The Iraq Situation

[DonkSlayer 1]

During a conversation about the state of Iraq, my mind drifted to poker, and a concept that we use a lot in strat: "Results-oriented thinking." Is the media/general public guilty of this on Iraq? Premises for this argument:• While debateable, for the purposes of this discussion, assume that the US administration believed as strongly as they portrayed they did that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and were intent on distributing them to terrorists, if not launching them themselves.REGARDLESS of whether the WMD's were there or not, if our premise is honest, is the debacle in Iraq that followed assessed negatively because of the initial results of the invasion? Questions:1. If we had found vast caches of WMD's in Iraq, would the current environment in Iraq be any less violent? Would we be more patient with it?2. Are the Iraqis that are attacking and killing each other and Americans motivated about the fact that no WMD's were found? 3. Would the US have felt less-obligated to nation-build in Iraq IF we had found WMD's?

[chrozzo 19]

Good points, I will bring those up to George when he pencils in some face time for me. I'll keep you posted.

[DonkSlayer 1]

I'll keep you posted.

Get it? POSTED! hahahaMan are my arms tired. But seriously folks,

[Balloon guy 158]

^^^^^ funny stuffanother question to ask:4. Is a proactive attitude towards terrorist the correct way for America to behave? For example; Should we be hunting and killing them or wait for them to strike then try to arrest them for each individual incident?

[offset 0]

Before you jump to conclusions let me explain.From my point of view, the evidence seems to point out that we went to war because we found no WMDs. Let me explain.Remember when we gave Sadaam that 48 hour period to give up his weapons or face war? At that point, all inspectors had been saying inspections were going great and the Iraqi government (if you could call it that) was cooperating. Evidence was never released that actually pointed to any WMDs still in existence. All we had were a few satellite pictures of trucks that might have been leaving inspection sites. With all the reports of unhindered inspection, there was no reason for war. Most knowledgable bipartisan experts on the subject agreed that inspections should at least be finished before the US threatened war.To me it seems like the Bush accusations of WMDs was a political bluff. He wanted to take out a ruthless dictator, and he probably also wanted to help the US oil economy. Once the administration realized that there probably were not any WMDs, there was still enough fear in the US to support any war he advised. Before reports came that there were no WMDs, the administration assured a sense of panic by giving only 48 hours until war. Thus, they had enough fear to gain enough support for the war.If the administration really believed there were WMDs t would have continued inspections until it found them. Then we would have quickly been able to oust Saddaam with the support of the rest of the world. That includes other parts of the Middle East, because they would not want a crazy power hungry dictator with WMDs living next to them.

[chrozzo 19]

please lets not start another political debate thread....there are many to choose from among the various forums here...remember...

[nutzbuster 7]

Before you jump to conclusions let me explain.From my point of view, the evidence seems to point out that we went to war because we found no WMDs. Let me explain.Remember when we gave Sadaam that 48 hour period to give up his weapons or face war? At that point, all inspectors had been saying inspections were going great and the Iraqi government (if you could call it that) was cooperating. Evidence was never released that actually pointed to any WMDs still in existence. All we had were a few satellite pictures of trucks that might have been leaving inspection sites. With all the reports of unhindered inspection, there was no reason for war. Most knowledgable bipartisan experts on the subject agreed that inspections should at least be finished before the US threatened war.To me it seems like the Bush accusations of WMDs was a political bluff. He wanted to take out a ruthless dictator, and he probably also wanted to help the US oil economy. Once the administration realized that there probably were not any WMDs, there was still enough fear in the US to support any war he advised. Before reports came that there were no WMDs, the administration assured a sense of panic by giving only 48 hours until war. Thus, they had enough fear to gain enough support for the war.If the administration really believed there were WMDs t would have continued inspections until it found them. Then we would have quickly been able to oust Saddaam with the support of the rest of the world. That includes other parts of the Middle East, because they would not want a crazy power hungry dictator with WMDs living next to them.

Wow. Chrozzo is right...no more politics. After 4 years of all this crap and after this last election....man. Personally I am so sick of it. (o.k. one last point, No one is going to change the others mind about this debate so why bother. I will say that Bush was NOT so powerful or credible or so well liked back then as to influence every key Democrat or 10+ other countries world leaders to go to war, but yet it was unanimous at the time. There was plenty of intel to go around then, EVERYONE believed the intel, from dozens of credible sources outside of the US...and the rest is history). Blah blah blah blah.It's all a mute point now anyway. Lets just pray it gets better from here.Have a great prosperous Holiday season eh?.

[DonkSlayer 1]

4. Is a proactive attitude towards terrorist the correct way for America to behave? For example; Should we be hunting and killing them or wait for them to strike then try to arrest them for each individual incident?

I think a terrorist isn't a terrorist until they are complicit to an act or a have committed an act. If we can lock them up vs. contributing to the death count, that's the better way.

Before you jump to conclusions let me explain.

You specifically did what I asked not to be a part of the discussion. I don't want to debate the origination of our involvement. I asked you to assume that Iraq would be the same today AND that we found WMD's vs. did not find them. Would the political/social climate about the war in America and around the world be the same? How would you personally feel?

[Balloon guy 158]

I think a terrorist isn't a terrorist until they are complicit to an act or a have committed an act. If we can lock them up vs. contributing to the death count, that's the better way.

So as of 9-11 anyone that identifies themselves with OBL should be put into jail?I'd rather just shoot them, Gitmo is enough of a problem.And how does this answer state sponsored terrorism?

[DonkSlayer 1]

So as of 9-11 anyone that identifies themselves with OBL should be put into jail?I'd rather just shoot them, Gitmo is enough of a problem.And how does this answer state sponsored terrorism?

Nah, complicit meaning they supported a direct act of terror, not just identifying with a group.Life needs to be miserable for terrorists. States can "sponsor" it all they want, but they won't be able to keep recruiting people if they are routinely rotting in some foreign land for eternity. No martyrdom for them.

[gobears 0]

Questions:1. If we had found vast caches of WMD's in Iraq, would the current environment in Iraq be any less violent? Would we be more patient with it?No, No (I actually think that we'd be out of there sooner since the main objective had been accomplished)2. Are the Iraqis that are attacking and killing each other and Americans motivated about the fact that no WMD's were found? No (it's all about sectarian violence; nothing to do with WMDs)3. Would the US have felt less-obligated to nation-build in Iraq IF we had found WMD's?Yes (WMDs found and mission accomplished - since WMDs weren't found, U.S. needed a replacement mission statement which became throw out the despot and bring democracy to Iraq; basically nation building)4. Is a proactive attitude towards terrorist the correct way for America to behave? For example; Should we be hunting and killing them or wait for them to strike then try to arrest them for each individual incident?Yes - it's similar to someone planning a murder (would you wait til after they committed the murder?). I think the difficult matter is determining how much evidence is needed when going after a nation or state that is sponsoring terror vs just a terrorist organization. Hezbollah is an interesting example - what would be the proper response to that organization? Note that this is just an organization, it gets even trickier when you're dealing with a nation/state. From Wikipedia:Australia, the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, the Netherlands and Israel consider Hezbollah, or its external security arm, a terrorist organization. All other countries do not list Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation and all Arab countries consider it a resistance organization. The European Union does not list Hezbollah as a terrorist organization.As for Iraq and WMDs, it obviously hurt our credibility with regards to our intelligence network and how the intelligence was used. Being proactive requires an excellent intelligence network; if we can't be sure of the reliability and quality of the data that we're using to make our decisions....

[Balloon guy 158]

Questions:No, No (I actually think that we'd be out of there sooner since the main objective had been accomplished)Yes (WMDs found and mission accomplished - since WMDs weren't found, U.S. needed a replacement mission statement which became throw out the despot and bring democracy to Iraq; basically nation building)

Good postI would disagree that finding WMDs would have changed what is going on now. With or without WMDs we needed to get Saddam out. I would that we had an answer for Iraq, I don't see one other than stay the course and hope that the Iraqies one day say: "This sucks" when they get bombed enough and rise up and stop ignoring the terrorist that are living amognst them. Until they find some huevos, they are going to die, and we are going to be stuck there.Last resort, pull back to the oil fields, and protect them and let the Iraqis kill each other until they run out of bullets. Not what we Americans want to stomach, but maybe the only thing left.

[offset 0]

You specifically did what I asked not to be a part of the discussion. I don't want to debate the origination of our involvement. I asked you to assume that Iraq would be the same today AND that we found WMD's vs. did not find them. Would the political/social climate about the war in America and around the world be the same? How would you personally feel?

Okay. I personally feel that WMDs had nothing to do with the war. Personally, I feel that the question of if we found WMDs is pointless because personally, I feel that there was no chance that we would find WMDs. Personally, I feel that I already implied this answer in my original post. That is how I feel, peersonally.

[DonkSlayer 1]

Okay. I personally feel that WMDs had nothing to do with the war. Personally, I feel that the question of if we found WMDs is pointless because personally, I feel that there was no chance that we would find WMDs. Personally, I feel that I already implied this answer in my original post. That is how I feel, peersonally.

So, why waste your fingers responding to this thread in the first place if you can't even imagine something for the sake of a debate?

[chrozzo 19]

these PRETZELS are making me THIRSTY!!

[Tigerlite 0]

"1. If we had found vast caches of WMD's in Iraq, would the current environment in Iraq be any less violent? Would we be more patient with it?2. Are the Iraqis that are attacking and killing each other and Americans motivated about the fact that no WMD's were found? 3. Would the US have felt less-obligated to nation-build in Iraq IF we had found WMD's?"Lets take a crack at these questions given your premises.1. If we had found vast caches of WMD's in Iraq, would the current environment in Iraq be any less violent? Would we be more patient with it?Answer: Had we found vast caches of WMD it would have validated the administration's premise and it would have made the many casualties worth it because we do not want rogue countries like Iraq under Saddam with WMD to spread to our enemies. The U.S. public would have been more patient with the continual carnage that ravages Iraq on a daily basis because the positive (removing Iraq's WMD's and capability to produce WMD) would outweigh the costs associated with the risks we have assumed there.2. Are the Iraqis that are attacking and killing each other and Americans motivated about the fact that no WMD's were found?Answer: This question is a non sequitur. Your question attempts to connect two things which are mutually exclusive. The sectarian violence has nothing to do with anything related to the war. It has everything to do with religion and hatred between groups that has been going on in Iraq for hundreds of years.3. Would the US have felt less-obligated to nation-build in Iraq IF we had found WMD's?Answer: Most certainly not. The point, however, is that the Bush administration, prior to the commencement of hostilities, failed to inform the public that after toppling the regime and finding the WMD's, we would be caught in a quagmire called nation building in Iraq. Had the administration been more forthright with the American public, then public opinion may have been different and there might not have been a war or a second term for President Bush.

[dapokerbum 0]

What if we impeached Bush, got the heck outta Iraq, let them kill each other like they're gonna do anyway, pull our resources and become less oil dependent and further research on other fuels, use those fuels too boost our economy while at the same time exporting to other nations that would now want to use that other fuel, protect the environment and legalize weed.There are so many what ifs and so little time. the fact is we are stuck and like balloon man says we have to stay the course that our idiotic president pushed us into.Oh yeah I guess to answer the question>A) Yes most americans would fully support the war and not feel lied to about a cause. I remember talking to a friend when this first happened and told them that if WMD's were found then yes it is all justified but if not it is a retarded debacle and the worst use of US troops in a long time.B) can't really comment don't know much about.C) We probably still would have to, as we still would've gotten rid of SaddamD) Kill em all then let GOd sort em out.. Ha I love that but seriously I would love to arrest these people but if we wait till they blow something up then that's no good so yeah just Hunt and Kill.

[coesillian 0]

During a conversation about the state of Iraq, my mind drifted to poker, and a concept that we use a lot in strat: "Results-oriented thinking." Is the media/general public guilty of this on Iraq? Premises for this argument:

I think the media and public are guilty because Bush got re-elected after he brought the US into war without proper reason, but this didn't seem to bother the citizens for some reason.

• While debateable, for the purposes of this discussion, assume that the US administration believed as strongly as they portrayed they did that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and were intent on distributing them to terrorists, if not launching them themselves.REGARDLESS of whether the WMD's were there or not, if our premise is honest, is the debacle in Iraq that followed assessed negatively because of the initial results of the invasion? Questions:1. If we had found vast caches of WMD's in Iraq, would the current environment in Iraq be any less violent? Would we be more patient with it?2. Are the Iraqis that are attacking and killing each other and Americans motivated about the fact that no WMD's were found? 3. Would the US have felt less-obligated to nation-build in Iraq IF we had found WMD's?

The reason Iraq is so violent is because democracy can't be beat into a culture that is way older than ours. This was a very predictable outcome and now that is has happened some of you are saying lets just let them kill each other. You now calim that the motive for war was to get rid of a dictator regardless if he had WMD to free the people from a tyranant. The country is about to fall into civil war and you figure oh well we tried and now lets give up. Your no l0onger setting free a people you're destroying all their hope.And some of the above posters are like lets not get into this guys we already talked about it. Well your troops are still getting killed and people are very confused as to why. They're killing themselves, each other and us. So what should we do now? Pull out and leave a contry more in ruin than when you got there? Or fight a war that can't be won. From the get go the world said don't go, but you charged in for NO GOOD reason and now your fcuked. Who's to blame but yourselves, good luck getting out of this mess with and onze of dignity, but hey at least ya'll got rich!

[dapokerbum 0]

I think the media and public are guilty because Bush got re-elected after he brought the US into war without proper reason, but this didn't seem to bother the citizens for some reason.The reason Iraq is so violent is because democracy can't be beat into a culture that is way older than ours. This was a very predictable outcome and now that is has happened some of you are saying lets just let them kill each other. You now calim that the motive for war was to get rid of a dictator regardless if he had WMD to free the people from a tyranant. The country is about to fall into civil war and you figure oh well we tried and now lets give up. Your no l0onger setting free a people you're destroying all their hope.And some of the above posters are like lets not get into this guys we already talked about it. Well your troops are still getting killed and people are very confused as to why. They're killing themselves, each other and us. So what should we do now? Pull out and leave a contry more in ruin than when you got there? Or fight a war that can't be won. From the get go the world said don't go, but you charged in for NO GOOD reason and now your fcuked. Who's to blame but yourselves, good luck getting out of this mess with and onze of dignity, but hey at least ya'll got rich!

WE'RE RICH BIATCH !!! HONK HONK!

[copernicus 0]

Before you jump to conclusions let me explain.From my point of view, the evidence seems to point out that we went to war because we found no WMDs. Let me explain.Remember when we gave Sadaam that 48 hour period to give up his weapons or face war? At that point, all inspectors had been saying inspections were going great and the Iraqi government (if you could call it that) was cooperating. Evidence was never released that actually pointed to any WMDs still in existence. All we had were a few satellite pictures of trucks that might have been leaving inspection sites. With all the reports of unhindered inspection, there was no reason for war. Most knowledgable bipartisan experts on the subject agreed that inspections should at least be finished before the US threatened war.To me it seems like the Bush accusations of WMDs was a political bluff. He wanted to take out a ruthless dictator, and he probably also wanted to help the US oil economy. Once the administration realized that there probably were not any WMDs, there was still enough fear in the US to support any war he advised. Before reports came that there were no WMDs, the administration assured a sense of panic by giving only 48 hours until war. Thus, they had enough fear to gain enough support for the war.If the administration really believed there were WMDs t would have continued inspections until it found them. Then we would have quickly been able to oust Saddaam with the support of the rest of the world. That includes other parts of the Middle East, because they would not want a crazy power hungry dictator with WMDs living next to them.

nice spin, but there were never unhindered investigations. This isnt a game of "run it twice"..you dont get to change the facts.

[offset 0]

So, why waste your fingers responding to this thread in the first place if you can't even imagine something for the sake of a debate?

Uh............I don't really know how to respond to that. Unless we want to find a reason for another bad war I don't think we should start imagining things again.

[chrozzo 19]

Uh............I don't really know how to respond to that. Unless we want to find a reason for another bad war I don't think we should start imagining things again.

true true

[Steppin Razor 0]

It's all a mute point now anyway.

Stupid pet peeve of mine, but it's moot, not mute.

I'd rather just shoot them, Gitmo is enough of a problem. And how does this answer state sponsored terrorism?

It doesn't answer it, it describes it.As for what to do about terrorism, back when that plot in England was uncovered, conservative commentator George Will said (on ABC's Sunday morning show) that law enforcement is the way to combat terrorism - which is how thoise conspirators got caught. By policework.These debates are pointless because they don't address the real reasons we're there. The administration's goal is not to leave. We'll only leave if whatever incoming administration has a different agenda than this one.