TweetThis is my problem with the politics of this war:
Many politicians, on both sides approved the war on Iraq.
The legitimacy of the war does not lie with the failure or success' of the American intelligence agency. The whole reason it came to that is because a dictator was in non-compliance with the cease-fire agreement made with America.
The fact the CIA's intelligence was questionable and the fact we found no significant WMD's in Iraq is IRRELEVANT. Iraq had to prove to America, that WMD's had been disposed of - Saddam decided not too!

Now that the American public grows war weary, many politicians who originally approved of the war are now wanting to retreat, not reassess strategy but retreat. This is not leadership but cowardice. If the war was the correct course of action before the benefit of hindsight - it is still the correct course of action. With the benefit of hindsight it's easy to state, Saddam wasn't a threat.

Now the reasons we went to war and the way the war is being "marketed" are two different things. Both sides are focusing on variables that aren't even associated with why we originally went to war. We didn't go to war to free the Iraqi's, get oil or fight the war on terror. Those are not the reasons we went and it sucks our society is too ignorant or too weak kneed that we have to come up with reasons just to finish a war that many supported in the beginning.

When any nation goes to war; it should go to win. To win, America needs to broaden the scope of this war to those states supplying our enemy.

Tweet

Originally Posted by Klash

This is my problem with the politics of this war:
Many politicians, on both sides approved the war on Iraq.
The legitimacy of the war does not lie with the failure or success' of the American intelligence agency. The whole reason it came to that is because a dictator was in non-compliance with the cease-fire agreement made with America.
The fact the CIA's intelligence was questionable and the fact we found no significant WMD's in Iraq is IRRELEVANT. Iraq had to prove to America, that WMD's had been disposed of - Saddam decided not too!

Now that the American public grows war weary, many politicians who originally approved of the war are now wanting to retreat, not reassess strategy but retreat. This is not leadership but cowardice. If the war was the correct course of action before the benefit of hindsight - it is still the correct course of action. With the benefit of hindsight it's easy to state, Saddam wasn't a threat.

Now the reasons we went to war and the way the war is being "marketed" are two different things. Both sides are focusing on variables that aren't even associated with why we originally went to war. We didn't go to war to free the Iraqi's, get oil or fight the war on terror. Those are not the reasons we went and it sucks our society is too ignorant or too weak kneed that we have to come up with reasons just to finish a war that many supported in the beginning.

When any nation goes to war; it should go to win. To win, America needs to broaden the scope of this war to those states supplying our enemy.

YEA!!! WHAT HE SAID!!!

actually, i feel like a total idiot for not bringing that up...that's the point i've made many times to people in convo. at my former work place, and it was the one thing that EVERYONE seemed to forget...including me now. he (saddam) brought this on himself and his people becouse he stopped the inspections...becouse he LOOKED like he was hiding something. i dont know if he did it to flex his political muscle, or so the iranians thaught he still was armed and wouldnt jack with him or a little of both...but, the fact is, he's used wmd's in the past. he's showed that it didnt bother him to use them, and there was legitamate fear that he'd use them again....NOW, i feel like the idiot...go ahead dj, egg it on!

TweetI need the weekend off from this stress. I'll continue tearing you guys new ones on Monday.

TweetWORD!...lol. Well put guys. I was thinking the same thing Daved...why I didn't mention that I don't know.

Well said Klash.