Supostat
Active member
Imho it is so.
I am not sure will withdrawal of Coalition forces from Iraq be dangerous for entire world. But for sure it will be dangerous for very Iraqis.Wolf said:
Last edited:
US invloment in Iraq
The Other Guy
Spam King
How many times has it been said that Saddam Hussein and Iraq had NOTHING TO DO WITH AL QAEDA...
Wolf
Active member
Show me where I brought-up the name 'Saddam Hussein'.
Devil505
Active member
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11/2001. Iraq is Bush's sideshow to uphold his Dad's honor & is making us less safe here in the US, & taking troop away from the fight against Al Quieda in Afganistan & Pakistan. Stop buying the lies!
mmarsh
Active member
Ah thats the Pottery Barn example (You break it, you own it).
Unfortunately it doesn't work in Foreign Policy. We are responsible for the mess, but that doesn't mean we are the best suited for fixing it. As a matter of fact our continued military presence in the Middle East is so destablizing to the area all we are doing is make the problem worse, not better. And now we have problems in Iran, Syria, Lebanon these are are hotspots that have been dormant for decades.
Take al Qaeda. Al Qaeda was never in Iraq pre-Saddam. The reason they are now in Iraq is becaused they followed us there. There was recently a big Bust in Paris of Muslim extremists trying to recruit French Arabs to fight us in Iraq. Arab terrorist groups recruiting in Europe was unheard of prior to our invasion.
You have to understand these people (the arabs), from the crusades, to Napoleon invasion of Egypt, to the British expedition in Khartoum. They do not like western Armies on their lands.
There are ways to help (money, training, etc) but security has to be done by the Arabs.
The Other Guy
Spam King
You didn't bring it up anywhere, but Iraq is the subject matter of this thread...
AZ_Infantry
Active member
:roll:
Riiiiiiiiiight.
Had nothing to do with an oppresive, totalitarian dictator that murdered and tortured at whim, 80,000+ gassed Kurds (thought to be Iranians), or refusing to comply with United Nation demands. Nothing to do with UN weapons inspectors reporting that Hussein was simply transferring WMDs from location to location. Or that Iraq constantly violated the no-fly zone established.
Just a side show. Gotcha.
Want to put the blame on someone? Blame Mr. Clinton for pulling us out the first time while the JCOS screamed that we needed to stay and finish the job. The US showed its lack of resolve back in 1991/1992.
This isn't "Bush's war." It's just mopping up after an incompetent president made a mockery of his position as the CIC by pulling us out before our mission was complete because he's too ignorant to know anything about military tactics and too stupid to listen to those that do know.
Stop drinking the Internet Kool-Aid and read some history.
:cheers:
Devil505
Active member
When you say "incompetent president " are you talking about R. Reagan or George HW Bush? .....As far as "drinking the Internet Kool-Aid "....I'd rather drink that than what our present fearless leader (you know, the one who's Daddy got him out of serving in Vietnam but has no problem sending our kids to die to save his legeacy) used to drink! (& probably still does)
:whip:
AZ_Infantry
Active member
My friend, you are king of the Red Herring fallacy.
Clinton was who I was referring to with the incompetent comment. Not only did Clinton NOT serve, he was busy being an adulterer while we had boys and girls with boots in the sand that HE sent. Let's face it, no politician is outside of the corruption that big government provides.
But in the midst of your fallacy, you failed to see the forest for the trees. My point was that it isn't Bush's war. It's Clinton's. HE is the one who sent us in to GW1. HE is the one who watched his military machine pile drive the Iraqi Army into dust in 40 days. And HE is the one that pulled us out against every swinging shlong on any advisory committee. Yeah, I'd call that incompetent. When you have 2 dozen military leaders telling you what NOT to do with the military you're in charge of, you're a fool for not listening.
I love how the dems seem to forget that Bush didn't start this war.
I've had jobs like this before. Contractor comes in and totally botches the job. So Joe Business Owner calls me to fix all the screwups. But even before I can, Joe starts complaining that I'm not doing it right or fast enough or cheap enough or whatever. Don't blame me, blame your own incompetence for hiring a shoddy contractor in the first place - I'm just tring to unf&ck what they screwed up. Such as it is with Clinton.
And I'll add this: The grounds for impeachment are broken laws. Bush hasn't broken any laws. Clinton lied under oath and got away with it.
So sick that in your democrat pipe and smoke it.
People in glass houses, let him without sin, et al.
I can tell you and I are to have some great debates, bro! I love it! If you're in AZ, CA or FL, shoot me a PM and I'll buy you a beer (no joke).
Devil505
Active member
AZ_Infantry
Active member
Devil505
Active member
......"Well, if you REALLY want to get specific, Kennedy started this war when he implemented a sales policy of US-made weapons to Iraq........"
If you REALLY want to get specific, Adam (a known neocon Republican.......& actually the only one at the time) started this war when he took a bite of that damned apple! (You see.....fruit had skyrocketed in price, due to the gasoline prices of the day. Adam's microwave oven was broken & he wanted a snack..........SO......the rest is history)
Seriously, I dont have time to give your long post the attention it deserves right now, so I'll have to get back to you later.
AZ_Infantry
Active member
......"Well, if you REALLY want to get specific, Kennedy started this war when he implemented a sales policy of US-made weapons to Iraq........"
If you REALLY want to get specific, Adam (a known neocon Republican.......& actually the only one at the time
Seriously, I dont have time to give your long post the attention it deserves right now, so I'll have to get back to you later.
Horse manure. It was Eve's fault! B1tch should have been in the kitchen cooking her man up some vittles, not talking to snakes in forbidden trees with shiny fruit. See what happens when we give em the vote? It's anarchy, I tell you, anarchy!
(That's a total joke for the dense among us)
Take yer time, bro. I am on vacation in Florida just loving life right now, so I am rushing nothing. My wife is at work (she's a professional Yoga instructor, as well as a Horticulturalist and a Linguist) and I'm a do some dishes and get ready to change her oil and stuff today for her.
As much as I enjoy a debate, I can just as easily talk about dinner last night or how much I am enjoying my time here. Politics can wait.
On that note (pictures to lighten the mood), check out these HUMONGOUS raw oysters I had last night! My GOD were they good!
Had to have alligator bites, too, of course!
My beautiful wife, Laurie. Ignore the ant bite on her face. We've been doing some work here and the sweat has irritated it so now it looks like a pimple, poor thing, LOL. Not bad for 45, eh?
Her showing off. God I love those jeans!
And I am sorry for the hijack, but we needed to lighten the mood! :smil:
God bless, everyone!
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
Man that looks like good food.
I've been eating crap for the past few months.
I've been eating crap for the past few months.
AZ_Infantry
Active member
You know that you are always welcome to join us, bro. Me casa ist a su casa! Whether it be here or in AZ, my home is always open to you!
Devil505
Active member
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
Thanks AZ.
Hope everything's going dandy.
Yeah the Saddam Hussein - Al Qaeda link is flimsy at best.
Osama Bin Laden's target not only included the United States but also secular leaders of Muslim countries such as Saddam Hussein and Hosni Mubarak.
The only thing going for a possible cooperation would be the whole "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" thing but I think Saddam would be more careful about what he gave these guys because A-Q might use them against Iraq.
The REAL issue right now that causes some people to almost miss Saddam is that people have forgotten that things come in STAGES. You can't have a proper democracy that's worth half a damn without the following.
1) Stability - the people need to know the government is in charge. This is not possible with a newly elected government through a democratic process when there are a LOT of threats lurking.
2) A working economy - Most people, believe it or not, don't give a damn about Jihad. They want to go to work, bring back some money and feed their families and send their kids to school. Again, without getting shot at or blown up but that comes with stability.
3) Infrastructure and industries - This will give the economy some substance and give the country a potential for export. Obviously the one that comes to mind with Iraq is the oil.
THEN you're ready for some damned democracy.
Right now what we have is a bunch of Iraqis who have been promised that if they come out to vote (which they did while under threat of getting shot or bombing by insurgents) things would get much better. Well, the toilets don't flush and the government's still clearly not in control... so that's a big promise that hasn't been kept.
It's like those stupid teachers at my school who "don't believe in controlling the kids with fear." Well, these people are too thick to realize it comes in stages. You instill some level of fear in the first two weeks to get their ears open and THEN you can use reason, positive re-enforcement etc. I refused to give candy to my students because I knew it was bulls*** and sure enough, the kids in the other classes have started to THROW AWAY their candy. But guess what? They're not throwing away praises the praises they earn in my class.
Alright... I got a bit off topic but because I've been so successful, it makes other teachers uncomfortable so I may be transferred or axed.
That is the world now...
Hope everything's going dandy.
Yeah the Saddam Hussein - Al Qaeda link is flimsy at best.
Osama Bin Laden's target not only included the United States but also secular leaders of Muslim countries such as Saddam Hussein and Hosni Mubarak.
The only thing going for a possible cooperation would be the whole "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" thing but I think Saddam would be more careful about what he gave these guys because A-Q might use them against Iraq.
The REAL issue right now that causes some people to almost miss Saddam is that people have forgotten that things come in STAGES. You can't have a proper democracy that's worth half a damn without the following.
1) Stability - the people need to know the government is in charge. This is not possible with a newly elected government through a democratic process when there are a LOT of threats lurking.
2) A working economy - Most people, believe it or not, don't give a damn about Jihad. They want to go to work, bring back some money and feed their families and send their kids to school. Again, without getting shot at or blown up but that comes with stability.
3) Infrastructure and industries - This will give the economy some substance and give the country a potential for export. Obviously the one that comes to mind with Iraq is the oil.
THEN you're ready for some damned democracy.
Right now what we have is a bunch of Iraqis who have been promised that if they come out to vote (which they did while under threat of getting shot or bombing by insurgents) things would get much better. Well, the toilets don't flush and the government's still clearly not in control... so that's a big promise that hasn't been kept.
It's like those stupid teachers at my school who "don't believe in controlling the kids with fear." Well, these people are too thick to realize it comes in stages. You instill some level of fear in the first two weeks to get their ears open and THEN you can use reason, positive re-enforcement etc. I refused to give candy to my students because I knew it was bulls*** and sure enough, the kids in the other classes have started to THROW AWAY their candy. But guess what? They're not throwing away praises the praises they earn in my class.
Alright... I got a bit off topic but because I've been so successful, it makes other teachers uncomfortable so I may be transferred or axed.
That is the world now...
boris116
Active member
I understand that I am a bit late to get involved into this discussion, but i would like to add some points. In my view:
1. We often make a mistake by thinking that our leaders have an unlimited choice of decisions(start the war, end the war etc.). In reality, their choices very limted.
2. I would put the main blame on President Bush-Sr. George H. W. Bush has left too little choice to the next POTUSes when he has left Saddam at his place and made conditions to him based on removing the WMD and establishing the no-fly zones.
3. This decision(very justifiable by the UN resolutions etc.) had opened the door for Saddam to not only remain in power but increase his grip on his people and even try to turn his crashing defeat into a splendid victory over the Western coalition. How did it happen?
While the UN inspectors were looking for WMD, Saddam has made sure they will be left with the impression that he is hiding something. Remember all these presidential palaces, inspectors' complains, expuslsions, etc.? All this time (almost 10 years!) his propaganda machine(paid, in part, by the infamous "Food for Oil" program) blamed the US for starvation of the Iraqis. The same program has insured that the Iraqis have been more dependent on Saddam for their basic needs, so he could do whatewer he wanted.
What the US could have done? In my opinion, the were , basically, only two choices:
1. End the inspections, declare that no WMD have been found, announce the end of sanctions.
2. Remove Saddam from power by military means.
It was not possible to continue inspections for much longer - everybody in the world was sick and tired of this mess.
Few words about WMD issue. I am a chemical engineer by education and I believe that a country with very strong petro-chemical industry that has developed, deployed and used chemical weapons, can destroy all her stockpiles of such weapons and the equipment to satisfy the most thorough insepections AND restore the production of the same weapons in very short time (3-5 years at the most) as long as the cadre and documentation have not been destroyed.
So, my point is - if President Gore would ended the inspecions and gave Saddam a clean bill of health(what else he could have done?) Saddam would celebrated the victory ad , by now, have restored his WMD stockpiles.
George W. has chosen the second option. In my opinion, it was a right choice.
However, implementation was a different story...
1. We often make a mistake by thinking that our leaders have an unlimited choice of decisions(start the war, end the war etc.). In reality, their choices very limted.
2. I would put the main blame on President Bush-Sr. George H. W. Bush has left too little choice to the next POTUSes when he has left Saddam at his place and made conditions to him based on removing the WMD and establishing the no-fly zones.
3. This decision(very justifiable by the UN resolutions etc.) had opened the door for Saddam to not only remain in power but increase his grip on his people and even try to turn his crashing defeat into a splendid victory over the Western coalition. How did it happen?
While the UN inspectors were looking for WMD, Saddam has made sure they will be left with the impression that he is hiding something. Remember all these presidential palaces, inspectors' complains, expuslsions, etc.? All this time (almost 10 years!) his propaganda machine(paid, in part, by the infamous "Food for Oil" program) blamed the US for starvation of the Iraqis. The same program has insured that the Iraqis have been more dependent on Saddam for their basic needs, so he could do whatewer he wanted.
What the US could have done? In my opinion, the were , basically, only two choices:
1. End the inspections, declare that no WMD have been found, announce the end of sanctions.
2. Remove Saddam from power by military means.
It was not possible to continue inspections for much longer - everybody in the world was sick and tired of this mess.
Few words about WMD issue. I am a chemical engineer by education and I believe that a country with very strong petro-chemical industry that has developed, deployed and used chemical weapons, can destroy all her stockpiles of such weapons and the equipment to satisfy the most thorough insepections AND restore the production of the same weapons in very short time (3-5 years at the most) as long as the cadre and documentation have not been destroyed.
So, my point is - if President Gore would ended the inspecions and gave Saddam a clean bill of health(what else he could have done?) Saddam would celebrated the victory ad , by now, have restored his WMD stockpiles.
George W. has chosen the second option. In my opinion, it was a right choice.
However, implementation was a different story...
Last edited:
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/saddam.jpg
Is a heartwarming picture to brighten your day....
Lonnie Courtney Clay
:bravo:
Is a heartwarming picture to brighten your day....
Lonnie Courtney Clay
:bravo:
Devil505
Active member
Again, I'll let Dick Cheney answer the question of why what we did in Iraq was & is stupid & makes us less safe in the world right now.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I