This page will be for discussions on the war in Iraq . Should the discussiont devolve into another area those comments will be stricken from this discussion and will be asked to carried on in another discussion area. Things that should be discussed here the events leading to the war and the handling of the war. The following are the assertions I make about the war in Iraq that I hold to be true:
- The war in Iraq is a part of the larger War on Terrorism
- Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks and the Bush Administration never made any allegations as such
- Iraq violated multiple UN security council resolutions and violating those resolution is a case for war in itself. Not only were they violated since the ’90s, but also up into the war when multiple missiles were fired from Iraq that violated the UN’s distance requirements for Iraq’s weapons (I know because one of them landed on the camp I was in).
- President Bush did mislead the nation about Iraq’s possession of WMDs, but he did not lie. There is a difference.
- The Bush Administration did not pressure intelligence officials to over-hype the evidence, as proved by the Robb-Silbermann report.
- Iraq did at one time possess WMDs but when we liberated the people the weapons had either been destroyed or moved.
- As per the Duelfer report Saddam Hussein did intend to reconstitute is nuclear and biological weapons programs once UN sanctions were lifted
- Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi government had extensive ties with terrorist organizations including Al-Qaeda, although that specific relationship is debated
- The handling of the war has been terrible, but that is no reason to cut and run, de-fund the military, or make any motion that would empower our enemies and demoralize our forces.
- I contend that we must create permanent bases in Iraq given the volatile nature of the Middle East region.
- We must do our very best to stabilize the nation and give democracy a chance. However, I also believe our strategy must change to destroy our enemies and end the violence in Iraq.
Those are my assertions and feel free to agree or disagree. If you disagree and decide to post a response please be polite. If you would like a source please ask.
The war in Iraq is a part of the larger War on Terrorism
This is patently obvious to conservatives, but somehow many liberals can’t seem to get it. If only we would only pull out of Iraq, they reason, the terrorists will appreciate our actions as a sign of good faith, and we’ll all live in peace. Selling Israel down the river wouldn’t hurt, either, according to this line of reasoning.
In my post Field Independence v. Field Dependence, I tried to offer a psychological explanation for this liberal inability to separate the components from the whole.
To those who think the whole solution to the War on Terrorism is simply pulling out of Iraq, I pose this question: How would our pullout put an end to this type of terror?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070218/ap_on_re_as/thailand_southern_violence
Here’s an encouraging post from Mohammed at Iraq the Model.
Once again, I’m feeling cautiously optimistic. To be sure, there will be setbacks in the weeks and months to come. But I’m praying that for every one step backwards, there will be at least two steps forward.
Yesterday marked the first anniversary of the attack on the Golden Mosque in Samarra, an act that almost everyone thought would lead to an all out civil war between the Sunnis and Shi’ites. Today, as reported in the post at Iraq the Model, “Sunni and Shia worshippers gathered to hold joint prayers in several places in Baghdad.”
That’s progress. Whether it continues remains to be seen. For the sake of the Iraqis as well as our sake, I pray it will.
Here’s an interesting comment on the progress of the surge.
Now even the New York Times has to admit that Sunni tribal chiefs in Al Anbar province are now siding against Al Qaeda.
This is not to say that these same tribal chiefs could later turn against us, but if Al Qaeda can be driven out and peace breaks out in this beleaguered region … I know, that’s a big “if” and still quite a ways off.
Let’s continue to pray for the success of our latest strategy – not for political gain here at home, but for the sake of the Iraqis and ultimately for our own sake.
Thank you Celtictexan. It seems sensible to believe that Saddam would indeed try to bluff us and seem more dangerous than he was.
Let’s don’t forget the gassing of the Kurd’s in Iraq, There is no doubt that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction or at the least mass terror at one time.
Yet given that international inspectors combed the country of Iraq and found no WMDs
The inspectors were delayed, argued with, and stymied constantly in their efforts to get to places they wanted to go. They were refused helicopters for transportation. Upon driving they would always suddenly encounter massive traffic jams lasting for many hours. In fact the refusal of Saddam to allow unfettered access for inspectors was a big part of the decision to go to war.
We are afterall the United States and we practice the idea that one is innocent until proven guilty, even if indeed guilty.
I would totally agree with you if discussing American citizens. But this is foolhardy thought when applied to the citizens of a country we at war with. It’s why we lost Vietnam and are losing now. I think you should read this post to gage my feelings on this issue.
http://www.ivorydome.us/2006/07/14/how-to-win-a-war/
Currently we are making the same mistakes as in Vietnam. Rule of law and decency can not be applied to war only peace thus my opposition to the war.
Currently we have still not discovered any WMDs
I don’t know what to say about this. Certainly there was, even after the initial invasion, plenty of evidence to support the fact that these weapons were being developed but no weapons were found. Did they ever exist? Are they buried somewhere? In Iran or Syria? I don’t know, but I do believe he was trying. Had not Israel knocked out his reactor many year ago who knows what he would have had by now.
Also I am not entirely certain on this (i’ll do my best to research it) but wasn’t the WTC also bombed immediately after Clinton came into office in January 1993?
It was indeed.But I hope your not comparing that to 9-11. Clinton’s response was an invasion of sorts in the form of massive attacks on baby formula factories. He also bombed Serbia killing many Christians who themselves were engaged in trying to stop the spread of Islam in their own country. A terrible mistake. One much worse than any Bush has committed IMHO. Clintons lack of credible response is much to blame for 9-11.
The terrorist involved was captured and tried if i am correct. He was a blind man i believe.
Correct again, but I hope your not comparing the capture of a terrorist that lived here to one who lived in Afghanistan.
Iraq was not however involved in the 9/11 attacks directly or indirectly and that is the reason I believe Bush’s history will suffer some marks against it.
Iraq has funded terror. That is fact. So there has been at the minimum indirect support.
As far as all our congressmen being crooked and bought, I would have to agree that it is not in the best interest of our country to be represented by people who now serve the command of corporate interests.
Couldn’t have said it better!
Corporatization will be the downfall of this country.
Multiculturalism will be the downfall of this country however see this post I wrote.
http://www.ivorydome.us/2007/05/06/cinco-de-mayo/
I am not however against Capitalism. It seems to work great when regulated for the benefit of men. I am just against the idea that Big Business make humanity’s civil decisions.
Well said!
It is afterall the idea of civil rights versus property rights. Let’s always pray that civil rights trump property rights, or else poor lil ol’ me is in some major trouble.
I’m really not exactly sure what your saying here, but it sounds a might socialist, in which case I would vehemently disagree. See this post.
http://www.ivorydome.us/2007/04/24/the-balkanization-of-amarillo/
I enjoy your civil discourse, A breath of fresh air as we have recently been plagued by a couple of total idiots. http://www.ivorydome.us/2007/05/04/is-civility-dead/ You are welcome any time.
Good morning,
And thanks for your response Celtic. So many avenues to travel down. Which should I choose?
I find it hard to belive that Iraq is or has ever been a Military threat to the U.S. Honestly, today what nation is a threat? China, yes. N. Korea, possibly. Iraq, who’s army crumbled in no time during both wars? No. It is a matter of looking tough on our part, or rather the administrations part, in the eyes of the world. Let’s bully Iraq and grab some oil for our oil buddies is what we appear to be doing according to the world at large.
That said, yes I do believe that corporations will be the bane of our existence. I don’t quite understand how multiculturalism will be our downfall. If you could elaborate please. Multiculturalism? Am I mistaken or is the tag Celtictexan not in reference to being Irish and Texan. Multicultural in terms, yes? How can you argue against multiculturalism when you reference it in your screen name? I’ll try not to draw any assumptions until you can maybe inform me better as to what you mean.
Back to corporatism. I do believe in Capitalism. I believe as well and more profoundly in Democracy. That said the U.S is unique in that we have a governing structure that in essense opposes our economic system. That is that all votes count versus the strong survive and the weak die in capitalism. It seems to work pretty well. There are however some faults in the system. Those faults are and can be fixed with regulations by the government. That way corporations don’t unfairly misuse we Americans. We all pracitice this no matter what our professions. We pay taxes to ensure such. However once regulation is lifted from corporate ambitions then we the people begin to suffer. Less pay for harder work in harsher conditions, etc.
As for my comment on property rights versus civil rights I’ll try to enlighten. Civil rights are our rights simply for being human and alive. Property rights are each persons rights to have and ensure protection of what is rightfully theirs, property. Now we all have the same and equal civil rights; speech, a just and speedy trial and so forth and so on. Property rights ensure that we all are safe holding what we own, money is the best example. However those having more money would seem to have more rights that those who may have little or none. Namely the poor and middle class. Now it doesn’t seem fair that because a man is rich he should have more of a say on an important issue that you or me, assuming neither of us are millionaires, are also very concerned about. That was one major issue when our founding fathers began this nation. Indeed one was not allowed to vote unless he was a landowning man, that has changed since and for the better I say. It changed from all landowning men to all men and then slaves were freed and given voting rights and then women paid for the voting right and finally all citizens over 18 years of age. All men should have and equal say, and not be counted as just a percentage of a total of votes with those having more property having a larger share of that total percentage. I’ll organize my memories ( it has been a while since I studied this honestly) and post some more.
Thanks. And if you could elaborate on what you meant by Multiculturalism being the country’s downfall please Celtic.
I don’t have allot of time right now but will hit the multi-cultural thing. I do use Celtic Texan referencing my past and present. But above all I am American. I speak the language I believe in the constitution I spent 23 years in the military because I want to defend and preserve that greatest document ever concieved. I practice and participate in American holidays I obey the laws. I am faithful to all things uniquly American.
How ever and you gave a perfect example of the blind shiek and his bombing of the trade center, today we allow anyone even those who would destroy us to flood our country. Alter our language to accomodate them. Even pretend that the culture they run from, in coming here is equal to there’s. Watch “Nation of Atzlan” on youtube. People like the blind shiek should be deported. Any who do not want to be American and participate legally in and support our constitution “as written” should be deported. I am of celtic Scotish decent. But I am American first. More later:)
I find it hard to belive that Iraq is or has ever been a Military threat to the U.S.
I agree, in the conventional sense of standing armies, sophisticated weapons systems, and warfare such as we witnessed in the last century.
But in the 21st Century, the era of asymetrical warfare, the greater security threat comes not from nation states, but rather from transnational terrorist groups sponsored by rogue nations, such as Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and potentially, Iraq. When those rogue nations are willing and able to provide weapons of mass destruction (chemical, biological, or even crude nuclear “dirty bombs”), this threat is greatly increased. This was the potential threat of Saddam, who had already shown his willingness to sponsor terrorism by paying the families of martyred terrorists $25,000 a pop.
Intelligence assets such as signals intelligence (SIGINT) and satellite surveillance can easily track large movements of troops and weapons needed for conventional war. During the Carter Administration, CIA Director Stansfield Turner was a big advocate of high-tech intelligence collection.
But terrorist activities are much more difficult to spy on. Small terrorist cells are extremely closed in nature, and there are few who are entrusted with the big picture. As a result, there are only two effective ways of collecting against these types of operations: human intelligence (HUMINT) through cell infiltration (very difficult and only as reliable as your HUMINT sources); and data mining, such as the NSA program which relied on traffic analysis of telephone calls to and from known terrorists (which has been rendered less effective through the compromise of operational details by irresponsible journalists looking for their next Pulitizer Prize).
Today, no nation state would be crazy enough to take on the U.S. using conventional weapons, or even strategic or tactical WMD’s. But there are just enough fanatic jihadists who are willing to sacrifice their own lives to take as many Americans with them as they can. This is the real security threat of the 21st Century.
You took the words right out of my mouth CT
Curious point Curious, however, I do believe that Iraq is a nation state, and as you said no nation would be crazy enough to attack us and coincidentally Iraq did not attack us. We did invade and attack them. If our war on “Terror” is against terrorists why’d we attack an entire country? If Spain decided to fight all terrorist groups as well and started off by pursuing the Ku Klux Klan would it be just for them to attack the entire U.S.? I think not. We were on the right track in Afghanistan, but seem to have placed emphasis on Iraq. We can find Saddam in a “spider-hole” but can’t seem to find Osama. Why?
Intelligence wise, I do see the need to have and gain correct info. Yet illegal wire-tapping is “illegal.” I am inferring that was your intended point about gaining info through HUMINT that our administration shouldn’t be bothered with such small things as laws. The FISA law enables the procurement of a warrant days after a wiretap is used. I see absolutely no reason for that law to be broken. It is quite flexible. Would you be happy to have, shall we say, President Hillary Clinton illegally wiretap? I’ll assume you’d say no.
Fight terrorism. Hmm, it would seem we would need to attack terrorists then not countries. Don’t invade and destroy water treatment plants and power plants used by non terrorist civilians in a nonsense occupation in the name of a fighting a war on terror. It makes more terrorists. And what is your definition of a Rogue state? I know Saudi Arabia is indeed our ally. They have strong ties to our country, both fiscally (oil) and politacally (the Bush family is in good standing relations with the Saudi royal family)
How is Saudi Arabia a rogue state. Now most of the hijackers on 9/11 were Saudi but are we atacking Saudi Arabia? Too much contridiction there.
Also if you could still elaborate on the “Multiculturalism as a downfall” idea for me Celtic. I am still antsy with anticipation. Thanks
Thank you for commenting and being civil.
Curious Texan answered your question when he said, “When those rogue nations are willing and able to provide weapons of mass destruction (chemical, biological, or even crude nuclear “dirty bombs”), this threat is greatly increased. This was the potential threat of Saddam, who had already shown his willingness to sponsor terrorism by paying the families of martyred terrorists $25,000 a pop.”
An entire country was pre-emptively attacked because of their supposed possesion and willingness to produce WMD and potentially provide those weapons to terrorists organizations.
Your analogy is fallacious in that the US Government isn’t potentially or actively arming, training, and encouraging the Ku Klux Klan.
Thank you Bodacious,
I dont see that as an adequite answer. Again shouldn’t we attack terrorists rather than civilians. Regime change is possible without all out war. Also if those terrorists had those weapons wouldn’t they have used those by now, rather than using airplanes or IEDs?
Do you see the KKK as a terrorist organization? I do. They have been known to commit murder and acts of terrorism. They may claim not to be malignant in their intent anymore but so does Hamas, yes? The U.S. allows KKK members to buy guns, correct? We accept KKK members in to the military, yes? It can be argued that we are supporting the KKK that way, training and arming. Celtictexan supports the idea of, putting down mutliculturalism (racism? I am unclear on this), isn’t that in essence a helping hand to the KKK? Encouragement. My apologies to Celtictexan, I am assuming you are caucasian due to your screen name and stating that you were from Scotish and european descent. If I have misunderstood your stance on Multiculturalism as to be anything but a racial issue then I have inferred too much and my apology for that. Though i’d hope you’d see how I might see it as such without any more explanation from Celtic.
Please note, I do not intend to be inflamatory with the following questions, I would just like insight on your views.
That’s fair.
Please elaborate, by this statement, do you contend our forces are actively targeting civillians?
We are attacking terrorists, specifically a nation that sponsored and was willing to arm terrorists if given the chance. If you don’t agree please illustrate my incorectness.
In what way? Insipring the people through sanctions and whatnot to carry out a revolution? If that is your supposition then I contend we tried that without result. After more than a decade of sanctions and pressure from the UN the oppressed of Iraq did almost nothing for their own good to halt their oppressors.
I never said terrorists had those weapons. I contend that the potential existed for the terrorists to obtain WMDs through collaboration with Saddam. Even looking back, given Saddam’s collaboration with terrorists and willingness to reconstitute WMD programs I think we did the right thing.
Yes
Are you sure you mean Hamas? Wikipedia says that just recently they called for Attacks on American targets, and unless you just completely missed it Hamas is responsible for that Mickey Mouse rip off to incite violence against jews.
I don’t intend to defend the KKK, but the only thing I have heard from them recently is speaking out against illegal immigration. Considering the deaths and terror caused by the KKK compared to the deaths and terror caused by Hamas, I would say the KKK is quite tame.
Please elaborate, are you equating 2nd ammendment rights to the government arming a terrorist organization?
Yes, but because someone wants to defend the constitution of the United states and happens to be a member of the KK doesn’t mean that the government is actively supporting terror. That is a great stretch. Unless I am misintepreting your statement, please elaborate on how defending the constution is equatable to supporting terrorism.
If the whole of the KKK were endorsed and part of the US military then I would agree with you, but they are not and I would assume the vas majority of service members think very little of the KKK.
Help me understand, are you saying that the idea of “putting down multiculturalism” and the goals of the KKK are similar?
If that is the case, I ask then, is it fair the some people on the right denounce and characterize the left as terrorists because they have the same goals as Al-Qaeda, getting the US out of Iraq?
PS: I quite enjoy this friendly, rigorous debate. It seems that any thread that Rivethead character takes part in devolves to him going into a narcissistic fit.
If Spain decided to fight all terrorist groups as well and started off by pursuing the Ku Klux Klan would it be just for them to attack the entire U.S.? I think not.
If the kkk were attacking or aiding attacks against Spain with the blessing of the US government, Then I think so. Of course Spain would not even be able to get here. Islam kills 200 of them and their response? Run tail between legs. They should have fought.
If I have misunderstood your stance on Multiculturalism as to be anything but a racial issue then I have inferred too much and my apology for that.
You are assuming culture and race to be the same thing. Nazi Germany, Communism, are forms of government but also political culture. Catholics and Baptist are religions but also culture. Scottish and American cultures are different but consist mostly of Whites. Race is not the same as any person of any race could be practicing any of the above.
If a person from south of the border comes here legal or not, they are running from an inferior culture. If things were so great in Mexico they would not come here. The problem is that they are not willing for the most part, to become American. We do not even try to make them become American. We cater to there culture, the same culture they are running from. People don’t come here because our culture is better, they come because their own culture sucks. If we adapt to there culture instead of requiring them to adapt to ours then we will become what they ran from. We will become the culture that sucks.
Race is an entirely different subject than culture.
One more point the KKK is not knowingly accepted into the military. And if it is found that you are practicing such you will be discharged. I said more on culture on up the thread a bit also Dio.
Thank you for the explanation Celtic. I appreciate it. I don’t agree with it at all, but thank you all the same. I would say it is not their culture that immigrants are running from but their weak and stagnant economy. I don’t think one culture is “Inferior” to any other. Economies yes. If they were indeed running from their culture why would they continue practicing it here? It would seem more likely they would eagerly adopt a new culture (ours) wholeheartedly if that were the case.
-Islam kills 200 of them and their response?
I am sure you meant “al Qaeda” rather than simply Islam.
I would say it is not their culture that immigrants are running from but their weak and stagnant economy.
And the reason for the weak and stagnant economy is—-?
You would not consider the culture of Islam, which is religion, law, and government all in one package inferior to American culture? I know you saw the video on the other site ofthe girl being stoned to death. Is a culture that allows that truely equal to ours?
So how is their culture destabalizing their econmy? Too many siestas? Poor government planning and handling of resources and little emphasis on retaining citizens through programs inteneded to boost their economy. I lean toward that, not that they are an inferior culture. I am sorry Celtic but that is rubbish to me.
Now as I stated on the other site, I think fanaticism and extremes in religions are the problem not the religion. It is a small sect of Islam that stoned the girl, just as al Qaeda only pulls in those that seek extremism in their beliefs. David Koresh, Jim Jones, and whatever other Christian cultists and extremist don’t speak for all of us do they though they are indeed of the same Christian religion.
You are still assuming all of America is a single culture as well. I have Mexican, Black, Polish, Irish, German and Asian friends that all practice their own historical cultures as well as American popular culture. I have my own mixed cultural practices too but I can’t say they’re better than yours or my friends.
You and I both will probably have a cookout this Memorial day. You may head to church or the lake, or take in a movie like i will do. How is one better than the other?
So how is their culture destabalizing their econmy? Too many siestas? Poor government planning and handling of resources and little emphasis on retaining citizens through programs inteneded to boost their economy.
The above plus shooting out babies like a frigin roman candle. The above and what I added are culture, as defined here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture
Google up the story about a White teacher in an almost all black shool who just won a lawsuit. The principle of the school refused to even try to stop the black kids from constantly calling her racist and derogatory names. The principle stated that these behaviors were part of their culture. Also again find and watch Nation of Atzlan on youtube. Tell me where you see a desire to assimilate.
I lean toward that, not that they are an inferior culture. I am sorry Celtic but that is rubbish to me
And yeah you saw a video of one sect of Islam that is killing that girl. But it happens every day in all of Islam. This is not a single extremist group, it is Sharia law as codified in the Qur’an. The treatment of women through out Islam is barbaric. It is the culture of Islam.
Check muslimsout.org for the real face of Islam.
You and I both will probably have a cookout this Memorial day. You may head to church or the lake, or take in a movie like i will do. How is one better than the other?
The question here is not how, but if, you will be remembering the men who have died to ensure our rights and freedoms. If you are truely thinking of these men you are participating in American culture and values. If its just another hoiday, excuse to get drunk, or worse a day that many will consider immoral then those actions to me would not be “better”.
I have my own mixed cultural practices too but I can’t say they’re better than yours or my friends.
Well said and so do I. But if circumstances force you to make a choice (say the unlikely event of war with Scotland) between American or in my case say Scotland where would you loyalties lie? Mine would be with America.
My father was in the military for years and my family and me do honor him for his service. And thank you for your service as well Celtic. It is appreciated. My Brother-in-law is in Iraq currently as well.
Not all Christians are the same, and not all Muslims act the same that is a broad generalization. I could say all Conservatives are misinformed, it seems they are, but that would not be the truth either. Therefore I can’t accept a generalization about all Muslims being stoners (not the American “Stoner” mind you). Just the extremists of that sect of Islam.
If a culture war happened in America, between Americans of all cultures, then where are the Scots in Texas? I’d be in a pickle then. I don’t have a solitary cultural background. And should we then just go out and pick any other culture and pick a fight? I mean I’d have to whip up on myself. What if the Irish Americans were against the Scottish Americans? Would you just stay in doors? And what about the Mexican Ameicans that are several generations in only the U.S. should they fight the new legal Mexican immigrants or just the illegal Mexican immigrants? And how would they know.
Anyway have a nice Memorial day.
PEACE
What if the Irish Americans were against the Scottish Americans?
This has already happened in Scotland. It would be a long story but it’s why my ancestors ended up here in the US. Well actually it was between clans. The McDonalds from which I’m decended got mad at the McAllister’s and short story they outnumbered us.
Anyway why Mexican, African, Scot, Irish, insert what ever here_______. Why not just American? That’s really my point.
Why do you say you have no solitary cultural background?