Winning the war....

[Cape Cod Steel Head]

Originally Posted by Hammer67

I concur that we need to figure out what is going on and either get the job done or get out. But, to say the war is "for oil" shows that you don't have a full grasp on why they are there. I don't see how the US is gaining anything, as it relates to oil, from this war. If oil were the reason, why not invade Canada where we import the majority of our oil from? Or Venezuela? Or Mexico? They are much closer and it would be much easier!

Sounds like you have been drinking the leftist kool aid, friend!

No! We are there because Sadam had WMD's. And he was an evil dictator with ties to 9/11. At least that's what my leaders told me. Oh how quickly they forget!

[Atlanta Dan]

Originally Posted by Preacher

There are times when that is a real sign of maturity and intellectual acumen.

I have a feeling that is not the direction you were going in your discussion of his ability AD!

FWIW I regard the Pollock-O'Hanlon op-ed that victory is just around the corner in Iraq as the equivalent of predicting the Browns or Lions will win the Super Bowl.

If they are right they will be regarded as incredibly prescient; if they are wrong nobody will remember.

The American Civil War lasted 4 years; American involvement in World War II lasted 3 years and 9 months. Given the lapse of time since the "mission" was "accomplished" in 2003, the U.S. is leaving Iraq; the same people who got us in will spend the next 20 years claiming that they were "stabbed in the back" as we were on the doorstep of total victory and will cite articles such as this op-ed piece as "evidence" of that "fact."

Wishing we should stay will not make it so.

[Preacher]

Originally Posted by Atlanta Dan

FWIW I regard the Pollock-O'Hanlon op-ed that victory is just around the corner in Iraq as the equivalent of predicting the Browns or Lions will win the Super Bowl.

If they are right they will be regarded as incredibly prescient; if they are wrong nobody will remember.

The American Civil War lasted 4 years; American involvement in World War II lasted 3 years and 9 months. Given the lapse of time since the "mission" was "accomplished" in 2003, the U.S. is leaving Iraq; the same people who got us in will spend the next 20 years claiming that they were "stabbed in the back" as we were on the doorstep of total victory and will cite articles such as this op-ed piece as "evidence" of that "fact."
Wishing we should stay will not make it so.

I have to disagree... WWII lasted 3 years and 9 months... but we are STILL in Germany. The rebuild lasted for YEARS. furthermore there were attacks on American troops, etc.

We are still at war in N. Korea. There is NO peace, only a cease-fire that has lasted. it just takes one mistake...and that entire thing will STILL erupt in war. When you look at the number of troops we have lost compared to the amount of time we have been Iraq, we have come through strong. Yes, I mourn every single loss. But historically, I am not worried about the time spent there. I am more worried about the time NOT spent finishing the task.

[lamberts-lost-tooth]

Originally Posted by Cape Cod Steel Head

No! We are there because Sadam had WMD's. And he was an evil dictator with ties to 9/11. At least that's what my leaders told me. Oh how quickly they forget!

How right you are...all those who claimed Iraq was evil and had WMD's should be held accountable..........lets see:

"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 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 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." S
- 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 Sens. 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 St ate, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated 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,
December 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
mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction
and the 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 H ussein 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 o f 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 y ears ... 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 biologica l 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 weap ons
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

I will be happy to help you spearhead the movement to have these "liars" removed from office!!

[Atlanta Dan]

Originally Posted by Preacher

I have to disagree... WWII lasted 3 years and 9 months... but we are STILL in Germany. The rebuild lasted for YEARS. furthermore there were attacks on American troops, etc.

We are still at war in N. Korea. There is NO peace, only a cease-fire that has lasted. it just takes one mistake...and that entire thing will STILL erupt in war. When you look at the number of troops we have lost compared to the amount of time we have been Iraq, we have come through strong. Yes, I mourn every single loss. But historically, I am not worried about the time spent there. I am more worried about the time NOT spent finishing the task.

The point I was attempting to make through the reference to the President trick or treating as a fighter pilot and then standing in front of the "mission accomplished" banner is that you cannot tell the American public on the one hand that the way to fight the war on terror is to get out there and shop & claiming our goals in Iraq were "accomplished" in a matter of months while then expecting the same public to support a constantly shifting timeline and set of metrics for when "success" will be achieved in Iraq. In contrast, Truman, Eisenhower, and JFK did not claim the struggle with the Soviets was going to be a quick walk in the park.

W, Cheney & Rumsfeld attempted to fight the war on the cheap by not following the Powell Doctrine of applying overwhelming force at the outset. The Administration now lacks the credibility to make the case for any progress that may have been achieved.

But since the Iraqi Parliament was comfortable enough to knock off for August without passing any of the legislation that was to be part of measuring the progress that supposedly is being made I guess things are even better than they appear.

[j-dawg]

Originally Posted by lamberts-lost-tooth

How right you are...all those who claimed Iraq was evil and had WMD's should be held accountable..........lets see:



I will be happy to help you spearhead the movement to have these "liars" removed from office!!

dude, way to cherry pick quotes with out putting any of them in context...

But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them.
--George W. Bush Interview with TVP Poland 5/30/2003

The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda, because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda.
--George. W. Bush Washington, D.C., Jun. 17, 2004

Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.
--George. W. Bush Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004

i can see how this could be fun...

[j-dawg]

Originally Posted by Hammer67

I always wondered why they don't just break up Iraq into three separate countries instead of forcing it to stay as is. I mean, Iraq as a country is only about 100 years old.

i've thought that as well. through discussions i've learned that it's not possible because of oil. parts of the region are more oil rich than others, and one faction would be on the short end if it came to ethnic boarders. also, the oil companies have gained production rights over these rich fields of Iraqi oil, worth hundreds of billions of dollars, which was much easier to do dealing with one centralized pro-american government.

[lamberts-lost-tooth]

Originally Posted by j-dawg

dude, way to cherry pick quotes with out putting any of them in context...

But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them.
--George W. Bush Interview with TVP Poland 5/30/2003

The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda, because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda.
--George. W. Bush Washington, D.C., Jun. 17, 2004

Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.
--George. W. Bush Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004

i can see how this could be fun...

Your answer would be relevant except that Bush has not changed his position other than to admit that the intell given to BOTH parties was faulty (as was the intel given to most countries)

HOWEVER....the liberals I quoted have TRIED to make it seem that the Bush administration was the source of the intel...and have tried to seperate themselves from their own statements to make it look as if they were not equally culpable.

How many times have you heard people AND the Dems say that "Bush LIED about WMD's"....why doesthe acceptance of the intel make him a liar....yet liberals never mention Kerry...Gore...and the other Dems that bought into it?

The only difference I see is the hypocrisy of the Dems who are trying to pin blame on Bush after backing the war at the beginning but waffling when it has become politically expedient.

[j-dawg]

Originally Posted by lamberts-lost-tooth

Your answer would be relevant except that Bush has not changed his position other than to admit that the intell given to BOTH parties was faulty (as was the intel given to most countries)

HOWEVER....the liberals I quoted have TRIED to make it seem that the Bush administration was the source of the intel...and have tried to seperate themselves from their own statements to make it look as if they were not equally culpable.

How many times have you heard people AND the Dems say that "Bush LIED about WMD's"....why doesthe acceptance of the intel make him a liar....yet liberals never mention Kerry...Gore...and the other Dems that bought into it?

The only difference I see is the hypocrisy of the Dems who are trying to pin blame on Bush after backing the war at the beginning but waffling when it has become politically expedient.

yeah, i hear ya... BOTH parties were to blame on beating the war drums... but you have to admit, this administration was the one "packaging" the intel, using information that was determined to be wrong, aluminum tubes, sadam meeting with al qaeda.. the downing street memo touched upon that... why would you use information that was considered false... it only clouds judgement.

here's a quote from jimmy carter during the build up...

"...The heartfelt sympathy and friendship offered to America after the 9/11 attacks, even from formerly antagonistic regimes, has been largely dissipated; increasingly unilateral and domineering policies have brought international trust in our country to its lowest level in memory....." President Jimmy Carter January 31, 2002

?Even if?lies and trickery by Saddam Hussein are exposed, this will not indicate any real or proximate threat by Iraq to the United States or to our allies.
"With overwhelming military strength now deployed against him and with intense monitoring from space surveillance and the U.N. inspection team on the ground, any belligerent move by Saddam against a neighbor would be suicidal?.If Iraq does possess such concealed weapons, as is quite likely, Saddam would use them only in
the most extreme circumstances, in the face of an invasion of Iraq, when all hope of avoiding the destruction of his regime is lost?.
"The cost of an on-site inspection team would be minuscule compared to war, Saddam would have no choice except to comply, the results would be certain, military and civilian casualties would be avoided, there would be almost unanimous worldwide support, and the United States could regain its leadership in combating the real threat of international terrorism.?
President Jimmy Carter January 31, 2002 EXCERPT from a statement From THE CARTER CENTER.

MANY, Liberals, Conservatives, were buying into the intel, but many still believed that war shouldn't be rushed into. funny how so many were calling 'ol jimmy unpatriotic during this time... dude was the president for pete's sake.

[Mosca]

That story in the NYT has generated a lot of this exact same type of discussion across the nation. It's hard to tell what to think. I don't see it as a way to win, but as a way to exit properly. If we can stabilize the country militarily, then we can leave. Otherwise, it is a forever commitment that we cannot sustain.


Tom