WMDs in Iraq ?

[danr55]

Hey guys, anytime American youngsters go in harms way in another country, you can bet there is agression of some kind going on. Usually, Thank God, we are the attacker...Don't fool yourself. There is no point of view that can make armed combat anything other than armed combat. People die, people survive. Those that survive and the survivors of those who die recognize it for exactly what it is. WAR! Doesn't have to be a big war. Doesn't have to last a long time. It's still WAR. The ugliest thing man or men can impose on another man or men.

 

[Calif. Hunter]

A rescue mission is a St.Bernard with a cask of rum around its neck, a group of Boy Scouts with flashlights looking for a lost child or the firemen climbing a ladder to get a kitten down. A bunch of special ops troops making a raid in a foreign land is an attack. Combat is combat, and most easily debated by armchair admirals.


I am amzed at people's penchant for debating minutia and semantics.

 

[cjcj]

Matt you can`t really be serious in the way you think? Can you?

 

[MattK]

We live in a land of semantics. The Revolutionary War (to us) was an uprising to the British. I have said I really don't remember much about the Hostages in Iran. I really was wondering if we were actually attacking them or going in and getting out without much need for an aggressive move.

Nemont your question at the end is the one I am wondering about. Did we liberate or attack? In Iraq I think it started as an attack and became a liberation. But that's just my opinion. What do you think?

CJCJ- I wasn't thinking about it in any way, I was asking a serious question. One that came to my mind reading the posts.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Sorry but I cant resist the quibbling urge

Lets assume for a moment that the Desert One mission didn't end prematurely in tragedy. Lets say for arguments sake that U.S. forces made it successfully to the place where the hostages were being held. Is it not reasonable to assume that military force i.e. death and destruction of Iranians at the hands of Americans on Iranian soil, would have been necessary in order to effect the rescue of said hostages? Is it then not also reasonable to assume that such action would by its nature have made President Carter an aggressor vis-a-vis' the use of military force to recover the hostages?

In short, intent constitutes aggression

Given that the Desert One had no political motive (we were not trying to topple their government like in Afghanastan or Panama) and no economic motive (we weren't trying to capture their Oil like in Iraq), I guess I don't see Carter as the aggressor.

And, I am not sure aggression under the "blessing" of the UN would meet the description. I am guessing more along the lines of Unilateral aggresion, like Grenada, Panama, etc.......

 

[Nemont]

Desert One did have a political motive: Carter wanted to get reelected.

I don't buy that if the U.N gives it's blessing then it isn't an attack. By your definition then Gulf War One wasn't an attack on a Sovereign Nation. What did should we call it when 500,000 troops roll over a countries borders?

I saved some of the orders I recieved while I was over there and the word attack was used many, many times.

Nemont

 

[MattK]

Nemont- I agree...The UN blessing doesn't make it a (non) attack. Would the intent define whether we are attacking or not? It's just a point of curiosity to me.

 

[Nemont]

Nemont- I agree...The UN blessing doesn't make it a (non) attack. Would the intent define whether we are attacking or not? It's just a point of curiosity to me.

MattK,
I think you said it depends upon whose perspective you use. I think the issue isn't whether or not it was or wasn't an attack. The issue becomes whether is was a "Justified" attack. Just to play a little more with semantics. The whole concept of a "Just War" is kind of interesting.

I would say I don't know that our intent was clearly defined in the current Iraq war. It has been kind of a moving target. I think ultimately one has to decide, for themselves, if they believe the results of the war are worth the blood and treasure spent. In my view they are. Obviously many believe the price is too high. I believe that the "costs" of this war will be returned to us many fold over the ensuing years. NOTE THAT IS JUST MY OPINION and you know what they say about opinions.

Now I think for those families who have lost a son or daughter in combat then the price is already extremely high. I would say that many of the people engaged over there, doing the heavy lifting, have told me that while the price is high it needs to be paid.

Nemont

 

[MattK]

Nemont- I was talking to a friend of mine who went to Iraq and recently came back. When we were talking, he brought up justification to attack. He said the best litmus test for war is (in his words) "Is it worth sending yourself or your kid?" If you can answer yes to either of them, it would be worth it. If you can't it really isn't justified in your mind. Believe it or not, he said the people over there "are breed to hate Americans and infidels". He didn't see a lot of love from the people including 4 year old kids. On the news I have heard a completely different story about the people of Iraq. (As a footnote, my friend caught a goldfish in one of Saddam's palaces which I thought was quite funny. The group of people he was with had 6 of 10 get purple hearts (shrapnel). He was one of the 4 who didn't (right place at the right time).) He has a feeling he will be called to active duty again and will be going back.