Some politics?

[Sasquatch]

Alright, it's been a while since there's been a decent debate in here -- or at least a little while. So I figured I'd get one started. Just try to keep it civil and at least somewhat respectful.

I recently decided to volunteer to a section of my unit that should be getting deployed overseas sometime this summer. I've already been to Iraq once, for more than a year -- got back March of '05, got into college Fall Semester '05 -- but I withdrew from Spring Semester and volunteered to go back. Don't know when or where we'll be going yet -- could be Iraq, could be Afghanistan -- but there's a reasonable certainty that this Company will be deployed, we're just waiting on orders for the next cycle.

So anyway... What do you think of the war in Iraq, or in Afghanistan, and the War on Terrorism as a whole? Do you think it's going well? Do you think it's a good idea? Do you think it was America's place to liberate Iraq, or do you think America is being pushy and nosy? And do you think I'm an idiot for volunteering to go back?

I have discovered, might I add (I'm sure I'll add quite a bit more later, after I see which direction the discussion goes), that when I came home from Iraq on leave, I was appalled at what was shown, and what wasn't shown, on the news. There is so much that the public is unaware of. FOX News was a little better, as they usually are, at showing a more balanced view of the conflict, but CNN was bad, and CBS was just terribly slanted ... as they usually are.

I believe that while Saddam Hussein was assuredly a not any sort of decent leader, it was not our place to decide to invade. While we officially used several UN resolutions as justification for the war, the United Nation's charter (the founding document) strictly forbids any sort of military action which has not been explicitly condoned by them. This is perhaps one of the main flaws of the UN; it confers no power upon it's members, and it has no power of its own. As a result, I do not support the war.

On the other hand, I find the massive levels of doubt and criticism of the war to be quite reassuring. That our media instantly focuses on the most negative aspects of the war ensures that everyone will keep on their toes to keep the worst as good as possible. It may look bad on paper and on television, but knowing that the worst thing we can say is "We don't seem to be helping much" at least means there's something good going on.

Aside from either of these things, I'd like to mention that everyone should have at least some respect for the soldiers, even if they don't believe in the cause. They are people who are willing to fight and to die for a cause. Beyond this, they are lead only by humans, just as prone to bad judgement and to making mistakes as anyone else is. The most anyone can do is to fight for what they believe in, to try and make the world a better place.

[Mike]

Okay, well...hmmm. Right away I know that you must be single. as you know I am on my second deployment in Iraq right now. The first time I was deployed I was single and it was no problem being over here. This time however, I am married and even though living conditions are better and I am on a much safer base than last time, I can't wait to leave.

I think that our initial reasons for coming here were wrong and very flawed. However, after seeing the way cartain people under Saddam's regime were forced to live and can see the value in us ousting him from his seat of power.

The reason that Bush and his entire administration believed that Saddam had WMD was because of some key errors that Saddam made. Saddam had all kinds of funding going into secret military projects. Unfortunately none of these projects ever made it off the ground. Saddam would not accept failure, yet he asked for impossible things from his military scientists. Anytime a scientist gave him a bad report on the progress of these projects he would have the head of that project killed. So, the people given the tack of creating these projects began giving false reports and pocketing the money he would put into them. Saddamm had some really crackpot ideas in his head. Some of these secret projects were for things like Giant Space Lasers, sci-fi movie stuff.

That is why when UN instectors would come to look at his plants he wouldn't show them certain files or buildings. These files would have made it look like he had lots of illegal military research being conducted. The US didn't discover this until after we had invaded Iraq.

Saddam did have some illegal projects that he tested on the Shi'ite population of this country. He gassed thousands of his own people and hid the bodies. That is genocide, much like what Hitler and the Nazis did to the Jews.

Now that we are in Iraq another major thing has happened. We have shifted the warfront for the war on terrorism to here. Instead of Al-qaida and other terrorists coming to the US to blow up more of our buildings, most have come to Iraq to fight here. It is much easier and quicker for them to come here. They don't have to worry about getting through customs or using long drawn out plans involving sleeper cells and whatnot. In a way the Iraq war has made the US safer.

This war has been good for the Iraqis and the Americans, English and Europe.

I do like that this has not become another veitnam. Civilians who don't like bush and oppose the war still support the troops. All of us fighting over here see that and thank you for supporting us.

Originally Posted by Mike

Saddam did have some illegal projects that he tested on the Shi'ite population of this country. He gassed thousands of his own people and hid the bodies. That is genocide, much like what Hitler and the Nazis did to the Jews.

Alright... this is something that routinely and repeatedly pisses me off.

Everyone cries and moans about the ~3,000 Shi'ites that Saddam gassed. I have yet to hear anyone say anything against, or even mention for that matter, the ~200,000 Iranians he killed through the use of chemical weapons back Iraq and Iran were at war with one another.

[Mike]

I am sorry I didn't add all of the details. I know that he used lots of illegal tactics during that war. However the Shi'ites he killed were his own people and I was trying to point out how it was good for Iraq that he is gone. In reality Saddam really didn't have a powerful enough army anymore to launch a military campaign on any of the surrounding countries.

The UN placed trade embargos on Iraq in the early 80s and that has prevented them from gaining many new technologies and equipment.

That's just the thing though. Everyone gets angry about the fact he's gassed his own people, but not if he's gassing people in some other country. They don't even bother to mention it. Isn't this just slightly disturbing?

[Lethal Seraphim]

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

So anyway... What do you think of the war in Iraq, or in Afghanistan, and the War on Terrorism as a whole? Do you think it's going well? Do you think it's a good idea? Do you think it was America's place to liberate Iraq, or do you think America is being pushy and nosy? And do you think I'm an idiot for volunteering to go back?

Ok I'll just answer your questions straightaway, seeing as how I blew my political load on Sean's politics thread...

I think the war in Iraq smacks a lot of Vietnam, and that we probably shouldn't be there. I also think the War on Terrorism is a propoganda term, kind of like the War on Drugs. I think the war is going rather well, seeing as how there really aren't that many US military personel dieing when you put it in comparison with conflicts like Vietnam and other wars. I read a statistic once that said you were more likely to get killed on the streets of Chicago than in Iraq(which may or may not be true, it had some math so I was like "goodie"). Someone correct me if I'm wrong about some of that, I'm not exactly up to date. Anyway, yeah I think the war's not a total disaster, I just think that it's going to take a lot of time before we can withdraw to get the whole "Iraqi Democracy" thing set up, seeing as how that's what we're seemingly hell bent on doing...

Was the war a good idea? Well, war's never really a good idea in my mind. I realize Saddam was a dictator and did need to be deposed, some kind of change needed to take place, but I can't help but wonder if the way we did it was the best way. Whatever the case may be, that's how it happened though. I think it was probably a good idea that we got in there and checked their sh*t out, because I'd rather know for a fact that they didn't have WMD than just take people at their word. People say the war is a money war, a war for oil, and I don't really agree with that. If we really wanted oil we'd drill in Alaska. The environmentalists would be easier to squelch than Iraqi insurgents. I think that what we're doing in there as far as trying to set up a democracy is no easy task, especially since not everyone was ready for one to be set up(kind of like in Vietnam, they didn't comprehend freedom), and that things will take time.

So yeah I think it's wrong but on the other hand I kinda don't. I think it's a total shame that people have to die in wars, and that things can't always be solved diplomatically(yeah it can be argued that this could have, but it wasn't so yeah no real use there) and it's a shame that man is an imperfect being when it comes to resolving conflict. I think the people probably deserved to be liberated, but I'm still not entirely sure if it was our place to go in and do it. Since we're there, I'm inclined to support the position, but if we weren't, I probably wouldn't, ya know?

As far as the question of you being an idiot goes.... No I don't think you're an idiot for going back. If you want to go back, go back, it's really your choice. You choose to serve in the military and accept the risk that you could be wounded/killed in combat(although that risk is arguably small). If it's what you like, do it man. Unless you were in it for the love of capping turban-toppers, then I'd say that's not a good thing(I doubt that's why you're going back though). I judge you not, man.

[Sasquatch]

Originally Posted by ShadowForm

While we officially used several UN resolutions as justification for the war, the United Nation's charter (the founding document) strictly forbids any sort of military action which has not been explicitly condoned by them.

Yes and no. If the UN was competent, they would have taken Saddam out long ago -- but instead, it was being led by countries like France and Germany, who were up to their necks in under-the-table business with Saddam (THAT was "blood for oil"). Not to mention, though we could have easily led a UN invasion of Iraq, it was more "personal" to the United States, as Iraq was a larger threat to the United States and U.S. interests than most other UN members.

They are people who are willing to fight and to die for a cause.

So are the terrorists. Don't put us all together, as the causes are on opposite ends of the spectrum.

Originally Posted by Lethal Seraphim

I think the war in Iraq smacks a lot of Vietnam, and that we probably shouldn't be there.

This kind of comment reflects ignorance of both Operation Iraqi Freedom and Vietnam. The two don't compare. No offense here, but keep them seperate.

Anyway, yeah I think the war's not a total disaster, I just think that it's going to take a lot of time before we can withdraw to get the whole "Iraqi Democracy" thing set up, seeing as how that's what we're seemingly hell bent on doing...

We have to be hell-bent on setting up a new government. How many times has the UN half-assed something and pulled out too soon, only to see it crumble again? We don't want that to happen.

Was the war a good idea? Well, war's never really a good idea in my mind.

This is another way of thought we need to get rid of. Though war should never be a first resort, it's sometimes unavoidable, and often the best option. Saddam would not respond to diplomacy, he got around sanctions, and he was still a threat to the U.S. and Israel, as well as places like Kuwait and others in the area that were "friendly" to the Western World, especially America.

I think the people probably deserved to be liberated, but I'm still not entirely sure if it was our place to go in and do it.

I agree with this. Initially, it wasn't our place. That obligation was passed on by the UN, because they are too incompetent and crooked to take care of it. If the United Nations was an organization the world could count on, as they try to claim, and as they were set up to be, then the burden wouldn't have fallen on us.

EDIT: Concerning Saddam's use of chemical weapons. Most people only mention (or sometimes even know about) Saddam's gassing of the Shi'ites, or more commonly the Kurds, which killed tens of thousands of his own people. The reason his use of chemical weapons on Iranians "doesn't seem so bad" is that they were at war, and Saddam had no way to counter Iran's "human wave" attacks. While that is no excuse, it at least makes it more understandable.

[Lethal Seraphim]

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

This kind of comment reflects ignorance of both Operation Iraqi Freedom and Vietnam. The two don't compare.

Fair enough, hehe. Naturally they don't compare. I was just making a feeble connection between the two on the basis that some Americans feel that we ought not have been involved in either war and that in both cases the liberation of a people was a goal. I realize there were a lot more things going on in Vietnam, a hell of a lot more than I know about.

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

We have to be hell-bent on setting up a new government. How many times has the UN half-assed something and pulled out too soon, only to see it crumble again? We don't want that to happen.

Yes, very true. My choice of words was perhaps a bit poor, because I don't necessarily view it as a bad thing that we be hell bent on setting up a new government. A bit of faulty diction on my part.

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

This is another way of thought we need to get rid of. Though war should never be a first resort, it's sometimes unavoidable, and often the best option. Saddam would not respond to diplomacy, he got around sanctions, and he was still a threat to the U.S. and Israel, as well as places like Kuwait and others in the area that were "friendly" to the Western World, especially America.

Right, he wouldn't respond, and I agree with you that sometimes force has to be used. I was just speaking as a bit of an idealist, because although I view war as a bad thing, I recognize that wars have to be fought at times because we don't live in a Utopia. If war was not fought, the United States would not be so, or at least it wouldn't be the United States we know today. If war was not fought, Hitler may have controlled Europe. So yeah, I guess I should have clarified my stance a bit.

I also agree with you that most televised media is slanted. When I do watch the news it's usually Fox, as I find them to be closer to a goal of objectivity than their competitors. I've seen instances where they slant conservative and others where they slant liberal, but I find that most of it to be told in relative fairness. Still, I'm interested to hear about what wasn't shown, as you said in your first post. Since you've been there, I'd like to hear your observations.

[Mike]

okay I am probably going to regret this post, but here are some things that I have noticed about this war that pisses me off.

KBR and other civilian contracting companies are gaining to much money off of this war. Even though they are doing good things here, like rebuilding, some of their policies on work are flawed. When a soldier is deployed to Iraq, we don't really get much of a choice. We are just told that we are going. While here we work so many hours a week. I myself work at least 12 hours a day, everyday. I get no weekends, I get no overtime. At one of the Large bases where my main unit is located. The phone system there has been going through commercialization since we left that base in March of 2004. Apparently in that year and 8 months KBR has only gotten one full fiber optics line installed. Aparently the 40 hours a week rule still applies to empoyees who are working in Iraq. They have to submit paperwork just to request to work more than 40 hours. So KBR is sucking more money out of the government and in many cases not providing the best workmanship.

[Sasquatch]

Hey, I got more.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...207.shtml?s=ic

"The Iraqi general who served as a top lieutenant to Saddam Hussein said Thursday that he personally witnessed Osama bin Laden inspecting Iraqi air force facilities in Baghdad."

This article mentions two visits, one in mid-80s and one in 1998, between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. It also makes reference to the book recently written by Saddam's, basically, second-highest General, in which he details Saddam's Weapons of Mass Destruction and plans to gain more.

So if there already wasn't enough evidence, now there's more. Liberals try to rag on Bush for going after Saddam instead of focusing on bin Laden, while refusing any proof that, as Bush said, there's no discrimination between Saddam and Al-Queda when you talk about the War on Terrorism.