Runsfeld Clears Things Up

[Zeno]

There have been too many debates about the 'Iraq War'. Most of them have involved pedantic drivel. The issue is irrelevant anyway.


[ QUOTE ]
Did we, or did we not, launch an unprovoked attack on a sovereign country?

[/ QUOTE ]

By God, I hope so. That's the best way to start a war.

Here are some good reasons for war:

1. Bold Conquest i.e., land grab.
2. Long-term economic and political gain.
3. Influence and dominance in trade routes.
4. Protection of important resources and/or to gain resources for self-interest and economic power.
5. Revenge/punishment for past acts.
6. Your God is more powerful than the other guys God - thus a war should be successful with all the attendant gains involved.
7. To free your 'country' or 'clan' from tyranny.
8. To spread your religion with all the attendant economic and political gain that comes with it.

Any one or combination of the above is a good reason(s) to engage in war. There are other reasons but this list touches on some of the most common and worthwhile ones for engaging in lustful battle.

This should answer any questions about the 'Iraq war'. So you see, there is no need for a ‘debate’.

It's time to move on to more important themes as - risk/reward analyses for a given war. Now that is something worth debating about.

-Zeno

[Myrtle]

[ QUOTE ]
There have been too many debates about the 'Iraq War'. Most of them have involved pedantic drivel. The issue is irrelevant anyway.


[ QUOTE ]
Did we, or did we not, launch an unprovoked attack on a sovereign country?

[/ QUOTE ]

By God, I hope so. That's the best way to start a war.

Here are some good reasons for war:

1. Bold Conquest i.e., land grab.
2. Long-term economic and political gain.
3. Influence and dominance in trade routes.
4. Protection of important resources and/or to gain resources for self-interest and economic power.
5. Revenge/punishment for past acts.
6. Your God is more powerful than the other guys God - thus a war should be successful with all the attendant gains involved.
7. To free your 'country' or 'clan' from tyranny.
8. To spread your religion with all the attendant economic and political gain that comes with it.

Any one or combination of the above is a good reason(s) to engage in war. There are other reasons but this list touches on some of the most common and worthwhile ones for engaging in lustful battle.

This should answer any questions about the 'Iraq war'. So you see, there is no need for a ‘debate’.

It's time to move on to more important themes as - risk/reward analyses for a given war. Now that is something worth debating about.

-Zeno

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see this issue as irrelevant at all. History will be the best judge of that.

You are entitled to your opinion as to whether or not is 'pedantic drivel'.

It sounds like the 'god' that you're invoking is Mars, eh?

I see your 'reasons' as either borderline or outright sociopathic and reject them outright.

[cdxx]

[ QUOTE ]
Quickly, to list a few provocations:

-firing daily on US planes in no-fly zones

-many years of defying/obstructing/delaying U.N. resolutions and inspections

-purportedly having attempted to have Bush #1 assassinated

-encouraging and helping fuel the cottage industry of Palestinian suicide-bombing with 50K payments to families of suicide-bombers

[/ QUOTE ]

first, a comment on the OP. rumsfeld's answers were ridiculous. i don't think he answered a single thing. i felt bad for the general who was with him. he at least tried to make a case for something, not useless rhetoric.

secondly, if a US plane is in a no-fly zone, aren't they breaking a treaty themselves? if an iraq plane showed up in a no-fly zone over DC, they would just fire at it. they'd blow it up four times before it hits the ground.

sure, iraq ignored UN resolutions, kicked out inspectors. it warrants action against iraq, perhaps even a full invasion, but the deaths of thousands of soldiers and civilians, together with the actual cost of the war suggests a harder diplomatic effort was in order.

US planned, tried, and successfully assasinated many different foreign leaders, many of those were democratically elected. a purported plot to assasinate bush #1 is the case for tougher security around the president, not invasion of iraq.

the biggest surporter of palestinian terrorist movement (freedom fighters my ass) was probably not sadaam. it is probably extreme factions in saudi arabia and iran. i can't back that up with facts, but i will stand corrected if you can prove the opposite.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
first, a comment on the OP. rumsfeld's answers were ridiculous. i don't think he answered a single thing. i felt bad for the general who was with him. he at least tried to make a case for something, not useless rhetoric.

[/ QUOTE ]
Stop the presses! a politician giving ridiculous answers to questions?! Perish the thought!

[ QUOTE ]
secondly, if a US plane is in a no-fly zone, aren't they breaking a treaty themselves? if an iraq plane showed up in a no-fly zone over DC, they would just fire at it. they'd blow it up four times before it hits the ground.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not all that familiar with the exact terms of the treaty, but I believe the U.S./U.K. were permitted to enforce the No Fly Zones in the treaty. We have no treaty with Iraq that says they may fly over restricted airspace in the U.S. that I'm aware of. I think attacking one's army is all the declaration of war we need.

[ QUOTE ]
sure, iraq ignored UN resolutions, kicked out inspectors. it warrants action against iraq, perhaps even a full invasion, but the deaths of thousands of soldiers and civilians, together with the actual cost of the war suggests a harder diplomatic effort was in order.

[/ QUOTE ]
If Iraq was ignoring the UN resolutions, what makes you believe a "harder diplomatic effort" would work? What does "harder diplomatic effort" even mean?

[ QUOTE ]
US planned, tried, and successfully assasinated many different foreign leaders, many of those were democratically elected. a purported plot to assasinate bush #1 is the case for tougher security around the president, not invasion of iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]
But I thought one of the anti-war points was that Saddam wasn't a danger to any U.S. citizens. Clearly that's not the case if he's allowed to assassinate our citizens, least of all ex-presidents!

[ QUOTE ]
the biggest surporter of palestinian terrorist movement (freedom fighters my ass) was probably not sadaam. it is probably extreme factions in saudi arabia and iran. i can't back that up with facts, but i will stand corrected if you can prove the opposite.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why even mention it then? The point of mentioning Saddam's funding of Palestinian terrorists was to show exactly that: he's no stranger to terrorism. Is it so incredible to believe that Saddam would support terrorist that would attack Americans? I think it's clear that that has already happened.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, especially when a nasty, mass-murdering dictator is breaking the terms of the cease-fire agreement he has signed with us. That ALONE is cause for re-invading and deposing the SOB.

[/ QUOTE ]



I would say that our discussion is over, as you're using the same justification for action that the terrorists are, and lower yourself to their level by doing so.........


[/ QUOTE ]

You have got to be kidding me. When did we ever break a cease-fire agreement with terrorists?

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
I see your 'reasons' as either borderline or outright sociopathic and reject them outright.

[/ QUOTE ]

Reject away. History, which you evoked in your post, provides conclusive proof that the reasons stated are very good reasons to go to war, and indeed have been the basis for many if not most wars. I sense some moralistic streak in you so I already know that we will simply disagree on this.

[ QUOTE ]
History will be the best judge of that.


[/ QUOTE ]

Depending of course on who writes the History. It is interesting that the 1848 war with Mexico, which the U.S. probably provoked, turned out to be a big gain for America. And most do not know or even care about the 'true history' of the how the war started.

[ QUOTE ]
It's time to move on to more important themes as - risk/reward analyses for a given war. Now that is something worth debating about.


[/ QUOTE ]

To beat the horse again - This is the real issue. The way the war was botched. The administration became too greed too fast. It they would have started the Iraq invasion during Bush's second term (he would have won easily because the Afghan war was more or less successful) then things may have gone more smoothly. Some more lead time to get ready, let the dust settle in the Afghan region and solidify your position and gains, would have been the wiser course to take. Then launch your propaganda campaign and get the throbbing masses all worked up for another go. Then your ratio of risk to reward would have been better, in my opinion.

But the most difficult risk/reward thing to calculate is the religion card. It’s the joker in the deck.

But enough of this, I already know you will disagree with all this so I suggest you put me on ignore and continue with your silly debate about the merits and justifications of the ‘Iraq War’.

-Zeno

Don't forget that you need some intense combat every 20 years or so to ensure that future generations of your colonels, generals, and your joint chiefs of staff actually have some combat experience - because if future future generations must enter war, it would be utterly inconceivable for them to do so under military commanders with no combat experience.

[cdxx]

[ QUOTE ]
I think attacking one's army is all the declaration of war we need.

[/ QUOTE ]

this happens every day. i fear of living in a world where wars get started every day. scratch that, i fear we are already living in a world like that.

nothing in this administration's actions suggests that any diplomacy took place.

[ QUOTE ]
Clearly that's not the case if he's allowed to assassinate our citizens, least of all ex-presidents!

[/ QUOTE ]
i never suggested this. sadaam's lack of ability to assasinate anyone is what makes him a weak threat.

[ QUOTE ]
Why even mention it then? The point of mentioning Saddam's funding of Palestinian terrorists was to show exactly that: he's no stranger to terrorism. Is it so incredible to believe that Saddam would support terrorist that would attack Americans? I think it's clear that that has already happened.

[/ QUOTE ]

there's a dozen governments that support terrorists and would attack americans if given the chance. of course we can't ignore them, but it does not imply we should invade all or any of them. invasion without an imminent threat is short-sighted at best. it breeds even more terrorists and hardly scares any other nation from harboring them.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
this happens every day. i fear of living in a world where wars get started every day. scratch that, i fear we are already living in a world like that.

[/ QUOTE ]
Don't you think a *credible* threat of invasion would deter these attacks? If I'm in a room full of 10 year olds and say "If anyone touches me, I'll punch them in the face" and follow up on that threat when someone violates it, it seems intuitive that you will not be "touched" by anyone else.

[ QUOTE ]
nothing in this administration's actions suggests that any diplomacy took place.

[/ QUOTE ]
Haven't we tried diplomacy for the better part of 13 years? What evidence is there it would have worked this time?

[ QUOTE ]
saddam's lack of ability to assasinate anyone is what makes him a weak threat.

[/ QUOTE ]
Uh, he's tried to. Not being successful in his attempt to assassinate a former president doesn't make him a weak threat. I'd say that makes him a bigger threat.

[ QUOTE ]
there's a dozen governments that support terrorists and would attack americans if given the chance. of course we can't ignore them, but it does not imply we should invade all or any of them.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not advocating immediate invasion of any government that supports terrorism. Iraq had many other factors going for it that made invasion a better option.

[ QUOTE ]
invasion without an imminent threat is short-sighted at best. it breeds even more terrorists and hardly scares any other nation from harboring them.

[/ QUOTE ]
Tell that to Libya.

[cdxx]

in your post you suggested that

- iraq may have had a credible invasion threat to the US

- punching 10 year olds is a valid method of education

- ignoring that in 13 years since first gulf war sadaam was essentially incapacitated, which is further supported by no findings of WMD's

- went from a purported assasination plan to an actual attempt

- attributed Libya as a success of the war in iraq. if we ignored arguments that it is another incapacitated dictator nation, we still couldn't overlook that Libya is not actually in the middle east and that it was denouncing terrorism and giving up suspected and accused terrorists since the late 1990's (source ). the restatement of its policy after the iraq invasion does nothing to thwart insurgency, terrorism, or anything else.

i'll save space in this forum and just bulk your statements together as false.

edit : i am done with this thread. don't bother responding.