US soldier refuses to serve in ‘illegal Iraq war’

wvpeach · #**681** (**permalink**) 06-06-2008, 09:43 PM

None of this matters if your a Christian. You can't go dropping bombs on kids in a land far away and say maybe we avoided a bigger war later. It doesn't work that way for Christians.

This war was sold to the US people by a president wearing Christianity on his sleeve. His backers call themselves the evangelical right wing Christians. That fact alone makes a pre-emptive war all that much more of a sin.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cordelier

That's hindsight, though, Areyou... Some people thought the present situation was an inevitable outcome of the invasion - I know I did - but others did not. Nobody can ever tell the future with 100% accuracy.

The question I've been asking myself since 2003 - and this goes back to the debate I've been having with Storman - is this... even if you knew what the outcome of invading Iraq would have been - would it still have been worth it if it avoided a larger war at some time down the road? We take it for granted that invading Germany in 1936 - with all of the troubles it would have caused - would have been worth it if it because it would have avoided World War II... so why not Iraq? If the US & UK hadn't gone in there and the Security Council had let Saddam off the hook, where would it have led? After all, if Britain had invaded Germany in 1936, it would have been tied down in an unpopular war of attrition against Nazi (and probably Communist) guerrillas and nobody would have even guess another Great War had been avoided.

Winston Churchill is today almost universally praised because he saw the danger posed by Hitler and wanted to stop it before it came to pass. If Britain had followed his lead in 1936, World War II would have been avoided. Of course, if he were Prime Minister then and Britain had followed his lead, he would have also have been as reviled as President Bush is today.
So how do we know Bush isn't another Churchill? What makes Churchill so great and Bush, well, not so great in public opinion?

wvpeach · #**682** (**permalink**) 06-06-2008, 09:46 PM

Excellent observations Jet Blast by the way.

Seems once a war monger always a war monger no matter the evidence they see for some people.

Jetblast · #**683** (**permalink**) 06-06-2008, 09:50 PM

Bush has given confidence to Dr Strangelove-type nuts to come out with those laughably absurd pre-emptive war arguments.

Smart people see that the same arguments could equally be made for attacking the US for the same reasons. So far we are a nation that attacks other nations on lies.

areyoushittin'me? · #**684** (**permalink**) 06-07-2008, 01:28 AM

Hey Cord, try this one on for a little perspective...

Press Release of Intelligence Committee: Bush lied

Cordelier · #**685** (**permalink**) 06-07-2008, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by areyoushittin'me?

Cord, I had the same opinion of the Iraq war BEFORE we went in...why?

After we went to war with Iraq to knock them out of Kuwait, I developed interest in the Middle East to a degree that I hadn't before.

I studied more of the history of our relationship with Iraq and Iran and the region and I came to know about things such as the propaganda campaign that helped sell the war regarding Saddam's troops throwing babies out of incubators...propaganda with no basis in truth what-so-ever.

Propaganda regarding satellite photos showing Saddam's troops on the Saudi border poised to attack Saudia Arabia that we showed the Saudi's...troops that miraculously disappeared and, oh yeah, didn't show up in the commercial satellite photos from the same region and same time period.

I studied the terms for our support by the Arab countries and came to understand that they only agreed to support our mission if we agreed to not go in and get rid of Saddam.

As I mentioned before, at the time, I thought we should have gone into Baghdad but I came to learn these other things after that time.

I came to read the Bush Sr./Scowcroft clip on why we didn't occupy Iraq...and yes, I was one of those people who thought the present situation was an inevitable outcome of the invasion this last time...but beyond all that...

Aside from the pre-Kuwait conspiracy theory, I agree with pretty much everything you say... I think Bush, Sr. made the right call when he decided not to go into Baghdad. I'm interested, though, in your opinion of the ceasefire that was imposed on Iraq at the end of the Gulf War. Do you feel the terms of Resolution 687 were too stringent on Iraq? Since the war was about getting Iraq out of Kuwait, do you feel the Security Council had the right to expand from ensuring Kuwait's territorial integrity into the realm of eliminating Iraq's WMD programs as well? What about the human rights provisions of Resolution 687?

Quote:

Originally Posted by areyoushittin'me?

What really pisses me off is that prior to the invasion anybody who voiced doubt about Saddam's situation regarding WMD's and such was shunned or worse...I spent time on various forums arguing against the war and citing bits and pieces of "intelligence" or claims by people that should know...each and every time I was accused of posting lies, quoting "leftist liars" etc and so on.

I'm not surprised that the very claims that I made back then are now coming to light in the form of "internal debate"...sorry, but I don't buy the hindsight argument.

As to trying to portray Bush as another Churchill...are you suggesting that Churchill misrepresented the intelligence? I'm betting not, so let's not even go there.

As to the future of Iraq and what Bush II may have solved...let me share with you a sig line that I've used many times over recent years, one that I came up with...

"The irony of this whole mess in Iraq is that we can't train and equip our future enemy fast enough."

A larger war? Larger or smaller...one thing you can count on...there will be another one, and another, and another...the question from me is...what the hell makes anyone think we are going to stop them?

Why should we spend our lives and treasure on it?

(By the way...you aren't included in that "we"...

...thinkaboutit!!!)

Oh, here it comes... it's the "you're Canadian - you can't have an opinion on US policy" argument. Whatever Americans decide should be the future course of your policies is, of course, up to you... as a foreigner, I don't get a vote and neither do I want one. But I do reserve the right to have and voice my opinions on the matter (At least until the name of this forum is changed to "Argue with Everyone... except Canadians" *L*

On the whole matter of intelligence, I think what you shouldn't forget is this... the only purpose of gathering intelligence is to aid leaders in making decisions. Once the decision is made, then any additional intelligence is superfluous. You also need to remember that intelligence is rarely, if ever, conclusive - there are always conflicts and contradictions. I'm reminded of the postwar Pearl Habor inquiries that highlighted intelligence that the Government knew a Japanese attack was imminent. And it's true - there were indications of an imminent attack... but there was also a lot of other intelligence that indicated otherwise. So when you're assessing intelligence, not only is the timing (before or after the decision) important, but so too is the context (what's the balance between the differing assessments?).

In the final analysis, though, I don't think leaders should ever be constricted by intelligence - it should be a factor in their decision-making, but it should never dictate those decisions. As to how much of a factor it should play, well, that's up to each decision-maker to decide.

From my perspective, where it comes to Iraq in 2003, for the reasons I stated previously, I think the intelligence assessments were pretty much irrelevant. So what if CIA couldn't prove or disprove the assertion that Iraq had WMD's? The whole point was that Iraq wouldn't prove that it didn't have them. Whether Saddam had them or not was beside the point... the point was that he was acting as if he did. That would have been enough for me to doubt the veracity of his statements to the contrary.

Of course, that leaves the inspections. But how much could the inspectors have really accomplished with active Iraqi cooperation? Eventually, Blix would have had to take Saddam's word for it, to some extent. If you were unwilling to take Saddam's word for it, would it have been any better to take Blix's word for it when his final prognosis would have been built, at least in part, on Saddam's assertions?

Cordelier · #**686** (**permalink**) 06-07-2008, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wvpeach

None of this matters if your a Christian. You can't go dropping bombs on kids in a land far away and say maybe we avoided a bigger war later. It doesn't work that way for Christians.

This war was sold to the US people by a president wearing Christianity on his sleeve. His backers call themselves the evangelical right wing Christians. That fact alone makes a pre-emptive war all that much more of a sin.

Is there ever a Christian-friendly time to declare war, Peach? If you were the Prime Minister of Britain in the late 1930's, when would you have declared war on Nazi Germany, if ever?

areyoushittin'me? · #**687** (**permalink**) 06-07-2008, 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cordelier

Aside from the pre-Kuwait conspiracy theory, I agree with pretty much everything you say... I think Bush, Sr. made the right call when he decided not to go into Baghdad. I'm interested, though, in your opinion of the ceasefire that was imposed on Iraq at the end of the Gulf War. Do you feel the terms of Resolution 687 were too stringent on Iraq? Since the war was about getting Iraq out of Kuwait, do you feel the Security Council had the right to expand from ensuring Kuwait's territorial integrity into the realm of eliminating Iraq's WMD programs as well? What about the human rights provisions of Resolution 687?

Interesting questions...short of going back and once again reading 687, on the surface I'd say that anything Saddam agreed to was definately relevent...beyond that we could look at it from the concept of another body making some sort of agreement that we don't ratify...is it legitimate in their eyes? yes In ours? no Regardless, the UN could have also gone back and determined that it would have been legitimate to remove Saddam...he may not have agreed but that might have justified it in the minds of many...does that make it right? That's all relative I suppose...depending on which side of the agreement you are on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cordelier

Oh, here it comes... it's the "you're Canadian - you can't have an opinion on US policy" argument. Whatever Americans decide should be the future course of your policies is, of course, up to you... as a foreigner, I don't get a vote and neither do I want one. But I do reserve the right to have and voice my opinions on the matter (At least until the name of this forum is changed to "Argue with Everyone... except Canadians" *L*

Don't be absurd...I said what I meant and I meant what I said...of course you are entitled to an opinion...simply a matter of what has it cost you...what percent of your tax dollar goes to fighting the war in Iraq? How many Canadians have died fighting this war in Iraq?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cordelier

On the whole matter of intelligence, I think what you shouldn't forget is this... the only purpose of gathering intelligence is to aid leaders in making decisions. Once the decision is made, then any additional intelligence is superfluous. You also need to remember that intelligence is rarely, if ever, conclusive - there are always conflicts and contradictions. I'm reminded of the postwar Pearl Habor inquiries that highlighted intelligence that the Government knew a Japanese attack was imminent. And it's true - there were indications of an imminent attack... but there was also a lot of other intelligence that indicated otherwise. So when you're assessing intelligence, not only is the timing (before or after the decision) important, but so too is the context (what's the balance between the differing assessments?).

Yes, shouldn't they consider all of it? What about presenting their case to the public...we are a democratic republic and an informed electorate is part of the program...should the leaders cherry pick to make their case?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cordelier

In the final analysis, though, I don't think leaders should ever be constricted by intelligence - it should be a factor in their decision-making, but it should never dictate those decisions. As to how much of a factor it should play, well, that's up to each decision-maker to decide.

You'd fit right in down here...we have a leader that doesn't let intelligence get in his way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cordelier

From my perspective, where it comes to Iraq in 2003, for the reasons I stated previously, I think the intelligence assessments were pretty much irrelevant. So what if CIA couldn't prove or disprove the assertion that Iraq had WMD's? The whole point was that Iraq wouldn't prove that it didn't have them. Whether Saddam had them or not was beside the point... the point was that he was acting as if he did. That would have been enough for me to doubt the veracity of his statements to the contrary.

Which brings us back to inspectors...if we were truely interested in a peaceful settlement if possible, we could have given the information that we claimed to be true to the inspectors for them to check out...we didn't bother...why?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cordelier

Of course, that leaves the inspections. But how much could the inspectors have really accomplished with active Iraqi cooperation? Eventually, Blix would have had to take Saddam's word for it, to some extent. If you were unwilling to take Saddam's word for it, would it have been any better to take Blix's word for it when his final prognosis would have been built, at least in part, on Saddam's assertions?

If they check out every lead and get full cooperation from Saddam that would shoot your argument full of holes though regarding full compliance and if they followed every claim we made and found them to be false it could have saved us over 4,000 lives and about a trillion bucks...so far...not to mention all the innocent Iraqi's and others that we've wasted.

noneof yourbusiness · #**688** (**permalink**) 06-07-2008, 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jetblast

Bush has given confidence to Dr Strangelove-type nuts to come out with those laughably absurd pre-emptive war arguments.

Smart people see that the same arguments could equally be made for attacking the US for the same reasons. So far we are a nation that attacks other nations on lies.

Quick and short and a good statment. You really dont need 5 pages of crap to make a point this is a great example.

sachem · #**689** (**permalink**) 06-07-2008, 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by noneof yourbusiness

Quick and short and a good statment. You really dont need 5 pages of crap to make a point this is a great example.

You agree with someone?

noneof yourbusiness · #**690** (**permalink**) 06-08-2008, 12:09 AM

Well this fuckign blowhards with there 1500 pages of Bullshit are just stroking there cocks in a big circle jerk to look inteligent when this bullshit can be sumed up pretty easily. That person did so nicely.