War in Iraq, is there a point?

He's one soldier, & most assuredly has earned the right to his opinion, however he isn't the Commander In Chief, either, now is he. BTW, for every less than enthusiastic soldier there are thousands who are dedicated to their jobs & whose morale remains positive. What a shame your friend's morale is so low. My heart goes out to him, along with my gratitude, respect & understanding. Please tell him that there are millions of Americans who truly appreciate the hard work & sacrifice he is making on our behalf, and that we think the job they're doing is spectacular.

Of course you are right and one of the reasons there are American forces in Iraq is so that they may have the same privelege.With that privilege though comes responsibility. The invasion of Iraq took place rightly or wrongly. Now that the decision has been made each individual, (even though they may have been opposed to the American forces being in Iraq in the first place), should, I think, support the continuing efforts in Iraq.As I posted earlier in this thread, if the terrorists sense weakness in the resolve of the US to see this through they will be strengthened in every way possible. (More recruits, more financing, more governmental support etc.) If American reslove weakens it will put more US lives at risk, more Iraqi lives at risk and eberyone will be at greater risk of terrorist attack. JMHO

And why is that? Because of the failure of diplomacy on the part of George W. Bush. If he had been willing to work with the French and the Germans instead of insisting on doing it HIS way at every step maybe they (and others) would have joined the Coalition of the Willing. George Bush sowed and we are reaping what he sowed.

The majority Shias voted in large numbers, as did the minority Kurd Sunnis. But Hussein's Sunni group voted in smaller numbers because they were being watch more closely by Islamists and Hussein loyalists among them. fallujah, for instance, is a mainly Sunni city, but also a base for hussein loyalists and islamists. Despite that, nearly 50% of Sunnis voted. In the next election, my guess is that many more will. In fact, many of their religious leaders have come out and supported the democratic process, perhaps fearing that as the Shias were left out of power all those years after rejectiong the british establishment of teh state, so they now might be left out should they decline to participate.BTW, in an act of democratic good-will, the Shias and Kurds reserved so many spots for Sunnis at the constitutional conferences, to ensure they were not adversely underrepresented despite not having been able to vote fully.

The french, Germans and Russians had made all sorts of multi-billion dollar secret deals with hussein - and that's aside from the oil-for-food deals. That is why they protected Hussein. There was simply no way Bush could have brought them onside.

It's even worse than you fear, if the US is not allowed to see this through to victory. Not only will the islamists take over Iraq, but they will be greatly rejuvenated in their efforts to take over the rest of the Islamic world, in addition to iran and Sudan. The Arab world now sees democracy as the natural alternative to both islamism and authoritarianism. If the US fails in Iraq, they'll go back to Islamism as the alternative. What a disaster of epochal implications. For an Islamist empire will sooner or later make 9/11 look like a practical joke. They will arm heavily with nuclear weapons and delivery systems, then come after us in some kind of orgiastic, nihilist frenzy. For those who doubt that, they might ask why could possibly have emboldened bin Laden to risk awakening the sleeping giant? What kind of hubris and megalomania inspired bali, the genocide of a million Christians in Sudan, the London Bombings, attacks in the Phillipines, tailand and elsewhere? The answer is the culture of islamism.

This is exactly the point I've been making for the last two days, GDR. The decision has been made & we are there. The time for argument has past & it's time to support the nation & its military. Root for the home team, help us win this fight, or at the very least do no harm to the war effort. Voicing opposition publicly emboldens the enemy which lengthens the war & leads to more death & destruction. The concept that dissent is an American's right & the rights & safety of the troops & Iraqi people be damned is unconscionable. The selfishness demonstrated in the name of free speech regardless of the consequences & the price that others have to pay in their own blood, is staggering. I'm astounded by the lack of respect & regard for our troops & the Iraqi people who want freedom & want the terrorists to stop messing with the democratization process in Iraq. Dissenting liberals are thwarting their efforts. Why don't they care about them? Why do they only care about themselves & their blessed right to dissenting free speech no matter what the cost that others have to pay?

quote:

---

With that privilege though comes responsibility. The invasion of Iraq took place rightly or wrongly. Now that the decision has been made each individual, (even though they may have been opposed to the American forces being in Iraq in the first place), should, I think, support the continuing efforts in Iraq.

---

A wrong does not cease to be a wrong just because a "decision has been made", nor does one's responsibility to stop it end.

Who mentioned his morale?I haven't encountered a single squaddie yet who wants to be there and I ecounter a lot on a daily basis. They all feel we got involved because our commander in chief was a poodle.

No, not if we think it is not in our interest (the U.S.) to continue to stay there. It is a legitimate position even if you disagree. Again these is the same bankrupt argument that kept us in Vietnam until 1973. Had we negotiated a settlement in Vietnam in 1968 we would have gotten just as good of a deal as we got in 1973 - and saved a lot of American and Vietnamese lives.

This would bethe French who along with the Russians, and others who were making billions along with Saddam Hussein from under the table oil dealings under the cover of the UN food for oil program.The U.N. Oil for Food scandal - Washington TimesThis message has been edited by GDR, 08-23-2005 02:40 PM

I agree completely that it is a legitimate position. I was just pointing out why I think it is the wrong one. You are in my view correct in your position on Viet Nam, but I don't think that the two positions are analogous.

Quite right, CS. The French, Germans & Russians were not ever going to side with the USA, because they stood to lose billions of dollars. What I don't understand is how they thought they'd keep us from taking Saddam out after 9/11. Surely they had to know we'd not be deterred from our course.

Not an apt analogy in the least. Vietnam & the war on terrorism have nothing in common. And the decision is already made, the election is over, we have a Commander In Chief & his is the responsibility & power to conduct the war. Ours is the responsibility of patriotic citizen, which means supporting this nation. Whether you agree or disagree with the politics of GWB, we are not over in Iraq committing genocide, we are the victims of terrorism. We are defenders, not aggressors.

War dissenters love the United States, the troops, freedom and democracy just as much as you do. It is a disagreement about tactics, not fundamentals. You are promoting a bogus argument. It is the "you are either for us or against us argument." No, I am for you, I just disagree with you. I doubt the insurgents give a flying fig about whether people in the U.S. oppose the war or not. In fact if anything I would guess they would rather have the U.S. stay in Iraq as it helps them recruit.