How Do We Win in Iraq?

InfraBlue wrote:

Sorry, OE, for the colloquialisms in the last post. I know I have a hard time understanding some of the colloquialisms from the Brits and Aussies here.

Hehe, no worries, I quite enjoyed that!!!

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
If you wait for certainty to see if a madman has made good on his treaty promise to destroy WMD, you may obtain proof in the form of a mushroom cloud rising over what had been one of your cities.

Are you saying that Saddam, at one point, had had nuclear weapons, then promised to destroy them, and because there was no certainty the US invaded?

I didn't know that!

Hussein had been caught hiding WMD and programs and lying about it. He had a known pattern of hiding his weapons and programs. In view of the fact that he had had a dozen more years since the end of Gulf War 1, it was possible that he had been continuing development of nukes in hiding. To require 100% proof that a madman has stopped his nuke development in order to use force is foolish. The magnitude of the potential consequences is so huge that action can be justified based on probability.

0 Replies

InfraBlue wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
We had played with Hussein for 12 years. That was more than enough time to wait, and Bush quite properly finally ended it by the use of force.

So then, it wasn't because "he had been caught hiding weapons and lying;" it's because Bush got tired of waiting. Waiting for what?

Brandon wrote:
Even just the fact that Hussein had hidden the weapons and lied about them provided sufficient chance that he was still doing so to warrant invasion.

Hussein wasn't hiding weapons.

Your argumentation is getting circular here, Brandon.

You're the one who's saying that invasion wasn't justified because after we invaded, we found no weapons. That's circular logic. Mine is not.

0 Replies

Why were you talking about a mushroom cloud, though? What was the evidence that Saddam might have had nuclear weapons?

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

If you wait for certainty to see if a madman has made good on his treaty promise to destroy WMD, you may obtain proof in the form of a mushroom cloud rising over what had been one of your cities.

To repeat: you are clearly implying that Saddam had had nuclear weapons, then promised to destroy them, but as he can't be trusted, that was reason enough to invade.

Now, the obvious mistake in your argument seems to be that Saddam never had had nuclear weapons. Can you explain why you are claiming the opposite?

0 Replies

There were no WMD found even before we invaded, Brandon. Blix had been ascertaining that right up to the time that Bush told him to get out because we were going to invade anyway.

You said that Saddam was hiding WMD. To what are you refering?

0 Replies

Brandon continuously avoids adressing the topic of the UNMOVIC inspections. No single comment. He's talking about the 12 years since the first Iraq War, about the devastation a nuclear weapon would cause to a US city, about how Saddam lied and couldn't be trusted anyway....

But no word about Hans Blix. Nada. Nothing about the UNMOVIC inspections. Nothing about the UNSCOM inspections either. Nothing about their success right after the first Gulf War in supervising the destruction of weapons and agents. Nothing about the reports issued until right before the invasion in March 2003.

It seems Brandon rather chooses to avoid dealing with reality as soon as the facts get in the way of his fiction, and of his constructed reasons that an invasion of Iraq was presumably unavoidable.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Brandon continuously avoids adressing the topic of the UNMOVIC inspections.....

....But no word about Hans Blix. Nada. Nothing about the UNMOVIC inspections. Nothing about the UNSCOM inspections either. Nothing about their success right after the first Gulf War in supervising the destruction of weapons and agents. Nothing about the reports issued until right before the invasion in March 2003.

It seems Brandon rather chooses to avoid dealing with reality as soon as the facts get in the way of his fiction, and of his constructed reasons that an invasion of Iraq was presumably unavoidable.

You got that right, Old Europe. Brandon here just likes to state his position, and when challenged demand that evidence be presented to challenge it. When that evidence is produced, Brandon restates his original position and demands that evidence be produced.

This is a summary of this discussion with Brandon:

BRANDON: Bush had to invade to make sure Saddam could not use any WMD's he had.

OTHERS: But the inspectors were in the process of finding out if Saddam had WMD's before Bush invaded. So that can't be the reason Bush invaded.

BRANDON: Bush could not take the chance that a city could go up in a mushroom cloud. He HAD to invade to make sure Saddam could not use whatever WMD's he had.

OTHERS: But all Bush had to do to make sure of that was to wait for the inspectors to find out if Saddam had any WMD's to use. How could Bush commit 175,000 troops to find out something that he was about to find out anyway?

BRANDON: Saddam had played games for 12 years. Bush had to invade.

OTHERS: Under the threat of invasion, the inspectors were given free and total access to Iraq. They could go, unannounced, anywhere they wanted. They could search private houses and farms. They not only could talk to any scientist or anyone they suspect could be involved in weapons production, they could remove these people from Iraq completely and question them outside the country.

BRANDON: Saddam had hid weapons before.

OTHERS: That's what inspectors are for. There are only a few people with the expertise to make weapons, and the inspectors had full access to them. Plus the inspectors had found Saddam's weapons in the 90's and destroyed them.

BRANDON: Bush had to invade. He had to make sure Saddam could not use any WMD's he might have had.

OTHERS: The inspectors were in the process of finding out if Saddam even had any WMD's to use when Bush ordered them out of the country and invaded.

BRANDON: Do you know what WMD's can do to a city? Bush had to invade, he couldn't take a chance on Saddam using any WMD's he might have.

OTHERS: Saddam could not use WMD's if he didn't have them in the first place. And the inspecotors were in the process of finding out if he had them.

BRANDON: Bush had to invade. He had no choice. He could not take the chance on Saddam using WMD's.......

And around and around and around, all the time Brandon sprinkling his silly posts with assertions that those who shoot down his arguments, such as they are, are uninteligent and foolish.

I really don't know who Brandon thinks he's fooling, but for all his blather, he has yet to come up with a single, solitary explanation on why Bush had to invade to prevent Saddam from using WMD's when inspectors were on the ground finding out for sure if Saddam had any WMD's in the first place.

0 Replies

Brandom claims to have two physics degrees. I wonder how he performs his research? If he uses the same MO on his research that he uses to find WMDs, I wonder how efficient he can be?

Just wondering. Wink

0 Replies

To be born to create, to love, to win at games
is to be born to live in time of peace.
But war teaches us to lose everything
and to become what we were not.
It all becomes a question of style.

Albert Camus

0 Replies

Blix and ElBaradei were taking away all justification for war. They visited sites Clinton had bombed and Powell had said were rebuilt and found they had not been rebuilt. They had access even to the Presidential palaces. They even were dismantling missiles that exceeded the allowed range by a few miles. Working with Blix was the right way to go but obviously Bushie long ago had other plans. He was talking about invading Iraq back in 1999.

0 Replies

Retired general: Iraq invasion was 'strategic disaster'

The Lowell Sun/EVAN LEHMANN | October 3 2005

WASHINGTON -- The invasion of Iraq was the "greatest strategic disaster in United States history," a retired Army general said yesterday, strengthening an effort in Congress to force an American withdrawal beginning next year., Retired Army Lt. Gen. William Odom, a Vietnam veteran, said the invasion of Iraq alienated America's Middle East allies, making it harder to prosecute a war against terrorists.

The U.S. should withdraw from Iraq, he said, and reposition its military forces along the Afghan-Pakistani border to capture Osama bin Laden and crush al Qaeda cells.

"The invasion of Iraq I believe will turn out to be the greatest strategic disaster in U.S. history," said Odom, now a scholar with the Hudson Institute.

Homeward Bound, a bipartisan resolution with 60 House co-sponsors, including Lowell Rep. Marty Meehan, requests President Bush to announce plans for a draw-down by December, and begin withdrawing troops by October 2006.

The measure has not been voted on, nor has the House Republican leadership scheduled hearings. But supporters were encouraged yesterday, pointing to growing support among moderate conservatives and the public's rising dissatisfaction with the war.

Meehan, one of the first to propose a tiered exit strategy in January, when few of his Democratic colleagues dared wade into the controversial debate, pointed to "enormous progress."

"Talking about this issue, having hearings on this issue, getting more Americans to focus on it will result in a change of policy," Meehan told The Sun. "The generals and commanders on the field in Iraq overwhelmingly are saying we need less in terms of occupation and more Iraqis up front, and that's the only strategy I think that will result in getting American troops back home."

0 Replies

I hope the historians remember to include that very important statement when writing about George W Bush, "The invasion of Iraq I believe will turn out to be the greatest stratetic disaster in U.S. history."

0 Replies

blueflame1 wrote:

Blix and ElBaradei were taking away all justification for war. They visited sites Clinton had bombed and Powell had said were rebuilt and found they had not been rebuilt. They had access even to the Presidential palaces. They even were dismantling missiles that exceeded the allowed range by a few miles. Working with Blix was the right way to go but obviously Bushie long ago had other plans. He was talking about invading Iraq back in 1999.

BF welcome (back?).

as to those missiles, it should be mentioned that even there, those missiles exceeded their flight limit ONLY when they carried no payload. had they been tested with what would sit atop them, they would have been found within the limits posed for them.

The Samoud II missile had a range exceeding the limit, and this discovery was paraded all over the media, with rarely a mention that it was only by 30 km. The 180 km range was only for missiles that had no warhead or guidance system and that, when those were installed, the range did in fact fall below the 150 km maximum due to the additional weight.

0 Replies

kuvasz wrote:

blueflame1 wrote:
Blix and ElBaradei were taking away all justification for war. They visited sites Clinton had bombed and Powell had said were rebuilt and found they had not been rebuilt. They had access even to the Presidential palaces. They even were dismantling missiles that exceeded the allowed range by a few miles. Working with Blix was the right way to go but obviously Bushie long ago had other plans. He was talking about invading Iraq back in 1999.

BF welcome (back?).

as to those missiles, it should be mentioned that even there, those missiles exceeded their flight limit ONLY when they carried no payload. had they been tested with what would sit atop them, they would have been found within the limits posed for them.

The Samoud II missile had a range exceeding the limit, and this discovery was paraded all over the media, with rarely a mention that it was only by 30 km. The 180 km range was only for missiles that had no warhead or guidance system and that, when those were installed, the range did in fact fall below the 150 km maximum due to the additional weight.

that was my understanding as well, kuv. max allowable was 90 miles and the al samoud did 120.

all of this info was out there. some people listened, others didn't.

0 Replies

183 km without payload. Payload 300 kg. Range with payload 149 km.

That nonwithstanding, Iraq destroyed 65 of its 120 Al Samouds under UNMOVIC supervision - between March 1 and the beginning of the US invasion on March 20!

And then people claim that the invasion was necessary because Iraq was not cooperating.......

0 Replies

The important thing to remember is that we had UN Inspectors in Iraq looking for and destroying those weapons. Those that continue to support Bush are ignoring the facts. 1) We had inspectors in Iraq. 2) Bush and minions claimed Saddam had WMDs, and Colin Powell even showed photos, 3) Bush and his minions also claimed that Saddam was trying to buy yellow cake from Niger, 4) Bush and his minions also claimed Saddam had al Qaida connections, and 5) Blix and others have shared information with the world that they could not show Saddam had WMDs.

A. Bush chased out the UN Inspectors.
B. Bush tried to buy ($4 or $5 biliion) access through Turkey for the northern attack, but Turkey refused.
C. The "coalition" of the willing actually involved only the Brits; all the others were token coalition members. Most have since departed from Iraq.
D. Terrorism actually increased since our invasion of Iraq
E. Saddam's ability to deliver WMDs to the US was nil, and most people that have been keeping up with the media knew that.
F. Most of the initiatives or actions taken by Bush has been a total disaster rooted in incompetence.
G. This administration keeps telling the American Public that we're making progress in Iraq. Believers are now below 40 percent. It isn't surprising when we've lost almost 2,000 and some 15,000 of them returning with physical and mental injuries, and upwards of 100,000 innocent Iraqis killed by our coalition forces with no end in sight.

Diehard Bush supporters just doesn't understand how much damage this administration has wrought our world.

0 Replies

yup.

and now the same people interpret anything that eveb sounds like removing from iraq, in any time frame, as "cut and run".

look, at some time the iraqis have to take it all on. if the us can turn out soldiers after a couple of months in boot camp, the iraqis can too. not that they will ever measure up to the best standards of the american military. they won't. there are few who even come close, such as the brits, the germans etc.

and we don't really know if even they still do. they haven't had any serious combat scenarios since wwII.

put the iraqis on the spot. "we're leaving on such and such a date. be ready".

it's gonna be up to them sooner or later. i vote for sooner.

0 Replies

Some senior general said recently that the Iraqis will not be ready to take over security of their country for another five years.

Even if they do get ready, they're having big problems with the new constitution and the constant tribal disagreemnts between the Sunnis and Shia.

Somebody also mentioned the fact that there's a possibility that Iran may get involved with Iraqi's politics when they become "independent."

0 Replies

Too many of those Iraqis are just working for their paychecks.

You can pay people to fight; it's much harder to find people you can pay to die.

0 Replies

How Do We Win in Iraq?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know