War on Iraq, what is our goal?

“What is our real goal, sure there are plenty of reasons to beat of some Iraqies but what is our real goal.

A) oil -yeah thats horse #&%!$
B) to oust Saddam
C) Distroy Terrorist armorment facilities
D) Hunt down terrorist
E) Continue to eliminate dictatorships in favore of a Republic
F) Test out new gear before we use it in North Korea
G) The Econimy, war helps the econimy
H) Who the hell knows, through in your own answer....

........
F)”

“Wind does not blow infavore of a ship with out a dirrection.

A ship with out a rudder just bounces along with the current.
----

Are we going into Iraq with a diffined goal in mind, or are we just going in because it sounds like a good idea.

I am pro war on Iraq, because Saddam must go, but what is the governments goal. All my studdies on success show that if you don't have a diffined goal you will not succeed, so what is our goal. All my previusly stated reasons sound good but what one are we shooting for?”

“We should invade Mexico, too.”

“don't forget my freinds in france.”

“"The eyes of the world being thus on our Country, it is put the
more on its good behavior, and under the greater obligation also,
to do justice to the Tree of Liberty by an exhibition of the fine
fruits we gather from it." --James Madison”

“Exchange the word "Liberty" for the word "Law" or "Morality" in the quote above and you get two more truths.”

“phaed, don't be a wussie.....be brave in the face of danger......


It's high time for some right thinking in rebuttal to those
objecting to our imminent assault on Iraqi as we prosecute our
war against Jihadistan. Despite those who would insist we are
"about to go to war," we have been at war since 11 September,
2001. Our principal adversary is not Iraq, but Jihadistan,
that borderless nation of Islamic extremists with global reach,
inhabited by al-Qa'ida terrorists and other Islamists who are
targeting the U.S.

The "Islamic World" of the Quran recognizes no political
borders. While orthodox Muslims (those conforming to the teachings
of the "pre-Medina" Quran) do not support acts of terrorism or mass
murder, very large sects within the Islamic World are indoctrinated
with the "post-Mecca" Quran and Hadith (Mohammed's teachings),
which call for "Jihad" or "Holy War" against all "the enemies of
God." (Thus, why The Federalist terms this enemy "Jihadistan,"
or "nation of holy war."

Shortly after al-Qa'ida's 9-11 attacks, President George Bush said:
"This WAR on terrorism will be fought on a number of fronts,
in different ways. The front lines will look different from the
wars of the past." A year later, Iraq's support for al-Qa'ida
was clear, prompting Mr. Bush to declare, "Facing clear evidence
of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun
-- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud." In his most
recent address to the nation, President Bush said, "It would take
just one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country
to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known."

Indeed, this conflict won't be resolved diplomatically, and
the war al-Qa'ida launched on our soil 17 months ago won't be
won defensively: this enemy can only be defeated in offensive,
preemptive strikes. As Prussian general and military philosopher
Karl von Clausewitz wrote in the early 19th century: "War is the
continuation of policy by other means. ... The best form of defense
is attack." The most effective policy to defend our homeland front
against al-Qa'ida, is taking offensive action against al-Qa'ida's
state-sponsors, and that means in this phase of the campaign,
"regime change" in Iraq.

But some Sociocrats and their cadre of Leftmedia talkingheads are
doing what they do best -- attempting to convert this perilous
campaign into political capital. Their arguments are so ludicrous
that even Demo Sen. Evan Bayh complained: "I don't understand those
who want to wait until the threat [from Iraq] is imminent. Do we
wait until the missiles are launched, until the smallpox is in
the country? The consequences of error could be catastrophic."”

“I'd say I'm braver than you, Strat. I'm not afraid to wait and see what happens.

Also, your article there, I'm assuming you didn't write it because there are no colloquialisms and "Da man"-isms, is idiotic.

The upshot of the thing is: "If'n ya'll got some arabs, we gots us a right to come an' git em. 'Specially ifn they got 'pinions 'gaist the US."”

“nice rebuttal...it's all crap....good one...


every day of "wait and see" is another day for hussein to prepare to kill our soldiers.


will you support our troops when the war starts? it's gonna start...you know that, right?”

“I know this administration is going to make my country invade another sovereign country. We will strike the first blow.

As far as your article, I could cut and paste some stuff too. It's ridiculous already.

If Saddam is not PROVEN to be in possession of WMD, we are invading another country without proper cause according to international law, unless we can convince the UN otherwise. I will not be proud of my country for such a move.

The troops, Strat, are the ones I'm against this war for.”

“In what is certainly one of the worst crises in the alliance's
54-year history, NATO this week refused to provide Turkey with
defensive support against possible aggression from Iraq, requested
under Article 4 of the 1949 Washington Treaty. France, Germany and
Belgium joined to block any preparations for the defense of Turkey,
arguing that such action would send Iraq the "improper signal" that
war is imminent and unavoidable. Responding to accusations that
the U.S. desire to "get Saddam Hussein" is breaking NATO apart,
Secretary of State Colin Powell responded, "Who is breaking up
the alliance? Not the United States. The alliance is breaking
itself up because it will not meet its responsibilities."

Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, Vice Adm. Lowell
E. Jacoby, described the disconnect of the NATO disagreement
with reality: "I expect him [Saddam] to preemptively attack
the Kurds in the north, conduct missile and terrorist attacks
against Israel and U.S. regional or worldwide interests [which
would include Turkey] -- perhaps using WMD and the regime's links
to al-Qa'ida. ...Saddam is likely to employ a scorched-earth
strategy. ... We should expect him to use WMD on his own people."”

“"An institution that ... would permit Iraq, a terrorist state that
refuses to disarm, to become soon the chair of the United Nations
Commission on Disarmament, and which recently elected Libya --
a terrorist state -- to chair the United Nations Commission on
Human Rights of all things, seems not to be even struggling
to regain credibility. That these acts of irresponsibility
could happen now, at this moment in history, is breathtaking.
Those acts will be marked in the history of the UN as either the
low point of that institution in retreat, or the turning point
when the UN woke up, took hold of itself, and moved away from a
path of ridicule to a path of responsibility." --Donald Rumsfeld”

“Since when did this administration become the path for righteousness and moral policing? Because I walk but 50 people packed under a fecking church overhang while it pours down rain and wonder why they are there. Something isn't right. All these are not all people who don't want to work, who are mooching off the system or who are doing anything other than having a hard life.

And our government wants to go and create more misery for lots of other people? Do you think this is going to be a quick war? It's going to the streets of Baghdad where millions of people live. That's the cost.

And then you can go home and watch the latest way in which someone died, either on the news or on crime programming, and think about how it all is really awful but needed to happen.

Makes me sad, really.”

“Should read, "Because I walk every night and see 50 people packed under a fecking church overhang while it pours down rain and wonder why they are there."

Sorry for any misinterpretation about what I wrote.”

“Roseymonster, while the homeless situation is unfortunate here in the U.S., the people of Iraq live under fear for their lives each and every day. Saddam has created a very hostile world for them to live in. If you say "Saddam sucks" on the street... you're literally dead. He's used chemical weapons on his own people. Saddam's stockpiled tons of WMD while the U.N. has sat idly by during the past few years, and now this tyrant is about to get nukes? And his ties to terrorism only magnify the problem. I know what you're saying, the U.S. has it's own internal problems to deal with, but the threat that Iraq poses makes our problems seem miniscule.”

“They are there because they are to lazy to get a job or that they have managed to screw up there own life so bad that no one wants to hire them. Why don't you stop and see if any of them want your help or if they want a job or if they want anything other than another handout.”

“To make television viewing better. I am sick of Joe Millionaire and Micheal Jackson”

“well said arty la farty!

besides....it's better to die on ones feet than to live on ones's knees(J Madison)”

“Whatever our stated goals, we are bound to be disappointed. Nearly a century after “the war to end all wars” many people are cheerleading for another attempt to wipe evil off he face of the earth. Just to be clear-eyed, we should realize that is not going to happen. We aren’t likely to transform the Middle East or stop further terrorist strikes against us.

War does hold a deep psychological attraction for many people in most cultures around the world. Why don’t we just admit that many people are seeking some form of glory through this self destructive group activity? It's like a spectator sport with huge costs. Strip the mythology and delusional thinking away.”

“Isn't that what I just admitted too.”

“you have a tremendous grasp of the obvious....


come's from workin with your hands...



so what your saying is.....evil will always exist, so just let it exist and if it overuns you , too bad cuz you don't wanna be glorious and fight back?”

“Sorry hyway. I was typing with my eyes closed again.”

“We aren’t likely to transform the Middle East or stop further terrorist strikes against us.

Wow, it's getting deep in here. We certainly do have the power to transform the ME. A pro-U.S. democracy in Iraq will allow the U.S. to control oil prices, m/l. That, combined with the largest offensive force in the region will allow the U.S. to apply enough pressure on Saudi Arabia and Iran to cooperate on Al Qaeda. Stop the money and you stop the terrorists. Deny the terrorists geography, and they won't have a base of operations. Also, the possibility to engage in covert operations in Saudi Arabia and Iran (as well as other ME countries) will be greatly enhanced by having forces directly on their borders. And kicking Chinese influence out of the region is icing on the cake.”

“Mutt, why is everyone else's speculation just speculation, yet you somehow have this vast political insight bordering on prognostication that leaves you infallible?

A pro-US democracy in Iraq? Okay, and this will happen when? We will have what type of guarantee that the next government of Iraq is not another dictatorship? Oh, that's right - NATIONBUILDING. Uh, so we'll have this platform from which to wipe out terrorism in like, 10 years? Assuming of course that Iraq's Kurds don't demand their own political borders, that is.

That first uncertainty and the conclusions your draw from it make your assertations a slippery slope.

Oh and by the way, yours are opinions like everyone elses. The berating of everything as uninformed is getting old.”

“yeah!”

“You tell him Phaedrus.

I say we go to war to embarrass the French.”

“Pipe down, snakpac.”

“Id like to build the world a home
And furnish it with love
Grow apple trees and honey bees and snow-white turtle doves

I'd like to teach the world to sing
In perfect harmony
I'd like to hold it in my arms and keep it company

I'd like to see the world for once
All standing hand in hand
And hear them echo through the hills "Ah, peace throughout the land"

(That's the song I hear)
I'd like to teach the world to sing (that the world sings today)
In perfect harmony

I'd like to teach the world to sing
In perfect harmony

Id like to build the world a home
And furnish it with love
Grow apple trees and honey bees and snow-white turtle doves



sniff sniff can't we all jyust get along. I need a coke”

“Bomb 'em back to the Stone Age, pave the whole area and turn it into an amusement park. We could call it 'Terror World'. Then we could turn to Saudi Arabia...”

“yet you somehow have this vast political insight bordering on prognostication that leaves you infallible

Gee, is that the way you see me? I'm flattered!

A pro-US democracy in Iraq? Okay, and this will happen when?

Immediately. The U.S. will be in complete control of the formation of the successor government from the start.

We will have what type of guarantee that the next government of Iraq is not another dictatorship

No guarantee it will stay a democracy after the international community leaves. But of course a democracy will be attempted. No one has suggested the U.S. should prop up a dictator in Iraq after the war.

Uh, so we'll have this platform from which to wipe out terrorism in like, 10 years?

no, immediately, upon victory - see above.

Assuming of course that Iraq's Kurds don't demand their own political borders, that is

Turkey is keen on seeing this doesn't happen. The Kurds are screwed, and the U.S. won't have much to worry about from them.

The berating of everything as uninformed is getting old

Not everything. Just the same old canned crap that had no validity to begin with, c.f. stratdewd. Yeah, it's getting old to refute your argument, just to have you bring it up again like it had never been challenged.”

“Of course it's oil - but it's as though when people say that they seem to think oil is not a major issue - it is - it feeds into all US involvement in the region. Invading Iraq and installing a friendly regime changes the whole balance of power in the Middle East. Enormous pressure can then be brought to bear on the other countries in the region, such as Saudi Arabia, to fall into line, to reform their regimes and give more support to help stop terrorism. Until the oil-dependant US. economy secures a new source of oil, and lessens the Saudi control on the price of oil, it will be beholden to the Saudis and America could face problems in the middle east for years to come. This administration sees war as solving the problem once and for all and protecting America's strategic interests. There's also the short-term benefit of some direct victories in the war on terrorism, though I think the administration is over-playing its hand on this. I guess supporting the war depends on whether you think America's strategic interests are worth a few body bags?”

“ynamiynami, right: the people blinded by Bush's propaganda are arguing for or against war based on WMD, inspections, the UN, etc, when it's clear the entire strategic future of the U.S. is in the balance.”

“Maybe we should just annex the M.E., put all the natives on reservations, use military force to keep them subdued and then use their traditional homes and hunting places for our own use.

We have some history in that.”

“Except the U.S. isn't an imperialist power, chili”

“You may be on to something Chili. That worked out pretty good for us. don't see why it can't work in the M.E.”

“I think this is where we have issues mutt:

You hold nations to no moral account. You see them as amoral entities that act in their own self-interest without regard for the cost to other nations or the individuals within. am I right?

It seems so from your posts.

Back to Bush's timetable for Iraq:

1. You expect that the US will now occupy Iraq, Afghanistan(on whatever limited basis), and put pressure, both militarily and through espionage on Iran and Saudi Arabia?

2. You expect that this administration will be able to pull this off before election time, or does this play into your thinking at all?

3. What is gained, if, after the international community leaves, a new warlord becomes dictator (assuming, of course, that an internation community enters - rather than a US invasion force and their british lackeys)?”

“I understand Mutt. And I don't offer that suggestion to be a resolute point of debate. I offer it to give an example.

When we pursued a policy against Native Americans, there was a faction that felt we should pursue war and subdue the "savages" at all costs. The hawkes did it because of the economic resources that would become available. The bold did it because it would open new opportunity for them. The common laymen did it because he was led to believe that we must "civilize" those nations occupying the area. And that without "civilizing" them through military and punitive action, our citizens in those western areas would be subject to "attack" and "brutal terrorism" until we did.

I guess I throw up a philosophical question:

"As a race, have we come any distance at all?"”

“Let me correct that.

"As a species, have we come any distance at all?"”

“Wow, chili, good analogy!”

“Not a good analogy. The difference then, for better or worse, was that we were out to take their land for our own. This time we do not want to annex Iraq as a part of the US and populate it with our own citizens. We will not be driving out the Iraqi people or herding them into reservations.

A better analogy is that we will be hacking out a tumor that is curently doing harm to its own body, and will potentially do harm to nearby bodies.”

“Exit strategy?”

“I can remember the term "Americanization".”

“Good point rox. The do call it camo for a reason.”

“#&%!$, wrong thread!”

“Don't be too disappointed if the myth fails to be realized mutt.”

“I dunno if camel jerky would taste very good.”

“You hold nations to no moral account. You see them as amoral entities that act in their own self-interest without regard for the cost to other nations or the individuals within. am I right?

No, this is how you appear to think, when you cynically reduce the reason for war to Bush's greed and sense of revenge. You seem to equate Bush himself with the entire administration, and you're quite eager to paint him/America as evil or at least amoral.

America is acting in its own self interest, but that happens to coincide with the best interests in the world in this case: restructuring the ME and fighting the war on terror.

And actually the Bush admin has shown remarkable regard for other countries, as demonstrated by their endless diplomacy, seeking UN approval, and cutting deals with countries in return for support.

You expect that the US will now occupy Iraq, Afghanistan(on whatever limited basis), and put pressure, both militarily and through espionage on Iran and Saudi Arabia?

Applying pressure through espionage? What I said was covert military operations. And you leave out direct economic pressure. So yes, this is correct m/l.

You expect that this administration will be able to pull this off before election time, or does this play into your thinking at all

Of course there's a political element! The timing of this war is no coincidence. Bush should be dealing with other more important problems first, rather than Iraq. But you're right, Bush wants to win the election, and historically, war-time POTUSs are popular.

What is gained, if, after the international community leaves, a new warlord becomes dictator (assuming, of course, that an internation community enters - rather than a US invasion force and their british lackeys)?

Of course the international community will be involved. Why do you think Bush has seeked a coalition instead of acting unilaterally? America can fight this war by itself, but it can't easily bear the burden of reconstruction alone.

If, as you suggest, the fledgling democracy collapses, that would certainly be unfortunate for the Iraqi people. But, America would still have gotten what it wanted from its occupation: temporary regional hegemony.”

“I disagree artex. All jerky is good. You could make it out of the iceman's frozen remains and I would still eat it.”

“"As a species, have we come any distance at all?""

I think Hyway gave a cogent reply.”

“LMAO, mutt. Yes he did.”