Ancient history?

[Secret Squirrel]

The organizers of this year's Republican National Convention engaged in some very shrewd rewriting of history. If you watched carefully, you noticed a narrative of the war on terror in which most of the last two years disappeared.

Viewers got enormous detail on the bravery displayed by Americans after the attacks of Sept. 11. But there was no pause to discuss how the Bush administration chose to sell the war in Iraq, how so many of its assumptions went haywire or why our strategy was so flawed that we have now conceded large parts of the Sunni Triangle to our enemies. There were no reminders of “Mission Accomplished” or “bring 'em on.”

Of course the Bush team wants voters to shield their eyes from the specifics of its record in Iraq. Otherwise, Americans just might hold the president accountable.

So Bush and Vice President Cheney get us to look the other way by focusing on the vague question of which candidate is “tough” enough to handle terrorists. This leads to such elevated forms of discourse as a convention video comparing John Kerry with a beret-wearing French poodle named Fifi, and, this week, Cheney's scabrous observation that if voters “make the wrong choice” in this election, “we'll get hit again.”

Faced with a Bush campaign based on amnesia and demagoguery, Kerry gave his big Iraq speech Wednesday at Cincinnati's Union Terminal, the same place Bush gave an October 2002 address justifying a U.S. attack on Saddam. If Kerry is lucky, his choice of venue just might encourage a look back at Bush's record.

Bush's speech of two years ago can only be read as an effort to scare our country into war. Iraq, Bush said, “is seeking nuclear weapons. ... The Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten America and the world with horrible poisons and diseases and gases and atomic weapons. ... We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs for missions targeting the United States.”

And, oh, yes, and Bush couldn't resist touting, through loose association, the supposed link between Saddam and 9/11 that the Kean-Hamilton commission has discredited. “We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy -- the United States of America,” Bush said.

Why is it that what Bush told the American people before the war is no longer a live issue?

If Bush's rationale for war no longer holds up, neither does the administration's analysis of the aftermath. In his important new book, “The Folly of Empire,” John Judis cites a February 2003 Army War College report on Iraqi reconstruction.

Presciently, the report declared: “Long-term gratitude is unlikely and suspicion of U.S. motives will increase as the occupation continues. A force initially viewed as liberators can rapidly be relegated to the status of invaders should an unwelcome occupation continue for a prolonged time. Occupation problems may be especially acute if the United States must implement the bulk of the occupation itself rather than turn these duties over to a postwar international force.”

But the administration seemed to think it was wiser than a bunch of smart military guys. On “Meet the Press” in March 2003, Cheney blithely dismissed Tim Russert when the host asked what would happen if “we're not treated as liberators but as conquerors.” Would the American people be “prepared for a long, costly and bloody battle with significant American casualties?”

Not to worry, said Cheney: “I don't think it's likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe we will be greeted as liberators.” Cheney dismissed Gen. Eric Shinseki's view of how many troops an occupation would require: “To suggest that we need several hundred thousand troops there after military operations cease, after the conflict ends, I don't think is accurate. I think that's an overstatement.” Have we forgotten this, too?

Many also forget the context of Bush's famous “bring 'em on” line on July 2, 2003. It was in direct answer to a question about whether, in light of rising casualty rates, the administration might want to get “larger powers” to join the American effort in Iraq. Bush said he wasn't worried. After the “bring 'em on” line, his next sentence was: “We've got the force necessary to deal with the security situation.”

In judging whether this administration has the right answers to terrorism and war, voters can rely on the images. Or they can rely on the record.

[James]

A: There are people who visit this site who know more - a lot more than you...
B: Bitching is fine, but try and offer a solution next time. Otherwise it's just aggravating.

[Secret Squirrel]

A: There are people who visit this site who know more - a lot more than you...
B: Bitching is fine, but try and offer a solution next time. Otherwise it's just aggravating.

And what solution exactly are you looking for? You want me to say that Bush should have listened to the people who knew what they were talking about? Or maybe Bush should have admitted his mistake instead of playing it off as a simple "miscalcuation" a year and a half after the invasion? Or maybe he should consider revising his team to get rid of some cold war relics and replace them with Middle East and terrorism experts? I'm 100% certain there are people here who know more than I do. But when did I claim supreme knowledge on anything?

[Knutsen]

James, when someone posts something against Kerry is 100% true, but then someone posts something against Bush and is complete bull****.
I guess there's some point in the middle in which Bush is not the great leader with no mistakes and Kerry is not the complete idiot many people in this forum say.

And about this article, Bush said there were WMD, a fleet of unmanned vehicles that could reach the US and Blair said that Saddam could attack the allies within 45 mins. All that has proven to be false, these kind of things didn't exist in irak and Bush used them to make people support the war

[Knutsen]

I almost forgot, a fact that not may people know is that Al Qaeda considered irak as an enemy of the Islam, because its laicism and their republican government. Irak was a very repressive country with religious minorities and Saddam didn't have a good muslim life. For all of this Al Quaeda didn't see irak as an ally .

It was when America threatened Irak when Saddam used religion to get support of the iraki people. Until then Allah was never mentioned on TV, Saddam had never seen as a descendant of the Prophet Mohammad.
In the last months of the iraki regime the country had turned into a religious state that had never been before just to defend themselves.
It was in that situation when Al Qaeda started to support the irakis and now it has turned into what we all know, bombs, beheadings and the like..

The only terrorist contact Saddam had prior March 2003 was with the palestinians. He paid $25000 to the family of every suicide bomber, not because he appreciated palestines (in fact most of the arab world dislikes palestinians), but because they shared a common enemy, Israel.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Kerry got the same Iraq WMD intel that Bush did (well, let's just say he had the opportunity to see the same intel - that is if he'd bothered to show up to the various committee meetings). Kerry saw the same reports from the UN & various US and foreign intelligence agencies. Kerry voted to go to war, just like Bush did.

Kerry has also defended that decision - his recent flip-flopping not withstanding.

So why not complain about Kerry? Because, as is always the case with SS - it's not about making any point - it's simply about complaining about Bush.

[Trigger]

A: There are people who visit this site who know more - a lot more than you...
B: Bitching is fine, but try and offer a solution next time. Otherwise it's just aggravating.

And what solution exactly are you looking for? You want me to say that Bush should have listened to the people who knew what they were talking about? Or maybe Bush should have admitted his mistake instead of playing it off as a simple "miscalcuation" a year and a half after the invasion? Or maybe he should consider revising his team to get rid of some cold war relics and replace them with Middle East and terrorism experts? I'm 100% certain there are people here who know more than I do. But when did I claim supreme knowledge on anything?
I think James, like many here are just tired of your unending series of 'articles' (once again) with no source, that offer nothing but complaints.
You're like the Democrat party, you like to 'own the issues', but never seem to have a solution other than 'everyone should resign!'. For what? Doing what needed to be done?
Do you hope to convince people to vote for Kerry based on constant bitching? People just tune it out after a while...

[[SAB]Grey]

Solution: Vote Kerry '04

[Secret Squirrel]

A: There are people who visit this site who know more - a lot more than you...
B: Bitching is fine, but try and offer a solution next time. Otherwise it's just aggravating.

And what solution exactly are you looking for? You want me to say that Bush should have listened to the people who knew what they were talking about? Or maybe Bush should have admitted his mistake instead of playing it off as a simple "miscalcuation" a year and a half after the invasion? Or maybe he should consider revising his team to get rid of some cold war relics and replace them with Middle East and terrorism experts? I'm 100% certain there are people here who know more than I do. But when did I claim supreme knowledge on anything?
I think James, like many here are just tired of your unending series of 'articles' (once again) with no source, that offer nothing but complaints.
You're like the Democrat party, you like to 'own the issues', but never seem to have a solution other than 'everyone should resign!'. For what? Doing what needed to be done?
Do you hope to convince people to vote for Kerry based on constant bitching? People just tune it out after a while...

I'll respond tomorrow. No politics today.

[ibstolidude]

And about this article, Bush said there were WMD, a fleet of unmanned vehicles that could reach the US and Blair said that Saddam could attack the allies within 45 mins. All that has proven to be false, these kind of things didn't exist in irak and Bush used them to make people support the war
I'm no Bush fan but could you show me where George Bush stated:
there were
1) a fleet of unmanned vehicles that could reach the US?


In your research you may wish to revise this statement:

The only terrorist contact Saddam had prior March 2003 was with the palestinians

[James]

And about this article, Bush said there were WMD, a fleet of unmanned vehicles that could reach the US and Blair said that Saddam could attack the allies within 45 mins. All that has proven to be false, these kind of things didn't exist in irak and Bush used them to make people support the war

Since when has it been proven that "these things didn't exist in irak" - namely WMD. I think several hundred thousand Iranians and Kurds might disagree with you.

[achilles]

Kerry got the same Iraq WMD intel that Bush did (well, let's just say he had the opportunity to see the same intel - that is if he'd bothered to show up to the various committee meetings). Kerry saw the same reports from the UN & various US and foreign intelligence agencies. Kerry voted to go to war, just like Bush did.

Kerry has also defended that decision - his recent flip-flopping not withstanding.

So why not complain about Kerry? Because, as is always the case with SS - it's not about making any point - it's simply about complaining about Bush.

I dont really disagree with you on Kerry's responsibility..but see bold...why not? because Bush was and still is the president and every single call was his...simple as that for me. Isnt the boss the one to take the blame and/or praise after the decisions?

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Kerry got the same Iraq WMD intel that Bush did (well, let's just say he had the opportunity to see the same intel - that is if he'd bothered to show up to the various committee meetings). Kerry saw the same reports from the UN & various US and foreign intelligence agencies. Kerry voted to go to war, just like Bush did.

Kerry has also defended that decision - his recent flip-flopping not withstanding.

So why not complain about Kerry? Because, as is always the case with SS - it's not about making any point - it's simply about complaining about Bush.

I dont really disagree with you on Kerry's responsibility..but see bold...why not? because Bush was and still is the president and every single call was his...simple as that for me. Isn't the boss the one to take the blame and/or praise after the decisions?

True, but this isn't about credit or blame - the article is about the decision making process.

But since both men made the same decision on the same info - what the hell are they talking about? They're promoting a man who made exactly the same choices. A President Kerry would now be blamed/credited just as President Bush is now...so what's the point of measuring the two men on this issue?

The article is nothing more than the usual turgid anti-Bush boilerplate.

For the record, I support the war in Iraq and I give both men credit for making the same correct (and very difficult) decision. It's a pity the author of this article (as usual, posted with no link) didn't have the integrity to point out the fact that they both voted the same way.

[Secret Squirrel]

Kerry got the same Iraq WMD intel that Bush did (well, let's just say he had the opportunity to see the same intel - that is if he'd bothered to show up to the various committee meetings). Kerry saw the same reports from the UN & various US and foreign intelligence agencies. Kerry voted to go to war, just like Bush did.

Kerry and others voted to authorize the Bush administration to invade Iraq. Bush didnt vote, he decided to go to war. He also rushed the process, ignored those who knew what they were talking about and listened to people who were proven wrong as time progressed.


Kerry has also defended that decision - his recent flip-flopping not withstanding.

So why not complain about Kerry? Because, as is always the case with SS - it's not about making any point - it's simply about complaining about Bush.

Much like yourself if you change Bush to Kerry (as evident in trying to create a new issue out of nothing in a recent thread. Or should we re-visit when you tried to make an issue out of what you thought was a French group?).


I think James, like many here are just tired of your unending series of 'articles' (once again) with no source, that offer nothing but complaints.
You're like the Democrat party, you like to 'own the issues', but never seem to have a solution other than 'everyone should resign!'. For what? Doing what needed to be done?
Do you hope to convince people to vote for Kerry based on constant bitching? People just tune it out after a while...

If you dont like my articles then dont read them. It's an easy solution and completely uncomplicated. When did I say everyone should resign? So far the wrong guy "resigned" (ostracized is a better description) and he was one of the few who was proven right regarding his opinions of occupying Iraq. Also, would it be such a bad thing to actually have a Middle East expert as a close adviser? Bush admitted that there were miscalculations, which begs the question as to what led to these miscalculations. Did he listen to the wrong people and ignore the right people? Again, would it be so bad if one of his close adivers was an expert on the Middle East and terrorism?


I'm no Bush fan but could you show me where George Bush stated:
there were
1) a fleet of unmanned vehicles that could reach the US?

Bush's speech to the nation on Oct. 7, 2002


True, but this isn't about credit or blame - the article is about the decision making process.

It's also about the pre-war planning process and some of the miscalculations.


But since both men made the same decision on the same info - what the hell are they talking about? They're promoting a man who made exactly the same choices. A President Kerry would now be blamed/credited just as President Bush is now...so what's the point of measuring the two men on this issue?

The point is measuring them on the planning. Obviously we cant go back in time and see exactly how Kerry would have planned the occupation (and yes Kerry has the benefit of hindsight). But, the issue is were the "miscalculations" a result of poor leadership? Listening to the wrong people? As aspect of Bush's character and the way he leads?


The article is nothing more than the usual turgid anti-Bush boilerplate.

For the record, I support the war in Iraq and I give both men credit for making the same correct (and very difficult) decision. It's a pity the author of this article (as usual, posted with no link) didn't have the integrity to point out the fact that they both voted the same way.

Again, Bush doesnt vote, he decides. Bottom line, what caused the miscalculations? Well, actually the bottom line is if I had been posting anti-Kerry articles, we wouldnt be having this discussion.

[Knutsen]

I was going to answer to the unmanned vehicles, but SecretSquirrell did it for me.

And about the WMD obviously irak had them and used them against iranians and kurds, but they don't exist anymore ,at least that's what years of inspections, 150000 US soldiers, and CIA officers say. I'm not inventing that.

[Knutsen]

Kerry has also defended that decision - his recent flip-flopping not withstanding.

So why not complain about Kerry? Because, as is always the case with SS - it's not about making any point - it's simply about complaining about Bush.


Because Kerry is not the President, and in a normal democracy the one responsible for the actions carried out by a country is the President.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

There is no argument about who gets the credit. The man in charge gets the credit. The article is not attempting to make us understand that the man in charge gets the credit.

The article is attempting to show that Bush is bad because of the decision he made to go to war.

It is attempting to show that Kerry is a better choice.

Kerry made exactly the same decision on exactly the same intel. So how is he a better choice?

Kerry was not some 12 year old out playing with toys in his back yard who casually made a "yes" vote. He's been in the US Senate since Ronald Reagan was President. He's a ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations committee. He has access to classified intel that the public did not see. And he voted along with Bush.

When it comes go government and foreign relations - would you not think that Kerry is the more experienced man - having been in the Senate since 1984? And he voted along with Bush.

So - was Kerry somehow fooled by Bush? And shouldn't Kerry have known that could be done...having been on the job since 1984? Should we elect a man who could be fooled so easily - - and by the man you're saying is his inferior?

You guys constantly waffle (like your hero) between calling Bush a **** & and evil mastermind. Which is it? Too stupid and looks like a monkey, or smart enough to fool wise ol' John Kerry?

Face facts gents - there are valid differences between Bush and Kerry, but this ain't one of them. Kerry was every bit behind the war that Bush was - it's just that Bush had bested the last Democrat to go up against him, and was in the hot seat at the time.


TEXT FROM THE SPEECH JOHN KERRY MADE ON THE SENATE FLOOR
October 9, 2002

When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. And the administration, I believe, is now committed to a recognition that war must be the last option to address this threat, not the first, and that we must act in concert with allies around the globe to make the world's case against Saddam Hussein.

For your theories about Bush to be correct, one would have to believe that Kerry was idiotic enough to be fooled by both Saddam and Bush. Ok, assume that's true. And we'd want that gullible man in the White House ...why?

[ibstolidude]

I'm no Bush fan but could you show me where George Bush stated:
there were
1) a fleet of unmanned vehicles that could reach the US?

Bush's speech to the nation on Oct. 7, 2002
- hook line and sinker - reread the speech. Go after the man for what he did and din't do, don't embelish when you attack someone or all credability is lost. In that speech he DID NOT stated that Iraq HAS/HAD unmanned vehicles that can reach the US.


We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States. And, of course, sophisticated delivery systems aren't required for a chemical or biological attack; all that might be required are a small container and one terrorist or Iraqi intelligence operative to deliver it.

I am no Bush fan nor a Kerry fan, however to attack either with fabrication does nothing but pull attention from real issues. Don't blame Bush for your or other's lack of comprehension. He didn't state that Iraq posssess the capability to send the unmanned vehciles they have, with chemicals weapons they have, to the US.

[Secret Squirrel]

I'm no Bush fan but could you show me where George Bush stated:
there were
1) a fleet of unmanned vehicles that could reach the US?

Bush's speech to the nation on Oct. 7, 2002
- hook line and sinker - reread the speech. Go after the man for what he did and din't do, don't embelish when you attack someone or all credability is lost. In that speech he DID NOT stated that Iraq HAS/HAD unmanned vehicles that can reach the US.


We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States. And, of course, sophisticated delivery systems aren't required for a chemical or biological attack; all that might be required are a small container and one terrorist or Iraqi intelligence operative to deliver it.

I am no Bush fan nor a Kerry fan, however to attack either with fabrication does nothing but pull attention from real issues. Don't blame Bush for your or other's lack of comprehension. He didn't state that Iraq posssess the capability to send the unmanned vehciles they have, with chemicals weapons they have, to the US.

Fair enough. But mentioning first that Iraq had a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles (which also proved to be untrue) and then suggesting that they were concerned that they were going to be used to target the U.S says everything you want without having to blatantly say it. It's the same thing as mentioning mushshroom clouds. It makes the jump between "these things may exist" and "we have to stop them before they're used because we certainly cant stop them if they're used." I find it interesting though that you've never shown(or maybe I missed it?) the same level of detailed concern regarding Kerry. But to each their own.

[Secret Squirrel]

There is no argument about who gets the credit. The man in charge gets the credit. The article is not attempting to make us understand that the man in charge gets the credit.

The article is attempting to show that Bush is bad because of the decision he made to go to war.

It is attempting to show that Kerry is a better choice.

The article noted that the 2 years leading up to the invasion have been ignored. But, just so we can try to clarify some things; what is it about the concept of "pre-war planning" that confuses you? What led to the admitted "miscalculations"?


Cheney dismissed Gen. Eric Shinseki's view of how many troops an occupation would require: “To suggest that we need several hundred thousand troops there after military operations cease, after the conflict ends, I don't think is accurate. I think that's an overstatement.” Have we forgotten this, too?

[ibstolidude]

I'm no Bush fan but could you show me where George Bush stated:
there were
1) a fleet of unmanned vehicles that could reach the US?

Bush's speech to the nation on Oct. 7, 2002
- hook line and sinker - reread the speech. Go after the man for what he did and din't do, don't embelish when you attack someone or all credability is lost. In that speech he DID NOT stated that Iraq HAS/HAD unmanned vehicles that can reach the US.


We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States. And, of course, sophisticated delivery systems aren't required for a chemical or biological attack; all that might be required are a small container and one terrorist or Iraqi intelligence operative to deliver it.

I am no Bush fan nor a Kerry fan, however to attack either with fabrication does nothing but pull attention from real issues. Don't blame Bush for your or other's lack of comprehension. He didn't state that Iraq posssess the capability to send the unmanned vehciles they have, with chemicals weapons they have, to the US.

Fair enough. But mentioning first that Iraq had a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles (which also proved to be untrue) and then suggesting that they were concerned that they were going to be used to target the U.S says everything you want without having to blatantly say it. It's the same thing as mentioning mushshroom clouds. It makes the jump between "these things may exist" and "we have to stop them before they're used because we certainly cant stop them if they're used." I find it interesting though that you've never shown(or maybe I missed it?) the same level of detailed concern regarding Kerry. But to each their own.

- attention to detail - I have never attacked Kerry and have defended him when he was misquoted and when he was attacked with non-factual information. I am one fo the few who dislike him, yet do not attack his vietnam service or post service period.
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?p=246643&highlight=kerry#246643

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?p=198232&highlight=kerry#198232

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?p=145849&highlight=kerry#145849

[Durandal]

For all of this Al Quaeda didn't see irak as an ally .

They obviously saw Iraq as a safe haven to train for ops in Jordan after they fled Afghanistan.


In the last months of the iraki regime the country had turned into a religious state that had never been before just to defend themselves.
It was in that situation when Al Qaeda started to support the irakis and now it has turned into what we all know, bombs, beheadings and the like..

Hmmm...

Ok, Iraq was a religious area before it was Iraq. You knows this right? All those holy shrines and religious areas and temples. They've been around for hundreds of years. The bombings are nothing new, committed by a fairly small minority of Iraqis and foreign terrorists. The beheadings have been a tool of islamic fundamentalists for hundreds of years. Its new that it is happen to American troops but not a new event in the Muslim world AT all.


The only terrorist contact Saddam had prior March 2003 was with the palestinians. He paid $25000 to the family of every suicide bomber, not because he appreciated palestines (in fact most of the arab world dislikes palestinians), but because they shared a common enemy, Israel.

Hmmm...I thought we were fighting a War On Terror...


He paid $25000 to the family of every suicide bomber...

Not too hard to understand.

[Knutsen]

In your research you may wish to revise this statement:
Quote:
The only terrorist contact Saddam had prior March 2003 was with the palestinians

Can you please show me any evidence of the contacts of Saddam with Al Qaeda as Bush suggested?


Hmmm...I thought we were fighting a War On Terror...

It's verey different to start a war cause you're threatened than to lie to the people knowing that it will frighten them and will help you justify for the war.
Bush used Al Qaeda to invade Irak telling the people that Irak was a base for Al Qaeda when irak was NOTHING, he also invented the WMDs, the UAVs, Colin Powell invented the mobile chemical labs that were constantly traveling around Irak.

I'm not inventing this,it has been said by the MI6, the CIA, Blair and Bush have said that there may not be WMDs, but if you think you're right....come on, the facts are there.

[ibstolidude]

In your research you may wish to revise this statement:
Quote:
The only terrorist contact Saddam had prior March 2003 was with the palestinians

Can you please show me any evidence of the contacts of Saddam with Al Qaeda as Bush suggested?
- so you do wish torevise your statement? Your statement said NOTHING of AlQaeda you stated the only terrorist contact with Saddam was the palestinians. You are wrong. Terrorism goes way beyond AlQaeda and palestinians.

[Knutsen]

fair enough, i didn't mention Al Qaeda, but my point is that there's no evidence that Saddam was going to attack the US and Bush used that as an excuse. In my opinion Bush used terror in his benefit, if after a terrible attack like 9/11, you are constantly saying that you are threatend the people will support your actions, although they might be terrible and unjustified.


Terrorism goes way beyond AlQaeda and palestinians.

I think i know it very well, if you have ever read my posts in other topics, i feel ...not offended but almost offended if you think i don't know there's terrorism beyond palestinians and al qaeda.

But anyways, not trying to start a flame war with you

[2Sheds_Jackson]

There is no argument about who gets the credit. The man in charge gets the credit. The article is not attempting to make us understand that the man in charge gets the credit.

The article is attempting to show that Bush is bad because of the decision he made to go to war.

It is attempting to show that Kerry is a better choice.

The article noted that the 2 years leading up to the invasion have been ignored. But, just so we can try to clarify some things; what is it about the concept of "pre-war planning" that confuses you? What led to the admitted "miscalculations"?


Cheney dismissed Gen. Eric Shinseki's view of how many troops an occupation would require: “To suggest that we need several hundred thousand troops there after military operations cease, after the conflict ends, I don't think is accurate. I think that's an overstatement.” Have we forgotten this, too?

OK, assume Cheney made a bad decision and didn't want to send enough troops. Where was Kerry opposing this decision? In fact, it was Kerry who opposed properly funding even those troops we did have there.

You keep trying to frame this as Bush vs. Kerry - and Kerry keeps coming up on the ass end. You say it's about the pre-planning - ok, where was Kerry taking a leadership position on that? Nowhere to be found - he was not "leading the fight" as he's so fond of saying.

So, again - you criticize a Bush administration decision, but Kerry's position is even worse than what you dislike about Bush. So what's the point?

The point, as ever, is simply about harping. Endlessly harping about Bush.

You know - we get it. We understand that you don't like Bush. Why don't you just spare us all the time with these false arguments and just make an occasional post that simply says "I don't like Bush and here's a picture where there's a monkey that kind of looks like him". Honestly- at least give us something with some meat on it - not some half baked unlinked anonymous self-contradictory boilerplate.

[priccobe]

You know - we get it. We understand that you don't like Bush. Why don't you just spare us all the time with these false arguments and just make an occasional post that simply says "I don't like Bush and here's a picture where there's a monkey that kind of looks like him". Honestly- at least give us something with some meat on it - not some half baked unlinked anonymous self-contradictory boilerplate.

rofl

[James]

And about this article, Bush said there were WMD, a fleet of unmanned vehicles that could reach the US and Blair said that Saddam could attack the allies...

Then, later...





I'm not inventing this,it has been said by the MI6, the CIA, Blair and Bush have said that there may not be WMDs, but if you think you're right....come on, the facts are there.

Now you are leaving me confused... You just can't be pleased either way, can you?

[Knutsen]

Ok ,James, seems you don't follow the news....

To start the war Bush SAID there were WMDs.
Now the war is going bad, and there aren't WMD, Bush has said in the last MONTHS, that there might not be such WMDs.

[Knutsen]

Ok ,James, seems you don't follow the news....

To start the war Bush SAID there were WMDs.
Now the war is going bad, and there aren't WMD, Bush has said in the last MONTHS, that there might not be such WMDs.

James, you're great taking selected parts of other people's posts to justify your opinions. You're a master in demagogy.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Ok ,James, seems you don't follow the news....

To start the war Bush SAID there were WMDs.
Now the war is going bad, and there aren't WMD, Bush has said in the last MONTHS, that there might not be such WMDs.

To start the war, Bush, Kerry, the UN Security Council, and Iraq all said there were WMDs. There was no argument about the possession of WMD - the argument was over the enforcement of UN inspections and the destruction of those WMDs.

Now that Saddam has been removed by those nations willing to do what they say (unlike the other UN Security Council members who'd rather spend their time wringing their hands over fear of discovery), it's evident he was either given adequate time to disburse them (see hand wringing nations above), destroy them, or he had been lied to by his own scientists.

[Secret Squirrel]

OK, assume Cheney made a bad decision and didn't want to send enough troops. Where was Kerry opposing this decision? In fact, it was Kerry who opposed properly funding even those troops we did have there.

So you want to just ignore Bush and friend's "miscalculation"? Why do you seem to lack the ability to solely address that point?


You keep trying to frame this as Bush vs. Kerry - and Kerry keeps coming up on the ass end. You say it's about the pre-planning - ok, where was Kerry taking a leadership position on that? Nowhere to be found - he was not "leading the fight" as he's so fond of saying.

When did I try to frame the debate between Kerry and Bush (other than I trying to address one of your earlier "points"). You wanted Kerry to have told Bush back in 2003 the things that Bush's plans were idiotic? :| Christ, Bush and friends werent smart enough to listen to the military advisers, why would they have listened to a senator? ;)


So, again - you criticize a Bush administration decision, but Kerry's position is even worse than what you dislike about Bush. So what's the point?

So again you've tried to create a point out of nothing other than some things you've mentioned. And again you've failed to address previous questions. Or do you consider it a success in your attempt to shift the focus?


The point, as ever, is simply about harping. Endlessly harping about Bush.

The point, "as always"( ;) ), is simply about hardping. Endlessly harping about Kerry.


You know - we get it. We understand that you don't like Bush. Why don't you just spare us all the time with these false arguments and just make an occasional post that simply says "I don't like Bush and here's a picture where there's a monkey that kind of looks like him". Honestly- at least give us something with some meat on it - not some half baked unlinked anonymous self-contradictory boilerplate.

You really do like to bitch dont you? But I see again you've avoided the issue. ;) If you dont like my threads, dont read them. If you want to read and reply to them, dont bitch when I do the same thing you've done before. ;)

[Knutsen]

To start the war, Bush, Kerry, the UN Security Council, and Iraq all said there were WMDs. There was no argument about the possession of WMD - the argument was over the enforcement of UN inspections and the destruction of those WMDs.


Ok, this is not about Kerry. My cousin was also in favour of the war and that doesn't mean Bush is good. Bush is the president, the one who takes decisions, not Kerry.

And the most important thing, the UN NEVER said there were WMDs at the time of the invasion. The inspections never proved there were WMDs. I recommend you to read Hans Blix's book. I think he knows a bit about it

[Durandal]

Ok, this is not about Kerry. My cousin was also in favour of the war and that doesn't mean Bush is good. Bush is the president, the one who takes decisions, not Kerry.

Actually, you should familiarize yourself with American politics.

We have rules in this nation.

We have a series of checks and balances. Kerry is JUST as much responsible (being a part of the whole) as Bush.

Just as every Senator that voted yes...

It is not that hard to understand.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

OK, assume Cheney made a bad decision and didn't want to send enough troops. Where was Kerry opposing this decision? In fact, it was Kerry who opposed properly funding even those troops we did have there.

So you want to just ignore Bush and friend's "miscalculation"? Why do you seem to lack the ability to solely address that point?


You keep trying to frame this as Bush vs. Kerry - and Kerry keeps coming up on the ass end. You say it's about the pre-planning - ok, where was Kerry taking a leadership position on that? Nowhere to be found - he was not "leading the fight" as he's so fond of saying.

When did I try to frame the debate between Kerry and Bush (other than I trying to address one of your earlier "points"). You wanted Kerry to have told Bush back in 2003 the things he was doing wrong? :| Christ, Bush and friends werent smart enough to listen to the military advisers, why would they have listened to a senator? ;)


So, again - you criticize a Bush administration decision, but Kerry's position is even worse than what you dislike about Bush. So what's the point?

So again you've tried to create a point out of nothing other than some things you've mentioned. And again you've failed to address previous questions. Or do you consider it a success in your attempt to shift the focus?


The point, as ever, is simply about harping. Endlessly harping about Bush.

The point, "as always"( ;) ), is simply about hardping. Endlessly harping about Kerry.


You know - we get it. We understand that you don't like Bush. Why don't you just spare us all the time with these false arguments and just make an occasional post that simply says "I don't like Bush and here's a picture where there's a monkey that kind of looks like him". Honestly- at least give us something with some meat on it - not some half baked unlinked anonymous self-contradictory boilerplate.

You really do like to bitch dont you? But I see again you've avoided the issue. ;) If you dont like my threads, dont read them. If you want to read and reply to them, dont bitch when I do the same thing you've done before. ;)

Oh now SS, you're just no fun any more.

I will recap, wipe this thread off the bottom of my shoes, and go eat lunch.

1. You post some BS article which purports to show Kerry is the superior candidate by virtue of his decisions and stance on Iraq.
2. Anybody paying attention knows Kerry's decisions and stance on Iraq were identical to Bush'.
3. It is not up to me (or other posters) to validate Bush's decisions - it is up to you to show where Kerry was superior, made a different decision, showed leadership, had an opposing view, or was in any way at all different from Bushs' position.
4. You, and the posted article, failed.
5. aaaannnd Lunch. (sound of footsteps walking off, topic left to smolder in ashes behind him) ;)

[Secret Squirrel]

Oh now SS, you're just no fun any more.

I will recap, wipe this thread off the bottom of my shoes, and go eat lunch.

1. You post some BS article which purports to show Kerry is the superior candidate by virtue of his decisions and stance on Iraq.
2. Anybody paying attention knows Kerry's decisions and stance on Iraq were identical to Bush'.
3. It is not up to me (or other posters) to validate Bush's decisions - it is up to you to show where Kerry was superior, made a different decision, showed leadership, had an opposing view, or was in any way at all different from Bushs' position.
4. You, and the posted article, failed.
5. aaaannnd Lunch. (sound of footsteps walking off, topic left to smolder in ashes behind him) ;)

I attempted to ask certain questions about the pre-war planning that you seem to be dodging yet again. ;) It's up to me to validate Kerry's stance when I'm asking questions about Bush's decisions? If you cant answer them, or if you dont want to, just say so and i'll let the issue drop. ;)

[penna]

look, kerry knew what he was voting for when he cast his vote to ok war with Iraq. the excuse of "he was only voting yes to give the president the authority to make that choice" is a load of crap. you better understand what you're voting for as a senator.

[Secret Squirrel]

look, kerry knew what he was voting for when he cast his vote to ok war with Iraq. the excuse of "he was only voting yes to give the president the authority to make that choice" is a load of crap. you better understand what you're voting for as a senator.

Was Kerry involved in the pre-war planning?

[priccobe]

Democrats are spinning this whole "Bush Misled the nation" line as something that only the president was responsible for. But, Kerry and other Democrats voted for the authorization for use of force in Iraq and it's coming back to bite them HARD. Kerry's problem is because he voted against the supplementat Defense appropriations bill after he voted for the use of force authorization.

The prewar planning argument is BS. If the terrorists don't abide by Bush's and the Military's plans for post war Iraq - do you automatically assume that Bush lied or that Bush didn't have a plan?

Anyone who foolishly believes that Iraq never had WMDs is not being rational. He used them on the Iranians, he used them on the Kurds, the UN through UNSCOM found, catalogued and destroyed WMD and WMD related programs, even the ones Saddam wasn't declaring. He kicked the UN inspectors out several times and did not cooperate with them.

David Kay and the ISG found:

# Reference strains of biological organisms concealed in a scientist's home, one of which can be used to produce biological weapons.

# New research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin were not declared to the UN.

# Continuing covert capability to manufacture fuel propellant useful only for prohibited SCUD variant missiles, a capability that was maintained at least until the end of 2001 and that cooperating Iraqi scientists have said they were told to conceal from the UN.

# Plans and advanced design work for new long-range missiles with ranges up to at least 1000 km - well beyond the 150 km range limit imposed by the UN. Missiles of a 1000 km range would have allowed Iraq to threaten targets through out the Middle East, including Ankara, Cairo, and Abu Dhabi.

Report is here: http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/2003/david_kay_10022003.html

You can't believe that Saddam destroyed his stocks of WMDs out of the goodness of his heart. They're out there, somewhere, in Iraq or possibly Syria, possibly somewhere else.

On the UN and Unilateral Action - It's preposterous for anyone to state that the US acted unilaterally and defied the UN on Iraq. With the exception of a few nations, an overwhelming majority of the Security council went back on its own resolutions on Iraq leaving the US and Great Britain as the only nation to enforce the will of the UN.

Why pass the resolutions if you won't/can't enforce them?

[Durandal]

Just like the Patriot Act...

A bunch of dumb asses signed the bill and turned it into a law.

The complaint should be, not that the President misled them but that they have absolutely no forward thinking, are not informed, do not research and have been caught unawares as a result of their inability to their damn job.

[Secret Squirrel]

The prewar planning argument is BS. If the terrorists don't abide by Bush's and the Military's plans for post war Iraq - do you automatically assume that Bush lied or that Bush didn't have a plan?

What kind of bull**** are you trying to pass as a point? Some people actually predicted what was going to happen in Iraq before the invasion. Those people were ignored and proven right as time passed. But, if I use your logic, we shouldnt blame Bush or his administration for ignoring those who predicted what would happen simply because the terrorists/insurgents didnt follow Bush's plans?


The complaint should be, not that the President misled them but that they have absolutely no forward thinking, are not informed, do not research and have been caught unawares as a result of their inability to their damn job.

I've been trying to make that point regarding the pre-war planning. If he didnt listen to the right people this time, and there have been no changes regarding his close advisers, then what happens if he's forced or chooses military actions with North Korea or Iran?

[BarkingSquirrel]

Unfortunetly for your argument, those predictions were not the only predictions.

[priccobe]

What kind of bull**** are you trying to pass as a point? Some people actually predicted what was going to happen in Iraq before the invasion. Those people were ignored and proven right as time passed.
Look, plenty of armchair analysts made wide ranging predictions on post-war Iraq. Some were proven true, most weren't.

So what exactly are you saying? A plan was prepared for post-war Iraq, just because the terrorists aren't abiding by the plan doesn't mean one didn't exist. And whose fault is it if Kerry decided he wasn't going to be at the Senate Intelligence briefing for Iraq when they discussed this? He voted for the authorization for force, maybe he should've asked more questions instead of windsurfing off the shores of Nantucket!

The fact is this: Iraq is the central front on the WOT.

[Knutsen]

Actually, you should familiarize yourself with American politics.

We have rules in this nation.

We have a series of checks and balances. Kerry is JUST as much responsible (being a part of the whole) as Bush.

Just as every Senator that voted yes...

It is not that hard to understand.

I understand that your political system is different from ours, but what i can't understand is why is Kerry as much responsible as Bush. I mean, he IS responsible cause he voted for the war but i don't see why as much as Bush. Bush is the 'boss' he is the head of State and as such he is responsible for the actions. If the congress or senate voted for, ok they did it , but they voted a proposal made by Bush, that's political responsibility.

[Secret Squirrel]

What kind of bull**** are you trying to pass as a point? Some people actually predicted what was going to happen in Iraq before the invasion. Those people were ignored and proven right as time passed.
Look, plenty of armchair analysts made wide ranging predictions on post-war Iraq. Some were proven true, most weren't.

So, in your opinion, is it better to over plan or under plan when you're playing with both the lives of soldiers and Iraqis? Why were soldiers re-deployed, TOD's extended, and equipment shipped back home when they could have remained in Iraq for a certain period as a precaution?


So what exactly are you saying? A plan was prepared for post-war Iraq, just because the terrorists aren't abiding by the plan doesn't mean one didn't exist.

I never said no plan existed. But I have suggested that the wrong plan was implemented. It's not rocket science to conclude that if you're going to topple a dictator, then you're also going to create a power vaccum. Combine that logic with a religious society that's been oppressed and a country with five borders, and what do you get? ;)


And whose fault is it if Kerry decided he wasn't going to be at the Senate Intelligence briefing for Iraq when they discussed this? He voted for the authorization for force, maybe he should've asked more questions instead of windsurfing off the shores of Nantucket!

Maybe I'm wrong, but I dont think senators generally play a role in planning an occupation.


The fact is this: Iraq is the central front on the WOT.

It it really? You realize that most of those fighting the coalition in Iraq arent foreign fighters. Iraq provided AQ (remember them? the one's that attacked America?) with a battlefield where they, like other groups, dont have to fuel the fire to keep it going. Think of it this way; AQ might have one hand out of 20 in Iraq, but what are the other 19 doing?

[James]

Ok ,James, seems you don't follow the news....

To start the war Bush SAID there were WMDs.
Now the war is going bad, and there aren't WMD, Bush has said in the last MONTHS, that there might not be such WMDs.

James, you're great taking selected parts of other people's posts to justify your opinions. You're a master in demagogy.

:roll: Yeah...

I think that Iraq did have WMD, but disbursed or destroyed them in March 2003. So there.

[priccobe]

I don't think anyone around has ever said that Iraq was going to be easy and we'd be done in 90 days...

The fact of the matter is this:

1. Kerry, a member of the Senate Intelligence committee, was able to receive briefings on what the pre and post war Iraq plans were. Whether or not he was there to listen/read the briefings, I don't know. He VOTED for the authorization to use force.

2. A plan was in place for pre-war Iraq, war with Iraq and post-war Iraq. I'm positive that those plans have shifted greatly in all three phases. That does not mean Bush lied and misled us and didn't have a plan except to steal the oil and create a new Empire, blah, blah, blah.

3. Iraq is the central front on the WOT. Even AQ's 2nd in command stated that. Jihadists don't have to be from AQ either. They can belong to any number of groups even indigenous Iraqi groups. They're still terrorists and they're in Iraq, not here or, for the most part, some other western nation.

[Secret Squirrel]

I don't think anyone around has ever said that Iraq was going to be easy and we'd be done in 90 days...

The fact of the matter is this:

1. Kerry, a member of the Senate Intelligence committee, was able to receive briefings on what the pre and post war Iraq plans were. Whether or not he was there to listen/read the briefings, I don't know. He VOTED for the authorization to use force.

No one questioned this, please try to keep up with the discussion. ;)


2. A plan was in place for pre-war Iraq, war with Iraq and post-war Iraq. I'm positive that those plans have shifted greatly in all three phases. That does not mean Bush lied and misled us and didn't have a plan except to steal the oil and create a new Empire, blah, blah, blah.

When did I say he went in for oil or that he lied? Again, try to keep up with the discussion if you can.


3. Iraq is the central front on the WOT. Even AQ's 2nd in command stated that. Jihadists don't have to be from AQ either. They can belong to any number of groups even indigenous Iraqi groups. They're still terrorists and they're in Iraq, not here or, for the most part, some other western nation.

AQ's second in command stated that to try to get as many foreign fighters into Iraq as he could. Or are you suggesting that now we should believe the terrorists when it suits our arguments? :| Try to go back to my previous post and answer those questions instead of trying to dodge them yet again please. ;) I'll even repost one for you. If Bush didnt listen to the right people regarding Iraq, and there have been no changes regarding his close advisers, then what happens if he's forced or chooses military actions with North Korea or Iran? Both North Korea and Iran would prove harder fights than Iraq and thus the stakes would be higher. So can we trust Bush to listen to his military advisers if military conflicts occur with the two previously mentioned countries or will his under-planning bring even more problems?

[priccobe]

If Bush didnt listen to the right people regarding Iraq

Who are the right people then?

[priccobe]

Or are you suggesting that now we should believe the terrorists when it suits our arguments?
Actually I'd assume you'd do that over taking the word of Bush or the US Government.
;)

[Secret Squirrel]

Or are you suggesting that now we should believe the terrorists when it suits our arguments?
Actually I'd assume you'd do that over taking the word of Bush or the US Government.
;)

Again, if you're going to reply to a thread, try to keep up with the discussion instead of dodging questions yet again. ;) If you cant answer the questions or if you dont want to, just let me know and I'll stop responding. ;)

[James]

Please stop responding.

[Secret Squirrel]

Please stop responding.

If you dont like the thread then dont read the thread. Christ, it's not that difficult.

[priccobe]

I'm not dodging questions, you are. Answer me who are the right people that Bush didn't listen to? I need to know who they are and what they said before I can answer, don't I?

Look, you seem to think that invading Iraq was the wrong thing, that freeing people from a brutal, murdering dictator is a bad thing, that taking the WOT out of the US and into where it belongs is wrong. Is this correct?

[James]

Please stop responding.

If you dont like the thread then dont read the thread. Christ, it's not that difficult.

Damn, dude. You said please make the request and you'd stop responding.

Anyway...

[Secret Squirrel]

I'm not dodging questions, you are. Answer me who are the right people that Bush didn't listen to? I need to know who they are and what they said before I can answer, don't I?

Cheney dismissed Gen. Eric Shinseki's view of how many troops an occupation would require: “To suggest that we need several hundred thousand troops there after military operations cease, after the conflict ends, I don't think is accurate. I think that's an overstatement.” He wasnt the only one who wasnt painting a "flowery picture of post war Iraq".


Look, you seem to think that invading Iraq was the wrong thing, that freeing people from a brutal, murdering dictator is a bad thing, that taking the WOT out of the US and into where it belongs is wrong. Is this correct?

Ah the classic pug response. I thought at the time, and still think that (again, keeping things in context) the planning surrounding the Iraq occupation was flawed. Taking the WOT out of the US and into Iraq? You need to stop reading stuff from the freerepublic, it's turning your mind to mush. Ghanny was justified, but Iraq is another story. Theres no question Bush was going to push through an invasion and regime change (that's been evident since sept 11 2001). However, he could have at least did it with intelligence instead of arrogance. Again, do you think it's better to over plan or under plan when you're playing with the lives of soldiers and Iraqis?

[budanski]

Typical liberal response, separating the Iraq War with the War on Terrorism.

[priccobe]

Cheney dismissed Gen. Eric Shinseki's view of how many troops an occupation would require: “To suggest that we need several hundred thousand troops there after military operations cease, after the conflict ends, I don't think is accurate. I think that's an overstatement.” He wasnt the only one who wasnt painting a "flowery picture of post war Iraq".
The pre-war, war and post-war plans were a general consensus of a people that, hopefully, are smarter than you and I! :P The fact that some people had differing opinions doesn't mean much to me. In fact, if they all fell lockstop into a single mind groupthink, I'd have a real problem.

Ah the classic pug response. I thought at the time, and still think that (again, keeping things in context) the planning surrounding the Iraq occupation was flawed.
yes, the classic pug response, and regardless, you still can't answer it...

Theres no question Bush was going to push through an invasion and regime change (that's been evident since sept 11 2001).
Regime change in Iraq was Bush's plan since 9/11? Think again. Clinton signed the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998" (Public Law 105-338) on Oct. 31, 1998. Not only did it call for Saddam Hussein's ouster, it also spelled out the goal of replacing his regime with a democratic Iraq. The House and Senat both passed the bill before Clinton signed it.


Again, do you think it's better to over plan or under plan when you're playing with the lives of soldiers and Iraqis?
Obviously, overplanning would be the way to go. What answer are you trying to get exactly?

[Secret Squirrel]

The pre-war, war and post-war plans were a general consensus of a people that, hopefully, are smarter than you and I! :P The fact that some people had differing opinions doesn't mean much to me. In fact, if they all fell lockstop into a single mind groupthink, I'd have a real problem.

Doesnt mean much to you when their opinions were proven correct? It just adds another facet surrounding Bush's decision making process.



yes, the classic pug response, and regardless, you still can't answer it...

Answer what exactly? At least you didnt use the other form of that classic (ie. "why do you hate america?" rofl )


Regime change in Iraq was Bush's plan since 9/11? Think again. Clinton signed the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998" (Public Law 105-338) on Oct. 31, 1998. Not only did it call for Saddam Hussein's ouster, it also spelled out the goal of replacing his regime with a democratic Iraq. The House and Senat both passed the bill before Clinton signed it.

Well if you want to go back to pre-9/11, one of Bush's campaign promises was that he wasnt going to practice regime change. ;)


Obviously, overplanning would be the way to go. What answer are you trying to get exactly?

Just pointing out one of Bush's blunders in his "race to war". ;) And, maybe I've missed it, but I havent seen anything occur that would prohibit this "problem" from happening again.

[priccobe]

People in power had differing opinions about what was going to happen in Iraq. Why do you see that as such a problem? Because you have an axe to grind and this helps you sharpen it?

Here's a simple analogy for you. I'm planning to go to work tomorrow. If I get in a wreck on the way to work tomorrow and get hurt, I'll miss work. My plan didn't come to fruition, I guess my plans were wrong!!! :D

Answer what exactly? At least you didnt use the other form of that classic...
Simple question: was liberating Iraq a good or bad thing?

Well if you want to go back to pre-9/11, one of Bush's campaign promises was that he wasnt going to practice regime change
US Law dictates that regime change was the US's goal in Iraq.

Just pointing out one of Bush's blunders in his "race to war"
I would hardly call 11+ years and 17 UN resolutions as a "race to war"...

[Secret Squirrel]

People in power had differing opinions about what was going to happen in Iraq. Why do you see that as such a problem? Because you have an axe to grind and this helps you sharpen it?

I see it as a problem because of the usual team of "yes men" surrounding Bush.


Here's a simple analogy for you. I'm planning to go to work tomorrow. If I get in a wreck on the way to work tomorrow and get hurt, I'll miss work. My plan didn't come to fruition, I guess my plans were wrong!!! :D

Here's reality for you. We're going to invade a country and change the regime. We're also going to try and do it with as a little forces as possible on the ground during the occupation. If worse comes to worse, we can re-deploy people and extend TOD's instead of trying to keep ahead of the problems. We're only the administration of "prevention" when it comes to getting the ball rolling. And anything that happens after that can be blamed on "miscalculations" caused by "catastrophic successes".


Simple question: was liberating Iraq a good or bad thing?

If you're talking about right now at this exact point in time, then yes it's a good thing Saddam was removed from power. But we'll find out in time. The last time regime change was practied in Iraq, the Baath party was helped into power. ;)



I would hardly call 11+ years and 17 UN resolutions as a "race to war"...

Bush has been president for 11+ years? rofl Whether you want to admit it or not, the road to Baghdad began on Sept. 11, 2001.

[priccobe]

Here's reality for you. We're going to invade a country and change the regime. We're also going to try and do it with as a little forces as possible on the ground during the occupation. If worse comes to worse, we can re-deploy people and extend TOD's instead of trying to keep ahead of the problems. We're only the administration of "prevention" when it comes to getting the ball rolling. And anything that happens after that can be blamed on "miscalculations" caused by "catastrophic successes".
War is hard. I'm sure many people here can tell you that. If it was easy, everyone would be doing it. Why do you keep harping on extending TOD's? Life in the military can be tough, I've been extended before and I didn't blame Bush or Clinton! And your point on "miscalculations"? You know, I've never miscalculated myself and I'm known as "Mr. Perfect"! :D

Bush has been president for 11+ years? ROFL Whether you want to admit it or not, the road to Baghdad began on Sept. 11, 2001.
OK, here's a little history for you. We first went to war with Iraq back in 1991 when he invaded Kuwait. Then after he was soundly beat, he and his army signed a cease-fire. That was about 11 years prior to March of 2003 when we went back in and defeated him soundly once again. Also, during those 11 years about 17 UN resolutions were passed that no one besides the US and Great Britain had the BALLS to enforce (Oil-for-Food perhaps?).

[priccobe]

Dan Rather just handed me this!

http://steeleyes.typepad.com/photos/political/kerry2.JPG

:D :D :D :D :D :D

[Secret Squirrel]

Here's reality for you. We're going to invade a country and change the regime. We're also going to try and do it with as a little forces as possible on the ground during the occupation. If worse comes to worse, we can re-deploy people and extend TOD's instead of trying to keep ahead of the problems. We're only the administration of "prevention" when it comes to getting the ball rolling. And anything that happens after that can be blamed on "miscalculations" caused by "catastrophic successes".
War is hard. I'm sure many people here can tell you that. If it was easy, everyone would be doing it. Why do you keep harping on extending TOD's? Life in the military can be tough, I've been extended before and I didn't blame Bush or Clinton! And your point on "miscalculations"? You know, I've never miscalculated myself and I'm known as "Mr. Perfect"! :D

My point was that the occupation was made harder than it had to be because someone under-planned or as the latest Bushism argues it was simply "miscalculations" based on "catastrophic successes".


OK, here's a little history for you. We first went to war with Iraq back in 1991 when he invaded Kuwait. Then after he was soundly beat, he and his army signed a cease-fire. That was about 11 years prior to March of 2003 when we went back in and defeated him soundly once again. Also, during those 11 years about 17 UN resolutions were passed that no one besides the US and Great Britain had the BALLS to enforce (Oil-for-Food perhaps?).

Thanks for the history lesson, but I already knew this (probably shouldnt have taken that 11 year jab? ;) ). Let me remind you of something Bush said in 2000; "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road." So what happened to change his mind? ;)

And just to keep pace, I'll add a picture too (well to be honest it's more of a comic, feel free to tear into this sentence. ;) )

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v233/SSSquirrel/obl.jpg

[priccobe]

Well on this topic I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. At least we can disagree in a peaceful manner.

How about this? Can we agree, can we all agree that this guy is a clown?

http://www.lucianne.com/routine/images/09-13-04.jpg

:D

[Knutsen]

The pre-war, war and post-war plans were a general consensus of a people that, hopefully, are smarter than you and I!

Honestly, the guys who prepared post-war are completely useless.
They havse just shown the world their absolute ignorance and unknowledge of the arab world.
In a normal job , if you do something wrong (and not even that wrong as this) you're fired, these guys (whoever did that ) should be fired too.