Howard Dean might look at this......

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Crazee
You still didn't address his statement in that quote that he wasn't going to engage in nation building. But if that one doesn't meet your standard have a look at this one:

From the Presidential debate October 11, 2000:

Well -- I don't think so. I think what we need to do is convince people who live in the lands they live in to build the nations. Maybe I'm missing something here. I mean, we're going to have kind of a nation-building corps from America? Absolutely not. Our military is meant to fight and win war; that's what it's meant to do. And when it gets overextended, morale drops.

And I'm not -- I strongly believe we need to have a military presence in the Korea peninsula, not only to keep the peace on the peninsula, but to keep regional stability. And I strongly believe we need to keep a presence in NATO. But I'm going to be judicious as to how to use the military. It needs to be in our vital interest, the mission needs to be clear, and the exit strategy obvious.


Umm - then present the full quote next time;) Bush had specific statements regarding Iraq. Those to me separate that situation from some generalized foreign policy statement people like to dig up. It was common knowledge that Bush wanted Saddam gone and that Bush wouldn't hesitate to use force there. But also - there has been a shift in policy since 9/11 - I will grant that, but to tie Bush's statements of nation building to the Iraq situation without regard to his specific statement on Iraq is a bit disengenous.

To me the vital interest was to finish what we started in '91 - to protect our interests in the area since Saddam didn't bring int'l peace and security to the region as mandated by the cease-fire agreement.;) I'm a bit out of the mainstream thinking on that one - most other people supported the war based on WMDs - That part only added to my stance - they didn't form it.:)
To me the mission was clear - Get rid of Saddam so there can be int'l peace and security in the region.
To me the exit strategy was/is obvious - Set up a system where the Iraqis can govern and protect themselves so the region would be more secure and int'l peace could be restored.

:D

CkG

 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Moonbeam,
Damn, that bastard was as full of sh!t as a Christmas turkey.

Well... are you coming over for dinner... we're having turkey... :D

You guys eat sh!t? :Q

:p

CkG

Might as well... we take enough from you guys... :D Merry Christmas.. Thank God for this birth.. !!!

 

Crazee

Elite Member
Nov 20, 2001
5,736
0
76

Umm - then present the full quote next time;)

He still said in the full quote NO NATION BUILDING. So providing it still didn't answer the questions.


Bush had specific statements regarding Iraq. Those to me separate that situation from some generalized foreign policy statement people like to dig up. It was common knowledge that Bush wanted Saddam gone and that Bush wouldn't hesitate to use force there. But also - there has been a shift in policy since 9/11 - I will grant that, but to tie Bush's statements of nation building to the Iraq situation without regard to his specific statement on Iraq is a bit disengenous.

Please show me where he said that Iraq was a seperate NATION BUILDING statement? Trying to link nation building to a statement that he would possibly use force in Iraq is a bit disingenous.

To me the vital interest was to finish what we started in '91 - to protect our interests in the area since Saddam didn't bring int'l peace and security to the region as mandated by the cease-fire agreement.;) I'm a bit out of the mainstream thinking on that one - most other people supported the war based on WMDs - That part only added to my stance - they didn't form it.:)

Please demonstrate how that is a vital interest. vi·tal - Necessary to continued existence or effectiveness; essential. I think maybe the reason you are out of the main stream thinking on that is because not too many people think that is a vital interest :)

To me the mission was clear - Get rid of Saddam so there can be int'l peace and security in the region.
To me the exit strategy was/is obvious - Set up a system where the Iraqis can govern and protect themselves so the region would be more secure and int'l peace could be restored.

I am glad the mission was clear to you because to everyone else it was about getting the WMD that Bush told us were there. You know the ones that he said Sadaam had because sanctions and inspections weren't working.

That isn't an exit strategy that is a goal. An extra strategy would be a plan to get to the goal. They have had no plan to get to the goal of setting up a system of Government and getting the Iraqi's to a position where they can defend themselves. Otherwise why would Congressmen from BOTH sides of the political spectrum be asking for an exit strategy?
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
I think, Maluckey, that the article contains some very good information overall. Their analysis of troop levels, outlays, and duration are historically accurate, and reflect a minimum level of what we should expect with Iraq. The price and scope of this commitment was easily guestimable prior to the invasion, as is shown by the Rand analysis. Some intangibles remain, of course, such as the level of resentment by the occupied population and their ability to effectively resist changes imposed by the occupier. Even these are somewhat predictable...

This was never made clear to the public, and has not been to this day.

War and occupation are expensive, particularly for the US, given the hightech nature of our forces. This must be carefully balanced against our political and strategic interests if we are to optimize policy in a way that benefits all Americans and, to a lesser extent, the rest of the world.

Ths was obviously not done in the case of Iraq..

Part of the blame lies with the Administration, and part of the blame lies with the Press, whose reticence to engage the Administration with hard questions after 9/11 will come to be regarded as one of their lowest points in history. Part of the blame lies with the Electorate and the blind blood lust invoked by the overblown events of that day.

 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,327
6,040
126
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
I think, Maluckey, that the article contains some very good information overall. Their analysis of troop levels, outlays, and duration are historically accurate, and reflect a minimum level of what we should expect with Iraq. The price and scope of this commitment was easily guestimable prior to the invasion, as is shown by the Rand analysis. Some intangibles remain, of course, such as the level of resentment by the occupied population and their ability to effectively resist changes imposed by the occupier. Even these are somewhat predictable...

This was never made clear to the public, and has not been to this day.

War and occupation are expensive, particularly for the US, given the hightech nature of our forces. This must be carefully balanced against our political and strategic interests if we are to optimize policy in a way that benefits all Americans and, to a lesser extent, the rest of the world.

Ths was obviously not done in the case of Iraq..

Part of the blame lies with the Administration, and part of the blame lies with the Press, whose reticence to engage the Administration with hard questions after 9/11 will come to be regarded as one of their lowest points in history. Part of the blame lies with the Electorate and the blind blood lust invoked by the overblown events of that day.

But the real blame goes to the Supreme Coup who put in the looser. All our torubles now flow from that as God's revenge. This is His country and the one His people chose got pushed aside. Woe to us for that.