I'm sure all of you political followers (not following others, following the news) have already read about this and possibly have a thread that I missed, but I'd like to hear everyone's opinion on the report.

Do you have a link to the report you are talking about?

Sorry, it's on the cover of PE and google brings up numerous articles.

Here's one of many articles talking about it. Haven't seen the report yet.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.c...n=rss

The report says the Bush administration "overstated" the case for WMDs in Iraq. Yep, pretty much so.

But here's my opinion, FWIW.

I recall several reasons being mentioned for the invasion of Iraq in the early days when it was first brought before the American public and the Congress for debate.

1. There was the issue of Islamic extremism and which countries and rulers were assisting them.

2. There was the issue of Saddam's long defiance of UN sanctions from the Gulf War surrender.

3. There was the issue of WMDs.

4. There was the issue of establishing democracy in the arab Middle East.

5. There was the issue of protecting future crude oil supplies from the Persian Gulf.

6. There was the issue of Iran and its nuclear weapons ambitions.

7. Maybe another couple I don't recall.

So, the White House and the military had to present their case to the American people. The media condensed everything into phrases and sound bites as they tend to do, and WMDs ended up being the issue that captured the attention of most viewers. So, the administration concentrated on that issue. It ended up being false, despite Saddam having made a concerted effort to make the world believe that he did indeed have WMDs. It worked for Saddam for people to think he had them.

My understanding is that the trouble was not in the invasion, the trouble was in the occupation. We had assurances from Chalabi and others that they could easily govern the population after we won the war. Those assurances turned out to be as false as the evidence of WMDs.

There were several good reasons for the invasion, which is why Congress approved it overwhelmingly. The invasion and ouster of Saddam was a cakewalk. It's the occupation that turned out to be a total mess. I'll never understand how Cheney and Rumsfeld screwed it up so badly.

Unless .... there are things we're not being told. Sometimes, complex geopolitical strategies can't be broadcast to the entire world. Saudi Arabia is Sunni and Arab, Iran is Shia and Persian, Iraq is mixed and sits between them. Saudi Arabia and Iran, Sunni and Shia, are not friends, and compete for dominance in the Gulf. Iraq has always been a buffer to Irani ambitions and we have helped with weaponry and other support. OBL has vowed to overthrow the Saudi monarchy in an Islamic revolution. If the Saudi government were to fall, what would/could we do? Iran would immediately control the Gulf and all shipping through the Straits of Hormuz. Not good.

Could that be the REAL reason we're in Iraq?

The problem is this:

1. Exists outside of Iraq

3. Is a load of Bull$#IT

4. WE don't even have a true democracy, why are we trying to give them the same stupid system?

5. That's gone over real well. Been to the pump lately?

6. Is not Iraq

I completely believe that our wonderful president had MAJOR personal financial motivation for his actions.

This is a copy/paste from another related thread.

I've been in 3 separate foreign wars. I've shed my own blood and the blood of others in many a foreign country. I did time in Special Operations as well as Combat Rescue. From a soldiers perspective it's very difficult to think outside the box. It's something we simply can't do...start thinking about why we're here or there and you start getting yourself and others killed or injured in the process. That's simple fact...stay focused, do what you're trained to do and watch the guy next to you. I've hovered in to Hot LZs and picked up bodies that range from dead children to ******* politicians that needed to get the f*** out of dodge in a hurry. I've also flown on countless sorties simply to bring relief supplies to people suffering from ALL the bad things we dream about. I've seen helicopters blown up, I've watched an entire special forces unit, the 160th Special Task Force, lose a Chinook to massive ground fire...then I watched the squad try to evac the helo only to be cut down by two fire teams shooting from an elevated and covered position.No one wants to end this war as badly as I do...

Whats the point? I'm no longer active duty...I have stepped back and examined the situation from outside the box. I'll support my brothers in arms till the last breath leaves my lungs...but we're fighting a war that has no end. WWWII was over in 6 years...how many years have we been dumping the sand out of our boots now? How many times have you sat back and cursed the politicians and their bullsh1t restrictions about who we can and can't fire at. How many times have we had to sit back and allow good American boys to get killed because the collateral damage was deemed to costly during a political Operational Risk Management meeting. How many times have you forgotten why you were there when it's month 9 out of 14. How many times have we missed a child's first steps...or a birth...or any number of extremely important things that we'll never have the chance to see again? The answer is simple...To God damn many.

Show me any enemy to fight, give me an attainable objective. Then don't tell me how to go about doing what I do best.

The issue isn't should we have gone over there in the first place...to late, we're there. The issue is how do we feasibly get home and defend the country we give our lives for every day. When do WE get to experience the freedom we fight for? When we lose a leg? When we are so fvcked up mentally that we suffer from severe PTSD...(Mike).

How many of us have been through a divorce now and can say that the long and multiple deployments didn't have anything to do with it? Not many...yet we're the same people that when called upon, will drop everything, run to the closet and grab the mobility bag that is always packed and disappear into the dark without question.

When is it our turn?

That's what this is about. I'll never turn my back on those that serve, I just want us to have a chance to live without all the political war mongering. Are you telling me that we can't better spend over a billion dollars a day to reach some type of final objective?

We need to get home...if the answer is to build a few permanent party military bases and rotate to and from on real orders...so be it.

We are Combat Ineffective right now. Not because we can't, but because we aren't allowed to. How can we be expected to fight for no objective and with one hand?

Our great Nation is stumbling into a possible recession, while our military men and women remain under paid, under supplied and pissed off. Yet the people running the war are sitting in nice comfortable offices while our families go without...enough. We spend enough money in one month in Iraq to give every single child in America a college education at no charge with enough money to build a fence that will span the entire country and pay for it to be monitored. That is one month...just one.

It's time to come home.

WD

Sentientbydesign wrote:The problem is this:

1. Exists outside of Iraq

So? We are primarily fighting them there. Much better than in France, Spain, England or over here

Sentientbydesign wrote:3. Is a load of Bull$#IT

Blame the intel community. How would we really know as our intel community had been picked apart over the prior 8 years.

Sentientbydesign wrote:4. WE don't even have a true democracy, why are we trying to give them the same stupid system?

Neither do they. They elect the people in to govern. The people themselves don't vote on each issue as they would in a true democracy

Sentientbydesign wrote:5. That's gone over real well. Been to the pump lately?

We still get oil, no? Supply and demand the same as they were in '03?

Sentientbydesign wrote:6. Is not Iraq

Really?

Sentientbydesign wrote:I completely believe that our wonderful president had MAJOR personal financial motivation for his actions.

proof?

audtatious wrote:So? We are primarily fighting them there. Much better than in France, Spain, England or over here ?

I'm not sure I buy that. If we left the middle east I'll bet they would be more than willing to leave us alone.

Even if they don't "leave us alone" we can use the entire Military and a ballion dollar a day budget to fight it from home. With a ballion bucks we can build the fence I referred to and man it. The Cia and NSA would have an unlimited budget to work with. We can then use that intel for covert strikes. Far more effective and far less costly.

Everyone is so concerned with policy and what happens to the world...what about the people we're sending to fight. These guys need a break. We've been at war since 91...time to come home.

Anyone that says different...spend a year away from your family and see how your views change.

WD

rn79870 wrote:
I'm not sure I buy that. If we left the middle east I'll bet they would be more than willing to leave us alone.

Tell that to Spain who pulled their troops and afterward were hit with a terrorlst attack. They have proven time and time again that you can't negotiate with them so why will it work now? Instead of being proactive you and others want to sit around and wait. Sorry, but that's not my training.

We could be hit with a terrorlst attack right now Matt...and easily. Yet we're fighting them over there. Lack of attacks doesn't mean we're accomplishing anything. The Extremists have hated America long before we invaded Iraq, so we can't measure the success of our invasion on a per ca pita of attacks basis.

I'm not saying we haven't put a dent in the Muslim Extremist Jihad cocksvcker camp...I'm just saying it is never going to be over. It's a holy war...been going on for oh...forever. We're not doing anything but creating more people that hate us...seriously...Ive been there. When you drop bombs, you create people that dislike you.

There is a better way to do this, we simply lack the leadership to get the job done the right way. So what we end up with is a long drawn out process that ends with a failure. A failure that costs us American lives for absolutely no reason. Because when we leave things are going to return to the state they were in when we got there. The only solution is to stay forever...for what?

Establish achievable goals...release the Military to do the job we're trained to...go home.

We simply can't do those three things in conjunction.

WD

Based on the Iraq Gov, our time to come home naturally may be quicker than some imagine.

Yes...it "may" be...but I have no faith in their Gov at all. I barely trust what our own Gov says these days Matt, let alone a Gov known to be bought and paid for by the highest bidder.

My main concerns don't really lie with my taxes being wasted, or the reasons why we're there or even why we're not leaving. They lie with the people most effected by this entire debacle... the American soldier. It's far to easy to forget about the hardships these guys endure every single day...from wake-up to rack ops. The people that have opinions on Iraq and how it can be handled need to remember that it's not them they're directly effecting...it's the guys that are still over there.

When we talk about taking another 3-4 years to withdraw...you're talking about keeping guys in the Desert that have been rotating in and out for 6months to 1.2 years at a time since 1991. Units like mine are considered High Demand Low Density, meaning they are critical to ops but are very limited in numbers. So all the Combat Rescue units in the USAF are going to either Afghanistan or Iraq for a total of 6-7 months every year...every year. This isn't new...we've been doing this for years now. Smaller Spec Ops units don't fall under AEF rules and rotations.

The AEF guys go for 1.2 years at a time...home for 2, back for 1.2...repeat.

People say they support the troops...but do you? Volunteering them to fight this war is hardly what I'd consider support.

WD

audtatious wrote:
Tell that to Spain who pulled their troops and afterward were hit with a terrorlst attack. They have proven time and time again that you can't negotiate with them so why will it work now? Instead of being proactive you and others want to sit around and wait. Sorry, but that's not my training.

I meant "left the middle east" as in pulled out of the desert, whether it is Iraq, Saudi Arabia, etc. We could do this if we would get off our a$$es and let the oil companies explore/drill and produce oil here. Add 1/4 the money spent on the war to border security, and viola, we're safe, free, and economically sound. Oh, and charge an arm and a leg for our food exports.

I know one of my friends over there that would disagree with you (joined up at 37 to support the US regardless of the outcome). As I was unable to go into the military I have not argued with your POV at all. My POV is do it right or don't do it at all and it seems things are being done right at this point.

rn79870 wrote:
I meant "left the middle east" as in pulled out of the desert, whether it is Iraq, Saudi Arabia, etc. We could do this if we would get off our a$$es and let the oil companies explore/drill and produce oil here. Add 1/4 the money spent on the war to border security, and viola, we're safe, free, and economically sound. Oh, and charge an arm and a leg for our food exports.

Safe is a relative term. Regardless, if we pull out should we go to Darfur and other areas or tell them all to **** off and let the chips fall where they may?

audtatious wrote:I know one of my friends over there that would disagree with you (joined up at 37 to support the US regardless of the outcome). As I was unable to go into the military I have not argued with your POV at all. My POV is do it right or don't do it at all and it seems things are being done right at this point.

No one signs an Enlistment under the thoughts of "no matter what the outcome" unless he means he'll give his life. Which I agree with...we all would. But we'll give our lives to protect our country. At this point that's from terrorism. We have enemies in every country that has sand. Are we going to stay at war forever...to protect ourselves? Iran...are they next? If so...why? Can we honestly justify another 20 years of war. Cause even if we pull out of Iraq tomarrow, our war mongering leadership will no doubt justify invading Iran. I can already see it...while we have the infrastructure in place it would be decisive to invade now...or stay long enough to justify the invasion. Everything is one staging event for the next big invasion.

Well they have weapons grade plutonium..yeah...and what do you call what we have? Hell, we can't even secure the ones we have.

As far as doing things the right way, what does that mean?

audtatious wrote:
Safe is a relative term. Regardless, if we pull out should we go to Darfur and other areas or tell them all to **** off and let the chips fall where they may?

No...we don't need to do anything. The UN needs to...which we are part of. We need to stop being the world police. We can assist the UN and go as far as the other countries do...but we need to stop shouldering the burden ourselves.

Then again...with the budget free'd up by leaving Iraq we could rebuild ALL of Africa.

WDRacing wrote:As far as doing things the right way, what does that mean?

Go in, take care of business and GTFO. We went in, kicked out Saddam and then "sat around and waited". It wasn't until the surge that the direction was set again to push the insurgents out (or make it too painful for them to stay). It's working. The Iraq gov is now starting to want to limit our military moves and options within the country and they have that right. At the point they feel they can handle their own then we should leave and as I stated before, that time is coming. Otherwise, simply pulling out without "finishing the job" will let them all know we don't have the heart anymore to press things until it ends. Since Vietnam everyone believes that with enough destruction we will fold like a house of cards in a light breeze so people try and make it that painful.

We pull out too soon and the high possibility of Iran taking over Iraq and causing a major war in the area with Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc. This will have a huge economic impact to us and the world at large. If we pull out and let that happen then we need to either pull all troops in and seal our borders off from the rest of the world or let someone else take over and rule us (and everyone else except China and Russia because they would have nothing to do with it).

If you don't believe it then that is fine. I'm tired of things being extended and the military as a whole being limited by the politicians to get the damn job done in the first place.

WDRacing wrote:
No...we don't need to do anything. The UN needs to...which we are part of. We need to stop being the world police. We can assist the UN and go as far as the other countries do...but we need to stop shouldering the burden ourselves.

The UN can't do sh1t because they are full of incompetent dumbfuks who hate America. Based on their track record do you really believe they can even jointly solve a rubiks cube? Doubtful.

WDRacing wrote:Then again...with the budget free'd up by leaving Iraq we could rebuild ALL of Africa.

So, from world police to world aid pocketbook? You think throwing money at people will solve problems? We throw aid at countries who constantly protest the US and burn our flag so that does not seem to work either.

audtatious wrote:
Go in, take care of business and GTFO. We went in, kicked out Saddam and then "sat around and waited". It wasn't until the surge that the direction was set again to push the insurgents out (or make it too painful for them to stay). It's working. The Iraq gov is now starting to want to limit our military moves and options within the country and they have that right. At the point they feel they can handle their own then we should leave and as I stated before, that time is coming. Otherwise, simply pulling out without "finishing the job" will let them all know we don't have the heart anymore to press things until it ends. Since Vietnam everyone believes that with enough destruction we will fold like a house of cards in a light breeze so people try and make it that painful.

We pull out too soon and the high possibility of Iran taking over Iraq and causing a major war in the area with Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc. This will have a huge economic impact to us and the world at large. If we pull out and let that happen then we need to either pull all troops in and seal our borders off from the rest of the world or let someone else take over and rule us (and everyone else except China and Russia because they would have nothing to do with it).

If you don't believe it then that is fine. I'm tired of things being extended and the military as a whole being limited by the politicians to get the damn job done in the first place.

Good post...

audtatious wrote:
The UN can't do sh1t because they are full of incompetent dumbfuks who hate America. Based on their track record do you really believe they can even jointly solve a rubiks cube? Doubtful.

So, from world police to world aid pocketbook? You think throwing money at people will solve problems? We throw aid at countries who constantly protest the US and burn our flag so that does not seem to work either.

Well look at it this way Matt. If we can invade a country and install a functioning Gov why can't we reform NATO and it's objectives?

As far as money is concerned, I meant by using the budget available after Iraq "we" could rebuild Africa. Meaning the US could on it's own. Which is contrary to what I said I know, but I'm referring to peaceful intervention and assistance. How can you use the Military in Africa? It's a mess with no functional Gov at all and the people are close to barbarism. They only know violence...which sucks I know. A peace keeping force will be immediately tied up by Liberals and have almost no effect.

I'd have to sit down and REALLY think about ways to help if you wanted something beyond financial assistance and rebuilding. But I think that alone would do a great deal considering the working budget we'd have. Entire towns can be built with functional health care and schooling.

I'm not for us being the world police and I never have (although I do feel as a super power we do have some responsibility to the world as a whole). BUT I am also not for a body as corrupt as the UN telling us what we can and can not do. After years and years of Saddam lobbing missles at our planes and spitting in our face I would have been for kicking his azz out even without 9/11. The UN lost any respect in my eyes after we kicked Saddam back to bagdhad in 91 and they refused to uphold the resolutions. The Security Counsil is a fawking joke as France, Germany, Russian and other countries were simply doing "end arounds" by investing in Iraqi oil to line Saddams pockets which was the main reason they were against upholding the resolutions they agreed to in the first place.

It's like a little dog nipping at a big dogs ankles. Eventually the big dog gets tired of it and puts it in its place. This is what I feel we did in 2003, we put some of these people in their places and I damn sure don't want to leave without the job being done or the little yappers will start their sh1t all over again and we will have done it all for nothing.

audtatious wrote:Tell that to Spain who pulled their troops and afterward were hit with a terrorlst attack.

Care to explain the logic behind that one? Cause I'm not seeing it.

Spain's troops were specifically "over there" fighting the terrorists who where specifically going after Spain?

audtatious wrote:So? We are primarily fighting them there. Much better than in France, Spain, England or over here

We are primarily fighting insurgents over there. A very small percentage of them are Al-Qaeda, and they only moved in after we destroyed the country's infrastructure.

audtatious wrote:Blame the intel community. How would we really know as our intel community had been picked apart over the prior 8 years.

No, the CIA more or less had good intel. The special Pentagon intel unit that was formed by the current administration and stacked with "loyal Bushies" hand-picked their intel which led us to war.

How was the intel community picked apart?

ishkabibble wrote:
Care to explain the logic behind that one? Cause I'm not seeing it.

Spain's troops were specifically "over there" fighting the terrorists who where specifically going after Spain?

Yes, we are fighting them over there at this point. If we "cut-n-run" where will they be?

Spains troops "were" over there but were pulled out in April 2004 by PM Zapatero. The news at the time stated that the pull out would help Spain avoid being targeted by terrorists since they were not in Iraq anymore and there were reports that terrorlst organizations stated there would be no further attacks. Of course, once Spain showed they did not have the guts to fight terrorism they became an even bigger target that continues today. Hell, last year the organizations threatened again in order to get them to pull out of Afghanistan as well. There have been numerous terrorlst attacks since 2004 and Spain is still constantly on the defensive trying to stop it. If it didn't work for them, why do people believe that us pulling out will make the terrorists happy where they won't attack us or our embassys or our citizens in other countries?

ishkabibble wrote:We are primarily fighting insurgents over there. A very small percentage of them are Al-Qaeda, and they only moved in after we destroyed the country's infrastructure.

We are fighting all terrorlst organization over there. Al-Queda is just one. Are you claiming that Iraq didn't have terrorists? Documented training camps and Saddam's support of suicide bombers state otherwise.

ishkabibble wrote:No, the CIA more or less had good intel. The special Pentagon intel unit that was formed by the current administration and stacked with "loyal Bushies" hand-picked their intel which led us to war.

Proof? Claimed intel was supported by Russia and other countries as well.

ishkabibble wrote:How was the intel community picked apart?

Under Clinton, 305,000 employees were removed from the federal payroll, 286,000 (or 90%) were military cuts. The Army was cut from 18 divisions to 12. The Navy was reduced from 546 ships to 380. Air Force flight squadrons were cut from 76 to 50. The CIA budgets and recruiting efforts were cut to the point that they were closing shop abroad or lowering the number of agents where they could not function properly. I would call that "picked apart"

audtatious wrote:
Yes, we are fighting them over there at this point. If we "cut-n-run" where will they be?

Spains troops "were" over there but were pulled out in April 2004 by PM Zapatero. The news at the time stated that the pull out would help Spain avoid being targeted by terrorists since they were not in Iraq anymore and there were reports that terrorlst organizations stated there would be no further attacks. Of course, once Spain showed they did not have the guts to fight terrorism they became an even bigger target that continues today. Hell, last year the organizations threatened again in order to get them to pull out of Afghanistan as well. There have been numerous terrorlst attacks since 2004 and Spain is still constantly on the defensive trying to stop it. If it didn't work for them, why do people believe that us pulling out will make the terrorists happy where they won't attack us or our embassys or our citizens in other countries?

I have a hard time believing that if Spain's troops we in Iraq rather than home, that their domestic security situation would be any different. Once they started attacking the extremists, they were on the extremist's **** list, period.

audtatious wrote:We are fighting all terrorlst organization over there. Al-Queda is just one. Are you claiming that Iraq didn't have terrorists?

Not that were an immediate threat to us.

audtatious wrote:Proof?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O...Plans

audtatious wrote:Under Clinton, 305,000 employees were removed from the federal payroll, 286,000 (or 90%) were military cuts. The Army was cut from 18 divisions to 12. The Navy was reduced from 546 ships to 380. Air Force flight squadrons were cut from 76 to 50. The CIA budgets and recruiting efforts were cut to the point that they were closing shop abroad or lowering the number of agents where they could not function properly. I would call that "picked apart"

I thought you guys liked smaller government?

We are specifically addressing the intel community, so I don't see how many ships, etc. has anything to do with that.

The CIA cuts started under Bush I and continued under Clinton until Clinton eventually reversed them. Congress creates and passes the budget, and guess which party controlled congress back then? Yep, the Republicans. Plus, Clinton doubled counterterrorism spending over the course of his administration and put Presidential Directive 35 in place, which clearly defined the CIA's counterterrorism role.

ishkabibble wrote:
I have a hard time believing that if Spain's troops we in Iraq rather than home, that their domestic security situation would be any different. Once they started attacking the extremists, they were on the extremist's **** list, period.

Really? What about the terrorists attacks in Spain prior to 2003?

You really are not trying to justify terrorists blowing up trains and such are you? Or are you still positioning the "if we leave them alone they will leave us alone" mentality that history has proven to be wrong?

Oh, so Spain's minuscule force being in Iraq instead of home keeps the terrorists at bay. I get it.

Why would I try and justify that?

History has also proven that we suck at countering guerrilla warfare.

We need to get their own community working against them in order to succeed.