Gen. Patreus does not know if success in Iraq will make America safer

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
35,903
27,559
136
Gen Patreus has been assigned as the front man for Bush's policy in Iraq. Sen Warner this afternoon asked if success in Iraq will make America safer. Patreus said he doesn't know!

I bet if Patreus doen't know Bush doesn't know either. Damn, this is amazing. How can we continue to justify our presense in Iraq?
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
The rub is HomerJS, I think nearly everyone, 20 20 hindsight, wishes GWB did not choose to invade Iraq. You may never be able to wring that admission out of GWB, because the damn sad and sorry fact is, that no one in the history of the world has ever figured out to un spill the milk once its spilled. But had they the chance long odds they would turn back the hands of time.

But there is something to say about humanity, rather than admit we blew it in the spilling of milk, we feel it necessary to sacrifice more milk to the god of stupidity. And if enough milk is then sacrificed, the God will then spare the moronic moron from having to face the people and confess the sins.

I certainly hope it explains it to you because what we are doing now in Iraq makes no sense to me either.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,914
2,359
126
Originally posted by: Phokus
If this isn't about security, then WHY ARE WE OVER THERE?

It's about removing another dictator from power..but we've had this argument ad nausium
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
It's comical, in a very tragic way, just how badly this war has been fought. We've literally been put in a mess that can't succeed, and now we have to bleed even more (monetarily and, more tragically, in blood) just to get the hell out of it.

I honestly have zero respect for anyone that truly, honestly believes fighting this war is fighting a war on terror. Our own god damned top general in Iraq isn't sure success in Iraq will make us safer. What possible purpose, beyond the now completely debunked WMDs, is there to be in Iraq? I have all the respect in the world for those fighting in Iraq, the ones that will continue to die won't die for nothing (despite what extremists on the left say) because they'll be dying in the name of the U.S. and what it represents, but I'll be damned if their deaths couldn't mean even just a little bit more somewhere else more important, and more impactful on the war on terrorism. Iraq just isn't it, and the chicken hawks that force these young men and women into Iraq on failed ideology and stubborn ego trips are just the lowest forms of life.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,284
6,026
126
I heard a senator refer to the fact that the general does believe our security will be worse if we fail in Iraq. That leads me to doubt what was said in the OP.
 

jman19

Lifer
Nov 3, 2000
11,221
654
126
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Phokus
If this isn't about security, then WHY ARE WE OVER THERE?

It's about removing another dictator from power..but we've had this argument ad nausium

Wait I thought it was about WMD? I mean Al Qaeda? I mean...

Removing the dictator was easy. Why are we nation building, when our president told us that our soldiers shouldn't be used for that task? Oh yeah, because he is a liar :thumbsdown:
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
8
0
Iraq was about removing a dictator who had a history of supporting terrorists and who had a history of using chemical weapons.

What we did not want to see in a post 9-11 world was parts A and B put together to create a terrorist attack with chemical weapons.

It?s that simple.

Now on the topic of the thread?.

Would the world be safer if we had NOT invaded Iraq? We don?t know.

The problem with debating safer or not safer is that you don?t know how unsafe you are until you are attacked. If you asked the people walking into WTC 6 years if they felt safe what do you think most of them would have said?
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,284
6,026
126
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Iraq was about removing a dictator who had a history of supporting terrorists and who had a history of using chemical weapons.

What we did not want to see in a post 9-11 world was parts A and B put together to create a terrorist attack with chemical weapons.

It?s that simple.

Now on the topic of the thread?.

Would the world be safer if we had NOT invaded Iraq? We don?t know.

The problem with debating safer or not safer is that you don?t know how unsafe you are until you are attacked. If you asked the people walking into WTC 6 years if they felt safe what do you think most of them would have said?

If the madness you post here were universally applied, any country on earth could gin up some excuse to attack another. Such actions are illegal under international law. You can attack another country only if they pose an imminent threat. Your paranoia and fear are no reason for you to attack anybody because by the same token they can attack you. How is it you live in a country we say is civilized, Mr. Barbarian?
 

Sinsear

Diamond Member
Jan 13, 2007
6,439
80
91
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I heard a senator refer to the fact that the general does believe our security will be worse if we fail in Iraq. That leads me to doubt what was said in the OP.

No he said it; I saw it in an article today somewhere.
 

jman19

Lifer
Nov 3, 2000
11,221
654
126
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Iraq was about removing a dictator who had a history of supporting terrorists and who had a history of using chemical weapons.

What we did not want to see in a post 9-11 world was parts A and B put together to create a terrorist attack with chemical weapons.

It?s that simple.

Now on the topic of the thread?.

Would the world be safer if we had NOT invaded Iraq? We don?t know.

The problem with debating safer or not safer is that you don?t know how unsafe you are until you are attacked. If you asked the people walking into WTC 6 years if they felt safe what do you think most of them would have said?

You mean the chemical weapons we gave him and didn't ask twice about? :laugh:
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,284
6,026
126
Originally posted by: Sinsear
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I heard a senator refer to the fact that the general does believe our security will be worse if we fail in Iraq. That leads me to doubt what was said in the OP.

No he said it; I saw it in an article today somewhere.

You know what you saw. I know what I heard. But ask yourself what makes sense.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,894
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Iraq was about removing a dictator who had a history of supporting terrorists and who had a history of using chemical weapons.

That's not what Powell, Rumy, Bush et all said to the world.

They said "Saddam has WMD and where they are" and they were a direct threat to the U.S.

Thank you for at least admitting to your lie.

History will forever show that no matter how hard you try and revise it.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
All these replies and nobody even bothered to quote Petraeus's response. What a surprise.

"Sir I don?t know actually. I have not sat down and sorted it out in my own mind. What I have focused on and what I have been riveted on is how to accomplish the mission of the multinational force Iraq."

It's not Petraeus's job to focus on whether America is safer. It's his job to focus on what he is doing in Iraq. Seeing as Warner is practically senile though it's understandable he'd ask such a non-relevant question.
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
it's understandable he'd ask such a non-relevant question.

Success in Iraq making America safer isn't relevant? :confused: Talk about pansy excuse-making.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
it's understandable he'd ask such a non-relevant question.

Success in Iraq making America safer isn't relevant? :confused: Talk about pansy excuse-making.
If I really have to explain this to you then you're not nearly as intelligent as I first gave you credit for.
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
it's understandable he'd ask such a non-relevant question.

Success in Iraq making America safer isn't relevant? :confused: Talk about pansy excuse-making.
If I really have to explain this to you then you're not nearly as intelligent as I first gave you credit for.

I can't help that you're so far gone from reality you can't see the relevance, even IF Patreus' directive isn't that particular area.
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
1
0
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Phokus
If this isn't about security, then WHY ARE WE OVER THERE?

It's about removing another dictator from power..but we've had this argument ad nausium

Read my sig.

 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
1
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Iraq was about removing a dictator who had a history of supporting terrorists and who had a history of using chemical weapons.

What we did not want to see in a post 9-11 world was parts A and B put together to create a terrorist attack with chemical weapons.

It?s that simple.
Read my sig.

 

imported_Shivetya

Platinum Member
Jul 7, 2005
2,978
1
0
Originally posted by: HomerJS
Gen Patreus has been assigned as the front man for Bush's policy in Iraq. Sen Warner this afternoon asked if success in Iraq will make America safer. Patreus said he doesn't know!

Be honest now, if he said yes would you believe him?

Really, there is no response he could give to that question that would not be met without some negative comment one way or another.

We are in Iraq because we came to remove a threat and now have to make sure we don't leave one behind. Its not another Vietnam, how the Democrats would love to have something to take over top spot for their big blunder - Iraq will not be it.

 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Iraq was about removing a dictator who had a history of supporting terrorists and who had a history of using chemical weapons.

What we did not want to see in a post 9-11 world was parts A and B put together to create a terrorist attack with chemical weapons.

It?s that simple.

Now on the topic of the thread?.

Would the world be safer if we had NOT invaded Iraq? We don?t know.

The problem with debating safer or not safer is that you don?t know how unsafe you are until you are attacked. If you asked the people walking into WTC 6 years if they felt safe what do you think most of them would have said?

If the madness you post here were universally applied, any country on earth could gin up some excuse to attack another. Such actions are illegal under international law. You can attack another country only if they pose an imminent threat. Your paranoia and fear are no reason for you to attack anybody because by the same token they can attack you. How is it you live in a country we say is civilized, Mr. Barbarian?
You are right, but you fail to realize that whatever the US does is always the morally superior thing (so goes the story...).
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Actually the question can be viewed from two different perspectives. If we choose to view it from the emotion side, its somewhat as a giant moment of comic relief. One of those basic questions the murder board handlers forgot to rehearse Pertraeus on, and the damn fool essentially said I don't have the foggiest notion of why we are in Iraq, but I was told to make this turkey fly, and I am doing my best to follow orders.

I doubt it will have the electric historical impact of "Let them eat cake." or "comrade we have been betrayed.", and rise to the emotional level that suddenly animates an apathetic mob into purposeful action. Rather I think its going to be one of those give voice to a guilty consciences type things, and now there is always going to be this little monkey on our back
asking are we really making our selves safer? If Patraeus isn't sure, how can anyone be sure?

If we view it from a totally logical perspective, its one of those simple basic type questions that defy all rational answers. Its simply too vague to sort out in anyones mind because the real answer fragments into an infinite number of future what if questions like if I eliminate this danger will it make that other danger grow bigger. And if you ask too many uncertain what ifs questions you soon live in gigoville. And its almost arrogant of Petraeus to think he can even partially sort that question out.

But we can see the organized mind at work, start with a postulate in the form of a mission,
and then use your best judgment to accomplish the mission. But never go back and question the postulate.
 

Kadarin

Lifer
Nov 23, 2001
44,303
15
81
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
it's understandable he'd ask such a non-relevant question.

Success in Iraq making America safer isn't relevant? :confused: Talk about pansy excuse-making.
If I really have to explain this to you then you're not nearly as intelligent as I first gave you credit for.

I can't help that you're so far gone from reality you can't see the relevance, even IF Patreus' directive isn't that particular area.

Should generals be generals, or should they dwell on (and possibly make decisions on) the larger political picture?