Author Topic: Senate majority leader: Iraq war is LOST (Read 4052 times)

SteveBailey · « **Reply #30 on:** April 19, 2007, 10:06:11 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by FrodeMk3

There were no terrorist ties.

Liar.

Viking · « **Reply #31 on:** April 19, 2007, 10:52:23 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ripsnort
Signed,
Tokyo Rose.

I have to say I think that statement is falsified. Tokyo Rose would have spelled Emperor correctly.

Quote

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
You need to study history better. If you're unaware of the MILLIONS slaughtered after the U.S. left SouthEast Asia, I suggest you look into a little more reading.

The really ironic thing about your statement is that it was the North-Vietnamese who, after winning the war against the US and South-Vietnam, ended Pol Pot’s reign of terror in 1978.

Quote

Originally posted by SteveBailey
Liar.

Saddam’s Iraq had far fewer links to “terrorists” than the USA have had. Omega 7 (Cuba), Operation 40 (Cuba), Alpha 66 (Cuba), Contras (Guatemala), Guatemalan "Death Squads", Operation PBSUCCESS (Guatemala), Operation Cyclone (Afghanistan), Chechen terrorists (during the Cold War), Operation Ajax (Iran), Allawi's group (Iraq) … these are just some of the terrorist organizations/actions supported and/or funded by the United States.

The United States is in the incredibly ironic and hypocritical position of being one of the few nations that have supported Osama Bin Laden’s terrorist group with funding and weapons (during the 1980’s war in Afghanistan).

Iraq’s involvement with terrorism is almost negligible in comparison.

SteveBailey · « **Reply #32 on:** April 19, 2007, 11:07:27 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Viking

Iraq’s involvement with terrorism is almost negligible in comparison.

Liar.

LePaul · « **Reply #33 on:** April 19, 2007, 11:33:50 PM »

What's a real travesty is that the SUCCESSES in Iraq are ignored and not reported. Like all news, only the bad is reported. A great deal of good is going on over there yet its not convenient for the media to report.

Our troops deserve to have their accomplishments reported. Yes, there are still problems to be sorted out...but a great deal of good has ocurred too.

The Democrats are so bent on turning this into a Vietnam, they dont seem to realize how badly they are undermining ou troops efforts. Recall how we view MacNamera's tinkering with the Vietnam war effort as decisively bad and costing military lives? Pilots werent allowed to hit SAM sites which would subsequently down them some time later. The list goes on. The point being this: letting the Commanders do their job, without being tamplered with by 500 "want to be commanders in chief" is the best way to proceed.

Also, last December, the Democrats INSISTED we needed more troops. In January, after much discussion with others, Bush agreed. Once Bush agreed, that turned into an outrage. *Sigh*....so when we stick to our mission, the Dems squeal. When we compromise and do as they suggest...they squeal.

You want that message being sent to our troops??

Viking · « **Reply #34 on:** April 19, 2007, 11:41:46 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by SteveBailey
Liar.

Coming from you that really doesn't mean much. Personal attacks is all you can offer in defense.

FiLtH · « **Reply #35 on:** April 19, 2007, 11:52:39 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by DREDIOCK
I can agree in part in this statement

Doing it I dont think was a mistake.

They way went about doing it after the fall of bagdhad was where the greatest mistakes were made.

For as evil as they were
Even the Nazis were better at taking over countries then we have shown

The reason there is because we try to be liberators not conquerors. If we lined up 10 people for every one of ours lost and shot them in the street, alot of the trouble would die down. But we dont do that. So really, why try?

FrodeMk3 · « **Reply #36 on:** April 20, 2007, 12:53:31 AM »

Quote

The reason there is because we try to be liberators not conquerors. If we lined up 10 people for every one of ours lost and shot them in the street, alot of the trouble would die down. But we dont do that. So really, why try?

Filth, I don't know if it's the way it's worded, but...If you're implying that we should randomly pick out, and execute, Iraqi citizens, for acts done by insurgents, I GUARENTEE that our problems would increase 10 fold.

Such a thing would be viewed as an atrocity. Not only would we suffer total world condemnation( We are having problems with support from our allies as it is) We could expect things to really heat up on the terrorism front. We could also expect economic, and political pressure from countries sympathetic to those affected. In short, no, alot of the trouble would not die down.

EDIT: When the Gestapo tried that tactic, it created more insurgents, and a sympathetic populace from which to act as a support base.

Stoney74 · « **Reply #37 on:** April 20, 2007, 01:17:08 AM »

To think that Harry Reid is trying to tell the "truth" when he says "it is the biggest foreign policy mistake in U.S. history" is failing to understand the realities of U.S. politics. Furthermore, for those of you that enjoy repeating this jingoism, how about posting a top ten list of American foreign policy mistakes so we can at least get some context.

Just as any U.S. foreign policy decision made between 1945 and 1991 cannot be taken out of the context of the Cold War, neither can our decision to invade Iraq be taken out of the context of the post-September 11 era. Armchair politics made with 20/20 hindsight is about as productive as watching paint dry. If they were in the hot seat in late 2002/ early 2003 I bet 99% of all those soothsayers on capitol hill would have made the same decision as Bush did.

So, in sum, I'm looking forward to the Top Ten Biggest U.S. Foreign Policy Mistakes list...

Elfie · « **Reply #38 on:** April 20, 2007, 02:14:40 AM »

Quote

The United States is in the incredibly ironic and hypocritical position of being one of the few nations that have supported Osama Bin Laden’s terrorist group with funding and weapons (during the 1980’s war in Afghanistan).

Bin Laden's group weren't considered terrorists then. I don't even know if the USSR considered them terrorists and thats who Bin Laden was fighting then.

Elfie · « **Reply #39 on:** April 20, 2007, 02:15:59 AM »

Quote

So the massive bloodbath never happened in Vietnam.

Tell that to the mountain tribes in Vietnam itself. Those people were slaughtered by the Vietnamese.

SteveBailey · « **Reply #40 on:** April 20, 2007, 02:53:54 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Viking
Coming from you that really doesn't mean much. Personal attacks is all you can offer in defense.

You post lies and incorrect information. You, however are not worth debunking so all you get is the short version.

rpm · « **Reply #41 on:** April 20, 2007, 03:18:17 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by LePaul
What's a real travesty is that the SUCCESSES in Iraq are ignored and not reported. Like all news, only the bad is reported. A great deal of good is going on over there yet its not convenient for the media to report.

With bombs killing 170+ people in a single day, the "successes" are greatly outweighed.

FrodeMk3 · « **Reply #42 on:** April 20, 2007, 04:05:11 AM »

SteveBailey quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by FrodeMk3

There were no terrorist ties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Liar.

And this one, too:

SteveBailey quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Viking

Iraq’s involvement with terrorism is almost negligible in comparison.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Liar.

Son, you just can't simply fling poo.

You need to add a counterpoint, contradicting info, etc.

Go ahead, try it, dig a little, put something up to prove it.

FrodeMk3 · « **Reply #43 on:** April 20, 2007, 04:10:49 AM »

Oh, and BTW, with those previous 2 posts, when you put up something like this:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Viking
Coming from you that really doesn't mean much. Personal attacks is all you can offer in defense.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You post lies and incorrect information. You, however are not worth debunking so all you get is the short version.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You actually proved Viking right.

You did'nt even try to back up your statement. And by saying something like that, to try to get out of putting up a proper answer, and using a snide remark instead, actually scored a point for Viking.

Torque · « **Reply #44 on:** April 20, 2007, 06:53:27 AM »

the people that wanted defeat in iraq are those that sent in the troops under the the command of the most inept administration.

it's not that there were 'unknowns' but rather they chose to ignore the best military advice given to them at the time, as a result a lot of innocent people will pay the price.

they played right into bin laden's hands, by removing saddam and invading a muslim country.

probably one of the worst foreign policy mistakes, right up there with the over thrown of the iranian democracy back in '53.