Original question:
My answer is still yeah, but...
My only qualm, my ONLY qualm, is that after my own initial patriotic fervor subsides, I begin to ask myself, "why Iraq?" or "why Kosovo?"

I once spoke to an old, grizzled SF Team SGT while I was in Kosovo who told me that he'd just returned from duty in Columbia (c.1999) and essentially his entire tour was spent cleaning up the 'killing fields'. Body after body, body part after body part, the team was just picking up grizzly remains.

First of all, having a few A teams in a country does not constitute occupation...so I wondered why we hadn't deployed forces there to halt these barbaric attrocities? I'm not an expert on anything S. America nor Africa, but I do know there is a third CJTF (Combined Joint Task Force) in Africa right now, not nearly as large as OIF/OEF, but just as busy. Doing what, though? Obviously doing what they are trained to do, but what are their effects? Are they advancing?

What about all of the other hotspots in Africa? What about the eastern coast of Asia, like Indonesia and the PI? Again, SF are hugely successful given their strength, but are they enough and are they equiped to be effective?

Here's my disclaimer: Never will I criticize the Army as a whole. Sure, we've got our ****necks, but as an organization, we are the best. However, even though I support OEF/OIF and even though I realize we aren't capable of putting out every single fire across the globe, I'd just like to see the decision matrix that directs action in this country and not that one.

 

Now we're getting back into the argument of what interests we had in Iraq as opposed to saving people in Africa just because.

Saddam was a very bad person that was responsible for hundreds of thousands of innocent deaths in cold blood. We went over their and got rid of him and the majority of the Iraqi population was ecstatic. It may not have been the most popular thing to do at that given time and it may have been done under false pretence of WMDs when creating that beacon of Democracy and establishing freedom stood silently behind the limelight. But to weigh it against so many other variables like you're doing and so many others do is ridiculous.

 

here is what we shouldnt have done

Lie about WMD's
Not have a plan
Not wait for the right time

 

Then why didn't we just say it was for human rights? EDITED Had we said it was for human rights this would have probably happened:
1. More information as to Saddam's attrocites would have come out, and less about WMD's. This would allow the world to see how bad he really was.
2. The U.N. would have VERY LIKELY supported us. We present meaningful truthful evidence as to his attrocities and they WOULD have gone along
3. The insurgents would have had no grounds to base on. Why? They believe we are imperialists looking for oil and a country to puppet. Had we gone in there with full UN support I am convinced the insurgency would have been much less, and the arab world would have supported it less. Why? Because the Arab world (minus extremists) do not hate the UN/all its countires, but just hate US!
4. Saddam would have been tried in the Hauge and it would not end up being a game show like it is now.

Heres the problem: When has dubya said it was about human rights? And if he has it has been completely minor. I stated above why I diagree completely with the Iraq war, so I'm not going to state it agian

Here, read this. And actually read it because it is well written, and thougoughly thought out even if you disagree with it.I just reread it and it sums up my thoughts almost exactally.
http://hrw.org/wr2k4/3.htm

EDIT #2: edited to reduce possiblility for getting off topic, and bolded

 

Interesting.

 

You are totally ignoring the regional history of that area. The thing I find ironic about this conversation is that you are saying that Saddam tortured individuals, hence is "a very bad person", but a while back on a different thread you defended our use of torture. And I have yet to see a "Democracy that stands for freedom" in Iraq. If anything its way to early to judge to see where it is headed, but in all honesty I don't see it being a "beacon of Democracy". And most signs point to this.

 

*waits for Salty to reply to my link I posted*

 

Boy, you can be obtuse...is it intentional? Have you ever seen the reception Clinton received when visiting Slovenia? They LOVE him there.



Not only that, but Clinton never falsely claimed that Milosevic was a threat to the United States.

 

AND to echo salty's comment what happened at Abu Ghirab WAS NOT TERRORISIM... so we led them around on a leash by a woman and made them pile up naked...

we didn’t cut of ears and murder there families as they watched... get your **** straight bud.

 

you do?

so tell me how is the U.N.s deplomatic powers doing in the stopping of irans nuclear programs? hum...

 

Read the damn article!

The UN has no respect right now because of us. If Iran knew that an invasion was POSSIBLE with world support they would be much more likely to stop. However right now, they know that the UN can't do anything because of our being completely caught up in Iraq.

And what do you suggest? Is there a better alternative out there than the UN? Invading? I think we realized after this war that invading a middle eastern country for a "regime change" and not humanitarian grounds is a grave mistake.

 

DING DING DING!!

And just so you Right wingers don't try and bring it up: Yes, Clinton serisously ****ed up in not putting more democratic pressure/ humanitarian aid on Iraq or especially Rwanda. That was his most grave and unforgivable mistake.

 

I'm amazed at the amount of hypocracy in this thread.

 

Me too!

 

Well please point it out.