US Abandons Goal of Military Victory in Iraq

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: cwjerome
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Wow, the conservatives in this thread are making themselves look quite stupid.

Iraq was VERY MUCH a sovereign nation. This whole concept of a "rogue state" is an invention of the neocons to neatly lump alleged state supporters of terrorism together. And yet, Iraq is still a sovereign nation. No matter what you think about their dictatorship, all countries enjoy sovereignty over their lands. You can't just take that away from them based on what shifting allegiances the U.S. decides are in effect today.


Wow, I'd say there's a difference between looking stupid and not grasping the issues, although you may have just done both.

There are several characteristics that brand a country a dictatorship, and a country guilty of these outrages forfeit any moral perogatives, any claim to national rights or sovereignty, and becomes an outlaw. Whether or not someone like the US decides to take action against it depends on our interests and the context, but ANY free and democratic nation has the right, not the duty, but the RIGHT to take it out.

This is based on the proper recognition of man, rights, and government- all spelled out in the foundation American documents and precedents. These overrride any stupid ass worthless international "laws", especially the dungpies floated by the UN.
It's hilarious how you (or perhaps the U.S., by extension) get to write the rules of International Law. How do you cope with your unnaturally enlarged ego? Simply because you can spout off a bunch of drivel about how great America is, other countries lose their sovereign status? Its unilateral thinking taken to its logical extreme is what it is.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Isn't it odd how the new liberals have conveniently discarded the very issues they once held near and dear to their heart. They tossed it right into the toilet like they just got done wiping their a55 with it and don't need it anymore. Suddenly those ideals are full of crap and they'd rather kow-tow to dictators, oppressive totalitarian regimes, and terrorist factions.

That's precisely why I call them the new liberals. They are not the liberals I once knew who were about the good of mankind and were willing to fight for that good. Now they are just a but of whiney, self-appointed chickendove critics.
Blah, blah, blah, liberals bad. Liberals stupid. Wipe the spittle off your chin TLC.
 

Buck Armstrong

Platinum Member
Dec 17, 2004
2,015
1
0
Originally posted by: BBond
No neoCON Bushie apologist has ever answered this question.

What was the urgent circumstance which forced George Bush to attack Iraq unprovoked on March 19, 2003?

PS Illegal is defined by accepted international law -- for example, the UN Charter which Bush ignored when he unilaterally invaded Iraq without cause.

Who defines what is legal? Bush? You?

Are you implying that the UN defines what is legal? Because if so, there's a unanimously approved (except for China, who abstained) '91 UN ceasefire voluntarily signed by Saddam Hussein that clearly states the suspension of hostilities is contingent upon his fulfillment of the terms. He went on to break every single term, so, according to the UN document, the Gulf War is back on. So we could've legally invaded Iraq at anytime after 1998 (when he broke the last of the terms) without another resolution. So I don't think you really want to use the UN and/or "international law" excuse to say the war was illegal...because according to a UN document, it was indeed legal. Sorry.

But instead of referring to it, Bush tried to use the WMD scare and make up links with Al Qaeda. He didn't need to do so. All he had to do was wave the '91 ceasefire at the UN and say, "If we do not enforce this, future resolutions become meaningless, and this body becomes the League of Nations. So the US will do so whether the other members participate or not". That's it. Perfectly legal. A smarter president would've done exactly that.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: Buck Armstrong
Bush tried to use the WMD scare and make up links with Al Qaeda to justify it. He didn't need to do so. All he had to do was wave the '91 ceasefire at the UN and say, "If we do not enforce this, future resolutions become meaningless, and this body becomes the League of Nations. So the US will do so whether the other members participate or not". That's it. Legal. A smarter president would've done exactly that.
Except for one nagging problem, without using the fear and sorrow from the 9/11 attack and the BS about the WMD's the Dub would never have gotten Congress or the American Public to support his ill advised and ill conceived excellent adventure in Iraq!
 

Buck Armstrong

Platinum Member
Dec 17, 2004
2,015
1
0
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: Buck Armstrong
Bush tried to use the WMD scare and make up links with Al Qaeda to justify it. He didn't need to do so. All he had to do was wave the '91 ceasefire at the UN and say, "If we do not enforce this, future resolutions become meaningless, and this body becomes the League of Nations. So the US will do so whether the other members participate or not". That's it. Legal. A smarter president would've done exactly that.
Except for one nagging problem, without using the fear and sorrow from the 9/11 attack and the BS about the WMD's the Dub would never have gotten Congress or the American Public to support his ill advised and ill conceived excellent adventure in Iraq!

You're probably right about that...but that has nothing to do with the "UN/international law" excuse.

Look, I think the invasion was a mistake, I'm just saying we should be accurate about why it was, instead of repeating the same old "popular conception" falsehoods that are just as much lies as Bush's reasons for the war (like the UN excuse, which just isn't true). Make sense?
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: Buck Armstrong
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: Buck Armstrong
Bush tried to use the WMD scare and make up links with Al Qaeda to justify it. He didn't need to do so. All he had to do was wave the '91 ceasefire at the UN and say, "If we do not enforce this, future resolutions become meaningless, and this body becomes the League of Nations. So the US will do so whether the other members participate or not". That's it. Legal. A smarter president would've done exactly that.
Except for one nagging problem, without using the fear and sorrow from the 9/11 attack and the BS about the WMD's the Dub would never have gotten Congress or the American Public to support his ill advised and ill conceived excellent adventure in Iraq!

You're probably right about that...but that has nothing to do with the "UN/international law" excuse.

Look, I think the invasion was a mistake, I'm just saying we should be accurate about why it was, instead of repeating the same old "popular conception" falsehoods that are just as much lies as Bush's reasons for the war (like the UN excuse, which just isn't true). Make sense?
Well I'm more concerned about our leader deceiving us to support his war than I am whether he was right or not as far as International law goes.

 

Buck Armstrong

Platinum Member
Dec 17, 2004
2,015
1
0
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: Buck Armstrong
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: Buck Armstrong
Bush tried to use the WMD scare and make up links with Al Qaeda to justify it. He didn't need to do so. All he had to do was wave the '91 ceasefire at the UN and say, "If we do not enforce this, future resolutions become meaningless, and this body becomes the League of Nations. So the US will do so whether the other members participate or not". That's it. Legal. A smarter president would've done exactly that.
Except for one nagging problem, without using the fear and sorrow from the 9/11 attack and the BS about the WMD's the Dub would never have gotten Congress or the American Public to support his ill advised and ill conceived excellent adventure in Iraq!

You're probably right about that...but that has nothing to do with the "UN/international law" excuse.

Look, I think the invasion was a mistake, I'm just saying we should be accurate about why it was, instead of repeating the same old "popular conception" falsehoods that are just as much lies as Bush's reasons for the war (like the UN excuse, which just isn't true). Make sense?
Well I'm more concerned about our leader deceiving us to support his war than I am whether he was right or not as far as International law goes.

Well there's a good point! :) I'm with you...just saying there's plenty of legitimate reasons to oppose his policies without lying about it.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: Buck Armstrong

Well there's a good point! :) I'm with you...just saying there's plenty of legitimate reasons to oppose his policies without lying about it.
You are correct sir!
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: cwjerome
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Wow, the conservatives in this thread are making themselves look quite stupid.

Iraq was VERY MUCH a sovereign nation. This whole concept of a "rogue state" is an invention of the neocons to neatly lump alleged state supporters of terrorism together. And yet, Iraq is still a sovereign nation. No matter what you think about their dictatorship, all countries enjoy sovereignty over their lands. You can't just take that away from them based on what shifting allegiances the U.S. decides are in effect today.


Wow, I'd say there's a difference between looking stupid and not grasping the issues, although you may have just done both.

There are several characteristics that brand a country a dictatorship, and a country guilty of these outrages forfeit any moral perogatives, any claim to national rights or sovereignty, and becomes an outlaw. Whether or not someone like the US decides to take action against it depends on our interests and the context, but ANY free and democratic nation has the right, not the duty, but the RIGHT to take it out.

This is based on the proper recognition of man, rights, and government- all spelled out in the foundation American documents and precedents. These overrride any stupid ass worthless international "laws", especially the dungpies floated by the UN.
Isn't it odd how the new liberals have conveniently discarded the very issues they once held near and dear to their heart. They tossed it right into the toilet like they just got done wiping their a55 with it and don't need it anymore. Suddenly those ideals are full of crap and they'd rather kow-tow to dictators, oppressive totalitarian regimes, and terrorist factions.

That's precisely why I call them the new liberals. They are not the liberals I once knew who were about the good of mankind and were willing to fight for that good. Now they are just a but of whiney, self-appointed chickendove critics.

HeartSurgeon?

I love how you Neocons (yes, you are a neocon TLC) try and tell Liberals about their mindsets. Liberals have never been for false wars, nation building, nor wild goose chasing, nor sending off soldiers to die for nothing. Not even a :cookie: for the weakass attempt at the whole liberal mankind tripe. I'll save that, undoubtedly, for your next post.
conjur?

Touchee. ;)
I think you meant touché.

Touchee would be a response to Michael Jackson. :laugh:

 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: cwjerome
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Wow, the conservatives in this thread are making themselves look quite stupid.

Iraq was VERY MUCH a sovereign nation. This whole concept of a "rogue state" is an invention of the neocons to neatly lump alleged state supporters of terrorism together. And yet, Iraq is still a sovereign nation. No matter what you think about their dictatorship, all countries enjoy sovereignty over their lands. You can't just take that away from them based on what shifting allegiances the U.S. decides are in effect today.


Wow, I'd say there's a difference between looking stupid and not grasping the issues, although you may have just done both.

There are several characteristics that brand a country a dictatorship, and a country guilty of these outrages forfeit any moral perogatives, any claim to national rights or sovereignty, and becomes an outlaw. Whether or not someone like the US decides to take action against it depends on our interests and the context, but ANY free and democratic nation has the right, not the duty, but the RIGHT to take it out.

This is based on the proper recognition of man, rights, and government- all spelled out in the foundation American documents and precedents. These overrride any stupid ass worthless international "laws", especially the dungpies floated by the UN.
Isn't it odd how the new liberals have conveniently discarded the very issues they once held near and dear to their heart. They tossed it right into the toilet like they just got done wiping their a55 with it and don't need it anymore. Suddenly those ideals are full of crap and they'd rather kow-tow to dictators, oppressive totalitarian regimes, and terrorist factions.

That's precisely why I call them the new liberals. They are not the liberals I once knew who were about the good of mankind and were willing to fight for that good. Now they are just a but of whiney, self-appointed chickendove critics.

LMAO. What a lame post.

Have we helped Iraq? Only time will tell, but I highly doubt it. Of course Bush claims victory but that doesn't make it so. Does being against sacraficing our national economy and our young people for no good reason make liberals "chickendoves"? LOL.

Has it helped the US of A? It only helped ballon the budget deficeit.

Would the "old" liberals have been for this war? Of course not. They didn't support Vietnam either you bogus idiot. It is the new repugs who have changed and you attempt to define that change as a change in the liberals is weak at best.
You seem to be confusing winning the war in Iraq, which has been long accomplsihed (Yes, the war is over. What is left is the insurgency, which I think is kid of stupid to designate as a war, particularly when it appears to not even have any popular support among the Iraqis.), with achieving the ultimate goals there, which has not and has been a tough slog thus far, but is making slow and steady progress. If you're looking for instant results of that, well, you're looking in the wrong place.

As far as the costs, how much is it worth to us to help prevent more terorism in the long run? What would be the cost of another 9/11. How about 2 or 3 or more? I've seen estimates that 9/11 cost the US alone well into the trillions of dollars. That's just the US and doesn't consider the impact it had on the rest of the world.

I'm sure you'll answer with the tired old, "We're not reducing terorism, we're creating more terrorists with this war. (Which, btw, I've yet to see substantiated in any concrete manner, so at the moment that chant rings fairly hollow) I disagree that's the case. Wars in the past have not fomented hatred to any significant degree. And the simple fact is that Islamic terroists were there long before we went into any war. We are not creating any more terrorists than would have already existed, and we are actively hunting them down now too, and have a place from which to do it, all of which contribute to reducing terrorism, not increasing it.

As far as Vietnam, where do you think the new liberal template arose? It came out of the more radical liberals of that time. The spittle filed rants, the poison barbs, the complete lack of any real class in their effort have all translated into the new liberal movement we see on a wide scale today. THe old school liberals were more reserved, less vehement, and didn't go about making themselves look like fools. Vietnam was wrong and the liberals were right to oppose it because it wasn't about oppression or liberation or anything of the sort. It was nothing more than a chess game between the US and the USSR with the Vietnams as the pawns in that game. And ultimately the liberals were wrong about it because it was a game we won, even if the moves of those pawns weren't in our favor. I was against Vietnam at the time too. I don't have any qualms about admitting I was wrong in the long run. Will you have the same nads in 20 or 30 years concerning Iraq and the ME if it turns out Bush was right and we end up winning the game?
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
I can't understand your logic, "how much is it worth to us to help prevent more terorism in the long run?" when, according to the 9/11 Commission report and your own government, there was no "terrorism" in Iraq to prevent in the first place.

Oh, and just in case you hadn't noticed, no WMD either.

And then there's this interesting tidbit from a "Top U.S. Generals". If this "insurgency" isn't a war it sure is going to not be a war for a long long time -- at least according to General Myers.

But what does HE know?

Top U.S. General Sees Lasting Iraq Insurgency

Fri Feb 25, 7:02 PM ET

BEVERLY HILLS, Calif. (Reuters) - The insurgency in Iraq is not likely to be put down in a year or even two since history shows such uprisings can last a decade or more, the United States' top military commander said on Friday.

Air Force Gen. Richard Myers said that in the past century, insurgencies around the world have lasted anywhere from seven to 12 years, making a quick fix to the problem in Iraq unlikely.

"This is not the kind of business that can be done in one year, two years probably," said Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in a speech to the Los Angeles World Affairs Council here.

Myers was filling in for Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who was scheduled to address the group but became ill after a long trip to Europe.

Myers said, however, that recent elections in Iraq were a sign that insurgents were not succeeding in their efforts to strike fear in the Iraqi people. American television was full of images in January of Iraqis whose fingers were stained with indelible ink after casting their ballots.

"They were sticking that ink-stained finger in the eye of the insurgents," Myers told a packed ballroom at the Beverly Hilton hotel.

In Iraq, negotiations continued on Friday over who would lead the country's new government, talks made more complicated by delicate ethnic and sectarian issues.

"There is a lot of tension in the system politically ... which is a very good thing" for a new democracy, Myers said.

The new government is expected to make security an immediate focus. Three U.S. soldiers were killed and eight wounded in a roadside blast north of Baghdad on Friday, the military said.

"There's more and more thought both from religious circles and intellectual circles that (the insurgency) absolutely is unacceptable behavior," Myers said.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: BBond
I can't understand your logic, "how much is it worth to us to help prevent more terorism in the long run?" when, according to the 9/11 Commission report and your own government, there was no "terrorism" in Iraq to prevent in the first place.

Oh, and just in case you hadn't noticed, no WMD either.

And then there's this interesting tidbit from a "Top U.S. Generals". If this "insurgency" isn't a war it sure is going to not be a war for a long long time -- at least according to General Myers.

But what does HE know?

Top U.S. General Sees Lasting Iraq Insurgency

Fri Feb 25, 7:02 PM ET

BEVERLY HILLS, Calif. (Reuters) - The insurgency in Iraq is not likely to be put down in a year or even two since history shows such uprisings can last a decade or more, the United States' top military commander said on Friday.

Air Force Gen. Richard Myers said that in the past century, insurgencies around the world have lasted anywhere from seven to 12 years, making a quick fix to the problem in Iraq unlikely.

"This is not the kind of business that can be done in one year, two years probably," said Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in a speech to the Los Angeles World Affairs Council here.

Myers was filling in for Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who was scheduled to address the group but became ill after a long trip to Europe.

Myers said, however, that recent elections in Iraq were a sign that insurgents were not succeeding in their efforts to strike fear in the Iraqi people. American television was full of images in January of Iraqis whose fingers were stained with indelible ink after casting their ballots.

"They were sticking that ink-stained finger in the eye of the insurgents," Myers told a packed ballroom at the Beverly Hilton hotel.

In Iraq, negotiations continued on Friday over who would lead the country's new government, talks made more complicated by delicate ethnic and sectarian issues.

"There is a lot of tension in the system politically ... which is a very good thing" for a new democracy, Myers said.

The new government is expected to make security an immediate focus. Three U.S. soldiers were killed and eight wounded in a roadside blast north of Baghdad on Friday, the military said.

"There's more and more thought both from religious circles and intellectual circles that (the insurgency) absolutely is unacceptable behavior," Myers said.
So long as you refuse to look beyond Iraq for the reasons for being in Iraq, you will never comprehend what I said previously.

 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: BBond
I can't understand your logic, "how much is it worth to us to help prevent more terorism in the long run?" when, according to the 9/11 Commission report and your own government, there was no "terrorism" in Iraq to prevent in the first place.

Oh, and just in case you hadn't noticed, no WMD either.

And then there's this interesting tidbit from a "Top U.S. Generals". If this "insurgency" isn't a war it sure is going to not be a war for a long long time -- at least according to General Myers.

But what does HE know?

Top U.S. General Sees Lasting Iraq Insurgency

Fri Feb 25, 7:02 PM ET

BEVERLY HILLS, Calif. (Reuters) - The insurgency in Iraq is not likely to be put down in a year or even two since history shows such uprisings can last a decade or more, the United States' top military commander said on Friday.

Air Force Gen. Richard Myers said that in the past century, insurgencies around the world have lasted anywhere from seven to 12 years, making a quick fix to the problem in Iraq unlikely.

"This is not the kind of business that can be done in one year, two years probably," said Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in a speech to the Los Angeles World Affairs Council here.

Myers was filling in for Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who was scheduled to address the group but became ill after a long trip to Europe.

Myers said, however, that recent elections in Iraq were a sign that insurgents were not succeeding in their efforts to strike fear in the Iraqi people. American television was full of images in January of Iraqis whose fingers were stained with indelible ink after casting their ballots.

"They were sticking that ink-stained finger in the eye of the insurgents," Myers told a packed ballroom at the Beverly Hilton hotel.

In Iraq, negotiations continued on Friday over who would lead the country's new government, talks made more complicated by delicate ethnic and sectarian issues.

"There is a lot of tension in the system politically ... which is a very good thing" for a new democracy, Myers said.

The new government is expected to make security an immediate focus. Three U.S. soldiers were killed and eight wounded in a roadside blast north of Baghdad on Friday, the military said.

"There's more and more thought both from religious circles and intellectual circles that (the insurgency) absolutely is unacceptable behavior," Myers said.
So long as you refuse to look beyond Iraq for the reasons for being in Iraq, you will never comprehend what I said previously.

So now Bush led America into an unprovoked invasion of Iraq based on reasons which were "beyond" Iraq???

In other words, Bush is vindicated in attacking a nation which had no ties to terror, no WMD, posed no threat, for reasons beyond their control? You do realize your justification for attacking Iraq could then be used to attack ANY NATION ON EARTH whether or not they have anything to do with terrorism or whether or not they are capable of projecting any threat against us?

Isn't that a definition of uncontrolled aggression? And doesn't it bother you that after the fact Bush is changing his excuse from uncontrolled aggression to bringing "freedom and democracy" to the nations he plunders without reason?



 

digiram

Diamond Member
Apr 17, 2004
3,991
172
106
Originally posted by: Passions
What do you mean by military victory?

Iraq is not a war over terrority. It is a war on terrorism.

There are not strategic buildings or landmarks to capture. I don't think it was ever a military goal, but a political won. And with the recent elections, you would have seen it, if you would FREE YOUR MIND!

If that is the case and given most of the hijackers durring 9/11 came from Saudi Arabia, why aren't we bombing the crap out of them? Also, why is it that the PNAC neocons had Iraq targeted before 9/11 even happend. Next thing you know, 9/11 just happened to fall on their lap, and now they have justification for a war.
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
So long as you refuse to look beyond Iraq for the reasons for being in Iraq, you will never comprehend what I said previously.

orwell would be proud for that line TLC :laugh:
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,833
1
0
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
So long as you refuse to look beyond Iraq for the reasons for being in Iraq, you will never comprehend what I said previously.

orwell would be proud for that line TLC :laugh:

:D LMAO :D

Sounds to me like he can't see the forest for the trees.
 

Votingisanillusion

Senior member
Nov 6, 2004
626
0
0
Originally posted by: BBond
I can't understand your logic, "how much is it worth to us to help prevent more terorism in the long run?" when, according to the 9/11 Commission report and your own government, there was no "terrorism" in Iraq to prevent in the first place.

Oh, and just in case you hadn't noticed, no WMD either.

And then there's this interesting tidbit from a "Top U.S. Generals". If this "insurgency" isn't a war it sure is going to not be a war for a long long time -- at least according to General Myers.

But what does HE know?

Top U.S. General Sees Lasting Iraq Insurgency

Fri Feb 25, 7:02 PM ET

BEVERLY HILLS, Calif. (Reuters) - The insurgency in Iraq is not likely to be put down in a year or even two since history shows such uprisings can last a decade or more, the United States' top military commander said on Friday.

Air Force Gen. Richard Myers said that in the past century, insurgencies around the world have lasted anywhere from seven to 12 years, making a quick fix to the problem in Iraq unlikely.

"This is not the kind of business that can be done in one year, two years probably," said Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in a speech to the Los Angeles World Affairs Council here.

Myers was filling in for Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who was scheduled to address the group but became ill after a long trip to Europe.

Myers said, however, that recent elections in Iraq were a sign that insurgents were not succeeding in their efforts to strike fear in the Iraqi people. American television was full of images in January of Iraqis whose fingers were stained with indelible ink after casting their ballots.

"They were sticking that ink-stained finger in the eye of the insurgents," Myers told a packed ballroom at the Beverly Hilton hotel.

In Iraq, negotiations continued on Friday over who would lead the country's new government, talks made more complicated by delicate ethnic and sectarian issues.

"There is a lot of tension in the system politically ... which is a very good thing" for a new democracy, Myers said.

The new government is expected to make security an immediate focus. Three U.S. soldiers were killed and eight wounded in a roadside blast north of Baghdad on Friday, the military said.

"There's more and more thought both from religious circles and intellectual circles that (the insurgency) absolutely is unacceptable behavior," Myers said.

One more lie from Washington: the Iraqis voted to send the invaders back home. Now!
Voters and insurgents have the same goal.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: BBond
I can't understand your logic, "how much is it worth to us to help prevent more terorism in the long run?" when, according to the 9/11 Commission report and your own government, there was no "terrorism" in Iraq to prevent in the first place.

Oh, and just in case you hadn't noticed, no WMD either.

And then there's this interesting tidbit from a "Top U.S. Generals". If this "insurgency" isn't a war it sure is going to not be a war for a long long time -- at least according to General Myers.

But what does HE know?

Top U.S. General Sees Lasting Iraq Insurgency

Fri Feb 25, 7:02 PM ET

BEVERLY HILLS, Calif. (Reuters) - The insurgency in Iraq is not likely to be put down in a year or even two since history shows such uprisings can last a decade or more, the United States' top military commander said on Friday.

Air Force Gen. Richard Myers said that in the past century, insurgencies around the world have lasted anywhere from seven to 12 years, making a quick fix to the problem in Iraq unlikely.

"This is not the kind of business that can be done in one year, two years probably," said Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in a speech to the Los Angeles World Affairs Council here.

Myers was filling in for Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who was scheduled to address the group but became ill after a long trip to Europe.

Myers said, however, that recent elections in Iraq were a sign that insurgents were not succeeding in their efforts to strike fear in the Iraqi people. American television was full of images in January of Iraqis whose fingers were stained with indelible ink after casting their ballots.

"They were sticking that ink-stained finger in the eye of the insurgents," Myers told a packed ballroom at the Beverly Hilton hotel.

In Iraq, negotiations continued on Friday over who would lead the country's new government, talks made more complicated by delicate ethnic and sectarian issues.

"There is a lot of tension in the system politically ... which is a very good thing" for a new democracy, Myers said.

The new government is expected to make security an immediate focus. Three U.S. soldiers were killed and eight wounded in a roadside blast north of Baghdad on Friday, the military said.

"There's more and more thought both from religious circles and intellectual circles that (the insurgency) absolutely is unacceptable behavior," Myers said.
So long as you refuse to look beyond Iraq for the reasons for being in Iraq, you will never comprehend what I said previously.

So now Bush led America into an unprovoked invasion of Iraq based on reasons which were "beyond" Iraq???

In other words, Bush is vindicated in attacking a nation which had no ties to terror, no WMD, posed no threat, for reasons beyond their control? You do realize your justification for attacking Iraq could then be used to attack ANY NATION ON EARTH whether or not they have anything to do with terrorism or whether or not they are capable of projecting any threat against us?

Isn't that a definition of uncontrolled aggression? And doesn't it bother you that after the fact Bush is changing his excuse from uncontrolled aggression to bringing "freedom and democracy" to the nations he plunders without reason?
My opinion is that we're in Iraq to confront terrorism in the ME directly. Whether or not that's what Bush believes, I have no idea. Maybe he does, maybe he doesn't.

imo, that's what we need to do, soveriegnty and the rest be damned. Plus there's the added benefit of getting rid of a pos dictator in the ME and finally pushing a country there towards democracy.

If you want to adhere to the WMDs and the rest of the blah, blah, blah, talking points that are regularly regurgitated by the left on a daily basis, ad naseum, to once again publicly display your well-known distaste for the admin (like we don't know already) go right ahead. imo, it misses the bigger picture. Just stay in that little box you've built for yourself. Me? I'll think for myself.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Why have to make up stuff to figure out why, the whole world knows why....here's a hint
Well...duh. That's a part of the reason, as I've stated previously in other threads. Maybe some people would rather pretend that the world doesn't depend on oil? I have no such pretense or illusions. You?

There are other reasons as well though. It's not just as simple as oil, but oil is part of the equation.

 

imported_Aelius

Golden Member
Apr 25, 2004
1,988
0
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Why have to make up stuff to figure out why, the whole world knows why....here's a hint
Well...duh. That's a part of the reason, as I've stated previously in other threads. Maybe some people would rather pretend that the world doesn't depend on oil? I have no such pretense or illusions. You?

There are other reasons as well though. It's not just as simple as oil, but oil is part of the equation.

Reasons? It's more like an excuse and every time one of you open your mouth it just makes it appear to be a correct assessment.

Still nobody answered the question possed before. Only danced around the question with UN resolutions etc. Like Bush actually listens to the UN. That's a laugh in itself.

Again another excuse.
 

d3n

Golden Member
Mar 13, 2004
1,597
0
0
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: BBond
I can't understand your logic, "how much is it worth to us to help prevent more terorism in the long run?" when, according to the 9/11 Commission report and your own government, there was no "terrorism" in Iraq to prevent in the first place.

Oh, and just in case you hadn't noticed, no WMD either.

And then there's this interesting tidbit from a "Top U.S. Generals". If this "insurgency" isn't a war it sure is going to not be a war for a long long time -- at least according to General Myers.

But what does HE know?

Top U.S. General Sees Lasting Iraq Insurgency

Fri Feb 25, 7:02 PM ET

BEVERLY HILLS, Calif. (Reuters) - The insurgency in Iraq is not likely to be put down in a year or even two since history shows such uprisings can last a decade or more, the United States' top military commander said on Friday.

Air Force Gen. Richard Myers said that in the past century, insurgencies around the world have lasted anywhere from seven to 12 years, making a quick fix to the problem in Iraq unlikely.

"This is not the kind of business that can be done in one year, two years probably," said Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in a speech to the Los Angeles World Affairs Council here.

Myers was filling in for Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who was scheduled to address the group but became ill after a long trip to Europe.

Myers said, however, that recent elections in Iraq were a sign that insurgents were not succeeding in their efforts to strike fear in the Iraqi people. American television was full of images in January of Iraqis whose fingers were stained with indelible ink after casting their ballots.

"They were sticking that ink-stained finger in the eye of the insurgents," Myers told a packed ballroom at the Beverly Hilton hotel.

In Iraq, negotiations continued on Friday over who would lead the country's new government, talks made more complicated by delicate ethnic and sectarian issues.

"There is a lot of tension in the system politically ... which is a very good thing" for a new democracy, Myers said.

The new government is expected to make security an immediate focus. Three U.S. soldiers were killed and eight wounded in a roadside blast north of Baghdad on Friday, the military said.

"There's more and more thought both from religious circles and intellectual circles that (the insurgency) absolutely is unacceptable behavior," Myers said.
So long as you refuse to look beyond Iraq for the reasons for being in Iraq, you will never comprehend what I said previously.

So now Bush led America into an unprovoked invasion of Iraq based on reasons which were "beyond" Iraq???

In other words, Bush is vindicated in attacking a nation which had no ties to terror, no WMD, posed no threat, for reasons beyond their control? You do realize your justification for attacking Iraq could then be used to attack ANY NATION ON EARTH whether or not they have anything to do with terrorism or whether or not they are capable of projecting any threat against us?

Isn't that a definition of uncontrolled aggression? And doesn't it bother you that after the fact Bush is changing his excuse from uncontrolled aggression to bringing "freedom and democracy" to the nations he plunders without reason?

The original Gulf war was meant to put Saddam 'in a box' for an estimated 10 years. That period had since come to a close by the time Iraq was invaded again. Saddam was flouting the terms of the surrender from the first Gulf war. Much like Germany couldn?t be trusted to follow the rules of its armistice after WWI. How long should the US have waited to try and prove a negative when it had so many suspicions that Saddam himself did nothing but encourage by not cooperating from the start.

Much like the Vietnam war which stopped communism from sweeping through Southeast Asia this will be a strategic victory without much popular support. This war will have taken care of a dictator that couldn?t be trusted not to use short range weapons to destabilize the region. It will also have surrounded Iran on two sides with moderate tolerant governments. This is the same Iran that looked like it was on the far side of the moon to most people as the dust from the trade centers was settling. It doesn?t seem nearly so far away as it use to and I?m sure that Iran is thinking the same thing from its side of the fence. I wonder why they have become so responsive recently in toning down they?re usually non-tolerant retotoric.


Personally I feel better for my family that GW could think long term in this matter.
If you think his actions are unprecedented look into your American history and reflect about how the country has headed off detrimental foreign influences and how it has subsequently elevated the quality of life for its citizens. Then decide if you?d still like to live here.
 

imported_Pedro69

Senior member
Jan 18, 2005
259
0
0
I primarly joined this forum for my interest in PC's, but seeing the posts here in P&N from the Bushbots makes me sad. I thought of the US as a advanced and educated society but what I saw over the last few years really got me started to re-think this. Generally speaking I lost most respect for the US.
Well you might say who gives a crap what he is thinking, but I share my view with a lot of people. A lot of people are concerned about this situation.

Iraq didn't posed any threat to the US and neither had it something to do with 9/11. Those where the reasons brought up by the US to justify the illegal invasion (yes it was illegal). Those reasons where brought up because the US Goverment knew that only "liberating" wouldn't cut it in the world community.

BTW liberating the poor Iraqis, here is a quote from Rush Limbaugh from 1988:

"And now the liberals want to stop President Reagan from selling chemical warfare agents and military equipment to Saddam Hussein, and why? Because Saddam 'allegedly' gassed a few Kurds in his own country.

Mark my words. All of this talk of Saddam Hussein being a 'war criminal' or 'committing crimes against humanity' is the same old thing. LIBERAL HATE SPEECH! And speaking of poison gas . . . I SAY WE ROUND UP ALL THE DRUG ADDICTS AND GAS THEM TOO!"

Rush Limbaugh, Nov. 3, 1988

Now I come in here and you guys are making the most pathetic attempt to justify the Iraq war. When do you finally wake up?
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
"Bushbots."

You know what? There are some people in the US who can think for themselves and don't base their opinion on what Bush told them. Those same people don't allow their opinion to be shaped specifically due to their intense hatred of the admin either, like so many of the knee-jerk reactionaries in here who instantly assume that anything aligned with a Bush policy must be a bad thing.

Go ahead and let emotions drive your thinking like so many other of the RBH lemmings in here. Those lemmings are nothing but anti-Bushbots who can't seem to elevate their level of thinking and discourse beyond the Beavis and Butthead level of "Bush sucks." Hyperbole and rhetorical devices are all they have, constantly spouting false accusations and prediction that are almost invariably wrong because they rely on overstatement. They dwell on the past instead of looking to the future, clasping their hands tightly together and desparately hoping that, somewhere along the line, Iraq will collapse into one giant ball of failure...a quagmire, a disaster, a blunder. Except that never quite happens and it frustrates their small, hatefull little minds. So they strike out at anyone and everyone who doesn't fall inline with their own loonie-left-lemming-like thinking, whning and complaining at the highest decivels they can emit, and always keeping that hankey ready to wipe the spittle from the corners of their mouth.

Congrats on joining that crew.
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
Emotions are not an issue here, is that Bush fails plain logic. not that he is blindly hated.
Not an issue of good old conservative "common sense" -which is nothing other then a affirmation that you are on the BS wagon with the rest of the sheep.
You have people that think about things and you have people that would rather let someone else do it.
Cheers to those who think and see through the thinly veiled mask of lies.
To our fellow Americans who do not, try reading a book, turn your tv off for a bit and join us in how to fix the cold reality we have put ourselves in before we slip farther down the paths of backwardness.

And for young people..Do you really want to turn out like your boring and bigoted parents who have lost touch and carry the old hates of our past?
Or are you looking to be part of a generation that moves america forward?