WHAT?! Dems commit troops to 2013?!!!

[manu1959]

i thought they wanted everyone out now.....

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070927/D8RTI22O0.html

HANOVER, N.H. (AP) - The leading Democratic White House hopefuls conceded Wednesday night they cannot guarantee to pull all U.S. combat troops from Iraq by the end of the next presidential term in 2013.

"I think it's hard to project four years from now," said Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois in the opening moments of a campaign debate in the nation's first primary state.

"It is very difficult to know what we're going to be inheriting," added Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.

"I cannot make that commitment," said former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina.

[Mr. P]

i thought they wanted everyone out now.....



Nope not 'everyone', just Bush.

[BoogyMan]

i thought they wanted everyone out now.....

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070927/D8RTI22O0.html

HANOVER, N.H. (AP) - The leading Democratic White House hopefuls conceded Wednesday night they cannot guarantee to pull all U.S. combat troops from Iraq by the end of the next presidential term in 2013.

"I think it's hard to project four years from now," said Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois in the opening moments of a campaign debate in the nation's first primary state.

"It is very difficult to know what we're going to be inheriting," added Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.

"I cannot make that commitment," said former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina.

The democrats have taken a truly untenable position with regard to the war. Firstly, most of them voted FOR it, and then ran against it. They did this with some success even though there is plenty of evidence for their support of the action. Now even their most sternly critical elements are finally having to admit that the vacuum of leadership created by the precipitous pullout they have been screaming for would lead the broader region to utter chaos. I haven't seen a single democrat deal with the issue of what would happen were we to cut and run as Reid, Pelosi, et al were demanding.

[avatar4321]

I think there are two reasons for this sharp change:

1)They know the American people really support the war
2)They know the issue is alot more complex than their earlier pandering to the Anti America left.

[diuretic]

None of the above.

They're saying they don't have a crystal ball. You mightn't recognise those statements, given that they have the ring of honesty about them.

Bush is letting the clock run down. In Congress the GOP is a rabble. In short for the GOP it's a complete meltdown. The Democratic Party candidates have the luxury of explaining that they don't have instant answers or wild claims to be able to fix everything. If that honesty doesn't ring true with the American people in the presidential election then you really have had your population dumbed down. I suspect though that it's not the case. I think a Democratic Party candidate will be elected as president and he or she will have to deal with the disaster of the Bush/Cheney/GOP years.

[BoogyMan]

None of the above.

They're saying they don't have a crystal ball. You mightn't recognise those statements, given that they have the ring of honesty about them.

Bush is letting the clock run down. In Congress the GOP is a rabble. In short for the GOP it's a complete meltdown. The Democratic Party candidates have the luxury of explaining that they don't have instant answers or wild claims to be able to fix everything. If that honesty doesn't ring true with the American people in the presidential election then you really have had your population dumbed down. I suspect though that it's not the case. I think a Democratic Party candidate will be elected as president and he or she will have to deal with the disaster of the Bush/Cheney/GOP years.

This is a complete load of tripe diuretic. The democratic leadership and their frontrunner candidates are finally realizing that they spoke and acted precipitously with regard to the war.

Every one of those candidates has made prior comments about the withdrawal of the military from Iraq and how it had to be done with urgency.

[Dilloduck]

None of the above.

They're saying they don't have a crystal ball. You mightn't recognise those statements, given that they have the ring of honesty about them.

Bush is letting the clock run down. In Congress the GOP is a rabble. In short for the GOP it's a complete meltdown. The Democratic Party candidates have the luxury of explaining that they don't have instant answers or wild claims to be able to fix everything. If that honesty doesn't ring true with the American people in the presidential election then you really have had your population dumbed down. I suspect though that it's not the case. I think a Democratic Party candidate will be elected as president and he or she will have to deal with the disaster of the Bush/Cheney/GOP years.

ah--The KEY Democratic talking points for years to come. Be prepared to hear Hillary repeatedly claim that they can't do anything because the GOP has messed everything so badly.

[diuretic]

This is a complete load of tripe diuretic. The democratic leadership and their frontrunner candidates are finally realizing that they spoke and acted precipitously with regard to the war.

Every one of those candidates has made prior comments about the withdrawal of the military from Iraq and how it had to be done with urgency.

No, it's politics. They're introducing reality into the debate and in so doing are exposing Bush as not just a lame duck but a failed lame duck. Iraq is a quagmire, that's apparent. Bush drove the boat into the quagmire and they're reinforcing that. Bush has no idea how to get out of Iraq so he continues to "stay the course" and "implement the surge", all of which are designed to give him some time to wait out his term and then leave, dumping it into the lap of the next president. The next president is probably going to be the Democratic Party nominee so he or she is now maneouvering to give themselves the best chance of getting two terms rather than one term in office. The best way to do that is to introduce some reality into the Iraq situation. As I said, it's just politics.

[diuretic]

ah--The KEY Democratic talking points for years to come. Be prepared to hear Hillary repeatedly claim that they can't do anything because the GOP has messed everything so badly.

And what's more, it'll work for years :laugh2:

[avatar4321]

None of the above.

They're saying they don't have a crystal ball. You mightn't recognise those statements, given that they have the ring of honesty about them.

Bush is letting the clock run down. In Congress the GOP is a rabble. In short for the GOP it's a complete meltdown. The Democratic Party candidates have the luxury of explaining that they don't have instant answers or wild claims to be able to fix everything. If that honesty doesn't ring true with the American people in the presidential election then you really have had your population dumbed down. I suspect though that it's not the case. I think a Democratic Party candidate will be elected as president and he or she will have to deal with the disaster of the Bush/Cheney/GOP years.

This is a huge change of policy for them. One would think that if this is true and they dont have all the answers they wouldnt have been so careless and irresponsible the last six months calling for immediate withdrawal from iraq when they have no clue whats going on.

Do we really want a President who will make claims on a war they admit they have no knowledge about?

[diuretic]

This is a huge change of policy for them. One would think that if this is true and they dont have all the answers they wouldnt have been so careless and irresponsible the last six months calling for immediate withdrawal from iraq when they have no clue whats going on.

Do we really want a President who will make claims on a war they admit they have no knowledge about?

Since Bush can't stand again he's irrelevant. What is relevant is what the GOP candidates are promising. And what are they promising?

[theHawk]

I've been telling all the libs all along that a Dem prez would continue the war. They're living in a dream world if they think things will change with a (D) in office.

[diuretic]

I've been telling all the libs all along that a Dem prez would continue the war. They're living in a dream world if they think things will change with a (D) in office.

Not continue the occupation but look for a way out, there's a difference. Bush's mantra is 'stay the course, stay the course". That's because he hasn't a clue what to do. Whoever - GOP or Democratic Party - is president after Bush will have to clean up his mess.

[Dilloduck]

Not continue the occupation but look for a way out, there's a difference. Bush's mantra is 'stay the course, stay the course". That's because he hasn't a clue what to do. Whoever - GOP or Democratic Party - is president after Bush will have to clean up his mess.

Bullshit---have you not listen to him speak? Bush plans to reduce troop levels as the Iraqis can handle things by themselves. Since when has a president EVER been required to complete all of his agendas by the time he leaves office?

[diuretic]

Bullshit---have you not listen to him speak? Bush plans to reduce troop levels as the Iraqis can handle things by themselves. Since when has a president EVER been required to complete all of his agendas by the time he leaves office?

Speak...plans...:coffee:

Oh I think he achieved his agenda alright, it's just not not the agenda you think he had.

[BoogyMan]

No, it's politics. They're introducing reality into the debate and in so doing are exposing Bush as not just a lame duck but a failed lame duck. Iraq is a quagmire, that's apparent. Bush drove the boat into the quagmire and they're reinforcing that. Bush has no idea how to get out of Iraq so he continues to "stay the course" and "implement the surge", all of which are designed to give him some time to wait out his term and then leave, dumping it into the lap of the next president. The next president is probably going to be the Democratic Party nominee so he or she is now maneouvering to give themselves the best chance of getting two terms rather than one term in office. The best way to do that is to introduce some reality into the Iraq situation. As I said, it's just politics.

REALITY!?!?

They are flipping their view to whatever they think will get them votes. You certainly are correct that it is politics, but what you seem to conveniently wish to overlook is that every one of those quotes comes from someone who was determined that we must leave Iraq immediately in prior months.

[JohnDoe]

The democrats have taken a truly untenable position with regard to the war. Firstly, most of them voted FOR it, and then ran against it. They did this with some success even though there is plenty of evidence for their support of the action. Now even their most sternly critical elements are finally having to admit that the vacuum of leadership created by the precipitous pullout they have been screaming for would lead the broader region to utter chaos. I haven't seen a single democrat deal with the issue of what would happen were we to cut and run as Reid, Pelosi, et al were demanding.who called for a precipitous pullout on the Democratic side? Kusinich and Feingold maybe, but can't think of any others, and they did not vote for the war?

jd

[theHawk]

Not continue the occupation but look for a way out, there's a difference. Bush's mantra is 'stay the course, stay the course". That's because he hasn't a clue what to do. Whoever - GOP or Democratic Party - is president after Bush will have to clean up his mess.

Thats really just semantics. You can call it "occupation" one minute then the next call it "looking for a way out", but its the same damned thing. The point is a Democratic President is not going to end the war. He/she is not going to pull out of Iraq once in office. Dems voted for this war, just like Repubs did when we invaded. But the far left is blind to this fact and refuse to acknowledge it. They hate Bush so much they've convinced themselves it was because of the war, when in reality its not the real reason they hate him. They hate Bush because he isn't a flamming socialist liberal.

[Hagbard Celine]

I think there are two reasons for this sharp change:

1)They know the American people really support the war
2)They know the issue is alot more complex than their earlier pandering to the Anti America left.

"Anti-American left?" What a joke. Also, the American people don't support the war. I don't know anyone--that's ANYONE--who supports it. Registered Republicans included. You need to talk to someone outside your mama's house once in a while there Avatar.

[dan]

Woah, woah, woah. Are you trying to tell me a politician.... lied?! That they're saying things they think the people want to hear so they can get elected?! GAAAAAAAAASP!!!!!!!!!!

Seriously, democrats and republicans need to realize that their respective elected officials got to where they are because they're good at lying. Enough with all the "your guy's going to ruin the country, but OUR GUY'S GONNA SAVE THE UNIVERSE!!!!" They're all liars, get over it. That's why they're politicians, they're the only people sleazy enough to want the position.

I really, really wish there'd be a politician who tried to put an end to all of this grade-school bickering, rather than reinforcing it.

[avatar4321]

Thats really just semantics. You can call it "occupation" one minute then the next call it "looking for a way out", but its the same damned thing. The point is a Democratic President is not going to end the war. He/she is not going to pull out of Iraq once in office. Dems voted for this war, just like Repubs did when we invaded. But the far left is blind to this fact and refuse to acknowledge it. They hate Bush so much they've convinced themselves it was because of the war, when in reality its not the real reason they hate him. They hate Bush because he isn't a flamming socialist liberal.

No. They hate Bush because they couldnt steal Florida. And they cant handle that they couldnt pull off stealing that election.

[avatar4321]

"Anti-American left?" What a joke. Also, the American people don't support the war. I don't know anyone--that's ANYONE--who supports it. Registered Republicans included. You need to talk to someone outside your mama's house once in a while there Avatar.

Then you need to get out more.

I said anti american left because they clearly arent anti war because they have no problem supporting Democrat wars. These are the people who volunteered to be human shields for Sadam. These are people who undermine US policy every time they are outside of the US.

Quite frankly if you think they arent anti American you are living in a dream world.

[actsnoblemartin]

Excellent points. I think the democrats ran on the anti-war feeling of most, knowing, they could not snap their fingers, like most of their voters wanted.


The democrats have taken a truly untenable position with regard to the war. Firstly, most of them voted FOR it, and then ran against it. They did this with some success even though there is plenty of evidence for their support of the action. Now even their most sternly critical elements are finally having to admit that the vacuum of leadership created by the precipitous pullout they have been screaming for would lead the broader region to utter chaos. I haven't seen a single democrat deal with the issue of what would happen were we to cut and run as Reid, Pelosi, et al were demanding.

[actsnoblemartin]

I honestly think for many leftists, they will never let it go, and also, since the state election, determined the national (federal elections).

Federal trumps state, and that is how it needed to be, even the other way around.


No. They hate Bush because they couldnt steal Florida. And they cant handle that they couldnt pull off stealing that election.

[diuretic]

REALITY!?!?

They are flipping their view to whatever they think will get them votes. You certainly are correct that it is politics, but what you seem to conveniently wish to overlook is that every one of those quotes comes from someone who was determined that we must leave Iraq immediately in prior months.

Are you surprised they were surfing in on the wave of anger about the occupation of Iraq? Again, it's just politics.

[diuretic]

Thats really just semantics. You can call it "occupation" one minute then the next call it "looking for a way out", but its the same damned thing. The point is a Democratic President is not going to end the war. He/she is not going to pull out of Iraq once in office. Dems voted for this war, just like Repubs did when we invaded. But the far left is blind to this fact and refuse to acknowledge it. They hate Bush so much they've convinced themselves it was because of the war, when in reality its not the real reason they hate him. They hate Bush because he isn't a flamming socialist liberal.

The war was over when Bush stood on the deck of the carrier. The occupation followed. The occupation continues. The occupation is the issue, the war, since it was won, is a non-issue.

[manu1959]

The war was over when Bush stood on the deck of the carrier. The occupation followed. The occupation continues. The occupation is the issue, the war, since it was won, is a non-issue.

it is not a war .... it is a police action.....we are trying to arrest the criminals.....and then try them in th hague

[Yurt]

None of the above.

They're saying they don't have a crystal ball. You mightn't recognise those statements, given that they have the ring of honesty about them.

Bush is letting the clock run down. In Congress the GOP is a rabble. In short for the GOP it's a complete meltdown. The Democratic Party candidates have the luxury of explaining that they don't have instant answers or wild claims to be able to fix everything. If that honesty doesn't ring true with the American people in the presidential election then you really have had your population dumbed down. I suspect though that it's not the case. I think a Democratic Party candidate will be elected as president and he or she will have to deal with the disaster of the Bush/Cheney/GOP years.


Paaleese, their platforms act like they do. Pull troops NOW. This war is a LOSER. Bush has LOST this war.

The only thing crystal here is the fact they would whore out any idea just to get elected, screw the soldiers, effem, as long as it gives me votes. Come on, I know you see that.

[Yurt]

it is not a war .... it is a police action.....we are trying to arrest the criminals.....and then try them in th hague

This is a VERY good point. One that I too often overlook because of the label the media gives it. The war is over, Bush won it, as planned. It is the criminals who continue to try and run the streets just like any other thug. There is no doubt Iran is supplying the weapons, training and motivitation behind a lot of it. I also have no doubt other muslim countries are taking part.

I am going to start right this moment calling it war, and call it a police action and such. Great point Manu.

Ya know, interestingly, because this guys don't wear uniforms and blend in with civilians, they also do not fall under the geneva treaty as you know, just another example of this not being a "war" but a gang land style combat. If the citizens of Iraq truly wanted the US, they could all rise up, but they haven't. Because of the gangs.

[manu1959]

This is a VERY good point. One that I too often overlook because of the label the media gives it. The war is over, Bush won it, as planned. It is the criminals who continue to try and run the streets just like any other thug. There is no doubt Iran is supplying the weapons, training and motivation behind a lot of it. I also have no doubt other Muslim countries are taking part.

I am going to start right this moment calling it war, and call it a police action and such. Great point Manu.

Ya know, interestingly, because this guys don't wear uniforms and blend in with civilians, they also do not fall under the Geneva treaty as you know, just another example of this not being a "war" but a gang land style combat. If the citizens of Iraq truly wanted the US, they could all rise up, but they haven't. Because of the gangs.

and you too make a few great points .... the criminals are being funded and armed by iran....that is aiding and abbetting.....criminals are not covered by the Geneva convention.....

but if one argues this is a war...then everyone out of uniform is a spy and can can be shot....

[JohnDoe]

and you too make a few great points .... the criminals are being funded and armed by iran....that is aiding and abbetting.....criminals are not covered by the Geneva convention.....

but if one argues this is a war...then everyone out of uniform is a spy and can can be shot....

So how about our military? They are policemen and not soldiers? Guess I don't get that....? And if this is not a war then there should not be WAR funding and the president should not be in charge of this mission should he, and he should not have "war powers" either, should he?

Maybe I came in to this thread late, and I am reading it from the bottom up, so maybe I have misunderstood what you and yurt are saying?

I do agree that we did win the war, within the first month or so of being in Iraq, and mighty finely at that!!! But what is going on in Iraq is a RESULT or our piss poor management and plans for the occupation of Iraq. The occupation that IS SUPPOSE to take place after the victor in war wins, to bring stability and safety to the region including the Securing of their Borders. If that is a police action, that is news to me??? Go in to it further....either you or yurt, pretty please! :D

jd

[manu1959]

So how about our military? They are policemen and not soldiers? Guess I don't get that....? And if this is not a war then there should not be WAR funding and the president should not be in charge of this mission should he, and he should not have "war powers" either, should he?

Maybe I came in to this thread late, and I am reading it from the bottom up, so maybe I have misunderstood what you and yurt are saying?

I do agree that we did win the war, within the first month or so of being in Iraq, and mighty finely at that!!! But what is going on in Iraq is a RESULT or our piss poor management and plans for the occupation of Iraq. The occupation that IS SUPPOSE to take place after the victor in war wins, to bring stability and safety to the region including the Securing of their Borders. If that is a police action, that is news to me??? Please go in to it further....either you or yurt, pretty please! :D

jd

the president is in charge of the military....the military can perfom police action....it is not a war for there has been no declaration....congress voted to send the troops and has not voted to bring them back....there is no plan to occupy iraq....iraq has its own govt....and has requested that the us troops remain.....

if it is a war.....then anyone out of uniform can be shot as a spy....so which is it?.....

[diuretic]

it is not a war .... it is a police action.....we are trying to arrest the criminals.....and then try them in th hague

Oh really?

[diuretic]

Paaleese, their platforms act like they do. Pull troops NOW. This war is a LOSER. Bush has LOST this war.

The only thing crystal here is the fact they would whore out any idea just to get elected, screw the soldiers, effem, as long as it gives me votes. Come on, I know you see that.

As I said, it's politics. Politicians will try and gauge public opinion and use it to their advantage. Like it or not it's what they do - all of them except the few that actually will stand on principle. Sadly those who stand on principle will only stand on that and not on the winner's podium.

As for "the troops" as in "supporting", it's a red herring. The troops will do as they're ordered. The occupation has been ordered by Bush and it is continued by Bush, it has nothing to do with "supporting the troops". They're doing what they're paid to do and Bush has ordered them to stay in Iraq.

[manu1959]

Oh really?

yep really.....the other side is not in uniform....there is no declaration of war.....they arn't terrorists......what else can it be?

[diuretic]

yep really.....the other side is not in uniform....there is no declaration of war.....they arn't terrorists......what else can it be?

Why is there a need to send them to the Hague?

[JohnDoe]

yep really.....the other side is not in uniform....there is no declaration of war.....they arn't terrorists......what else can it be? A civil war between the Sunni and the Shiia?:dunno:

[Gaffer]

iraq is a front in the bigger war. where we are fighting iranian proxies and AQ. The war with islamist will go on for many presidents to come. And the survival of our civilization will depend on how they handle it. And it will have to be handled with an iron fist.

The frontrunner dem candidates are finally acknowledging the real world. They have milked soros for all they can get and now they have to face the real issues if they want to get elected. And they have to prepare for the 2012 election as well. If we aren't out of iraq by the end of their first term they can forget reelection.

[Sir Evil]

A civil war between the Sunni and the Shiia?:dunno:

Ahh, the great pretender.. Are you really concerned about this civil war or is it that our troops are in the middle of it, or possible that it's another perspective to lay blame at the foot of the administration when action sooner or later was going to be needed in Iraq?

[JohnDoe]

the president is in charge of the military....the military can perfom police action....it is not a war for there has been no declaration....congress voted to send the troops and has not voted to bring them back....there is no plan to occupy iraq....iraq has its own govt....and has requested that the us troops remain.....

if it is a war.....then anyone out of uniform can be shot as a spy....so which is it?.....

well then, it is a phoney war, you called it! :D :laugh2:

Then what about the War on Terrorism? No terrorist wears a uniform....is that not a war either, with no real enemy just spies and the such that can be shot on the spot?

And i did not say we would occupy the country as a ''taking'' for the win forever and a day!!!:slap:

jd

[manu1959]

Ahh, the great pretender.. Are you really concerned about this civil war or is it that our troops are in the middle of it, or possible that it's another perspective to lay blame at the foot of the administration when action sooner or later was going to be needed in Iraq?


there is a civil war in darfur that the dems want to solve...there was a civil war in yugoslavia that the dems got in the middle of....if iraq is a civil war ...then why don't they want to be in the middle of this one.....

[Sir Evil]

there is a civil war in darfur that the dems want to solve...there was a civil war in yugoslavia that the dems got in the middle of....if iraq is a civil war ...then why don't they want to be in the middle of this one.....

Simple, more to cast upon this administration.

[JohnDoe]

Ahh, the great pretender.. Are you really concerned about this civil war or is it that our troops are in the middle of it, or possible that it's another perspective to lay blame at the foot of the administration when action sooner or later was going to be needed in Iraq?

have you ever heard of the saying, ''timing, is everything.''?

well, timing, is everything.... and our ''timing'' was off and ill advised. I don't blame President Bush ALONE for this....this is not merely ''bush bashing'' as you continually TRY to make it out to be... :slap:

now, back to what I and EVERY GENERAL IN THIS WAR has said, and this is that 95% of the violence that is taking place in Iraq is between the Sunni and the Shiia, the othe 5% is al qaeda types, causing it.

So, are you denying this Sir Evil? Or are you just trying to make this place a little more fun for me? ;)

jd

[Sir Evil]

have you ever heard of the saying, ''timing, is everything.''?

well, timing, is everything.... and our ''timing'' was off and ill advised. I don't blame President Bush ALONE for this....this is not merely ''bush bashing'' as you continually TRY to make it out to be... :slap:

now, back to what I and EVERY GENERAL IN THIS WAR has said, and this is that 95% of the violence that is taking place in Iraq is between the Sunni and the Shiia, the othe 5% is al qaeda types, causing it.

So, are you denying this Sir Evil? Or are you just trying to make this place a little more fun for me? ;)

jd

Very good, I see your posting tactics are still the same, and yeah I am always trying to keep it fun.

However I jumped in with a question to you but yet you reply with a question of your own. I find that to be a wee bit telling to be honest. I don't deny nor agree with what you say as I have not caught too much in the way of statistics on this. Timing in my opinion was dead on, or well overdue. It was an eventuality, not a possibility.

Now have yourself some fun, and answer my question. As I recall I was a war monger, Bush apologist, and all other typical rhetoric in the day so I am curious to know that what you are saying is just not more of that rhetoric.

[JohnDoe]

iraq is a front in the bigger war. where we are fighting iranian proxies and AQ. The war with islamist will go on for many presidents to come. And the survival of our civilization will depend on how they handle it. And it will have to be handled with an iron fist.

The frontrunner dem candidates are finally acknowledging the real world. They have milked soros for all they can get and now they have to face the real issues if they want to get elected. And they have to prepare for the 2012 election as well. If we aren't out of iraq by the end of their first term they can forget reelection.
gaffer....you and i have been near on the same page with what is going on now over there and the big picture of that....

i was not on the same page with you on how we chose to go in to this war in iraq and the timing of it, but i know what we are facing now, and much of this because you have brought some things up to me that i went on and googled and read the research....

i am just yanking some chains.... for fun!!!! hahahahaha!!!!!

:D

jd

[manu1959]

have you ever heard of the saying, ''timing, is everything.''?

well, timing, is everything.... and our ''timing'' was off and ill advised. I don't blame President Bush ALONE for this....this is not merely ''bush bashing'' as you continually TRY to make it out to be... :slap:

now, back to what I and EVERY GENERAL IN THIS WAR has said, and this is that 95% of the violence that is taking place in Iraq is between the Sunni and the Shiia, the othe 5% is al qaeda types, causing it.

So, are you denying this Sir Evil? Or are you just trying to make this place a little more fun for me? ;)

jd


you forgot the criminal element and the x bathists.....

[Sir Evil]

you forgot the criminal element and the x bathists.....

Stand in line bro, I'm still waiting for my reply! :poke:

:laugh2:

[JohnDoe]

you forgot the criminal element and the x bathists.....

The Bathists ARE the Sunni...

The Criminal element is from Lawlessness..... which has come because of the lack of security we were able to put forth right after we won the war....we did not have a solid plan to protect and secure the people of Iraq after we eliminated their despot of a leader.... Bremmer also prematurely let the bathist's go from their different security positions... leaving a vacume for criminal elements and Alqaeda, and chaos....

jd

[manu1959]

The Bathists ARE the Sunni...

The Criminal element is from Lawlessness..... which has come because of the lack of security we were able to put forth right after we won the war....we did not have a solid plan to protect and secure the people of Iraq after we eliminated their despot of a leader.... Bremmer also prematurely let the bathist's go from their different security positions... leaving a vacume for criminal elements and Alqaeda, and chaos....

jd

so your percentages were wrong...there is a percentage that is criminal....

who is sending them weapons and money?

by x bathists i meant x military....the military were bathists....

if sunni and shia are killing each other who is killing the us troops....

so is it a civil war or a religious war......

[manu1959]

Stand in line bro, I'm still waiting for my reply! :poke:

:laugh2:

they can not answer questions.....

[Sir Evil]

they can not answer questions.....

Surely they can, with more questions! :laugh2:

[JohnDoe]

Stand in line bro, I'm still waiting for my reply! :poke:

:laugh2:



Are you really concerned about this civil war or is it that our troops are in the middle of it, or possible that it's another perspective to lay blame at the foot of the administration when action sooner or later was going to be needed in Iraq?


I answered the part about Bush already....?

as far as the other questions, yes I do feel sorry and scared for the troops and a great deal of empathy for the troops families....

and I do not believe we should have our troops there in the middle of a civil war....how is that defending our freedom and our Constitution which is what soldiers take an oath to do? I think they should be going after the ones that are flying planes in to our skyscrapers....

and should not be put in the middle of a civil war and having to choose a side that is really our enemy....the Shiia are the blood brothers of the Iraneans...Malaki is a Shiia....but so is alsader.... and the Shiia are killing the Sunni, left and right...execution style and we are supporting malaki, the shiia?????????? This whole thing blows my mind....what the heck are we doing???

All I can say, is I don't believe this has been thought thru...whatever it is that is the administration's plan????

And I believe we are in a hell of a mess NOW because of not having a well thought out game plan with all the consequences of their actions evaluated before making any moves.

jd

[manu1959]

Surely they can, with more questions! :laugh2:

critics are like that....

[manu1959]

I answered the part about Bush already....?

as far as the other questions, yes I do feel sorry and scared for the troops and a great deal of empathy for the troops families....

and I do not believe we should have our troops there in the middle of a civil war....how is that defending our freedom and our Constitution which is what soldiers take an oath to do? I think they should be going after the ones that are flying planes in to our skyscrapers....

and should not be put in the middle of a civil war and having to choose a side that is really our enemy....the Shiia are the blood brothers of the Iraneans...Malaki is a Shiia....but so is alsader.... and the Shiia are killing the Sunni, left and right...execution style and we are supporting malaki, the shiia?????????? This whole thing blows my mind....what the heck are we doing???

All I can say, is I don't believe this has been thought thru...whatever it is that is the administration's plan????

And I believe we are in a hell of a mess NOW because of not having a well thought out game plan with all the consequences of their actions evaluated before making any moves.

jd

there was a plan...it didn't work.....is it your style when things don't go the way you want to just quit?......

it is not a civil war....it is a religous war...it is an attempt by one religious sect to kill off the other with AQ and Iran poking each side to create the conflict so that all yall will quit......

[Sir Evil]

And I believe we are in a hell of a mess NOW because of not having a well thought out game plan with all the consequences of their actions evaluated before making any moves.

jd

Remember those words as your team of heroes will get their chance, and you know as well as I the world will be watching to see the miraculous change of events.

Now, you are really under the impression that no strategic planning was considered before making this move? Do you really believe that they never though a civil war would erupt? I know you were'nt born yesterday, and I know when the plan fails to change under new leadership will add up to one big backpedal of excuses.

Ok Jane Doe, thanks for answering. :D

[JohnDoe]

so your percentages were wrong...there is a percentage that is criminal....

who is sending them weapons and money?

by x bathists i meant x military....the military were bathists....

if sunni and shia are killing each other who is killing the us troops....

so is it a civil war or a religious war......

The shiia are setting up road side bombs...Malaki's ''FRIENDS and FAMILY" are doing it...I would presume a little is Alqaeda.... our troop deaths are few, compared to the deaths from the civil war.... about 2700 dead in just the month of August07....

if 3000 dead at the twin towers made us declare war on terrorism, then why wouldn't 3000 dead a month be called what it is, a Civil war between the Sunni and the Shiia.

Criminal elements are there, not denying there is such, but there are criminals everywhere, even in our own beloved USA.

jd

[Sir Evil]

critics are like that....

:laugh2:
Classic!

[manu1959]

The shiia are setting up road side bombs...Malaki's ''FRIENDS and FAMILY" are doing it...I would presume a little is Alqaeda.... our troop deaths are few, compared to the deaths from the civil war.... about 2700 dead in just the month of August07....

if 3000 dead at the twin towers made us declare war on terrorism, then why wouldn't 3000 dead a month be called what it is, a Civil war between the Sunni and the Shiia.

Criminal elements are there, not denying there is such, but there are criminals everywhere, even in our own beloved USA.

jd

so you have decided it is a civil war .... what two govt's are at war? why aren't the kurds at war?....what about the christian group which side are they on.....?

if very few us troops (your words not mine) are being killed why not stay and try to help the govt stop the killing....

lastly, what proof do you have that malaki's govt is supporting one side vs the other....

[JohnDoe]

Remember those words as your team of heroes will get their chance, and you know as well as I the world will be watching to see the miraculous change of events.

Now, you are really under the impression that no strategic planning was considered before making this move? Do you really believe that they never though a civil war would erupt? I know you were'nt born yesterday, and I know when the plan fails to change under new leadership will add up to one big backpedal of excuses.

Ok Jane Doe, thanks for answering. :D

Your welcome Sir Evil!!! ;)

Yes, I believe they did not think that a Civil War would break out. All record of their discussions were that this woud be a "cake walk" a "slam dunk"....

They did not think it through and it is evident that they did not think it through... and why? Because we are the Greatest Nation in the World, and there was no reason other than unpreparedness for us to be caught in this mess we are in now....4 years later, simple as that in my book.

Jane

[manu1959]

Your welcome Sir Evil!!! ;)

Yes, I believe they did not think that a Civil War would break out. All record of their discussions were that this woud be a "cake walk" a "slam dunk"....

They did not think it through and it is evident that they did not think it through... and why? Because we are the Greatest Nation in the World, and there was no reason other than unpreparedness for us to be caught in this mess we are in now....4 years later, simple as that in my book.

Jane

you seem to have forgotten that darth dick said it would be a quagmire....

[Sir Evil]

Your welcome Sir Evil!!! ;)

Yes, I believe they did not think that a Civil War would break out. All record of their discussions were that this woud be a "cake walk" a "slam dunk"....

They did not think it through and it is evident that they did not think it through... and why? Because we are the Greatest Nation in the World, and there was no reason other than unpreparedness for us to be caught in this mess we are in now....4 years later, simple as that in my book.

Jane

Ok, fair evaluation I guess. But really, the greatest nation don't become that way coming to the game with their pants down. It was a cake walk, then the war was over so lets put it in better perspective. 4 years now, and a mess as you would say. Back when many on your side were behind this the plan was to attack terroris worldwide, wherever it existed, take it to them instead of on our turf. Everyone in the right frame of mind new this would not be a simple short process. Then we get to there not being terrorists in Iraq, I'm sure you suggested it yourself one time or another, or better then that is the one that we brought them there. Yeah, and all that other blah. blah that goes along with it. Now the theater of war against terrorism is there, not here, and it should be done with 4 years in now? Afraid not, this theater is the begining, the movement has started like it or not and were in for it for years to come.

So what say you Jane, shall we call it a day, and wait for them to come knocking again? One way or another it has to be dealt with, here, there, or somewhere the dance is on so quiting the battle now will come with dire consequence.

[JohnDoe]

so you have decided it is a civil war .... what two govt's are at war? why aren't the kurds at war?....what about the christian group which side are they on.....?

if very few us troops (your words not mine) are being killed why not stay and try to help the govt stop the killing....

lastly, what proof do you have that malaki's govt is supporting one side vs the other....

I believe it is not really a religious war because I believe it is a war for Power and Control..... and who gets what, of the oil.

The kurds are far removed from this in the norther section and the Kurds just signed an oil contract with a buddy of President Bush's, I believe his name was Hunt, an oil man from Texas.

This hurts the whole bringing the 3 sects together, because the kurdish area is oil rich and was suppose to be part of the overall Iraq oil kitty that all 3 regions were to share, but now that the Kurds signed their own contract with Hunt Oil of Texas, the oil sharing agreement among the 3 sects can not be diplomatically worked through and it is making it appear that Iraq will now have to become 3 separate countries of sorts.... the Senate passed a sense of the senate resolution with by partisan support this week stating that our efforts should now be to make them 3 separate entities....not necessarily with one federal head.... so who knows what the heck is going on now, with the kurd thing....?????

But no, this is really about power and money from the oil, not God or Allah.... it might seem to be with AlSader (sp?), but I don't believe this is really what is behind the hornets nest there....

[manu1959]

I believe it is not really a religious war because I believe it is a war for Power and Control..... and who gets what, of the oil.

The kurds are far removed from this in the norther section and the Kurds just signed an oil contract with a buddy of President Bush's, I believe his name was Hunt, an oil man from Texas.

This hurts the whole bringing the 3 sects together, because the kurdish area is oil rich and was suppose to be part of the overall Iraq oil kitty that all 3 regions were to share, but now that the Kurds signed their own contract with Hunt Oil of Texas, the oil sharing agreement among the 3 sects can not be diplomatically worked through and it is making it appear that Iraq will now have to become 3 separate countries of sorts.... the Senate passed a sense of the senate resolution with by partisan support this week stating that our efforts should now be to make them 3 separate entities....not necessarily with one federal head.... so who knows what the heck is going on now, with the kurd thing....?????

But no, this is really about power and money from the oil, not God or Allah.... it might seem to be with AlSader (sp?), but I don't believe this is really what is behind the hornets nest there....

so the crusades were a civil war?.....so should we not try to help these people find peace?.....should we just impliment the rawanda or somalia solution?....

[JohnDoe]

Ok, fair evaluation I guess. But really, the greatest nation don't become that way coming to the game with their pants down. It was a cake walk, then the war was over so lets put it in better perspective. 4 years now, and a mess as you would say. Back when many on your side were behind this the plan was to attack terroris worldwide, wherever it existed, take it to them instead of on our turf. Everyone in the right frame of mind new this would not be a simple short process. Then we get to there not being terrorists in Iraq, I'm sure you suggested it yourself one time or another, or better then that is the one that we brought them there. Yeah, and all that other blah. blah that goes along with it. Now the theater of war against terrorism is there, not here, and it should be done with 4 years in now? Afraid not, this theater is the begining, the movement has started like it or not and were in for it for years to come.

So what say you Jane, shall we call it a day, and wait for them to come knocking again? One way or another it has to be dealt with, here, there, or somewhere the dance is on so quiting the battle now will come with dire consequence.

I don't believe for one nanosecond that what we are doing over there will stop another 19 men from doing again what they did to us on 9/11 and this can not be disputed imo.... even the Bush Administration, all of them, have told us to expect another attack on our mainland, while they also say, we are fighting them over there so we won't be fighting them here....crud....very two faced in what they say about this actually....

But even Gates was saying just this week to expect an attack here, even petraeus before congress, said thathe had no idea if his mission in Iraq was making us safer here....

So basically sir evil, I think you are wrong on this....

We are in Iraq NOW and still.....because of Oil security, and no other reason. This entails, keeping the Iraneans out of Iraq....and it includes us keeping Iran from getting a nuke, cuz when they have a nuke, they can control the canal that all the oil tankers pass through..and prevent other countries from delivering their oil, it includes an agreement with Iraq with American oil companies... too, all in the name of oil security of course...
... at least this is how it appears, because the goals that were set for the surge were all diplomatic goals that involved Iraq's oil contracts and a division of such between the 3 Iraqi sects... I have even heard people on this board say that we can't have alqaeda control the oil in Iraq and this is why we can't leave.... it is about the oil, oil is our lifeblood that makes the economy run.... can't build a thing without energy.

[Sir Evil]

But even Gates was saying just this week to expect an attack here, even petraeus before congress, said thathe had no idea if his mission in Iraq was making us safer here....

So basically sir evil, I think you are wrong on this....



Ok but I never suggested that it would'nt happen here again, in fact the whole point I was making was about it happening here, and preventing the battlefield from being on our soil. The quotes have been coming for sometime now about another attack happening, I think it's inevitable but on the other hand the sooner those resources are taken away the better but it's not going to happen by sitting back, and hoping it wont.

[Psychoblues]

While you're shitting your pants and wiping it off on your face I think I'll just sit here and drink another Busch.



Ok but I never suggested that it would'nt happen here again, in fact the whole point I was making was about it happening here, and preventing the battlefield from being on our soil. The quotes have been coming for sometime now about another attack happening, I think it's inevitable but on the other hand the sooner those resources are taken away the better but it's not going to happen by sitting back, and hoping it wont.

You're a pretty sad case for such a machisimo character, SE.

[Sir Evil]

While you're shitting your pants and wiping it off on your face I think I'll just sit here and drink another Busch.

Really, this is of no surprise. How many is that tonight?




You're a pretty sad case for such a machisimo character, SE.

Obviously in my absence from here I missed where you went from a opposing view with a bit of humor to just a blatant idiot. I thought better of you Psycho but I guess the booze has finally ran it's course.... what a shitbrick!

[JohnDoe]

so the crusades were a civil war?.....so should we not try to help these people find peace?.....should we just impliment the rawanda or somalia solution?.... the crusades were not about religion either, it was about power and conquests and retaking land that was once theirs.... imo, God did not sanction the crusades.... nor the Muslim conquests and brutality previously.

Because we broke it and IF we could provide them peace and provide it quickly, it would be the humane thing to do.....but there are no plans to do that.....and we don't have the manpower now, to do it....or the fortitude....imo. the game plan is stagnant and there is no major changes in sight....

but to allow our guys to die for a civil war that will obviously not end, until someone WINS is hard to handle, hard to stomach, for this Dove.... :(

and at the same time, i am concerned with iran and the saudi's....i think they want the unrest in iraq to go on forever, keeping iraqi oil off the market, which has made oil go from $10 bucks a barrel ten years ago to $80 bucks a barrel and rising now....they are getting richer than rich off this war there and are happy to see the chaos.....it is to their benefit to make chaos continue there too....

jd

[Sir Evil]

and at the same time, i am concerned with iran and the saudi's....i think they want the unrest in iraq to go on forever, keeping iraqi oil off the market, which has made oil go from $10 bucks a barrel ten years ago to $80 bucks a barrel and rising now....they are getting richer than rich off this war there and are happy to see the chaos.....it is to their benefit to make chaos continue there too....

jd

I like that twist Jane, best perspective on the whole oil thing I may of read yet!

Good point to continue, but another day as the night has brought out the junkies which really screw up the works.

[Psychoblues]

You're such a silly one!!!!!!! How many? You sound like my wife!!!!!!!!!!



Really, this is of no surprise. How many is that tonight?




Obviously in my absence from here I missed where you went from a opposing view with a bit of humor to just a blatant idiot. I thought better of you Psycho but I guess the booze has finally ran it's course.... what a shitbrick!


Are you still scared or were you just trying to scare me? :laugh2:

[JohnDoe]

I like that twist Jane, best perspective on the whole oil thing I may of read yet!

Good point to continue, but another day as the night has brought out the junkies which really screw up the works.


Good night, Sir Evil.

jane

[Psychoblues]

SE is one of the more intelligent ones, JD.



Good night, Sir Evil.

jane

But, that's no excuse for any of this, don't you know?!!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

[Sir Evil]

they are getting richer than rich off this war there and are happy to see the chaos.....it is to their benefit to make chaos continue there too....

jd

Ok Jane, back to this one, it's seems like a sensible point on the whole oil twist. While I'm not sold on the whole war for oil theory as I think there would be a bit more unity in our government if it were the task at hand. The dems were famous for blocking chances of some off shore drilling so my guess is that another resource would be beneficial in their eyes, hey they drive cars too.

Why now, why Iraq but not Iran or Syria? Did 911 play into the hands perfectly for this to happen? When to we reap the rewards for this oil war? Would war with Iran not be inevitable in this case?

[JohnDoe]

Why now, why Iraq but not Iran or Syria? Did 911 play into the hands perfectly for this to happen? When to we reap the rewards for this oil war? Would war with Iran not be inevitable in this case? i think the administration thought that a war with iraq and ousting saddam, and being treated as ''liberators'' by the iraqi people, as the administration forecasted, made them think that we would have a stronghold in the region again, right next to syria and iran, perhaps? Afterall, we had just been basically ousted from our bases in Saudi Arabia?

there are signs of their rosey colored predictions with them starting the building of 7 military bases and the largest American Mega Embassy that we have in the entire world, immediately after the war part was won!!!

the benefits were never about cheap oil, though SEVERAL of the administration people DID SAY that we would be reaping the benefits of cheap oil if we attacked iraq....and the oil profits of iraq would pay for the occupation, and reconstruction.....WHICH was the exact opposite of what ''war'' in the middle east does, which is....escalating the price of oil, a common sense result, with unrest in the region and oil speculators making the call....

the benefit to them was the strategical presence in the region (which could also help an allied country, Israel,) and oil contracts with American companies as a ''perk'' and also as a guarantee to the iraqi oil reserves coming our way...i believe?

none of this had anything to do with our attack on 911, EXCEPT that bin laden's request to remove us from the mecca region in saudi arabia, their holy ground, was OBLIDGED by the administration....again, i believe?

i have never believed we were going to ''steal'' the iraqi oil...btw....

jane

[JohnDoe]

SE is one of the more intelligent ones, JD.




But, that's no excuse for any of this, don't you know?!!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

hahahahaha! well, i have always believed that you can get more with honey than vinegar!

[Sir Evil]

none of this had anything to do with our attack on 911, EXCEPT that bin laden's request to remove us from the mecca region in saudi arabia, their holy ground, was OBLIDGED by the administration....again, i believe?

i have never believed we were going to ''steal'' the iraqi oil...btw....

jane

Hmm, I'm gonna go out on a limb, and say that you had me fooled Jane. This is pretty good thought work although I might not totally agree with it.

What I quoted abover however is a bit reminiscent of the Jane I know! Now you wanna go back to my previous post, and say that I suggest Iraq, had anything to do with 911? My question to you was the events of 911 timely enough that it played into the hands of invading Iraq? That little twist you made is a bit deliberate in delivery. In other words did the events of 911 work as a cover for our quest for oil? Would Iraq be safe if there was never a 911?
Do you think the invasion of Iraq was a eventuality but 911 made for a good excuse to do it sooner?

[Hagbard Celine]

Then you need to get out more.

I said anti american left because they clearly arent anti war because they have no problem supporting Democrat wars. These are the people who volunteered to be human shields for Sadam. These are people who undermine US policy every time they are outside of the US.

Quite frankly if you think they arent anti American you are living in a dream world.

"Democrat wars?" What are you talking about? And which members of America's "left" volunteered to be human shields for Saddam? I assume you're talking about some extreme fringe group made up of 50 members or less. That's your problem. Is your worldview really so distorted that you interpret the views and/or actions of twenty naked hippies as the blanket mindset of all of America's liberal-minded citizens?
You know in the last presidential election, 48 percent of the country's voting citizens voted for the Democratic candidate. That's almost half. As of July 2007, the US population was 301,139,947 according to the CIA world factbook (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html). 48 percent of that is 144,547,174.56. Now, I know not all people vote, but assuming they did, I see you post on this board every single day with a mindset that assumes that almost 145 million people espouse wildly radical and anti-American beliefs.
I'm here to tell you that simply isn't true and you're a stupid freakin' idiot if you think it is.
This idea that there is some dark, anti-American element within our society and that it's comprised of enough people to actually make a dent at the polls is the only fantasy I see. It's a fantasy pure and simple and you'd do well to stop listening to Rush Limbaugh, BOR and the like and start recognizing that your liberal-minded fellow citizens care just as much about this country as you claim to and that if you listened to them every now and then instead of writing them off as "anti-American," an insult beyond repute, you might learn something occasionally.
Your statement that liberals aren't anti-war is yet another joke. Take a look around. We were the ones who've been saying no to war since the beginning. Remember that "NO IRAQ WAR" bumper sticker from 2001? That was us. True, that wasn't our representatives, atleast not all of them, but Conservative America needs to stop lying to itself and admit we liberal Americans were right so we can move-on and get back to fixing our problems instead of bickering amongst ourselves in the halls of Congress like a bunch of b*tchy finches.

[JohnDoe]

Hmm, I'm gonna go out on a limb, and say that you had me fooled Jane. This is pretty good thought work although I might not totally agree with it.

What I quoted abover however is a bit reminiscent of the Jane I know! Now you wanna go back to my previous post, and say that I suggest Iraq, had anything to do with 911?

I don't know for certain, if you did or didn't SE, if memory serves, a year ago....I think you did?

My question to you was the events of 911 timely enough that it played into the hands of invading Iraq?

It suredly gave an opening to promote a new direction and policy of "Preemptive War", don't you think? And it also gave the Administration the "opportunity" to try to tie in the War with Iraq as part of the global war on terrorism and was used to the "hilt" by them, don't you think?

That little twist you made is a bit deliberate in delivery. In other words did the events of 911 work as a cover for our quest for oil?

I think I answered this above, but I would not word it so crassly, that it was merely a "quest" for oil....there was more to it, imo?

Would Iraq be safe if there was never a 911?

"Safe" in what manner? Safer for most of the people that live there...? all statistics show that their lives were safer right before the war than it has been after the war....and not just in the security situation but "safer" with real life means, like jobs, electricity, clean water, agriculture, and affordable oil prices that made their lives safer and secure in other manners....

But still not certain if this is what you were asking?

and those questions I tried to answer above are hard questions to know the answers for sure.

Do you think the invasion of Iraq was a eventuality but 911 made for a good excuse to do it sooner?

No, as a Dove, I do not believe that the invasion of Iraq was an eventuality....

I believe we had some other "moves" to make, before invading Iraq that could have possibly worked, if they had been tried. if we had ''walked that extra mile with our adversay" as the Bible suggests, things might have still worked in our favor without a war and without putting alot of innocent people in harms way. :(

I can go in to them in depth if you would like?




The "jane" :) you battled with a year ago in "that" other place Sir Evil, who lost contact with you, has spent a year reading up on alot of things....and has expanded her horizon, her view! :D


"updated" Jane

[Sir Evil]

The "jane" :) you battled with a year ago in "that" other place Sir Evil, who lost contact with you, has spent a year reading up on alot of things....and has expanded her horizon, her view! :D


"updated" Jane
Expanding horizons, are'nt we all!



I don't know for certain, if you did or didn't SE, if memory serves, a year ago....I think you did?

I don't think I ever equated the attack of 911 with Iraq in the context as if there was a direct connection. I do recall saying from the begining that terrorism had it's home in Iraq.



It suredly gave an opening to promote a new direction and policy of "Preemptive War", don't you think? And it also gave the Administration the "opportunity" to try to tie in the War with Iraq as part of the global war on terrorism and was used to the "hilt" by them, don't you think?

Preemptive can be perceived in different way, Preemptive here was our right, and no I don't see the administration "trying" to tie this in on the war on terror, I for one see it as a need to tie it in on the war on terror. Say what you will but Iraq aided terrorist, Iraq would of aided more terrorist given the time to do so as long as it came against the US.



"Safe" in what manner? Safer for most of the people that live there...? all statistics show that their lives were safer right before the war than it has been after the oil....and not just in the security situation but "safer" with real life means, like jobs, electricity, clean water, agriculture, and affordable oil prices that made their lives safer and secure in other manners....

But still not certain if this is what you were asking?

By safe I meant that Iraq would not of still been at the center of attention at the UN. Sooner or later the hammer would of fell on them, in my opinion it was well over due. I have discussed this with you in the past, and I know you hang your hat on the WMD thing, like I have always said you can't discount something just because you can't see it. Being they were never found means nothing really but more importantly they were not even needed to even begin this front. Expand those horizons a bit more on the timeline of events with Iraq through UN sanctions, and so on.

Stats are for those looking to pick the instant answers from a hat. Security in Iraq was based upon fear, and corruption.



No, as a Dove, I do not believe that the invasion of Iraq was an eventuality....

I believe we had some other "moves" to make, before invading Iraq that could have possibly worked, if they had been tried. if we had ''walked that extra mile with our adversay" as the Bible suggests, things might have still worked in our favor without a war and without putting alot of innocent people in harms way.

I can go in to them in depth if you would like?


That would of been walking the miracle mile! The whole thing stunk of corruption, total deniability by the UN, and those who sought diplomacy to put the band aid on a huge gash.


Also Jane, never quote me that way again as it was too much work! :D

[JohnDoe]

Expanding horizons, are'nt we all!



Also Jane, never quote me that way again as it was too much work! :D



hahahahahaha! oooooops, I'm sorry...didn't realize that when I was responding!

and on a second note.... so I guess this means I am not worth the work? hahahahaha! ;)

[Sir Evil]

hahahahahaha! oooooops, I'm sorry...didn't realize that when I was responding!

and on a second note.... so I guess this means I am not worth the work? hahahahaha! ;)

:laugh2:

don't feel too bad, I won't do may quaotes like that, I'm a slacker.

[Gaffer]

i think the administration thought that a war with iraq and ousting saddam, and being treated as ''liberators'' by the iraqi people, as the administration forecasted, made them think that we would have a stronghold in the region again, right next to syria and iran, perhaps? Afterall, we had just been basically ousted from our bases in Saudi Arabia?

there are signs of their rosey colored predictions with them starting the building of 7 military bases and the largest American Mega Embassy that we have in the entire world, immediately after the war part was won!!!

the benefits were never about cheap oil, though SEVERAL of the administration people DID SAY that we would be reaping the benefits of cheap oil if we attacked iraq....and the oil profits of iraq would pay for the occupation, and reconstruction.....WHICH was the exact opposite of what ''war'' in the middle east does, which is....escalating the price of oil, a common sense result, with unrest in the region and oil speculators making the call....

the benefit to them was the strategical presence in the region (which could also help an allied country, Israel,) and oil contracts with American companies as a ''perk'' and also as a guarantee to the iraqi oil reserves coming our way...i believe?

none of this had anything to do with our attack on 911, EXCEPT that bin laden's request to remove us from the mecca region in saudi arabia, their holy ground, was OBLIDGED by the administration....again, i believe?

i have never believed we were going to ''steal'' the iraqi oil...btw....

jane

You hit a lot of points on the head there. I have to spread the rep around but you have one coming. Good post. You have obviously been doing some serious research and not just reading liberal blogs. :salute:

[JohnDoe]

but Gaffer, I have to put a "Disclaimer" out there, to define why I can say all of that above, and still "claim" to be a DOVE....which I still am! :D

I have only come to the understanding of what I believe happened with Iraq and how a HAWK would view it.... would see the need to show the physical aggression in the region and the importance of this region for our economy's lifeblood, and a functioning Army's lifeblood, oil, (that could be replaced with nuclear energy or clean coal or the newer cleaner energies being initiated out there....going green baby!) hahahahaha! ;)

This does not mean the DOVE side of me is dead....

Because the DOVE side of me is still screaming foul!!!! hahahahaha!!!! That there HAD TO BE other means to do the same thing without going in to a full fledge war.... maybe more bases in Kuwait, with a mega embassy or Qatar? Or even Afghanistan? Maybe sending saddam off to never never land and replacing him with a preplanned stooge?

I didn't see this war as a war of necessity at the time that it took place. I believe it was Powell that said before the war that Saddam was contained?

I see this as a deflection from getting Al qaeda WHERE IT HURTS, and that is in Afghanistan and Pakistan mountains. I see us honestly taking our Eye off the ball, AT the wrong time still...and I just can't knock that.... I honestly can't.

But what we we face now, through the blunders that I believe have taken place from near square one on this, is an extremely serious situation and i am not nearly smart enough to know what even can be done, to make it better without a draft....and even that would take a few years for truely trained soldiers to come out of it.... and even that would mean many more lives lost....for oil, our lifeblood I know, but still unacceptable.

As a dove, again, that is hard to swallow....hard to accept that force is the only way to stop this hornet's nest from getting worse. There HAS TO BE a better sollution a better way.... I pray there is a better way! :(

jd