The Reagans

[dissention]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Agreed. I don't think this is where the suicide bombers are coming from. At the same time Osama Bin Hussein was being captured, 17 people were killed in a car bombing of an Iraqi police station. This was not the type of thing we were seeing in Iraq before the war.

Exactly. And just because they got a former dictator in custody, it doesn't mean that anything is going to stop. Even if Saddam has information about some of these groups, I'm pretty goddam sure that there are sme operating even further underground.

I say we should get out of there and let the UN take over, but that'll never happen.

[Rob67]

Originally posted by dissention
Exactly. And just because they got a former dictator in custody, it doesn't mean that anything is going to stop. Even if Saddam has information about some of these groups, I'm pretty goddam sure that there are sme operating even further underground.

I say we should get out of there and let the UN take over, but that'll never happen.

At this point it would be a huge mistake to leave Iraq in the turmoil that it is in now. Can you imagine what Germany or even Japan would be like if we left just a few months after the end of WWII?

There has to be a rebuilding and stabilization period. They have to get the country to a point where it is able to operate on its own. I think they are making strides towards that. Just keep in perspective that we had a presence in Japan and Germany for YEARS after the Second World War. Yes it is a different situation, but at the same time, the goals are the same. To leave now would go against everything that was fought for.

Even Bush said the attacks would continue. Fundamentalists from Jordan, Iran, Syria, and other surrounding countries with no particular affiliation to Hussein have taken the opportunity of the war to sneak into Iraq and attack US soldiers. These fighters are part of Al Quida and other militant groups. I think attacks by Suddam loyalists will go down but these other groups will stay active.

This is a big deal. Not often are genocidal dictators taken alive. The trial will be interesting.

Rob

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by dissention

I say we should get out of there and let the UN take over, but that'll never happen.

Yup. there's no way the UN is going to take over this mess.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by Rob67
At this point it would be a huge mistake to leave Iraq in the turmoil that it is in now. Can you imagine what Germany or even Japan would be like if we left just a few months after the end of WWII?

There is no comparison to WWII and the situation in Iraq. The war ended in Europe and Japan. The way things are going, there is no end in sight in Iraq.

[Rob67]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
There is no comparison to WWII and the situation in Iraq. The war ended in Europe and Japan. The way things are going, there is no end in sight in Iraq.

Well the offical war has ended in Iraq as well. And I did mention that the situations were different but the goals for reconstruction were the same. The Marshall plan was a huge endeavor that took years to fully implement.

Besides, the UN has never shown competency in this area anyway so how are they going to handle the situation any better?

Rob

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by Rob67
Well the offical war has ended in Iraq as well. Rob

Actually the US never declared war on Iraq. The last Congressional resolution declaring war was passed declaring WWII. Iraq is an action.
I was quite disgusted when I heard some tv commentator referring to yesterday's capture as "VE Day."

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by Rob67


Besides, the UN has never shown competency in this area anyway so how are they going to handle the situation any better?

Rob

That point is moot since the UN is having nothing to do with this.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Yup. there's no way the UN is going to take over this mess.

Strand says in his most sarcastic voice: Let Russia, France and Germany have their debt guaranteed and the chance to get the rebuilding contracts for themsleves and you will see how fast the UN comes on board

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Strand says in his most sarcastic voice: Let Russia, France and Germany have their debt guaranteed and the chance to get the rebuilding contracts for themsleves and you will see how fast the UN comes on board

Is that why that group of Iraqi citizens were flying the sickle and hammer flag on tv yesterday? Must be the welcoming committee.

[Rob67]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Actually the US never declared war on Iraq. The last Congressional resolution declaring war was passed declaring WWII. Iraq is an action.
I was quite disgusted when I heard some tv commentator referring to yesterday's capture as "VE Day."

You are absolutely correct, but the term "war" has been used so freely that I fealt it wouldn't matter in this setting and everyone would get the point. I will now use the term "conflict" instead of war.

The official conflict is over.

Rob

[Rob67]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
That point is moot since the UN is having nothing to do with this.

As they shouldn't.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by Rob67
You are absolutely correct, but the term "war" has been used so freely that I fealt it wouldn't matter in this setting and everyone would get the point. I will now use the term "conflict" instead of war.

The official conflict is over.

Rob

That wasn't my point though. Everyone does call this war. My point was that we shouldn't be comparing this thing to what was an honorable war. We were attacked by the Japanese. That is why we went to war.
We went to "war" in Iraq based on lies. They never attacked us. There was no uranium for the purpose of nuclear weapons, or weapons of mass destruction or 9/11 terrorists. We were in such a hurry to get there, we went without an exit strategy. Why? To shore up our position in the Middle East? What about our good friends Israel, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait? Were they no longer our Middle East allies?
So , I'd appreciate it if people would stop comparing this to WWII. It's disgraceful.
By the way, are we safer today than we were on September 12, 2001 as a result of this?
Also, the "conflict" is far from over. In fact, activity is expected to increase for at least the next couple of days.

[Rob67]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
That wasn't my point though. Everyone does call this war. My point was that we shouldn't be comparing this thing to what was an honorable war. We were attacked by the Japanese. That is why we went to war.
We went to "war" in Iraq based on lies. They never attacked us. There was no uranium for the purpose of nuclear weapons, or weapons of mass destruction or 9/11 terrorists. We were in such a hurry to get there, we went without an exit strategy. Why? To shore up our position in the Middle East? What about our good friends Israel, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait? Were they no longer our Middle East allies?
So , I'd appreciate it if people would stop comparing this to WWII. It's disgraceful.
By the way, are we safer today than we were on September 12, 2001 as a result of this?
Also, the "conflict" is far from over. In fact, activity is expected to increase for at least the next couple of days.

I wasn't comparing the war\conflict. I was comparing the rebuilding process of the respective nations which I believe to be similar. Concerning the reasons we went to war in Iraq, see my post on the long term war on terror\stabilizing the Middle East.

The only reason I have heard anyone compare Iraq to WWII (in terms of the conflict itself) is because in both instances we were attacked. Now, I am not sure if Iraq had anything to do with it directly so I, personally, can't make that comparison. But on a similar note, I would appreciate it if people would stop comparing Bush to Hitler. It's disgraceful.

And are we safer today? It is too early to pass judgement. Again, time and history will be the judge of that. We have to see if a stable Democracy will stand in Iraq and what kind of influence it will have on the rest of the Middle East in the years to come.

Rob

[strandinthewind]

Actually, the Pres. of the U.S. can via the "War Powers Act" pretty much unilaterally engage our armed forces into any hostilities, etc. He should report to Congress, which Bush has done. The War Powers Act is a subject of many many debates. Here is a link to a site for more information http://www.cs.indiana.edu/statecraft/warpow.html

and another

http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/02021101.htm 9this is an opt-ed from Sen. Feingold)

In sum, the War Powers Act in practice if not in intent has usurped the Const.'s clear dictation that Congress declares war. but, no one has challeged it and it has worked on the past for every Pres. since its inception in 1973.

Here is an CNN article on this point an in whichit is acknowleeged that Congress gave Bush the authority to use force in Iraq.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/...sprj.irq.bush/

So, this is properly worded a "war" in that sense and under the Act.

[Rob67]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Actually, the Pres. of the U.S. can via the "War Powers Act" pretty much unilaterally engage our armed forces into any hostilities, etc. He should report to Congress, which Bush has done. The War Powers Act is a subject of many many debates. Here is a link to a site for more information http://www.cs.indiana.edu/statecraft/warpow.html

and another

http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/02021101.htm 9this is an opt-ed from Sen. Feingold)

In sum, the War Powers Act in practice if not in intent has usurped the Const.'s clear dictation that Congress declares war. but, no one has challeged it and it has worked on the past for every Pres. since its inception in 1973.

That is a good point, but I still don't think they refer to any engagements officially as a war unless Congress declares. Although, I may be wrong. During the coverage of both Gulf conflicts, the term "War" was used repeatedly.

Rob