Now what!?!

[R.M.GREENMAN2]

Now that the U.S. is admitting that there was no WMD in Iraq, how do we convince the world we are not war mongers!
I'd feel a little bit better if Saddam had definate connections to Osama but that hasn't been proven.
I guess being American, the rest of the world is going to throw me into a pot with my government as blood thirsty. Just like being a nudist you get thrown into a stew with pornographers, pervs,rapists, criminals,or gays.
(What I mean about the gay part is that people think that if you hang out naked with other males that are naked, you must be gay)

Before the war, I was hoping that it wouldn't happen. During the war, I was hoping that it would be over quick. After the war, I was hoping that the U.S. would be vindicated by the discovery of WMD.

So much for hope.

[R.M.GREENMAN2]

Now that the U.S. is admitting that there was no WMD in Iraq, how do we convince the world we are not war mongers!
I'd feel a little bit better if Saddam had definate connections to Osama but that hasn't been proven.
I guess being American, the rest of the world is going to throw me into a pot with my government as blood thirsty. Just like being a nudist you get thrown into a stew with pornographers, pervs,rapists, criminals,or gays.
(What I mean about the gay part is that people think that if you hang out naked with other males that are naked, you must be gay)

Before the war, I was hoping that it wouldn't happen. During the war, I was hoping that it would be over quick. After the war, I was hoping that the U.S. would be vindicated by the discovery of WMD.

So much for hope.

[namedun]

The rest of the world already hates America for things just like this. The "fact" that WMD's were supposed to be hidden away in Iraq was dubious to most non-americans, your soldiers, taxmoney and stress have been wasted on W's little tyraid in the country that Daddy couldn't finish off first.
Besides, even if there were WMD's, you don't attack another nation without provocation. The previous major military attacks on countries, without any provocation, were commited by the Japanese and Germans.


Namedun [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif[/img]

[Trailscout]

The invasion of Iraq was an act of compassion for the long-suffering Iraqi people. We cannot save every nation that commits genocide, but we had vested interest in Iraq.

Sanctions and no-fly zones only brought suffering to the people while Sadaam and kin got richer and continued the raping both literal and figurative. Regime change was the fastest way to end their misery.

We inherited this war from previous administrations, but there was no way out.

Europe and Japan stood to lose the most if Sadaam captured the Saudi oil fields (which he was poised to do in '91. They were stalemated by cowardice, anarchists, and their own military-industrial complex. We have saved the free world more than once, but as the greatest nation on earth, it is our duty to do the thankless tasks that others dare not do.

Maybe someday we will fully wean ourselves from mideastern oil and eventually use only renewable energy. For now, the mideast has strategic importance.

[namedun]

Who are you (as a country) to decide, alone, against the UN's wishes, who to "liberate"? You of all people should know the value of winning one's own independance and freedom.

Namedun [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif[/img]

[hm0504]

Unfortunately, there is an uncomfortably high level of stereotyping of Americans by non-Americans; but then there's an uncomfortably high level of stereotyping by almost everyone in the world against anyone else in the world (even between regions of the same country). Stereotyping is an unfortunate human attribute.

I think most non-Americans understand that the current Whitehouse administration is not necessarily reflective of what most Americans think most of the time. (FYI, I say this as a Canadian.)

Now the bad news. The only link before the war between Osama and Saddam was that they were bitter enemies. Saddam was/is a secular playboy whereas Osama was/is a religious extremist. Saddam's mercilessly suppressed those who wanted an Islamic state much like Iran's. The al-Quada-linked Ansar Al-Islam operating in northern Iraq only could do so because the American-British no-fly zone prevented Saddam from dealing with them. (During the war, the Ansar Al-Islam bases were destroyed by Coalition air power.)

Relatively speaking, Ansar Al-Islam was a minor sideshow, as they operated in only a tiny corner of the country; the real story is currently unfolding in the rest of Iraq. Now with Saddam out of power, the formerly repressed majority of Shia are demanding Iraq become that Islamic state. Meanwhile, many Sunnis (Saddam's tribe) fearing the Shia will do to them what they did to the Shia (under Saddam) are doing all they can to prevent that. Then of course you have the other major minority, the Kurds in the north who need to have their interests protected. Now, I do not want to stereotype the various ethinic groups in Iraq, suggesting a good number of individuals within them would not want a united, democratic Iraq, there are indeed many such people; just that there's major forces within Iraq who are going to make that very difficult indeed, not just in Iraq but through the whole Middle East and beyond. It would not surprise me if in 5 to 10 years, Iraq (and the repercussions) will make Vietnam look like a picnic in the park. I do hope the U.S. can restore order to the Iraq chaos and bring the Middle East toward a more democratic, peaceful state, but I am concerned there was too much reliance on space-age military technology to "win" the war, and woefully inadequate understanding of the human, historical aspects necessary to win the peace. That is why I opposed the war from the outset (also thinking the WMD was almost entirely Whitehouse propoganda than reality, and the 9/11 link totally bogus). Edward Peck, former U.S. ambassador to Iraq, is one of the more insightful speakers on this topic: see
http://www.lawac.org/speech/peck%202003.htm

Now the really bad news. I figure the financial cost to America for its Iraq debacle will be 0.5 to 1 trillion dollars. Also, when a country that really does pose a meaningful threat comes along (and some would say they already have), how the heck will the U.S. and U.K. get the support they need. Finally, one has to ask whether the 100s of millions of dollars spent on Iraq would not have been significantly better spent in the War on Terror? Is the U.S. (and the world) winning the War on Terror? To quote Donald Rumsfeld "Are we capturing, killing or deterring and dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrassas and the radical clerics are recruiting, training and deploying against us?". Personally, I think the War on Terror can only be won (though never completely) by helping those in danger of becoming aggressors deal with issues in a non-militaristic manner and helping them find a better way of life. I don't mean to sound idealistic; I know the means I propose can be agonizingly slow and difficult but I believe in the long run it is the only way.

[Hooked]

Hello,
I'd just like to say that this thread has some of the most well thought out discussions on this topic than any other bb I have read. I do get sick of the ones full of hate and insult slinging.
I'd like to throw my support to HM...while there were one or two small points I did not agree with you on, I think your "sociological" approach is the most useful in terms of "what now" It's too bad that the long term consequences were not thought out clearly when the Administration decided to go forward with war even though so many people voiced their opinions against it. Even if the motivations were 100% selfless and noble (yes, of course that is another debate altogether) the US military's actions may lead to more strife down the road. The best intentions can lead to ruin if not well thought out ahead of time. I support any actions to bring people together in the middle east under democracy and equality, if they will have it.

[aunaturelone]

quote:

---

those in danger of becoming aggressors deal with issues in a non-militaristic manner and helping them find a better way of life.

---

Doesn't work that way. Those "in danger" of becoming aggresors are that way because they hate us. The petty dictators in the mideast use us as a bogeyman because it shifts the blame for the fear and misery they subject their own people to. The radical fundamentalists hate us because we represent the triumph of secular sin over Islamic virtue.

You cannot help someone find a better way of life when they want to destroy you for yours.

[hw]

For those of you thinking George W. Bush was so wrong to go to war, here's some food for thought.


"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998


"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998


"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998


"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998


"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry( D - MA), and others Oct. 9, 1998


"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998


"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."

- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999


"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."

- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001


"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002


"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002


"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002


"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."

- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002


"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002


"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002


"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002


"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" - Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002


"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002


"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002


"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003


SO NOW THESE SAME DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED--THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND HE TOOK US TO WAR UNECESSARILY! [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif[/img] [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif[/img]

[Nude in the North]

The most powerfull weapon in a Politicians arsenal, is the forgetfullness of the public.

Steve

[namedun]

I beleive it's the gullibility and ignorance of the public.
"The bigger the lie you tell them, the more they will want to beleive it" - Adolf Hitler

Namedun [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif[/img]

[nunne]

HW - I have read all the quotes which you have posted, and I do not find a single one which calls for an invasion of a country which did not constitute a threat to the security of the United States.

Note also that it was not until Dick Cheney, and his friend, George Bush, began feeding juiced up intelligence reports to the Congress and the people of this country that many of the conclusions were drawn by members of Congress.

The issue is not whether Saddam Hussein was a bad person, but whether the President of the United States should be allowed to get away with abandoning our long held heritage that the United States would never be a threat to any nation who did not pose an immediate threat, or who had actually attacked, the US or its allies by trying to justify a pre-emptive attack upon any nation which might present an imminent threat (in our sole opinion) to us.

You conclude by saying that these persons are now trying to say that Bush lied by saying Saddam had WMDs. FACT- no weapons of mass destruction have been found, and all the evidence is that Bush was lying when he insisted to the people of the United States and of the world that it was true, and justified the brutal attack upon the Iraqi nation and people, in violation of the trust which Americans deserve of their leaders.

[hm0504]

quote:

---

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

---

quote:

---

SO NOW THESE SAME DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED--THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND HE TOOK US TO WAR UNECESSARILY!

---

I cannot go into the other quotes but the one hw has for Robert Byrd caught my eye because certainly Mr. Byrd was one of the most vocal opponents of war. Indeed, the attributed quotation is accurate AND it comes from an article Mr. Byrd wrote OPPOSING going to war with Iraq, see
http://www.counterpunch.org/byrd1004.html

Iraq obviously had WMDs in the 80s as these were provided to them in order to help with the war against Iran. After the Gulf War of '91, there is no doubt Saddam wanted to maintain his WMDs but the reality, as we all know now, was that he could not. By the closing of 2002 and the early months of 2003, it was becoming clearer that Iraq did not have WMDs confirming the analyses of such people as Scott Ritter, retired U.S. Marine and former head UN Weapons inspector in Iraq:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...351165,00.html
http://www.workingtv.com/nocaseforwar.html (if you have video capabilities on your PC)

By the beginning of 2003, with UN weapons inspectors having practically full access to Iraq sites, documents, and adequate access to scientists, and evidence growing daily that there were NO WMDs in Iraq, no doubt the Whitehouse grew increasingly concerned that its case for invading Iraq was coming apart and so had to invade.

As far as not getting the support of much of the UN, well that is mainly because they did not think there was enough evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Iraq was an imminent threat. Moreover, given the history of the region, there was a very real danger that as horrible as the situation with Saddam was, an invasion would make things worse. At this time, it looks like the naysayers were right about the WMD, and unless things improve drastically, they'll be right about the post-invasion Iraq.

So if WMDs and 9/11 were NOT reasons for invading Iraq, what was? My view is that the U.S. recognizes the Middle East to be of vital, strategic importance, particularly Saudi Arabia and Iraq which have the world's first and second largest known, accessible oil reserves. Fearing (quite validly I would say) the extreme uncertaintly of Saudi Arabia's future, the Whitehouse determined that it had to make Iraq into a U.S.-friendly nation sooner rather than later.

While I would like to see democracy flourish in the Middle East, I remain unconvinced that the war will further that aim. Hopefully, I'm wrong. Perhaps Iran's internal democratic forces will prevail there.

[Guest]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trailscout:
[qb] The invasion of Iraq was an act of compassion for the long-suffering Iraqi people. [/qb]

---

Right! At the very same time Bush was refusing funds that would buy medications for people in South Africa with AIDs because a bit of it MIGHT be used for other issues he had a problem with. Bush knowingly let those people die.

I'm really impressed with most the other posts I see on this thread. Some really deep thinking going on!

[OZJames]

The quotes listed by hw are just quotes of statements by politicians and are quoted for the purpose of point scoring. Most statements by politicians are made for point scoring purposes and should be taken with a ?grain of salt?. The quotes do not change the facts, that Iraq does not have WMDs. Politicians point scoring statements do not change the fact that America and Australia had no proper justification to go to war. I do not need to list evidence which shows that, it is public knowledge and publicly stated by many people wiser than I. Just take note of the world wide protests (millions of people) which took place before the war and before the lack of evidence made it obvious that the war was unjustified.

I have been a ?Liberal Party? (could be said to be similar to Republican) voter for most of my life but because Prime Minister John Howard took us to war I will not vote Liberal in the elections this year. Considering all the anti Iraq war information in the public domain, I hope that Americans may react similarly in their forthcoming Presidential elections. Perhaps some more nude anti war protesting may help.

I feel that the best way to help reduce terrorism (in Iraq and around the world) would be for the UN, America and other nations to do something to END the Israel Palestinian conflict. Stop Israel treating the Palestinians so badly. The world communities should help strengthen the Palestinian political system, men and women especially should all vote (compulsorily), provide funding for infrastructure, hospitals and medical facilities, football ovals, support the underprivileged (which is most of them), give them their Palestinian state, prevent Israel from bulldozing Palestinian houses to build Jewish settlements on Palestinian land. That would have been a lot less costly than the Iraq situation is turning out to be. I have heard it said by Americans that the USA can change the world for the better by commercial trade. Good old capitalism. The world should be helping Palestine trade out of its problems. It might be a very small country with little natural resources but look at Singapore & Hong Kong.

PS ? I do not believe that OIL is justification for war. It is about time that the developed countries of the world (of course including Australia) recognise that the oil/coal resources of the world are very limited (and of course their use is slowly destroying the quality of life) and Governments should be encouraging use of EXISTING technologies for production of wind power, sola power, electric cars, hydrogen cars, and the scientific research into improved methods of energy saving and generation. If you take away the need for oil a huge amount of ?heat? goes out of the middle east problem. Of course it will take decades, perhaps 50 to 100 years but we must START NOW.

I would love to live in an energy efficient home, warm in winter, cool in summer, perfect for nudity and very little electricity usage.

JAMES