While you are correct, the basic premise of any war is ideology, the difference is that Iraq didn't take the offensive. The terrorists, who've been found to be based in Afghanistan at the time of the attacks, took the offensive. I've never had a problem with what we started in Afghanistan. I have always had a problem with invading Iraq, and unfortunately, my prediction that we'd be weighed down in a quagmire has come true. We've somehow been convinced by the Adminstration that the true war to be fought against the terrorists was in Iraq. That's simply not true. And worse, we still haven't dealt with the Afghanistanian situation to any degree of success. Now, we've spread the problem over 2 countries, spread our troops thin, are trying to fund two different offensives, yet play the whole rob Peter to pay Paul game with soldiers lives and financing to try and make progress on either front. The US didn't enter the war until Pearl Harbor, after the Japanese attacked us. We were content to watch as it unfolded from afar. The attack on our soil propelled us into the war, and changed the course of it. Yet, had we entered it earlier, the course of the war could very well have been changed years before. The same could be said of the terrorist attacks. If the US hadn't made such horrible missteps in Middle Eastern policy over the course of decades, we possibly wouldn't be where we are today.

 

Again, not to argue, I know these debates can get heated. When Pearl Harbour was attacked we entered the war against, not only Japan, but against Germany as well as their allies. This was because, while Japan had showed itself to be a threat, Germany was the real threat to the world as a whole. Germany never attacked the US, but we did wage war against them when we entered the war.

 

Conversely, I think Iraq was the real threat in the war on terror. Even though Al Quida is the one who attacked the US on US soil. I also think Iraq helped fund, and possibly train the attackers. I think Saddam was not to eager to attack the US on his own, so he helped someone else to do it.

Again, not to argue, I know these debates can get heated. When Pearl Harbour was attacked we entered the war against, not only Japan, but against Germany as well as their allies. This was because, while Japan had showed itself to be a threat, Germany was the real threat to the world as a whole. Germany never attacked the US, but we did wage war against them when we entered the war.

 

Conversely, I think Iraq was the real threat in the war on terror. Even though Al Quida is the one who attacked the US on US soil. I also think Iraq helped fund, and possibly train the attackers. I think Saddam was not to eager to attack the US on his own, so he helped someone else to do it.

 

There's been absolutely no proof of Iraq's alleged involvement in either funding or sponsoring the training of terrorists. Sadaam did not have the means to attack the US, alone or with any others. Contrary to exaggerated reports, no WMD or evidence of WMD have been found; their military was in no way capable of attacking or withstanding an attack. Their resources and allies were at the best, limited. I'm convinced that Iraq was not the real threat.

Again, not to argue, I know these debates can get heated. When Pearl Harbour was attacked we entered the war against, not only Japan, but against Germany as well as their allies. This was because, while Japan had showed itself to be a threat, Germany was the real threat to the world as a whole. Germany never attacked the US, but we did wage war against them when we entered the war.

 

Conversely, I think Iraq was the real threat in the war on terror. Even though Al Quida is the one who attacked the US on US soil. I also think Iraq helped fund, and possibly train the attackers. I think Saddam was not to eager to attack the US on his own, so he helped someone else to do it.

Um, I think you should check out your information. The United States declared war on Japan after Pearl Harbor. We didn't declare war on Germany until AFTER Germany declared war on the US. It is likely that the US would have declared war on Germany, but it was not a forgone conclusion in late 1941. Japan declared war on the US on December 7, 1941. The US declared war on Japan on December 8, 1941 (and backdated it to December 7). Germany declared war on the US on December 11, 1941. Later that day, the US declared war on Germany and Italy.

 

As far as the threat posed by Iraq in 2003, there just isn't much to support your position.

There's been absolutely no proof of Iraq's alleged involvement in either funding or sponsoring the training of terrorists. Sadaam did not have the means to attack the US, alone or with any others. Contrary to exaggerated reports, no WMD or evidence of WMD have been found; their military was in no way capable of attacking or withstanding an attack. Their resources and allies were at the best, limited. I'm convinced that Iraq was not the real threat.

 

Al Quida used primitive means to attack the US. Any country could have done what they did. So, I think Saddam could have attacked the US in the same fashion (using our planes and our buildings, only having to train people to fly passenger planes), but he new he would be invaded.

 

As I said, the above opinions are what "I think", I did not say there was any evidence to support my opinion that Saddam helped Al Quida. I don't think when Saddam heard of the attack on the US, he sat down and cried for the Americans who died. I think he probably loved it. So for me to say that I think he might have helped is some way, is not out of the realm of possibility.

Al Quida used primitive means to attack the US. Any country could have done what they did. So, I think Saddam could have attacked the US in the same fashion (using our planes and our buildings, only having to train people to fly passenger planes), but he new he would be invaded.

 

As I said, the above opinions are what "I think", I did not say there was any evidence to support my opinion that Saddam helped Al Quida. I don't think when Saddam heard of the attack on the US, he sat down and cried for the Americans who died. I think he probably loved it. So for me to say that I think he might have helped is some way, is not out of the realm of possibility.

 

Well, when my country invades another, I personally feel that what we "think" or "feel" should not be the basis. If we invade, we have facts, we have proof, and we know.

 

I don't believe Sadaam sat down and cried either...he may have loved it...I don't know. And, it wasn't just Americans who died on 9/11. There were even Iraqi's who worked in the WTC! :eek:

Um, I think you should check out your information. The United States declared war on Japan after Pearl Harbor. We didn't declare war on Germany until AFTER Germany declared war on the US. It is likely that the US would have declared war on Germany, but it was not a forgone conclusion in late 1941. Japan declared war on the US on December 7, 1941. The US declared war on Japan on December 8, 1941 (and backdated it to December 7). Germany declared war on the US on December 11, 1941. Later that day, the US declared war on Germany and Italy.

 

As far as the threat posed by Iraq in 2003, there just isn't much to support your position.

 

I think if you look in the previous posts, people where questioning the US attacking countries who had not attacked the US. Japan attacked the US on US soil, we waged war on Japan. At the time of the US waging war on Germany, Germany had not attacked the US. I believe everyone new in 1941 that the US could not enter the war without waging war on Japan and Germany (not just one of them). And I do not think that many historians would disagree with me in saying that Germany was more of a threat then Japan.

 

As far as Iraq being a treat, that is my opinion. I did not say there was much evidence to support it. I personally think that as long as Saddam was in power, Iraq would remain a threat to the US, as well as, the middle east. As I said in the previous post, any country or group could have done what Al Quida did using our planes and our buildings.

Well, when my country invades another, I personally feel that what we "think" or "feel" should not be the basis. If we invade, we have facts, we have proof, and we know.

 

OK. I don't think the government is going to tell rockmom or ram everything they know, and ask you or me what we feel should be done. Our opinions are our opinions they do not have to have facts. The government on the other hand should use what they know and what they think they know to form a logical plan. Was there WMD in Iraq, I guess not, but was there information that one could logically conclude that there was WMD, I guess there was.

 

What the government knows and what we know is not the same.

OK. I don't think the government is going to tell rockmom or ram everything they know, and ask you or me what we feel should be done. Our opinions are our opinions they do not have to have facts. The government on the other hand should use what they know and what they think they know to form a logical plan. Was there WMD in Iraq, I guess not, but was there information that one could logically conclude that there was WMD, I guess there was.

 

What the government knows and what we know is not the same.

 

I have to disagree again. The evidence was not there, even at the time the decision was made to invade. You can slam the UN all you want, but their inspectors had reported that there was no evidence of WMD. Then, the US ordered that the UN stop it's inspection and announced imminent invasion. The US had no "facts". The "facts" were not irrefutable. The "facts" were in fact, fiction. The government sure shared a lot of "facts" with rockmom and ram when they decided to tell us they were going to war.

I have to disagree again. The evidence was not there, even at the time the decision was made to invade. You can slam the UN all you want, but their inspectors had reported that there was no evidence of WMD. Then, the US ordered that the UN stop it's inspection and announced imminent invasion. The US had no "facts". The "facts" were not irrefutable. The "facts" were in fact, fiction. The government sure shared a lot of "facts" with rockmom and ram when they decided to tell us they were going to war.

 

I knew you would disagree, that's what makes this forum interesting.

 

I can slam the UN all day, but that is for another thread.

 

We do know some facts about the situation, I just don't think we know what the government and people close to the situation knows.

 

But, we can agree on your previous post, that we are there now and have to stay until the situation is straightened up.

I knew you would disagree, that's what makes this forum interesting.

 

I can slam the UN all day, but that is for another thread.

 

We do know some facts about the situation, I just don't think we know what the government and people close to the situation knows.

 

But, we can agree on your previous post, that we are there now and have to stay until the situation is straightened up.

 

At least you haven't gotten mad at me!

At least you haven't gotten mad at me!

 

I try not to get mad at people with differing opinions, I just try to understand why they don't take my words as gospel.

:laugh:

 

But seriously, I am not sure there is a completely right or wrong answer to this situation, I just prey that we are doing the right thing. And as the soldier said in the article, I hope my son and daughter does not have to fight in a war such as this when they are older. If this stops them from having to experience war first hand then I think I can take something positive from it.

I try not to get mad at people with differing opinions, I just try to understand why they don't take my words as gospel.

:laugh:

 

But seriously, I am not sure there is a completely right or wrong answer to this situation, I just prey that we are doing the right thing. And as the soldier said in the article, I hope my son and daughter does not have to fight in a war such as this when they are older. If this stops them from having to experience war first hand then I think I can take something positive from it.

 

 

:thumb:

We are fighting the real enemy; I don't what about that isn't glaringly evident to you or why it isn’t.

Let me ask you this. Do you think we should just pull out now, or stay and finish the job?

 

Please define, in detail, what it means to "finish the job". How will we know when the job is finished? What metrics can we use to measure when this objective is achieved? And what specifically, other than putting our people in harm's way to be blown up by IED's, car bombs, and killed by snipers, can we do to achieve it? Maybe you're not aware, but a great many (probably the majority) of the people killing our kids in Iraq are not al Qaeda terrorists--they are sectarian militia who just want us to leave. How can you "finish the job" by using force to impose our will on a population that doesn't particularly want us there? What if, no matter what we do, the outcome is not entirely in our control? Our military men and women deserve a well-defined mission, not one that is made up on the fly or ambiguously defined by the hoped-for outcome.

 

Finish the job. Mighty simple phrase to describe such a complex situation.

This isn't a reply to any post in particular, I just thought that I would put my two cents in the pot.

 

IMO, the longer we stay there the more hostile terrorists are going to become towards us. I really don't see how staying there longer will ever produce an end result or what it could even be. Peace? That will never happen while we are there. Our mere presence there, in their minds, justifies their violence. I think that until we remove our selves that we will always be the scapegoat for the continuing sectarian violence currently going on there. I feel that it will only be after our departure that they realize it is still an internal problem that is needed to be dealt with. A solution is needed and I don't feel that they will ever let the U.S. ever be truly a part of that solution.

This isn't a reply to any post in particular, I just thought that I would put my two cents in the pot.

 

IMO, the longer we stay there the more hostile terrorists are going to become towards us. I really don't see how staying there longer will ever produce an end result or what it could even be. Peace? That will never happen while we are there. Our mere presence there, in their minds, justifies their violence. I think that until we remove our selves that we will always be the scapegoat for the continuing sectarian violence currently going on there. I feel that it will only be after our departure that they realize it is still an internal problem that is needed to be dealt with. A solution is needed and I don't feel that they will ever let the U.S. ever be truly a part of that solution.

 

Considering what they did to us on 9/11, I'm not sure they can get any more hostile.