Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion The Water Cooler OT: politics

yes, BigWill. But Saddam is not a radical fundamentalist Muslim. Radical fundamentalist Muslims do what they do for the glory of Allah. Saddam does (did) it for his own glory.

Why are we still talking about the war? Saddam is a bad, bad guy - as bad as they come. Iraq will be better off without him, regardless of whether the US invasion was a violation of int'l law or not.

***And the war has done nothing to harm US/Arab relations. If anything it has provided the possibility for real change in the Middle East.***

It also turns out (according to the bi-partisan Senate Intelligence Committee's 9/11 report) that Bush didn't "lie" in the State of the Union Address about Saddam seeking uranium, or about Saddam having a relationship with Al Qaeda. While Saddam may not have been involved specifically in the 9/11 attacks, how can anyone possibly defend him or his brutal regime?

Not to jump to my brother's defense, or anything, but nobody here is a Saddam apologist. It's quite obvious he was bad and needed to be "toppled" in one way or another. Nobody is debating that fact. It's the "one way or another" part that (most rational) people have questions about.

The fact is, there was no immediate threat that warranted the haste in which we went about the military intervention -- even if the intelligence they had at the time of the planning -- Saddam seeking uranium, Saddam having relationship with al Qaeda, etc. -- was actually true.

Do you expect us to look at the past, brush it off, and just say "Bygones..." ?

"Why are we still talking about the war?"

Why are we still talking about the war?!!

Hell, if you're going to ask that, then why are we still talking about September 11? Or the Enron scandal? (oh, wait, we're not...)

It's a national event. It was precipitated by the President. It's an election year. Therefore, we should be looking at the President's prior performance in order to determine whether he should be reelected.

Interesting... I read an editorial at lunch today (unfortunately, I don't know which paper) that indicated that this is the Republication message at the moment: "What war?"

In reply to:

---

It was precipitated by the President.

---

I wasn't aware our President was a chemist...

I said earlier that from a foreign policy POV it is yet to be seen whether the war will benefit the US or not. My personal feeling is that the war has done nothing to hurt our interests and has hastened the possibility of reform in countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran.

It appears we will lose about a thousand of our guys over there with many more permanently injured. I sincerely hope that the sacrifices those guys have made was not in vain. From what I've read, the local families who have lost their sons and husbands want that to be the case as well.

The soldiers who return seem shocked at the negative portrayal of the war that is being fed to the public. From what I have heard the soldiers say, they are under the impression that they're over there doing good things for other people. That was not always the case in Vietnam, was it?

I just don't see how it can be argued that the war was "wrong" - without arguing that all wars are wrong.

Obviously we consume different media. I've heard reports of several soldiers coming home (the ones that actually get to come home...) and writing books, making commentaries, etc. against the war.

My feeling is that the war has inflamed anger towards us in the Islamic world. It has given the terrorists new excuses to attack us and recruit more people to attack us.

"I just don't see how it can be argued that the war was "wrong" - without arguing that all wars are wrong."

That last line is a huge leap. Wrong or not for this one is obviously open to debate(as we've seen here). I don't see many people saying the Revolutionary War was wrong, it was wrong to stop the Axis powers in WWII, or any number of other wars I could likely list with a little thought.

I guess if Bush Sr. just took out Saddam the first time that part wouldn't be an issue anyway....or who knows, maybe someone worse would be there all this time...it is tough to predict the future and play the what if game.

"My feeling is that the war has inflamed anger towards us in the Islamic world. It has given the terrorists new excuses to attack us and recruit more people to attack us."

You feel the anger coming out of the Middle East now because of all the attention the madia has been giving it as a result of 9-11 and events since. It has been there and been spreading for a long time. There are reasons for the anger - some real, some imagined - that have nothing to do with Bush or the war in Iraq.

The WTC was attacked twice by terrorists - the first time in '94 (?) and again 9-11. The 9-11 attack was in the planning stages probably during Clinton's first term (not trying to blame him at all), well before Bush and the Iraq war. How about the murder of Olympic athletes in Munich, Iranian hostage crisis in the late '70s, the 244 Marines that were killed by Libyan terrorists, the jumbo jet that was bombed out of the sky in Scotland, USS Cole bombing, apparently a failed assassination attempt against G.H.W. Bush, the millenium bombing plot foiled at the border by sheer luck, and I'm sure I'm forgetting a bunch more examples. Remember the celebrations touched off all over the Middle East by the fall of the towers and the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians?

The anger has been there a long time, maybe your media sources were ignoring it before, when there was a Democrat in the Oval Office?

""Why are we still talking about the war?"

Why are we still talking about the war?!!

Hell, if you're going to ask that, then why are we still talking about September 11? Or the Enron scandal? (oh, wait, we're not...)"

Didn't see this one before!

I thought we had reached an intractable(?) position on both sides. You guys said it was going to work out poorly for us. I said it's impossible to know, but I'm hoping for the best as things in the region couldn't have been worse prior to the war.

What's left to discuss?