Rollinredcavi wrote:
Well... you actually hit quite a couple of topics that even the biggest anti-war people have begun to agree with GWB on. WMD's, most of our country seems to think WMD's are nuclear weapons. So Bush said "no we didnt find WMD's" thats where his lack in public speaking caught up with him. WMD's are classified as chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. We found thousands of gallons of gases used to make WMD's in Iraq.
in 1992/1993, sure. This time, no. Again ISG Report bares this out.
The Mustard Gas that was found was created post-invasion. Iraq had no ability to produce chemical agents anything more complicated than cod liver oil. It was part of the disarmament treaty that was put in place after Op: Desert Storm.
Quote:
Yeah, Saddam even launched some on Kuwait. GAM, your a guy that pays attention to stuff, you know that he launched chemical weapons on his own people. And you have also seen the report about the "missing weapons" just before 2004 presidential elections that democrats tried using as an election tool. Well they even stated in news reports that this included gasses and liquids used to created chemical weapons. The whole WMD's thing, I would think someone as smart as you would know is true.
I don't recall any chemical weapons used in Kuwait, but I wouldn't discount it. The Missing weapons report given to the President was corroborated with 1993 destruction reports and ISG's final report. There were no "Missing" weapons, and the former Iraqi General that went on Fox was also proven to be a liar, the weapons that were said to have been sent into the Becca valley in Lebanon in these massive airlifts patently did not happen, 100% of Iraqi airspace was monitored as part of the no-fly zone restrictions and no planes capable of carrying the supposed weapons (I know that an average people carrier is capable of ferrying components, but not the amounts of the missing caches).
Quote:
So your saying that there is no concrete evidence that Saddam paid terrorists? Well, there is no concrete evidence that Osama was the 9/11 attacks head honcho. All we had was his word and links to extremist groups. But obviously our government had much more information than the general public, as it should be. I actually find it kind of funny that people question Bush on topics like the war on Iraq because of lack of info. Back in WWII times, think D-Day, no one in the whole country would have supported attacking main land Europe. They did it because the government, no matter who is in power knows more than the general populace.
Actually, there was concrete evidence pointing to Al-queda as the culprits of 9/11/01. This information is summarized in the preface and laid out in sections 2.1, 5, 7.
If the government knows so much, why can't they fix potholes monthly? As far as D-Day goes: Loose lips sink ships, keeping things secret is one thing, you don't generally show your hand in the planning stages; when you want to justify the money spent in major military operations, please tell me what sense there is in not showing proof of what was there?
I don't question Bush on the lack of info, although I generally think its a really damned good idea to get the lay of the land before you go charging in, I can't trot into a job without knowing what it is that I have to do. Iraq was largely a black-hole for intelligence because of the very tight controls on communications. There actually was a functioning border patrol, and much of the military and police was up and running.
The report that Iraq was trying to buy Yellow Cake enriched Plutonium was the impetus behind this invasion, as well as the manufacture of chemical and biological agents. Iraq had no way to process the uranium into a proper fissile shape, and no material or laboratory facilities to create VX, Sarin or any other weaponised chem/bio agent. The closest it's been estimated that Iraq could have come to a dirty bomb with the items they had on hand is to raid the Osmium stores from the smoke detectors of the nation and focus an energetic beam onto the pile. Their nuclear reactors cannot produce isotopes that are usable for Nuclear devices. That is Concrete, known and was verified all through out the 90's, Iraq couldn't import any of the technology (after 1991 that is), they had no way to smuggle it into the country (it's not like this kind of stuff is off the shelf), and no ability to produce the necessary technology indigenously. Given that Iraq was not able to make the weapons they were supposed to have been coveting, and had no way to import or smuggle it in, and no one really had anyway to verify much of anything happening within the Iraqi Gov't... how is it that Russia, Germany and Britain all got the same intelligence word for word, and all discredited the intel independently, but the US decided to go along with it?
Answer me this please, because you've yet to substantiate what you're saying about my statements, evidence or assertions.
Quote:
Now, GAM for the last two paragraphs of your statement, you really lost me on your elitist mentality, honestly; you are probably the only person that I have agued with on this site that I respect in the political topic, but you must not see what is really going on. It actually makes me laugh that you would say things 100% opposite of what Bush has said and is doing. The demmies are the ones that want to cut and run, we didnt pursue afghanistan because it is more of a respected nation around the world than Iraq. If we invade Afghanistan we not only have the terrorist attacking us but the rebel allies that are fighting for us would, for lack of better words, be pissed.
First: I was talking about cutting and running from AFGHANISTAN. There are about 11,000 troops there now. This has been stepped down from 17,000 in January, and 30,000 in 2002. Invasion force was 120,000 in November 2001. The phrase pulling up stakes is applicable. The job isn't done yet, it was handed off to the UN, and now NATO. FCOL Canada has greater troop commitment in Afghanistan 90% of the time (between 3,000 and 4,500 in various command, operations and support roles, but our military is capped at 60,000 peace-time strength).
Second: If you've completely disregarded what I've been saying all along, I'll give you a refresher: Now that you're IN Iraq, you might as well get THAT job done. The way to do that: More troops, more stability, move away from a theocratically opposed secular-ish government (and avoid the 25 year ordeal that Iran went through), get Government ministries that were gutted in the invasion back up and running, and mobilize peace-keeping operations to keep Shi'ia and Sunni's from dragging the country into Civil war. (which, unless anyone here is a pol-sci major doesn't get, is the last thing you want to have when your troops are in country).
Third: Respected? It's the largest opium producer in Asia, there are terrorist camps and incursions from Pakistan from sympathetic groups... it has little if any industry outside the drug trade and war material production. It's been consistently ranked as one of the bottom 5 nations in the world to live in since the Russian invasion.
By the way, I say this with no humor at all:
NEWS FLASH: YOU INVADED AFGHANISTAN IN OCTOBER 2001
The Northern Alliance in Afghanistan isn't a problem, they're actually helping the International Security Assistance Force ISAF
Lastly: Elitist? I'm proposing a solution to help a deteriorating situation. Pulling troops out and keeping long deployments... doesn't sound conducive to completing the mission successfully.
Quote:
Then your worst statement, "The job still isn't done in Afghanistan. How can you support a President that no interest whatsoever in getting the job done? "
I rather think my worst statement was that the earth was indeed round and that it shall abideth forever. Might have been second to a drunken exclamation about Natty Light, but certainly that one isn't my worst.
Seriously, there was little if any overall plan going into Iraq, other than hit em hard, the larger battle group that was committed to Afghanistan was pulled off, and less than 10% of the troops that were committed for the long haul were left to do the job. Iraq was invaded, and there was literally no logistics committed to protecting critical infrastructure (although there was a double ring of protection around the oil ministry, go figure) or Government institutions that would help ease the transition from Hussein to a provisional gov't.
I stand by what I said.
Quote:
Then what interest does he have? Just having men and women of our military killed? well John Kerry would care, because according to him they are the low life of our country. But you seriously must have been thinking among the demmies side. Your whole last two paragraphs is exactly what he demmies were running on in the current elections.
Really?
I'm going to point again to the How would YOU run the war? thread. Now, Troop deployments to Iraq have been dropping off since 2003:
2003: 120,000 total
2004: 86,000 total
2005: 70,000 total
2006: ~60,000 total
2007: 46,000 projected
I don't tend to follow any one party's doctrine, because frankly I don't see things as black and white. Also, I've said this at least a half-dozen times in common usage and on the board: The answer is NOT more parties. No parties are good parties.
In the broader scope: Iraq is a quagmire. There are no GOOD choices in this situation. There are essentially 2 options:
- Leave, and let the whole country either collapse into civil war, or rupture into smaller pieces,
- Stay, and maybe leave the place better than when you left it.
The BEST option would have been in 2003, to have focused on where the problem actually was: Afghanistan. Iraq was handled.
Quote:
So that is completely opposite of Bush's stance. Otherwise they would have supported Bush if that is what he was and wanted to do.
So you're questioning elected representative's rights to differ from the opinion of the president and other representatives? That's interesting, and very communist.
Also, might I harken to a few Republicans that were not interested in Iraq, because they wanted Bin Laden, the guy who was actually responsible for 9/11. Read about
Operation Jawbreaker, you'll get the picture.
Quote:
Iraq was the perfect country to take over,
Really? Seems to be working out just DANDY.
Quote:
it had WMD's,
No, it didn't. Before you dare assert this again, READ THE
ISG AND
DUELFER REPORTS. They prove without a shadow of a doubt that there were NO WMD's in Iraq after 1993. All stores of Chem/bio weapons were destroyed, quite thoroughly by Army Corps of Engineers under UN Supervision... hell there were unfettered inspections up until March 03.
Quote:
its leadership was a child of the Nazi's,
So says a small group of historians. The Republicans and Democrats both supported segregation, dishonouring Indian land Treaties, prolonging fruitless conflict in East Asia, and interred Japanese american citizens in WWII. You make it sound like americans are without blood in this respect... who cares where the roots of the Ba'ath party lay, Hussein was the leader, and he was a despot. Despotism is worse than national socialism.
Quote:
and it supplies the perfect base for carrying out the opperations that are critical to defeating terrorism.
A realistic foreign policy would help more than another client state.
Quote:
Whether it happens soon or not, we need that base.
At what cost?
Quote:
Why do you think the terrorists are defending is so harshly?
Hrmm...
Fedayeen Hussein are defending it because... oh yeah, THEY LIVE THERE. Al-Queda is in there because it's a failed state and therefore is a place where they can set up shop and recruit, recruit, recruit... well, that and attack the infidel.
Quote:
because they know how critical it would be if the US has control in Iraq.
No because while they're keeping your military tied up there, they're also pushing into other failing states, and consolidating their power base in larger Muslim countries like Indonesia. Ever notice why there isn't any talk about an Iran-al-Qaeda link? It's because there's no connection between the Iranian Gov't and Bin Laden.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
