The "vote for war"

[NOVA]

"Iraq is a long way from [the USA], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Feb 18, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

Just what the hell are this people warning us about.....imaginary dangers ?

 

[Good Luck]

"Iraq is a long way from [the USA], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Feb 18, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

Just what the hell are this people warning us about.....imaginary dangers ?

But did the situation warrant invasion and occupation? From a military stance, invasion and occupation are the worst case scenario a nation can ask of their ground troops. Invasion was NOT the only military option open to us. We could well have used military force but without the invasion and still obtained the primary goal of keeping the threat of Iraqi WMDs in check.

I have said before, and say again, the methods used to contain Hussein at the time were not adequate to the situation. However that was because we were focusing primarily on diplomatic and economic options. Military actions were minimal and politically rather than militarily targeted.

For the few times we used military force, we basically went after political targets. What we should have done is go after military targets. We should have set things up for rapid deployment of ground attack sorties. Then whenever the UN inspection team reported being delayed or denied access to and inspection site, we launch the ready 5 and put iron on the ground within the flight time of our air assets. It would not have taken very many such responses before Saddam would have called it quits. Either that or we would have run out of targets to hit. (In which case we could have started having the inspection teams request to inspect Saddam's homes and castles....)

Military action was, indeed, a needed response against Hussein. Those who becried the few bombing missions that took place were wrong. But the ground war invasion and occupation were not an essential reaction. There were other military options available.

 

[Don Quixote]

I always argue this, but I absolutely hate how history has been rewritten on the Iraq resolution. From last night's debate:

"BIDEN: With regard to Iraq, I indicated it would be a mistake to -- I gave the president the power. I voted for the power because he said he needed it not to go to war but to keep the United States, the UN in line, to keep sanctions on Iraq and not let them be lifted.

I, along with Dick Lugar, before we went to war, said if we were to go to war without our allies, without the kind of support we need, we'd be there for a decade and it'd cost us tens of billions of dollars. John McCain said, no, it was going to be OK.

PALIN: Oh, yeah, it's so obvious I'm a Washington outsider. And someone just not used to the way you guys operate. Because here you voted for the war and now you oppose the war. You're one who says, as so many politicians do, I was for it before I was against it or vice- versa. Americans are craving that straight talk and just want to know, hey, if you voted for it, tell us why you voted for it and it was a war resolution."


Biden is right, and Palin's characterization is so completely wrong. The resolution was NOT a war resolution; yes, we can give a wink, wink, we all know what it REALLY was, now - but it was not a group of legislators signing up for Bush's war, the way he conducted it, with the timing & the full-scale nature that Bush chose. The mere idea of that is complete bullshit, and I've had it with people so effectively rewriting the history on that period of time.

Yes, they were stupid to trust Bush, and I don't give them a pass on that. But is was NOT how it is now characterized with such ease.

Have at it, rewriters....

not to mention the false information fed to congress - colin powell got shafted and has never recovered

$3 trillion spent or needed to recover to date

 

[Good Luck]

not to mention the false information fed to congress - colin powell got shafted and has never recovered

$3 trillion spent or needed to recover to date

Do you know how the congressional intelligence committees work? They get to see the raw data, not something filtered by the WH or anyone on the WH staff. The intelligence analysts who report to the Senate and House Intelligence Committees are not the people who report to the National Security Adviser.

The idea that congress was deliberately fed falsified intelligence is simply not true.

The fact is some of the intelligence was wrong. That happens more often than not. It does not, however, mitigate the fact that Saddam was, indeed, a serious problem, and had he remained unchecked (or remained under the "checks" of the UN which was functionally unchecked) he would have become the threat Bush (and a whole lot of others) claim him to be.

As such, military action was an appropriate response. But the TYPE of military action appropriate to the situation did not need a resolution. The only time congressional approval is sought is when ground troops are to be deployed and stationed in a planned area of combat on foreign soil. The President, even if the WPA were strictly observed, could have bombed Iraq on a daily basis without any type of approval vote from Congress.

And THAT is why the idea that congress did not know how Bush would use the resolution is a lie. The only time the WPA is used is when a ground force invasion is desired. Military force not involving an invasion force does not require any act from congress. The fact that Congress DID act, at the request of the President under the WPA, meant they were authorizing the use of invasion.

 

[Don Quixote]

Do you know how the congressional intelligence committees work? They get to see the raw data, not something filtered by the WH or anyone on the WH staff. The intelligence analysts who report to the Senate and House Intelligence Committees are not the people who report to the National Security Adviser.

The idea that congress was deliberately fed falsified intelligence is simply not true.

The fact is some of the intelligence was wrong. That happens more often than not. It does not, however, mitigate the fact that Saddam was, indeed, a serious problem, and had he remained unchecked (or remained under the "checks" of the UN which was functionally unchecked) he would have become the threat Bush (and a whole lot of others) claim him to be.

As such, military action was an appropriate response. But the TYPE of military action appropriate to the situation did not need a resolution. The only time congressional approval is sought is when ground troops are to be deployed and stationed in a planned area of combat on foreign soil. The President, even if the WPA were strictly observed, could have bombed Iraq on a daily basis without any type of approval vote from Congress.

And THAT is why the idea that congress did not know how Bush would use the resolution is a lie. The only time the WPA is used is when a ground force invasion is desired. Military force not involving an invasion force does not require any act from congress. The fact that Congress DID act, at the request of the President under the WPA, meant they were authorizing the use of invasion.

a ground war is a course of last resort and was not needed to neutralize sadham

our intelligence regarding matters in the middle east was woeful, inaccurate and incomplete

hopefully, we have more people not only knowledgeable of the languages, but also of the cultures and customs

the planning regarding logistics for the invasion of iraq was a total mess

as i seem to recall the marines have a saying about the nations use of their service - first to go, last to know - how could the military planners have made such a mess

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I spent 40 years defending this nation. I have been to a double handful of advanced courses in military tactics and strategy as well as international relations. I guarantee you, the only one in this debate who is a danger to our society if the philosophy is widely accepted is the one you see when looking in a mirror.

With all due respect, I don't give a fuck how long you were in the service. Your 'resume' might be impressive to your momma, but it means absolutely nothing to me. I suspect, since my philosophy is the 'manifest destiny' which has been America's trademark for centuries, it's not too damn dangerous. Promoting freedom and democracy is never 'dangerous', you of all people, should know that.

Your hypothetical of Russian nukes may play a nice war game for the Pentagon suits to have fun with. But you speculation on Iraqi nuclear capabilities is completely devoid of substance. We knew full well that Iraq had no nuclear capability and were years away from developing any. Even if they had openly announced the intent to pursue such a program we had years to respond.

My hypothetical was given to make a point, and obviously, you missed it, because you conclude by making another past-tense judgment. I wish we all had a crystal ball like you seem to have, where we know beforehand, all the information you seem to already know. He was seeking yellowcake uranium, he was buying aluminum tubes for enrichment, he was still paying a vast team of scientists, and there are still underground facilities we've not completely explored. How is it possible the CIA didn't know what the hell he was doing, and you did? What makes you think Saddam was going to "announce the intent" to pursue nuclear weapons?

The concern was over Iraq's chemical weapons, not nucs and not bios. And there we had the upper hand because Saddam could not deploy them in any manner traceable back to him. All he could do was play hide-and-seek with the UN inspectors while trying to build a facade of innocent victim to show to the rest of the world.

Again, our 'concern' was, we didn't know what the fuck he was up to, how far along he might be, or what he may have in store! What part of DECEPTIVE do you not comprehend here?

Not to mention your argument sill rests on the assumption that the only options available against Saddam was ground war or nothing. That is definitively not the case, as I have repeatedly demonstrated. And no, with a concentrated effort on our part Saddam could NOT have played rope-a-dope indefinitely. It was only because we were, at the time, only using diplomatic/economic pressure that he was able to rope-a-dope as long as he did. He would have either capitulated, or we would have eventually run out of targets had we simply bombed the places he kept the inspectors out of. Lack of a ground war does not mean, nor has it ever meant no military force.

I have never said it was our ONLY choice. We could have continued to play footsy with the UN, we could have placed economic sanctions on him like we did Castro, we could have dropped bombs on Iraq and killed innocent civilians (as Clinton did several times), or we could have simply looked at our crystal balls like you, and concluded he was nothing to worry about!

And while the government of Iraq may have been secular, the people most certainly were not and are not. In case you didn't notice, it was not the former, secular government of Iraq to whom we are "bringing" democracy. It was/is the Islamic peoples (of three different factions) to whom we "brought" democracy. And that just plain will not work.

Here's a Newsflash... IT IS WORKING! The government was secular, therefore, there was no great uproar from the radicals who would have claimed a "religious war" over an attack of an Islamic State. We didn't invoke Christianity on them, we brought Democracy! They formed a DEMOCRATIC government, and held DEMOCRATIC elections. We've gone to great lengths not to disrupt their religious freedom or practices. In some cases, to our own detriment. Still, for all intents and purposes, what you said would never work, is indeed working.

You mention that we gave the people of Iraq the opportunity. But you ignore the fact that they are REFUSING that opportunity. We have a minority group who give lip service to the idea while letting us do the fighting for them; and a majority group who are against us.

Not the case. 70% of the people in Iraq are participating in democratic elections. Only a small minority are fighting (with alQaeda) to get rid of democracy and go back to tyrant rule. At present, we are not doing ANY of the fighting, Iraqi security forces are handling it all now. We are there to help, to give them assistance if needed, and to continue training them on how to properly defend their democracy from the forces who seek to destroy it.

Again, it is really stupid and pointless to debate what we could have done, IF we had possessed your crystal ball and been able to see into the future. We are there, we have done this, and it is working. Let the seeds grow! Let's see if maybe it will work to foster more democracy across the region, and let's hope and pray it does, because if it doesn't, there really isn't another solution to combat radical Islam.

 

[Good Luck]

With all due respect, I don't give a fuck how long you were in the service. Your 'resume' might be impressive to your momma, but it means absolutely nothing to me. I suspect, since my philosophy is the 'manifest destiny' which has been America's trademark for centuries, it's not too damn dangerous. Promoting freedom and democracy is never 'dangerous', you of all people, should know that.

I have little doubt that you have no respect for military service. To your type we are just pawns to send wherever you feel the need to make a political point. You are dangerous because you have no real comprehension of what it means to use military force.

And the danger lies in the assumption that anyone we deem as necessary should have democracy trust upon them at gunpoint. That does not work. Never has and never will. Nor is it part of "manifest destiny".

My hypothetical was given to make a point, and obviously, you missed it, because you conclude by making another past-tense judgment. I wish we all had a crystal ball like you seem to have, where we know beforehand, all the information you seem to already know. He was seeking yellowcake uranium, he was buying aluminum tubes for enrichment, he was still paying a vast team of scientists, and there are still underground facilities we've not completely explored. How is it possible the CIA didn't know what the hell he was doing, and you did? What makes you think Saddam was going to "announce the intent" to pursue nuclear weapons?

You are truly an ignorant partisan hack of the worst sort. It was proven BEFORE the invasion that the aluminum tubes suspected of being part of a nuclear program were the wrong type and dimensions. We did not need a crystal ball to know what Saddam was doing with respect to nuclear capability. There is a certain industrial infrastructure necessary to a nuclear capable country, much of which is impossible to hide. That's how we knew about Iran and North Korea's programs. Iraq has very little of that infrastructure and even at a highly accelerated pace would take years to put together. In short, Iraq was no where near nuclear capability. We knew it. The Pentagon knew it and the CIA knew it. And Bush fucking knew it. Just because you believe his lies does not mean everyone must follow.

Secondly, not once did I diminish the threat posed by Saddam's chemical weapons. He had chemical weapons and had infrastructure which would take very little time and effort to modify to make more chemical weapons. He had a known history of being willing to USE chemical weapons. And he had ties to anti-Israel terrorists. That made his a significant threat to one of our most important allies in the M.E.

Again, our 'concern' was, we didn't know what the fuck he was up to, how far along he might be, or what he may have in store! What part of DECEPTIVE do you not comprehend here?

We did know what he was up to. He was trying to make a name for himself. He was maintaining a level of threat to keep Iran off his ass. He was defying UN sanctions and cease fire mandates from the Gulf War.

I have never said it was our ONLY choice. We could have continued to play footsy with the UN, we could have placed economic sanctions on him like we did Castro, we could have dropped bombs on Iraq and killed innocent civilians (as Clinton did several times), or we could have simply looked at our crystal balls like you, and concluded he was nothing to worry about!

Look at your own words. ALL of your "alternate" choices are non-military. I already said what we were doing was not enough. But invasion was not the only MILITARY option available to us. We could have very easily kep Saddam in check by use of remote military force. Ground war was not needed.

Here's a Newsflash... IT IS WORKING! The government was secular, therefore, there was no great uproar from the radicals who would have claimed a "religious war" over an attack of an Islamic State. We didn't invoke Christianity on them, we brought Democracy! They formed a DEMOCRATIC government, and held DEMOCRATIC elections. We've gone to great lengths not to disrupt their religious freedom or practices. In some cases, to our own detriment. Still, for all intents and purposes, what you said would never work, is indeed working.

Yea, they held elections. But they are still not willing to FIGHT for the democracy provided. There is a difference between participating in democratic freedoms and fighting for them.

Not the case. 70% of the people in Iraq are participating in democratic elections. Only a small minority are fighting (with alQaeda) to get rid of democracy and go back to tyrant rule. At present, we are not doing ANY of the fighting, Iraqi security forces are handling it all now. We are there to help, to give them assistance if needed, and to continue training them on how to properly defend their democracy from the forces who seek to destroy it.

Again, it is really stupid and pointless to debate what we could have done, IF we had possessed your crystal ball and been able to see into the future. We are there, we have done this, and it is working. Let the seeds grow! Let's see if maybe it will work to foster more democracy across the region, and let's hope and pray it does, because if it doesn't, there really isn't another solution to combat radical Islam.

And once again, participation in and fighting for freedom are two different things. They repeatedly demonstrate their reluctance to involve themselves in the front line fight that is still necessary to keep their fledgling government in place. That is why we are still there. Unless they are willing to do their own fighting, the freedoms you extol are not of THEIR society, it is of OURS, and will vanish like a soap bubble as soon as we leave. The seeds of democracy have been sown in barren ground. A people have to be ready for democracy for it to work. And to be ready, they have to be willing to fight for it themselves, not dependent on someone else to do the fighting for them.

Nor does the end justify the means in any case. Ground war in Iraq was NOT essential to our national security. It has had far more negative consequences than positive ones even if your claims that democracy is working were true. Our defensive and military goals could easily have been accomplished without the invasion. One last time, the choice was NOT either ground war or no military at all. Other military options would have worked just as well if not better to keep Iraq under control.

PLUS there is the factor that Iraq forced us to diminish our efforts in Afghanistan. That was a serious strategic mistake. The result is we have been unable to prevent a resurgence of Al Queda in Afghanistan and, now, across the border in Pakistan. Our inability to address the problems in Afghanistan are a direct result of expending too much of our resources on Iraq. You never, ever divide your efforts in a protracted war. It is fucking STUPID to do so. As such, once again a military response to Iraq that did NOT involve a ground war would have been much more conducive to our long term goals in the area, and to our long term goals in fighting terrorism.

 

[uscitizen]

Iraq was and is all about control of an oil supply for the USA.

Period. End of Line.

 

[Topspin]

so chase binladen to Pakistan. But stop if he goes to Iraq.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

And the danger lies in the assumption that anyone we deem as necessary should have democracy trust upon them at gunpoint. That does not work. Never has and never will. Nor is it part of "manifest destiny".

No one has said that, and it's a bit 'extreme' for you to claim that. People who have the propensity to kill innocent Americans, or condone flying planes into our buildings, have got to be dealt with. As much as you may deplore 'democracy' it has proven to be a deterrent to this kind of behavior. Our fighting and promotion of democracy worldwide is well-documented and highly successful, I have no idea where you get that it 'will never work' because it always HAS worked. And this "democracy thrust upon them at gunpoint" crap, is just that, BULL crap! No one held a gun to the Iraqi's heads and MADE them go to the polls and vote! You act as if, they simply don't want to be free people! EVERY man in the world WANTS to be FREE! There is no "forcing democracy upon them" at all! We enabled them to have democracy, and the vast majority of them are appreciative of it, and have thanked us for it. Democracy IS freedom!

We did know what he was up to. He was trying to make a name for himself. He was maintaining a level of threat to keep Iran off his ass. He was defying UN sanctions and cease fire mandates from the Gulf War.

No, we fucking DIDN'T know what he was up to, or else we would have KNOWN he had no WMD's! Again, you make a 'retrospective' judgment about what he was doing... that is EASY to do in hindsight. At the time, we simply DIDN'T know, and had no way of knowing! We still may not completely know everything... who knows, maybe 20 years from now, some farmers will start dying and they will start digging and find... Oh, there's those 80k liters of Sarin and VX we knew he had, which the UN tagged, and were never accounted for! By then, it will be some page 8 story, and no one will really give a shit, but to assume at this point, we know everything, is foolish beyond belief.

Look at your own words. ALL of your "alternate" choices are non-military. I already said what we were doing was not enough. But invasion was not the only MILITARY option available to us. We could have very easily kep Saddam in check by use of remote military force. Ground war was not needed.

Not really, I included the Clinton policy of indiscriminate bombing of strategic targets. That IS what you indicated you would have done. I did address that, and gave you a reason WHY we couldn't continue doing that. Every time we launched a 'remote' attack, Saddam would send women and children there to die, so he could exploit their deaths and show the Islamic world the 'atrocities' we were committing on his people. The more this happened, the worse we looked to the rest of the Islamic world, and the more angry they became, and more willing they became to join the Jihad movement. This was never going to change Saddam Hussein, or make him cooperate with the UN. All it would have done, is turn more and more Iraqi people against us, and inflame the Islamic extremists. The primary reason we had the major problem we had with them in Iraq, was a direct result of Bill Clinton's policies of bombing remotely and killing innocent people in the process.

And let's be clear about something else.... The "ground war" in Iraq, ended in about 3 weeks. Since that time, we have not been fighting a conventional ground war, we have no organized opposing army, the 'enemy' controls no part of the country, there is no DMZ. What we have faced is, terrorism groups who like to rig IED's and booby-traps to kill innocent people. The overwhelming majority of fatalities in Iraq, are from this sort of action, not traditional ground war combat.

Yea, they held elections. But they are still not willing to FIGHT for the democracy provided. There is a difference between participating in democratic freedoms and fighting for them.

Again, this is just a flat out lie. American forces are not fighting ANY of the battles in Iraq at this time, it is ALL being done by Iraqi's who are part of the Iraqi Security Forces. We are there purely in a support role at this time, nothing more. Yes, they held elections, democratic free and fair elections! They ratified a Constitution, elected a Parliament, and have been a functioning democracy in spite of constant death threats, executions, and terrorist attacks. They have formed a military and security force who are currently doing all the heavy lifting. We remain there, as support, to keep the 'enemy' who is largely backed by Syria and Iran, from overthrowing what we and the Iraqi's have established.

I agree with putting pressure on the Iraqis' to step up to the plate and make progress in being able to defend their own territory, and I think this has been done. I have never agreed with the stupidity of a 'timeline' or 'deadline' for withdrawal. This would simply signal to the enemy, when to begin full-scale attacks on Iraq. If you have the 'tactical strategy' experience you claim to have, you should understand why this is stupid beyond belief.

The result is we have been unable to prevent a resurgence of Al Queda in Afghanistan and, now, across the border in Pakistan.

Several points here.... First of all, our military is huge. To pretend that we don't have enough manpower to adequately support two theaters is laughable. I will agree, we have not done what we needed to do in Afghanistan to secure the country and win decisively there, and that is a legitimate complaint of Bush Administration policy. However, it has absolutely nothing to do with troop levels in Iraq. Secondly, we were NEVER going to put boots on the ground in an Islamic Nuclear nation like Pakistan. The area in which Osama is hiding, is rough terrain, not suitable for tanks and heavy artillery, and unless we put boots on the ground in Pakistan, we simply have no way to extract him from there. This being the case, the 'policy' has focused on trying to leverage the government of Pakistan to deal with it, but they are largely controlled by the radical Islamics, so that hasn't really worked well for us. I don't know what the solution is, and I don't think Bush, McCain, Obama, or anyone else knows. As for Afghanistan, I think it is a consensus we need more troops there, and I think that is the plan, regardless of who is elected President. But again, you seem to want to take a 'retrospective' approach to your opinion here, had we known 5 years ago, what we know is happening now, things might have been different... we don't have your crystal ball!

 

[Good Luck]

Truly delusional. You don't know shit from apple butter.

If the Iraqi security forces are on the front lines why would it be "surrender" for us to pull out now? They are NOT on the front lines. That is one of the points acknowledged by BOTH presidential candidates - that Iraqis need to take responsibility for their own security so we can pack up and leave.

And while everyone may WANT freedom, not all are willing to FIGHT for freedom. In fact a whole fucking BUNCH of people right here in the good ol' U.S. of A seem to be more than willing to TRADE freedom for what they view as security; including those who support the new FISA law, those who support the so-called Patriot Act, and those who support assault weapons bans, handgun bans, and other types of strict gun control, those who support punitive levels of progressive taxation, etc. etc. etc.

Not all are willing to die for freedom, that is a solid fact. And from reports coming out of Iraq (not media reports but military reports) very few Iraqis are willing to fight and risk dying for their freedom. But a significant group sure as hell are willing to let US die for their freedom....

You mention Clinton's bombing campaign as reason to refute additional campaigns. Again you don't know crap. In 8 years Clinton threw less than 10,000 tons of bombs at Iraq. Bush threw that much in a day prior to the invasion. Clinton would react almost at random (ass you indicated) to various reports of activity. Billy had the right idea, but not enough testicular mass to take it to the level needed.

Unlike what Clinton did, the missions would be specific to targeted areas of interest gained by PRIOR intelligence - specifically those areas of interest listed on the mandate of the UN inspection teams. And Saddam himself would have been point the actual targets out by refusing UN inspection teams access. And I am not talking about a handful of tomahawks or a single wing of F117As either. I am talking about a full fledged mission to make sure anything worth protecting at the target did not survive.

As far as political fallout from collateral damage - especially engineered collateral damage - is something we would have simply had to deal with from those (relatively few) cry baby liberals who think all will be well if we just stick daisies in all our rifle barrels.

Just so you don't make a complete fool of yourself on this matter in future debates, a ground war INCLUDES low intensity conflict. "Ground war" is not a term limited to one standing army fighting against another standing army. It indicates WHERE the conflict is taking place - ie: on the GROUND, as opposed to in the air, or out to sea.

And you are COMPLETELY FULL OF SHIT claiming that our ground forces are fully adequate to take on Iraq AND Afghanistan simultaneously. The current conditions prove that. We were pushing active reserves through a rotation schedule at 2-3 times what they should be. We are losing men and equipment because we cannot afford the down time to rotate things through and leave them inactive long enough to do thorough maintenance and refit.

Now I do blame a BIG portion of that on Clinton and his fellow "we don't NEED a big force any more" democrats. But where ever the problem stems from, the fact is we do NOT have the force structure in place to take on TWO wars of occupation. The end result is we pull assets from one mission to bolster the other, and the one with the reduced force degrades until we are forced to pull assets from the other back to the first. It was flat assed stupid to invade and occupy Iraq. It was not a method that was needed to address the problem, it totally screwed up our efforts in Afghanistan, it stretched our ground forces way beyond their operational efficiency, and it made a bigger mess than the one we were trying to address in the first place.

 

[ib1yysguy]

Clash of the long-winded Titans.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Truly delusional. You don't know shit from apple butter.

You'll note, I have yet to call you delusional, or insult your intelligence. When I encounter this, I often find it is because something I said, can't really be refuted, and you just have a different opinion of the facts. I can respect you have a difference of opinion, but if you want to refute what I have said, you will have to do more than throw insults at me.

If the Iraqi security forces are on the front lines why would it be "surrender" for us to pull out now? They are NOT on the front lines. That is one of the points acknowledged by BOTH presidential candidates - that Iraqis need to take responsibility for their own security so we can pack up and leave.

There really aren't any "front lines" in this conflict. As I said before, the 'tactical ground war' ended about 3 weeks into this thing. Since that time, we have had a few major battles in Fallujah, Mozul, and Takreit. They have all been put down, with assistance from the Iraqi's, and at present, the Iraqi Security forces are handling all conflicts.

Why we can't just pick up and leave at this time, is really simple. If we do, the Syrian and Iranian backed militias, still present in Iraq, will be fortified, and they will overwhelm the young inexperienced Iraqi militia, and everything we have done so far, will be lost forever. All of the lives expended for this, will have been for nothing, and the only people who would claim 'victory' would be the radical Islamics, and 'I told you so' pinheads, like you. It is crucial and vital to success in Iraq, for us to remain until the Iraqi's can defend their country on their own, without our assistance. I trust our Generals to let us know when that happens, rather than some arbitrary 'timeline' drawn up by a bunch of politicians in Washington.

And while everyone may WANT freedom, not all are willing to FIGHT for freedom. In fact a whole fucking BUNCH of people right here in the good ol' U.S. of A seem to be more than willing to TRADE freedom for what they view as security; including those who support the new FISA law, those who support the so-called Patriot Act, and those who support assault weapons bans, handgun bans, and other types of strict gun control, those who support punitive levels of progressive taxation, etc. etc. etc.

Wow, what a barrage of left wing propaganda mixed with phony Conservatism! I support FISA because it is the FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE Surveillance Act. It deals with the CIA's ability to intercept international phone calls from terrorists, to known operatives inside the US. US Citizens rights and freedoms are not being infringed, haven't been infringed, and won't be infringed, that is pure left-wing, anti-gun, anti-American bullshit. And as for "fighting for freedom" the Iraqi's ARE doing this now!

Not all are willing to die for freedom, that is a solid fact. And from reports coming out of Iraq (not media reports but military reports) very few Iraqis are willing to fight and risk dying for their freedom. But a significant group sure as hell are willing to let US die for their freedom....

Look, I don't know where you get your information, but I would suspect the vast majority of members of the Iraqi Security forces, are indeed Iraqi's. If you know something I don't, please tell me, because I think this is the case, to the best of my understanding. They are indeed the ones who are engaging any insurgents within the country at this time, and that has been the case for at least the past 6 months or so.

You mention Clinton's bombing campaign as reason to refute additional campaigns. Again you don't know crap. In 8 years Clinton threw less than 10,000 tons of bombs at Iraq. Bush threw that much in a day prior to the invasion. Clinton would react almost at random (ass you indicated) to various reports of activity. Billy had the right idea, but not enough testicular mass to take it to the level needed.

The point is, we couldn't afford to continue a never-ending campaign of indiscriminate bombing in Iraq. Either from a technical/cost standpoint, or a political standpoint. It was causing more trouble than good, and the ultimate answer to the problem, was to overthrow the regime and replace it with Democracy, as even Bill Clinton acknowledged with the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998.

Unlike what Clinton did, the missions would be specific to targeted areas of interest gained by PRIOR intelligence - specifically those areas of interest listed on the mandate of the UN inspection teams. And Saddam himself would have been point the actual targets out by refusing UN inspection teams access. And I am not talking about a handful of tomahawks or a single wing of F117As either. I am talking about a full fledged mission to make sure anything worth protecting at the target did not survive.

Again, what this would have accomplished is, a bunch of dead Iraqi civilians. The WHOLE problem in Iraq, WAS bad intelligence! You seem to think that by some miracle, we would have had access to credible intelligence, to enable such a plan, and we simply didn't, and this should have been proven by the lack of WMD's our intelligence claimed was a "slam dunk."

As far as political fallout from collateral damage - especially engineered collateral damage - is something we would have simply had to deal with from those (relatively few) cry baby liberals who think all will be well if we just stick daisies in all our rifle barrels.

Our concern was NEVER a bunch of Liberal Flower Children! What they think, makes absolutely NO difference in the War on Terror! We could not deal with a protracted, day-in and day-out propaganda war in that part of the world. It has been difficult enough as it is, to get any cooperation from the governments of the countries in that region. Had we instigated such a plan, it would have made ANY cooperation impossible.

Just so you don't make a complete fool of yourself on this matter in future debates, a ground war INCLUDES low intensity conflict. "Ground war" is not a term limited to one standing army fighting against another standing army. It indicates WHERE the conflict is taking place - ie: on the GROUND, as opposed to in the air, or out to sea.

We have had maybe 10 'battles' with insurgent militias in Iraq, in the 7 years we've been there. Aside from those, we have had nothing remotely describable as a "ground war" or "combat." As I said, the overwhelming and vast majority of fatalities in Iraq, have been the result of rigged explosive devices. That is NOT a "ground war" and has nothing to do with "combat!"

And you are COMPLETELY FULL OF SHIT claiming that our ground forces are fully adequate to take on Iraq AND Afghanistan simultaneously. The current conditions prove that. We were pushing active reserves through a rotation schedule at 2-3 times what they should be. We are losing men and equipment because we cannot afford the down time to rotate things through and leave them inactive long enough to do thorough maintenance and refit.

No, you are full of shit if you think the US Military is so tiny, we can't fight a war in Afghanistan and Iraq at the same time... Hell, 50 years ago, we fought Germany and Japan at the same time! For God sakes man, are you SURE you were in the military? For the US? Our deployment in Iraq AND Afghanistan, represents maybe 1/5th of our total military force.

Now I do blame a BIG portion of that on Clinton and his fellow "we don't NEED a big force any more" democrats. But where ever the problem stems from, the fact is we do NOT have the force structure in place to take on TWO wars of occupation. The end result is we pull assets from one mission to bolster the other, and the one with the reduced force degrades until we are forced to pull assets from the other back to the first. It was flat assed stupid to invade and occupy Iraq. It was not a method that was needed to address the problem, it totally screwed up our efforts in Afghanistan, it stretched our ground forces way beyond their operational efficiency, and it made a bigger mess than the one we were trying to address in the first place.

And I respectfully disagree. Indeed, we should have pulled more of our troops out of Germany and elsewhere, and put them in Afghanistan, but we didn't. I could go back to WWII, when we were essentially slaughtered in the South Pacific, time after time, and make the claim we should have put more forces in there, but we didn't! War doesn't always go as planned, things don't always work out as planned! It doesn't mean we don't have the capability to do the job, or that we are total incompetents, that's just the nature of war sometimes... most times, actually.

I will also say this... You, and your pinhead anti-war buddies, can't tell us what WOULD have happened, had we left Saddam unchecked, while we focused solely on Afghanistan! Again, it is EASY to play Armchair General and use your crystal ball, and determine there would have been absolutely no problems for us from Saddam, had we ignored him and focused solely on Afghanistan. You don't know this, nobody does! As it turns out, we didn't have residual problems from a Saddam-funded effort against us in Afghanistan, because... guess what? Saddam was taken out of the equation!