America attacked Iraq because of Intel that was DEAD WRONG!

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...

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.

"We are not attacking those people."

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

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.

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.

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.

*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"

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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?

the policy was that we would like to see Saddam Hussein removed not that we were going to actively invade the country.

Big time WRONG answer! Congress gave their approval to go to "war" with Saddam! Just how the hell can you go to war with someone "without" showing up on their doorstep?

2003 Invasion of Iraq From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. (Redirected from 2003 Iraq war) The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page. 2003 Invasion of Iraq Map of Iraq Date 02:30 UTC March 20, 2003–April 15, 2003 Location Iraq, Southwest Asia Prelude Iraq disarmament crisis Targets Alleged weapons of mass destruction. Opponents of the Kurdish allies of the USA in the North. Results 2003 occupation of Iraq. Creation of Iraq Interim Governing Council. Opponents to the US-led occupation engage in guerrilla warfare. Failure to locate weapons of mass destruction. Capture of Hussein, capture/killing of his senior officials, and various loyalists. Operational links between the Saddam Hussein government and Al-Qaida remain disputed, lacking clear new evidence. For other uses of this term, see Iraq war (disambiguation). The 2003 invasion of Iraq, alternatively the Iraq War, Second Gulf War or Third Gulf War, was a war that began 20 March 2003 fought between a Coalition consisting primarily of American and British forces, and Iraq. It began without the explicit backing of the United Nations Security Council. After approximately three weeks of fighting, the Ba'ath Party was deposed and the period known as post-invasion Iraq began. Approximately 250,000 United States troops, with support from 45,000 British, and smaller forces from other nations, entered Iraq primarily through their staging area in Kuwait. Plans for an invasion force from the north were abandoned when Turkey officially refused the use of its territory for such purposes. Coalition forces also supported Iraqi Kurdish militia troops, estimated to number upwards of 50,000. Facing them was a substantial military force. The regular Iraqi army was estimated at 280,000–350,000 troops, with four Republican Guard divisions with 50,000–80,000 troops, and the Fedayeen Saddam, a 20,000–40,000 strong militia, which used guerilla tactics during the war. There were an estimated thirteen infantry divisions, ten mechanized and armored divisions, as well as some special forces units. The Iraqi Air Force and Navy played a negligible role in the conflict. On 17 March 2003, in his Address to the Nation, U.S. President George W. Bush's demanded that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and his two sons Uday and Qusay leave Iraq, and gave them a 48-hour deadline; Iraqi President Saddam Hussein refused to leave.[1] (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/iraq/20030317-7.html) The next day Bush's spokesman Ari Fleischer announced that the U.S. would invade Iraq whether Saddam Hussein left or not, stating that "the bottom line is, a coalition of the willing will disarm Saddam Hussein's Iraq, no matter what." [2] (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030318-4.html) United States military operations were conducted under the name Operation Iraqi Freedom, United Kingdom military operations as Operation Telic, and Australian operations as Operation Falconer.

Link

Once again, hoist by your own petard!

I guess all those U.N. resolutions meant nothing, and also the cease-fire agreement.

Congress gave their approval predicated on totally wrong information. Thus we went to war based on a threat to did not exist. If we were to and against all evil dictators the way we acted in Iraq, this country will be at war for ever and we will have no one left to safeguard our democracy for.

Congress gave their approval predicated on totally wrong information. Thus we went to war based on a threat to did not exist. If we were to and against all evil dictators the way we acted in Iraq, this country will be at war for ever and we will have no one left to safeguard our democracy for

Yeah, predicated on info that the whole GD world was using!

I say again, were does the United States obtain the authority to enforce UN resolutions? Answer the question. Shown me where we get that power. Telling me that the UN didn't act does not give us the authority to act.

the remainder of the world in attack Iraq United States did. And please don't tell me that that was a coalition of the willing because in fact the only other country to contribute any measurable amount of resources was Britain. Plain and simple the United States acting unilaterally with Britain to enforce resolutions for which they had no authority and against a country that posed no threat to either England or the United States.

the remainder of the world in attack Iraq United States did. And please don't tell me that that was a coalition of the willing because in fact the only other country to contribute any measurable amount of resources was Britain.

Guess again:

In order of number of troops (estimated) committed to Iraq as of March 2005: USA 130,000 United Kingdom 8,761 South Korea 3,600 Italy 3,085 -- began phased withdrawal of troops in March 2005 [3] (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4350213.stm) Poland 1,700 Ukraine 1,450 -- announced to withdraw troops by October 2005 [4] (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4310987.stm) Georgia 889 Australia 850 Netherlands 800 -- began phased withdrawal of troops in March 2005 [5] (http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/news_service/middle_east_full_story.asp?service_id=7413) Romania 730 Japan 550 -- limited to non-combat zones only Denmark 496 Bulgaria 450 -- began phased withdrawal of troops in March 2005 [6] (http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/03/15/europe/web.0315iraq.html) El Salvador 380 Mongolia 180 Azerbaijan 151 Latvia 122 Lithuania 118 Slovakia 105 Czech Republic 80 Albania 71 Estonia 55 Macedonia 33 Kazakhstan 25 Norway 10 -- has withdrawn the 179 soldier strong force of engineers and currently has 10 staff officers deployed in Iraq [7] (http://www.wtopnews.com/index.php?nid=116&sid=420737) Angola 0 Colombia 0 Costa Rica 0 -- asked to be removed from the official coalition list in September 2004 Dominican Republic 0 -- withdrew troops in May 2004 Eritrea 0 Ethiopia 0 Honduras 0 -- withdrew troops in June 2004 Hungary 0 -- withdrew troops in December 2004 Iceland 0 Kuwait 0 Micronesia 0 Moldova 0 -- withdrew troops in February 2005 New Zealand 0 -- withdrew troops in September 2004 Nicaragua 0 -- withdrew troops in February 2004 Philippines 0 -- withdrew troops in July 2004 Portugal 0 -- withdrew troops in March 2005 Rwanda 0 Singapore 0 -- withdrew its single amphibious transport dock deployed in the Persian Gulf in March 2005 [8] (http://www.mindef.gov.sg/display.asp?number=2400) Solomon Islands 0 Spain 0 -- withdrew troops in June 2004 Thailand 0 -- withdrew troops in August 2004 Tonga 0 Uganda 0

Iraq repeatedly broke their peace treaty with the UN and the "US" (we are the primary signature on the document) from the 1991 Gulf War. That is the only authorization we needed to invade. A peace treaty is not worth the paper it is on, if knowone follows or enforces it. Ask the French and British what happens if peace treates are not enforced.

WMD or not, the invasion had only been delayed far to long, IMO until someone with a back bone enforced it.

Remember, if the French weren't involved then no other country matters.

I say again, were does the United States obtain the authority to enforce UN resolutions? Answer the question. Shown me where we get that power. Telling me that the UN didn't act does not give us the authority to act.

How about U.N. resolutions.

Recognizing the threat Iraq's non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security, Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area, Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

U.N. Resolution 1441. I can quote all the other resolutions if you want.

i'm not positive the intel was wrong. i think it was cooked. wolfowitz was a member of the 'team b' advisory panel...perle was introduced polish immigrant richard pipes (who wound up team b chairman)...rumsfeld and cheney were enthusiastic team b supporters. it is so similar to what team b was doing, it's difficult for me to think otherwise.

if there was an intel failure in iraq, there certainly wasnt one as regards the world's most irresponsible nuclear proliferator. the administration--hell, bush himself--blamed north korea for supplying libya with the materials despite the cia reports that pakistan was not only providing materials but engineering know-how to both iran and libya.

that bit of stupidity resulted in making it much more difficult to deal with pyongyang, and must surely have convinced pakistan's military that bush is either a moron for buying into musharraf's ridiculous claim that khan--the father of pakistan's bomb--was acting solely on his own, unbeknownst to anyone in that country's military dictatorship (like musharraf would still be in power if he was that incompetent) OR that the us really dont care.

considering the fact that we've now decided to sell f-16s to pakistan--the global equivalent of selling tech 9s to the crips --as a reward for all their help in the war on terror (instead of seriously working to capture bin laden, they focused their efforts on terrorizing the people of kashmir) like selling uranium hexafluoride to iran, and very likely to whomever else had the money, there's a third option.

they're right on both counts.