War Criticism Misguided. <i>-Cheney</i>

[Airband]

...and did you see the fellow that was so overcome with gratitude that he wrapped a big 'thank you' note around his waist and gave the checkpoint soldiers such an appreciative group hug?

[Guest Go Around]

"Hundreds of them don't just jump for joy in the street, and ride around on the decapitated head of their former leader's 40' statue ‘pretending’ to be happy do they?"

This concerns me some. Hundreds? Out of a city of what? 4 million. I'm still interested in where the weapons of mass destruction are.

Don't get me wrong, the regime had to go, but the real question was and still is do we need a war to solve the problem. The catalyst for the war was the threat of weapons of mass destruction. They haven't been located yet nor did a regime facing certain destruction attempt to use them. I hope we're not being exposed to media propaganda to justify the war. A few hundred Iraqis dancing in the street while looting the city doesn't prove squat to me. After all, a US led regime change in Canada would probably net the same response by some in Canada. I'm still not convinced the war button wasn't pushed prematurely.

[Guest ex-SkyGeek]

Actually, Go Around, I believe it's a city of 5 million, and if you were repressed for the past 24 years under Saddam's rule, you might be hesitant to publicly celebrate, for fear of being tortured, in the event that he's not really dead and gone.

It's a miracle that so many were so brave as to dare mock the man publicly. For lack of better words in my mere vocabulary, Good for them!

[Guest Go Around]

Think Vietnam. Think draft. Having ones ears cutoff is pretty barbaric and unforgiveable but then going to jail for refusing to go overseas to get your !ss shot off fighting someone elses war that doesn't threaten your own country ain't too cool either.

Did you see the picture of the little fella with his arms blown off?

War is cruel period. Lets not candy coat the realities of it - our side or theirs. The question - was it necessary or did we have time to find another way. Iraq said it had no weapons of mass destruction and until they are found I'm not convinced the right course of action was taken.

[Guest ex-SkyGeek]

Ugh! Are you for real. As IF we are repressed and starving nation as a result of our political ruler?!! Gime me a break.

Actually, Go Around, I believe it's a city of 5 million, and if you were repressed for the past 24 years under Saddam's rule, you might be hesitant to publicly celebrate, for fear of being tortured, in the event that he's not really dead and gone.

It's a miracle that so many were so brave as to dare mock the man publicly. For lack of better words in my mere vocabulary, Good for them!

I am onside with you, however, in wondering where the weapons of mass destruction are...

Jason

[Guest Go Around]

I think you missed my point. I'll state again I agree the regime had to go.

Without an immediate threat of weapons of mass destruction perhaps more destruction and suffering then was necessary occured from solving the problem with war rather than by other means. The US used the threat of weapons of mass destruction to justify an immediate invasion and I feel it strange that an animal backed into a corner with no hope didn't use them if they were available. Don't you?

[Guest ex-SkyGeek]

I do. In the mean time, it is fortunate for the Iraqi citizens that they might one day have the confidence, like some of their fellow citizens dancing in the streets, and the personal freedoms to debate and speak so openly on a forum or two of their own, such as this very one we enjoy. Wouldn't you agree?

It was not media propeganda at all, by the way. George W. Bush himself addressed his nation and the world stating that the Iraqi forces had chemical weapons of mass destruction. I hope they are able to produce them... then again, at the end of it all the US and Britain are pretty much heros to the Iraqi citizens, who lest we forget are the only ones whos opinions really matter, so maybe they figured all along that the good would outweigh the bad?

[Guest ex-SkyGeek]

Go Around,

Vietnam has nothing to do with this war, besides that was 1954, and although it did last 20 years, it is now 27 years later. The whole world is a 'little' smarter now, no?

I do understand what you are saying though. If that was one of my nephews whose arms were blown off, you're damn right I'd be cursing the coalition forces right now … and I wouldn’t give a rats ass why it happened, I’d just be mad. It is heart breaking that children were unfortunate enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Those images will haunt the soldiers responsible and certain members of the Bush administration I’m sure, but millions of Iraqi's survive and will benefit. They can taste a better life -- something we really lack the capability of truly understanding.

The war is for the better good of the entire nation of Iraq. Of course it also benefits the U.S. and Britain in ways I’m sure as well, let’s not fool ourselves.

The lack of proof of chemical weapons aside, they will soon be pumping over 10 billion gallons of crude oil a day, under new government, and with any luck their economy will begin to prosper.

Jason

[Guest terrier]

Well whoopee.

[Guest terrier]

The suicide bomber who blew himself up today was celebrating his liberation I suppose.

Whether you choose to believe it or there will be some Iraquis who will not be delighted at the Americans presence as will be seen by continued attacks. That's all.

Not commenting on how many or whether they are right or whether its a good or bad thing. Just that it will happen.

[Guest terrier]

The suicide bomber who blew himself up today was celebrating his liberation I suppose.

Whether you choose to believe it or there will be some Iraquis who will not be delighted at the Americans presence as will be seen by continued attacks. That's all.

Not commenting on how many or whether they are right or whether its a good or bad thing. Just that some oppostion still exists.

[Guest terrier]

Yes but that doesn't mean all Iraquis are happy to see the Americans does it? Not QED for me I'm afraid.

[cp fa]

So, the ones that are happy are just pretending because they're afraid of the Americans, and the rest of them aren't celebrating because they really don't want the Americans there, not because they're afraid of Saddam.

How about the Iraqis living abroad, like in Canada for example, who were celebrating in public yesterday. What was their secret hidden agenda?

[Guest ex-SkyGeek]

Agreed.

[Guest Go Around]

No disagreement hear on whether or not the Iraqis are better off without the regime. The question is the means to the end. Was there a better way. Again, the war justification put forth by the Bush administration was the threat to the world and in particular the US of weapons of mass destruction. That justification has not appeared yet. War may not have been the proper decision and perhaps the liberals were not so wrong.

[Guest Go Around]

A few hundred Iraqis in a city of 5 million is a pretty small sampling on which to base an asumption of how they view the US, especially when the prime interest of many of them seemed to be looting. I wonder how many thosands lost family, how many orphans, how many permantly disabled children? Hard to say as they didn't make it to the televised party which we all know couldn't be biased. I wonder if any of the jounalists have spoken to Peter Arnett as of late. The end doesn't always justify the means.

The Vietnam war was 27 years ago, but I question the world being a little smarter. I may agree when "problems" are solved withoout a war. After all, when you get right down to it its only the "heads of state" that are really at war. They just drag the general population into it and its usually due to fear and/or greed.

[Guest Go Around]

The lack of proof of chemical weapons aside, they will soon be pumping over 10 billion gallons of crude oil a day, under new government, and with any luck their economy will begin to prosper.

That sure as hell justifies killing a bunch of innocent people. I hope the US doesn't some day feel "we" wish to pump lots of water south cause our economy will prosper.

[Guest ex-SkyGeek]

I've said from the beginning that I can understand why our government won't formally support this war - we would be saying to the world that Canada questions the credibility and usefulness of the United Nations committee. That is obviously not the message we want to convey to other elected governments and their people.

Given a little more time, the U.S. may have been able to persuade other U.N. members to come onside, and I'm without doubt that support would have gained momentum once two or three other influential nations came aboard. Canada would have been close behind - safety in numbers.

For whatever reason though, Bush didn't see fit to wait. So, that is a consequence the U.N. committee will have to deal with post-war, since they were [fact] dragging their feet on the inspections when war was so obviously imminent.

I for one chose to support the U.S. even though our government offered no formal backing of the war. I choose to believe that Bush and Blair had unquestionable intelligence supporting the need for immediate action. After all, I believe in a democracy, and in a democracy the people elect a leader to made decisions on their behalf for the collective good of the nation.

In God and Bush we (must) trust. I'm tired and off to bed.

Jason.

[Guest ex-SkyGeek]

I've said from the beginning that I can understand why our government won't formally support this war - we would be saying to the world that Canada questions the credibility and usefulness of the United Nations committee. That is obviously not the message we want to convey to other elected governments and their people.

Given a little more time, the U.S. may have been able to persuade other U.N. members to come onside, and I'm without doubt that support would have gained momentum once two or three other influential nations came aboard. Canada would have been close behind - safety in numbers.

For whatever reason though, Bush didn't see fit to wait. So, that is a consequence the U.N. committee will have to deal with post-war, since they were [fact] dragging their feet on the inspections when war was so obviously imminent.

I for one chose to support the U.S. even though our government offered no formal backing of the war. I choose to believe that Bush and Blair had unquestionable intelligence supporting the need for immediate action. After all, I believe in a democracy, and in a democracy the people elect a leader to made decisions on their behalf for the collective good of the nation. I do still hope to see evidence of chemical weapons though, but in the end, even if we don't, I hadn't realised how pleased I would be to see those poor life-starved citizens of Iraq so happy to see Saddam squashed by the coalition.

In God and Bush we (must) trust. I'm tired and off to bed.

Jason.

[Guest ex-SkyGeek]

Oh man you're making my brain tired! I wish Costco would hurry up and send me that Ginkgo they promised. *grin*

See my post two below. It addresses at least one of your points.

G'nite, GA.

Jason

[Guest ex-SkyGeek]

Oh man you're making my brain tired! I wish Costco would hurry up and send me that Ginkgo they promised. *grin*

Looting will be controlled by temporary (U.S.) policing. Looting is not uncommon amongst citizens right here in our own backyards.

See my post two below. It addresses at least one more of your points.

G'nite, GA.

Jason

[Guest ex-SkyGeek]

One last post before bed.

terrier, a word of advice if I may. Stick to your convictions unless you wish to admit you were wrong. Giving up says more to me about your will than saying nothing at all, which would have left us in suspense.

This forum is a great outlet for your intellect, just be prepared to learn a thing or two -- I know I have.

G'nite,

Jason

[Guest Go Around]

Again, this war was supposed to be about weapons of mass destruction, not economics or ridding Iraq of a dictator. Again, you've only seen an extremely small sampling of the Iraqi population on TV. Yes, looting is a common thing during times of disaster, but those same people who are doing the looting and taking full advantage of the situation are the same ones who you are using as a measuring stick of the Iraqi sentiment. Regardless, the Iraqis are better off in the long run but it did not justify war unless there were weapons of mass destruction.

In god and Bush we trust? I'm not quite that naive.

[Guest Go Around]

Again, this war was supposed to be about weapons of mass destruction, not economics or ridding Iraq of a dictator. Again, you've only seen an extremely small sampling of the Iraqi population on TV. Yes, looting is a common thing during times of disaster, but those same people who are doing the looting and taking full advantage of the situation are the same ones who you are using as a measuring stick of the Iraqi sentiment. Regardless, the Iraqis are better off in the long run but it did not justify war unless there were weapons of mass destruction.

In God and Bush we trust? I'm not quite that naive, but there are a lot of people throughout history who did blindly follow their heads of state without question.

(Germans, Republican Guard) to name a couple.

[Cargo Agent]

I find it interesting that people expect the Coalition to find the WMD that Saddam had 12 years to hide in 3 weeks, in a country the size of California. The main mission of the troops there has been to capture or destroy the military of Iraq. Once that mission is accomplished then the hard task of searching every nook and cranny will begin.

The images we see in the newspapers and on TV of the innocent victims are trully horrific. It is a shame that innocents have to suffer in a war. This war saw the Coalition go to extreme measures to try and keep civilian casualities to a minimum. We have not seen (as many peace protesters foretold), the "millions of civilian dead".

I am sure that everyone is affected when they see pictures of children maimed by war. It is the pictures we don't see that I think of. Saddam's henchmen didn't publish the pictures of the torture and killing of thousands of civilians. We've seen the police stations with the cells, and rooms with only one purpose. But they can't have the same impact as a picture of a child who lost it's arm. I have an idea what went on in those cells, and I think about that as well, when I see the pictures of those children.

Hopefully, as a result of the Coalition's actions to topple Saddam and his regime, both the children and their parents will be safe from those cells and torture rooms as well as any more "collateral damage".