell else they're complaining about, to show me where, in their infinite wisdom, any of that crap was pointed to before the invasion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll give it a try when I have some time, but I am sure that there are CIA documents trying to warn the administration of sectarian battles, looting, organized resistance to the Americans. It is the Pentangons job led by the Defense secretary to plan for possible contigencies. That is why we pay them. They are supposed to work 40 hours a week doing just that. It is the CIA's job to prepare possible scenarios and the Pentagon is to use that info when preparing their contigency plans. This is where the process broke down. Rummy refused to consider the CIA's possible scenarios and, therefore, no contigency plans were ever drawn up nor did there even seem to be a plan A. You would think plan A would have the millitary guarding the Syrian and Iranian border (two authoritarian and terrorist governments, with the means and the motive to jumpstart an insurgency). This thanksgiving, I'll do my research and post links to CIA documents that tried to warn Bush of what he was about to do.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
I dare anyone carping about, No plan for Peace; No plan for withdrawal; No this, that and whatever the hell else they're complaining about, to show me where, in their infinite wisdom, any of that crap was pointed to before the invasion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the Bush 41 administration was keenly aware of the difficulties that the US would encounter in trying to rebuild a post-Saddam, war-torn Iraq - hence why they chose not to topple him in the first Gulf War. Regardless, I think the possible post-war difficulties were pointed out many, many times before the war.

As I recall, I didn't hear many people doubting the US's ability to oust Saddam before the war. There was clearly much concern about what kind of causalities the armed conflict would bring -- but much of the pre-war criticism centered precisely around what you're referring to - securing peace in Iraq will be a hard-fought battle, both militarily and otherwise.

[ QUOTE ]
War sucks. Sh*t happens. Kids die. Innocents die. It's always been that way and it ain't gonna change. That's why sane people don't want war. That's why no one I've ever known in the military, if given a choice, wants war.

[/ QUOTE ]

First, let me note that I'm all in favor of a war by choice, and not by necessity, given the right circumstances -- yet I think, in the case of Iraq, we had options other than war, but chose war anyway. As I said, war by choice is (in my mind) legitimate in some circumstances. But one of the clearest things (at least to me) about this ongoing debate is that this was certainly not a war of necessity, but instead was a war of choice (which, let me reiterate, is not necessarily a bad thing -- I think there are times when a war of choice is legitimate).

And I think there are many sane people who, for entirely legitimate and just reasons, ought to seek out and bring war.

I realize that a typical soldier may not have wanted war -- perhaps that is what you meant; in which case, I whole-heartedly agree that most soliders that I've ever encountered would much prefer to remain at home and not have to fight, given the choice. But clearly, people in the military (at the very least, the hierarchy of the military) chose war when other options were available.

Long story short, I’m not finding your post here particularly compelling.