Wrong place wrong time....

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Sure it's possible to hate the war and not the soldiers. But hating the war can harm the soldiers... and I believe some of that might be occuring. In any case, I disagree with DonVito and Umbrella39 that Iraq was terribly thought-out and it doesn't involved our national security.

As an operation, it has been a miraculous success. Of course it has not been perfect, but nothing is. It's remarkable that the U.S. was able to go halfway around the world, in such a short time, and defeat a country so quickly, and occupy it in the manner that it did. Never before in human history has a power been able to use so much force, so far, so quickly, and achieve its goal FOR SO LITTLE COST like the U.S. did in Iraq.

What about national security? I can think of many reasons why we were justified to attack. I pushed for invasion just after Afghanistan, before Bush even brought it up, and although I may have done some things slightly differently I still support the effort 100%. Saddam supported terrorism and had various terrorist ties He had used WMDs before, and threatened to use them again. He had broken over 10 UN security council resolutions over the previous 10 years. He had rountinely shot at coalition forces. He tried to assasinate a U.S. president. He was a murderous dictator who had a hand in killing hundreds of thousands of people. He was a sworn enemy of the U.S. and given his past treachery and miscalculations, there was no way we could deal with this evil nut the same way we did pre-9/11.

It sounds cliche now, but things did change after 9/11... and so did I. Continuing to play the passive diplomatic games with international thugs, an irrelevant UN, and some of our so-called allies would only make the situation get worse. We need to drop the bullsht and hit Islamic extremism head-on, that's just what we're doing in Iraq. Wrong place wrong time? Sounds like Kerry is going to be on the wrong side of history... again.

You're entitled to your opinion, but not only was Iraq not an Islamic extremist nation, it was in fact the most secular middle eastern nation, and intolerant of Islamic extremism. It seems to me, under your logic, that although Iraq was a legitimate target, it was some ways down the list of potential enemies.

On 9/11, we were attacked by Al Qaeda, not Iraq. Iraq was, according to the US State Dept, one of the few middle eastern nations NOT to host or sponsor Al Qaeda. The two other nations in the "Axis of Evil," Iran and NK, were, in the runup to OIF, openly in possession of WMDs, and indeed NK was openly developing nuclear weapons and threatening to use them against the US.

There were any number of other countries who were more gracious and generous hosts to terrorism, including but not limited to Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Sudan, and Yemen. It's transparent to me that we attacked Iraq because it was dictated by the PNAC playbook well before 9/11, and not because it was the nation that posed the greatest threat against the US.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: element

Unfortunately our troops were spat on upon their return then too. All I'm saying is to support the troops, whether you support the war or not is one's own personal opinion. But at this point saying the military isn't doing enough (unsatisfied with 100,000 trained) or quickly enough (want the job done in 6 months) like Kerry and his supporters state. All i'm saying is it takes them however long it takes them and not to leave a job half done because you're unhappy things aren't going smoothly. And that it's not entirely Bush's or the military's fault for that but rather the terrorist insurgency there.

The statistic that 100,000 Iraqis are trained as security forces was misstated by the President - the correct number is 50K.

Is that including the 30,000 the US military paid to go away?

 

[jackschmittusa]

cwjerome

Never before in human history has a power been able to use so much force, so far, so quickly, and achieve its goal

Poland - 1939

France - 1940

Shorter marches granted, but your seeming pride in our ability to destroy a country and its military force in short order is unfounded.

there was no way we could deal with this evil nut the same way we did pre-9/11.

9-11 made him more evil? More of a nut?

Who's next on your list?

element

Unfortunately our troops were spat on upon their return then too.

Yeah, I was in the military in those days. Spitting, throwing blood, calls of "baby killers". I remember those days. Haven't seen anything like that on any scale yet in this war.

Just because I think GWB started a BS war takes nothing from my best wishes for the troops. I think the whole course taken by Bush is wrong. I'm not even sure there is anything we can achieve that would be considered a "win". I have little hope that a stable, democratic government is in the foreseeable future for Iraq.

 

[JHoNNy1OoO]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Sure it's possible to hate the war and not the soldiers. But hating the war can harm the soldiers... and I believe some of that might be occuring. In any case, I disagree with DonVito and Umbrella39 that Iraq was terribly thought-out and it doesn't involved our national security.

As an operation, it has been a miraculous success. Of course it has not been perfect, but nothing is. It's remarkable that the U.S. was able to go halfway around the world, in such a short time, and defeat a country so quickly, and occupy it in the manner that it did. Never before in human history has a power been able to use so much force, so far, so quickly, and achieve its goal FOR SO LITTLE COST like the U.S. did in Iraq.

What about national security? I can think of many reasons why we were justified to attack. I pushed for invasion just after Afghanistan, before Bush even brought it up, and although I may have done some things slightly differently I still support the effort 100%. Saddam supported terrorism and had various terrorist ties He had used WMDs before, and threatened to use them again. He had broken over 10 UN security council resolutions over the previous 10 years. He had rountinely shot at coalition forces. He tried to assasinate a U.S. president. He was a murderous dictator who had a hand in killing hundreds of thousands of people. He was a sworn enemy of the U.S. and given his past treachery and miscalculations, there was no way we could deal with this evil nut the same way we did pre-9/11.

It sounds cliche now, but things did change after 9/11... and so did I. Continuing to play the passive diplomatic games with international thugs, an irrelevant UN, and some of our so-called allies would only make the situation get worse. We need to drop the bullsht and hit Islamic extremism head-on, that's just what we're doing in Iraq. Wrong place wrong time? Sounds like Kerry is going to be on the wrong side of history... again.

The "Operation" ain't over yet buddy. Reason we completely walked through Saddam's forces was because he barely had any forces because of Gulf 1 and sanctions. Remember we went into Iraq planning for chemical weapons and missles and wmd's so you would've thought that this administration would've planned for the worst. Pre and post invasion. Apparently they didn't. Then when more troops could've easily been dispatched to Iraq to protect the borders they just dropped the buck. Because of that mistake terrorists easily flowed into Iraq and now we have a clusterf!ck.

I was amazed that you said "achieve its goal FOR SO LITTLE COST like the U.S. did in Iraq." What goal have we achieved? To remove a dictator that was nothing more than a bully and not a true imminent threat to the US how the admin painted the picture. To invade Iraq, which no one said would be a problem but what would be a problem would be after Saddam and the goverment was torn down. NO ONE cared about the Iraqi people then and the only reason we do now is because that's the only legitimate reason we can come up with now for the war in Iraq. To me that 1,000+ dead troops is not SO LITTLE COST. Not even to mention the 7,000+ wounded troops. One dictator is not worth this price. Especially given the circumstances.(NO WMD, NO IMMINENT THREAT, NO TIES TO 9/11 or Al-Qaeda as says 9/11 Commission Report)

The ends do not justify the means. We have just made way more enemies because of Iraq and we all know it. We traded one dictator that was confined for thousands and thounsands of more Extremists that hate America and want revenge for their dead brother, sister, baby, father, and mother.

 

[jpeyton]

Screw that, why support a war that is morally wrong? It's time we learned a HARD lesson concerning our foriegn policy.

Kerry isn't going to abandon the war, on Day One, but he'll get the ball rolling for the removal of our troops.

Bush will keep our troops as occupiers "protecting" Hallib...Iraq until the wells run dry.

 

[nageov3t]

there was a good letter in a local paper from an Iraq vet about this exact issue....

To the Editor:

I would like to express my gratitude to John Kerry. I am a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom, and I know from experience that being misled by your commander in chief is more devastating than the truth could ever be.

Senator Kerry promised to tell his soldiers the truth and to tell the American people the truth. This is a very important factor in leadership.

I knew the truth. Many of my comrades know the truth. We are doing the "hard work" that the president spoke of.

There is strength in truth. The American soldier deserves it.

As long as the president refuses to acknowledge the truth, there will be a lack of respect between us. Mr. President, I want the truth, not just talking points.

Richard Schumacher

 

[SgtBuddy]

Originally posted by: element
Where where you chickensh!ts before the war started? Now is the time to support the president and support our troops in Iraq not play monday morning quarterback.

I was sitting in a sand bunker in Kuwait wearing full MOPP. In between these heart stopping alarm conditions, I was prepping for something. No one knew what, but we knew better.

I will now call the coin toss, and take the field, thank you.

I am a Veteran for Kerry, and I typed this message.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: element

Originally posted by: dahunan
So people aren't allowed to support the troops but disagree with the war?

Before the war ever started there were marches by 100,000s of people all over America telling George not to go..

How can you support the troops while saying what they are doing is wrong? That's not supporting what they are doing over there.

Marches smarches, it accomplished nothing.

Do you think we were wrong to remove Saddam?

Do you think we are wrong to help the iraqis rebuild and form a democracy?

The only thing "wrong" in Iraq is that there are too many effin terrorists. Bout time we got rid of them.

Yep, Marches accomplish nothing when you are led by a War Mongering Power Hungry Dictator like the U.S. has had for the past 4 years, Remember "I'm The War President"? Wonder why we haven't heard him say that lately and at the Debate???

Why stop or even start at Saddam??? There are a bunch of Dictators all over the world as bad if not worse than Saddam. We've got one just 90 miles off the Florida coast.

Did the Iraqi's come pleading to us to help them form a Democracy??? Why stop at Iraq? We have to invade every non-Democracy Country right??? But of course have to go for the Countries that have Oil first.

Oh I see, all Countries that aren't Democracies, the Citizens are Terrorists, of course.

Doesn't look like we've gotten rid of anything other than some Poster Child's we put up on a Pedestal in the form of the Deck of 52 card players. There certainly has been plenty of others not on a Card deck to take their places.

True, we may not be "Chickensh!ts" (Best Armed Forces in the World) but we have been sticking our noses where they don't belong and getting our noses into sh!t and it don't smell real good.

Our Goal and help was needed in Afganistan, it was not in Iraq.

Our Goal should've been focused on getting a guy by the name of Osama, but the real "Chickensh!ts", went for an easier target by the name of Saddam and Usay and Qusay.

BY the way where is that guy that took out 3,000 American Civillian innocent lives???

The REAL "Chickensh!ts" would have us believe his name is Saddam.

 

[cpumaster]

Originally posted by: element

Originally posted by: PatboyX
i think, at least, we learned one thing as a country from the vietnam war: it is possible to hate the war and not the soldiers.

Unfortunately our troops were spat on upon their return then too. All I'm saying is to support the troops, whether you support the war or not is one's own personal opinion. But at this point saying the military isn't doing enough (unsatisfied with 100,000 trained) or quickly enough (want the job done in 6 months) like Kerry and his supporters state. All i'm saying is it takes them however long it takes them and not to leave a job half done because you're unhappy things aren't going smoothly. And that it's not entirely Bush's or the military's fault for that but rather the terrorist insurgency there.

You're confusing what Kerry has stated with what you think you want to hear, Kerry said he would started the 6 month period withdrawal of our troops only if we can accomplished what everyone (including Bush) wanted to happen in Iraq, mainly security, stability and election, after that then he would start the withdrawal process. This is in contrast to Bush plan mainly with him wanted to set up 14 permanent bases in Iraq. At this point I think most Iraqis probably would want us out of their country as soon as possible too. Our presence there has made that country the magnet of Islamic extremists terrorism and it has made the country even more insecure than ever, sad too, since many Iraqis now (based on recent poll conducted there) seem to think Saddam rule was better than current situation... very ironic.
It's the truth and I am sad that it is a hard slap not only in the face of the administration/neo-cons, but also on our troops and us. We're there to liberate them and help them and they say no thanks, leave us alone. There's nothing worse than that, it's equivocally clear in telling the troops they're sadly in wrong place, in a wrong war and at a wrong time.
But the truth is the truth, it's not gonna change just depend on how soon we want to see it or admit it. Hopefully the troops won't go through what the vietnam vet went through, there seems to be more understanding of their role this time and more support for them back home, tho not the war itself (please differentiate between the two, soldiers in the war because they're directed by leaders, not by their choice)

 

[Red Dawn]

The Shia, Kurds and Sunni's will never live peacefully together unless it's under the sights of guns. It took Hussein's brutality and the brutality of his predecessors to keep Iraq together as one state. Are we willing to use the same brutality to achieve that goal? Maybe we should split Iraq into 3 different states, one for each group. I believe in doing so we would stand a much better chance of achieving peace.

 

[Steeplerot]

I do think this is a historical and a cultural possibility, but I just can't see us dictating ANY change in the chaos of Iraq right now much less redrawing the borders of their country.
I think that idea would get The 21 carbomb Iraqi Salute nowdays.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Well, this gets the award for flamebait of the week. Element, either you are bored, or inexperienced and naive. Oh, if you went to fight there and really believe what you say it does not change my opinion. I have an acquaintance who has enough shrapnel to set off metal detectors. He has had the "pleasure" of having to blast kids in VN many times to protect his fellow soldiers. You have seen nothing compared to him. If you were in a group of vets and called him unpatriotic, you would get the crap beat out of you. He is against this adventure in Iraq, yet is very concerned for the soldiers. Maybe you would spit on him, but not me.

 

[cwjerome]

DonVito: It's true Iraq was not an extreme Islamicist nation, just like North Korea isn't either. However both had the will and the means to destablize the West and support those radicals who seek our destruction. I am glad I pushed for military invasion of Iraq, because it was the only way to deal with Saddam and eliminate his threat. Syria is more pragmatic and rational... we can perhaps use immense international diplomacy. Iran has the ability to self-reform, and we should actively support internal revolt. Honestly, I'm not sure what exactly to do about North Korea. There are many other nations we need to take a hard look at, but each country is different, each context is unique, and when I hear people say "There's a lot of dictators out there, are we supposed to invade them all, blah blah" it demonstrates their enormous inability to grasp the issues at hand. Their one-size-fits-all mentality removes them from serious debate.

Jack: Poland and France shared a border with Germany... they aren't even in the same galaxy as today's accomplishment. If anyone with real historical perspective looks at how we moved so many people, weapons, and support apparatus so far, and used such firepower so strongly and accurately to essentially conquer and occupy a country so quickly, with so little cost in lost life on BOTH sides, it's a feat unheard of in human history. No country on earth, now or ever before, could have done what we have done. Look at what we did militarily in 1.5 years with aprroximately 1100 lives lost, and compare it to barely 3 years in Korea with 50,000 dead; or how we lost twice the number dead in Iraq in one battle on a tiny rock in the Pacific called Peleliu in WWII. And no, 9/11 didn't make Saddam more evil, but it opened our eyes to what's capable and how the new threats we face made his regime unacceptable. K, next question?

Jhonny: Said like a true armchair general with 20/20 hindsight. Unfortunately, that's not war, that's not reality, never has been and never will be. Mistakes are made. It's a highly fluid endeavor, and all things considered it's been a wild success. We occupied Japan for over 10 years... and we're trying to do something similar in Iraq -with its arguably worse conditions- in a fraction of the time. Doomsayers are unhinged from reality and are simply making the process more difficult. Congrats, you are part of the problem, another hurdle to jump in the war on terror, and a "useful idiot" for our enemies.

I think most anti-Iraqers simply don't understand the strategic scope of what we're doing. Just like in WWII, we're faced with an ideological evil, and we're going to have to change some countries around. It has come to this, get over it... because closing our eyes and playing the old ignorant game of the past created this mess, and it sure aint gonna get us out of it. Afghanistan and Iraq represent the first steps in a great, arduous struggle to lift the Middle East out of its 12th century craphole. The only way to make us -and the world- better and safer is to change the political structures in those areas that will bring in values of democracy, freedom, equality, and pluralism. I would encourage those people to quit living in the concrete-bound milisecond and be honest enough to see the bigger picture.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
DonVito: It's true Iraq was not an extreme Islamicist nation, just like North Korea isn't either. However both had the will and the means to destablize the West and support those radicals who seek our destruction. I am glad I pushed for military invasion of Iraq, because it was the only way to deal with Saddam and eliminate his threat. Syria is more pragmatic and rational... we can perhaps use immense international diplomacy. Iran has the ability to self-reform, and we should actively support internal revolt. Honestly, I'm not sure what exactly to do about North Korea. There are many other nations we need to take a hard look at, but each country is different, each context is unique, and when I hear people say "There's a lot of dictators out there, are we supposed to invade them all, blah blah" it demonstrates their enormous inability to grasp the issues at hand. Their one-size-fits-all mentality removes them from serious debate.

Jack: Poland and France shared a border with Germany... they aren't even in the same galaxy as today's accomplishment. If anyone with real historical perspective looks at how we moved so many people, weapons, and support apparatus so far, and used such firepower so strongly and accurately to essentially conquer and occupy a country so quickly, with so little cost in lost life on BOTH sides, it's a feat unheard of in human history. No country on earth, now or ever before, could have done what we have done. Look at what we did militarily in 1.5 years with aprroximately 1100 lives lost, and compare it to barely 3 years in Korea with 50,000 dead; or how we lost twice the number dead in Iraq in one battle on a tiny rock in the Pacific called Peleliu in WWII. And no, 9/11 didn't make Saddam more evil, but it opened our eyes to what's capable and how the new threats we face made his regime unacceptable. K, next question?

Jhonny: Said like a true armchair general with 20/20 hindsight. Unfortunately, that's not war, that's not reality, never has been and never will be. Mistakes are made. It's a highly fluid endeavor, and all things considered it's been a wild success. We occupied Japan for over 10 years... and we're trying to do something similar in Iraq -with its arguably worse conditions- in a fraction of the time. Doomsayers are unhinged from reality and are simply making the process more difficult. Congrats, you are part of the problem, another hurdle to jump in the war on terror, and a "useful idiot" for our enemies.

I think most anti-Iraqers simply don't understand the strategic scope of what we're doing. Just like in WWII, we're faced with an ideological evil, and we're going to have to change some countries around. It has come to this, get over it... because closing our eyes and playing the old ignorant game of the past created this mess, and it sure aint gonna get us out of it. Afghanistan and Iraq represent the first steps in a great, arduous struggle to lift the Middle East out of its 12th century craphole. The only way to make us -and the world- better and safer is to change the political structures in those areas that will bring in values of democracy, freedom, equality, and pluralism. I would encourage those people to quit living in the concrete-bound milisecond and be honest enough to see the bigger picture.

Iraq was no threat.

 

[jackschmittusa]

cwjerome

How can you even compare Japan to Iraq? The Japanese had a common heritage and culture, a common goal to survive as a nation, and the cornerstone of their government (which was universally respected) was intact. Even groups with agendas had used assination of single individuals instead of car bombs to further their desire for power and influence. In Iraq, we see groups who seem willing to die and commit hienous acts of violence against large groups of people to advance their goals. There is nothing that we can offer them that will assuage their fear of being doninated and controlled by the other groups. While it is easy to look at a map and see a "geographical" representation of what Iraq is, defining what an "Iraqi" is depends on who you ask inside the country.

 

[JHoNNy1OoO]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
DonVito: It's true Iraq was not an extreme Islamicist nation, just like North Korea isn't either. However both had the will and the means to destablize the West and support those radicals who seek our destruction. I am glad I pushed for military invasion of Iraq, because it was the only way to deal with Saddam and eliminate his threat. Syria is more pragmatic and rational... we can perhaps use immense international diplomacy. Iran has the ability to self-reform, and we should actively support internal revolt. Honestly, I'm not sure what exactly to do about North Korea. There are many other nations we need to take a hard look at, but each country is different, each context is unique, and when I hear people say "There's a lot of dictators out there, are we supposed to invade them all, blah blah" it demonstrates their enormous inability to grasp the issues at hand. Their one-size-fits-all mentality removes them from serious debate.

Jack: Poland and France shared a border with Germany... they aren't even in the same galaxy as today's accomplishment. If anyone with real historical perspective looks at how we moved so many people, weapons, and support apparatus so far, and used such firepower so strongly and accurately to essentially conquer and occupy a country so quickly, with so little cost in lost life on BOTH sides, it's a feat unheard of in human history. No country on earth, now or ever before, could have done what we have done. Look at what we did militarily in 1.5 years with aprroximately 1100 lives lost, and compare it to barely 3 years in Korea with 50,000 dead; or how we lost twice the number dead in Iraq in one battle on a tiny rock in the Pacific called Peleliu in WWII. And no, 9/11 didn't make Saddam more evil, but it opened our eyes to what's capable and how the new threats we face made his regime unacceptable. K, next question?

Jhonny: Said like a true armchair general with 20/20 hindsight. Unfortunately, that's not war, that's not reality, never has been and never will be. Mistakes are made. It's a highly fluid endeavor, and all things considered it's been a wild success. We occupied Japan for over 10 years... and we're trying to do something similar in Iraq -with its arguably worse conditions- in a fraction of the time. Doomsayers are unhinged from reality and are simply making the process more difficult. Congrats, you are part of the problem, another hurdle to jump in the war on terror, and a "useful idiot" for our enemies.

I think most anti-Iraqers simply don't understand the strategic scope of what we're doing. Just like in WWII, we're faced with an ideological evil, and we're going to have to change some countries around. It has come to this, get over it... because closing our eyes and playing the old ignorant game of the past created this mess, and it sure aint gonna get us out of it. Afghanistan and Iraq represent the first steps in a great, arduous struggle to lift the Middle East out of its 12th century craphole. The only way to make us -and the world- better and safer is to change the political structures in those areas that will bring in values of democracy, freedom, equality, and pluralism. I would encourage those people to quit living in the concrete-bound milisecond and be honest enough to see the bigger picture.

When you make a mistake on the reason you went to war I say it's a pretty big freaking mistake. Just how you can push it aside like it's no big deal is scary. The ONE reason Americans backed the war when it was proposed was because we were told we were in Imminent Danger. Now not only were we not in Imminent Danger(ICBM) but he didn't even have the chemical and biological weapons that would've put our troops in danger.(I know they are still in danger, I'm just referring to the WMD aspect of it.)

Nobody would've supported the War if Bush's reason for going was to free the Iraqi people or just to take out Saddam because he is a bad guy. Nobody cared about the Iraqi people then and we only care about them now because we have no other reason for going into Iraq. You don't invade nations because their leader is a "bad guy". You invade countries when you are positive you are in danger. I understand Bush believed that back then but what bothers me is that the administration knew the locations of hundreds of sites and then NOTHING. Not one freaking missle. Not one functional Chemical Weapon. So that leads me to believe that our intelligence agency is seriously flawed or that they wanted to go to war with Iraq for whatever reason and picked one they thought they could get away with. I lean more towards the latter than the former.

To claim that, "It's a highly fluid endeavor, and all things considered it's been a wild success." when time after time it's being proven we were never in danger is crazy. When the main reason we went there was to get rid of the WMD and there were no WMD to get rid of. :/

 

[cwjerome]

Jack, I'm not going to sit here and pretend Japan and Iraq are the same but there are similarities and understanding history should play a big part of our thinking. And your attitude seems a little fatalistic... most Iraqis are decent people. There's just a bunch of Bathist leftovers and other foreign terrorists coming in trying to wreck everything. It's easy to throw our hands in the air and blame, and not offer any real solutions. I think what we're doing now is basically on the right track. The sooner we get the Iraqis in control, the better things will get for us and them.

Jhonny, I don't just push it aside, I'm very concerned about our intelligence and where those weapons might be. It does not however change my mind about Iraq and I would have gone in even knowing what we know now. I advocated REGIME CHANGE, and yeah WMDs were a big part of it but it's not the only thing. Everyone thought he had WMDs, even your boy Kerry. I can't blame the prez for that. We can debate whether Bush should have waited longer, but I will err on the side of safety every time on issues of national security. I think I understand the president's position because I feel the same way: After the reality of 9/11, there is no way in hell I'm going to trust a madman who can potentially cause a lot of harm, and risk another episode (or worse) like that day in September. We are at war, I trust the president to take the actions necessary to defend and protect us. The last thing I want is some Alice in Wonderland same-old same-old... there comes times when major change is necessary. We have every right, morally and otherwise, to act on our best intelligence and good faith to destroy a threatening evil and stand up for Western values and civilization. I just glad we have a president willing to take risks and stand (or fall) on principle.

By the way, when I said "It's a highly fluid endeavor, and all things considered it's been a wild success." I was refering to combat and war, not a political goal.

 

[jackschmittusa]

cwjerome

There's just a bunch of Bathist leftovers and other foreign terrorists coming in trying to wreck everything.

You don't think the Kurds are worried about being short-changed in a new government? You don't think the Shiites are worried about the Sunnis and vice-versa? You don't think the concept of secular government conflicts the desire of some for an Islamic government? You don't think that there are many Iraqis that think any new government will be a U.S. puppet government that cannot be tolerated?

If you then consider that the first item on the list of protecting your faction or advancing its agenda it the use of violence for many of these people, it looks pretty grim to me.

Stir the Baathist leftovers, terrorist Islamic extremists, and growing organized crime into the mix and it almost seems to be beyond hope.

And remember, many of those in the new government, military, and police owe allegiances to factions that do not have the overall interest of all Iraqis at heart.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Iraq was no threat.

kerry seems to think otherwise. Infact he keeps trying to say that because he has to try to back up his vote to authorize the use of force.

CsG

 

[conjur]

Iraq was no imminent threat.

 

[Genx87]

Well the interesting part about this stance is in the end Kerry is going to be doing what Bush would. This means the troops stay until the job is done.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: conjur
Iraq was no imminent threat.

"And they do, in my judgment, present different threats. And I think Iraq and Saddam Hussein present the most serious and most imminent threat." - one of your boys.

Go figure.

CsG

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur
Iraq was no imminent threat.

"And they do, in my judgment, present different threats. And I think Iraq and Saddam Hussein present the most serious and most imminent threat." - one of your boys.

Go figure.

CsG

And when did Edwards state that?

Feb. 2002. A full year before we knew the intelligence was dubious. A year before the renewed inspections were proving claims like the aluminum tubes as false.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur
Iraq was no imminent threat.

"And they do, in my judgment, present different threats. And I think Iraq and Saddam Hussein present the most serious and most imminent threat." - one of your boys.

Go figure.

CsG

And when did Edwards state that?

Feb. 2002. A full year before we knew the intelligence was dubious. A year before the renewed inspections were proving claims like the aluminum tubes as false.

Did Bush call them an "imminent threat"? And yet leftists like yourself still try to claim it was Bush making all these claims and "rushing". Oh wait...that's right - he deceived that nice little lawyer Edwards...:roll:
So does Edwards have the "judgment" to potentially become President?

Oh and just for good measure - I hope you use the same criteria for Edwards as you do for Bush relating to things said. I won't hold my breath though...

Oh, and don't forget that the "inspections" also stated there wasn't FULL compliance like was demanded by the cease-fire. I know that's a "convenient" thing for some of you to forget, but it's true none-the-less.

CsG

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur
And when did Edwards state that?

Feb. 2002. A full year before we knew the intelligence was dubious. A year before the renewed inspections were proving claims like the aluminum tubes as false.

Did Bush call them an "imminent threat"? And yet leftists like yourself still try to claim it was Bush making all these claims and "rushing". Oh wait...that's right - he deceived that nice little lawyer Edwards...:roll:
So does Edwards have the "judgment" to potentially become President?

Oh and just for good measure - I hope you use the same criteria for Edwards as you do for Bush relating to things said. I won't hold my breath though...

CsG

Cheney certainly called Saddam an imminent threat. Then Cheney lied in denying it.

And:

"Absolutely."
? White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03

"This is about imminent threat."
? White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03

"Well, of course he is.?
? White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett responding to the question ?is Saddam an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home??, 1/26/03

"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."
? Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02

"This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined."
? President Bush, 9/26/02


And the eloquently stated:
"There's a grave threat in Iraq. There just is."
? President Bush, 10/2/02


And, Edwards never saw the raw data funneled by Chalabi to the OSP that was modified and then fed to the Senate.