Rumsfeld: 'Iraq - we have no EXIT policy'

Mr Stillwater wrote:

If the USA is still in Iraq two years after defeating a totally inferior force and capturing the head honcho and the Bush Administration STILL can't say with confidence that they have achieved their 'mission' it is because they never had one.

Our mission was blindingly simple - make sure that a homicidal madman wouldn't be in charge of doomsday weapons. Oh, my, that's so complex to hold in my little head.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Mr Stillwater wrote:

If the USA is still in Iraq two years after defeating a totally inferior force and capturing the head honcho and the Bush Administration STILL can't say with confidence that they have achieved their 'mission' it is because they never had one.

Our mission was blindingly simple - make sure that a homicidal madman wouldn't be in charge of doomsday weapons. Oh, my, that's so complex to hold in my little head.

Having read only this far, I'd have to say that your head is awfully little, Brandon. {This is only page 4; I can hardly wait to see what dillies you'll come up with next}

But you're hardly the only one. Timberlandko also seems to be quite capable of denying reality; ejecting past lies and injecting new ones with aplomb. And you guys come up smiling, prevaricating with the best, sorry, the worst of them.

I can understand the confusion for those with small minds. These polar shifts must be making you guys dizzy.

There is a picture just a few postings back, which shows these same liars embracing Saddam.

It didn't matter what terror he wreaked upon his own people then, including the use of chemical weapons, with US supplied materiels. It didn't matter what terror he wreaked upon the Iranians, including the use of WMDs, with US supplied materiels and support.

What is wrong with your thinking!

I think the planning ahead was not to have the West crippled by WMD use in its cities. That is kind of important.

There is a picture just a few postings back, which shows these same liars embracing Saddam.

It didn't matter what terror he wreaked upon his own people then, including the use of chemical weapons, with US supplied materiels. It didn't matter what terror he wreaked upon the Iranians, including the use of WMDs, with US supplied materiels and support.

What is wrong with your thinking!

To have given him some bioweapons was a mistake and I would like to know more about the circumstances, but I cannot see how that will protect us now. The fact is that he was a person who could not be allowed to amass and develop a stockpile of bioweapons and nukes. As for supporting him many years ago, it only means that at that moment in history we hated the Iranians more. Not much of a mystery.

Brandon wrote

Quote:

I think the planning ahead was not to have the West crippled by WMD use in its cities. That is kind of important.

Are you alluding to the WMD's the inspectors found not to exist. How can you against all evidence keep spouting off about those non existent WMD's There was absolutely no justification for your idol to have launched the war on Iraq?
Consider a war that was not needed to have been fought, cost the US 200 billion American taxpayer dollars, 1600 American lives thousands of debilitating casualties and untold Iraq dead and injured.
If your are so convinced that Bush did the right thing why not put on a uniform and help him out.

I wonder if, when those decent people who voted for the Bushii wake up to the fact that they've been sorely deceived, there'll be outrage or will they shrug their shoulders and hope that the next administration can fix up the appalling mess.

Timberlandko also seems to be quite capable of denying reality; ejecting past lies and injecting new ones with aplomb.

Brandon9000 wrote:

goodfielder wrote:

I doubt if an Exit Plan was seriously considered because there is (drum roll for the Sartre-like reference) No Exit. They never intended to leave, so no need for an Exit Plan.

What was the exit plan for WW2, and if we didn't have one, why not? Hmmmm.....hard one.....could it be because accomplishing the mission was considered the paramount concern?

There are so many differences as to render the comparison worthless Brandon.

Goodfielder's point is well taken, there are no meaningful corollaries . . . this after all is a case of aggression by the United States, and not a war of self-defense.

That being said, the exit strategy of Dubya-Dubya Two was to defeat the opponent, impose terms, and come home. This we accomplished in under five years, and on a global scale.

Brandon wrote

Quote:

I think the planning ahead was not to have the West crippled by WMD use in its cities. That is kind of important.

Are you alluding to the WMD's the inspectors found not to exist. How can you against all evidence keep spouting off about those non existent WMD's There was absolutely no justification for your idol to have launched the war on Iraq?
Consider a war that was not needed to have been fought, cost the US 200 billion American taxpayer dollars, 1600 American lives thousands of debilitating casualties and untold Iraq dead and injured.

If your are so convinced that Bush did the right thing why not put on a uniform and help him out.

JTT wrote:

There is a picture just a few postings back, which shows these same liars embracing Saddam.

It didn't matter what terror he wreaked upon his own people then, including the use of chemical weapons, with US supplied materiels. It didn't matter what terror he wreaked upon the Iranians, including the use of WMDs, with US supplied materiels and support.

What is wrong with your thinking!

Quote:

To have given him some bioweapons was a mistake and I would like to know more about the circumstances, but I cannot see how that will protect us now. The fact is that he was a person who could not be allowed to amass and develop a stockpile of bioweapons and nukes. As for supporting him many years ago, it only means that at that moment in history we hated the Iranians more. Not much of a mystery.

Oh, I see. You hated the Iranians because they were angry that the US, with the aid of the British, had imposed a ruthless dictator on Iran; a dictator that was responsible for the torture and murder of thousands of his own citizens.

Can you say "hypocrisy"? Are you capable of grasping just how bloody ironic this is? The very bastion of freedom and democracy installs murderers as leaders around the world, offers them its unqualified assistance, as long as that leader toes the US line, then gets angry when the citizens of those countries rightfully retaliate.

What is wrong with your thinking?

See new thread, Brandon, it seems people are coming to their senses.

I am doubtful that you would want us to break off all ties with China, just because their leaders are fascist dictators who gun down helpless citizens in public squares for requesting freedom.