Presidential address on Irag

[Kilgore Trout]

Re: Presidential address on Irag

Don't get me wrong guys. I Definately thought Saddam should have been removed. It is the way we went about doing it that I believe is wrong. <br /><br />We could have backed the rebel forces after the first war.<br /><br />We could have carefully plotted a "Yamamoto" to take him and his boys out. <br /><br />He was smarter than to allow Al-Quaida operate in his country. He knew he already was on thin ice with the US. He didn't want to give the USa bonafide excuse to invade his country.

 

[oddjob]

Re: Presidential address on Irag

Dag Gonna't SCO! I was gonna use that "fish in barrel line"! Only the context would have been about the debate w/ the libs, He, He!.....

 

[wvit100]

Re: Presidential address on Irag

I don't hate Bush. I think he truly believes in what he is doing or being told to do. That is the scary part. His vision for the future of our country's foriegn policy goes against everything both parties have worked towards in the past. In the past both parties have tried to build relations with foriegn countries, Bush seems bent on tearing those relations apart. This countries laws were built on the fact that you were innocent until you were proven quilty, Bush's policies are pushing the other way. You are quilty until you can prove you are innocent. This president and his administration, mostly his administration, are the worst thing that has happened to the country since LBJ and his administration got us into our fight with the godless communists in Vietnam.

 

[SCO]

Re: Presidential address on Irag

This is going to surprise you Wvit, but you may be right. GW has made the best choices in my view but there is always uncertainty. No human will ever know if the choices made now are the best or not because we will never know what that alternative reality with alternative choices would have been. If the Democrats manage to wrest the Presidency from the President, if you manage to pull him out of the drivers seat and tell him to sit down and shut up, I hope that ya'll know what the heck you're doing. I've got about the same confidence in your guys that you have in the President.

 

[Ralph 123]

Re: Presidential address on Irag

wvit100, I have a very different read on it. There are only two countries we are having strained relations with: France and Germany. Schroder ran on an anti-US platform before any of this junk even started and France is, well, France. Iraq has been their client state for decades. Hell they were willing to give him NUKES! Remember the reactor the Israelis bombed? That was being built by the French. Sharac and Saddam are old buddies! <br /><br />We called on friends who owe us favors and they stabbed us in the back.<br /><br />Most of the rest of World was with us. Remember that letter they all signed and published in the WSJ? Remember the UK went in with US. Spain, Poland, Australia, Japan,.... I mean just what relationships has he destroyed besides the ones with our enemies?<br /><br />Trout, how can you on the one hand argue that Saddam was not a threat and we were wrong to go in and then argue that you really wanted him taken out but are arguing over the way it was done. Your positions seem contradictory. Am I missing something or are you really just out to give ol George a black eye? And, I am curious, if Saddam was smart enough not to do business with Al Qaeda what was the huge Al Qaeda training camp doing up North and the what about that one down South?

 

[oddjob]

Re: Presidential address on Irag

vwit, your talking out of both sides of your mouth. The media can get away with it, but here people wont put up with that crap. That is the reason I dont waste to much time trying to reason or convince some of you. Much like GW..<br /><br />

what he is doing or being told to do.

are the worst thing that has happened to the country since LBJ and his administration got us into our fight with the godless communists in Vietnam.

If you believe that you lead the cause to have him impeached.

 

[JGREGORY]

Re: Presidential address on Irag

You know I heard on the news (NJ 101.5 fm) today that those in the know like Sid Casperson, New Jersey Dept of Security made a statement that they are still truly scared as to there ability to prevent another terrorist attack. You want to know why? Because America will not put up with the requirements it take to make things safe. For example Right now during rush hour there is roughly an .75 hour wait to get through the Holland Tunnel. To Protect it they would have to randomly search every 3 or 5th car or truck. That would double or triple the delay. No one would stand for that.<br /><br />Maybe we need a few more homeland attacks to WAKE THE F**K UP. We where Not In Afghanistan nor in Iraq at this time two years ago and we still were attacked. These people want nothing more than the extermination to the United States of America and all we stand for. <br /><br />Now maybe Bush isn't the best guy we have personaly I would prefer Lincoln (but that aint going to happen) But we do what we have to do and so be it. <br /><br />Now that does NOT give Bush a blank check. I expect that we will accomplish the mission with or w/o international support. I agree that the President did not do a good job on selling this conflict with Iraq. I for One was opposed. Personnally I thought he was doing this for Daddy. But we are there now untill the Law of Diminishing returns says that it would be a waste of time, money, & blood to be there any longer.

 

[Ralph 123]

Re: Presidential address on Irag

We can never build a safe enough environment that is why we have to kill them over there where they live. Patton's philosophy was to forget all about holding territory and just concentrtae on moving forawrd and killing the enemy. That way, "defending" territory was not an issue. He believed that any thing nature has produced can be overcome therefore anything man came up with could easily be overcome.<br /><br />We could spend all the money we have trying to develop defenses and they would still find holes to exploit. The best way to ensure our safety is to take the battle to the enemy and destroy him where he lives.

 

[JGREGORY]

Re: Presidential address on Irag

Agree 100% Ralph.

 

[Skinnywater]

Re: Presidential address on Irag

Patton's philosophy was to forget all about holding territory and just concentrtae on moving forawrd and killing the enemy. That way, "defending" territory was not an issue.

This is exactly why we should line up troops on the borders of our enemys and give them the 72 hour ultimatum.<br /><br />

Dissent, I'm sorry to say, is a fundamental and necessary part of democracy. If you wish to eliminate dissent, and lots of other countries and governmments have, you have to change the type of government.

Yes plywoody, it's agreed. No, we don't want to change our government. But in your urgent desire to dissent. That very personal need, desire and freedom for you to dissent. That obsessive compultion to dissent. This dissent that has you blind to read and answer this question that is entirely my point.<br /><br />Again, please......<br /><br /> At what point would you say that your shoulda, coulda, woulda talk. Your need to be right. Your "I told you so" attitude. Your desire for dissent. Be considered bad for the overall objective, counterproductive and dangerous for the country?

 

[mikeandronda]

Re: Presidential address on Irag

Right on Ralph Lets leave the big holes in the ground in their countries not ours.

 

[plywoody]

Re: Presidential address on Irag

It is never dangerous for the country.<br /><br />And I do not "need to be right", and in fact I hope I am not right.<br /><br />And if you will recall, I argued vehemently before we got into this Iraq thing that we should not go and all the reasons for that opinion.<br /><br />At this point we are in, and arguing that we should not be in is fruitless at this point. the question is how do we get out. the administration, and the neo cons, are assuming it appears that somehow a western democracy is going to break out any minute.<br /><br />That in and of itself is worthy of a ton of dissent, as it cannot happen. And that dissent is good for the country. It would be better for the country if someone would listen, rather than just get us in deeper and deeper, but that may be too much to ask.

 

[Ralph 123]

Re: Presidential address on Irag

the administration, and the neo cons, are assuming it appears that somehow a western democracy is going to break out any minute

Can you point me to where I can read where this is their opinion? Funny all I ever heard the President say is it will be hard and take a long time.

 

[Skinnywater]

Re: Presidential address on Irag

OK ply, so you want a retreat. <br /><br />Alright that's fair. As soon as we retreat I'll vote for Howard Dean for President. I'll encourage my friends and relatives to abstain from planes, high buildings and bridges.<br />I'll cry as we get clobbered time and time again.<br />This will guarentee four years later as we've gotten our noses good and bloodied, Hillary won't have a chance in he11.<br />And someone with larger nads then GW will be voted in and rain fire on ALL nations harboring/supporting terrorism.<br /><br />See you want to waste time worrying about possible mistakes, withdraw, kissbut to all the nations telling us "I told you so". Leaving us with absolutely no chance for future support of any kind, even from England. <br />If I'm understanding you, you honestly believe retreating is an option.<br /><br />Ply, it's an option if you want your daughters covered and kneeling east to Mecca three times a day.<br /><br /> Hopefully someone will use Iraq as a unloading platform to win a war.<br /><br />Quite frankly GW is starting to look like he has a problem maintaining a ......"correction".<br />The champ is spending to much time in the corner with his cut man. Yet he's not even bleeding and there's 11 rounds left to go!

 

[plywoody]

Re: Presidential address on Irag

No, I don't think retreating is a good idea. Problem is, I don't see any other idea as workable either.<br />What is probably the best solution is somehow to do a complete course change, and do whatever it takes involve other countries, and specifically Arab speaking countries, into the "peacekeeping" mix. Somehow the Arab world needs to see this a a world effort, as opposed to a US occupation. It is probably easier to get Israel and Palestine to peacefully coexist than this, however.<br /><br />Or we can dramatically increase the presence of US troops, seal the borders effectively, and get the infrastructure up and running, including power and oil flow and whatever else is required, and use whatever force is required to protect it. Perhaps, at some point in time, if there is pericieved economic benefit for the Iraqi people, they may get behind the effort in greater numbers.<br /><br />This option will make that 87 billion seem like pocket change, however.<br /><br />Oh, and prior to the war, the administration convinced us that the Iraqi people would welcome us with open arms, and would embrace democracy right away. Even Wolfowitz, in his Senate testimony, suggested that this would be the ultimate result, abeit it was going to take a longer time. Sure they are saying it will take time now. what choice do they have if they don't want to have the credibility of the Iraqi information minister?<br /><br />Look, I have no idea what to do. All I would like to see is some plan that has some sort of achievable, identifiable goal, that is not based solely on hope.

 

[mellowyellow]

Re: Presidential address on Irag

sorry, but I'm too lazy to read the entire thread,<br />so this may have been previuosly discussed...<br /><br />when Iraq invaded Kuwait, GW1 and most of the<br />world joined together to kick their butts back<br />to bagdad. after their defeat, they signed a full<br />surrender. they promised to destroy all WMD's<br />along with scuds and some other items. this was<br />part of the surrender they signed, yet they never<br />really complied as promised. they even went so <br />far as to expel UN inspectors. if they chose to<br />comply, sadaam would still be in power today and<br />the current action never would have happened.<br /><br />at the beginning of the current hostilities,<br />they were asked to produce the proof that WMD's<br />were destroyed and they couldn't. at this point<br />the entire UN signed a resolution saying if you<br />don't prove that you are following the terms of<br />the surrender you can face military action.<br />even all of their arab niehbors signed this...<br /><br />the only disagreement came when they discussed<br />how long they should give them to comply.<br /><br />exactly how long do you think they needed?<br />8+ yrs. wasn't enough. but Iraq's 2 biggest<br />trading partners, France and Germany blocked<br />UN backed military action for what I believe<br />was their own selfish interests.<br /><br />so in closing, the current action is really an<br />extension of the first war. we were fully within<br />our right to enforce the surrender treaty after<br />8+ yrs. of being strung along like a puppet.<br />the UN are the ones who dropped the ball here.<br /><br />and for $87 billion, how much do you think the<br />destruction of the WTC cost this country? not just<br />bricks, mortar, steel, and lives but our once<br />booming economy is but a shell of it's former self.<br /><br />say what you mean, mean what you say...<br />otherwise how is the world ever gonna take what<br />we say seriously?<br /><br />my .02,<br />M.Y.

 

[TexSkeeter150]

Re: Presidential address on Irag

exactly how long do you think they needed?<br />8+ yrs. wasn't enough.

This is the only inaccuracy of you post. Iraq had 12 years to comply. Great post MellowYellow. I agree completely, some people will just never get it or choose to not see reality.

 

[Ralph 123]

Re: Presidential address on Irag

PW, are you now backing away from your assertion that:<br /><br />

the administration, and the neo cons, are assuming it appears that somehow a western democracy is going to break out any minute

?

 

[Skinnywater]

Re: Presidential address on Irag

No, I don't think retreating is a good idea. Problem is, I don't see any other idea as workable either. Look, I have no idea what to do. All I would like to see is some plan that has some sort of achievable, identifiable goal, that is not based solely on hope.

Excellent ply! I understand your frustrations 100%. I even share them. However by your own words quoted above, it isn't worthy of dissent.<br /><br />

Or we can dramatically increase the presence of US troops, seal the borders effectively, and get the infrastructure up and running, including power and oil flow and whatever else is required, and use whatever force is required to protect it.

This quote demonstrates my point again to you.<br />Your dissent is completely contradictory to this goal. Growing dissent will squelch this from happening. <br /><br />Here we agree again 100%. We need much more, much faster. Failure to do this will cost my support for GW, will cost him all he's won, and the election.<br /><br />

involve other countries, and specifically Arab speaking countries, into the "peacekeeping" mix. Somehow the Arab world needs to see this a a world effort, as opposed to a US occupation. It is probably easier to get Israel and Palestine to peacefully coexist than this, however.

This as you well know, just ain't gonna happen. <br /><br />

Perhaps, at some point in time, if there is pericieved economic benefit for the Iraqi people, they may get behind the effort in greater numbers.

If it's not going to happen quickly or easily, we need to push on with the larger goal. After we win the war we can go back pick up the pieces. At some point the Iraqi's need to get thier own hands dirty by building and protecting thier own interests. We can give them the means, they have to provide the will.<br /><br />They, like you, can't get caught up in worrying about spilt milk.<br /><br />Thanks ply again, for the exchange.

 

[samagee]

Re: Presidential address on Irag

The Arab world can not exist together peacefully. They have already shown that. They are to busy with their pissing contests.<br /><br />I think the writing is on the wall. You have France and Germany doing business with our enemies. Looks like Germany is looking to rebuild a world power. France is just looking for money. When a country starts to build resources, or acquire them, you have to ask why. Otherwise you get woken up when a tank comes crashing through your living room.<br /><br />Russia is now selling things to China. China is probably pulling the strings of these middle eastern nations, so they can see how the US operates. Kinda interesting how they are building their defenses now huh? They are configuring their defense according to how we have responded to the middle east in past decade. They also have anti sat weapons, which they are building defenses around as well.<br /><br />What I want to know is, when do we work on China? Why are we allowing them to stockpile? Why do we buy trashy items with the made in china label? What about the drugs that come in from there? A type of mind control maybe? I could go on, but we needed to step into both of those countries. Only those who understand war will understand. It's a dirty business, but at times it has to be done. You have to limit your enemies resources, before they deploy them on you. It's called being proactive and assertive.