Enboldened by the cut and run folks

[Safe-Keeper]

They've been saying that for years. Watch "obsession" sometime.

Or how about a movie that's actually made to enlighten and educate, rather than as a propaganda tool? "Muslims are evil and the whole world's at risk" is naught but a reprisal of the witch hunts, McCarthyism of the Cold War, paranoia about the "Jewish threat", and I could go on and on. Pick an enemy, real or imagined, and paint a pic' of it as an evil threat to the whole world that fights simply for being fanatical and/or evil.

I'm sorry your childhood was such agony. Perhaps children whoose agony was greater than yours might like the help that the US provides.

I.e. the invasion of Iraq, which toppled a stable (albeit evil) government and replace it with a regime totally unable to keep the peace, giving militants the freedom to start a civil war?

I'd be crying from joy.

On that ISSUE, what is the Dem's solution? I've yet to hear any of them speak of a plan. Winning the election on "It's time for a change" hardly delt with any of the issues faceing America nor did it present any form of a platform to the people.

Except they are.

How about surrenduring to Al Qaeda? Sound good to you?

The USA surrendered to Al-Q'aida the moment they abandoned the War on Terror for the invasion of Iraq, purely for economic reasons.

Surrender to Al-Q'aida? You're hardly even fighting them in the first place. If you haven't noticed, the extremists in Iraq have little to do with the extremists who blew up the WTC. Geez.

Do you really think electing the Democrats are going to make this situation better or us any safer?

Anything short of a pull-out from Iraq is better than the McCarthyist doctrine of the GOP.

Do you really think if we leave Iraq, things will get better or stabilize?

No. The only way to stabilize the country is to invent a time machine and go back in time.

When inspectors showed up at a facility after 1996, and I led the bulk of these inspections that ran into the confrontations, a lot of people would assume that, when the Iraqis obstructed the work of the inspectors, it's because they were hiding Weapons of Mass Destruction. Not so. 98% of the inspections run by the weapons inspection team from 1996 through 1998 got the full cooperation of the Iraqi government. A very small percentage, primarily the ones I led, were obstructed. Why? Because we were going to sites that were affiliated with Presidential security, Presidential palaces, and intelligence services. The Iraqis obstructed us not because they were hiding weapons. I'm here to tell you, as the person who planned these inspections; we never thought weapons were there. We were looking for the potential of documentation that might help us clear up outstanding questions as to what the final disposition of material was.
--Scott Ritter, weapons inspector.

But no, no matter how illegal and unjust the blasted conflict was, pulling out of Iraq now will solve nothing.

[AVGWarhawk]

Three things:

1. Iraq will never become self relient because we are still there providing protection. They have become relaxed with it and will continue to depend on it until forced to do it themselves.

2. Iraq is this generations Viet Nam. We will pull out in disgrace and our fighting men and women will not have parade or fanfare they deserve. Truly a shame.

3. We have already forgotten this was a response to the 9/11 attacks. All of America backed it. Now that we are on the losing side, we don't want any part of it. Typical America with the short term memory.

Just my humble opinion.

Now that we are on the losing side

How are you defining the losing side? Just because the hostilities haven't been wrapped up within the hour plot line of a TV show doesn't mean there is a losing side (Saddam's regime excepted). Have you been to Detroit, New Orleans, Camden, Miami, St Louis or Washington D.C. lately. Plenty of violence in those cities?

Has the US military been defeated in any military engagement in Iraq?

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by waste gate

How are you defining the losing side? Just because the hostilities haven't been wrapped up within the hour plot line of a TV show doesn't mean there is a losing side (Saddam's regime excepted). Have you been to Detroit, New Orleans, Camden, Miami, St Louis or Washington D.C. lately. Plenty of violence in those cities?

Has the US military been defeated in any military engagement in Iraq?

I live between Washington DC and Baltimore MD....THE MURDER CAPITAL of the WORLD. So yeah, I see and read about it everyday. We have lost the battle and war in these two cities.

Sure we have won the battles but have we won the war?????? We have not won the war...the country is still in caos. It will remain so if we are still there. It has become a state of dependence and not a state self sufficient. Just like when you hit 18 years of age....booted out of the nest. It is time we boot the out of their nest and let them make it on their own.


Rumsfeld quit. George W has asked that his fathers cabinet of advisers step in.....should tell you something don't you think. The kids can't handle it anymore and dad has to do it.

I live between Washington DC and Baltimore MD....THE MURDER CAPITAL of the WORLD. So yeah, I see and read about it everyday. We have lost the battle and war in these two cities.

So by your definition those cities should be abandoned.?

[AVGWarhawk]

You better believe it. Lock stock and barrell. Baltimore is a joke and Washington is a national disgrace. With exception of the museum mall and monuments the rest is just laughable at best. But you are comparing apples to oranges. Iraq is a country with a standing military and it is OURS! Time for them to pick up the pieces and move forward. We were asked to help remove Saddam and we answered. Now we are doing it alone. The baby steps are over. Our men and women have done enough. I'm glad you feel it is ok to keep ours over there losing appendages to bombs and grenades. Same as Viet Nam in my view. We want your help fighting will we stand idle by watching.

[quote=AVGWarhawk]Our men and women have done enough. I'm glad you feel it is ok to keep ours over there losing appendages to bombs and grenades. Same as Viet Nam in my view.[quote]

Is that not the definition of cut and run?

[AVGWarhawk]

[quote=waste gate][quote=AVGWarhawk]Our men and women have done enough. I'm glad you feel it is ok to keep ours over there losing appendages to bombs and grenades. Same as Viet Nam in my view.

Is that not the definition of cut and run?

Absolutely....we cut and run. Our young men and women need to come on home. It is time for the Iraqi to figure out his future. We did what was asked....oust a dictator. Do you realise how rich this country will be with sale of oil that will be dispersed amongst the people. Filthy rich by every stretch of the imagination. What I dislike is CNN..constant negative on it. Fox5 usually shows postives about it. Iraq is not as bad off as one would like to believe. People are buying ever electronic gizzmo they can because electricity is free. The money will be flowing and we will be watching closely to make sure another single individual rules it all. But again, it is time for the Iraqi to take control of what is theirs. They have become to complacent.

[quote=AVGWarhawk][quote=waste gate]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

Our men and women have done enough. I'm glad you feel it is ok to keep ours over there losing appendages to bombs and grenades. Same as Viet Nam in my view.

Absolutely....we cut and run. Our young men and women need to come on home. It is time for the Iraqi to figure out his future. We did what was asked....oust a dictator. Do you realise how rich this country will be with sale of oil that will be dispersed amongst the people. Filthy rich by every stretch of the imagination. What I dislike is CNN..constant negative on it. Fox5 usually shows postives about it. Iraq is not as bad off as one would like to believe. People are buying ever electronic gizzmo they can because electricity is free. The money will be flowing and we will be watching closely to make sure another single individual rules it all. But again, it is time for the Iraqi to take control of what is theirs. They have become to complacent.

Post WWII Europe didn't recover or return to what they now call normal until many years after the defeat of Germany. The Marshall Plan time line exists until 1967, a full 22 years after VE day. The US has had a military presence in continental Europe to this day.

[tycho102]

Originally Posted by waste gate

The US has had a military presence in continental Europe to this day.

I would very much like to rectify that particular issue.

[AVGWarhawk]

[quote=waste gate][quote=AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by waste gate

Post WWII Europe didn't recover or return to what they now call normal until many years after the defeat of Germany. The Marshall Plan time line exists until 1967, a full 22 years after VE day. The US has had a military presence in continental Europe to this day.

POST WWII.....unfortunate sir we are not POST Iraqi war. It goes on and will continue as long as we have a large military presence. Besides, POST WWII....we were the victors so we could do what we wanted. Like I stated, we win the battles but not the war. We need the backing of the locals and it is not happening. Right now the locals are delivering bombs in cars/packages. WWII we had the backing of everyone involved. There was no type of terrorist type acts other than the V2 threat and gas that was not used that I have read in any book. As far as military presence in Europe. I do not believe it is absolutely necessary at this juncture. We deploy just as fast from the state as we do in bases outside of the US.

[quote=AVGWarhawk][quote=waste gate]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

POST WWII.....unfortunate sir we are not POST Iraqi war. It goes on and will continue as long as we have a large military presence. Besides, POST WWII....we were the victors so we could do what we wanted. Like I stated, we win the battles but not the war. We need the backing of the locals and it is not happening. Right now the locals are delivering bombs in cars/packages. WWII we had the backing of everyone involved. There was no type of terrorist type acts other than the V2 threat and gas that was not used that I have read in any book. As far as military presence in Europe. I do not believe it is absolutely necessary at this juncture. We deploy just as fast from the state as we do in bases outside of the US.

There was no type of terrorist type acts

Not true my friend. Partisan NAZIs did exist and did attack allied troops and installations, both in western and eastern occupied zones. The difference was that for 24 months the populations/insurgents had been heavly bombed and the insurgents didn't have other nation/states contributing to their terrorism.

[VipertheSniper]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

3. We have already forgotten this was a response to the 9/11 attacks. All of America backed it. Now that we are on the losing side, we don't want any part of it. Typical America with the short term memory.
Just my humble opinion.

Talk about short term memory... what was it again you were going to war with Iraq for? I thought it was WMD's, or was it terrorist ties, or spreading democracy, or what???!!!!

Saddam's Iraq was as far as I'm aware not connected to the 9/11 attacks, Afghanistan where the Taliban reigned and harbored Al-Quaida was though, but I guess, after you were unable to find Osama, you had to distract the people with going for Saddam...

All of America backed it. Yeah no wonder, if the government feeds you lies, day in day out about WMD's in Iraq, all waiting to be delivered to the US with rockets that got a range of what... 200 Miles??? If that isn't a stupid reason to back a war with a country that was totally unrelated to a former attack, I don't know what is...

But I guess that's what you get when you tar with a brush as broad as the whole middle east...

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

3. We have already forgotten this was a response to the 9/11 attacks.

Ok refresh my memory, what exactly did Iraq have to do with the islamic raghead's that decided to park a couple airliners into the WTC?

Im listening really hard, and all i can hear is cricket's on that one.

The truth is, Iraq has abosutly NOTHING to do with Sept 11th. What happened was Bush worked us all up into a frenzy playing on the average american's patriotism.

After septh 11th, Junior decided that we were going to wage a war against a nationless entity in the traditional sense as if it were an acutal nation. Afghanistan we were on target, Afghanistan was a direct response and the appropriate one. After that we went off on this tangent fueled by paranoia.

That paranoia being, "OMG OMG Hussien has teh WMD!'s to sell to teh ragheads!" Maybe he did at some point, but history sure hasn't shown it. Are we still talking about 9/11? No, i dont think so. Now we're talking about trying to combat a nationless enity by a using a rulebook that this entity does not follow. Radical Islam and Jihad is not a nation, it's an idea, a beleif, and it's spreading like wildfire - you can't combat that by traditional means. Our attempting to do so, has only made it worse, and now we're stuck between a rock and a hardplace.

(edit: BTW, WMD is NOT the proper term, it's NBC )

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

Ok refresh my memory, what exactly did Iraq have to do with the islamic raghead's that decided to park a couple airliners into the WTC?

Im listening really hard, and all i can hear is cricket's on that one.

The truth is, Iraq has abosutly NOTHING to do with Sept 11th. What happened was Bush worked us all up into a frenzy playing on the average american's patriotism.

After septh 11th, Junior decided that we were going to wage a war against a nationless entity in the traditional sense as if it were an acutal nation. Afghanistan we were on target, Afghanistan was a direct response and the appropriate one. After that we went off on this tangent fueled by paranoia.

That paranoia being, "OMG OMG Hussien has teh WMD!'s to sell to teh ragheads!" Maybe he did at some point, but history sure hasn't shown it. Are we still talking about 9/11? No, i dont think so. Now we're talking about trying to combat a nationless enity by a using a rulebook that this entity does not follow. Radical Islam and Jihad is not a nation, it's an idea, a beleif, and it's spreading like wildfire - you can't combat that by traditional means. Our attempting to do so, has only made it worse, and now we're stuck between a rock and a hardplace.

(edit: BTW, WMD is NOT the proper term, it's NBC )

WMD, NBC, CBS, CNN, BBC - whatever. :p

Regarding WMDs, may I suggest visiting the last page of my "Iraq WMDs Revisited" thread.

As for Saddam's ties to Islamic terrorists, I unfortunately do not automatically recall where a number of relevant articles on this were recently. However, this article from July, The Saddam-Osama Connection: The Terrorist Testimony, with all of its reference links, might be just the ticket.