President Bush: We're Sending 20,000 more troops to Iraq.

ND13

I'm trying to figure out who will win the Golden Soapbox......Andrew or Demi???:p

PolkWannabie

markmarc wrote:

I wonder what $300 billion would have done towards energy independence

Nothing ... We're not allowed to drill on/off shore or build refineries etc ...

PolkWannabie

unc2701 wrote:

I'll say it again, we are stuck in Iraq. 20,000 troops will not cut it. Do we accept the loss, pull out and leave them ****? You say that's not an option.

The libs can force that option tomorrow ... They control congress ... They just vote not to fund ... End of story ... Think they have the guts to take a stand ? ... other than whatever someone else is doing is wrong ? ... on anything ?

brettw22

yawn.........off to more exciting things.......y'all have fun

PolkWannabie

brettw22 wrote:

yawn.........off to more exciting things.......y'all have fun

Typical Lib ... You shown them that they can carry the ball as opposed to just mouthing off ... and they're elsewhere ...

markmarc

AAharvel:
I applaud your well-thought out piece. I may not agree with all of it, but at least it is honest and detailed.

Democracy can't be given, it must be wanted. Iraq wasn't ready. Hussein was an evil version of Tito of Yugoslavia, who managed to keep all ethnic groups content (granted, he wasn't a boy scout, but compared to Saddam...). Some parts of the world just need dictatorial leaders to keep internal strife down. Not that I want SH alive and back in power. But realistically, when all is said and done, look for some sort of lifetime leader in Iraq to emerge. We can only hope that he is benevolent to the people.

I, myself believe that the civil war is limited to the Baghdad area. Beyond the sunni insurgency in Anbar, the rest of the country seems far more stable. This is probably due to the fact that it is exclusively one sect or another. if democracy does survive, the best bet may be some sort of religious provinces. The kicker is finding a way to share the oil wealth, if that can be managed there's a chance.

Complete withdrawal leaves moderate Arabs (Jordan, UAI, Kuwait, Dubai) at risk of being engulfed due to proximity. That to me is trouble. The thought of Iran moving in and having to spend billions is interesting. That would piss off the Iranian people even more, as they are still waiting for economic help from within.

For $357 billion, we didn't make ourselves safer. What we did discover the limits of military power once again when fighting a war in a peacetime mentality of our country. Do we look bad, hell yes. But, we recovered from Vietnam, and we will again. Our goal becomes leading the next great economic boom, oil independence, otherwise look for the 21st century to be known as the century of energy wars.

Systems

markmarc wrote:

..for $357 billion

Wow:eek: guess you guys are are getting a tax hike soon.

brettw22

Somewhat laughable that it's being proposed that the Dem's should be the one's coming up with the solution to the **** up that W began........some Repub party responsibility would be phenomenal.....but that's not gonna happen.........is it.

shack

brettw22 wrote:

Somewhat laughable that it's being proposed that the Dem's should be the one's coming up with the solution to the **** up that W began.........

They SAID they could fix it...and that's why they took control of the House and Senate. You mean they were lying? :eek:

hearingimpared

brettw22 wrote:

Somewhat laughable that it's being proposed that the Dem's should be the one's coming up with the solution to the **** up that W began........some Repub party responsibility would be phenomenal.....but that's not gonna happen.........is it.

Glad to have ya back Bro!

brettw22

The right has been acting totally helpless about the whole thing well before the elections......i mean, 'helpless' isn't something that they just started Monday......

shack

Ahhhh...the polarization of the parties....

And we wonder why nothing gets done.

mrbigbluelight

shack wrote:

They SAID they could fix it...and that's why they took control of the House and Senate. You mean they were lying? :eek:

"Mission Accomplished" ?

jdhdiggs

Everyone:

I would respectfully ask that you do a bit more research on the middle east culture as a whole. Your assumptions on what they would do upon withdrawel seems very unlikely. If the Iraqi government is not able to maintain piece, this violanve will likely spiral out of control bringing the wealthy Sunni states into war with Iran and that war will be about oil and Religion and it will be a hell of a lot more violent than what is happening now. (Think the Iran-Iraq war with better weapons on both sides).

Personally, from a US security perspective, this would be a good outcome because for as long as they fight eachother, they don't come here. Its not a moral victory, but it does serve its purpose.

MBB: Uh, didn't the US ensure there were no weapons of mass destruction and remove a dictator from power when the "mission accomplished" sign was put up? I'd say the original mission was accomplished. It was the follow-up that sucked.

Oh, and can somebody please give a logical case how this was a war for oil?

aaharvel

jdhdiggs wrote:

If the Iraqi government is not able to maintain piece, this violanve will likely spiral out of control bringing the wealthy Sunni states into war with Iran and that war will be about oil and Religion and it will be a hell of a lot more violent than what is happening now. (Think the Iran-Iraq war with better weapons on both sides).

Personally, from a US security perspective, this would be a good outcome because for as long as they fight eachother, they don't come here. Its not a moral victory, but it does serve its purpose.

egg zachary JD! And that is my alternative.

shack

jdhdiggs wrote:

MBB: Uh, didn't the US ensure there were no weapons of mass destruction and remove a dictator from power when the "mission accomplished" sign was put up? I'd say the original mission was accomplished. It was the follow-up that sucked.

The original mission was to invade Iraq, remove Saddam and dismantle their millitary. That mission was accomplished. I thought that was obvious. But evidently not.

mrbigbluelight

"The MAIN reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought Saddam had weapons of mass destruction."

Quote by George Bush.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1j_GUvrysA&mode=related&search=


Now, the key point here, and it may be a minor one, is this:

We KNEW he didn't have weapons of mass destruction.

So, strictly speaking, we accomplished our mission before it started.

aaharvel

mrbigbluelight wrote:

"The MAIN reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought Saddam had weapons of mass destruction."

Quote by George Bush.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1j_GUvrysA&mode=related&search=

damn he was in a tough spot there. you gotta give him credit for standing on San Andreas.

I suppose..:rolleyes:

ben62670

Oh its the Republicans fault. Oh its the Democrats fault.
If dumbass Americans spent less time on having a Republican party, and a Democratic party, and just labeled themselves Americans, and worked together for the better of this country instead of fighting each other we would be much better off!

Signed BW AMERICAN!!!

hearingimpared

ben62670 wrote:

Oh its the Republicans fault. Oh its the Democrats fault.
If dumbass Americans spent less time on having a Republican party, and a Democratic party, and just labeled themselves Americans, and worked together for the better of this country instead of fighting each other we would be much better off!

Signed BW AMERICAN!!!

Isn't that what Stalin said! LOL:D

aaharvel

I thought it was the (I) caucus.

hearingimpared

aaharvel wrote:

I thought it was the (I) caucus.

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

shack

mrbigbluelight wrote:

Now, the key point here, and it may be a minor one, is this:

We KNEW he didn't have weapons of mass destruction.

The intellegence (for the most part) said there WERE WMDs. The fact that the intellegence was wrong, or that they were moved to another country before we got there, or destroyed by the Iraqis themselves or whatever...we did not invade Iraq KNOWING there were no WMDs.

ben62670

Saddam was a WMD

aaharvel

"We KNEW he didn't have weapons of mass destruction."

MBlueLight, i don't think that's true. To the best of my knowledge that wasn't confirmed by our US intelligence until after the fact, but unfortunately after the fact became too late.

ben62670 wrote:

Saddam was a WMD

not anymore.

mrbigbluelight

I would agree that most Americans believed that there were WMD's in Iraq; I know I did.

However, it is with almost concrete certainty that the Administration knew. I will try to post some supporting info on that claim in the next couple of days (when I quote off the top of my head I "sometimes" cite the wrong sources ).

And I could be wrong, of course. If so, than President Bush truly believed there were WMD's in Iraq that posed a threat to America's security.

And I could be correct. If so, than President Bush knew there were no WMD's in Iraq. Which would mean ........ ?

We invaded Iraq because ....... ?

Systems

mrbigbluelight wrote:

I would agree that most Americans believed that there were WMD's in Iraq; I know I did.

However, it is with almost concrete certainty that the Administration knew.E]

They certainly had plenty of time to move them to Syria or elsewhere.

shack

mrbigbluelight wrote:

However, it is with almost concrete certainty that the Administration knew. I will try to post some supporting info on that claim in the next couple of days (when I quote off the top of my head I "sometimes" cite the wrong sources ).

I'm sure out of all the intelligence reports and memos there are probably one or two that will question the presence of WMDs or have an opinion that they didn't exist. This does not prove that the Administration or Congress KNEW they didn't exist. It means there may have been a different opinion that was given little creedence based on the majority opinion that they did.

PolkWannabie

mrbigbluelight wrote:

We invaded Iraq because ....... ?

Because they aided and abetted terrorists ...

In can case it got lost some where this was not a war on Iraq ... It was and is a war against terrorism ... It didn't begin in Iraq and it's very unlikely it'll end there ...