Soldiers in Iraq Sound Off

There are at least 88 security council resolutions that are being violated by various nations. One of those nations represents 32 violations, twice as many as Iraq's 16. If your position is based on consequences for security council violations, surely you do not need to know the name of the country in order to hold a consistent and fair position.

As to all the nations that indicated Saddam was pursuing WMD much of that was due to false intelligence / false testimony provided by Colin Powell.

I ain't frontin yo.

We were repeatedly told that chemical weapons were used by Saddam "on his own people". That chemical weapon was called white phosphorous and killed, on the high estimate, 7,000 people. The US military has admitted using white phosphorous in Fallujah and data for the casualty count is not real well known as far as I can tell.

Saddam's was estimated to have disappeared 200,000 Iraqis. The civilian total of deaths in Iraq as a result of Ws actions are ranging between 100,000 and 650,000.

Saddam was alleged to torture people. W is doing this at Abu Ghraib, Gitmo and the black sites the CIA is passing people around to.

The only real difference of note is prior to the war, Saddam had control of the oil and control of Babylon. Now someone else does.

If you believe that the Patriot Act enhanced your liberties or that the Military Commisions Act did not suspend habeas corpus then we will just have to disagree. My intention was to focus on reality not on fear as fear is the thing that has got us into this mess. However, it would please me if Christians became alerted to the fact that their liberties are eroding and it's not because of Saddam or Usama.

What if we never stop being at war? How will we retain any of our liberties if we give them up during each war? WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Cold War, Persian Gulf I, Persian Gulf II, War on Terror. When will we be a nation of peace, when will we be free?

 

As you should know, not all violations are equal. It would be foolish to make a judgment without knowing the facts, as distasteful as that is to some.

Actually, the nations agreed prior to Colin Powell. He was apparently one of the last to be convinced.

Incorrect. Most of the deaths in Iraq are due to insurgents, and it is far less than 650,000, and probably less than 100,000. We are not sure. But Saddam’s actions were of a different nature, again, which you should know. Do not blame Bush for stuff he is not doing. He is guilty of plenty without that.

We won’t if we pull out of Iraq without winning. The way you end war is by winning, not by giving in. That is why it is imperative that we stay there until the job is done. Fighting terrorism somewhere else is better than fighting it here. Just ask the people who were at the WTC. Except you can’t … because they died from terrorism. So let’s defeat them somewhere else.



Again, I am puzzled by the complete lack of critical thinking you are displaying. It just doesn't make sense. I am increasingly of the opinion that going into Iraq was a bad idea, and unnecessary. But we did it. Now we have to win.

 

Good points, especially the last one!:thumbs:

That's the thing that has concerned me the most. This "War on Terror" has no real definition and is so generic it can be applied to anything. Like the so-called "War on Poverty" or the "War on Drugs" this "War on Terrorism" could go on for decades. Therefore, and liberties we give up, as Pastor Larry puts it during a time of war, might well end up being permanent loses. I believe we can fight against terrorists without giving up any liberties. We just have to refrain from invading the wrong countries.

 

This is true, not all violations are equal.

The United Nations did not agree for they did not authorize the use of force in Iraq. They apparently did not feel that the Iraqi violations of the UN Security Council Resolutions were equal to the 1950 Korean war, which they authorized and the 1991 Persian Gulf War, which they also authorized. The president of this body of nations, declared the U.S. use of force in Iraq as being illegal, for it was not authorized by that body of nations.

We don't know right now what the death toll is with any semblance of certainty. Johns Hopkins was saying something like 200,000 and the Lancet Journal was reporting 650,000 so it's hard to say, but I believe it is safe to say it's 6 figures.

Not sure how you pin these deaths on the insurgents but consider this about the evil insurgents if you will. Let's say China decides that the United States is in violation of UN resolutions (not technically going to happen 'cuz the US currently has veto power but bare with me) the UN agrees but does not authorize the use of force. China says that's not good enough, Bush is wack and we want a regime change. China then invades the U.S. and arrests W. After obliterating U.S. infrastructure the Chinese attempt to bring their brand of stability to the U.S. and those pesky folks in Queens, Montgomery, Fort Worth, Boise, Los Angeles, Denver and other parts of the U.S. decide they don't like to trip over Chicoms on the way to Wal-Mart. What do you suppose the Chinese would call those folks? I'm guessing they'd use a term similar to "insurgents".

There is nothing to win. There is no hill to take, there is no army to defeat. There is just a group of folks that want us to leave them alone. Let's leave 'em alone, let them rebuild their own country, bring our troops home, secure our borders and restore our freedoms.

 

If you have an argument to make, please make it. What you think I'm doing doesn't exactly make your case.

 

What do you believe the facts are? Stop the ad hominem and make an argument.

 

Technically, neoconservatism is not leftist. They are former leftists, socialists, marxists, etc. who found a different extremism. The guys who were handling the war (and I agree that they lost it) were not leftists.

The media bears some responsibility, but the buck still stops in the Oval Office.

 

Since when does the UN get to decide what is legal and in the best interests of America? Just a few posts ago, you were arguing that we shouldn’t give credence to the UN. Now you seem to be saying the opposite.

Because they are fomenting the violence, killing civilians. I doubt there are more than 100,000, but we don’t know for sure.

I think China would not get past Japan on the way to attack the US. Furthermore, there are vast differences. The US did not go after Saddam for some nebulous “whack” reason. There were clearly defined, on going issues that the world agreed about. So don’t confuse the issue with illegitimate analogies.

There is something to win and that is peace in the Middle East which has a direct affect on the security of people there as well as here. If we lose there, how long will it take them to be here? Not long, I would suggest.

 

I will maintain that position. I couldn't care less about UN resolutions. However, you have made a case based on UN resolutions as did the US. Thus, the US transferred sovereignty of these issues to a foreign body as it was the violations of this foreign body that was at issue. The US then desired to go to war with Iraq. The foreign body whose resolutions were violated, said 'fohgedaboutit' and the US proceeded anyway. To make a case based on resolutions of this body and then to ignore the desired consequences presribed by this body is inconsistent.

I agree that we don't know for sure. If the US was to leave there would likely continue to be violence however, at least at this point no more US blood would be spilled and the fate of Iraq could be settled by Iraqis.

The point I was making was, if the United States had foreign troops on her soil, I would imagine' that, at least some, citizens would fight back. The invading nation would likely consider them to be "insurgents" or "enemy combatants" and would shift any blame for progress to those elements.

There hasn't been peace in the Middle East in 5+ decades. What will be the specific defining achievement of peace that will bring our soldiers home or are we to believe that they will be there another 50 years?

 

We already had the WP not being a chemical weapon discussion.

Are you making the argument that he didn't kill these people?

Why don't YOU mention them? You have an argument to make and you want me to make it for you?