quote:

ORIGINAL: RichLP

quote:

ORIGINAL: mcp
Well, they had recruiting tools before we engaged Iraq. They don't like our support of Israel, they don't like the fact that their gov'ts capitulate, ally, or invite us to stage military operations on 'holy ground'. Old allies can become enemies from other foreign actions/or lack of action. But again these wars are waged hopefully taking into account the risks of collateral damage. You who think our strategies (on top of our principles) are bad, we may never know, but maybe time will tell. [I add we may never know, cause some could always argue for instance that we could've ignored WW2 and the bombing of Pearl Harbor and just let the chips fall. Maybe Germans/Japanese would've gotten tired of world domination or maybe they would've liberalized the world under a global Deutsche government.]

But our invasion of Iraq was seen as an attack on Muslim land.

As for WW2, Japan, Germany... terrible... just TERRIBLE comparisons, none of which are applicable to either Iraq or Al-Qaeda (which were never allies of each other).

quote:

ORIGINAL: mcp

quote:

ORIGINAL: SovereignIsHe

quote:

ORIGINAL: mcp

Yall do realize that a decision to execute an airstrike that may include collateral damage is not the same standard placed on individual soldiers involved in abuses of the enemy or killing not justified by rules of engagement?

It's all on floating scale and the last thing considered is right and wrong...

John

How about when the main options are wrong and wrong. Someone gets to decide which is more wrong... right or wrong .

quote:

ORIGINAL: mcp

quote:

ORIGINAL: RichLP

As I read the news of this strike, a few things came to mind.

While it's welcome news that senior-ranking leaders of Al-Qaeda are eliminated, I do wonder whether these acts will have tangible results - results that we would like to see, i.e, drastic reductions in the effectiveness of al-Qaeda to organize or to recruit.

AQ is largely amorphous. And resentment of the United States' policies in that area of the world is a recruiting tool for groups like AQ.

And, if innocents were indeed killed in the strike - leaving aside indignation over the deaths of civilians, pro or anti-US foreign policy arguments - what can be bad for us is that people there may see this as a deliberate attack on innocents. We may know it wasn't; the personnel who carried it knew. But those on the ground may not. And it's anger generated by the loss of innocents that fuels groups such as AQ, who utilize anti-American sentiment to garner support - and followers.

Well, they had recruiting tools before we engaged Iraq. They don't like our support of Israel, they don't like the fact that their gov'ts capitulate, ally, or invite us to stage military operations on 'holy ground'. Old allies can become enemies from other foreign actions/or lack of action. But again these wars are waged hopefully taking into account the risks of collateral damage. You who think our strategies (on top of our principles) are bad, we may never know, but maybe time will tell. [I add we may never know, cause some could always argue for instance that we could've ignored WW2 and the bombing of Pearl Harbor and just let the chips fall. Maybe Germans/Japanese would've gotten tired of world domination or maybe they would've liberalized the world under a global Deutsche government.]

quote:

ORIGINAL: mcp
Was attacking the Taliban an attack on muslim land? Was driving Saddam out of Kuwait an attack on Muslim land? If this is about Muslim lands, then what about the secular tag Iraq had under Saddam?

quote:

We have to live with some of their 'recruitment' motivations (this is their form of psych warfare) if we must address greater risks.

quote:

Japanese never desired world domination...

quote:

ORIGINAL: SovereignIsHe

I just can't fathom that people think we are on some moral crusade to rid the world of evil, when in fact the first thing above all is our national interests and at times the same level of evil has been our ally.. Come on... Iraq was a threat to the United States??? They could barely deal with Iran...

John

quote:

ORIGINAL: mcp

quote:

Japanese never desired world domination...

Semantics for sake of argument..

They felt entitled to China, the Pacific rim, and the islands. We didn't know how far they were going; they probably didn't either. We did know that they were going to get their oil somewhere once we cut them off, even if they had to help germany get it from Russia. And of course, they joined the Axis in 1940, so....

quote:

ORIGINAL: mapachito13

That's why they looked to pick on a smaller country like Kuwait!

quote:

ORIGINAL: SovereignIsHe

quote:

ORIGINAL: mcp
Was attacking the Taliban an attack on muslim land? Was driving Saddam out of Kuwait an attack on Muslim land? If this is about Muslim lands, then what about the secular tag Iraq had under Saddam?

What is going on in Iraq now has little or nothings to do with removing them from Kuwait... Given the lives lost(on both sides) and the money spent I don't think Iraq is worth it and I don't think anyone with even one active brain cell could argue that any terrorism even remotely associated with Iraq would have led to even a small percentage of the deaths that have taken place as a result of us invading the country.. And please don’t bring up Sadam’s evil… He was no worse when we supported his war with Iran…

quote:

quote:

We have to live with some of their 'recruitment' motivations (this is their form of psych warfare) if we must address greater risks.

We better do better than a 12 to 1 ratio if we have any hope of even getting a handle on things...It's too bad we didn't simply keep things in Afghanistan... It would have been much better to fight the terrorist there than Iraq for all kinds of reasons...

John

quote:

BTW, I'm still waiting for someone to give a reason why we didn't attack a country in Bush's "Axis of Evil". Clinton did more by lobbing a few cruise missles at Sudan than Bush has done to any of the "Big Three". Maybe he changed the name to the "Axis of not that bad"?

quote:

ORIGINAL: SovereignIsHe

quote:

ORIGINAL: mapachito13

That's why they looked to pick on a smaller country like Kuwait!

A quick look at a map will tell you why they invaded Kuwait... Ports...

John

quote:


ORIGINAL: mcp

But, but, Saddam was evil...I already addressed this issue as more at propoganda, earlier. But Bush early on answered questions from press why we were considering Iraq. He stated that due to the 9/11 attacks, we had to take Saddam's non-compliance seriously (this in light of our current 'intellegence'). It wasn't that Saddam was going to attack the US directly. But could add to indirect support and direct attacks on local allies.

quote:


As stated way back, it isn't so much the ratio of evil/innocent, it is the ratio of innocents now to innocents here soon after. We've seemed to have drifted more and more into strategy arguments rather than appropriateness; but yes, it would be an easier struggle with just Afghanistan.

quote:

If potential threats are worthy of a full scale invasion I could name a few countries of the top of my head that were/are more of a threat than Iraq...

quote:

Well given that it's the war on terror it seem Afghanistan should be the focal point... But of course that's not in a national interest... And that does go to appropriateness to some degree... We don't belong in Iraq... So killing people there that are not on the list carries a greater level of possible inappropriateness. I believe we would have more support across the board if we had kept the focus more narrow and not used the hysteria of 9/11 to invade Iraq.

quote:


Very well articulated. I guess as an example we can use the airstrike that took out Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Iraq almost 2 years ago. We haven't seen an appreciable drop in violence even though he was one of the biggest guys in Al Qaeda.

quote:

Not long after 9/11 - definitely before March 2003 - I recall a conversation with a senior citizen at my old job. College educated, well-traveled, polished.

He said, "Rich, I hate them; I hope we bomb them for 100 years. I don't care if we kill civilians in the process. I don't care at all. I hope they all go to hell for what they did to New York."

A passionate, emotional statement, and I imagine that this otherwise gentle older man would not have felt this way were he forced to look at charred, maimed corpses. I'd imagine most people wouldn't.

But he knew - I assume he knew - that innocent foreign civilians on the ground weren't responsible for 9/11. And yet for him to say that was at least somewhat troubling.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:


Very well articulated. I guess as an example we can use the airstrike that took out Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Iraq almost 2 years ago. We haven't seen an appreciable drop in violence even though he was one of the biggest guys in Al Qaeda.

Actually, we have seen a significant drop in violence.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Not long after 9/11 - definitely before March 2003 - I recall a conversation with a senior citizen at my old job. College educated, well-traveled, polished.

He said, "Rich, I hate them; I hope we bomb them for 100 years. I don't care if we kill civilians in the process. I don't care at all. I hope they all go to hell for what they did to New York."

A passionate, emotional statement, and I imagine that this otherwise gentle older man would not have felt this way were he forced to look at charred, maimed corpses. I'd imagine most people wouldn't.

But he knew - I assume he knew - that innocent foreign civilians on the ground weren't responsible for 9/11. And yet for him to say that was at least somewhat troubling.

Oh, great, a statement from a single person immediately after one of the worst attacks on our country in history. Over 300 million people in our country, and that's your evidence. Pitiful.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mcp

quote:

ORIGINAL: RichLP

quote:

ORIGINAL: mcp
Well, they had recruiting tools before we engaged Iraq. They don't like our support of Israel, they don't like the fact that their gov'ts capitulate, ally, or invite us to stage military operations on 'holy ground'. Old allies can become enemies from other foreign actions/or lack of action. But again these wars are waged hopefully taking into account the risks of collateral damage. You who think our strategies (on top of our principles) are bad, we may never know, but maybe time will tell. [I add we may never know, cause some could always argue for instance that we could've ignored WW2 and the bombing of Pearl Harbor and just let the chips fall. Maybe Germans/Japanese would've gotten tired of world domination or maybe they would've liberalized the world under a global Deutsche government.]

But our invasion of Iraq was seen as an attack on Muslim land.

As for WW2, Japan, Germany... terrible... just TERRIBLE comparisons, none of which are applicable to either Iraq or Al-Qaeda (which were never allies of each other).

the comparisons with WW2 was to give an extreme example to which some I have argued with have gone- 'we could have just waited it out'. So some could definitely assume that not dealing with the Iraq/Iran conflict, the Kuwait attack or more recently Afghanistan/Iraq/Somalia, etc will be the best approach. So, I wasn't justifying going into Iraq with our involvement in WW2.

Was attacking the Taliban an attack on muslim land? Was driving Saddam out of Kuwait an attack on Muslim land? If this is about Muslim lands, then what about the secular tag Iraq had under Saddam? We have to live with some of their 'recruitment' motivations (this is their form of psych warfare) if we must address greater risks.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mcp

The difference is that Iraq got the cease fire agreement because they agreed to not only not be a threat, but not even have the capacity to do so. But, alas, we believed the threat was there as well.

quote:

That's a fair analysis. As to inappropriateness, I think we have every right to be in Iraq (ceasefire), but your points to whether it was strategically prudent and we need to be careful in our execution, i think is valid.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RichLP

A lot of Americans really do not care about casualties of war if they are not American. If this were not the case, I would expect far more angst about the horrible suffering Iraqi civilians have undergone since we invaded. But rather than looking at their suffering, some of us prefer to make vague statements such as "war is hell."[/font][/size]

quote:

ORIGINAL: mapachito13
Isn't it amazing about how the media keeps the casualties of the Iraqi army and civilian casualties under wraps. Why? Because Americans would be shocked at how high they are!

quote:

Um, "Not long" is not "immediately."

A lot of Americans really do not care about casualties of war if they are not American. If this were not the case, I would expect far more angst about the horrible suffering Iraqi civilians have undergone since we invaded. But rather than looking at their suffering, some of us prefer to make vague statements such as "war is hell."

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Um, "Not long" is not "immediately."

A lot of Americans really do not care about casualties of war if they are not American. If this were not the case, I would expect far more angst about the horrible suffering Iraqi civilians have undergone since we invaded. But rather than looking at their suffering, some of us prefer to make vague statements such as "war is hell."

Well, your expectation of 'angst', a particularly subjective criteria, really has nothing to do with reality.

The fact is whether or not civilians are or will be harmed continues to be a major concern. Indeed, I would say the major reason we haven't just packed up our bags and gone home (as the liberals here desire) is because of fears of the bloodbath that would follow; if we didn't care about civilians, we could just call it a day.

quote:

The comparisons are terrible PERIOD.

Germany and Japan? Let's see.

NAZI GERMANY: a one-party government with unmistakably aggressive intentions. They attacked Poland, France, and bombed Great Britain. They unilaterally declared war on the United States.

IMPERIAL JAPAN: a militaristic, imperialistic nation-state that had embarked on aggressive war in Asia long before the outbreak of hostilities in Europe. They took US-held Filipino territory and attacked Pearl Harbor.

AL-QAEDA: an amorphous, transnational, decentralized, non-state entity which uses a mix of radical religious ideology and hatred to foster violent enmity against those it sees as infidels and desecrators of Muslim land.

Overthrowing the Taliban had a clear strategic and tactical value: the deposition of a government which was openly harboring AQ. Those who supported the takedown of Hussein should have favored this because the Taliban was repressive as well. But there was criticism about our invasion of Afghanistan from Muslims, even though many of them sympathized with us about 9/11 and understood why we were going in - which in itself is a blow to the belief all Muslims are the same, or that all Muslims sympathize with Salafi thought.

quote:


And as for Iraq: Saddam Hussein did build a secular government, but Iraq was and is largely a Muslim country, and since the rationale for attacking Iraq was far flimsier than any arguments we ever gave for the offensive on Afghanistan, the animus from the Muslim world was consequently - and inevitably - much greater.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mcp
Don't let your misunderstanding of my application of an analogy force you into a rant. I wasn't comparing WW2 to justify Iraq,etc. Plus, i was talking about other people's general opinions about whether war is a good long term strategy. But this apples/oranges with analogies is a common problem in these threads; so go on with your bad self. I have to say, however, your explanations of the different entities was pretty good; I don't disagree