The UN, US and Iraq IV

Cicerone Imposter is correct. Our legislators are indeed following like sheep.

Indeed, In yesrterday's debate,John Kerry defended his support of the resolution to send troops to Iraq since the fear of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein was too great a risk to ignore.

However, Kerry said that the administration has blundered in the handling of postwar Iraq.

If Kerry were to be nominated as the Democratic candidate and if he were to defeat Bush, he might be able to solve the blunders by promising each Iraq a weekly can of tomato soup- Heinz, of course.

0 Replies

PDiddie said this--
This is the thing: this absolutely delusional idea that terrorism is a zero sum game, that there are a static number of terrorists which can be kept busy, and therefore away from us. (Leaving aside, for the moment, the sheer depravity of that very concept that our troops are best utilized as bait, to keep the bad guys occupied.)
I don't know who said terrorism was a zero sum game, or that the number of terrorists was static. Also wonder who might refer to the best fighting force the world has ever known as 'bait.' They are, however, the best equipped to fight terrorists.

PD said--
And do not pretend that ongoing attacks in Iraq will dissuade the proponents of "flypaper." The concept has no grounding in reality to begin with, so it's certainly not going to be disproven by, you know, reality. For that matter, don't pretend that another attack on US soil would change their minds. If that happens, they'll just blame "libruls", for criticizing the President, encouraging the terrorists with our disloyalty.
Don't know who coined the term flypaper. Thought it was a little callous, myself, when I first saw it--but the meaning--that our force in Iraq would attract terrorists--has assuredly been proven.

And one last thing: anyone capable of referring casually to these people as "flypaper" is a walking moral abyss
Never liked 'cannon fodder', either.

0 Replies

So then, to measure more success ...... change your objective to match your accomplishments...

I'm sorry, call it old age but ... what exactly is our objective and what have we accomplished in Iraq?

0 Replies

Tartarin wrote:

Well, by gum, I disagree with you again, Nimh. As some "expert" was heard to say today (didn't catch the name), we're dealing with an octopus. I think it's hellishly stupid to use up most of your ground troups fighting what you believe to be the nasty little end of one single tentacle (even if it's true). If I were president? Well, [..] I'd say, let's fight this war where they are: everywhere, and underground.

"This war" would be the war on terrorism. Apparently, we do agree one needed (and needs) to be fought, after 9/11.

Now you and I may disagree with how the Bush admin is going about it, but you can't say, like Steve did, that the "war on terrorism" (or whatever you like to call it) is a mere smokescreen, period. That implies it never needed to be fought - and that, what?, 9/11 was no reason to think there was reason for one?

Tartarin wrote:

If I were president? Well, [..] I'd say, let's fight this war where they are: everywhere, and underground. Let's spend whatever resources we can afford on the best damn systems of 1) defense and 2) intelligence. The military were in better shape and at least one might be forgiven for believing they'd do an effective job of toppling a dictator (who had nothing to do with Al Qaeda, so why now?).

No, Saddam didn't, 's far as anyone has shown us, we agree there. But as for what went before that, tell me - if you were president, after 9/11, and you found that top figures of Al-Qaeda (I know you buy into some of those conspiracy theories, but in this post at least you seem to agree that Al-Qaeda was responsible for 9/11) were hiding in Afghanistan, and the regime there refused to extradite them -

what would you do?

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:

Don't know who coined the term flypaper. Thought it was a little callous, myself, when I first saw it--but the meaning--that our force in Iraq would attract terrorists--has assuredly been proven.

Well, the problem with that thesis is that yes, "our force in Iraq attracts terrorists" - most of them new ones.

Al-Qaeda is recruiting like crazy and, according to the rare reports that come to light, being pretty succesful - thanks to the US invasion of Iraq. (Timber posted a link to an interesting article 'bout it.)

Thats what the point about this not being a zero sum game is about. Way we're going - there'll be ever more flies.

0 Replies

nimh, Nobody claimed that the war on terrorism does not need to be fought. But some of us remember the justifications this administration used to start this war in Iraq; all lies. There's a big difference between the war on terrorism and the war in Iraq. Trying to compare apples and oranges does equate by any stretch of the imagination. What this war in Iraq really accomplished is that al Qaida has found a new recruiting impetus in Iraq. That did not lessen terrorism; it increased it.

0 Replies

Coming to a theatre near you

IRAQ ..... WAR OF EUPHEMISMS

0 Replies

a new version of the "dominoe" theory, replace communist creep with terrorist creep. the difference this time is there really is terrorist creep and we have created a mountain out of a mole hill. for those that remember, the "plan" of Westmoreland/McNamara was based on body counts/kill ratio's of a finite enemy and it was SO wrong just as the current analysis of Saddam's few thugs being the resistance of contention, disregarding the influx of terrorist supporters from an ever widening base.

0 Replies

Doesn't it make you wonder who the terrorist is? On nine-eleven, we lost less than three thousand international lives. On the war with Iraq, we killed over three thousand innocent men, women, and children. Who is the terrorist?

0 Replies

Now, now CI, we all know terrorists are named "abdul, " or "Hafiz, " and eat sheeps eyes, and worship the deveil, and are aaay-rabs. Americans can't ever be terrorists because we are the good guys! Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

And nearly all have oil, btw!

0 Replies

But Walter, what you can't understand, since you aren't aMUR'cun, is that Gawd wants all of the world to belong to us, since we are the most righteous nation there is, Of course, we'll have to get rid of all of the Jews,and
Mexicans,and Blacks, and everyone who isn't a white born again Krischun, and then it will be our duty to spread our "revelation" to the rest of the world. What a glorious vison, my bretheren...a world in polyester and hairspray! Praise jay-suss:(

0 Replies

Thanks for the insight hobit

0 Replies

Anytime, but it makes my head hurt to think that way! Confused

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Doesn't it make you wonder who the terrorist is? On nine-eleven, we lost less than three thousand international lives. On the war with Iraq, we killed over three thousand innocent men, women, and children. Who is the terrorist?

We have faught the most humane war ever, went out of our way to use precise, terribly expensive artillary to avoid casualties. People die in war and things get broken, that's what war is. We could have gone in and done it all from the sky and leveled the whole country in about 6 hours, instead we put our troops on the ground and chose a different, less fatal to Iraqi's, strategy to our own detriment in some ways. I doubt seriously that many innocent Iraqi's were killed, they new we were coming and knew what the targets were, and I haven't heard any outrage from the living Iraqi's to that end, and God knows it would have been plastered onto every news service because all they seem to report is the negatives.

Besides all of that, to even portray us as 'terrorist' is absurd, we were attacked, we are not the aggressors, therefor we have to go where the war takes us.

0 Replies

hobit, Please don't encourage "Praise jay-suss!" We got enough kukes in this world!

0 Replies

Welcome to A2K, Brand X!

Brand X wrote:

People die in war and things get broken, that's what war is.

Well, "the other site" may say the same today?!

0 Replies

Brand X wrote:

People die in war and things get broken, that's what war is. We could have gone in and done it all from the sky and leveled the whole country in about 6 hours, instead we put our troops on the ground and chose a different, less fatal to Iraqi's, strategy to our own detriment in some ways. I doubt seriously that many innocent Iraqi's were killed, they new we were coming and knew what the targets were, and I haven't heard any outrage from the living Iraqi's to that end, and God knows it would have been plastered onto every news service because all they seem to report is the negatives.

The "this is war, suck it up" arguement is fallacious in the extreme, although convenient from the viewpoint of one watching the whole thing on TV . As for your comments about the lack of Iraqi civilian casualties, I have to wonder where you get your news?

0 Replies

Hi Brandy, welcome to a2k

0 Replies

Brand x wrote:

Besides all of that, to even portray us as 'terrorist' is absurd, we were attacked, we are not the aggressors, therefor we have to go where the war takes us.

And, if that takes us into a country that was completely uninvolved in the attack just so we can show the world how big our penis is, that's okay too, after all, we are the "good guys," right? Oy Vey! Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

The UN, US and Iraq IV

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know