Five Years

[Nimble Jack]

Today marks the fifth year of the US war in Iraq. There was a walk out at my university to protest US involvement, George Bush gave an address and people across the States are thinking about the cloudy reasons that got us into the war, and if we should stick it out or pull it out. So here's a chance to think back over the US involvement and say your piece about it. Feel free to expand into future actions talking about McCain's policies of staying for as long as necessary (to him eternity), or about either of the Democratic Nominees' views of withdrawal.
_________________
"Not everything is possible, but there are an infinite number of possibilities."

[Timbo]

Wow, it really has been five years now hasn't it?

I remember the night the invasion first started. After I heard it on the news, a few friends and I went downtown to start a protest, not knowing that an 'official protest' was being made the next day. It started to rain heavily and we left around 2:00AM, we were the only ones still there, and came back after we got some sleep around 11:00AM. By that time, over 1,000 people had gathered. We ended up sleeping down town that night with about four others. At one point, I was the only person still protesting. Most had to go to work, and 'official protests' happened around noon or so many came back later.
_________________
"There is no normal life, there's just life. Now get on with it"

[Ujitsuna]

Five years? Wow, I remember them bombing Sadam's palace on the night it started.

Both Dems and Reps won't get out of Iraq, it was obviously a big mistake to go in and the reasons for staying had to be changed to "freedom" for the Iraqi people, but the Dems will pander to the left and when in office won't do anything, they just like to cultivate the anti-war support and vote that it brings so they can remove Republicans from office.

[Jowy Atreides]

My understanding of McCain's statements is not that he wants to continue the war until the sun becomes a red giant, but rather he wants troops permanently stationed there, as we've done in Germany, Japan, South Korea, and other places that don't belong to us.

Even if Democrats are lying (which I don't think they are, but that's not relevant, because neither of us actually know), eventually the Iraq War, and the War on Terror, will have to end, whether by the next President removing them all at once, or some future leader realizing it's a lost cause. Or, when Iraq becomes a stable, secular democracy where everyone's rich and no one dies (ever). The millions of refugees in neighboring countries will have to come back as well. This is the Iraq that Bush really thinks will eventually come, as long as we stay for a few more years (read: not a few more years). Currently, the "Iraqi success story" that Bush and his friends are telling everybody is that "violence is down," which is impossible to gauge, due to extremely hectic nature of 2008 Iraq. It's just more bullshit.

Gay Talese has said that the average American probably won't care about the Iraq War, and its future costs (increased terrorism, another crappily-run country in the Middle East, etc.) until the draft has been re-instated and young guys start getting rounded up. While I don't agree with the draft, especially since it would directly affect me (although military service may be good for my obesity), he's probably right.

What have I personally done to show my opposition to the Iraq War? In public, nothing, because Bush doesn't care what his constituents think. Besides, I'm too lazy to protest anyway. I think protests are fun to watch, to see what my countrymen think about X issue, but it's not my thing.

[Calvin]

[UberPendragon]

While we're on the topic I think its only right we should also celebrate 6 1/2 years of domestic freedom from terrororism. While other countries have experienced train bombings and other horrible events America has remained safe. A lot of people forget that 6 years ago Afghan terrorists who trained in Iraq flew American plains into American buildings killing 2974 innocent civilians who were on their way to work. Not soldiers who had agreed to fight for their country, not people who had been trained in the art of warfare. Men, women and children at or on their way to work.

On Decmber 7, 1941 the japanese launched a surprise attack on the US Naval base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. 2388 soldiers and other military personal were killed in the attack. The response to this atrocity which happend half way around the world was mind blowing. Every able-bodied man joined the military to fight our attackers. All of the women and children did their part at home by maintaining the economy while the men were away. Everyone supported the War effort and the war was won on August 15, 1945. Once victory had been achieved America occupied Japan until April 28, 1952 over 6 and a half years later.

Whats the difference between these two wars? well since WW2 America has gotten itself involved in some shady and completely unwinnable wars, Vietnam and Korea specifically. During this time it became very popular to protest the war, and rightfully so considering we had not been attacked and had no placing being in either war. Since these wars however. Americans have retained this Anti-war mentallity and forgot that we are a nation that was not only born of war but baptised by it as well. People have forgotten that sometimes war is a necessary evil, necessary to protect our freedom. Necessary to ensure that on our way to work no one will try and take our freedom by force. So when we went to war with Afghanistan and Iraq no one ran out to join the army, their was no need for anyone to step up and help maintain the economy because war is evil and we dont need to support such evil. Even without the support of the people America has won quick victories in both countries. Now the people want their soldiers to come home because they no longer bother listening to the people trained to make these decisions and though EVERY military advisor has said its too soon to pull out America does want to think about evil war anymore.

Make no mistake the war in Iraq is over, their are still soldiers their and their will be until its no longer necessary to maintain peace. Because in 1991 we went to war with Iraq in operation desert storm and because we didn't finish the job it was a fruitless victory. We won the war December, 2003 when we captured Sadaam after crushing his military. Now Iraq has been occupied for 4 years and 4 months. I fail to see the issue that people have. If we supported the war effort half as much today as we did 65 years ago we would probably already have pulled out. As for politics every dem who promises you they'll pull out as soon as possible is lying just like I did when I made that same promise to my wife 18 months ago, by the by I now have a 6 month old son.
_________________

God Save The Queen!

R.I.P. Harmonia-Online

[Jowy Atreides]

Perhaps we have been "free from terrorism" (whatever that means) for six and a half years, but bin Laden has already said that he would like to draw all the Western powers into the Middle East, just for his guys to have an opportunity to kill some "Zionist Westerners." Attacking these countries would tempt them to invade. The gap between the bombings in New York (1993 and 2001) was about 8 years, so perhaps this is how they like to do things: get people complacent, and then strike again. I don't think it's a victory that can be claimed by any party.

I haven't heard of any of the nineteen terrorists training in Iraq. Could you show some evidence for this? Of course, even if they did train in Iraq, that's a pretty bad excuse to go to war over a few of its citizens. If we used that logic, America should initiate another civil war, as we "trained" Timothy McVeigh.

I also haven't heard of every able-bodied man joining the military, especially not voluntarily. Let's keep in mind that the draft was around for World War II, so it's not like an uncontrollable wave of nationalism swept through America (although a lot of Americans became more nationalistic, as did people from most other countries).

The primary difference between the Korean War and the Iraq War is that the Korean War was 100% supported by the United Nations. The Soviets were protesting the Security Council at the time, and the Republic of China still controlled the Chinese seat, so the resolution went right through. It's a common misconception that the United States just went in Korea for the sake of humanity, with no one's help (I blame revisionistic history teachers). I wouldn't necessarily agree with the statement that we had no business there, as we had troops in South Korea at the time.

The "Americans are anti-war" statement doesn't apply to me, as I have no problem with war, and have said so in the past. However, I am always opposed to war for war's sake, which the War in Iraq absolutely is.

Yes, a war to protect our freedom would be excellent, but I think the world is way more complex than these buzz words.

Where is this "quick victory?" Afghanistan and Iraq are anarchies.

It's simply not true that every military advisor has said it would be a mistake to leave. And, even if they did, they are obliged to obey the Commander-in-Chief, so their commentary is practically worthless. A lot of retired military folk have come out against the war, as have veterans of the Iraq War itself.

Again, what peace? When you see bombs going off every day, you think to yourself, "Wow, look at how peaceful Afghanistan and Iraq are?" The First Gulf War was also UN-mandated, and the official reason was to expel Iraqi troops from Kuwait, which we did. It was a success, in that sense. The point was not to topple Saddam, as you seem to think.

The issue is that we had no reason to be there, there was no threat, there were no weapons of mass destruction, and Iraq had done nothing to us. The resolution to invade Iraq was never brought before the Security Council, so, according to international law, it was an illegal war. Kofi Annan has said as much.

But, I think we've gone way off-topic. Perhaps our posts should be moved elsewhere.

[UberPendragon]

Free from terrorism means we have not had a terrorist attack since 9/11. Bin Laden has said many things because he is loony toons and using his words as a credible argument is a joke. As far as complacency the terrorists havent been lying low as I said they've had attacks in several other countries so no one is really becoming complacent. As far as victory is concerned we defeated their army and captured and imprisoned their leader, I call that a win. Does that mean everything is hunky doory in the country no, but as I said before after war theres always a period of occupation to ensure that the war wasnt in vain and that the problems are resolved. Lest we go to war again in another decade.

No I cannot show evidence that the terrorists trained in Iraq. I can however there are documents and intellegence info that link Al-Quada and Sadaam. As far as it being a bad excuse Im going to go back to my WW2 example. Japan bombed us however when we went to war we also went to Europe and took out their allies. No one seemed to think that was a bad idea and no one claimed we were there for the cars or the chocolate. Also dont be assinign with the McVeigh comparison, if Timothy McVeigh were the president or even if the president had condoned his actions I would completely agree with you, civil war all the way. But he was just one white supremist loony, and we didnt train him to make a bomb out of fertilizer.

You haven't heard of any able-bodied men joining the army during world war 2 then you dont know your history. There was a draft but there was no issue with draft dodging as there was with the Vietnam conflict. Men willing joined the military to serve their country and a humongous wave of nationalism swept the country. Super heroes like captain america were born of this national pride. People bought war bonds, kids donated there old comic books to be recycled for the war effort. If there wasnt a wave of nationalism during WW2 then you must not believe there ever has been in this country.

I would say Korea was an unjust war, so would most of the country. Hell everyone sure enough showed up to protest the war, but again thats just people being sheep and following the crowd. The main difference between Korea and Iraq is we have been attacked, and people have died this time. If you dont think a war on terror is necessary then your not from NY or anywhere near it, you dont know anyone who lost a family member that day. You dont know anyone who watched people leap from the top of the World Trade Center holding hands to escape a firey death. Terrorism is very real, and if we leave it unchecked it will continue to take innocent lives.

War for wars sake, thats probably one of the least intelligent arguments I have ever heard. War for freedoms sake. And if your not sure what freedom is it's what allows you to go to work everyday without being gripped by fear that someone might try to kill you for their religion. Its what allows us both to have our oppinions and this argument. Make no mistake there is reason for this war and it has become trendy to be anti-war in this country, just ask your favorite celebrity.

Yes, a war to protect our freedom would be excellent, but I think the world is way more complex than these buzz words.

Freedom isnt a buzzword, freedom is why America exists and its what Americans have fought and died for for over 200 years.

The quick victory was once again over the military and the leader. Are their still extremists, of course their are and until the new Iraqi government can police its own country it would be foolhardy to pull our troops out.

Military Advisors are not yes men there job is to tell the president and congress what they believe to be the best course of action in time of war. Bush did not go to war by himself, there were committees that made decisions about how the war should be fought and military advisors and politicians made the decisions not one man. (John Kerry was on one such committee and supported the war fully until it came time for him to run for president and he tried to snatch up the anti-war vote). Thinking the military's commentary on the war is worthless is exactly what is wrong with this country. What the hell do you know to tell someone who has put their life and others lives on the line for your freedom that their oppinion on their job is worthless...

Im not going to even argue with you about the first gulf war or about whether or not there is peace in Iraq. Yes bombs go off every day and thats exactly the problem and exactly why we still need soldiers there. Also if you compare Iraq to the attrocities that were going on in the country before I'd say its definitely more peaceful.

I've discussed the reason for this war in great detail already so I see no need to repeat myself. Iraq openly supports terrorism. They openly support the kinds of attacks we've been talking about. If we're at war with terror then taking out one of terrorists biggest supporters makes perfect sense to me. If you want to get wrapped up in WMD's feel free, if there was even a chance they were there then it made good sense to invade, that being said if there were not WMD's there...it made good sense to invade.

I thought this topic was started to discuss the last five years of war in Iraq? The discussion we're having is the only one any ever has about the war.
_________________

God Save The Queen!

R.I.P. Harmonia-Online

[Sniper_Zegai]

Time sure does fly. Like many I remember the night the war started very vividly. Its funny thinking about how fast people thought it would be over.
_________________

[Agahnim]

Lets get a USA chant going! USA! USA! USA!

I think I'm going to go down to my local newsagents and bring some freedom down on them.
_________________

"The strong manly ones in life are those who understand the meaning of the word patience."

[Timbo]

[Vextor]

From the moment the idea of invading Iraq was mentioned by Bush, I was vehemently against it and quite vocal about my disagreement with this incredibly stupid idea. I remember back then that many people were pretty heppy to go to war with Iraq. A majority of US citizens supported the whole thing. After all these years, a majority of US citizens don't think it was a good idea to invade Iraq. So it took five years for some to come to their senses and wake up from the bloodlust that has possessed them since 9-11.

I never saw any good argument for the USA to pursue a unilateral campaign against Iraq. Saddam is a dictator and generally not a very nice person, but the same goes to Saudi Arabia's Saud royal family-- human rights abuses galore! Women are heavily restricted in terms of their freedom to do anything. At least under the strange brand of socialism known as Baathism women were able to get an education and even hold government positions (god forbid) without having to wear a burqa or some other garment to cover their entire body. The whole concept of "freeing" Iraq from Saddam has very little credibility for me, when the USA has had a history of supporting autocratic regimes and has taken part in suppressing the democratic freedom of people in other countries. Saddam couldn't have become what he became without support from the USA during Ronald Reagan's presidency as a chess piece against Iran.

Many people confuse democracy with "freedom" but the two are not necessarily equal nor are either intrinsically and categorically good. Even Hitler came to power through a democratic process, and when freedom goes to an extreme we have anarchy.

Now that Saddam has been executed, Iraq is free from him but now that the various factions are free they're just blowing each other up. They have a democratic process in place, but they don't have any strong leaders who can unite the people, nor do they have the means, will, understanding, or a yearning for democracy. At this point, many people in Iraq are sick and tired of having foreign powers intervene in their affairs and tell them what's best for them when it's pretty clear the recipe has been ill-conceived.

I have also seen no evidence that shows connections between Saddam and Al-Qaida. If anything, the two are enemies considering how Saddam has largely been a secularist leader, while Al-Qaida preaches a pretty radical version of Islam. Osama bin Laden has offered to form some sort of cooperative arrangement with Saddam, but Saddam rejected that-- probably because he didn't want these radical terrorists in Iraq. Now that Saddam is gone, Al-Qaida has been puring into Iraq, causing all this ruckus. It's pretty clear that this current situation wouldn't have happened if the USA didn't invade Iraq, or better yet, invade Iraq with a clear post-invasion plan.

Of course, now that troops are there, it's not easy to simply pick up and move out. The largely puppet leaders in Iraq don't want the US military out because they'll probably get killed within a few months without US protection. We (US citizens) now have a shitty legacy to deal with, and it won't be an easy clean-up job. It will take years, and the resentment and loss of credibility will take decades to resolve. However, I think the first step would be to let the Iraqis decide what they want through some form of referendum. If the Iraqi people want the US military out of their soil, then that's what we ought to do. If they want us to stay, we probably can for a while. What's important to me is to make sure people in Iraq are actually given these democratic freedoms so they can take control of their nation, even if it results in their nation getting over-run with Shia extremists or even if the nation gets split into three different states (a Kurd, Shia, and Sunni portion). Freedom is only true when it's won with your own hands. You can't really give it to anybody else-- that's my belief.

[Jowy Atreides]

Why is it relevant that we haven't been attacked since 9/11? It's difficult, nigh impossible, to prove a direct link between the execution of the War on Terror and the lack of terrorism.

Yes, bin Laden is a loon, but he's a loon who (seems to) run an international terrorist organization, so it's important to listen to what he has to say, and he has generally been a man of his word, no matter how atrocious that word is.

Actually, Americans are completely complacent. Americans don't care about Europe, or even their neighbors for the most part, so they could care less. Multiple polls have been taken asking them how they felt about terrorism in Europe, and most of them didn't even know what the pollsters were talking about!

As for your statements claiming that the war is over, that is absolutely wrong. The war's still going on, and will probably continue for several more years, regardless of whether we stay or not.

The links between Al-Qaeda and Saddam, which were mostly dreamed up in the Bush Administration's head, have been proven to be wrong, over and over again.

I have no issue with taking out allies if their friends attack a sovereign nation (this is the idea behind NATO, after all), unless they sever ties with that country. Saddam's Iraq had no links with Al-Qaeda, so I see no reason to violate a country's sovereignty based on pure assumption.

I used the McVeigh example because he was a plain ole' citizen, just like the 9/11 guys were Iraqis (well, as you claim at least). Saddam didn't do anything to us, so I'm not sure why you are talking about him.

Actually, if you look at the history, lots of people resisted the war (Jehovah's Witnesses come to the forefront of my mind). There were plenty of draft dodgers: some went to Canada, others got thrown in labor camps, and other were imprisoned. Truman pardoned them once he came to office. The fact that you don't know this is truly sad.

Uh, why would the draft be around if everyone wanted to join anyway? That makes no sense.

I already admitted that were lots of nationalists, but not in the sense that you describe. Plenty of people disagreed with the war, but their stories have been brushed aside to make America look like some un-biased liberator only concerned with helping the average guy, not its own selfish interests.

Again, the Korean War was mandated by the UN, not the US. And, when North Korea invaded, Americans died, because we had troops there. Americans died in Korea just like they died in New York City.

I don't know anyone who died in 9/11? How do you know that? Actually, a better question is, "Why does that matter?" A war on terror isn't necessary because it'll actually end up producing more terrorists, not less.

As the attacks in Europe (and elsewhere, by the way) have already proven, terrorists can pretty much do whatever the hell they want without being concerned about the consequences, as there are none. With areas like the Tribal Areas of Pakistan, which are not unlike Indian nations over here in the States, they can just sit around and plan out whatever they want to.

So what is the Iraq War for then, if not for the sake of war itself? I personally have no idea, and we probably won't know until Bush is out of office, and his records become public.

What freedom are you talking about? The freedom to have my phone tapped? The freedom to have the FBI operate "sneak and peek" (going through someone's home while they are away, making sure to keep everything in its place, and then leaving as if you'd never been there) operations for no legal reason? The freedom of foreign nationals stuck in CIA black sites all over the globe to be tortured and treated like animals? All of these things have been done in the name of "protecting America from terrorists," but I don't see how our actions in these regards can be considered constitutional at any level, or moral. How can we possibly condemn anyone doing horrible things in this world when we lock people up without a trial, and without habeas corpus?

"The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it."

Where's the rebellion or invasion constitutionally required to suspend the writ of habeas corpus? We haven't been invaded by any tangible force, and there's certainly no rebellion going on, so this makes no sense.

You are correct in saying that freedom is not necessarily always a buzzword, but most of the time it is.

I don't know if we've always fought wars for freedom's sake. Certainly this is not the case when looking at how Salvador Allende was overthrown, and how the CIA helped Pinochet come to power in Chile. Perhaps this is not a war, but we certainly walked all over Chile for no particular reason (other than the fact that Allende was a socialist). It's not why we took Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Philippines, and other places from Spain, among other things.

War, historically, means militaries fighting militaries, but this is not the case nowadays, and will probably never be the case ever again. Nowadays, it's more about what happens once one military has fallen and another has taken over, as we've seen in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

Military advisors are absolutely yes-men, in the same sense that the President's cabinet members are also yes-men. If you have administration officials publicly disagreeing with the President, it looks like he can't run his own cabinet, let alone the country, so they are usually fired. They give advice once a war has been started, but this is based on the assumption that the war can be won, which is usually not correct.

Bush didn't go to war by himself, as Congress approved his actions, but without his signature it would've never happened, so I blame him 95%. I did not say the military's commentary on the war is useless, as I mentioned retired generals and veterans of the current wars who have disagreed with the Commander-in-Chief. Perhaps they are not currently serving, but they are experts in their respective fields.

What the hell do I know? I understand what brings average people to become terrorists way better than any general does, because he/she has little to no understanding of sociology, psychology, or any other field that could actually help bring down terrorism, at least in some cases.

Bombs going off in Iraq is a problem, we both admit this. However, military occupations can't force people to stop blowing themselves up, so what's the point?

Where? Where does Iraq support the type of terrorism that brought about the 9/11 attacks? Yes, Hussein treated his people like shit, but they seem to be treating their compatriots like shit too, so maybe Saddam is not so unique.

Are you kidding me? The fact that Iraq might have WMDs makes it OK to invade? OK, we have plenty of WMDs, someone should invade us. Why not? We've killed plenty of people over the years for no reason, so why not? Of course, I'd say that someone shouldn't invade us because they'd probably lose, and I'd like to continue living on this spinning rock.

I'm discussing this because you brought up all this extra stuff that has little to no relevance to the current topic, which is the 5th anniversary of the Iraq War.

[eXistence of Fly]

[sybillious]

what it boils down to:

we went into a situation where we don't belong without a clear objective (remember vietnam, and its repercussions); we managed to wipe out the 'great evil' in the area, which in the end, solved nothing; the factions there have been fighting for centuries and will continue to do so, whether we stay there or not. the only thing that comes of it in the end is the loss of american lives in a conflict that we should stay out of.

bin laden and his followers will continue to attack here and there on a minor scale to remind us that saftey is an illusion, but you can bet that they're biding their time (as a few others have stated) for an occasion to make another major attack. the only issue is trying to figure out the when and where...

the us government has a shitty record of international dealings for the past 40+ years; every decision we make in regards to foriegn policy has pretty much blown up in our faces with repercussions that will last long term. we've created our own version of hell and continue to keep digging that pit deeper.

until we get some people in charge with actual intelligence in charge, things will not change; big bad america has been getting its ass served to it for some time now, and pride is not allowing us to see this losing battle or act accordingly.

on the draft, it should be males AND females; sorry ladies, true equality spans all scopes, not just the ones that benefit us. slightly :off topic: but it applies...
_________________
prinny...DOOD!

gotta gotta get a...SPICE WEASEL!

to paraphrase my fellow mod, parallax:
I hate my job with the passionately burning intensity of a thousand fiery suns.