The Truth about Iraq

[Black Dragon]

In a hunt through the Web for no reason other then having nothing better
to do. I found the following web site that seems interesting. Has anyone
else seen this or other sites like this.

http://www.thetruthaboutiraq.org

http://www.thetruthaboutiraq.org

If have no idea if I attached the http correctly.

Looks very different from what the media says as to what this website
says.

 

[R.H. Lee]

It makes no difference that Iraq (and the rest of the world) are better with Saddam in jail and out of power. Kerry, Edwards, Kennedy, Rockefeller, et al et nauseum say Bush lied, there are no WMD's. We need to make it right, let Saddam out of jail, and put him back in power.

 

[Wildalaska]

Boring

WildneedsasleepysmileyAlaska

 

[gryphon]

I second the Boring and up you a Pointless.

 

[JesusCow]

i have a movie done by MoveOn.org that is titled The Truth about Iraq

 

[odysseus]

Outside of all the politics and non-facts running around with this, my main question has been of late: Has it been worth the cost of +1000 lives lost?

Many of our own top generals are pissed off about getting involved ill prepared and ill equiped - and not to mention not going all the way through with initiatives that by pausing and halting at the gate, have cost more lives as we see now. We have been paying a high cost in lives lost. I am not saying to pull out either.

 

[RevDisk]

Unfortunately, justifications become somewhat moot once the war starts. The question becomes, how do we win? If possible, what is the best strategy. If not possible, how do we get out gracefully?

Problem is, Iraq technically isn't a war to be won. It's a military action to set up a US-friendly pseudo-democracy and keep it relatively stable. 'Sides, only Congress can declare war and they haven't done so.

 

[shermacman]

Forgive me for being stupid, ignorant and naive, but why is this "boring" and "pointless"? Seems just the opposite to me...

 

[moa]

Iraq did have WMD as of March 2003. It was called Saddam Hussien. Just like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. were WMDs. WMDs potentially can create great carnage, and that is exactly what those men did.

 

[RevDisk]

Iraq did have WMD as of March 2003. It was called Saddam Hussien. Just like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. were WMDs. WMDs potentially can create great carnage, and that is exactly what those men did.

Thing is, we did not overturn Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. To some extent, they were our allies. Stalin and Mao were, at any rate. The hypothetical "Good Guys".

At one time, Saddam was the good guy, when we viewed Iran as being more of a problem for overthrowing the pro-US Shah and setting up a fanatical theocracy. That's the reason why there are photos of a much younger Rumsfield shaking hands with Saddam when Rumsfield went to Iraq to offer weapons. We overthrow people not because of how good or bad they are, but because they are no longer useful.

Sorry, but such is the way of things. Might makes right. We are right, because we have the military and/or economic strength to enforce our wishes. Those that do not have the military and/or economic strength to enforce their wishes are wrong, because their opinion is merely an opinion.


"We overthrew Saddam because he was a bad person" is not true. We overthrew him because we wanted to, and because we could. Is the world a better place without him in power? Yep. But there are dozens of other countries with dictators that we will never invade.



"Those that do not rise up and take freedom for themselves do not deserve freedom, nor will they keep it." - An old counterinsurgency instructor

 

[UnknownSailor]

The truth is, we have had an excue to kick Saddam's butt ever since the end of Gulf War I. Voilations of the cease-fire conditions set for Iraq to follow were an almost daily event.

So, we just rolled him up, as a continuation of Desert Storm. That it happened 12 years after the shooting mostly stopped the first time doesn't matter.

Present day Iraq is mostly peaceful, with three areas being hotbeds for terrorist violence. Of course, the media report on all the bombings and what not, from their hotels in Bhagdad, and never mention the schools built, the communication infrastructure being installed, or any of the other good and positive things happening in Iraq.

 

[Joey2]

My son just got back from Iraq this past Tue. this was his 3d trip. He said that we are turning the average Iraqi against us and making a nation of terrorists.

He was all gung-ho when it started and now his is becomming disillusioned. He is a "lifer" in the USMC.

 

[The Rabbi]

It's a fact that Iraq was in constant violation of UN mandates and the cease-fire accords. It is a fact that Iraq behaved like a guilty party through the inspection phase. It is a fact that Iraq was paying $5k to the families of suicide bombers in Israel. It is a fact that virtually every intelligence service in the world thought there were WMD's there.
Given the facts it would have been irresponsible to do nothing or shove it off on the UN, which is the same thing. It is easy to Mon morning quarterback the situation but the truth is Iraq and the world is better off now than it was 2 years ago.

 

[AZRickD]

That's $25,0000 per Palestinian suicide bomber.

Terrorists were training in Salmon Pak south of Bagdad (with a Boeing 707 fuselage for hijacking practice).

From the 9-11 Commission:

http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing1/witness_larsen.htm

Since an organization to fuse information from three independent data streams did not exist last spring, the planners of SILENT VECTOR created one for the exercise. Could the attacks have been detected and thwarted if this type of organization existed prior to 9-11? America had intelligence information of training classes in an old airliner in Salmon Pak, south of Baghdad. At this site, terrorists were trained how to hijack airliners using only short knives. Had this intelligence information been fused with information from the FBI and FAA, America might have had the opportunity to thwart the 9-11 attacks.

Recall the abortive attempt by Saddam to assasinate the first President Bush (for which Prez Clinton took retaliatory action)?

http://www.c-span.org/iraq/history.asp

PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON ON RETALIATION FOR IRAQI PLOT TO ASSASSINATE PRESIDENT GEORGE H.W. BUSH
June 26, 1993
On April 13, 1993, several Iraqi nationals were arrested in Kuwait and charged with plotting an assassination attempt against former President Bush as he visited Kuwait that month. In June of that year, President Clinton retaliated for the attempted assassination by authorizing air strikes against Iraq. Next, President Clinton's address to the American people on the assassination plot and the bombing of Iraq.

How about the missile attack on US planes enforcing the No Fly Zone ?

IRAQ stepped up its defiance of Britain and America yesterday by firing missiles at RAF Tornados patrolling the no-fly zone in the south of the country. It was the second such attack this week.

my main question has been of late: Has it been worth the cost of +1000 lives lost?

That would be 4,000 American (and others) lives lost, if you include the attack on the World Trade Center in 2001.

This is a War on Terror (Islamo-Fascists). To limit this to only Osama Bin Laden, or al Queda or the Palestinian Liberation Organization is moronically myopic.

Rick

 

[AZRickD]

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110005676

Opinion Journal.com has a periodic piece they usually title something like "A roundup of the past two weeks' good news from Iraq."

It is always long, and always interesting.

It'll will give you a side of Iraq that you won't see on ABC, CNN, or Fox.

Rick

 

[jefnvk]

Is Iraq better off now than it was? Yes. Did Saddam need to go? Yes.

I mostly agree with the war. My major disagreement with the war was priortization. It was the right war at the wrong time. I think that N. Korea and Iran needed to come first, and I think that more so now that N.K. has declared they have nukes.

 

[AZRickD]

With Coalition forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, there is a major squeeze being played on Iran. It was a strategic move.

If N. Korea already had nukes, then they already had nukes. Different scenario there. They may have more now. They may be up to trickery as Saddam was just a few years ago.

Rick

 

[nygunguy]

The politically correct tact with N. Korea is to negotiate. However, with the firepower that we have parked off their coast I doubt they get a shot off without being decimated.

Iraq was the right war, WMDs or no. Its a geographically perfect area to set up bases. We now have ALL of the bad guys in the area surrounded - Iran, Syria etc. I hope our exit strategy is not to exit quickly but to stay as long as we need a military presence in the area.

 

[TooTaxed]

...suck the terrorists who want to attack us into a remote area in Iraq, set off a tactical nuclear device, and claim "the terrorists must have set off one of Hussain's hidden WMDs while trying to renovate it...?

Better there than here...

 

[MP5]

'Sides, only Congress can declare war and they haven't done so.

Funny how many times we've committed troops over the last half century or so without Congress declaring a war. Something has really gotten out of whack:

Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Somalia, the Balkans, Haiti, the Gulf War, Iraq, etc.

A related editorial: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/patbuchanan/printpb20011124.shtml