Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: x0847Marine on April 25, 2007, 02:37:09 PM
-
Reasons Not to Invade Iraq, by Bush Sr.
http://www.thememoryhole.org/mil/bushsr-iraq.htm
The Arab allies didn't want US troops to stay, and Bush Sr correctly states "Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome."
-
Too bad the son was way too utterly stupid to listen to his father's advice.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
Too bad the son was way too utterly stupid to listen to his father's advice.
ack-ack
saddam and his idiot sons would agree with you.
if they were still alive.
-
Originally posted by john9001
saddam and his idiot sons would agree with you.
if they were still alive.
The reality that invading then occupying Iraq would be an unpopular disaster was nicely laid out by Bush Sr, apparently GW was one of the weaker sperm to hit the egg... lacking a common sense gene or something.
-
Originally posted by john9001
saddam and his idiot sons would agree with you.
if they were still alive.
Oh yeah,they could have brought Iraqi battleships to USA coast,he-he.
-
You know, even with that said, It seems like we would have had a better chance of pulling off what we are trying to do now, If we had occupied Iraq at the end of Desert Storm. What we have now is a somewhat worse situation than Vietnam.
-
Bush Sr. had an international coalition that included many Arab states and a fair chance at a reasonable outcome. Dubya had Tony Blair and Poland.
-
Originally posted by rpm
Bush Sr. had an international coalition that included many Arab states and a fair chance at a reasonable outcome. Dubya had Tony Blair and Poland.
Bush Sr. also had the UN forbidding a march on Baghdad. This was when we thought the UN was actually important.
So this wasn't really a piece on why it's bad to invade Iraq, but a piece on garnering support for the UN.
-
the article is from 1998 talking about an Iraq in 1991
ya think the situation may have changed any btwn 91 and 03 (only 12 years) for a reason to attack? Wasn't it thought during those 12 years the cheekbones saddam was building WMDs? Didn't he & his crazy sons continue to spiral out of control? Sort of like a Noriega in many ways only richer and more dangerous. Can't forget his support of the pal bombers during that time.
ya, nothing changed in those 12 years .. nothing at all.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Bush Sr. also had the UN forbidding a march on Baghdad. This was when we thought the UN was actually important.
So this wasn't really a piece on why it's bad to invade Iraq, but a piece on garnering support for the UN.
The UN did no such thing. However the Arab members of the coalition forces did.
-
C'mon Viking, we're rewriting history to suit our needs. Be a playa not a hater.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
the article is from 1998 talking about an Iraq in 1991
ya think the situation may have changed any btwn 91 and 03 (only 12 years) for a reason to attack? Wasn't it thought during those 12 years the cheekbones saddam was building WMDs? Didn't he & his crazy sons continue to spiral out of control? Sort of like a Noriega in many ways only richer and more dangerous. Can't forget his support of the pal bombers during that time.
ya, nothing changed in those 12 years .. nothing at all.
Oh yea, all those nasty WMDs he was building..
A US occupying force in the mid east is just as unacceptable today as it was 12 years ago for all the same reasons, take a look at the on-going 5 year complete disaster in Iraq for conformation that not much has changed.
Per the article Big Bush had hoped to establish a model for the use of force, a a proven success that made the Arabs happy: get in, get the job done, then leave quickly as not to be seen as an occupying force and pissoff the natives.
So little Bush decides to do the exact opposite, with predictable "barren--outcome" results.
-
so you really think "little" Bush would do anything "big" Bush & his friends would be 100% against?
not me, circumstances changed and yes, the ENTIRE world thought he had WMD's though they all did not agree with the war but would you if you were making millions circumventing the surrender/withdraw agreement of Desert Storm with the oil for food program? Make up your mind - first GW is a puppet then he's a renegade - which one is it?
"C'mon Viking, we're rewriting history to suit our needs. ..."
rpm, yep the dems are trying to do exactly that .. they all seem to have forgotten they voted on the war knowing exactly what everyone else did at the time..
-
:huh Complete disaster??? Sadam's and his kin are gone, and the only disaster is being created by the Sunni, and Shia against fellow Islamists... with the occaissional UN, US, UK, etc troops caught. Boy, there's a model of a compassionate religion for you.
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
Too bad the son was way too utterly stupid to listen to his father's advice.
ack-ack
Yo liberals... too bad Senior didn't have those 3200 American deaths on his head to weigh in on staying the course either, huh?
Same goes for Clit-one who let these yokels have their way, while he was off boffing the staff.
War is not supposed to be pretty. If it was, we would have more of them... and the only thing that Islamic radicals truly understand is superior fire power. Give them a real good bloody nose and they fall in line, because that is all they understand. It's what they are, and how they are raised, these radicals, to hate every freedom you so enjoy.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
so you really think "little" Bush would do anything "big" Bush & his friends would be 100% against?
not me, circumstances changed and yes, the ENTIRE world thought he had WMD's though they all did not agree with the war but would you if you were making millions circumventing the surrender/withdraw agreement of Desert Storm with the oil for food program? Make up your mind - first GW is a puppet then he's a renegade - which one is it?
"C'mon Viking, we're rewriting history to suit our needs. ..."
rpm, yep the dems are trying to do exactly that .. they all seem to have forgotten they voted on the war knowing exactly what everyone else did at the time..
It doesn't matter what I think, its pretty clear big bush didn't invade Iraq for all the reasons we're seeing Little Bush fail... that's just kinda obvious 5 years of failure after the fact and almost 30,000 wounded.
I'm not sure where the oil for food thing came from, or who you think was making millions... Saddam had replaced the dollar with the euro and had euro companies lined up to do billions in business using the new currency... whatever scam he had with oil / food was probably Udays party $$.
Blaming the dems seems pointless since republicans are just as stupid and incompetent... neither party could find their own nuts without help much less expose the little bushis total bogus WMD excuse for what it was; fecal matter polished to look like sunshine.
-
You idiot, Bush Sr. has said he would have gone the course and into Baghdad if he had had the support from the American people and Congress.
As it was, the US was only there at the behest of Kuwait, who Iraq had invaded. Had we continued on, the Islamic world would have seen that as an act of expanionism.
Face it, those people have been cutting each others throats for thousands of years because of "religious" differences. Remove the secular from the government and you have hopes for peace. Leave it in, and you have what we see now.
And FYI - WMD material components were located in several locations in Iraq. The drive-by media just failed to expand on it when it was first reported, and the Demoncrats just keep their blinders on and ignore it.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
rpm, yep the dems are trying to do exactly that .. they all seem to have forgotten they voted on the war knowing exactly what everyone else did at the time..
You mean knowing exactly what Bush fabricated to suit his wants? Say, where are those stockpiles of WMD anyway? We did torture Saddam and get the info before he was hung, right?
-
Originally posted by rpm
You mean knowing exactly what Bush fabricated to suit his wants? Say, where are those stockpiles of WMD anyway? We did torture Saddam and get the info before he was hung, right?
Yes, the same stockpiles the world believed he had and may even of had and moved. But keep trying to change history to meet the dems latest spew.
if we'd totured anyone, it'd just given the dems another agenda .. sort of like the Rice witch hunt they are starting up now...
-
Is it true the the Democrats do not understand their own Constitution, and Laws, and this is why the keep trying to re-write something that wasn't broken in the first place?
:rofl :rofl :rofl
-
How soon we forget.
Bill Clinton: "If Saddam rejects peace, and we have to use force, our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
Madeleine Albright, (Clinton Secretary of State): "We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
Sandy Berger, (Clinton National Security Advisor): "[Saddam will] use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has ten times since 1983."
Harry Reid: "The problem is not nuclear testing; it is nuclear weapons. … The number of Third World countries with nuclear capabilities seems to grow daily. Saddam Hussein's near success with developing a nuclear weapon should be an eye-opener for us all."
Dick Durbin: "One of the most compelling threats we in this country face today is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Threat assessments regularly warn us of the possibility that…Iraq…may acquire or develop nuclear weapons."
John Kerry: "If you don't believe…Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn't vote for me."
John Edwards: "Serving on the Intelligence Committee and seeing day after day, week after week, briefings on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons, he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons, it's just that simple. The whole world changes if Saddam ever has nuclear weapons."
Nancy Pelosi: "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons-inspection process."
-
Originally posted by Eagler
Yes, the same stockpiles the world believed he had and may even of had and moved. But keep trying to change history to meet the dems latest spew.
if we'd totured anyone, it'd just given the dems another agenda .. sort of like the Rice witch hunt they are starting up now...
If we'd tortured anyone? What pile of sand do you have your head buried in anyway?
Shifty, you REALLY don't want to play the quote game on this one.
-
RPM I'm not playing a game. Besides, I didn't say it, they did.
Here's some more., and by all means post yours as well. How's anybody going to know if you don't bring out what's been said. This forum boils down to usually two groups arguing over crap other people have done to us, and ours. Everybody loves to complain about this war, both sets of politicians sent our troops over there. Not just Bush. The biggest problem I have is one set thinks they can skirt their responsibiltiy on the war by blaming even their own vote on Bush. Instead of concentrating on winning it.
This war has hurt my family already, believe me theres nothing you can post that's going bother me any more than these Washington jackholes have already.
RPM
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
-
Sorry for your family's loss.
Since you seem to need to go down this road, buckle up...
President George W. Bush:
"We recently found two mobile biological weapons facilities which were capable of producing biological agents."
Source: President Talks to Troops in Qatar, White House (6/5/2003).
"We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said, Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons. They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two. And we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them."
Source: Interview of the President by TVP, Poland, White House (5/29/2003).
(These statement were misleading because it claimed the purpose of the trailers was to produce biological weapons without disclosing that engineers from the Defense Intelligence Agency who examined the trailers concluded that they were most likely used to produce hydrogen for artillery weather balloons.)
"I strongly believe he was trying to reconstitute his nuclear weapons program."
Source: President Bush, Prime Minister Blair Discuss War on Terrorism, White House (7/17/2003).
(This statement was misleading because it failed to acknowledge the intelligence community's deep division on the issue of whether Iraq was actively pursuing its nuclear program. The statement also failed to mention weeks of intensive inspections conducted directly before the war in which United Nations inspectors found no sign whatsoever of any effort by Iraq to resume its nuclear program.)
"The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 -- and still goes on. That terrible morning, 19 evil men -- the shock troops of a hateful ideology -- gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions. They imagined, in the words of one terrorist, that September the 11th would be the 'beginning of the end of America.' By seeking to turn our cities into killing fields, terrorists and their allies believed that they could destroy this nation's resolve, and force our retreat from the world. They have failed."
Source: President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended, White House (5/1/2003).
(This statement was misleading because by referencing the September 11 attacks in conjunction with discussion of the war on terror in Iraq, it left the impression that Iraq was connected to September 11. In fact, President Bush himself in September 2003 acknowledged that "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th.")
"But the risk of doing nothing, the risk of the security of this country being jeopardized at the hands of a madman with weapons of mass destruction far exceeds the risks of any action we may be forced to take."
Source: President Meets with National Economic Council, White House (2/25/2003).
(This statement was misleading because it suggested that Iraq posed an urgent threat despite the fact that the U.S. intelligence community had deep divisions and divergent points of view regarding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. As Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet noted in February 2004, "Let me be clear: analysts differed on several important aspects of these programs and those debates were spelled out in the Estimate. They never said there was an 'imminent' threat.")
Vice President Richard Cheney:
"In terms of the question what is there now, we know for example that prior to our going in that he had spent time and effort acquiring mobile biological weapons labs, and we're quite confident he did, in fact, have such a program. We've found a couple of semi trailers at this point which we believe were, in fact, part of that program."
Source: Morning Edition, NPR (1/22/2004).
(This statement was misleading because it claimed the purpose of the trailers was to produce biological weapons without disclosing that engineers from the Defense Intelligence Agency who examined the trailers concluded that they were most likely used to produce hydrogen for artillery weather balloons.)
"I continue to believe. I think there's overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between al-Qaeda and the Iraqi government. We've discovered since documents indicating that a guy named Abdul Rahman Yasin, who was a part of the team that attacked the World Trade Center in '93, when he arrived back in Iraq was put on the payroll and provided a house, safe harbor and sanctuary. That's public information now. So Saddam Hussein had an established track record of providing safe harbor and sanctuary for terrorists. . . . I mean, this is a guy who was an advocate and a supporter of terrorism whenever it suited his purpose, and I'm very confident that there was an established relationship there."
Source: Morning Edition, NPR (1/22/2004).
(This statement was misleading because it suggested that Iraq was providing support to al Qaeda. In fact, the U.S. intelligence community had conflicting evidence on this issue and was divided regarding whether there was an operational relationship.)
"We did have reporting that was public, that came out shortly after the 9/11 attack, provided by the Czech government, suggesting there had been a meeting in Prague between Mohammed Atta, the lead hijacker, and a man named al-Ani (Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani), who was an Iraqi intelligence official in Prague, at the embassy there, in April of '01, prior to the 9/11 attacks. It has never been -- we've never been able to collect any more information on that. That was the one that possibly tied the two together to 9/11."
Source: Transcript of Interview with Vice President Dick Cheney, Rocky Mountain News (1/9/2004).
(This statement is misleading because it describes a Czech government report of a meeting between Mohammed Atta and Iraq intelligence official Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani in April 2001 and states that there hasn't been more information on that, despite the fact that Czech intelligence officials were skeptical about the report; U.S. intelligence had contradictory evidence regarding this report, such as records indicating Atta was in Virginia at the time of the meeting; and the C.I.A. and F.B.I. had concluded the meeting probably didn't occur.)
"I don't want to talk about, obviously, specific intelligence sources, but it's now public that, in fact, he has been seeking to acquire, and we have been able to intercept and prevent him from acquiring through this particular channel, the kinds of tubes that are necessary to build a centrifuge. And the centrifuge is required to take low-grade uranium and enhance it into highly enriched uranium, which is what you have to have in order to build a bomb."
Source: Meet the Press, NBC (9/8/2002).
(This statement was misleading because it suggested that Iraq sought aluminum tubes for use in its nuclear weapons program, failing to mention that the government's most experienced technical experts at the U.S. Department of Energy concluded that the tubes were "poorly suited" for this purpose.)
"But we do know, with absolute certainty, that he is using his procurement system to acquire the equipment he needs in order to enrich uranium to build a nuclear weapon."
Source: Meet the Press, NBC (9/8/2002).
(This statement was misleading because it failed to acknowledge the intelligence community's deep division on the issue of whether Iraq was actively pursuing its nuclear program.)
That's just a few of the quotes from Bush and Cheney. Do you want me to dig up the lies from Donny and Condi as well? I'm leaving Powell out of this because it's clear he wants nothing to do with the administration and it's games.
-
Thanks RPM.
Maybe I'm not properly expressing myself.
I don't think invading Iraq was a good idea, at the time.
I felt we should have concentrated on Afghanistan in 2003.
I do think Bush has made some big mistakes on how he has conducted the war.
I don't think Bush invaded Iraq for any reason other than he believed it was the right thing to do. I'll never buy it was for Oil profits, or Haliburton. Maybe I'm just Niave.
I think everybody voted on the intel available.
I fail to see bad intel and mistakes as lies.
I fail to see how an American politician can vote to send his countrys young people to war, then turn around and attack the president, and do everything possible to harass, smear, and be-little him while he is trying to conduct the war.
I will never understand how Dems who are always harping about Bush being an ignorant hick, unitelligent, and un-sophisticated, can then claim they were tricked by him into voting for the war.
The people who voted to go to war owe it to our military, and our citizens to see it through to a successful conclusion. Not backstab and de-rail the effort at every chance they get. Personally I feel that if as much effort went into cooperating for the good of the country as goes into poking a stick in each others eye, the situation in Iraq would be better than it is today.
The very fact that our politicians can't unite to finish something both sides voted for gives the enemy of our service members more initive to keep fighting.
So I'll side with you. Bush got us in the war, agreed.
However the Dems are making the situation far worse by supporting, and ecouraging failure.
I don't hold Bush or the Dems responsible for my son.
I do however hold the Dems responsible for going to war and not having the guts to finish it.
As far as Thomas, he'll be the first to tell you.
He volunteered for the Army
He volunteered for Combat Arms
He's not a victim.
He's a Soldier.
RPM
At least we can agree on Rosie.
:)
-
democrats "when there was no war, i voted for war, now that there is a war, i will vote against war."
-
Originally posted by Odee
:huh Complete disaster??? Sadam's and his kin are gone, and the only disaster is being created by the Sunni, and Shia against fellow Islamists... with the occaissional UN, US, UK, etc troops caught. Boy, there's a model of a compassionate religion for you.
Yo liberals...?
Who said I was a liberal? My voter registration card clearly says "Republican". I guess I'm just not brainwashed and can form a thought for myself without having to watch Fox News to tell me what to believe.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Shifty
Thanks RPM.
Maybe I'm not properly expressing myself.
I don't think invading Iraq was a good idea, at the time.
I felt we should have concentrated on Afghanistan in 2003.
I do think Bush has made some big mistakes on how he has conducted the war.
We are in 100% agreement so far.
I don't think Bush invaded Iraq for any reason other than he believed it was the right thing to do. I'll never buy it was for Oil profits, or Haliburton. Maybe I'm just Niave.
I think everybody voted on the intel available.
I fail to see bad intel and mistakes as lies.
Here's where you lost me. Bush wanted to march into Baghdad to prove he was a tough guy. I believe the term is "cowboy". He quit listening to anyone that wasn't in agreement with him, "my way or the highway".
I fail to see how an American politician can vote to send his countrys young people to war, then turn around and attack the president, and do everything possible to harass, smear, and be-little him while he is trying to conduct the war.
I will never understand how Dems who are always harping about Bush being an ignorant hick, unitelligent, and un-sophisticated, can then claim they were tricked by him into voting for the war.
Because his story fell apart. He had no exit strategy. He was like the dog that caught the car, "WTF do I do with it now?" We are not fighting terrorists anymore, we are caught up in a religious Civil War that has been going on for centuries.
The people who voted to go to war owe it to our military, and our citizens to see it through to a successful conclusion. Not backstab and de-rail the effort at every chance they get. Personally I feel that if as much effort went into cooperating for the good of the country as goes into poking a stick in each others eye, the situation in Iraq would be better than it is today.
The very fact that our politicians can't unite to finish something both sides voted for gives the enemy of our service members more initive to keep fighting.
So I'll side with you. Bush got us in the war, agreed.
However the Dems are making the situation far worse by supporting, and ecouraging failure.
I don't hold Bush or the Dems responsible for my son.
I do however hold the Dems responsible for going to war and not having the guts to finish it.
As far as Thomas, he'll be the first to tell you.
He volunteered for the Army
He volunteered for Combat Arms
He's not a victim.
He's a Soldier.
RPM
At least we can agree on Rosie.
:)
Again, sorry for your family's loss. It's tragic that our finest and bravest are taken by war.
It's even more tragic to ask more young men and women to walk into the situation we are facing and die. Who's son or daughter needs to die so Bush can save face. He's had 4 years to stablize the country. Do you honestly think we have to stay in Iraq until they are thinking our way? Should we stay 2 more years, 5 more, 25 more... or is that considered setting a deadline and surrendering? Should we institute a draft to build forces to accomplish this?
Should we have stayed in South Vietnam? Were Nixon and Ford backstabbers and de-railers? What about Reagan's withdrawal from Lebanon? Guess he was just a coward at heart. There comes a point where you are no longer a stablizing force and you actually make things better by leaving.
Just because you don't agree with George W. Bush or his administration does not mean you do not support the troops or care about their well being. That is a neat little talking point thought up by Karl Rove to bully pulpuit with. It's also sickening to me that their supporters think they are somehow superior citizens and the only true backers of the troops.
Slapping a magnetic yellow sticker that was made in China on the trunk of your car does absolutely nothing to help the soldier in the field. It does keep a chinese sticker factory open and make you feel better about yourself. Now you can badmouth anyone that doesn't have one and know you are a moraly superior american.
These lousy democrats that hate the troops as you and others claim, are the same ones that forced the administration to provide body armour and upgrade humvees. Remember "you don't go to war with the equiptment you want"? Could you believe the SecDef did'nt want to provide troops with armour and equiptment and wanted to fight on the cheap? But when it looks good flying over, what do the grunts on the ground know anyway.
Good thing this administration is made up of non serving chickenhawks. They can run it like a business instead of a war. Unfortunately in business the worst that can happen is you get fired, in war the cost is much higher.
-
Shifty
please thank your son for his sacrifice for my family and I
-
Bush wanted to march into Baghdad to prove he was a tough guy. I believe the term is "cowboy". He quit listening to anyone that wasn't in agreement with him, "my way or the highway".
I think this is a bit of an over the edge attitude. You don't agree with his conduct of the war, that I understand, and respect. He didn't quit listening to those not in agreement. He did what he thought was the right course of action. Just because somebody dissagrees with you, doesn't mean you have to pick up and run their course of action.
It's even more tragic to ask more young men and women to walk into the situation we are facing and die. Who's son or daughter needs to die so Bush can save face. He's had 4 years to stablize the country. Do you honestly think we have to stay in Iraq until they are thinking our way? Should we stay 2 more years, 5 more, 25 more... or is that considered setting a deadline and surrendering? Should we institute a draft to build forces to accomplish this?
Again I agree, war is the ultimate tragedy. However how can any President expect to have any chance of stabilizing one of the worlds most unstable locations when his political rivals are attacking his efforts at every ooportunity? Do you not see that our lack of unity serves the enemy? I'm not saying love the man. However we have the chance for a new government every 4 years, you want change? That's where you get it.
Just because you don't agree with George W. Bush or his administration does not mean you do not support the troops or care about their well being. That is a neat little talking point thought up by Karl Rove to bully pulpuit with. It's also sickening to me that their supporters think they are somehow superior citizens and the only true backers of the troops.
Slapping a magnetic yellow sticker that was made in China on the trunk of your car does absolutely nothing to help the soldier in the field. It does keep a chinese sticker factory open and make you feel better about yourself. Now you can badmouth anyone that doesn't have one and know you are a moraly superior american.
Again I agree, you have to do more than buy a yellow sticker. Plus I'd go as far as to say the majority of Americans do nothing to support the troops at all. This is not meant as a slight. it's just our country is so prosporus that we can be involved in a shooting war and nobody has their life affected except those fighting it. There's no rationing, no scrap drives, none of the things you saw during WWII. There's more complaining than aything else.
These lousy democrats that hate the troops as you and others claim, are the same ones that forced the administration to provide body armour and upgrade humvees. Remember "you don't go to war with the equiptment you want"? Could you believe the SecDef did'nt want to provide troops with armour and equiptment and wanted to fight on the cheap? But when it looks good flying over, what do the grunts on the ground know anyway.
Good thing this administration is made up of non serving chickenhawks. They can run it like a business instead of a war. Unfortunately in business the worst that can happen is you get fired, in war the cost is much higher.
You'll have to show me where I said those lousy Democrats hate the troops. I believe what I said was those Dems "That voted for the war" plus I never said they hated the troops. I said they are hurting the troops with their actions and I believe they are. Honestly I do remember the you don't go to war with the equipment you want statement. Like you I didn't like it ethier, however sadly it is what happens in most wars.
As far as the administration being made up of non seving Chickenhawks? That's the battle cry of some real heros like Bill Mahr I suppose? Prior military service was no big deal under Clinton. Before you say he didnt declare war on anyone, remember he wasn't challeneged by things like 9-11 ethier. Had 9-11 happened 3 years earlier, I would have wanted the same support for President Clinton as I do Bush.
Plus do you want to tell members of this community that are Guardsmen or Reservist thier service doesn't count? Because that seems to be the rule, Bush's service doesn't count because he was in the Air National Guard.
In fact I think we could go a long way by throwing both the terms Lousy Troop Hating Democrat, and Non Serving Chickenhawk, in the same trash heap.
RPM Thank you for keeping the discussion civil.
Thank you Eagler I will tell him.:)
-
before the war only combat troops got body armor not the support troops, humv's were designed as a replacement for the jeep/utility vehicle, it was never designed as a combat vehicle. But it is now being used as one, thats why it has to be "up-armored".
when i was in the military my jeep did not even have doors on it, forget about armor.
but that is all bush's fault of course.
-
Originally posted by john9001
when i was in the military my jeep did not even have doors on it, forget about armor.
Jeeps, Fatigues, and Piss Pots instead of Humvees, ACU's and Kevlar. Those were the days.:D
-
Hey Shifty, a quick wrapup and then I'll hush...
We have a chance for a change in government every 2 years when the midterm elections come round. This time it was apparent that the majority of voters were not happy with the way things were going and wanted change. That is what's happening with this congress.
We are both in agreement about the lack of sacrifice by the majority of Americans. If we rationed gasoline, the war would be over in months if not weeks.
I also need to apologuise for my excessive use of "you". I do not mean you personally when talking about the democrat bashers, I refer to those attacking anyone that does not back Bush. I need to start rephrasing that before I confuse anyone else.
I do stand behind calling this administration "Chickenhawks". Bush's service was a joke. He didn't serve his term and ran off to play politics instead of doing his duty. He also ducked out of taking a flight physical after drug testing was included. If he had really wanted to serve in Vietnam as a pilot there were plenty of openings with greater chances of being deployed besides the TANG. Cheney had more deferments than a golfball has dimples. In fact the only member of the Bush administration with credible military experience was Colin Powell but he got out of there as fast as he could.
to you family members serving. May they return safe and sound... and soon.
-
Origanally posted by RPM
In fact the only member of the Bush administration with credible military experience was Colin Powell but he got out of there as fast as he could.
Did anyone else find that peculiar? I kinda thought that Powell was set pretty firmly in the administration, But suddenly, poof...
I've never heard much about his story on that. It might have some relevance to the topic at hand.
-
One reason the coalition did not finish Iraq in 1991-1992 was it would have left Iran the sole big boy on the block. No one wanted that.
Despite the Gulf War, or the oil embargo of the 70's, America continues to become more dependent on Middle East oil to meet it's energy needs, thus committing itself to the region and trying to keep the lid on that particular pressure cooker. No real effort is made to change that.
Afghanistan was an easy decision. When the taliban and al Qaida fled Afghanistan for Indonesia, Bangladesh, Philippians, Pakistan, and other SE Asian vacation spots..... we obviously chased them to Iraq (you'd think there would be a few maps around the Pentagon and White House, maybe a globe, wouldn't you?).
Although there was slightly less support to attack Iraq as there was Afghanistan; popular support was still in the midsts of "war fever" post 9/11 and coming off a quick "victory" in Afghanistan. Those that stated they were against an attack on Iraq were labeled unpatriotic --- ask the Dixie Chicks what happened to those that voiced concern in 2002-2003. The Administration pushed for it, the public supported it, and Congress went with popular opinion.
The intel was bad, the justification worse, for going after Saddam. He and his boys were bullies and all about keeping themselves in power and intimidating their neighbors and own people, but he was never a direct threat to the U.S. Only 1 terrorist camp in all of Iraq, in the NE border, to train Iranian partisans to tick off his old enemies in Iran. Before occupation, Iraq was one of the most secular Arab nations you could find. No way he had any connection to al Qadia; they operated at opposite extremes in that part of the world.
More likely, they saw a country they could "take", which had oil reserves and a strategic location in the Middle East. My guess is the Administration wanted to create the equivalent of a friendly South Korea in the Middle East with U.S. military bases from which to project power, influence, and democratic ideals (while some get rich off of it all).
The Administration and Pentagon screwed up Iraq operations by the numbers:
* Too few troops to secure the country. They sold the war as a low number and short term expedition. Home by Christmas.
* U.S. goes to war with a force mix intended to fight the Soviets in Europe. Tanks and IFV's. U.S. force mix not tailored for low-intensity conflicts (despite previous experience in Bosnia, Somolia, and evidence of how modern conflict is evolving) which find armored cars more effective and depend on "boots on the ground". HMMV's (not to mention Hemmets and 929/930 5-ton dump trucks) pressed into service as combat vehicles. "Up armored" vehicles with "class 3 armor" become the norm (playing Mad Max in Iraq is not a lot of fun, from personal experience).
* U.S. plans originally intended to secure arms and munitions with Iraqi troops and police after the invasion.... then we fired the 400,000 soldiers, sailors, and airmen of the Iraqi military forces, as well as all the police (the people in D.C. who made that decision should be hung --- no trial, just hang them).
* With no one left to secure all the ammo dumps all over the country, they got raided. 4 years into the occupation, and there were still unsecured ammo dumps in Iraq. Those dumps were raided of munitions, and most of the soldiers killed by IED's were killed because the U.S. military failed to secure those munitions early on.
* 400,000 unemployed former military and police members (many who knew where much of the munitions were buried or hid in the country side in the first place) made for an easy pool to recruit insurgents to attack Allied forces. Patton did not make that blunder in Germany this way in 1945. McArthur didn't screw up post-WWII Japan this way. You'd think someone from West Point would have considered those two examples for the war in Iraq.
* Democratic Elections and "Freedom" (cue Mister Gibson please) touted as the cure all. Without security, democracy doesn't seem to stand a chance. The entire premise of all Iraqis coming together to sing kum-bay-ya comes down to western arrogance and a total disregard for the region, it's history, and it's people. Very few in Iraq are loyal to Iraq. Their loyalty is to their religious sect, their Allytolah, Mullah or Iam, to their tribe, to their clan, or to taking vengeance on whoever wronged them or their family eight generations ago.
A strong central government would have been a much better choice for an interim Iraq. Get the security -- then look toward democratic rule if feasible.
A report then comes out saying to bring Iran and Syria into solving the problem in Iraq. But Iran and Syria have no interest in a secure Iraq that is friendly to western powers. Syria and Jordan get to see their more troublesome citizens cross to Iraq to get themselves killed. Iran get to try an influence a Shii'a Arab led government friendly to their Shii'a Persian led government. The Turks worry about the Kurds. Everyone in the region has interests in Iraq, just not the same interests.
Now, in frustration, with popular opinion turning against the war in Iraq (and everyone now stating they opposed it at the beginning...rriiiigggghhhtttt tt), Congress wants to pull out. Unfortunately, that is a bad idea. We went in. We screwed everything up. To leave now can only push the region into further turmoil. 15 British sailors get taken by Iran, and the price of oil goes up. What does anyone think will happen to the region and oil prices if the U.S. pulls out of Iraq and the whole country implodes? $150+ US for a barrel of sweet crude and the total collapse of western economies?
I very much doubt there is a "good" solution to Iraq right now. It's come down to what's "less bad", and leaving the country to it's own devices just seems to be about the single biggest risk the western nations could take.
Meanwhile; 3 to 4 dozen terrorist training camps can be found in Bangladesh alone. Groups like al Qaida have come a long way in regrouping from their defeat in Afghanistan, since we took the pressure off them.
You can point to many problems from the past that led us to this point. I don't believe there are any easy or near-term solutions to be found. And I doubt there is the political will or popular support to reach any acceptable goal from this point forward. Certainly we lack anything like leadership.
-
Saudis capture 172 al qaeda terriorsts, break up 11 cells, capture arms caches in desert.
yeah , you right teddy bear, we losing the war big time.:rolleyes:
-
and this:
Captured trying to get BACK INTO Iraq (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8OP1BT80&show_article=1)
-
You know, I saw that too, John. It's here:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070427/wl_nm/saudi_security_arrests_dc_2
I did find it really strange, though, that the Saudi's could have success like this, and not help us much in Iraq...
The News clip said that these guys were planning to attack Oil facilities. I guess hitting them in the pocketbook is what makes our "friends" get off their ass.
BTW: These guys were caught in Saudi Arabia, by Saudi's...This doesn't really reflect on what we're doing in Iraq. Sorry, Tedrbr still hit it on the head, as usual.
-
Originally posted by FrodeMk3
BTW: These guys were caught in Saudi Arabia, by Saudi's...This doesn't really reflect on what we're doing in Iraq. Sorry, Tedrbr still hit it on the head, as usual.
the war is against al qaeda not iraq.
-
Originally posted by john9001
saddam and his idiot sons would agree with you.
if they were still alive.
that's right... and it was totally worth all the money that was spent to take them out of power..... right? :huh
-
Originally posted by mosgood
that's right... and it was totally worth all the money that was spent to take them out of power..... right? :huh
why don't you ask some Iraqi that had their family tortured and killed?
-
Originally posted by john9001
why don't you ask some Iraqi that had their family tortured and killed?
You mean ask someone that didn't pay for it whether or not it was worth it? Why?
-
Originally posted by mosgood
that's right... and it was totally worth all the money that was spent to take them out of power..... right? :huh
more of a reason to stick it out .. we will not get any payback if we turn tail and run out like the dems "New Direction" proposes.
Not to mention how much we will have to spend to ship everyone and everything back over there in less than 5 years when the sheet really hits the fan in the region after our retreat and gas soars to $8 to $10 a gallon ... or do you think our retreat will stabilize the region, everyone will love us again and gas will be $2 gallon 4ever ... LOL
-
Originally posted by john9001
the war is against al qaeda not iraq.
Really? Well, since al Qaida did not begin operating in Iraq until after we invaded the country,...why did we invade Iraq if the war was against al Qaida? al Qaida's operatives from Afghanistan that we beat there fled to Pakistan, Indonesia, Bangladesh, The Philippines, possibly Thailand, Malaysia, probably Yemen, and Eastern African Nations.
Why did we chase them to where they did not go? Folks in charge can't read a bloody map?
And al Qaida is a smaller portion of the overall problem in Iraq. They are more successful on a per person basis vs U.S. Forces in Iraq, and the news plays them up due to name recognition, but the far greater numbers and problems are among the Insurgency (many Baathists) and the various fighting between sectarian factions (Sunni vs Shiia, tribe vs tribe, everyone vs the Kurds, secular vs fundamentalists, militia vs militia or government). al Qaida in Iraq is only a small part of the problem.
And, even though Saddam and his two boys were evil, sadistic, and cruel, prone to torturing their own people (now the U.S. gets to torture their people albeit in a cleaner environment); the people of Iraq were one heck of a lot safer (and generally living in better conditions as to food, fuel, electricity, schools, and sanitation) under their rule than they are now.
Besides, if the western nations actually cared anything about the civilian populations, don't you think they'd have done something about Darfur? or entered Bosnia a lot sooner back in the day?
And one other point as to Saudi Arabia. The Crown Prince and Royal Family have been putting together names of those with them and against them over the past few years. I half expect a "Night of the Long Knives" to occur there someday, if the situation deteriorates. al Qaida is against the Royal Family of Saudi Arabia, so that the Saudis are conducting raids against them in their own country has been an ongoing thing since long before 9/11. Has nothing really to do with our "Long War", just a continuation of existing power plays.
-
Originally posted by john9001
why don't you ask some Iraqi that had their family tortured and killed?
Under Bush Jrs new definition of "torture", most of what Saddam did would now be considered "legal".
But lets ask the 27,000 Iraq's US troops have rounded up and stuck in places like Abu Grab where they were "tortured" by any common sense definition, or the family of the guy murdered there, beaten to death, by Navy Seals / CIA...
Saddam was indeed a giant loser, but he kept the electricity on, garbage was collected, the sewers didn't over flow into the streets, there was viable police force in place, suicide bombers went having a field day slaughtering people... ask them about the great job Bush has done in these areas.
Just like under Saddam people are being rounded up jailed, mistreated (tortured) with no due process, their homes are subject to being raided & searched with no cause... US troops even kick people out of their homes with no notice and use it as a base of operations... all while festering in sewage and living in lawless chaos.... oh yea but little Bush says the Iraqi people are now living in "freedom", so its all good.
It's not out troops fault Iraq is a giant failure, they've been given an impossible task; prop up a US installed gov in the mid east, which the people of the region have rejected once in Iran, and they'll be working just as hard for as long as it takes to do the same in Iraq... for all the same reasons.
-
x0847Marine, i can see you have absolutely no idea what saddam did to the people of Iraq.
-
Originally posted by john9001
x0847Marine, i can see you have absolutely no idea what saddam did to the people of Iraq.
It looks to me like you are the one in denial John.
-
Originally posted by john9001
x0847Marine, i can see you have absolutely no idea what saddam did to the people of Iraq.
Compare GWBs new "clarified" definitions of torture to what we accused Saddam of doing, the hypocrisy is not lost of the people in the mid east, only here.
BTW if you read through the articles on the Saudis big Al Qaeda bust you've cited as some type of evidence things are not SNAFU, a top Saudi official blames the situation we created in Iraq for Al Qaedas resurgence in the area.
You might also want to Google Iran Air Flight 655 for another reason people in the mid east distrust / hate the US... in case you're unaware a US ship, USS Vincennes, shot down an Iranian air passenger jet killing all 290 on board... they still consider this a blatant attack.
Last but not least, the attack on 9/11 was motivated by what again?.. oh yeah, generations of US F ups in the mid east... but I'm sure the craptastic way our mastermind & chief has skillfully and carefully negotiated this war will win the US lots of good will and stuff more so than ever... besides, who can argue with a Halliburton truck driver earning $120K to do the exact same job an enlisted grunt does for $17K?
-
Xmarine is right ..
the United States must be the "Great Satan" all the camel humpers say it is ... and if we just let those peaceful open-minded people alone they would not want to kill us as they do today .. right xmarine?
ya right - lol
-
Originally posted by FrodeMk3
What we have now is a somewhat worse situation than Vietnam.
Vietnam 10 years involvement, 60,000 american lives 1 billion dollars a day at peak (1 billion in 1968 dollars = 4 billion in todays dollars)
Lives, dollars, years.... how do you measure "somewhat"?
-
Under Bush Jrs new definition of "torture"
====
not that I am disagreeing with you but can you provide some examples of this?
-
"Somewhat" being not that our biggest loss would be an obscure asian country, and a slight drop in rubber imports.
This time, we are talking about something that could disrupt our primary source of energy (oil) and which could lead to a catastrophe of our own economy.
We can't just pull out of Iraq like we did in Vietnam in '75. When the NV took over in Saigon, The only impacts politically/strategically were that we would only have Japan, Taiwan, and S.Korea as aligned governments in the region. Vietnam, even more than 30 years after, isn't a big player on the world economic stage. The country is still poor. Also, Vietnam was waged due to a clash of political ideologies. The situation in Iraq is more serious. The Middle East is a major supplier of oil to the western world(and now increasingly, China.) You only have to ask yourself, if we have another hostile, unstable government in the region, what the long term effects on the worldwide economy would be. China has been happily supplying arms to the middle east throughout this entire ordeal. They are on good terms with alot of the more belligerent governments. They are also buying quite a bit of oil. With another buyer like China, The Arabs could now cut us off and still have money come in. What would be the impact on our economy? We could have really serious problems, including partial/total economic collapse. Plus, our now chief economic rival, China, would benefit from this.
There is also the difference of political ideology vs. Religous belief. Religion unites the arab states at their foundation, So that no matter what they're differences when the West isn't there, they unite under one banner when we are. The recent Saudi arrests/Cell busts are one indication of this. Now, I will agree that communism does displace religion in it's dogma. But, As time has shown, Communism can and does eventually falter. Islam has been going strong for quite along time now, and it's not likely to run out of followers anytime soon.
I know that Saddam's regime did not seem like a good way to keep a balance in the middle east, but we may need to face facts, that it was the best thing going this side of military occupation.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
Xmarine is right ..
the United States must be the "Great Satan" all the camel humpers say it is ... and if we just let those peaceful open-minded people alone they would not want to kill us as they do today .. right xmarine?
ya right - lol
Those "camel humpers" have generations of reasons to dislike the US, if you took 10 min on Google to inform yourself as to why... reasons behind Iraq being destine for the FUBAR hall of fame would become very clear.
You don't have to agree with why they dislike the US, but what we think is irrelevant because we're not the ones signing up by the 1000s to fight US troops.
BTW I never said they were open minded or peaceful, many are brainwashed religious fanatics who, BTW, act JUST LIKE YOU rejecting any and all US beliefs as irrelevant... you refuse to see the camel humpers POV, and I promise they totally reject anything the great satan people think...
-
China has been happily supplying arms to the middle east throughout this entire ordeal. They are on good terms with alot of the more belligerent governments. They are also buying quite a bit of oil. With another buyer like China, The Arabs could now cut us off and still have money come in. What would be the impact on our economy? We could have really serious problems, including partial/total economic collapse. Plus, our now chief economic rival, China, would benefit from this.
I don't think China would benefit that much......
http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/top/dst/2007/02/deficit.html (http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/top/dst/2007/02/deficit.html)
Who's going to sustain their growth if no one can afford to buy anything from them...
-
Originally posted by x0847Marine
... you refuse to see the camel humpers POV, and I promise they totally reject anything the great satan people think...
Isn't a camel humpers POV fairly obvious?
-
hmmm, here is some interesting POV's being enforced by our Islamic "Friends"...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6605487.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6605487.stm)
Iranian television has said the crackdown on un-Islamic clothing has entered its second phase now where mobile police units will patrol Tehran to look for those who are not observing Islamic dress properly
Here's a great campaign picture for Pelosi during her trip to Syria....
(http://www.foxnews.com/images/274680/0_61_040307_pelosi_syria.jpg)
It should read.. "I believe in Womens rights, unless I'm in a country that does not believe in it, then I will go along with status quo"..
-
Origanally posted by Soda72
Who's going to sustain their growth if no one can afford to buy anything from them...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My best Guess would be the EU, Soda. Plus, the Chinese have shown that they can subsist at levels that most of the U.S. would find intolerable.
The chinese have shown to be pretty flexible...I don't know how the U.S. would take to having another Great Depression like we did in the 1930's. We have a much larger population than we did then, plus our manufacturing base has moved overseas. Seeing us fall from Superpower status, or devolve into something like what Russia is today, might be the Benefit that the Chinese are looking for.