Bush: [Weve Always Been the 'Cut and Run' Types]

[_JS]

Did you miss Goal a)?  You do know the WMD threat was in reference to his WMD getting offloaded to terrorists, right?  At no time was it in reference to Saddam trying to take out Chicago

So, Saddam had no WMD, which we know from numerous reports. Why then does the administration still refer to "The War on Terror" as a part of the current Iraq War objectives?

When will we know that Iraq can maintain their own security?

[sirs]

So, Saddam had no WMD, which we know from numerous reports......

.....AFTER we in, yea.  that's not what the "numerous reports" said prior

Why then does the administration still refer to "The War on Terror" as a part of the current Iraq War objectives?

Does the name AlZarqawi ring a bell?  You know, big AlQeada guy, #1 in Iraq in fact, that we ended up taking out in Iraq.  Lots of Terrorists seeping into the country, trying to undo the Democracy that the Iraqis voted in.  And the more of them we kill means the less terrorists that could come here.  Am I making any headway yet?

[_JS]

Does the name AlZarqawi ring a bell?  You know, big AlQeada guy, #1 in Iraq in fact, that we ended up taking out in Iraq.  Lots of Terrorists seeping into the country, trying to undo the Democracy that the Iraqis voted in.  And the more of them we kill means the less terrorists that could come here.  Am I making any headway yet?

Not really. There was no guarantee they were ever coming here to begin with. There was no love for Saddam or the Baathists from the Islamic fundamentalists.

As for Democracy, how is that going?

And security, how is that going? Last I've read one had to take an armoured bus from the Baghdad airport to the green zone. There seems to be more and more sectarian violence. What solutions have been proposed to stop that?

[BT]

Why then does the administration still refer to "The War on Terror" as a part of the current Iraq War objectives?

The insurgents and sectarians tactics rely on terror.

Roadside bombings, kidnappings, beheadings, assassination, disappearing and suicide bombings.

This sound like conventional warfare to you?

[_JS]

The insurgents and sectarians tactics rely on terror.

Roadside bombings, kidnappings, beheadings, assassination, disappearing and suicide bombings.

This sound like conventional warfare to you?

Do you expect them to fight superior technology by lining up on a battlefield an yelling "charge!" ?

[BT]

No but i expect you to recognize terror tactics for being terror tactics, and i hope that clears up any queries you may have concerning the link of iraq to the war on terror.

[sirs]

There was no guarantee they were ever coming here to begin with. There was no love for Saddam or the Baathists from the Islamic fundamentalists.  As for Democracy, how is that going?  And security, how is that going? Last I've read one had to take an armoured bus from the Baghdad airport to the green zone. There seems to be more and more sectarian violence. What solutions have been proposed to stop that?

Aside from their pledge to take us out, and recent attacks in the U.S., 911 having been the latest successful one, you're right, no "gurantee"  Just their promise.  And the one thing that Baathists & Islamic Fundamentalists have in common is an even greater hatred for us

Democracy coming along pretty fair for a country in such an infant state.  How long did it take us to get our country up and running democratically?  How long were we in Japan after WWII.  I'd say Iraq having a Constitution and functioning Democraticaly elected Government is a good step in the right direction.  You don't?  Ready to reinstate their dicatator, so the trains can run on time?

Security definately needs work.  You advocating more troops?

[_JS]

No but i expect you to recognize terror tactics for being terror tactics, and i hope that clears up any queries you may have concerning the link of iraq to the war on terror.

Nonsensical. Terror tactics are used all across the world and we do not fight wars in those areas. They are used in Northern Ireland, Nepal, and Sri Lanka for example, yet we do not fight there. Clearly terror tactics were employed after we invaded and conquered Iraq, but that could only be expected as a response to a superior force (you even agreed). So what does that have to do with the "War on Terror?"

And the one thing that Baathists & Islamic Fundamentalists have in common is an even greater hatred for us

Evidence? Baathists never showed an appalling hatred of the United States beforehand, why now? The Islamic Fundamentalists tried to murder Baathist leaders in the past as well. Clearly their hatred towards Baathists is well-documented.

Democracy coming along pretty fair for a country in such an infant state.  How long did it take us to get our country up and running democratically?

Technically it was up and running before it was a country.

How long were we in Japan after WWII.

Two points.

1. Japan was a non-hostile environment.
2. We were fighting a war in Korea very shortly after WWII and then monitoring the Chinese and Soviets.

Nice try, but extremely poor comparison.

You don't?  Ready to reinstate their dicatator, so the trains can run on time?

Why the attitude? I ask questions and you can't answer them without being a complete asshole.

Security definately needs work.  You advocating more troops?

It does need work. Throwing troops at the problem may not necessarily be the answer.

[BT]

Nonsensical. Terror tactics are used all across the world and we do not fight wars in those areas. They are used in Northern Ireland, Nepal, and Sri Lanka for example, yet we do not fight there. Clearly terror tactics were employed after we invaded and conquered Iraq, but that could only be expected as a response to a superior force (you even agreed). So what does that have to do with the "War on Terror?"

You are kidding, right. We are in Iraq and one of the tactics we fight against is terror. So there is a connection between terror and the war in Iraq.

To say that terror happens elsewhere and since we don't have troops on the ground in those places( i dispute that we aren't fighting terror globally) then we are not fighting terror in Iraq is what is nonsensical. It doesn't matter if the tactics are justifyable. They are still terroristic by any definition of the word.

[sirs]

Evidence? Baathists never showed an appalling hatred of the United States beforehand, why now?

When I get home, I'll endeavor to find a report by Wolfowitz I think who documented very clearly that despite the issues that Arabs had with each other, they had no problem pooling their resources for attacks against us and Israel

Technically it (democracy) was up and running before it was a country.

Yea, i suppose an oppressive ruthless dictatorship, can be called a democracy.  I mean they did vote for Saddam at an incredible 100%.  Imagine the odds of that happening

1. Japan was a non-hostile environment. (AFTER the war.  You'd be hardpressed to find WWII soldiers who'd vouch that japan was non-hostile during the war.  Point being that we had no idea, what the "enviroment" was going to be like, and we were there for years.)
2. We were fighting a war in Korea very shortly after WWII and then monitoring the Chinese and Soviets. (And....?  That refutes how long we were there, how again?)

Nice try, but extremely poor comparison. 

Well, that's 1 opinion

I ask questions and you can't answer them without being a complete asshole

How is making the logical next step of a position, based on your questioning "being an asshole"?  You seemed to be implying how terrible or non-functional their Democracy currently is.  You seem to be claiming how we mucked it all up.  You seem to be implying how we should have left things as they were?  How is my query about you possibly wanting to reinstate Saddam some bogus snide issue??  You'll not e at no time have I dropped down to personally insulting you. 

[Brassmask]

Bush has credibility?  Since when?

Since he ran on "accountability" and "no nation building" and "cutting spending" and broke all those?

Could you just point to one thing that Bush has done  that makes him have credibility?

[sirs]

Bush has credibility?  Since when?  Could you just point to one thing that Bush has done  that makes him have credibility?

Since he actually backed up his rhetoric with actions i.e. taking out Saddam.  There's just 1

[BT]

Bush has credibility in this case and in this thread.

Bet you wish you could claim the same.

[Brassmask]

I don't know what it is that you're calling credibility.  But whatever it is, I don't want it.

[_JS]

You are kidding, right. We are in Iraq and one of the tactics we fight against is terror. So there is a connection between terror and the war in Iraq.

But it is circuitous logic Bt. Of course they are using such tactics. Most military experts beforehand had predicted so beforehand. To use it as political fodder and connect it to 9/11, which has been done (even in this very thread) is ridiculous. Yes, it is a nasty unconventional war, but it has little relationship to international terrorism. It is guerilla war mixed with nasty religious sectionalism. Brutal, disgusting, horrible. Yet, it is nothing like 9/11 or the London or Madrid bombings. It isn't the same thing and I think you know that.

When I get home, I'll endeavor to find a report by Wolfowitz I think who documented very clearly that despite the issues that Arabs had with each other, they had no problem pooling their resources for attacks against us and Israel

Consider the source, but I'll certainly read it if you find it.

Yea, i suppose an oppressive ruthless dictatorship, can be called a democracy.  I mean they did vote for Saddam at an incredible 100%.  Imagine the odds of that happening

I was talking about America in answer to your question. *sigh*

You'd be hardpressed to find WWII soldiers who'd vouch that japan was non-hostile during the war.  Point being that we had no idea, what the "enviroment" was going to be like, and we were there for years

Of course after the war, we didn't occupy it before the war was over! We had a very good idea of what occupied Japan was going to be like. I suggest you read some material on the occupying government of Japan and the first American forces stationed there. We certainly knew what we were getting into.

And....?  That refutes how long we were there, how again?

Well Sirs, it may surprise you to know that if you look at a map of Japan it is remarkably close to the Korean peninsula. Amazingly we used Japan quite a bit during the war in Korea. I suggest using a map as reference. See, we didn't have satellites and the amazing communications equipment we do now. Now, refer to that map again and find some interesting locations such as China and Vladivostok. See their location re: Japan. See the strategic importance of Japan? We weren't there for so many years conducting nation building or policemen exercises. Again, I urge some reading material on the formation of the Japanese government. Or, if you'd like the West German government. Or, the French government.

You'll note at no time have I dropped down to personally insulting you.

I take being asked if I support fascist dictators as a personal insult. Maybe it is a German cultural thing. You see, I understand the rather blunt historical reference you made. I'll note that linking you and fascist dictators is no problem for you.