<blockquote>This whole thread is nothing but a gum flapping exercise. :P</blockquote>

Gum flappers [url=http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=14437#111193]already served<a> here!

---

"I'm trying to maintain a shred of dignity in this world." - Me

This whole thread is nothing but a gum flapping exercise. :P

---

<blockquote>Alex,
I don’t normally do this, but I’m going to post a link to an article {Dr. Abrahamson’s Article} that discusses many of the discrepancies between pre-war predictions by opponents, and the way those predictions have turned out in the (short) two years that we have been in Iraq. Who can forget the chant “No Blood For Oil”, so reminiscent of the baseless anti-war slogans touted by people who care not for reality, but will say and predict anything to stir emotions to their position without regard to merit.

To Summarize Dr. Abrahamson’s article:

1) Critics/opponents of the war in Iraq predicted various things would happen that did not come true: oilfields burned; dams destroyed to flood large areas of the country; a half million or more starving Iraqi citizens; 100,000 plus civilian deaths; chemical and biological attacks by Saddam’s army (yes, even opponents thought Saddam had WMD and would use them); post-invasion Civil War; toppling of friendly governments elsewhere in the Mideast; and a bloody quagmire of much greater proportions than the rather small insurgency being waged now. It turns out that predictions about the Iraq war were no more accurate than predictions about Afghanistan (which was supposed to be a long futile war ending in a defeat like the one suffered by the Soviets).

2) There have been mistakes made in the prosecution of this war: too few troops for the occupation; misplaced expectations for postwar use of the Iraq army and security forces; unforeseen postwar looting and destruction of government buildings and records; and an insurgency that has taken hold and been reinforced by foreign terrorists. Despite negative press coverage, Coalition setbacks and casualties are not as bad as such problems in previous wars such as Vietnam and World War II. Also, there have been improvements in both social systems and infrastructure.

3) The media has presented destruction of WMD as the sole reason for the war. Other reasons, not widely reported, include violation of UN resolutions, terrorism and governmental brutality. An additional reason, democratization of the Middle East Arab nation also has merit, as a valid strategy in combating terrorism can be found in doing for the Mideast what was done for Germany and Japan following World War II.

4) Critics have claimed that the war was launched for oil, to avenge an assassination plot on President Bush’s father or to aid Israel. None of those criticisms are sustainable.

5) The war on terror has yielded emerging democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq. Other effects in the region include Palestinian elections, reforms in Egypt’s electoral process, Saudi Arabian crackdown on terrorism, withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon (still in process), Pakistani support of the war on terror (a sea change from Pakistan’s prior support of the Taliban and terrorist organizations), and Libyan destruction of their WMD programs.

These statements from Dr. Abrahamson’s article deserved full quotation: “Walid Jumblatt, the Lebanese Druze leader and former critic of the United States, has no doubt about that point: ‘[T]his process of change has started because of the American invasion of Iraq. I was cynical about Iraq. But when I saw Iraqi people voting . . . , eight million of them, it was the start of a new Arab world.’ Even in the United States, the President has received kudos from unexpected sources. Martin Peretz, liberal publisher of The New Republic, described the American Mideast mission as ‘real, and far along, and it is showing thrilling accomplishments.’”
</blockquote>

Tom, I'm a big fan of democracy and think that its the most civilized form of government on the planet. While it may be true that the outcome of the Iraq war has produced some form of it, it will probably take many more years to see whether or not that democracy will establish itself in a form that we in the western world understand as democracy, just as some people such as Col. Abrahamson have indicated.

I think that there were many good reasons for removing Saddam Hussein from power. And for me, one of those reasons was his brutal treatment of the Iraqi people. But there are a couple of reasons that I think that this should not have been done by invading the country:

1) As some regional and military experts have said prior to the war, the ongoing problem with Iraq could probably be mostly solved if only Saddam Hussein and a number of his most closest senior officials were removed from power. This would have had an effect of lifting some of the fear that his opponents had to resist his rule. There were various scenarios for doing this short of us going to war and invading the country. One of the scenarios was that we and some other allies would support just enough internal opposition to to remove him from power. Even though this might have produced results that were not exactly to our liking, the danger of Saddam Hussein would have gone, and the proceeding political events that would take place afterwards would be more of a natural flow produced by the Iraqis themselves, rather than by our presence in the country.

2) The amount of military forces needed to invade and occupy the country would put a severe strain on the already severely reduced military forces that we have. This is the picture that I get from reading the Stars and Stripes all the time. What's worse is that the Secretary of Defense just announced a whole new wave of base closures. Amongst this new wave of base closings, there are 33 major bases that will be closed as well. Did you notice that the military keeps rotating many of the same units in and out of Iraq? I've heard stories from people that have even been deployed there two or three times already.

The reasons given for a full scale war with Iraq was that they had and were producing nuclear and chemical weapons, and they were a serious and immediate threat to the world. That was the picture that I got before the war. And it was the primary focus of the presentation to the U.N. Security Counsel by Secretary of State Colin Powell.

But the reasons seem to have gone through a process of anamorphosis. That is, that the reasons have shifted from WMD, to things like fighting terrorism and spreading 'democracy' in the region. Fighting terrorism is a good thing, but that had more to do with Afganistan rather than Iraq. And besides that, the terrorism that is taking place in Iraq right now is probably a result of the war itself.

There's a statement Tom by Col. James L. Abrahamson that reveals a little more of how some people have shifted the original reasons for the war in Iraq. It sounds somewhat like crusading when he says things like modernization and reform of Arab society. It sounds good if the people in the Arab world were to do this themselves, rather than us trying to impose it on them.

Col. Abrahamson:

Readers who have yet to read Bernard Lewis' The Crisis of Islam are urged to do so. We cannot appreciate what we face without an understanding of the global scope of the Islamists' ambitions and how their appeal rests on the present shameful state of Arab society. We can run, but we can neither hide from the terrorists nor wish to satisfy their unreasonable demands and appease their unlimited ambitions. In the long term, defeating them requires a modernization and reform of Arab society, and Iraq is the place to begin. Rather than shout "Enough!" Editor Mattox might better have urged "Steady as she goes!

James L. Abrahamson

[edit] Having said all this, I still respect your opinion about Iraq, just disagree. [/edit]

Ok, popcorn !!!

---

"I'm trying to maintain a shred of dignity in this world." - Me

Mr. Saenger, I never said Pauly-poo couldn’t post here, but my post was a direct response to Alex, which was a direct response to me. Can’t Alex make his own point? Pauly-poo certainly can’t . . . he just spouts leftist rhetoric that is not at all helpful.

<blockquote><blockquote>[...]
Third, no WMD have been found in Iraq. The article proceeds beyond that, while you are stuck there. (Hindsight is 20/20), but despite your attempts to portray this as the defining failure of the war on terror, Dr. Abrahamson addresses other points, which you conveniently ignore.</blockquote></blockquote>

<blockquote> Can you please explain the connection between the war on terror and Iraq before the invasion? AFAIK there was nothing but wishful thinking by the hawks.</blockquote>

Sure Saenger, re-read Dr. Abrahamson’s article, or my summary, or any number of more balanced commentaries on the existence and support of terrorist groups by Saddam. And don’t fall back on the distortion that the 9/11 commission report found no relation between Saddam and terrorism–it did not say that (the report found no relation between Saddam and 9/11).

<blockquote><blockquote>If the removal of Saddam's statue was fake, elections in Iraq were real.</blockquote></blockquote>

<blockquote> Agreed, as were the elections of Allende. If the purpose of american interventions is removal of dictators all of a sudden, it's a fine turn, but it was never listed as e reason before the war started.</blockquote>

Actually democratization of Iraq was indeed given as a goal, pre-war, but the point of the article was to show how pre-war predictions were wrong, and this goal is being met (at least, it is on its way to being met, as shown by elections, the formation of a government and writing of a constitution).

Is any system of government perfect? No, but democracy is the best system we know of, and the Iraqis seem to appreciate it. Are you saying the Iraqis elected a dictator? Do I recognize that the Sunnis did not participate fully, and now complain that they are not being properly represented? Sure, but
Iraq will go through such growing pains, and though no one is certain, I hope they will succeed in making a better country for themselves, don’t you? Or are you just happy to throw stones (when you could, instead be building something positive with those stones).

<blockquote><blockquote>If no WMD were found, it's still true that Saddam used them on the Kurds.</blockquote></blockquote>

<blockquote> But as he did this, he was and continued to be best buddy of the american governments. The west (including some greedy traders/engineers of my country) supplied him with this WMD technology, as he was part of the coalition of the willing against the axis of evil at those times: Iran.</blockquote>

Yes, then history happened. He attacked Kuwait, he supported terrorists, he violated the cease-fire agreement he had agreed to after the war to liberate Kuwait . . . and then an attack on America took place. After 9/11 we were no longer willing to ignore Saddam’s violations of the cease-fire agreement, his army and air force’s constant breach of no fly zones, his refusal to allow UN inspectors to do their job. He was given chances over 12 years to comply, and a corrupt UN did nothing to hold him to his agreements. The US gave him one more chance, which he ignored, so a coalition went in to put a stop to him.

Are you really suggesting that because Saddam was once supported by the US, that we would be required to forever support him even after all he had done? What crazy, bizarre world do you live in?

<blockquote><blockquote>I have looked at the history that I lived through and your heavily slanted view of it (colored by your obvious bias against all things Bush), and I find merit in what Dr. Abrahamson says. Perhaps others will also. The issue isn't yes or no, on or off, +/-, black or white: it is more like shades of gray. While the war wasn't prosecuted perfectly, it was still a success at removing Saddam and giving the Iraqi people a chance at democracy, and it removed the future threat of WDM being in the hands of a brutal dictator who has supported terrorists in their war with the West.
Who really said before the war that there were definitely no WMD in Iraq? Not you, not Dr. Abrahamson, no one said it--the best anyone could say is that the evidence was not sufficient to prove it (but every rational person who said that also realized it was Saddam who was preventing the UN from finding out the truth).</blockquote></blockquote>

<blockquote> So you call hundreds of thousand dead civilians a success?
Abu-Ghraib, the gulag @Gitmo, the destruction of the geneva convention are a success story?</blockquote>

These significant problems have absolutely nothing to do with the paragraph you just quoted. [Edit: the 100K dead civilians claim has been discredited, and the Geneva conventions have not been "destroyed".] In fact, I said, “the war wasn't prosecuted perfectly”. Your non sequitur might make you feel righteous, but it actually shows that you can not follow a simple thought.

I am not denying that there have been problems, but you have not responded to my statement that WMD were assumed to be in Iraq by everybody, even critics of the war. No one said they were definitely not there. After-the-fact complaints that no WMD were found conveniently ignore this.

<blockquote><blockquote>You are nothing but a "cheerleader" for your leftist anti-war view, but you give only opinions that don't fit the positive developments in Iraq. Your "hype" and "revisions" rely on after-the-fact evidence (or lack of it) regarding WMD. You suggest that readers look at both sides, yet you have never, ever looked at any other view but your own in this and the many other issues where you vomit your slanted, ideological garbage.</blockquote></blockquote>

<blockquote> Nearly nothing of the fiction the different agencies of your government told the public before the war was near the truth. Why should I belive a single word they say any longer? Obviously they desperately wanted this war, and the media was all propaganda as well. Even some formerly well reputated outlets like the NYT joined the trigger happy band wagon.

So much about cheerleading.</blockquote>

Apparently, Sanger, my complaint fits you as well: you see only one side, you refuse to acknowledge any other point of view. Pauly-poo called me a “cheerleader” and I threw it back in his face. At least I have acknowledged faults, which is the first step at dealing with them; you have only listed faults, which dilutes your argument to that of a raving zealot.

<blockquote>First, Pauly-poo, my post was clearly directed to Alex, which further illustrates the long known truth that you can not understand what is written.
So no one else is allowed to input here if not directly spoken to?
Strange conception of the forum concept..

<blockquote>[...]
Third, no WMD have been found in Iraq. The article proceeds beyond that, while you are stuck there. (Hindsight is 20/20), but dispite your attempts to portray this as the defining failure of the war on terror, Dr. Abrahamson addresses other points, which you conveniently ignore.</blockquote>

Can you please explain the connection between the war on terror and Iraq before the invasion? AFAIK there was nothing but wishful thinking by the hawks.

<blockquote>If the removal of Saddam's statue was fake, elections in Iraq were real.</blockquote>

Agreed, as were the elections of Allende. If the purpose of american interventions is removal of dictators all of a sudden, it's a fine turn, but it was never listed as e reason before the war started.

<blockquote>If no WMD were found, it's still true that Saddam used them on the Kurds.</blockquote>

But as he did this, he was and continued to be best buddy of the american governments. The west (including some greedy traders/engineers of my country) supplied him with this WMD technology, as he was part of the coalition of the willing against the axis of evil at those times: Iran.

<blockquote>I have looked at the history that I lived through and your heavily slanted view of it (colored by your obvious bias against all things Bush), and I find merit in what Dr. Abrahamson says. Perhaps others will also. The issue isn't yes or no, on or off, +/-, black or white: it is more like shades of gray. While the war wasn't prosecuted perfectly, it was still a success at removing Saddam and giving the Iraqi people a chance at democracy, and it removed the future threat of WDM being in the hands of a brutal dictator who has supported terrorists in their war with the West.
Who really said before the war that there were definately no WMD in Iraq? Not you, not Dr. Abrahamson, no one said it--the best anyone could say is that the evidence was not sufficient to prove it (but every rational person who said that also realized it was Saddam who was preventing the UN from finding out the truth).</blockquote>

So you call hundreds of thousand dead civilians a success?
Abu-Ghraib, the gulag @Gitmo, the destruction of the geneva convention are a success story?

<blockquote>You are nothing but a "cheerleader" for your leftist anti-war view, but you give only opinions that don't fit the positive developments in Iraq. Your "hype" and "revisions" rely on after-the-fact evidence (or lack of it) regarding WMD. You suggest that readers look at both sides, yet you have never, ever looked at any other view but your own in this and the many other issues where you vomit your slanted, ideological garbage.
</blockquote>

Nearly nothing of the fiction the different agencies of your government told the public before the war was near the truth. Why should I belive a single word they say any longer? Obviously they desperately wanted this war, and the media was all propaganda as well. Even some formerly well reputated outlets like the NYT joined the trigger happy band wagon.

So much about cheerleading.

---

Gruesse vom Saenger

For questions about Boinc look in the BOINC-Wiki

First, Pauly-poo, my post was clearly directed to Alex, which further illustrates the long known truth that you can not understand what is written.

Second, Dr. Abrahamson's article bills itself as an answer to pre-war criticisms of the war (even he did not get the predictions completely right), not as a justification for it; and it presents some examples on both sides--something you are not capable of doing, let alone comprehending.

Third, no WMD have been found in Iraq. The article proceeds beyond that, while you are stuck there. (Hindsight is 20/20), but dispite your attempts to portray this as the defining failure of the war on terror, Dr. Abrahamson addresses other points, which you conveniently ignore.

If the removal of Saddam's statue was fake, elections in Iraq were real.

If no WMD were found, it's still true that Saddam used them on the Kurds.

I have looked at the history that I lived through and your heavily slanted view of it (colored by your obvious bias against all things Bush), and I find merit in what Dr. Abrahamson says. Perhaps others will also. The issue isn't yes or no, on or off, +/-, black or white: it is more like shades of gray. While the war wasn't prosecuted perfectly, it was still a success at removing Saddam and giving the Iraqi people a chance at democracy, and it removed the future threat of WDM being in the hands of a brutal dictator who has supported terrorists in their war with the West.

Who really said before the war that there were definately no WMD in Iraq? Not you, not Dr. Abrahamson, no one said it--the best anyone could say is that the evidence was not sufficient to prove it (but every rational person who said that also realized it was Saddam who was preventing the UN from finding out the truth).

You are nothing but a "cheerleader" for your leftist anti-war view, but you give only opinions that don't fit the positive developments in Iraq. Your "hype" and "revisions" rely on after-the-fact evidence (or lack of it) regarding WMD. You suggest that readers look at both sides, yet you have never, ever looked at any other view but your own in this and the many other issues where you vomit your slanted, ideological garbage.

Seems not everyone who writes for American Diplomacy .org agrees with Dr, Abrahamson's assessment of our entry into Iraq, ...why we entered into the Iraq war, ...what the results have achieved, or what may lie ahead.


****************************
Herman J Cohen's article from the same American Diplomacy site contains these tidbits...

"The Bush administration’s use of intelligence concerning the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq as the main public justification for invading that country in 2003 is the latest example of the unhealthy manipulation of intelligence to support a predetermined policy."

In what he describes as the only plausible intelligance analysis conclusions that should have been provided...... "While Saddam has never abandoned his ambition to develop, manufacture, and deploy weapons of mass destruction, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that Iraq has reconstituted the stocks of chemical and biological agents destroyed during the first round of UN inspections prior to 1997." Certainly the secretary of state’s presentation to the UN Security Council in February 2003 should have led to such a conclusion. Presumably based on the best intelligence available, the secretary’s presentation was excellent on theatrics, but the material prepared for him by the CIA was very thin on substance."

"Intelligence, both clandestine and open source, is an extremely valuable component of the national security policymaking process but not the only one. Policymakers should understand that its value depends on collection, reporting, and analysis that are based on reliable sources and dispassionate interpretation by analysts who know what they are talking about and are allowed freely to "tell it like it is."

"Tampering with this process to achieve short-term policy objectives is an invitation to disaster."

****************

Since we know now, after public admissions from the Pentagon itself, that the toppling of Saddam's statue in Fardus Square was a staged P.R. 'event' ..... it's notable that Dr Abrahamson leads into his article noting the 'second anniversary' of that event as if it were not a staged PR event.

That Dr Abrahamson is willingly furthering a revisionist version of that event as if it was something more than just another manufactured 'view' of Iraq staged to present a show of support is somewhat indicative of the rest of his personal assessment of Iraq and our involvement there.

*****************

One can find 'cheerleaders' for any kind of view one wants to take of historical events...

....the trick is to seperate out the 'hype' and the ' revisions' and shine some light on the truth.....

I would suggest reading the entire body of the various views offered before accepting the personal assessment of one man willing to ignore some basic truths in order to represent his own 'personal' view....

The site that tom links to will provide facts, arguments and opinions which draw far different conclusions than Dr Abrahamson's opinion only.

**************

One might wish to view Dr Abrahamson's own assessment of the War in Iraq before the war..... an assessment in which he himself predicts the 'opposition's'/'critic's' events he so easily dismisses as someone else's views after the war began.

It's an interesting 'turnabout' ....... comparing his writings 2 years into the war and what he said before the war.....

After I read both 'assessments' , I come away wondering why he predicts what he later claims someone else only predicted......

I think he's a hack journalist.... but Dr Abrahamson's pre-war assessment for yourself. It's a strangely odd juxtaposition of thought from the same man.....

---

Alex,
I don’t normally do this, but I’m going to post a link to an article {Dr. Abrahamson’s Article} that discusses many of the discrepancies between pre-war predictions by opponents, and the way those predictions have turned out in the (short) two years that we have been in Iraq. Who can forget the chant “No Blood For Oil”, so reminiscent of the baseless anti-war slogans touted by people who care not for reality, but will say and predict anything to stir emotions to their position without regard to merit.

To Summarize Dr. Abrahamson’s article:

1) Critics/opponents of the war in Iraq predicted various things would happen that did not come true: oilfields burned; dams destroyed to flood large areas of the country; a half million or more starving Iraqi citizens; 100,000 plus civilian deaths; chemical and biological attacks by Saddam’s army (yes, even opponents thought Saddam had WMD and would use them); post-invasion Civil War; toppling of friendly governments elsewhere in the Mideast; and a bloody quagmire of much greater proportions than the rather small insurgency being waged now. It turns out that predictions about the Iraq war were no more accurate than predictions about Afghanistan (which was supposed to be a long futile war ending in a defeat like the one suffered by the Soviets).

2) There have been mistakes made in the prosecution of this war: too few troops for the occupation; misplaced expectations for postwar use of the Iraq army and security forces; unforeseen postwar looting and destruction of government buildings and records; and an insurgency that has taken hold and been reinforced by foreign terrorists. Despite negative press coverage, Coalition setbacks and casualties are not as bad as such problems in previous wars such as Vietnam and World War II. Also, there have been improvements in both social systems and infrastructure.

3) The media has presented destruction of WMD as the sole reason for the war. Other reasons, not widely reported, include violation of UN resolutions, terrorism and governmental brutality. An additional reason, democratization of the Middle East Arab nation also has merit, as a valid strategy in combating terrorism can be found in doing for the Mideast what was done for Germany and Japan following World War II.

4) Critics have claimed that the war was launched for oil, to avenge an assassination plot on President Bush’s father or to aid Israel. None of those criticisms are sustainable.

5) The war on terror has yielded emerging democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq. Other effects in the region include Palestinian elections, reforms in Egypt’s electoral process, Saudi Arabian crackdown on terrorism, withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon (still in process), Pakistani support of the war on terror (a sea change from Pakistan’s prior support of the Taliban and terrorist organizations), and Libyan destruction of their WMD programs.

These statements from Dr. Abrahamson’s article deserved full quotation: “Walid Jumblatt, the Lebanese Druze leader and former critic of the United States, has no doubt about that point: ‘[T]his process of change has started because of the American invasion of Iraq. I was cynical about Iraq. But when I saw Iraqi people voting . . . , eight million of them, it was the start of a new Arab world.’ Even in the United States, the President has received kudos from unexpected sources. Martin Peretz, liberal publisher of The New Republic, described the American Mideast mission as ‘real, and far along, and it is showing thrilling accomplishments.’”

<blockquote><blockquote>Actually I wasn't ranting. I was just expressing my views about the lead up to the Iraq war. I'm also not a fan of either of the two big parties Tom, so the other guy wasn't my guy. And I respect the election results as well.</blockquote>

<blockquote>Alex,
It just seems to me that you have, in the past, jumped on the Bush-is-responsible-for-everything-wrong-with-the-world bandwagon, and you chimed in on this thread, started by the chief Bush-basher on these boards. Perhaps that's why I lumped you in with my comment.</blockquote>

I offered my opinion in this thread because the subject is about the decisions that may have been taken preceding the war in Iraq. I don't think that President George Bush is responsible for everything. But because he's the
president, and was at the time before the war, it's logical to criticize certain areas of his Iraq policy. That's different Tom from just chiming in or
jumping on the bandwagon I'd say.


<blockquote>The casualties of the Iraq war were also much higher than the administration had predicted. The idea put forward for the war was that we would go in there in a relatively fast operation and suffer low casualties. This was despite the strong warnings of many military officials (both active as well as retired) that the casualties would be much higher in the long run than some administration officials were indicating that they would be. </blockquote>

<blockquote>For a full scale war, designed to completely defeat another country (Kuwait was meant to liberate a small country from an occupation force), the casualties have been quite low. The "low-tech" guerrilla attacks of the insurgents have been effective on a propaganda level (they certainly convinced you that the numbers are too high), but on a military level, a rather small terrorist group is expending a huge number of fighters in (rare) direct confrontations and they do not have an unlimited number of suicide bombers, despite what the media would have us believe.
<blockquote>

My point was that the administration was not as forthcoming about the possible
casualties that we would suffer in a war with Iraq. I think that the attacks
by the querrillas are probly mostly aimed at preventing Iraqis from joining
the new Iraqi security forces as some military officials have said. And our continued presence in the country will only give them a reason to continue.

<blockquote>Here's just one story that makes me think about Iraq the way that I do:

Soldiers have been wounded in war since the beginning of time — a fact that armies never like advertising. The Pentagon, which makes terse announcements when U.S. soldiers die in combat in Iraq, doesn't inform the public about those who have been wounded or release month-by-month injury counts. The wounded are mentioned only when some other soldier has been killed in the same attack. "When you join the Army, they send your picture to your hometown paper because they want everybody to know that you're leaving for the military," says Meinen, a dark-haired practical joker from Grangeville, Idaho. "But if you're wounded, the military doesn't tell them, because they might be worried about the public getting negative about what's going on over there." Says the serious, quiet-spoken Castro, from Santa Ana, Calif.: "Nobody knows what happened to us, even though it was one of the biggest ambushes in Iraq. People are only finding out about soldiers who are dying, but American soldiers are getting injured too."</blockquote>

Source: Thompson, Mark. "The Wounded Come Home." Time, 03 Nov 2003.
Link. Posted 18 Dec 2003.</blockquote>

<blockquote>The first line says it all: "Soldiers have been wounded in war since the beginning of time — a fact that armies never like advertising." But we do have media coverage in country, and if they do not report on the injured, that is not so much the Pentagon's fault.

I hope from this you don't think that I like war, but some wars are needed to deal with a threat. I have explained many times (and without response from anti-war types), the reasons why this war is needed to deal with a very real threat, so I won't go through that again.
</blockquote>

Yes, it's true that soldiers have been wounded since the beginning of time, but like I've indicated before, I think that the amount of dead and wounded in this war is much higher than the present administration lead the country to believe it would be. Just my opinion, but the opinion of many others as well.

I don't think that you like war, and I agree that sometimes wars are necessary.
But the reason the administration gave for this war was that Saddam Hussein was producing and hiding WMD. Something that turned out not to be the case. I did say in another thread that I thought that Saddam Hussein should be removed, but maybe without us getting into a full scale war.

Project for a New American Empire

---

<blockquote>Actually I wasn't ranting. I was just expressing my views about the lead up to the Iraq war. I'm also not a fan of either of the two big parties Tom, so the other guy wasn't my guy. And I respect the election results as well.</blockquote>

Alex,
It just seems to me that you have, in the past, jumped on the Bush-is-responsible-for-everything-wrong-with-the-world bandwagon, and you chimed in on this thread, started by the chief Bush-basher on these boards. Perhaps that's why I lumped you in with my comment.

<blockquote>The casualties of the Iraq war were also much higher than the administration had predicted. The idea put forward for the war was that we would go in there in a relatively fast operation and suffer low casualties. This was despite the strong warnings of many military officials (both active as well as retired) that the casualties would be much higher in the long run than some administration officials were indicating that they would be. </blockquote>

For a full scale war, designed to completely defeat another country (Kuwait was meant to liberate a small country from an occupation force), the casualties have been quite low. The "low-tech" guerrilla attacks of the insurgents have been effective on a propaganda level (they certainly convinced you that the numbers are too high), but on a military level, a rather small terrorist group is expending a huge number of fighters in (rare) direct confrontations and they do not have an unlimited number of suicide bombers, despite what the media would have us believe.

<blockquote>Here's just one story that makes me think about Iraq the way that I do:

Soldiers have been wounded in war since the beginning of time — a fact that armies never like advertising. The Pentagon, which makes terse announcements when U.S. soldiers die in combat in Iraq, doesn't inform the public about those who have been wounded or release month-by-month injury counts. The wounded are mentioned only when some other soldier has been killed in the same attack. "When you join the Army, they send your picture to your hometown paper because they want everybody to know that you're leaving for the military," says Meinen, a dark-haired practical joker from Grangeville, Idaho. "But if you're wounded, the military doesn't tell them, because they might be worried about the public getting negative about what's going on over there." Says the serious, quiet-spoken Castro, from Santa Ana, Calif.: "Nobody knows what happened to us, even though it was one of the biggest ambushes in Iraq. People are only finding out about soldiers who are dying, but American soldiers are getting injured too."

Source: Thompson, Mark. "The Wounded Come Home." Time, 03 Nov 2003. Link. Posted 18 Dec 2003.</blockquote>

The first line says it all: "Soldiers have been wounded in war since the beginning of time — a fact that armies never like advertising." But we do have media coverage in country, and if they do not report on the injured, that is not so much the Pentagon's fault.

I hope from this you don't think that I like war, but some wars are needed to deal with a threat. I have explained many times (and without response from anti-war types), the reasons why this war is needed to deal with a very real threat, so I won't go through that again.

Indignation Grows in U.S. Over British Prewar Documents

LA Times...
--------------------

(any response to the Congressional letter of inquiry?... not yet...)


"While the president of the United States was telling the citizens and the Congress that they had no intention to start a war with Iraq, they were working very close with Tony Blair and the British leadership at making this a foregone conclusion," -Rep. John Conyers Jr. of Michigan.

If the documents are real, he said, it is "a huge problem" in terms of an abuse of power. He said the White House had not yet responded to the letter.

___________________

As is often the case we may not be able to know all the details of behind the scenes activities.... case in point, ...revelations about Iran/Contra affairs are still being slowly released after many years.

In a few short years, our nation has strayed a long ways from the open and honest government of our forefathers visions.

---

<blockquote>
In Britain Blair's back in with a 67 seat majority after an election where 64% of those who voted, voted /against/ Labour, and 79% of eligible voters didn't vote for Labour.
</blockquote>

You can only blame your election system for that! The election systems are different from country to country, and being called a democracy, it means that you, as a voter, with your fellow voters can change the system, if you want to. It will require some work and time, but it can be done!

So, when Blair is reelected, even a majority voted against him, your system is to blame! But UK is considered a democracy, right? So Blair is not a dictator!

---

"I'm trying to maintain a shred of dignity in this world." - Me

<blockquote>Carl, Alex, Pauly-poo,

Rant on all you like. Your guy lost big time, and Bush won. It's all over. Sorry, that's life.

Don't mention it . . . indeed.</blockquote>

Actually I wasn't ranting. I was just expressing my
views about the lead up to the Iraq war. I'm also not
a fan of either of the two big parties Tom, so the other
guy wasn't my guy. And I respect the election results as
well.

The casualties of the Iraq war were also much higher than
the administration had predicted. The idea put forward for
the war was that we would go in there in a relatively fast
operation and suffer low casualties. This was despite the strong
warnings of many military officials (both active as well as retired)
that the casualties would be much higher in the long run than some administration
officials were indicating that they would be. Examples

Here's just one story that makes me think about Iraq the way that I do:

Soldiers have been wounded in war since the beginning of time — a fact that armies never like advertising. The Pentagon, which makes terse announcements when U.S. soldiers die in combat in Iraq, doesn't inform the public about those who have been wounded or release month-by-month injury counts. The wounded are mentioned only when some other soldier has been killed in the same attack. "When you join the Army, they send your picture to your hometown paper because they want everybody to know that you're leaving for the military," says Meinen, a dark-haired practical joker from Grangeville, Idaho. "But if you're wounded, the military doesn't tell them, because they might be worried about the public getting negative about what's going on over there." Says the serious, quiet-spoken Castro, from Santa Ana, Calif.: "Nobody knows what happened to us, even though it was one of the biggest ambushes in Iraq. People are only finding out about soldiers who are dying, but American soldiers are getting injured too."

Source: Thompson, Mark. "The Wounded Come Home." Time, 03 Nov 2003. Link. Posted 18 Dec 2003.

<blockquote>Isn't democracy such a bitch? To have to live with the one elected by the majority! Such a drag! That the majority wasn't your party! This time!

Democracy sucks!!! Buh Huh huh huhhhhh!!!!!

No, a good old dictator, that we know!

</blockquote>
In Britain Blair's back in with a 67 seat majority after an election where 64% of those who voted, voted /against/ Labour, and 79% of eligible voters didn't vote for Labour.

---

Isn't democracy such a bitch? To have to live with the one elected by the majority! Such a drag! That the majority wasn't your party! This time!

Democracy sucks!!! Buh Huh huh huhhhhh!!!!!

No, a good old dictator, that we know!

---

"I'm trying to maintain a shred of dignity in this world." - Me

---

Sorry, that's life.

Carl, Alex, Pauly-poo,

Rant on all you like. Your guy lost big time, and Bush won. It's all over. Sorry, that's life.

Don't mention it . . . indeed.