Brandon9000 wrote:realjohnboy wrote:My God!!!
This effort, so far, has cost us 2500 American's lives.....
So, you oppose all wars, under any circumstances, right?
realjohnboy wrote:billions of dollars and severe damage to our reputation with the rest of the world......
It shouldn't have, because we were right.
realjohnboy wrote:And it all boils down to semantics? And the meaning of the word that may or may not have been used? Imminent.
No, the reasons for the invasion have nothing to do with this argument over who did or didn't use the word imminent.
Re your 1st point. No I don't oppose all wars. But I fought in one and I came to realize that our government (administrative and legislative) didn't have a very clear understanding of all of the ramifications of what they were getting into--including the cost in lives and dollars.
Re your 2nd point, I would repeat the 1st point. We are now regarded as an arrogant bully. If the threat was not imminent, why did we rush into this?
And the 3rd point. The cynic in me would agree with you. It was about oil, not about the semantics of various adjectives. The administration mis-led the public and the Congress bought into it.
So where are we? Are we winning the war in Iraq? No. Is there some kind of exit strategy? Perhaps. Perhaps, like in Vietnam, we will declare, again. mission accomplished and bring the troops home. Can we repair our damaged relations with other countries in the world? I don't know. But to deny the situation, or worse, to claim that we are always right so it doesn't really matter is not healthy. And finally, regardless of where yall land on the political spectrum, would you agree with me that the American public has lost a lot of confidence in the institution of the Federal government?
rjb wrote:
And finally, regardless of where yall land on the political spectrum, would you agree with me that the American public has lost a lot of confidence in the institution of the Federal government?
Whether they agree with you or not, at least the majority of Americans (both republicans and democrats) rate the congress in the twenties for performance.
Anybody in the work environment that "earns" such a low performance rating would be looking for another job - sooner than later.
realjohnboy wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:realjohnboy wrote:My God!!!
This effort, so far, has cost us 2500 American's lives.....
So, you oppose all wars, under any circumstances, right?
realjohnboy wrote:billions of dollars and severe damage to our reputation with the rest of the world......
It shouldn't have, because we were right.
realjohnboy wrote:And it all boils down to semantics? And the meaning of the word that may or may not have been used? Imminent.
No, the reasons for the invasion have nothing to do with this argument over who did or didn't use the word imminent.
Re your 1st point. No I don't oppose all wars. But I fought in one and I came to realize that our government (administrative and legislative) didn't have a very clear understanding of all of the ramifications of what they were getting into--including the cost in lives and dollars.
Re your 2nd point, I would repeat the 1st point. We are now regarded as an arrogant bully. If the threat was not imminent, why did we rush into this?
Because the threat was desperately serious, even though possibly a few years off. Also, the exact time frame couldn't be predicted with accuracy. At any time, Saddam Hussein might have announced that he had nukes and/or bioweapons and would brook no further interference with his actions.
realjohnboy wrote:And the 3rd point. The cynic in me would agree with you. It was about oil, not about the semantics of various adjectives. The administration mis-led the public and the Congress bought into it.
President Bush said that the invasion was about the threat of WMD in Saddam Hussein's hands. If you think it was about oil, then provide a little evidence (and not some BS speculation).
realjohnboy wrote:So where are we? Are we winning the war in Iraq? No.
Whether we are or not has no bearing on whether or not the war should have been undertaken. If it should have been, then we simply have to do our best to win.
realjohnboy wrote:Is there some kind of exit strategy? Perhaps. Perhaps, like in Vietnam, we will declare, again. mission accomplished and bring the troops home.
Only a fool considers the issue of exit strategy to by primary in a war. We should fight until we win, and then leave.
realjohnboy wrote:Can we repair our damaged relations with other countries in the world? I don't know. But to deny the situation, or worse, to claim that we are always right so it doesn't really matter is not healthy. And finally, regardless of where yall land on the political spectrum, would you agree with me that the American public has lost a lot of confidence in the institution of the Federal government?
If doing the right thing alienates some people or countries, then it's just part of the cost of doing the right thing.
Once again, the inspectors were on the ground, unfettered, inspecting away. They could search private houses and property, (which would be unconstitutional in the US), and the Iraqis were finally cooperating. They could take scientists and move them out of the country, away from any Iraqi government pressure. Saddam would have no opportunity to further any weapons development program, if any, with the inspectors crawling all over the place.
Yet, just as the inspectors began to cast doubt on these WMD's-and we had told the world we knew EXACTLY where they were-Bush tells the inspectors to get out and he invades.
Fact is, Bush and his cohorts whipped the country up into a fervor with fear of the nonexistent WMD's. After several months of unfettered inspections turned up nothing, Bush realized that if this was allowed to continue, support for the war was going to erode. So he tells the inspectors to get out and invades before the fact that there probably weren't any WMD's in Iraq had a chance to sink in to the American people.
And here we are, 2500 American lives later, with a big fat mess on our hands.
kelticwizard wrote:Once again, the inspectors were on the ground, unfettered, inspecting away. They could search private houses and property, (which would be unconstitutional in the US), and the Iraqis were finally cooperating. They could take scientists and move them out of the country, away from any Iraqi government pressure. Saddam would have no opportunity to further any weapons development program, if any, with the inspectors crawling all over the place.
Yet, just as the inspectors began to cast doubt on these WMD's-and we had told the world we knew EXACTLY where they were-Bush tells the inspectors to get out and he invades.
Fact is, Bush and his cohorts whipped the country up into a fervor with fear of the nonexistent WMD's. After several months of unfettered inspections turned up nothing, Bush realized that if this was allowed to continue, support for the war was going to erode. So he tells the inspectors to get out and invades before the fact that there probably weren't any WMD's in Iraq had a chance to sink in to the American people.
And here we are, 2500 American lives later, with a big fat mess on our hands.
Fact is, after a dozen years of inspections which the regime in Iraq blocked and deceived, Bush and his cohorts whipped the country up into a fervor with fear of WMDs and WMD programs which might or might not still exist, and which, had they still existed, might have soon resulted in the deaths of a million people, possibly in the West, and possibly the domination, if not annexation, of the region by Iraq for many years.
Conservatives justifies everything based on "fear." I wonder if they ever cross the street without looking both ways even when they have the green light. How they are able to balance that fear against Iran and North Korea is a big mystery. Shouldn't the US have already preemptively attacked them?
cicerone imposter wrote:Conservatives justifies everything based on "fear." I wonder if they ever cross the street without looking both ways even when they have the green light. How they are able to balance that fear against Iran and North Korea is a big mystery. Shouldn't the US have already preemptively attacked them?
Here is one of several dozen of my posts on A2K answering this:
Brandon9000 wrote:cicerone imposter wrote:Brandon, You justify Bush's attack on Iraq based on faulty intelligence about Saddam's WMDs that killed tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis. Yet, you justify why Bush has not "protected Americans" from North Korea's WMDs with known information that they have nukes and the means to deliver them to the USA.
Your logic is nonexistent.
My God, I didn't say a word about delivering them to the United States. I said that should we invade North Korea, they would have the means to kill a million people immediately, say South Koreans and US soldiers. We haven't invaded them because the nukes we foolishly allowed them to acquire confer virtual invulnerability on them. This answers both why we invaded Iraq and why we don't invade North Korea.
Source
Brandon9000 wrote:cicerone imposter wrote:Conservatives justifies everything based on "fear." I wonder if they ever cross the street without looking both ways even when they have the green light. How they are able to balance that fear against Iran and North Korea is a big mystery. Shouldn't the US have already preemptively attacked them?
Here is one of several dozen of my posts on A2K answering this:
Brandon9000 wrote:cicerone imposter wrote:Brandon, You justify Bush's attack on Iraq based on faulty intelligence about Saddam's WMDs that killed tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis. Yet, you justify why Bush has not "protected Americans" from North Korea's WMDs with known information that they have nukes and the means to deliver them to the USA.
Your logic is nonexistent.
My God, I didn't say a word about delivering them to the United States. I said that should we invade North Korea, they would have the means to kill a million people immediately, say South Koreans and US soldiers. We haven't invaded them because the nukes we foolishly allowed them to acquire confer virtual invulnerability on them. This answers both why we invaded Iraq and why we don't invade North Korea.
Source
Brandon, I have a brickwall nearby. You'd have a better chance addressing it then c.i.
realjohnboy wrote:Is there some kind of exit strategy? Perhaps. Perhaps, like in Vietnam, we will declare, again. mission accomplished and bring the troops home.
Brandon replied:
Only a fool considers the issue of exit strategy to be primary in a war. We should fight until we win, and then leave.
[/quote]
Brandon, I have no problem with being called a fool. I have been called worse; much worse.
I am not a big fan of cutting and pasting long articles. I prefer to summarize the articles, relying on my reputation for credibility and a willingness to site sources. But it is a losing battle.
Anyway, back on May 9th, 2004, The Washington Post ran an article entitled Dissension Grows In Senior Ranks On Strategy. Much of it was not germane to this discussion here, but I quote:
"A senior general said he believes the United States is on the road to defeat.
"Asked who was to blame, the general pointed to (Defense Secretary) Rumsfeld and Paul D Wolfowitz (Assistant Secretary).
'I do not believe we had a clearly defined war strategy, end state and exit strategy before we commenced any invasion' he said. Had Colin Powell been chairman (of the Joint Chiefs of Staff), he would not have agreed to send troops without a clear exit strategy.' "
Brandon9000 wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
c.i. wrote:
Brandon, You justify Bush's attack on Iraq based on faulty intelligence about Saddam's WMDs that killed tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis. Yet, you justify why Bush has not "protected Americans" from North Korea's WMDs with known information that they have nukes and the means to deliver them to the USA.
Your logic is nonexistent.
brandon wrote:
My God, I didn't say a word about delivering them to the United States. I said that should we invade North Korea, they would have the means to kill a million people immediately, say South Koreans and US soldiers. We haven't invaded them because the nukes we foolishly allowed them to acquire confer virtual invulnerability on them. This answers both why we invaded Iraq and why we don't invade North Korea.
And then there's this:
Updated Jan. 23, 2003
On Oct. 16, 2002, the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush disclosed that North Korea had admitted to having a program to enrich uranium for use in nuclear weapons. With its admission, North Korea, also known as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea or DPRK, abrogated the Agreed Framework signed in 1994 with United States, under which the North Koreans agreed to freeze their nuclear weapons program.
On Dec. 10, 2002, North Korea announced it would restart plutonium production and eject the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors who monitored North Korea's compliance with the Agreed Framework. On Jan. 10, North Korea withdrew from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), an international accord prohibiting the acquisition and proliferation of nuclear weapons.
The fuel used in nuclear warheads can come from either uranium enrichment or plutonium reprocessing. North Korea has pursued both tracks. North Korea's uranium enrichment program, were it to continue, could produce highly-enriched uranium sufficient for nuclear weapons in roughly five years, depending on available technology.1 Prior to acceding to the Agreed Framework, North Korea probably produced enough plutonium for one or two nuclear weapons, although some estimates range to five or six. 2 It is unclear whether North Korea actually produced nuclear weapons with this plutonium.In January 1992, North Korea, fulfilling an obligation under the NPT, signed a nuclear safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency, allowing inspections. If North Korea restarts its five-megawatt facility, which would likely take about two months, it could produce at least one nuclear weapon per year beginning in mid 2003. 25 When completed, the two larger facilities could produce around 55 nuclear weapons annually. Additionally, by using its spent fuel and restarting its reprocessing plant, North Korea could likely begin producing nuclear weapons by spring 2003. With the entire Yongbyon facility up and running, North Korea could make more than 200 nuclear weapons by decade's end. 26
North Korea could deliver its nuclear weapons with missiles, although it is unclear what North Korean missiles are outfitted to carry nuclear warheads. All North Korean missiles are liquid-fueled. North Korea has an arsenal of hundreds of Scud missiles, which due to their extremely short range, could be used exclusively against targets in neighboring states. Additionally, North Korea may have as many as 100 short-range (about 800 miles or 1,300 km) No-Dong missiles, although estimates range far lower. 27 These missiles, likely developed with Soviet assistance, could reach all of South Korea and most of Japan. North Korea launched one such missile into the Sea of Japan in 1993. 28 North Korea is also developing longer-range Taepo Dong missiles. The Taepo Dong 1, one of which was test fired over Japan in 1998, has a range of 1,500-2,200 kilometers. The North Koreans also have an even longer-range missile, the Taepo Dong II, under development, which could have a range of up to 6,000 kilometers. These two-stage missiles might be able to hit Alaska or Hawaii. North Korea has exported missiles and missile technology to Iran, Pakistan, Egypt, Yemen, Syria and probably other nations. 29
realjohnboy wrote:realjohnboy wrote:Is there some kind of exit strategy? Perhaps. Perhaps, like in Vietnam, we will declare, again. mission accomplished and bring the troops home.
Brandon replied:
Brandon9000 wrote:Only a fool considers the issue of exit strategy to be primary in a war. We should fight until we win, and then leave.
Brandon, I have no problem with being called a fool. I have been called worse; much worse.
I am not a big fan of cutting and pasting long articles. I prefer to summarize the articles, relying on my reputation for credibility and a willingness to site sources. But it is a losing battle.
Anyway, back on May 9th, 2004, The Washington Post ran an article entitled Dissension Grows In Senior Ranks On Strategy. Much of it was not germane to this discussion here, but I quote:
"A senior general said he believes the United States is on the road to defeat.
"Asked who was to blame, the general pointed to (Defense Secretary) Rumsfeld and Paul D Wolfowitz (Assistant Secretary).
'I do not believe we had a clearly defined war strategy, end state and exit strategy before we commenced any invasion' he said. Had Colin Powell been chairman (of the Joint Chiefs of Staff), he would not have agreed to send troops without a clear exit strategy.' "
Your time would be better spent supporting our efforts than all this whining about how we messed up, which certainly gives aid and comfort to the very brutal enemy that our army is contending with. FYI, not all properly conducted battles are surgical and quick. If you believe that we should do more to win, try to channel it into some avenue that doesn't just encourage the enemy to persevere.
What efforts are we supposed to be supporting? The effort to take over the Iraqi oil industry? The effort to topple the government? The effort to kill hundreds of thousands? And when do we win? When the country is wiped out? When every able-bodied man woman and child who opposes us is wiped off the face of the planet?
I do support our troops as I realize many of them were duped into joining the military with the promise of a free education and veterans benefits.
There's no way to win the war in Iraq with 135,000-150,000 troops.
Bushco ignored the warnings of then general Shinseki that upwards of 500,000 troops would be needed to secure Iraq - after the war.
General Shinseki was relieved from duty.
NickFun wrote:What efforts are we supposed to be supporting? The effort to take over the Iraqi oil industry? The effort to topple the government? The effort to kill hundreds of thousands? And when do we win? When the country is wiped out? When every able-bodied man woman and child who opposes us is wiped off the face of the planet?
I do support our troops as I realize many of them were duped into joining the military with the promise of a free education and veterans benefits.
You could start with trying to put an effort into finding out what we are actually doing instead of spoutting the liberal taking points as though they actually had some truth behind them.
OK McG! Whar ARE the efforts we are supposed to be supporting?
NickFun wrote:OK McG! Whar ARE the efforts we are supposed to be supporting?
That should be something you should look into. I would suggest looking into sources different than those you have used in forming your opinions thus far.
Ah yes! Of course! We are supporting AMERICA! We are supporting DEMOCRACY! We are supporting Big Oil and Miller and Budweiser and Cell Phones and Microsoft! We are supporting AMERICAN EXPORTS! God Bless America!!!
Please be more specific McG. What ARE we trying to accomplish over there?
NickFun wrote:Ah yes! Of course! We are supporting AMERICA! We are supporting DEMOCRACY! We are supporting Big Oil and Miller and Budweiser and Cell Phones and Microsoft! We are supporting AMERICAN EXPORTS! God Bless America!!!
Please be more specific McG. What ARE we trying to accomplish over there?
You will need to put the effort in as I suggested NickFun. I will not spoon-feed you my opinions, it will be up to you.
It's your choice, you can continue thinking as you do, or you can expand your knowledge and take a look at what the other side has to offer. I can tell you though that your opinions are very wrong adn you should re-evaluate them.
"Adn?"
Let's dredge this one up again:
In September, 2002, Tony Blair wrote in the forward to the intelligence assessment he employed in the House of Commons that Iraq had womd which could be deployed within 45 minutes:
[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3054991.stm][b]The BBC[/b][/url] wrote:"It [the intelligence service] concludes that Iraq has chemical and biological weapons, that Saddam has continued to produce them, that he has existing and active military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, which could be activated within 45 minutes, including against his own Shia population; and that he is actively trying to acquire nuclear weapons capability..."
So, whaddaya think . . . is 45 minutres imminent?
