Fact and Fiction, The Iraq Conflict

Notice I said conflict and not war.

We disposed Saddam and at that point the "war" was over. We are there in support of the Democratically Elected Government of Iraq, at THEIR request.

Those are facts. Easily supported by historical events and documentation found all over the net and in government archives.

Notice I did not have to MAKE anything up or JUMP to any conclusions. I simply stated the facts.

I have been wondering why I encounter perfectly rational and even intelligent members here that I have debated on many a subject, that use the phrase, "Illegal War. Why would a perfectly intelligent person say something so obviously incorrect? Is it because everyone else is saying it and they are caving in to peer pressure?

The "War", the "Conflict" what ever you wish to call it, is not illegal. Not even close. The fact that it has been tested in the courts and found to be perfectly legal should satisfy any thinking person. (Remember that just because you WANT it to be illegal in no way makes it so)

I guess I'm just fond of reminiscing, but I remember all the bold and valiant speeches made by Republicans AND Democrats about how we need to go in and remove Saddam. Did they and you expect us to do that and just leave the vacuum that we created? Are you that naive? We enabled the Iraqi people to vote and choose their own destiny. Now we stay and support that vote from those now free people. We fight the Islamic Fascists that want nothing except to control everyone and everything under their version of religion.

Now besides "Illegal War" I hear all the time "War for Oil" another hyped up and unsubstantiated claim that ignores the facts and makes conclusions based on hyperbole and fantasy desires.

When you ask a "War for Oil" uninformed person to PROVE their comment, you get this. "You prove it's not". HAHAHAHAHAHA How ridiculous is that? Asking me to prove a negative in support of an unsubstantiated comment with no merit.
Some show connections to Haliburton or Exxon or some such other drivel. Well I drive a Jeep that is directly descended from the Military M151 that supported us during WWII. I guess Jeep is a war profiteer as well... Makes an equal amount of common sense. In other words... None. Colt made tons of money during WWII, why are you not speaking out against them? Because that would be ridiculous, almost as much as the war for oil comment.

I wonder how vocal you all would be on this issue if all of a sudden you were walking to work? Oh you can protest how brave you would be while your sitting here able to buy gas, you can talk big and bad, but we all know the truth. You would be raising holy heck and screaming about how bad the government is... Can't you all see the hypocrisy? Of course not, you have gas now.

Fact vs Fiction... I still wonder what happens to peoples intellect on this issue. Why they can not believe facts, yet jump on any politically correct fictional account that slides down the pike.

Semper

It seems you have chosen death before the truth. The truth is very dishonorable. I would tell you the truth but I assume you want to live, so no dishonor for you. Damm the people who make our noble warriors fight for lies. Hats off to soldiers who put duty before personal beliefs.

So you are saying that because YOU believe different from me, that YOU are correct?

Now there is an argument, not supported or substantiated or based on fact, but an argument no less...

Semper

reply to post by semperfortis



I'm just going by what I heard, from the guys who planned the war. It makes no nevermind who's information differs from mine. I'm a wimpy guy who would never challenge any Marine on anything. I just feel the need to fix my country, because I love it. Truth usually fixes things.

Don't you think it strange though that we heard different things?

I heard and have re-heard (Word? HAHAHA) the different speeches again and again, and I still hear the same thing.

I have also successfully debated the subject here on ATS..

Is the War in Iraq Valid

The point I am making is there are facts and there are feelings and opinions. There is nothing wrong with feelings or opinions until you try and refute facts with them. This happens frequently in debating the war.

Semper

"The first casualty of war is the truth."

Republican Senator Hiram Warren Johnson

reply to post by semperfortis



You are an excellent debater. Enjoyed that thread alot. You have reminded me that emotion has no place in debate.

I think it is OK to be emotional and passionate about a subject, I sure am at times. You just have to make sure that does not get translated into your post as evidence of a point of view..

Thanks for the compliment....

Semper

Originally posted by semperfortis
I have been wondering why I encounter perfectly rational and even intelligent members here that I have debated on many a subject, that use the phrase, "Illegal War.

From what I've seen mentioned in many critical mainstream media analysis of the situation is that the notion of "illegal" stems from what is shaping up to be a fabricated rationale for invasion.

If the basis for launching the war is based on illegally manufactured or exaggerated "evidence," then the previous tests for legality of the war are out the window and there is a strong possibility that the invasion/war were indeed illegal.

I can't claim to know for a fact that it's a war for oil or to find aliens or we were out to find elvis' lost golden guitar. However, I still do find it pretty odd that to this day we have not found any wmds and there has been no solid proof that Iraq has any ties to 9-11 or the terrorists involved. These were the two reasons we went to war in iraq in the first place. So either we had some bad intelligence or there was something shady going on from the get-go.

However it came about, we are there now and just pulling our guys out would only create a worse situation which, more then likely, would come back to bite us in the ass down the road. I do think we need to bring our men and women home but I'm in no way capable of making the decision as to how or when.

I guess my question to you would be:

If you WON a debate here on ATS regarding the legality of the Iraq Conflict/war....

Why are you basically starting a new topic to rehash it?

Sounds like some ego stroking to me

I see your point and agree somewhat if those facts ever become substantiated...

Currently though, as far as I have been able to discover, if you look beyond all the assuming going on, it remains faulty intelligence. That is not a crime, stupid maybe, but not criminal..

Also in watching the speeches again and again, you can't help but notice a number of things...
1. The reason for going in Iraq being the violation of UN sanctions is mentioned first and foremost
2. Speeches of support were made by both sides of the isle, all with availability to the same information as the administration
3. If there was no Al-Qaeda in Iraq, who are those people we have killed and captured who were named by the enemy as "Leaders of Al-Qaeda in Iraq?
I would assume if there was no Al-Qaeda in Iraq, we would not be constantly finding these people....

The MSM is going to flow with whatever is currently popular in the general population. We all know that.

It is virtually impossible to maintain a conflict where young men and women are dying and keep it, the conflict, important in the minds of the people must less popular. Humans are a fickle species and tend to easily forget that which they would rather not remember. Gone are the flags on every doorstep, gone is the rabid desire to inflict pain and suffering on those that inflicted it upon us.

Having been there and seen those people, I can tell you that we are doing very good things over there. Granted it has been years, but I still correspond with many troops "on the ground" so I believe I get a "real" picture and not one made up by the MSM.

As we are there at the direct invitation and request of the Iraqi Government I guess only one question really matters...At least to me.

1. Is it only our freedom and democracy that matters? Or do other people have the right to ask us to help them be free as well?

Semper

semperfortis said:

As we are there at the direct invitation and request of the Iraqi Government I guess only one question really matters.

I agree!

Why are they not paying for it?

If we are there at the direct invitation and request of their government, it would seem to imply that we are there in support of their interests and agenda rather than our own. If that is the case, why is the American taxpayer bearing the burden?

[edit on 29-1-2008 by pavlovsdog]

reply to post by semperfortis


I would be all for enforcing freedom and democracy worldwide. The only problem is that the people doing it are after the oil and don't really care about the freedom and democracy part.
If they did care about being the world's policeman they would fight other oppressive regimes instead of the one's with oil. They could use the oil as a weapon, I know, but that is no good reason to steal it.

See the problem I have with that is this...

Why is it you are so ready to say we are after the oil.. ALL without proof.. And yet so hesitant to say we are there for democracy, with proof?
Democratically held elections and all..

How is it your speculation about the oil makes any more sense than what we say we are there for? Or even as much?

That's the crux of the issue....

You may THINK we are there for oil. Heck you can think anything. That we are there to pick flowers. Doesn't make it true, but you can think it.

What the facts are is this...

1.We went and deposed a tyrant

2.We stayed and helped set up and support one of the most successful democratic elections seen in the free world

3. We have captured several well known Al-Qaeda members in Iraq. Even calling themselves "The Leaders of Al-Qaeda in Iraq". Not something we coined

4. We have calculated that approximately 80 to 90% of all recent detainees and enemy casualties are from neighboring countries and not indigenous to Iraq.

5. The Presidents Speeches all began telling us we were going in because of the violation of sanctions and they ended that way as well.

Now these are all just FACTS... Not opinions or suppositions, facts that we all knew at one time before it became politically incorrect to speak them and more popular to despise President Bush and make a HUGE issue out of following the pack...

Semper

Originally posted by semperfortis As we are there at the direct invitation and request of the Iraqi Government I guess only one question really matters...At least to me.
Semper

I believe that the Iraqi Government that was "elected" by the Iraqi people was selected by Paul Wolfiwitz and other American officials as a puppet to US interest. So the invitation isn't to surprising is it?


I know....I can believe what I want to...

[edit on 29-1-2008 by whaaa]

So the invitation isn't to suprising is it?

Making that statement I would assume that you followed the election there closely. You did didn't you?

Because I saw the results, they were posted on numerous sites, both foreign and domestic and I never saw his name anywhere on the ballots...

I wonder how he managed to make all those thousands of people vote the way he wanted? Did he campaign there? Did I miss his Iraq Governmental Debate?

Iraq Election Results Certified

Semper

Originally posted by semperfortis

What the facts are is this...

1.We went and deposed a tyrant

I'll give you that one

2.We stayed and helped set up and support one of the most successful democratic elections seen in the free world

citation needed

3. We have captured several well known Al-Qaeda members in Iraq. Even calling themselves "The Leaders of Al-Qaeda in Iraq". Not something we coined

Please provide internal Al-qaeda documents referring to themselves as such.

4. We have calculated that approximately 80 to 90% of all recent detainees and enemy casualties are from neighboring countries and not indigenous to Iraq.

citation needed

5. The Presidents Speeches all began telling us we were going in because of the violation of sanctions and they ended that way as well.

I'm not sure what you mean 'ended that way as well' - are you saying his speeches ended that way?

Your sarcasm isn't appreciated.

I'm just saying the candidates were selected by their willingness to bend to American Interest. The Iraqi's voted on preselected candidates.

I think it's naive to assume the US had no influence in those elections.

Originally posted by whaaa
Your sarcasm isn't appreciated.

Yes, please watch the tone of your posts....please. Don't want this thread to get out of hand.

Peace

[edit on 29-1-2008 by Dr Love]