America attacked Iraq because of Intel that was DEAD WRONG!

on Mar 31, 2005

So saddam hussein wasn't an awful dictator that threatened his neighbors and abused his people? Wow, that's one hard guy to pin down. I thought all that shooting scuds at Israel, invading Kuwait, having political enemies beheaded, amputated and shoved off buildings and stuff was a dead give away.

Three cheers for Col Gene, who can see the beauty in anyone...

2

COL Gene

on Mar 31, 2005

What you have described of Saddam Hussein is true of many other dictators both in the Middle East and Africa and other parts of the world. We are not attacking those people. The issue here is when do we risk the lives of our brave military? The only just reason is to defend this country when it is in danger. It is not to provide other people with the right to vote, it is not to remove all the evil dictators in this world and it is not to in force UN resolutions. As usual the Bush supporters turn the argument to something else. I have said in many other blogs, yes Hussein was an evil person. The issue here is not was he evil the issue is whether the United States should risk trhe lives of our military to remove an evil dictator given the fact that there are 20 or 30 such situations throughout the world. I spent 30 years in the military and many of my friends gave up their lives to defend this country. This country was not in any danger from Iraq and I object to sacrificing our young men and women's lives and causing thousands more to go through life injured so that one evil dictator is out of power.

3

bakerstreet

on Mar 31, 2005

"We are not attacking those people."

Rome wasn't built in a day, Col. We'll get around to it, one way or another.

4

drmiler

on Mar 31, 2005

What you have described of Saddam Hussein is true of many other dictators both in the Middle East and Africa and other parts of the world. We are not attacking those people. The issue here is when do we risk the lives of our brave military? The only just reason is to defend this country when it is in danger. It is not to provide other people with the right to vote, it is not to remove all the evil dictators in this world and it is not to in force UN resolutions. As usual the Bush supporters turn the argument to something else. I have said in many other blogs, yes Hussein was an evil person. The issue here is not was he evil the issue is whether the United States should risk trhe lives of our military to remove an evil dictator given the fact that there are 20 or 30 such situations throughout the world. I spent 30 years in the military and many of my friends gave up their lives to defend this country. This country was not in any danger from Iraq and I object to sacrificing our young men and women's lives and causing thousands more to go through life injured so that one evil dictator is out of power.

Now THIS is most assuredly *your* opinion. And since you live in the USA you have a right to it. Just like I have the right to mine. This post is stupid. If not to "enforce" UN resolutions then someone needs to tell the UN that the USA is no longer going to be their watchdog.

5

Reiki-House

on Mar 31, 2005

Well I for one have been saying this from day -50. So have many many news sites on the net. With small budgets. So the NYT and the all the US mainstream papers, with all their resources and high budgets, didn't know it. Load a crap. They spewed the official lie day after day with no letup. And I took lots of insults over it. Unsung redemption as I don't assume the lying-arsehead-drone-idiot-fat-armchair-warrior-losers will ever apoligize to me for it.

6

COL Gene

on Mar 31, 2005

drmiler

Wrong again. Show me where the United States is the enforcer for the UN? No place in U.S. Law or in the UN charter is that the case. You are so full of BS. One thing you said is correct, This is MY OPINION! I think my military service provides a sound basis for my opinion.

7

Myrrander

on Mar 31, 2005

*smirk*

Our intelligence wasn't wrong. Our intelligence said that Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world. The rest of it was just icing.

"Spreading Freedom" means "Friendly Oil Vassal"

8

terpfan1980

on Mar 31, 2005

Intelligence that was as wrong as a COL Gene article on any given topic.

Intelligence that was wrong during the 1990s when Bill Clinton and his Democratic buddies in the Senate wanted to hold Saddam accountable and were ready to go to war during the height of the Lewinsky scandal?

Yup, that Intelligence.

I'm not disputing that we had bad intel, but any attempt to lay this at the feet of the Bush administration would be just plain stupid, though I'm plenty sure that the COL will find some way to do it, as we all know that in the COL's world, everything is Bush's fault.

9

terpfan1980

on Mar 31, 2005

I think my military service provides a sound basis for my opinion.

Your military experience provides a sound basis for your military retirement, nothing more and nothing less.

There are plenty of individuals that prove the point that a monkey can get promoted in the military as long as it knows how to salute and not make waves.

Pay for performance hasn't hit the the military (at least not really) and most certainly wasn't involved during your tenure there.

I've said it before, and I won't bore people again with an indepth challenge, but I know for a fact there have been total idiots at the Army War College and plenty of other places along the way where you tout your service. The same friggin' idiots that came up with failed war plans and the same damn bad intel you're bitchin' about in this thread.

You can't have it both ways, either the military and intelligence people (like yourself and your touted friends and superiors) screwed up, or they didn't. Either they were competent, or they weren't. You've made the case they weren't, and that they did a poor job. Well congrats, wear that egg on your own damn face.

10

drmiler

on Mar 31, 2005

drmiler

Wrong again. Show me where the United States is the enforcer for the UN? No place in U.S. Law or in the UN charter is that the case. You are so full of BS. One thing you said is correct, This is MY OPINION! I think my military service provides a sound basis for my opinion.

Your a clown! When the UN needs something enforced who do they turn to Russia? China? No the US! Get real! And MEGA-ditto's on what terpfan1980 said.

11

COL Gene

on Mar 31, 2005

the choice to attack Iraq was not made by the military it was made by the civilians in government. George Bush intended to remove Saddam Hussain from the beginning of his administration and prior to 9/11. That has been documented.

The military who planned the attack on Iraq at the direction of the president of the United States clearly indicated that it would take far greater resources than George Bush allowed. Both General Franks and the Army Chief of Staff indicated it would take three to 400,000 military to properly secure Iraq after Saddam Hussein was defeated. Bush and Rummy did not listen to the career military who knew what it would take as a result we have had thousands of people injured and hundreds and hundreds dead because we did not provide adequate force levels that our military leaders told us were required to deal with the insurrection in Iraq.

Military officers do not get promoted for any reason then because they demonstrated they are competent. Officers are not given commands that are not believed to be outstanding leaders. The real issue here are the decisions of the elected civilians who, in this case, didn't know what they were doing! I'd like to know the basis of your knowledge Re: the military situation in Iraq?

12

Island Dog

on Mar 31, 2005

the choice to attack Iraq was not made by the military it was made by the civilians in government. George Bush intended to remove Saddam Hussain from the beginning of his administration and prior to 9/11. That has been documented

Removing Saddam was official U.S. policy signed by Clinton.

Most of the U.S. Congress voted for the war, so you need to blame everybody and not Bush. They saw the same intelligence. Where is your criticism of Kerry, Clinton, Kennedy, and the other democrats who said Saddam was a "threat" to the U.S. and should be removed. If you are going to blame someone, blame them all.

13

drmiler

on Mar 31, 2005

Sorry dog but you can't use logic on the COL. He would not know how to respond.

14

COL Gene

on Mar 31, 2005

the policy was that we would like to see Saddam Hussein removed not that we were going to actively invade the country. If Congress knew when they voted on the war resolution what they know today, it would never have been approved. The choice made by Congress was predicated on totally incorrect information. Congress would never have agreed to place our military in jeopardy to remove an evil dictator or to provide the ability of the Iraq people to hold a Democratic election.

15

Island Dog

on Mar 31, 2005

the policy was that we would like to see Saddam Hussein removed not that we were going to actively invade the country. If Congress knew when they voted on the war resolution what they know today, it would never have been approved. The choice made by Congress was predicated on totally incorrect information. Congress would never have agreed to place our military in jeopardy to remove an evil dictator or to provide the ability of the Iraq people to hold a Democratic election.

And how do you think Saddam would be removed, by a nice note from the U.N.?

You don't know for sure what Congress would do today. It doesn't really matter anyways. Would you like us to put Saddam back and apologize?