Leaving Iraq: The Grim Truth [Archive]

View Full Version : Leaving Iraq: The Grim Truth

Kilo

03-14-2007, 09:43 AM

Link: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/13710030/leaving_iraq_the_grim_truth/1

Beyond Quagmire

A panel of experts convened by Rolling Stone agree that the war in Iraq is lost. The only question now is: How bad will the coming explosion be?

TIM ****INSON

The war in Iraq isn't over yet, but -- surge or no surge -- the United States has already lost. That's the grim consensus of a panel of experts assembled by Rolling Stone to assess the future of Iraq. "Even if we had a million men to go in, it's too late now," says retired four-star Gen. Tony McPeak, who served on the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Gulf War. "Humpty Dumpty can't be put back together again."
Those on the panel -- including diplomats, counterterror analysts and a former top military commander -- agree that President Bush's attempt to secure Baghdad will only succeed in dragging out the conflict, creating something far beyond any Vietnam-style "quagmire." The surge won't bring an end to the sectarian cleansing that has ravaged Iraq, as the newly empowered Shiite majority seeks to settle scores built up during centuries of oppressive rule by the Sunni minority. It will do nothing to defuse the powder keg that an independence-minded Kurdistan, in Iraq's northern provinces, poses to the governments of Turkey, Syria and Iran, which have long brutalized their own Kurdish separatists. And it will only worsen the global war on terror.
"Our invasion and occupation has created a cauldron that will continue to draw in the players in the Middle East for the foreseeable future," says Michael Scheuer, who led the CIA's hunt for Osama bin Laden. "By taking out Saddam, we have allowed the jihad to move 1,000 kilometers west, where it can project its power, its organizers, its theology into Turkey -- and from Turkey into Europe."
How bad will things get in Iraq -- and what price will the world ultimately pay for the president's decision to prolong the war? To answer those questions, we asked our panel to sketch out three distinct scenarios for Iraq: the best we can hope for, the most likely outcome and the worst that could happen.

The Rolling Stone Panel

Zbigniew Brzezinski
National security adviser to President Carter
Richard Clarke
Counterterrorism czar from 1992 to 2003
Nir Rosen
Author of In the Belly of the Green Bird, about Iraq’s spiral into civil war, speaking from Cairo, where he has been interviewing Iraqi refugees
Gen. Tony McPeak (retired)
Member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Gulf War
Bob Graham
Former chair, Senate Intelligence Committee
Chas Freeman
Ambassador to Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War; president of the Middle East Policy Council
Paul Pillar
Former lead counterterrorism analyst for the CIA
Michael Scheuer
Former chief of the CIA’s Osama bin Laden unit; author of Imperial Hubris
Juan Cole
Professor of modern Middle East history at the University of Michigan

BEST-CASE SCENARIO
CIVIL WAR IN IRAQ AND A STRONGER AL QAEDA

Zbigniew Brzezinski: If we are willing to engage with all of Iraq's neighbors -- including Iran -- in a regional effort to contain the violence, the best we can hope for is an Iraq that is politically passive but hostile toward America.
Gen. Tony McPeak: It's not a question of whether we're going to leave Iraq -- it's a question of when. And everybody in Iraq knows that. So they say, "Fine. We'll stock arms and wait for you guys to leave. And then we'll do what we want."

But the administration has repeatedly highlighted the potential for chaos in Iraq after our departure as a reason we must stay and fight.

Richard Clarke: All the things they say will happen are already happening. Iraq is already a base for terrorists; there is already a civil war. We've got 150,000 troops there now and we can't stop it.
Nir Rosen: There is no best-case scenario for Iraq. It's complete anarchy now. No family is untouched by kidnappings, murders, ethnic cleansing -- everybody lives in a constant state of terror. Leaving aside Kurdistan, which is very different, there's nobody in Iraq who is safe. You can get killed for being a Sunni, for being a Shia, for being educated, for being part of the former regime, for being part of the current regime. The Americans are still killing Iraqi civilians left and right. There's no government in Iraq; it doesn't exist outside of the Green Zone. That's not only the government's fault, that's our fault: We deliberately created a weak government so that we would have final authority over everything in Iraq.
Michael Scheuer: Even in the best-case scenario, the disaster we're seeing now is nothing compared to the disaster that we'll see after we leave. The real issue here is American interest: The longer we stay, the more people we get killed. I don't think the longer we stay, the better we make Iraq. Probably the reverse.

What happens to the civil war between Iraq's Sunni and Shia Arabs when we leave?

Juan Cole: The civil war will go on for five or ten years -- that's inevitable. But the best-case scenario is, at the end of it they find a way to come back together as a nation-state, like Lebanon did in 1989.
Rosen: People are talking about a reconciliation process, but Iraqi Shias don't want to compromise with the Sunnis. They don't have to. There's going to be a genocide of Sunnis in Baghdad. The Shia have the numbers to do it; they can absorb all the Sunni car bombs it takes. The Americans aren't capable of stopping it; they can't tell a Sunni from a Shia. The best you can hope for is that it doesn't spill into the neighboring countries.
McPeak: You have to hope that Iraq devolves into a federal state with three strong regional governments. But that has its downsides: The Turks would go berserk. They would see Kurdistan as a base for the Kurdish insurgency inside Turkey, which has bedeviled them like the IRA in Ireland or the Basques in Spain. And if Iraq devolves into three separate "stans," then it's going to be pretty tough for Sunnistan not to provide a retirement home for Al Qaeda agents. It's got warts all over it -- but among the "don't call my baby ugly" possibilities in this world, that looks the prettiest.

So even in the best of scenarios, Al Qaeda has a lasting base in Iraq?

Paul Pillar: The president made it sound like Osama bin Laden is poised to march into Baghdad and take up residence in one of Saddam's old palaces and rule this terrorist state. Nothing of the sort is possible -- even as a worst-case scenario. It is true that five years from now, the same people honing their skills in Anbar province may form the cell that will try to pull off another 9/11. But that's going to happen regardless of what we do. We have the best chance of minimizing those sorts of costs by getting out. At least that takes away the anti-American cause célèbre effect of our presence there.
Scheuer: No matter what happens now, the Islamists will have beaten both of the superpowers -- first the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, and now the United States in the heart of Islam. The impact of that in Islamic civilization is going to be enormous. We have made bin Laden a prophet: His organizing concept for Al Qaeda was "The Russians are a lot tougher than the Americans. If we can beat the Russians, then we can eventually beat the Americans." Even more important, Al Qaeda will have contiguous territory on the Arab peninsula to attack from.

Where does that leave Israel?

Scheuer: The neoconservatives and their war in Iraq have made Israeli security worse than at any time since 1967. You'll see more and more people trying to launch attacks in Israel who are not Palestinian or Lebanese. None of it bodes well for a Middle East peace settlement.

MOST LIKELY SCENARIO
YEARS OF ETHNIC CLEANSING AND WAR WITH IRAN

McPeak: We're going to see a full-scale intercommunal war that may not burn out until one side is all dead, all gone. The Kurds would like to sit on the sidelines, but I don't see how they stay out, especially up in the Kirkuk area, where they sit on a lot of oil. This is going to be ethnic cleansing like we had in Kosovo or Bosnia -- but written big, in capital letters. And we can't stop it.
Bob Graham: If you're looking for an analogy, it's going to be a heightened version of the civil war that ravaged Lebanon for fifteen years.
Scheuer: There isn't any upper limit to how many people could get killed. Depending on how long the war lasts -- a million casualties?

So what kind of government is Iraq most likely to be left with when all is said and done?

McPeak: A Shia dictatorship headed by some lieutenant colonel who we don't even know yet. It's a restoration of Saddam Hussein, except now he's Shia, and maybe he's in religious robes rather than a uniform.

So forget about democracy?

Pillar: Stability and lowering the bloodshed is the range of outcomes and expectations we ought to be talking about now, not looking for Switzerland on the Tigris or anything remotely resembling a liberal democracy. A Shia Saddam -- without nearly as much brutality, but still a strongman -- is actually one of the best hopes.
Chas Freeman: The most efficient way to avoid mass killings is to help the Shiites win fast, consolidate their damn dictatorship and get the hell out. The level of anarchy and hatred and emotional disturbance is such that it's very hard to imagine anything except a Saddam-style reign of terror succeeding in pacifying the place.

Where does that leave us with regard to Iran?

McPeak: Iran's influence will have been increased geometrically. We're already the losers in this, and now we become the big-time losers.
Freeman: The net effect of our policies has been to make the area safe for Iran, which I guess is why we're now threatening attacks on Iran.
Rosen: Our Sunni allies in the region, the so-called moderate states -- dictatorships like Jordan and Saudi Arabia -- are pushing the U.S. to switch sides and support the Sunnis. We've been working up to that, obviously. The whole buildup to a new war against Iran, which sounds so much like the buildup in 2002, is part of that. You no longer hear about Al Qaeda in Iraq. More and more we're hearing about Iran and Shias.
Graham: This administration seems to be getting ready to make -- at a much more significant, escalated level -- the same mistake we made in Iran that we made in Iraq. If Iraq has been a disaster, this would be multiple times Iraq. The extent to which this could be the horror of the twenty-first century is hard to exaggerate.
Brzezinski: If the war continues without any American willingness to accommodate regionally and to pull out, the Iraq War will be extended to Iran. And if we get involved in a war with Iran, that raises the prospect of a twenty-year-long involvement in protracted violence in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and probably Pakistan. I'm not a prophet, but if the president doesn't change course, then the more grim prognosis is a likely one.

WORST-CASE SCENARIO
WORLD WAR III

Freeman: This could become the Islamic equivalent of the Thirty Years War between Protestants and Catholics in Europe in the 1600s -- a religious schism that blossoms into overt mayhem and murder and massacres and warfare. The various Iraqi factions will obtain the backing of other Middle Eastern states as they conduct their ideological and ethnic struggles. It will be a free-for-all that spreads beyond the anarchic zone of Iraq.
Scheuer: The Shiites in Iran will not tolerate the re-emergence of a Sunni government in Iraq. And the last thing the Saudis, Kuwaitis, Egyptians, Jordanians and the rest of the Sunni-dominated states will tolerate is letting the Shia control another oil-rich state in the Muslim heartland. So you're going to see those states running guns and money to Sunni fighters in Iraq. For Jordan and Egypt, this is a golden opportunity to send their young firebrands to fight in Iraq as they did in Afghanistan. It's kind of a pressure-release valve for Sunni dictatorships: People who would be out causing problems because their governments aren't Islamic enough will be out in Iraq fighting the ultimate heretics, the Shia.

So this could explode into a wider regional conflict?

Clarke: I find it difficult to walk through the scenario which creates the wider regional war. The Saudi, Jordanian and Syrian leaders are all rational. The Iranians, despite what we may think of them, are very rational actors, from their perspective. So the idea that any of these nations is going to want to have a multination war is hard to understand. These scenarios the administration talks about for wider regional war remind me of the "domino effect" in Vietnam. We were always told while in Vietnam that if we pulled out, it would result in the fall of Indonesia, the fall of Malaysia, the fall of Thailand, the fall of the Philippines. And, of course, it didn't.
Graham: I disagree. I believe the chance that the chaos in Iraq could bring countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia into the mix is in the forty to fifty percent range. The big danger is what I call the August 1914 Syndrome. The assassination of Archduke Ferdinand in Sarajevo -- what would have been in the scale of history a minor event -- set in motion activities that turned out to be beyond the ability of the Western powers to control. And they ended up in one of the most brutal wars in man's history by accident. If the Saudis come in heavily on the side of the Sunnis, as they have threatened to do, and the Iranians -- directly or through shadow groups like Hezbollah -- become active on behalf of the Shiites, and the Turks and the Kurds get into a border conflict, the flames could spread throughout the region. The real nightmare beyond the nightmare is if the large Islamic populations in Western Europe become inflamed. Then it could be a global situation.
Rosen: Iraq will be the battleground where the Sunni-Shia conflict will be fought, but it won't be limited to Iraq. It will spread. Pandora's box is open. We didn't just open it, we opened it and threw fuel into it and threw matches into it. You'll soon see Sunni militias destabilizing countries like Jordan and Syria -- where the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood is very strong. It took about ten years for the Palestinians to become politicized and militarized when they were first expelled from Palestine. You're likely to see something like that occurring in the huge Iraqi refugee populations in Syria and Jordan. King Abdullah of Jordan is resented for being an American stooge and an accomplice with Israel. I'm convinced that the monarchy in Jordan will fall as a result of this, and Israel will be confronted with a frontline state on its longest border with an Arab country.
Scheuer: I can't help but think we've signed Jordan's death warrant. The country is already on a simmering boil because of the king's oppression of Islamists. It could turn into a police state like Egypt, or an incoherent, revolving-door-type government like Lebanon is becoming now.
Rosen: You're going to see borders changing, governments falling. Lebanon is already on the precipice. Throughout the region, government officials are terrified. Nobody knows how to stop it. This is World War III. How far will it spread? Anywhere there are Islamic movements, like in Somalia, in Sudan, in Yemen. Pakistan has always had Sunni-Shia fighting. The flow of Iraqi refugees will at some point affect Europe.
McPeak: The worst case? Iraq's Sunnis begin to be backed into a corner, then the Sunni governments -- Jordan, Saudi Arabia -- jump in. Israel sees that it's threatened by these developments. Once the Israelis get involved, then everybody piles on. And you've got nuclear events going off in the Middle East. That would be about as bad as it could get.

Not to be crass, but what does that kind of conflict do to the global oil supply?

Cole: During the war between Iraq and Iran, Saddam and Khomeini didn't destroy each other's oil-producing capabilities, because they knew it would make each of them a Fourth World country. But if you get a big multicountry guerrilla war, guerrillas could do what they've been doing in northern Iraq: Hit the oil pipelines. Guerrillas aren't calculating it the way states are as far as mutually assured destruction. If you got pipeline sabotage in Iran and Saudi Arabia and southern Iraq, you could take twelve percent of the world's petroleum production off the market. That looks like the second Great Depression.
McPeak: This is a dark chapter in our history. Whatever else happens, our country's international standing has been frittered away by people who don't have the foggiest understanding of how the hell the world works. America has been conducting an experiment for the past six years, trying to validate the proposition that it really doesn't make any difference who you elect president. Now we know the result of that experiment [laughs]. If a guy is stupid, it makes a big difference.

Posted Mar 07, 2007 8:20 AM

Pandy

03-14-2007, 09:49 AM

Again, these are all what-ifs. The only differents is these are the top 3 scenarios to happen out there. There is like another hundred that could happen, we'll never know till it happens.

Herrmannek

03-14-2007, 09:59 AM

Zbigniew Brzezinski... Don't make me laugh at this donkey... HE was so many times wrong putting him in a prophet role is pathetic. rofl. Back in the time, among many things this jockey proposed we should not press the Russia, stay close to it and not run for the independence, he predicted how sad Russia will be and how it will kick our asses. Few years later Soviets crumbled, we are independent, kicked their soldiers out, have thriving economy, joined EU, and are one of the closest ally of the USA... If the jockeys like him would steer America no strange Western world will be ass raped time over time as hi says... RANT OVER

Dronetek

03-14-2007, 10:28 AM

CPLHUNTER

03-14-2007, 10:44 AM

These morons can posilate as much as possible, the only truth to this whole issue is the simple fact that we will be pulling out of Iraq the minute a Dem gets elected.

Unless sh1t changes real quick, we will be leaving an unfinished job behind. What happens after that is purely guess work. Whatever it is will not be good.

Kilo

03-14-2007, 10:50 AM

Oh thank god rolling stone has decided the war is lost. I dont know what I would do without a bunch of pot head's opinions.

it´s not the pot head´s (Rolling Stone) opinion

they invited a panel to discuss this issue, do you think they´re pot heads as well ?:

Zbigniew Brzezinski
National security adviser to President Carter
Richard Clarke
Counterterrorism czar from 1992 to 2003
Nir Rosen
Author of In the Belly of the Green Bird, about Iraq’s spiral into civil war, speaking from Cairo, where he has been interviewing Iraqi refugees
Gen. Tony McPeak (retired)
Member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Gulf War
Bob Graham
Former chair, Senate Intelligence Committee
Chas Freeman
Ambassador to Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War; president of the Middle East Policy Council
Paul Pillar
Former lead counterterrorism analyst for the CIA
Michael Scheuer
Former chief of the CIA’s Osama bin Laden unit; author of Imperial Hubris
Juan Cole
Professor of modern Middle East history at the University of Michigan

Herrmannek

03-14-2007, 10:53 AM

Don't know others, Zbysio B. is :)

Kilo

03-14-2007, 10:55 AM

...we will be pulling out of Iraq the minute a Dem gets elected.

explaine me something..... you live in a Democracy, right?

So if a Dem gets elected that´s because the majority of Americans voted for him..

And if a Dem President wants to pull out, that´s because the majority of the people in America wants do pull out....am I right ?

Sigfan

03-14-2007, 10:57 AM

That region of the world has always been in a state of conflict. It has just been toned down a bit in the past 50 years with the more "pro western" muslim governments. Maybe if that region was at a state of war with each other it would prompt the US government to stop being so dependant on middle eastern oil.

Vorian

03-14-2007, 11:04 AM

The article is a liiiiiitle fictional. Could make a good book though. :D

Kilo

03-14-2007, 11:07 AM

Middle East Imperial History

http://www.youtube.com/v/Lv22Iz9qJCE

Hollis

03-14-2007, 11:12 AM

Ok, lets got to Powells comments and then compare this quote from the Article; "The war in Iraq isn't over yet, but -- surge or no surge -- the United States has already lost"

Back to anti-war/US mantra, Powell clearly points out, that victory or loss is only in the hands of the Iraqis.

The US/MNF can only aid the Iraqis in a solution.......

Unless, Iraq was the 51st State of the US, only then it would be a US win or lose.

Mr. JOSHUA

03-14-2007, 11:29 AM

it´s not the pot head´s (Rolling Stone) opinion

they invited a panel to discuss this issue, do you think they´re pot heads as well ?:

Zbigniew Brzezinski
National security adviser to President Carter
Richard Clarke
Counterterrorism czar from 1992 to 2003
Nir Rosen
Author of In the Belly of the Green Bird, about Iraq’s spiral into civil war, speaking from Cairo, where he has been interviewing Iraqi refugees
Gen. Tony McPeak (retired)
Member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Gulf War
Bob Graham
Former chair, Senate Intelligence Committee
Chas Freeman
Ambassador to Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War; president of the Middle East Policy Council
Paul Pillar
Former lead counterterrorism analyst for the CIA
Michael Scheuer
Former chief of the CIA’s Osama bin Laden unit; author of Imperial Hubris
Juan Cole
Professor of modern Middle East history at the University of Michigan

Oh and you think Rolling Stone didn't specifically shop for people with a certain outlook in Iraq?

This is just Rolling Stone trying to start up momentum on the anti war drum crowd.

Next, I suppose Vogue will tell America how to or not to, attack Iran with a panel including Sandy Berger, Valerie Plame, Wesley Clark and Rosie O' Donnel.

joedirt

03-14-2007, 12:15 PM

Hollis

03-14-2007, 12:23 PM

I disagree with that view because when the united states decided to invade iraq and depose the government and remake it then it did become our job and responsibility.

Maybe, maybe not. Lets face a by-product of dumping Saddam, was the liberation of the Iraqi people....

Sort of like defeating the N. Germany or Japan in WWII, after the war was over, something had to be done with the Germany and Japan. Should we blame the US for that too?

I would say, the Iraqi war could have been very easily avoided........ The guy that could have done that was Saddam and he choose not to. So I don't blame the Cop (US) for taking out the Criminal (Saddam), I blame the criminal.............. ergo.... Saddam's fault.

a_very_ex_STAB

03-14-2007, 12:57 PM

I would say, the Iraqi war could have been very easily avoided........ The guy that could have done that was Saddam and he choose not to. So I don't blame the Cop (US) for taking out the Criminal (Saddam), I blame the criminal.............. ergo.... Saddam's fault.

Yes it is/was probably the most avoidable war in recent history. Interesting bit of revisionism on your part though as it was blatantly obvious at the time in late 2002/early 2003 that the Bush administration was going to invade Iraq no matter how much compliance Saddam's regime showed with the UN weapons inspection effort.:roll:

Now you're trying to say that Saddam 'chose not to'
LOL rofl

2Sheds_Jackson

03-14-2007, 01:02 PM

Oh and you think Rolling Stone didn't specifically shop for people with a certain outlook in Iraq?

That's the first thing I noticed. Gosh- Rolling Stone, the world's geopolitical journal of record, cobbles together a bunch of avowed anti-war/anti-Bush people, then unveils their opinion to their own thunderous applause. Give me a break. They should stick to selling jeans by showing half-naked children.

CPLHUNTER

03-14-2007, 01:04 PM

explaine me something..... you live in a Democracy, right?

So if a Dem gets elected that´s because the majority of Americans voted for him..

And if a Dem President wants to pull out, that´s because the majority of the people in America wants do pull out....am I right ?

Yes, I do live in a democracy. However, just b/c the people elect the president, doesn't mean that somehow they have control over what he/she does in the future.

The people elected Bush twice, however did Bush ask permission from them when he did a troop surge?

So many presidents get elected b/c they tell the people what they want to hear...

CPLHUNTER

03-14-2007, 01:08 PM

phoilme

03-14-2007, 01:18 PM

Why is it if the Dems want it it's correct, but what the republicans want (namely Bush) it's wrong and misleading?

Can the Rolling Stone panel pick the NCAA tourney too? They may have experience and educations, but can they predict the future?

They may not be pot heads, but some dope smoker asked them to be on this pathetic and biased panel.

a_very_ex_STAB

03-14-2007, 01:44 PM

what kind of compliance did Saddam show?

I take you weren't looking at the news too much in those days :roll:

So what if he's a madman there's other countries around the world run by ppl who are mad or stupid and we're not invading them are we.

cover2

03-14-2007, 01:57 PM

As I recall, Saddam let UN inspectors into his nation more than once. And, as I recall, they never found didley. Who knows if he had them or not? They could, if they exist, be buried in sand somewhere. But, they never found anything, so I think it's only natural that, after a while, Saddam got a bit annoyed at everyone else poking into his country's business. We might not think it was right of him, but if the UN insisted on sending inspectors all over our country, we might get annoyed, too.

Bush knew when he got the US involved in Iraq that he had possibly as little as 1.5, and no more than 5.5, years, to get things done. If it went on beyond that, the US public would probably be pissed, and then there'd be a pullout (as might happen). Yet he and his staff still sent our troops in with insufficient forces and made some other strategic errors that more or less guaranteed that the job would not be over with quickly. Thus, whoever wins will probably be involved in a pullout (which will read as defeat), and that will be that.

The war was entirely avoidable, and so all Bush and his people have done is make the USA appear much weaker than before. How can Iran, N. Korea, etc., take any of our threats, veiled or otherwise, seriously now?

CPLHUNTER

03-14-2007, 02:08 PM

I take you weren't looking at the news too much in those days :roll:

So what if he's a madman there's other countries around the world run by ppl who are mad or stupid and we're not invading them are we.

I don't deny that he let them in, but if you recall, once they were in country, he would stall them or not let them into the facilities that they really needed access to...Iran played the same game w/ the UN.

Here's the short version of Saddam's violations:

Saddam Hussein has repeatedly violated sixteen United Nations Security Council Resolutions (UNSCRs) designed to ensure that Iraq does not pose a threat to international peace and security. In addition to these repeated violations, he has tried, over the past decade, to circumvent UN economic sanctions against Iraq, which are reflected in a number of other resolutions. As noted in the resolutions, Saddam Hussein was required to fulfill many obligations beyond the withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait. Specifically, Saddam Hussein was required to, among other things: allow international weapons inspectors to oversee the destruction of his weapons of mass destruction; not develop new weapons of mass destruction; destroy all of his ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers; stop support for terrorism and prevent terrorist organizations from operating within Iraq; help account for missing Kuwaitis and other individuals; return stolen Kuwaiti property and bear financial liability for damage from the Gulf War; and he was required to end his repression of the Iraqi people. Saddam Hussein has repeatedly violated each of the following resolutions:

UNSCR 678 - November 29, 1990

Iraq must comply fully with UNSCR 660 (regarding Iraq's illegal invasion of Kuwait) "and all subsequent relevant resolutions."

Authorizes UN Member States "to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area."

UNSCR 686 - March 2, 1991

Iraq must release prisoners detained during the Gulf War.

Iraq must return Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War.

Iraq must accept liability under international law for damages from its illegal invasion of Kuwait.

UNSCR 687 - April 3, 1991

Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or rendering harmless "under international supervision" of all "chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities."

Iraq must "unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons or nuclear-weapons-usable material" or any research, development or manufacturing facilities.

Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or rendering harmless "under international supervision" of all "ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 KM and related major parts and repair and production facilities."

Iraq must not "use, develop, construct or acquire" any weapons of mass destruction.

Iraq must reaffirm its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Creates the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) to verify the elimination of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons programs and mandated that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) verify elimination of Iraq's nuclear weapons program.

Iraq must declare fully its weapons of mass destruction programs.

Iraq must not commit or support terrorism, or allow terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq.

Iraq must cooperate in accounting for the missing and dead Kuwaitis and others.

Iraq must return Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War.

UNSCR 688 - April 5, 1991

"Condemns" repression of Iraqi civilian population, "the consequences of which threaten international peace and security."

Iraq must immediately end repression of its civilian population.

Iraq must allow immediate access to international humanitarian organizations to those in need of assistance.

UNSCR 707 - August 15, 1991

"Condemns" Iraq's "serious violation" of UNSCR 687.

"Further condemns" Iraq's noncompliance with IAEA and its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Iraq must halt nuclear activities of all kinds until the Security Council deems Iraq in full compliance.

Iraq must make a full, final and complete disclosure of all aspects of its weapons of mass destruction and missile programs.

Iraq must allow UN and IAEA inspectors immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.

Iraq must cease attempts to conceal or move weapons of mass destruction, and related materials and facilities.

Iraq must allow UN and IAEA inspectors to conduct inspection flights throughout Iraq.

Iraq must provide transportation, medical and logistical support for UN and IAEA inspectors.

UNSCR 715 - October 11, 1991

Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA inspectors.

UNSCR 949 - October 15, 1994

"Condemns" Iraq's recent military deployments toward Kuwait.

Iraq must not utilize its military or other forces in a hostile manner to threaten its neighbors or UN operations in Iraq.

Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors.

Iraq must not enhance its military capability in southern Iraq.

UNSCR 1051 - March 27, 1996

Iraq must report shipments of dual-use items related to weapons of mass destruction to the UN and IAEA.

Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.

UNSCR 1060 - June 12, 1996

"Deplores" Iraq's refusal to allow access to UN inspectors and Iraq's "clear violations" of previous UN resolutions.

Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.

UNSCR 1115 - June 21, 1997

"Condemns repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow access" to UN inspectors, which constitutes a "clear and flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687, 707, 715, and 1060.

Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.

Iraq must give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to Iraqi officials whom UN inspectors want to interview.

UNSCR 1134 - October 23, 1997

"Condemns repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow access" to UN inspectors, which constitutes a "flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687, 707, 715, and 1060.

Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.

Iraq must give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to Iraqi officials whom UN inspectors want to interview.

UNSCR 1137 - November 12, 1997

"Condemns the continued violations by Iraq" of previous UN resolutions, including its "implicit threat to the safety of" aircraft operated by UN inspectors and its tampering with UN inspector monitoring equipment.

Reaffirms Iraq's responsibility to ensure the safety of UN inspectors.

Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.

UNSCR 1154 - March 2, 1998

Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access, and notes that any violation would have the "severest consequences for Iraq."

UNSCR 1194 - September 9, 1998

"Condemns the decision by Iraq of 5 August 1998 to suspend cooperation with" UN and IAEA inspectors, which constitutes "a totally unacceptable contravention" of its obligations under UNSCR 687, 707, 715, 1060, 1115, and 1154.

Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA weapons inspectors, and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.

UNSCR 1205 - November 5, 1998

"Condemns the decision by Iraq of 31 October 1998 to cease cooperation" with UN inspectors as "a flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687 and other resolutions.

Iraq must provide "immediate, complete and unconditional cooperation" with UN and IAEA inspectors.

UNSCR 1284 - December 17, 1999

Created the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspections Commission (UNMOVIC) to replace previous weapon inspection team (UNSCOM).

Iraq must allow UNMOVIC "immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access" to Iraqi officials and facilities.

Iraq must fulfill its commitment to return Gulf War prisoners.

Calls on Iraq to distribute humanitarian goods and medical supplies to its people and address the needs of vulnerable Iraqis without discrimination.
Additional UN Security Council Statements

In addition to the legally binding UNSCRs, the UN Security Council has also issued at least 30 statements from the President of the UN Security Council regarding Saddam Hussein's continued violations of UNSCRs. The list of statements includes:

UN Security Council Presidential Statement, June 28, 1991
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, February 5, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, February 19, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, February 28, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, March 6, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, March 11, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, March 12, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, April 10, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, June 17, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, July 6, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, September 2, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, November 23, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, November 24, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, January 8, 1993
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, January 11, 1993
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, June 18, 1993
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, June 28, 1993
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, November 23, 1993
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, October 8, 1994
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, March 19, 1996
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, June 14, 1996
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, August 23, 1996
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, December 30, 1996
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, June 13, 1997
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, October 29, 1997
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, November 13, 1997
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, December 3, 1997
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, December 22, 1997
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, January 14, 1998

Freibier

03-14-2007, 02:09 PM

Bush and his cronies should be tried and jailed as war criminals for starting this mess - this way the US could save a little face

CPLHUNTER

03-14-2007, 02:10 PM

Yeah great idea...that would make the US look real stable

2Sheds_Jackson

03-14-2007, 02:11 PM

Yes it is/was probably the most avoidable war in recent history. Interesting bit of revisionism on your part though as it was blatantly obvious at the time in late 2002/early 2003 that the Bush administration was going to invade Iraq no matter how much compliance Saddam's regime showed with the UN weapons inspection effort.:roll:

Now you're trying to say that Saddam 'chose not to'
LOL rofl

Oh no, come on, you can do better than this. That's just lazy.

Saddam was given a choice. But he believed the fix was in, thanks to under the table agreements struck with other nations (who, in the name of international bridge building, we've foolishly forgiven) - and he gambled that we would not invade without the UN.

So yes, it was his choice to make.

You also have absolutely no leg to stand on to back up your assertion that "was going to invade Iraq no matter how much compliance Saddam's regime showed with the UN weapons inspection effort" - that is pure exposition on your part, which allows you disregard the causal factors behind the war. It's like saying the US would have gone to war against Japan in 1941 even if they hadn't attacked Pearl Harbor. Really? Based on what? By what mechanism? Was Bush going to pay off all 500+ members of Congress with Dairy Queen gift certificates in exchange for their votes? The Peanut Buster Parfait is good, but it's not that good. Or are we supposed to go back to believing in King Bush again?

As I've said before - there are plenty of valid reasons to dislike the war, and to believe that invasion was wrong - but they have to be based in reality to be taken seriously.

Freibier

03-14-2007, 02:12 PM

phoilme

03-14-2007, 02:14 PM

CPLHUNTER, your facts do no good in the face of all this second guessing. Freaking geniuses in this thread. Bunch of ingrates

CPLHUNTER

03-14-2007, 02:14 PM

CPLHUNTER

03-14-2007, 02:16 PM

Lol@CPLHUNTER.
You guys always stress how useless the UN is and then when your up to your nostrils in ze mud, you bring up UN stuff - hahahahaha rofl
How many times did Israel ignore the UN btw? Not seeing any US attempts there, hypocrites

You don't make any sense, what I posted was proof of the irelevance of the UN and how Saddam made a fool of them.

And yes Israel I believe has more violations than Saddam. Such a hot subject has been debated to death on this forum, but we can go there if you like :)

CPLHUNTER

03-14-2007, 02:17 PM

CPLHUNTER, your facts do no good in the face of all this second guessing. Freaking geniuses in this thread. Bunch of ingrates

Good point, I guess hindsight is 20/20. This wouldn't be a subject of contention if everything was peachy keen in Iraq.

The point is that Saddam had to go, WMD or not.

The problem w/ the this war is that is was ill planned and has taken valuable resources away from A-stan. We should have stabilized A-stan, and then went after Iraq

Freibier

03-14-2007, 02:18 PM

Hey, I guess I should've read all of your post :)

CPLHUNTER

03-14-2007, 02:20 PM

I have the same bad habit, skimming...

XASA

03-14-2007, 02:22 PM

Mr. JOSHUA

03-14-2007, 02:23 PM

Good points all around Sheds...

I guess my main question is, where were all the disenters when we first invaded? You didn't hear anybody saying this is a bad idea and Saddam shouldn't be kicked out.

But now that there are no WMD, Bush is evil and should be locked up, the whole war was a mistake and the country was better off w/ Saddamn sucking them dry.

There was one, but his view is more realistic than the common liberal whos battle cry is eerily similar to that of Saddams front entrance to his palace: Bush Is Crrriminal, Bush is Crrriminal!

This persons particular views were that of an Iranian power grab in the region with no equalizer left in charge in Iraq.

This is probably the only, realistic reason for not going to war in Iraq.

Mr. JOSHUA

03-14-2007, 02:25 PM

For the sake of argument-- which is what this thread is all about-- let's make the assumption that Bush went to war for the right reasons. His administration will still go down in the history books as one of the worst for mismanaging OIF and taking their eye off the ball in Afghanistan. Of course, Bush apologists will still find reasons to blame the UN, Bill Clinton, Congress and the American public (who are against the war by almost 3 to 1 in most polls) for his failed policy.

Yes, because Clinton earned his legacy thats inflated by the media, right?

:roll: :roll: :roll:

cover2

03-14-2007, 02:32 PM

Clinton, ah the good old days.

Let's see....he cheated on his wife, LIED, got impeached.

Bush, he LIED, and how many people are now dead b/c of it.

Clinton's legacy is not the media's.....they were beating down his door during the last year's of his presidency. Funny how when the "other side" is in power, they cry victim now. But when Clinton was in office, he was "so bad" that he was impeached. It's crazy.

Now we have a group of liars there who are getting Americans and people of other nations killed by the bushel (no pun intended), yet, Lou Dobbs aside, I don't see anyone calling for impeachment.

F!@# family values and "talking" to God. Let's get someone in office who knows what he/she is doing!

Dronetek

03-14-2007, 02:35 PM

(who are against the war by almost 3 to 1 in most polls) for his failed policy.

IF that were true, don't you think the democrats would have no problems retreating from Iraq? They can't do it because they don't have the votes, because Americans AREN'T against the war. At least, not the way you think they are.

Let's see....he cheated on his wife, LIED, got impeached.

It's really despressing how many of you people have no clue when it comes to even the most recent history. Go read up and come back when you know what youre talking about.

Bush, he LIED, and how many people are now dead b/c of it.
What do you mean he lied? What did he lie about exactly? If you are going to say Bush lied, than Clinton must be lumped in with the liars who got us in to the war. It was Clintons administration that made removing saddam national policy. It was Clinton who started all the Saddam/WMD/terrorists rhetoric, so he must have been a liar too, right?

they were beating down his door during the last year's of his presidency.
The media swoons over Clinton on a daily basis. Anyone can see that.

CPLHUNTER

03-14-2007, 02:48 PM

For the sake of argument-- which is what this thread is all about-- let's make the assumption that Bush went to war for the right reasons. His administration will still go down in the history books as one of the worst for mismanaging OIF and taking their eye off the ball in Afghanistan. Of course, Bush apologists will still find reasons to blame the UN, Bill Clinton, Congress and the American public (who are against the war by almost 3 to 1 in most polls) for his failed policy.

Exactly, as I mentioned before, this war has been mismanaged to the max...Saddam had to go, but we should have taken care of A-Stan first.

But now, I guess this argument really doesn't make much sense, b/c we can't turn back time.

cover2

03-14-2007, 02:55 PM

IF that were true, don't you think the democrats would have no problems retreating from Iraq? They can't do it because they don't have the votes, because Americans AREN'T against the war. At least, not the way you think they are.

It's really despressing how many of you people have no clue when it comes to even the most recent history. Go read up and come back when you know what youre talking about.

What do you mean he lied? What did he lie about exactly? If you are going to say Bush lied, than Clinton must be lumped in with the liars who got us in to the war. It was Clintons administration that made removing saddam national policy. It was Clinton who started all the Saddam/WMD/terrorists rhetoric, so he must have been a liar too, right?

The media swoons over Clinton on a daily basis. Anyone can see that.

Actually, as was proven in the debates between Kerry and Bush, BUSH believed that the reason for the sanctions was removing Saddam when, in fact, the purpose of the sanctions was to contain him. So I don't see how/when/where Clinton tried to remove Saddam. Did we invade under Clinton's watch? Nope.

And yes, Clinton was a liar. All/most politicians are. But considering the degree of the lies of each of these guys, I'd say the greater harm to the USA and the WORLD has been done by Bush. What did he lie about? Have you read some of the other posts in this thread? Perhaps YOU are the one, Dronotek, who should do some reading. I'm trying to figure out, actually, what Bush has been truthful about in the last 6 years or so.

annihilation

03-14-2007, 03:00 PM

Exactly, as I mentioned before, this war has been mismanaged to the max...Saddam had to go, but we should have taken care of A-Stan first.

But now, I guess this argument really doesn't make much sense, b/c we can't turn back time.
I agree the war was mismanaged and Afghanistan should have been our no1 and only priority.

But why did saddam have to go? It seems to be he was doing a fine job in keeping his local population from going crazy and kept bin laden group out.

annihilation

03-14-2007, 03:13 PM

IF that were true, don't you think the democrats would have no problems retreating from Iraq? They can't do it because they don't have the votes, because Americans AREN'T against the war. At least, not the way you think they are.

Americans are against the war ever, against it ever taking place and they are against the administartion handling of it. But at the same time the people of america do not want to loose the war, we still prefer to win. We are stuck in the middle forced to continue a battle we do not want to fight and been lied from the involvement out by our adminstration. Americans (well sane ones) understand what is at stake for leaving Iraq too soon but they also understand that the stakes were created because of our intervention and the administration lack of leadership and brains.

I truely want Iraq to succeed because I am forced to care about it now. I want things to go right but there are times when I see the administration faulter and the news on tv that I wonder if it was worth it. The money wasted and the live lost for a nation that in the end that will be questionable at best being our friend.

Dronetek

03-14-2007, 04:10 PM

Americans are against the war ever, against it ever taking place and they are against the administartion handling of it. But at the same time the people of america do not want to loose the war, we still prefer to win. We are stuck in the middle forced to continue a battle we do not want to fight and been lied from the involvement out by our adminstration. Americans (well sane ones) understand what is at stake for leaving Iraq too soon but they also understand that the stakes were created because of our intervention and the administration lack of leadership and brains.

I truely want Iraq to succeed because I am forced to care about it now. I want things to go right but there are times when I see the administration faulter and the news on tv that I wonder if it was worth it. The money wasted and the live lost for a nation that in the end that will be questionable at best being our friend.

So, you think Bush sent us to war and not the congress? Of course, that way the democrats have no liability!

Sigh, youll beleive what you want regaurdless of the facts so we can just stop this old argument.

phoilme

03-14-2007, 04:14 PM

I don't think you anti-war types sincerely care about the cost of this war. So I ask, "What do you care?"

budgie

03-14-2007, 06:02 PM

I don't think you anti-war types sincerely care about the cost of this war. So I ask, "What do you care?"

And the same clowns who cry, "Support the troops" (by staying the course, naturally) were those who were all gung-ho during the buildup to the invasion. Rings kinda hollow from those who sent troops to die in the first place.

annihilation

03-14-2007, 06:02 PM

So, you think Bush sent us to war and not the congress? Of course, that way the democrats have no liability!

Sigh, youll beleive what you want regaurdless of the facts so we can just stop this old argument.

I put blame on the congress for giving him the blank check and not questioning him in the first place. But bush is the one that pushed for this war, Bush is the one that asked congress for the permission. Also congress might have financed this war but it was Bush's administration that ran it or more like mismanaged it.

Why do you want to put the sole blame on the congress? Seems like an easy way to deflect the blame from Bush. I'm willing to contend that both parties are at fault and they failed america (as they always do). And its not a democrate or republican thing like you like to think.

annihilation

03-14-2007, 06:03 PM

I don't think you anti-war types sincerely care about the cost of this war. So I ask, "What do you care?"

I don't care about the 600+ billion wasted or the 3,000 american lives lost? what should I care about?

phoilme

03-14-2007, 06:05 PM

not sure I understand that Budgie.

XASA

03-14-2007, 06:16 PM

I don't think you anti-war types sincerely care about the cost of this war. So I ask, "What do you care?"

I'm not sure who you are addressing when you say "anti-war types," whatever the fcuk that is, but I'll respond to your query anyway. First, I'm not anti-war. I wouldn't have enlisted (and re-enlisted) in the Army if I was.

The chance to prove one's manhood, the heightened senses war brings about and the cameraderie with one's mates is something few men have the opportunity to experience. As you get older, you learn to appreciate that experience more. You can see the envy of your peers who didn't serve during a war and wish they had (but they always have an excuse for why they didn't). You also know what the real "cost" of a war is as well because you've lost relatives and friends. But I'm not talking only about the "cost" in blood, but also the pyschological "cost" it has on those who wage war, their families back home and the financial cost to their communities long after a war is over.

Hell, I'll even admit I love war so long as I'm on the winning side and come home in one piece!

There are times when war is unavoidable. But Iraq was an avoidable war. Even so, if you are going to wage war, do it right. Go in with overwhelming force, have allies to support you financially and with manpower, and have an exit strategy. This didn't happen in Iraq. We are just starting a "surge" four years after the initial invasion, our allies are leaving us in the clutch and there still isn't an exit strategy, but I would like to think one will materialize soon due to public opinion.

There is no need for me to repeat the many mistakes made by the Bush administration. They have been documented ad nauseum. If you are one of the remaining few people who are not aware of why Iraq is a clusterfcuk, which many of you are, you can continue with your right wing extremist circle jerk. No one cares what you right wing loons think because your point of view has been marginalized because of the aforementioned mistakes. Face it, you had your moment in the sun for six years before the American public realized the emperor is wearing no clothes. "Mission Accomplish" my ass.

No one listens to neo-cons any more because they are so out of touch with reality. The reality is that thousands of young American, British and coalition men and women are dying in a civil war that the Bush administration denied was occuring. The reality is that thousands of Iraqis are being butchered and bombed every year. The reality is that the American military is being stretched to its limits with no end in sight. The reality is that American influence in the Middle East is in worse shape now than it was four years ago. The reality is that Iran has become a power player because of an American diplomatic breakdown. The reality is that most of the known world considers America as the aggressor in the Iraqi War and an occupation force as well. The reality is that billions of dollars are being flushed down the toliet in an effort to reconstruct Iraq while the American infrastructure doesn't get the budget dollars it needs.

To ask those oppose to the conduct of OIF "What do you care" is repulsive and immature. But, hey, carry on, it goes with the territory when you debate on the Internet

phoilme

03-14-2007, 06:36 PM

I appreciate your service. Thank You. I don't regret serving during "peace." I believe the question "what do you care" is legitimate. I believe there is too much feigned sincerity when people talk about the cost. Not all, mind you. But please don't condem the war as a write off or completely negative when most of what you say is assumption.

Dronetek

03-14-2007, 07:41 PM

But bush is the one that pushed for this war,

What do you mean by "bush pushed for war"? Do you mean, the rhetoric and speeches were pushing for war, thus Bush was pushing for war?

I appreciate your service. Thank You. I don't regret serving during "peace." I believe the question "what do you care" is legitimate. I believe there is too much feigned sincerity when people talk about the cost. Not all, mind you. But please don't condem the war as a write off or completely negative when most of what you say is assumption.

I know exactly what you mean. One minute, cnn is running terrorist propaganda of US soldiers being sniped, the next they are screaming about the troops well being when it suits the storyline of a scandal ridden administration. Sure, it looks like they care, but that kind of concern only seems to materialize when it suits them politically.

annihilation

03-14-2007, 08:25 PM

What do you mean by "bush pushed for war"? Do you mean, the rhetoric and speeches were pushing for war, thus Bush was pushing for war?

I know exactly what you mean. One minute, cnn is running terrorist propaganda of US soldiers being sniped, the next they are screaming about the troops well being when it suits the storyline of a scandal ridden administration. Sure, it looks like they care, but that kind of concern only seems to materialize when it suits them politically.

Yup bush was pushing for the war, he quick push before letting the international system take its course, be it 12 years or 20.

CNN is like any other form of media err entertainment out there, its just looking to get as much attention as possible. Even at the point of making up the news instead of just reporting it.

11 Bravo

03-14-2007, 09:34 PM

INAT

03-15-2007, 01:00 AM

"By taking out Saddam, we have allowed the jihad to move 1,000 kilometers west, where it can project its power, its organizers, its theology into Turkey -- and from Turkey into Europe."

I think this quote by Micheal Scheuer is very interesting
when you consider Europe's ever growing muslim population who does not assimilate well to European culture and how muslim terrorists might view
the precedent of a possibly independent Kosovo.

Ed the bumbling fool

03-15-2007, 02:51 AM

Don't feel to bad about pulling out We (the British) had to give up our half our American colonies and we eventually got used to it.
We also went to war to defend poland which ended up costing us most of the empire.
True we still have responsibilities in Iraq but the main point is they (the insurgents )want to Kill americans so by removing many the troops or replacing them with locals you are decreasing there chance of success.Next you will ask can security be upheld by local troops. India was governed by the British and policed by 95% local troops for 200 years. So pulling out is only defeat if you don't back your men.
Realistically redrawing a few maps needs to happen first but we all just want the oil to much. I do sympathize with Americans plight because at least now they know what the colonial powers were put though after the war.

8thidpathfinderpower

03-15-2007, 04:44 AM

Oh thank god rolling stone has decided the war is lost. I dont know what I would do without a bunch of pot head's opinions.

Its a fact that alqaeda and other terrorist groups will use our retreat as a rallying call (like they did when we left Somolia). They will get more money and more power and more ability to strike all over the world. Honestly, I cant see how anyone thinks any differently.

I could not agree with you more. And yet, we amazingly have some of these estranged experts making grossly misjudged remarks, and by their proven track record when they were in office, has managed to show what stupid nearsightness they posses.

It does not take a rocket scientist to see that if the USA were to up and haul cheeze out of Iraq today, that the place would become a vacume of all kinds of land and power grabs. And when you have something like that happen, history has already shown us the results can be dangerous.

8thidpathfinderpower

03-15-2007, 04:52 AM

Kilo

03-15-2007, 07:12 AM

Oh jeez louise...like ANYTHING Rolling jackarse magazine has to print on anything - let alone politics is of any value other than to wipe the arse of homless people. Give us a break KiLo and put some reality in such a post...not slanted fantasy politics of a left bent.

again...this is not an article written by a liberal, pot head, Rolling Stone´s journalist but a compilation of opinions from a panel of experts:

Zbigniew Brzezinski
National security adviser to President Carter
Richard Clarke
Counterterrorism czar from 1992 to 2003
Nir Rosen
Author of In the Belly of the Green Bird, about Iraq’s spiral into civil war, speaking from Cairo, where he has been interviewing Iraqi refugees
Gen. Tony McPeak (retired)
Member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Gulf War
Bob Graham
Former chair, Senate Intelligence Committee
Chas Freeman
Ambassador to Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War; president of the Middle East Policy Council
Paul Pillar
Former lead counterterrorism analyst for the CIA
Michael Scheuer
Former chief of the CIA’s Osama bin Laden unit; author of Imperial Hubris
Juan Cole
Professor of modern Middle East history at the University of Michigan

Most of these guys had objections to a war in Iraq, and time prove them right

by the way :

During the presidential election of 2000 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election%2C_2000) General McPeak, along with several other high-ranking military retirees, broke with a long-standing tradition of public political neutrality to endorse George W. Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush). As the military and foreign policy of the Bush administration coalesced, however, McPeak expressed strong objections, especially with regard to the 2003 invasion of Iraq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq).

he now says:

This is a dark chapter in our history. Whatever else happens, our country's international standing has been frittered away by people who don't have the foggiest understanding of how the hell the world works. America has been conducting an experiment for the past six years, trying to validate the proposition that it really doesn't make any difference who you elect president. Now we know the result of that experiment [laughs]. If a guy is stupid, it makes a big difference.

Dronetek

03-15-2007, 09:30 AM

Yup bush was pushing for the war, he quick push before letting the international system take its course, be it 12 years or 20.

So, when John Kerry and Hillary were banging the drums of war and making their owns WMD claims about Iraq, they were in the right? How can you say Bush sent us to war, when these democrats were using the same language in the same kind of speeches that the president was. I just dont understand how you make a distinction between what the democrats were saing and what the president was syaing. I'd post all of the democrat quotes, but I know you have seen them already.

Do you understnad what I'm trying to say? How can you say Bush was telling lies when he was giving those speeches, but the democrats werent telling lies? Both Hillar and John Kerry made their own claims against saddam, that werent connected to bush. They said that "THEY" beleived saddam was a threat and had WMD, not "Bush told us, so thats what we now beleive."

annihilation

03-15-2007, 10:08 AM

So, when John Kerry and Hillary were banging the drums of war and making their owns WMD claims about Iraq, they were in the right? How can you say Bush sent us to war, when these democrats were using the same language in the same kind of speeches that the president was. I just dont understand how you make a distinction between what the democrats were saing and what the president was syaing. I'd post all of the democrat quotes, but I know you have seen them already.

Do you understnad what I'm trying to say? How can you say Bush was telling lies when he was giving those speeches, but the democrats werent telling lies? Both Hillar and John Kerry made their own claims against saddam, that werent connected to bush. They said that "THEY" beleived saddam was a threat and had WMD, not "Bush told us, so thats what we now beleive."

I never said that the democrats didn't lie. **** I hate democrats a little more than republicans (which I hate also) as they are never keep anything straight. I don't argue that the democrats made their speeches about going to war and that hillary has to live with and she gets burns with what she said. But who initiated the whole lets attack Iraq arguement? If I remember correct it was started by the administration, even while we were not done in afghanistan it was already being planned. Even then it is the administration and not the congress that ran the war (ie plan of attack and post invasion). I will say the initial attack was amazing but they mismanaged the post invasion and placed iraq and the USA in the situation we are now.

You have to agree the administration has run the post iraq horribly and gave the democrats the ticket they needed to get back into power and a bigger say in the running the of iraq. If things went better from the beginning i doubt we would be in this position.

Mr. JOSHUA

03-15-2007, 11:09 AM

again...this is not an article written by a liberal, pot head, Rolling Stone´s journalist but a compilation of opinions from a panel of experts:

Zbigniew Brzezinski
National security adviser to President Carter
Richard Clarke
Counterterrorism czar from 1992 to 2003
Nir Rosen
Author of In the Belly of the Green Bird, about Iraq’s spiral into civil war, speaking from Cairo, where he has been interviewing Iraqi refugees
Gen. Tony McPeak (retired)
Member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Gulf War
Bob Graham
Former chair, Senate Intelligence Committee
Chas Freeman
Ambassador to Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War; president of the Middle East Policy Council
Paul Pillar
Former lead counterterrorism analyst for the CIA
Michael Scheuer
Former chief of the CIA’s Osama bin Laden unit; author of Imperial Hubris
Juan Cole
Professor of modern Middle East history at the University of Michigan

Most of these guys had objections to a war in Iraq, and time prove them right

by the way :

During the presidential election of 2000 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election%2C_2000) General McPeak, along with several other high-ranking military retirees, broke with a long-standing tradition of public political neutrality to endorse George W. Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush). As the military and foreign policy of the Bush administration coalesced, however, McPeak expressed strong objections, especially with regard to the 2003 invasion of Iraq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq).

he now says:

This is a dark chapter in our history. Whatever else happens, our country's international standing has been frittered away by people who don't have the foggiest understanding of how the hell the world works. America has been conducting an experiment for the past six years, trying to validate the proposition that it really doesn't make any difference who you elect president. Now we know the result of that experiment [laughs]. If a guy is stupid, it makes a big difference.

.........and again, anyone who thinks Rolling Stone did not specifically shop for people with "certain" views of the Iraq war still think the world is flat................

Hollis

03-15-2007, 11:40 AM

.........and again, anyone who thinks Rolling Stone did not specifically shop for people with "certain" views of the Iraq war still think the world is flat................

I think they are really covert members of the CLS.........

The Chicken Little Society................ The sky is falling, the sky is falling ............. to reductio ad nauseum.

Mr. JOSHUA

03-15-2007, 11:48 AM

I think they are really covert members of the CLS.........

The Chicken Little Society................ The sky is falling, the sky is falling ............. to reductio ad nauseum.

hmmm hmmm, this article is there in this particular magazine for a purpose, to educate or indoctrinate all the young putz's who think they're cool because they're reading "Rolling Stone", or they think they're getting up to date on the latest fashion or what Justin Timberlakes house looks like or what underwear he wears, these same people who care about these useless things, who are obviously gullable to begin with to care about these things, are being told by a "cool" magazine, one point of view on the war.

It doesn't take much more than that to convince a naive person the world is flat.

Why do you think homo****** groups are trying to get in to the schools.

Its not that the young-n's are naive, well they are because they're young, but its primarily because their brains are still like sponges.

mi35d

03-15-2007, 01:17 PM

Very well balanced and unbiased panel...

Here's a minor quote:

Scheuer: The neoconservatives and their war in Iraq

Certaily shows an impartial attitude.

California Joe

03-15-2007, 01:37 PM

Jesus Dronetek, you were a little slow. It usually only takes 3 or 4 posts discussing W's handling of the war before you scream "CLINTONNNNNNNNNNNNN!" Did you even read the responses in the damned article?

And frankly I don't give a f*ck who comissioned it, or what political slant you think they have, like that dirty liberal prick McPeak that voted for W...they're all still more knowledgeable subject matter experts than you lot.

Mr. JOSHUA

03-15-2007, 02:12 PM

........if they were so smart, then the bright genious Bill Clinton would've hired them as his military advisors and not only that, since they are so smart, they would've come up with a solution to remove Saddam and create peace and stability for post Saddam Iraq.................

WARPIG

03-15-2007, 02:23 PM

explaine me something..... you live in a Democracy, right?

So if a Dem gets elected that´s because the majority of Americans voted for him..

And if a Dem President wants to pull out, that´s because the majority of the people in America wants do pull out....am I right ?

Sort of. The majority of Americans are overweight and watch Americal Idol. The majority of Americans are obsessed with game shows that they now call "Reality TV." So, if a Dem gets elected.. it isn't the will of Americans, but more accurately what Americans are told to do. The influence that our television has over Americans is pretty significant. With MSM overtly supporting the left and Hollywood leaning that way as usual, America will get their education and view of "reality" and the world via what their new LCD TV is telling them.

California Joe

03-15-2007, 02:25 PM

Kilo

03-15-2007, 02:39 PM

Sort of. The majority of Americans are overweight and watch Americal Idol. The majority of Americans are obsessed with game shows that they now call "Reality TV." So, if a Dem gets elected.. it isn't the will of Americans, but more accurately what Americans are told to do. The influence that our television has over Americans is pretty significant. With MSM overtly supporting the left and Hollywood leaning that way as usual, America will get their education and view of "reality" and the world via what their new LCD TV is telling them.

and can´t FOX News do anything ? eheheh

CPLHUNTER

03-15-2007, 02:39 PM

Great so we are controlled by our TV? Warpig sums it up good...why care when no one else does?

WARPIG

03-15-2007, 02:46 PM

Joshua, do you ever get tired of having such a hard on all the time? My statement was to the effect that they have vastly more experience in the subject matter than you do and why is it that when you scream about partisan media politics and liberal conspiracies but don't apply the same yardstick to those you agree with? It makes my head hurt.

Thanks for the blanket generalization PIG. Maybe we should just all off ourselves now. All except the Sean Hannity wannabee illuminati here at milphotos of course.

Blanket generalization or not.. it's a pretty visible shift left. My aspirations to be a Hannity illuminati or not.. I can't figure out if the shift is bad or good. The liberal control of the media is definate leverage.. but what will they do with it? Conservatives had enough leverage to put Bush in the big boy chair and lead us to this war.. now that we are stuck.. do Dems have the ability to fix anything? Yeah.. I'm making illustrations with some broad brush strokes..but I'm trying to look at the big picture here. These "subject matter experts" don't see much past gloom and doom in the middle east and the reason the US is going to take the blame is because our leadership didn't bother to try and see things past thier own noses. So, to try and widen my view.. what does this shift left mean for our future? Our culture's dependency on instant media and perpetually PC pop culture.. <say that 3 times fast.. doesn't have the stomach to make hard decisions. Yet the front runners in our pending election base their "position" on the polls.

Mr. JOSHUA

03-15-2007, 02:49 PM

Joshua, do you ever get tired of having such a hard on all the time? My statement was to the effect that they have vastly more experience in the subject matter than you do and why is it that when you scream about partisan media politics and liberal conspiracies but don't apply the same yardstick to those you agree with? It makes my head hurt.

Thanks for the blanket generalization PIG. Maybe we should just all off ourselves now. All except the Sean Hannity wannabee illuminati here at milphotos of course.

I thought HTFU was MP.nets' motto.

I do apply the same standard to the so called conservatives in the media, I do not like Sean Hannity because he is a Bush-Bot, same thing for Rush Limbaugh and others.

I was just pointing out the fact that this particular magazine has bias and has shown it in recent issues.

I was correlating it with the CNN's and MSNBC's of today who specifacally seek out obvious anti-war people and anti-bush people to get their point across, I see this as being no different than Bill Maher pinning 4 liberals against 1 conservative and completely trashing that conservative to make it appear as if the liberals won the argument.

Same tactic, only no lonely conservative to voice his view.

WARPIG

03-15-2007, 02:52 PM

and can´t FOX News do anything ? eheheh

I'm less distrusting of FOX than the others.. but no.. I wouldn't bank on FOX being a beacon of light nor would I use them as a source for my decision making.

But, generalization or not.. most Americans form their opinions on headlines and sound bytes. I'm not trying to spin some "evil liberals sieze control of the media" controversy. Just pointing out a symptom of the political culture in our country.

shocker1

03-15-2007, 02:52 PM

Yet the front runners in our pending election base their "position" on the polls.
This is why we elect someone then a year or two later we can't recognize what the hell they stand for. This is a shallow electorial process now a days. Ones foundation of conviction must be supressed to grab the next half hour news cycle. Most people vote the familiar name anyway, thats the big reason Bush won twice and the fact the other choices were awkward and weird.(Gore,Kerry) We are doomed in 08!

Hollis

03-15-2007, 05:40 PM

budgie

03-16-2007, 09:31 AM

"Originally Posted by California Joe http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?p=2370863#post2370863)
Joshua, do you ever get tired of having such a hard on all the time?"

This is what wrong with the anti-war movement, no cute hippy chicks that don't know what No means. What ever happen to "make Love not war" ?

What is a young conservative to do?

Beat his pecker like it owes him money....just like the conservatives did in the leadup to war. Time to clear the air up a little.

1) The people who advocate staying the course are by and large the same bunch who advocated going to war. Sorry guys, we gave you your shot and it hasn't worked.

2) The Congress did not vote to give the president a blank check to go to war, regardless of what the UN inspectors found. They voted to allow force if necessary

3) The UN inspectors didn't find any WMD by the way, let's not forget that. Ergo, force was not necessary.

4) Bill Clinton has had nothing to do with this, regardless of his sharing suspicion that Saddam was up to something.

Dronetek

03-16-2007, 09:59 AM

Beat his pecker like it owes him money....just like the conservatives did in the leadup to war. Time to clear the air up a little.

1) The people who advocate staying the course are by and large the same bunch who advocated going to war. Sorry guys, we gave you your shot and it hasn't worked.

2) The Congress did not vote to give the president a blank check to go to war, regardless of what the UN inspectors found. They voted to allow force if necessary

3) The UN inspectors didn't find any WMD by the way, let's not forget that. Ergo, force was not necessary.

4) Bill Clinton has had nothing to do with this, regardless of his sharing suspicion that Saddam was up to something.

1) Yeah, better to portary supports that way rather than being honest. What about the soldiers and Marines who are over there now? Are they just warmongers? What do you have to say about the problems with pulling out? You cant just say "I dont think anything will happen" and leave it at that. Clinton pulled out of Somalia and we see how that ended. What makes you think leaving Iraq with have any less consequences?

2) Oh yes more rewriting of history to suit the democrats. Lets go over the facts about what the democrats were voting for:

"Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons. There's no question about that."

Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)
During an interview on "Meet The Press"
November 17, 2002
http://www.accuracy.org/newsrelease.php?articleId=375

She seems pretty sure about that, dosnt she?

"I come to this debate, Mr. Speaker, as one at the end of 10 years in office on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, where stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was one of my top priorities. I applaud the President on focusing on this issue and on taking the lead to disarm Saddam Hussein. ... Others have talked about this threat that is posed by Saddam Hussein. Yes, he has chemical weapons, he has biological weapons, he is trying to get nuclear weapons."

Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)
Addressing the US Senate
October 10, 2002
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/
cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=H7777&dbname=2002_record

Does this sound like a democrat who has been coerced? Does it sound like a democrat who is going to give the power to go to war--if neccisary?

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States and to our allies.

If Saddam persists in thumbing his nose at the inspectors, then we're clearly going to have to do something about it."

Howard Dean, Democratic Presidential Candidate
During an interview on "Face The Nation"
September 29, 2002
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/face_092902.pdf

THERE IS NO QUESTION!

"People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons."

Former President Clinton
During an interview on CNN's "Larry King Live"
July 22, 2003
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/23/clinton.iraq.sotu/

Thats right, Clinton sais that in 2003 there were weapons unacounted for. So spare me with your recreation of history. Congress voted to invade Iraq, period.

3) They were also kicked out consistantly throughout their exsistance in Iraq. A quick review of the history will show you that if they were hiding and moving something throuhout the inspections. If they had no WMD, than what were they hiding back than and how can we tell for sure what was destroyed or not?

http://www.mideastweb.org/iraqtimelineunscom.htm

4) Bill Clinton had nothing to do with it, regardless of the fact he told Americans and the world that Saddam would have to be taken out because of his WMD? I don't think many people buy that. I certainly don't.

Breakfast in Vegas

03-16-2007, 10:04 AM

Which is better for America?

Staying the course or abandoning the cause?

That is the question that matters.

My gut feeling (which seems just about as reliable as any "expert" opinion) says we aren't going to win in Iraq... not even get a draw. Sunnis and Shiites are too determined to kill each other and we are caught in the middle.

If there ever was a chance to "win" in Iraq, we missed the opportunity a couple years back.

Blame for the defeat as it were... lies entirely with the Bush administration. Blaming Clinton is childish and laughably ignorant.

I believe that even Bush knows the situation is ultimately hopeless. He only hopes to draw the war out until the Democrats take power and start withdrawing troops.

Republicans will of course then ridiculously claim that victory was ours if we had "just held out a little longer".

The Republicans do serious disservice to the military by using it as a political plaything.

Mr. JOSHUA

03-16-2007, 10:13 AM

What a coincidence.

Someone mentions me having a hardon and budgie comes running.

Createdeemcee

03-16-2007, 10:21 AM

You are very to the point Budgie, and I agree with you.

As many of the Right majority here that think were all doomed in 2008. Regardless of who the new President represents Left or Right will have their hands full. This guy bush hasnt done one thing right since he came to office, other than backhanding the taliban. But our lacking of being able to control Iraq is now making Afghanistan more unstable. We are doomed no matter what. And no matter who is in office.

Dronetek

03-16-2007, 11:09 AM

My gut feeling (which seems just about as reliable as any "expert" opinion)

You really beleive that? the fact of the matter is, if we leave our enemies will use it as a rallying call. You think Iraq became a becon to terrorists after the invasion? Just wait till we leave! Everything we have learned about these terrorists tells us that retreat is the worst possible action to take.

Charlie1time

03-16-2007, 01:37 PM

Dronetek

03-16-2007, 02:01 PM

How do you define victory? No bombs going off, or shootings, for a certain time period? If you set that as your condition of victory it takes a single person to keep the US from 'winning'. How do you define victory Dronetek.

Victory is when the Iraqi government can operate on its own with minimal US help and violence has become dramatically lower. There needs to be some kind of infrastructure built to fight the foreign terrorists that have taken root there. Hopefully, we will have left an Iraq that could evolve into a becon in the Middle East.

Maybe now you could explain to me why you think its ok to just pick up and leave Iraq as is. Be sure to go in to how you feel about the way terrorist groups worldwide will use it as a rallying call. There is also the loss of any chance the moderate muslims in the middle east will ever gain a voice.

Breakfast in Vegas

03-16-2007, 02:25 PM

You really beleive that? the fact of the matter is, if we leave our enemies will use it as a rallying call. You think Iraq became a becon to terrorists after the invasion? Just wait till we leave! Everything we have learned about these terrorists tells us that retreat is the worst possible action to take.

If I thought sticking it out would produce a satisfactory result, I would support sticking it out, sending in more troops etc. But I do not think it will.

There are too many other elements in Iraq that support the current chaos.

Who is the enemy?

Insurgents?
Sunnis?
Shiites?

All of the above...

The fact that we dont have the situation under control is disasterous and will encourage terrorists and extremists. I agree. Every 2 bit nation now knows that if adequately funded and armed, it can defeat an occupational army by waging a guerilla war-insurgency. There isnt a stronger army than the American one anywhere in the world... and even we arent able to pacify Iraq...

"Iraq" doesnt want to be pacified. Too many powerful elements are profiting from the chaos and bloodshed there and wont stop creating it until the US is gone and they can start staking their claims for the power position in Iraqs future.

I truly feel sorry for those in the Iraqi army who are doing their best to try to bring peace and stability to their country. I fear they are going to get slaughtered and dissolve when the US inevitably leaves.

I hope I am wrong. I hope I get voted in as pessimistic short-sighted dumbarse of the century when we "win" in Iraq. I just dont see it happening. Staying the course is only smart and noble if victory is achievable.

What I do see happening is the Shiites, who will be far more dangerous to us than Saddam could ever have dreamed of, butchering the Sunnis, then getting rid of the foreign insurgents who are just tools anyway, then going loggerheads with the Kurds, who will be supported by the US... causing great political tension between the US and Turkey.

All the while Russia will laugh happily all the way to the bank raking in its oil revenues saying "I told you so"... not too mention Iran who will be thanking us for the next hundred years for handing them Iraq on a silver platter. We couldnt have done them a bigger favor.

I do believe in our troops, there is no doubt in that. I just dont believe that the mission can be accomplished under these circumstances.

Godspeed to our troops... hope they kick ass and take names.. and get home soon.

annihilation

03-16-2007, 06:33 PM

Victory is when the Iraqi government can operate on its own with minimal US help and violence has become dramatically lower. There needs to be some kind of infrastructure built to fight the foreign terrorists that have taken root there. Hopefully, we will have left an Iraq that could evolve into a becon in the Middle East.

Maybe now you could explain to me why you think its ok to just pick up and leave Iraq as is. Be sure to go in to how you feel about the way terrorist groups worldwide will use it as a rallying call. There is also the loss of any chance the moderate muslims in the middle east will ever gain a voice.

And how long do you think we need to stick it out before this happens? how many lives and how much money needs to be wasted before we achieve this beacon in the middle east?

I agree if we leave to suddenly it will setup a vaccum for the terrorist but you have to agree that we created Iraq for the terrorist. They didn't get in involve in Iraq untill after we came in and after we dropped the ball and allowed them to setup there. We created the terrorist threat that everyone so fears that will engulf the country when we leave.

Hollis

03-16-2007, 07:11 PM

And how long do you think we need to stick it out before this happens? how many lives and how much money needs to be wasted before we achieve this beacon in the middle east?

.

How long is a Piece of String? Until the Job gets done, I really don't know if we have any other options. Maybe ask the Tangos how long they intend to murder innocent men, women and children, to torture them with power tools and try to keep a people living in fear.

I guess that is a waste of money to you, to save lives and help other people build a better life. But I guess people in the west who live rather safe lives, live in virtual luxury compared to others, and are self absorb would not want to help another people if it comes at a slight cost.

I guess the US/MNF could have said, "We did our job, we took out Saddam, so now Iraqis you're on your own." So if some tangos like the Taliban took over Iraqi. But Since the US/MNF has stayed, maybe those Iraqis have a chance to build their own society and country as they need.

Hollis

03-16-2007, 07:12 PM

What a coincidence.

Someone mentions me having a hardon and budgie comes running.

Maybe he likes you, :hug:

Sorry had to say that, the devil made me do it.

annihilation

03-16-2007, 09:09 PM

How long is a Piece of String? Until the Job gets done, I really don't know if we have any other options. Maybe ask the Tangos how long they intend to murder innocent men, women and children, to torture them with power tools and try to keep a people living in fear.

I guess that is a waste of money to you, to save lives and help other people build a better life. But I guess people in the west who live rather safe lives, live in virtual luxury compared to others, and are self absorb would not want to help another people if it comes at a slight cost.

I guess the US/MNF could have said, "We did our job, we took out Saddam, so now Iraqis you're on your own." So if some tangos like the Taliban took over Iraqi. But Since the US/MNF has stayed, maybe those Iraqis have a chance to build their own society and country as they need.

The money spent to fund the war in iraq could have meet the UN goals for 50 billion dollars a year in aid to africa for the next ten years which probably would have done more good. I don't have a problem with helping other nations/people but there has to be a cost to benefit/profit ratio. At a point it becomes not worth it. Self absorb maybe...

Hollis

03-16-2007, 10:27 PM

The money spent to fund the war in iraq could have meet the UN goals for 50 billion dollars a year in aid to africa for the next ten years which probably would have done more good. I don't have a problem with helping other nations/people but there has to be a cost to benefit/profit ratio. At a point it becomes not worth it. Self absorb maybe...

Yes, WAR is a complete waste of money and lives. So are locks on doors, security system, Virus guards all the other stuff because of bad guys.

Yes this war might have been avoided, if Saddam, would have done the right thing. Or if the allies of Saddam told him to do the right thing. OIL FOR FOOD CORRUPTION <--one example.

Cops are a waste of money, till you get mugged or in the process of getting mugged. So blame the cop, as you are doing here, rather than the bad guy and his buddies.

This all can end tomorrow. all the that basically needs to be done................... is that the terrorist choose to end the terrorism and choose peace.

Dronetek

03-17-2007, 06:56 AM

And how long do you think we need to stick it out before this happens? how many lives and how much money needs to be wasted before we achieve this beacon in the middle east?

I agree if we leave to suddenly it will setup a vaccum for the terrorist but you have to agree that we created Iraq for the terrorist. They didn't get in involve in Iraq untill after we came in and after we dropped the ball and allowed them to setup there. We created the terrorist threat that everyone so fears that will engulf the country when we leave.

Ok, whats your point? You guys ALWAYS have to make that point, as if it blosters your argument that we need to get out. If anyhting, it just means we have a responsability to fix it before we leave.

Xaito

03-17-2007, 07:08 AM

Ok, whats your point? You guys ALWAYS have to make that point, as if it blosters your argument that we need to get out. If anyhting, it just means we have a responsability to fix it before we leave.

I think so too - If you guys leave now the people who died would have died for nothing. You can argue if it was right or wrong to start it but since it was it has to be seen through.

budgie

03-17-2007, 09:23 AM

What a coincidence.

Someone mentions me having a hardon and budgie comes running.

You always knew I had a secret crush on you.

Charlie1time

03-17-2007, 04:28 PM

Victory is when the Iraqi government can operate on its own with minimal US help and violence has become dramatically lower. There needs to be some kind of infrastructure built to fight the foreign terrorists that have taken root there.

I really don't have much of an answer to the current problem in Iraq but that ^^ sure as hell wasn't one of the reasons the war started. Someone fubared this war, how on earth could you blame anyone other than the current US administration :roll:

utopia

03-17-2007, 05:12 PM

But it is a current problem that needs to be addressed.
I don't like the Iraq war but over the past couple of months is seems like the only logical thing,in my opinion, to do is to atleast try to help the Iraqis regain control of their country. It might be a success, might end in a civil war. Atleast we can say we tried to make a difference instead of just packing up and heading home.
The "leaving Iraq will send a clear message to the terrorist" logic holds water, this is the thing that concerns me the most about leaving Iraq and what has pushed me towards believing we need to stay a little longer.

Dronetek

03-17-2007, 05:29 PM

I really don't have much of an answer to the current problem in Iraq but that ^^ sure as hell wasn't one of the reasons the war started. Someone fubared this war, how on earth could you blame anyone other than the current US administration :roll:

A fact none of you guys can get past. We are worried about current problems, not dweling on past mistakes.

The administration before before this one set us all up for failure which lead to the deaths of 3,000 Americans and he's hailed as a man god.

annihilation

03-17-2007, 05:43 PM

A fact none of you guys can get past. We are worried about current problems, not dweling on past mistakes.

The administration before before this one set us all up for failure which lead to the deaths of 3,000 Americans and he's hailed as a man god.

You watched 300 didn't you.

We could argue that the administration before before before this one set up for failure.

Charlie1time

03-17-2007, 06:13 PM

A fact none of you guys can get past. We are worried about current problems, not dweling on past mistakes.

The administration before before this one set us all up for failure which lead to the deaths of 3,000 Americans and he's hailed as a man god.
Was that sarcasm? 2 completely contradictory statements there dude.

You should be in politics.

California Joe

03-17-2007, 06:37 PM

Nevermind.

MagnaDane

03-17-2007, 10:49 PM

You must NEVER leave Iraq! Iraq now is main front of War with Terror!
If you leave it now, you will show your back to enemies, to Al-Qaeda!
You will show you're weak! Enemy will follow you and you'll have to fight them on the streets of America! Do you want another 911? Never give up!
You have only 3200 casualties so far! What are you - sissies?

California Joe

03-17-2007, 10:55 PM

Shut up you retard.

MagnaDane

03-17-2007, 10:59 PM

It's obvious fact Iraq will become one huge terrorist training camp as soon as US army leave. Is somebody there don't understand that? And it will be huge victory for UBL and his company.

Dronetek

03-17-2007, 11:14 PM

Was that sarcasm? 2 completely contradictory statements there dude.

You should be in politics.

I guess it was, statement retracted.

Nano

03-17-2007, 11:34 PM

The grim truth about Iraq is that the U.S. has NO real leadership just self interested politicians for the most part that would sink the country before they would ever make tough and intelligent choices. I thought Sen. John McCain was the one political leader that had the integrity and intelligence to lead, but really seems to be more Bush redux as of late. Leaving Iraq has its benefits and dangers just as staying in Iraq does. The real question should be does staying in Iraq aid U.S. national security and interests or does withdrawing bring about greater benefits in that respect. Everyone can go about how the current and previous administrations did what to hurt U.S. security and interests, but most use it to justify their side's political positions not to bring about a solution. The solution is simple start voting for real leadership not political leanings or get used to more of the same results until then. McCain and Obama would be the best combination to lead if somehow it was possible for them to join up as President and Vice President.

MagnaDane

03-18-2007, 12:16 AM

No, the grim truth about Iraq(tm) is that USA will pay a hell lot of a price if they stay. But they will pay 100 times more if they leave.

Nano

03-18-2007, 12:42 AM

No, the grim truth about Iraq(tm) is that USA will pay a hell lot of a price if they stay. But they will pay 100 times more if they leave.
Leadership is needed in either case which is something the U.S. seems to have a short supply of where it counts and thats on the top. Gen. David Petraeus seems to be the best man for the top job in Iraq, but the problem however is that it may be too little too late. I hope not though and if it is he knows what to do. The civilian leadership may not necessarily follow all of his recommendations. Which has been the problem all along hence the problem in dealing with Iraq all along has been civilian leadership not necessarily military leadership, but I digress.

budgie

03-19-2007, 06:26 PM

The administration before before this one set us all up for failure which lead to the deaths of 3,000 Americans and he's hailed as a man god.

Shut up you retard.

There - simple statement and response. Problem fixed. Sorry guys, but I just had to.