Do you have a source for the two million statistic used in the first cartoon? Does that include natural deaths or something?
The cartoon didn't provide a source. But perhaps later tonight, if Ami or Bt haven't donw so already, I'll try to look up some #'s, following our departure
Right.
And why do you, Bush, and others believe that Vietnam was being won before we left?
Just curious what your take was on Kissinger throwing Bush and them under the bus Sunday?
The folks in DC (LBJ & co.), weren't allowing the folks on the ground actually do their jobs with any effectiveness. The point being, it became exponentially worse, as will Iraq with any premature withdrawl
I hear the U.S. may pull out of Iraq before winning the war
Quote
I hear the U.S. may pull out of Iraq before winning the war
And when will the U.S. have won the war? The actual war part of this conflict was won. We overran the country and toppled the government. Now our troops are being used as security forces. If we are waiting for an end to the threat of terrorists in Iraq or some such, that will never come so long as our troops are there. Our troops are no longer fighting a war. They are an occupying force fighting an armed and determined resistance. We are not going to outlast the resistance, and unless we start a severe military sweep across the Middle East, massacring all terrorists and terrorist suspects and terrorist sympathizers and suspected terrorist sympathizers, we will not see an end to terrorists and the like fighting our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. So I find it ridiculous to speak of pulling out before the U.S. wins the war in Iraq.
And quite frankly, if we wanted to avoid being responsible for death in Iraq, we should never have sent military forces in to start killing people.
As for not learning from our mistakes, indeed we are not. Apparently we still think we can fix the world if we just use enough military force, never realizing that the desire to fix the world is where we are going wrong in the first place.
And when will the U.S. have won the war? The actual war part of this conflict was won.
As for not learning from our mistakes, indeed we are not. Apparently we still think we can fix the world if we just use enough military force, never realizing that the desire to fix the world is where we are going wrong in the first place.
Excellent points, UP.
But to answer your query, it's been the same answer, since the the inception of the taking out of Saddam.....when the Iraqis are able to handle their own security
[...]
Keeping in mind, that's NOT why we went in, in the 1st place..... to supposedly "fix the world", or fix Iraq for that matter.
We didn't go into Iraq to fix Iraq? We went in as liberators, saving Iraq and ourselves from the threat of the regime of Saddam Hussein. Did we not?
Close, which should be in no way confused with trying "to fix the world" or to even "fix Iraq". Specifically, it was to "fix the WMD threat" that Saddam/Iraq posed, according to the intel. The nation building (fixing Iraq) that followed was a necessary consequence, as a result of why we went in, "in the 1st place"
Close, which should be in no way confused with trying "to fix the world" or to even "fix Iraq". Specifically, it was to "fix the WMD threat" that Saddam/Iraq posed, according to the intel. The nation building (fixing Iraq) that followed was a necessary consequence, as a result of why we went in, "in the 1st place"To fix the WMD threat... from here you appear to be playing semantics. ....The words are slightly different, but the action and intent are exactly the same either way.
Close, which should be in no way confused with trying "to fix the world" or to even "fix Iraq". Specifically, it was to "fix the WMD threat" that Saddam/Iraq posed, according to the intel. The nation building (fixing Iraq) that followed was a necessary consequence, as a result of why we went in, "in the 1st place"To fix the WMD threat... from here you appear to be playing semantics. ....The words are slightly different, but the action and intent are exactly the same either way.
Not at all. It's called "cart....horse"......."intentions" --> "consequences". The fact we're having to "fix Iraq" now was in no way why we went IN to Iraq in the 1st place. Never has been.
sirs
Hero Member
Posts: 1000
Congratulations !
Get a job.
It's called "cart....horse"......."intentions" --> "consequences". The fact we're having to "fix Iraq" now was in no way why we went IN to Iraq in the 1st place. Never has been.
It's called "cart....horse"......."intentions" --> "consequences". The fact we're having to "fix Iraq" now was in no way why we went IN to Iraq in the 1st place. Never has been.
As I said before, you're playing semantics. If the winning objective from the beginning was, as you said, to have the Iraqis handling their own security, then the goal, from the beginning, has been to fix Iraq. .
No, no, no, I'm playing reality. You're the one trying to blurr intentions. We did not intend to go into Iraq to "fix it". We went into Iraq to specifically take out the WMD threat that existed (per the global intel), and as a result of THAT action, now we do have a moral & geopolitical obligation to fix it. Horse --> cart....Intentions --> Consequences
I credit the war in Iraq as being an attempt to tackle terrorism at its root causes.
That does not, however, mean remaining there is the best course of action.
I'm not blurring anything. You can say we didn't go into Iraq to fix Iraq but to take out the WMD, but that's like saying we're we're digging a retention pond rather than a drainage ditch....And if you really want to talk about moral obligation, then frankly America, or rather the U.S. government, has a moral obligation to start leaving other people alone.
Taking out WMD, fixing Iraq, essentially the same thing.
That's all fine and dandy, as long as they don't pose a threat to our way of life, our existance. Ironically, you helped teach me that, way back when. When the threat is deemed valid, we then are obligated to do something about it....<Horse>
No, they're not. And that's the problem we're having here. You're making them out as nearly analogus, (in other words, blurring the 2), and I'm pointing out how they're NOT. <Cart> We could have taken out the WMD threat and then just left. How would that have been "fixing Iraq" then, if they're "essentially the same thing"??
That depends on what you mean by "pose a threat".
No, I'm saying that the taking out of WMD and fixing Iraq are essentially the same thing. That's not blurring them. That's pointing out that they're essentially the same and that using different words doesn't alter the reality.
So how would making war on Iraq to take out the Iraqi government and the WMD not be "fixing" Iraq since that was the perceived problem in the first place?
Would we be better off to just destroy enemys and let the remnants care for them selves and build from the rubble without so much assistance?
I mean an enemy that poses a threat to the life of Americans. an enemy that has pledged that one either convert to Islam (their mutated version of it, at least), be subjugated to it, or die. And eneny that won't blink twice in killing themselves in order to accomplish the above 3 criteria in bring it about. An enemy that has demonstrated not just the will, but the effectiveness in targeting & killing scores of innocent me, women, and children, that don't fit their critiera mentioned above. That's what I mean by "pose a threat"
Ok, basically what you just said their, is I'm not blurring "fixing Iraq" & taking out the WMD, they're essentially the same thing....in other words, blurring them to appear as essentially the same thing, whey they're NOT
The problem was specific to WMD.
THAT was the intention from the get go, Prince. Always has been. That didn't requiring 'fixing" that required surgical removal. That was accomplished, and we could have left it at that. You have said so yourself, that war was won. Then you apparently contradict yourself and claim that that war is all part of one big "Iraq fix", which supposedly was our intention in the 1st place.
I defy you to show me where Bush claimed our intentions were to rebuild Iraq as we see fit... screw the WMD problem, Iraq needs fixing. I doubt you'll be able to
But to answer your query, it's been the same answer, since the the inception of the taking out of Saddam.....when the Iraqis are able to handle their own security |
And so your solution is to threaten their lives, insist they convert to Western thinking or be subjugated by it or die, and to not think twice about killing them in order to accomplish that criteria. Hm?
No, my solution has been the same since the get go as well. Kill those who want to kill us, 1st.
I can't help if you don't like the answers your given. The fact that our intentions from the beginning were always & publically centered around WMD, and not about "fixing" the welfare of Iraq, and that apparently you can't accept such and have deemed them analogus is not my problem to fix
WMD in Iraq, developed by the government of Iraq.
Which is an irrelevent comment, especially when you hear many of the rabid left folks claiming the WMD were American, and not the product of "the Government of Iraq"
Then we obviously have different concepts of "fixing Iraq". I see "fixing Iraq" as this nebulous need to impart Democracy, reconstruct the infrastructure, train Iraqi troops, etc. If you want to limit it to just the taking out the WMD threat, then OK, I can go along with that. Glad we're finally on the same page.
Would we be better off to just destroy enemys and let the remnants care for them selves and build from the rubble without so much assistance?
We would be better off keeping our government out of rebuilding.
To threaten their lives and not hesitate to kill them. Okay. And this will solve the problem how?
Are you reading some other thread with some other person and responding here? I never said the intentions in Iraq were not publically centered around the WMD. I never said they were centered around the welfare of Iraq. You should maybe try not being so quick to misunderstand me. You seem to think I've said something I did not in fact say at all.
B'huh? That the WMD were supposedly in Iraq is not relevant? To a discussion about why America went to war against Iraq? Are you serious?
Wha? Limit it? Who said I wanted to limit it? Where are you getting this stuff?
Let's qualify the sentence to make it more applicable to where my statement came from...To threaten them (terrorists who wouldn't blink twice in killing you, me, your family, my family) their lives and not hesitate to kill them (those Islamic militants that have pledged to kill those who do not convert or be subjugated to their version of Islam). Adding the detail to your query provides the answer you're seeking. At least it should point you in the right direction
Yet, THAT's the point I've been making, that it was our intentions in dealing with the WMD threat, NOT to "fix Iraq". But apparently you've qualified your "fix" now, as I quote you "I said that the war to get the WMD and topple the Iraq government was "fixing" Iraq."
B'huh? That the WMD were supposedly in Iraq is not relevant? To a discussion about why America went to war against Iraq? Are you serious?
This Merry-go-sematic-around is getting quite fatiguing. It's irrelevent in how you're trying to pose the scenario. I gather you're trying to again connect WMD <--> Iraqi Government <--> Fix Iraq. No? It's a nearly non-existant connection, since we didn't intend to go into Iraq to "fix it". WMD in Iraq is relevent in THAT's why we went in.
Wha? Limit it? Who said I wanted to limit it? Where are you getting this stuff?
From you; "I said that the war to get the WMD and topple the Iraq government was "fixing" Iraq.". I don't see anything that resembles Democratizing, Nation building, Troop re-training, Infrastructure reconstruction, etc. Was their code in your statement that required my need for a decoder ring?
This Merry-go-sematic-around is getting quite fatiguing.
I credit the war in Iraq as being an attempt to tackle terrorism at its root causes.
Of course it was. That does not, however, mean remaining there is the best course of action.
What is the best course of action. Float a proposal.
So killing them all first is going to solve the problem? No one is going to object to this? There are no bad outcomes with this plan? We just kill them all, and we're home free?
Following you is getting more difficult as this goes along. You seem to be complaining about something, but I'm not sure what, except that it has something to do with something I never said. And yet, you quoted me as if I said something you think I said in that quote. I'm thinking that you're inferring more than what I'm actually saying. And I wish you would stop.
Uh, yeah. Okay, but I said that going into Iraq for the WMD was going in to fix Iraq. So I'm still confused has to how the WMD supposedly being in Iraq is irrelevant to that. It seems exactly relevant, because that is why we sent the troops into Iraq. Which seems like what you just said, but it must not be because you said the WMD supposedly being in Iraq is irrelevant. And yet, you just said "WMD in Iraq is relevent in THAT's why we went in." It's relevant and irrelevant at the same time for the same reason. I think my head is going to explode.
No, no code. But if you look over that statement again, there was also not a word about limiting anything. And at no point in this conversation, as in not even once, did I say that the current action in Iraq was not an attempt at fixing Iraq.
This Merry-go-sematic-round is getting quite fatiguing.
So quit pushing it.
No, my solution has been the same since the get go as well. Kill those who want to kill us, 1st.
We are in Iraq today because our goal has always been more than the removal of brutal dictator. It is to leave a free and democratic Iraq in his place.
Let me straighten you guys out. You went into Iraq for the same reason the same people who pushed you in are now pushing you into Iran: for OIL. Secondary objective: to permanently emasculate an important regional enemy of Israel. (Mission accomplished.)
We are in Iraq today because our goal has always been more than the removal of brutal dictator. It is to leave a free and democratic Iraq in his place.
You went into Iraq for the same reason the same people who pushed you in are now pushing you into Iran: for OIL.
Doesn't seem like I need a lesson in English language theory to understand the phrase "always been" Sirs. The next sentence qualifies the phrase. President Bush is using straight forward English, why can't you?
So, you don't want to see the quotes by Bush as to why we went in originally. Possibly might skew yet another preconceived notion of what is is, and perhaps the context of when and why Bush said what you quote him to be saying?
So what he said there was not true? The goal has not always been to leave a free and democratic Iraq in Saddam's place?
The irony is, Sirs, that you report (and distort) this with a straight face. From the wonderful perch of hindsight, the Iraq venture was a terrible blunder. Further, the plan to democratize Iraq was in the administration's mind from the start, although perhaps not featured until the other rationales for war dissolved. We simply could not abandon Iraq to its potential for anarchy in the absence of an occupying force. ......
That's gotta be the most surrealistic debate I've witnessed in quite a long time.
Let me straighten you guys out.
You went into Iraq for the same reason the same people who pushed you in are now pushing you into Iran: for OIL.
Secondary objective: to permanently emasculate an important regional enemy of Israel. (Mission accomplished.)
You could not possibly have gone in because of WMD because
1. There is no conceivable way that Iraq, a country of 23 million people, even with nuclear weapons, could pose any kind of threat to the U.S.A.
2. The WMD allegations relied in part on obviously forged evidence
3. The WMD allegations all came from the same source (Iraqi National Congress, an exile group.)
4. Saddam had never risked his army in any confrontation with the U.S., sought an American green light before invading Kuwait, pulled his army out of Kuwait without engaging the U.S. and was, years later, much weaker militarily than he was when he first had the chance to engage the U.S. militarily.
5. The U.S. was unable to convince the biggest European powers or Canada of the "threat."
6. The "President's" advisors had for years advocated the invasion of Iraq in writing, lamenting only that they lacked the pretext for doing so.
7. The rapidly expanding Chinese, Indian and other economies clearly indicated that a future demand-supply crunch is coming in oil and some kind of pre-emptive action would clearly be desirable.
Only a total moron could believe in the face of this evidence that the U.S. had found convincing evidence of a "WMD threat" or that its motivation to invade Iraq was anything other than oil. That so many of the "Invade Iraq" gang were Jews and ardent Zionists, and that the results of this buffoonery were so clearly of benefit to Israel, indicate at least some influence from the Likud party and/or the Mossad in pushing these plans along.
In view of the above, that some people are still debating causes and/or motive to stay in terms of WMD, "war on terror," "bringing democracy to the region," "fixing Iraq," etc. is just ludicrous.
Bush was charged not only with knowing the situation, but mastering it. We hold our presidents to high standards. I will point to one item: the "mobile WMD labs" testified to by Sec. Powell at the Security Council were a fantasy concocted by a lone Iraqi interlocutor, soon to be found flaky and untrustworthy. He should have been "outted" long before the damage was done. And Bush was in charge ...
Why is it so important for you to separate the original justification for pre-emptively invading Iraq and the poor planning for occupying Iraq after the removal of Saddam Hussein?
So killing them all first is going to solve the problem? No one is going to object to this? There are no bad outcomes with this plan? We just kill them all, and we're home free?
Yes...probably the terrorists that such killing is targeted towards...not really...yep
Then stick with a specific connotation of what "fixing Iraq" is supposed to be. Is it specific to WMD & removing Saddam from power or not??
That's because you're purposely misusing WMD, in this debate. How I was using it was how it was relevent. Take a couple of excedrin and stop trying to twist how I'm using WMD, is my suggestion
Except for the fact that you made specific reference to WMD & fixing Iraq.
Look Prince, if you inadvertantly put yourself in a corner, & now you're trying to act as if you never limited your statement, fine.
It would have been nice foryou to make that concession and clarification early on. Instead you keep going around and around with the already fraudulant claim how fixing Iraq is = to ..... whatever it is you think it's equal to.
1st it was with everything we're apparently doing in Iraq, then it became taking out WMD & Saddam, now we're back to square 1.
I've already conceded that we're currently "fixing Iraq", but that was NOT the reason nor intentions of our going in.
You seemed to be convinced otherwise, yet your changing parameters for "fixing Iraq" have me to the point, that no matter what's said, your position will be unbendingly flexible....nor completely understood either.
Certainly we are engaged in nation building under this administration. That came with acceptance of both the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. Truth be told we haven't done a very good job with Afghanistan and Iraq...well, it is even close to resembling an actual nation enough so that it can be rated.
You can't accept the invasion without the nation building. They came as a set, otherwise it is like playing a quarter of football then calling it quits. If people didn't accept that then it was the administration's fault for not making it clear to the public.
The principle motive for invading Iraq was oil. Oil and the fact that Juniorbush wanted to rectify what he felt Olebush failed to do: remove Saddam.
Texas (especially Houston) is where the big oil companies are located. Conoco, Texaco, and many others.
Iraq has the single largest most easily exploited quantity of oil on the planet. But to get it, they need pipilines, and the pipelines won'tr work if they are getting blown up.
The first Gulf War started when Kuwait began to drill diagonally under the Iraqi-Kuwaiti border to pump out Iraqi oil.
It has always been about oil. You can stay naive if you wish, but that is the truth. Juniorbush and Cheney were chosen because of their connections with the oil business.