Why we went to warFollow

You are quite correct sir. I missed the fact that you were asking a higly specefic question.

Name another war where lost as many people on a Wednesday during a full moon!

To be honest, the death rate is exceedingly low. That doesn't make the individual deaths less important.

It's largely a result of vastly improved battlefield medicine.

Without Quickclot and Hemosorb you'd see 2500 dead easily. That's a good thing, of course, but it skews the measure of just how dangerous this war is. It's easy to compare deaths and say it's a safe enviornment, but it's not.

Eh? Not quite the same. I think there's a huge difference between a nation that has WMD and might someday for some reason become an enemy and maybe use them against us, and a country that is already an enemy, has developed WMD in the past, has used WMD on military *and* civilian targets, and has shown an absolute disregard for intenational law, but just right at this moment we can't tell whether they're building any WMD.

It's just not a very big "if" when you look at the second case. If they could develop and build chemical weapons before (which we absolutely know is true), then they absolutely *can* do it again. It's purely a matter of determining whether they are likely to do so. All intelligence said they were. The president (ok, his handlers) thought they were. And Congress agreed that they were.

Honestly, if you had to place odds, what would they be? Give me a probability that Iraq would have resumed some type of WMD program. 50%? 80%? 90%? It's got to be pretty high up there.

Then, if they do build some more, figure the odds that at some point, they'll use them against us (irregardless of delivery system). 10% chance? 30%? 50%? Those odds start to get higher the more time you allow to pass. Sure. Maybe Saddam would have died sooner then that. There's no way to know. But it's not like the guy was super old or anything. We've been waiting for Castro to die for 40 years. I don't think we had that much time in this case...




Yeah. I can agree with that. I just don't think it was bungled quite that badly though. Were there some operational mistakes made? Certainly. Were there some issues with poor planning, especially with regards to the post-war occupation of Iraq? Definately.

But do you happen to know how many people died in Germany during the first war after the war ended due to starvation, exposure, and disease? Wars are not neat affairs. You could say we "bungled" the post-war in that one too (more like we just had no idea what to do). Personally, I don't think it's a bad thing that we're not particulary skilled at occupying other nations...

I guess when you prove that the President was either lying to the American public or that we went to war for Terrorism that didnt exist and WMD that didnt exist then you quit getting responded to, ah well.

This is what I'm talking about. The rabid twsiting of the facts.

Bush didn't "lie about why 800 Americans got killed". That suggests he made the claims about Iraq's WMD *after* 800 American (soldiers I presume) were killed in Iraq.

There's this little thing called chronology, and you're presenting it backwards. Bush and Congress, in addition to a whole list of causes for war with Iraq, included the presence of WMD in Iraq. This was a belief that literally every single intelligence agency in the world believed was true. While folks differed over how many, and what type, and whether there really was any nucklear weapons development going on, no one (and I really mean no one) in any country (Including many Iraqi defectors) disagreed with the statement that Iraq had WMD in country at the time.

At the time Bush made those speeches, there was no possible way he could have known that in a year, we would not have found any WMD. Every bit of intel said that making the statement was "safe" since every single intelligence agency believed it to be true. You kinda can't blame him for believing it as well. I can guarantee you that there was not one intelligence agent or advisor or analyst that told the president: "Hey, you might not want to make that claim, since we're not really sure that he has them". No one did that. It is totally ridiculous to even suggest that Bush somehow *knew* that there were no WMD in Iraq and "lied" about it. He was simply repeating what was told (overwhelmingly) to him.


When FDR declared war on Japan, I'm sure he talked about the fact that Japan had carriers and planes that it could use to attack us (kinda obvious since they did attack us with those). Now, it could have turned out that after Pearl Harbor, Japan decided to destroy all its carriers and planes, or in some other way removed them from their country and didn't use them for the rest of the war. A year later, we might be baffled that they didn't have any to use against us. We might futher be surprised when we finally win and realize that there are no planes or carriers anywhere in Japan's control. But I don't think anyone would argue that FDR "lied" when he said they had them.

While I'm not trying to make a comparison between using planes and using WMD, the statements about those weapons would have seemed equaly "true" at the time they were made. We were just as sure that Iraq had WMD in 2002 as FDR would have been that Japan had planes. Second guessing it after the fact is irrelevant. Bush can't have lied. To lie, he'd have to have known that what he was saying wasn't true. There is absolutely zero evidence of that...


You can blame him all day for being "wrong". But you can't say he lied.

Sure when its come out ahead of time that, all intel on him having nukes or a nuke program was super far fetched but he chose to use it and that it was proven over and over that Saddam had no ties to Al queda guess he just mispoke those sentences. Tell me which others I should no to ignore when hearing him speak or do I still have to rely not on what he says but what resolution is presented before Congress.

I dindt read all 160 posts before mine but simply put heres how the war started;

Papa Bush threw mud at Saddam
Saddam broke out a car window on Papa Bush's car
So GW had to go break all of Saddams windows and drag him through mud

Poor example Smash. We've lost 800 soldiers in 425 days, out of a population of 150,000 soldiers deployed. We didn't send 1000 anything and have them "all die...".

If you're going to make that comparison, a better one would be saying that a squad of 10 firefighters arrive at a fire, and every single person who was in the building prior to the fire starting says that there is a child trapped in the flames. So they risk their lives attempting to rescue the child.

We've got 1500 such squads that each fight an identical fire every night for 425 days in a row, and over that time, 800 die. So about one in every 800 (796 actually) times a squad arrives to fight a fire and goes in to rescue a child, they lose *one* firefighter.

Tragic? Sure. Appalling loss of life? No. Is there a single soul who'd blame the chief on the scene for sending people in to attempt to rescue the child? Not a chance.

Just a few points:



Ok. The technical definition is a "war on terror". I have never heard anyone say we are at "war with Al-queda". It's thinking like that that causes people today to think that the government made more then a casual connection between 9/11 and Iraq. Iraq does not have to have anything to do with 9/11 to be a legitimate target of this "war on terror". Get that idea out of your head right now.


The primary doctrine change after 9/11 was not to "go after Al-queda". It was to hold nations responsible for harboring and/or supporting terrorist groups. You can argue the legitimacy of the doctrine, and it's applicability to Iraq all you want, but it's not clearly just a matter of taking resources that should be used to fight Al-queda and putting it somewhere else.

I'd like to also point out that the concessions being made by Syria, Jordan, and most notably Libya on the issue of terrorist organizations inside their borders all occured *after* Iraq was invaded, not before. Coincidence? Possibly. I don't think so. You'd be hard pressed to find any serious analyst of the middle east who will not agree that the invasion of Iraq is directly responsible for the changes we are seeing in Libya (and other nations). So, even if you don't understand the connection, attacking Iraq has most definately fit under the scope of the new doctrine on terror, and has been successful on at least one front.





Um... Sure. But that's only a problem if you assume that we're only supposed to take action against Al-queda. Since there is no such restriction in the doctrine, then this is irrelevant.





Yes. And all of that is being done as well. So, using the military in Iraq isn't really preventing us from using interpol, and developing our own intelligence to track down terrorist groups at the same time, is it?


I'll let you in on a little secret. Iraq was identified as a problem long before 9/11, and long before the "war on terror". Our action there is justified under the new doctrine, but probably would have happened whether 9/11 had happened or not. The fact that we had a new-shiney doctrine that we could apply to Iraq for additional leverage was just a bit of extra "oomph" for the whole thing.

Tracking down Al-queda is important. But that doesn't mean that we forget every other foreign issue we've got going on at the same time. If you want to prevent a terrorist group from dropping a canister of nerve agents into your city's drinking water, you can accomplish that by either stopping the terrorists, or stopping the nerve agent. A smart person would work on both angles at the same time. Find and stop the terrorists while also trying to prevent nations likely to hand such weapons to terrorits from building such weapons in the first place. See how that works? Iraq makes a hell of a lot more sense now doesn't it?




Technically, we are "at war" with terror. I do agree that it's a silly phrase. But you can't blame politicians for trying to make things as clear cut to the masses as possible. I suppose they could call it the "war on people in the middle east who are using nasty methods to hurt us and whom we don't like, and whom are also not good trading partners or allies in the region", but that would be a bit wordy. No way in heck could GWB get that out without his head exploding...

Sure. But we're mostly focused on Middle Eastern based terrorism, since that's what spawned 9/11. Dunno. I think taking out the only nation in the region that has the technological and professional capability to design and build effective chemical and biological weapons completely inside their own country is somehow related to that goal. Don't you?




First off, I'm 99.99999999% certain that "Peloponnisia" was in Greece. Kinda odd to name a war after a part of the world that was no where near it. I'm also quite sure no-one from Spain was involved.

The "Peloponesse" is a peninsula in Greece. That's why it was called the "Peloponnesian war". The "Peloponnesian League" was made up of a number of states (including Sparta) which were opposed to Athens.

I'd also like to point out that the war was started by Sparta, not Athens (although both sides were effectively itching for a fight anyway).

If you're going to bring historical reference into a debate, at least be *vaguely* correct about the history involved...

Edited, Mon May 17 18:14:18 2004 by gbaji

Flish. This is exactly the muddled arguing that I'm talking about. You need to be *very* specific here. I did not say that there was no connection between Al-queda and Iraq. I did say that there was no more then a casual relation between Iraq and 9/11.

That's the problem I keep seeing. People automatically equate Al-queda==9/11. They are two separate things. One is a group of terrorists. One is a particular terrorist act. It is entirely possible for a nation to have had dealings with members of Al-queda without having *anything* to do with 9/11.

It's this muddled psycho-babble logic that causes all the confusion. Here's the logic that you should be looking at (and what was presented by the President):

1. Al-queda is the terrorist group responsible for 9/11

2. As a result of that attack, we initated a "war on terror" in which we've made a doctrine change that holds nations responsible for aiding or harboring terrorist groups.

3. Iraq is a nation that has had connections with Al-queda (and other terrorist groups *like* Al-queda). We know this for a fact. They also have shown a capability to build chemical and biological WMD, and a willingness to use them. Additionally, they've been generally naughty people, and have sworn to attack us in any way they can. Also, we had a cease fire agreement with them contingent on full disclosure of their WMD programs, and destruction of all existing WMD.

4. Congress made a determination that Iraq had not complied with the terms of the cease-fire. It also determined that with the lack of compliance with that and other UN resolutions, that Iraq posed a "continuing threat" to the security of the US.

5. Those facts, and the new doctrine established as a result of 9/11, established a rationale and justification for invading Iraq and removing its regime from power.


That's the logic of the situation. But here's what I keep hearing:

"Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11". --- No one said they did.

"Ah. But the President said that they were connected with Al-queda". --- Yes, they are. But that doesn't mean they were connected with 9/11, nor does that connection (or lack of it) have anything to do with the actions we are taking in Iraq.

"But the president mentioned 9/11 when he was talking about Iraq" --- Um. Yes, he did. But only in a relational way. 9/11 was the prime event for establishing the new doctrine in the "war on terror". That doctrine is part (but not all) of our reason for being in Iraq. It's related in exactly the same way we can charge someone today for violating the Brady Bill even though that person had nothing to do with shooting Brady himself.


Got it? Stop twisting all the facts around. 9/11 is not the same as Al-queda, and Al-queda is not the same as all terrorists.

Edited, Tue May 18 05:38:01 2004 by gbaji

What exactly does "part of 9/11" mean? He mentioned 9/11? Sure he did. But only in the context that 9/11 generates a hightened need for security against exactly the kind of threat that Iraq was presenting. At no time did anyone in the administration claim that Iraq had anything to do with *causing* 9/11.

Look. You can't just misinterpret what someone says, and then call them a liar when the facts dont match that. You have to look at what they really said, and what really happened. You are still attempting to twist what was said and done and try desperately to come up with a way to make them seem inconsistent.


It's really simple. Find me a quote from Bush where he says that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. If you can't do that, then stop arguing as though he did...

What?!!! Um... I defended Clinton back then. Ask anyone who was actually on this board at the time. I don't pick my arguments based on which party they happen to support. I pick them based on what I think is right.

If Bush said what you are claiming to say, provide a quote. If not, then stop claiming that he said that Iraq was responsible, or in some way linked, to 9/11. That is not true, and no one in the administration said it was true.

I'll say it again: You can't misinterpret what the other guy says, and then slam him because the misinterpretation is wrong. You need to look at what was actually said. It's not my fault if you for some bizaare reason can't understand the difference between saying that Iraq had connections with members of Al-quedas and saying that Iraq had a connection with 9/11. That's your lack of comprehension of the issue. Not mine. Not the presidents. And not congress'.

Your argument is pure strawman. Come up with some facts. If Bush said what you say he said, then there should be a quote somewhere. If there isn't, then he didn't say it. Why is that so hard for you to accept?



Um. No you can't. You and your party have been trying to argue about the decision Bush made for a couple years now, using innuendo, rhetoric, and in many cases outright lies.

You make up reasons why we went to war. Oddly, those are not the same reasons that are actually written in the resolution signed by Congress. You then point at those made up reasons and show how they are "wrong".

There's this thing. It's called the truth. You should try using it once in awhile...




According to Smash, I don't make nearly enough money for the Republican party to benefit me. So here's yet another warping of the truth.


How about this: I'm a republican, not because I'm wealthy and trying to get one over on "the poor", and not because I'm a confused sap who's been suckered into voting for a party that will hurt me, but I actually understand the political and economic goals of the party and agree with them! How's that for a concept!

Look. I simply disagree with you on many issue of politics and economics. I can accept that. You seem to have this magic illusion around you that everyone would vote Democrat if only they really knew what was going on. You seem to believe that if you just throw enough rhetoric around, the veil will be lifted from people's eyes, they'll see "the truth", and they'll agree with you.

I really hate to disappoint you, but I see "the truth" just fine. I have my reasons for voting the way I do. And it's not about being greedy, and it's not about being a sucker. It's about actually believing that the methods of the Republican party are better for this nation in the long run then those of the Democrats. If you want to debate those political issues, feel free to start another thread on the issue. However, in the particular case of the war with Iraq, I happen to believe that Congress and the President did what they had to do. I happen to agree with their decision. You don't. That's fine. But don't put words in someone else's mouth in order to try to justify your position...