Combat troops leaving Iraq

evince said:
Tell me why they would not cover the biggest news in seven years?
Click to expand...
*sigh*

Do you know what "exclusive" means? MSNBC got the "exclusive" for direct coverage. Do you figure they'll share that feed with FOX? FOX covered it, they just didn't have boots there, because MSNBC had an "exclusive"..

Somebody turns off your brain whenever you think you've found something on FOX.
 
cawacko said:
let's see Desh has been gone for awhile from the site and we haven't had a (stupid) discussion over Fox, CNN and MSNBC until she shows up again. Coincidence? I think not.
Click to expand...
LOL. Why did this make me grin?

I do like Desh, but it's only funny because it is true.
 
Onceler said:
I agree that everyone is better off with Saddam out of power, and disagree with your characterization that many would have "preferred" the abuses under his regime.

We just got through with a 7+ year war, SF, that drained us on every level - manpower, money, influence, you name it. There are plenty of situations in the world where there are abusive environments, and oppressed populations. How would you feel about embarking on similar military ventures to try to end those situations? If you wouldn't support that, are you then "preferring" those abusive, oppressed situations?
Click to expand...

A very good question. I will answer in multiple parts:

1) First, there is a difference between Iraq and 'other' parts of the world. This being that we had troops on the northern and southern borders of Iraq for 10 years with sanctions against the country stemming from the first Gulf War. Thus, our options were to get Saddam to comply with the UN sanctions (this obviously failed miserably given his circumvention of oil for food), keep our troops there until Saddam died, pull our troops off the borders without either of the first two options being completed (which would have obviously been seen as a victory for Saddam), or finally, to remove Saddam from power.

2) As for what I think... yes, in situations like Darfur and the Sudan, I think the UN (or at least the US) should step in when dictatorships are allowing ethnic cleansing on a mass scale. We should step in, just as we did in Kosovo. That said, I understand your point that we cannot possibly step in everywhere.

3) When Mott and others continue to harp on the 'unjustified' war and how 'wrong' it was to go into Iraq. They are essentially saying we should not have gone in. That means reverting to the status quo where those things most certainly occurred. This is not to say their preferences would list this as the optimal solution, but that it was preferred to the decision Bush made. Obviously we all would have preferred that our troops would never have had to go into Iraq in 1991 to begin with.
 
Damocles said:
*sigh*

Do you know what "exclusive" means? MSNBC got the "exclusive" for direct coverage. Do you figure they'll share that feed with FOX? FOX covered it, they just didn't have boots there, because MSNBC had an "exclusive"..

Somebody turns off your brain whenever you think you've found something on FOX.
Click to expand...

I think the question for Desh is:

WHY did the administration give 'exclusive' rights to such a huge national event???

Why are they trying to limit coverage or give preferential treatment?
 
Superfreak said:
A very good question. I will answer in multiple parts:

1) First, there is a difference between Iraq and 'other' parts of the world. This being that we had troops on the northern and southern borders of Iraq for 10 years with sanctions against the country stemming from the first Gulf War. Thus, our options were to get Saddam to comply with the UN sanctions (this obviously failed miserably given his circumvention of oil for food), keep our troops there until Saddam died, pull our troops off the borders without either of the first two options being completed (which would have obviously been seen as a victory for Saddam), or finally, to remove Saddam from power.

2) As for what I think... yes, in situations like Darfur and the Sudan, I think the UN (or at least the US) should step in when dictatorships are allowing ethnic cleansing on a mass scale. We should step in, just as we did in Kosovo. That said, I understand your point that we cannot possibly step in everywhere.

3) When Mott and others continue to harp on the 'unjustified' war and how 'wrong' it was to go into Iraq. They are essentially saying we should not have gone in. That means reverting to the status quo where those things most certainly occurred. This is not to say their preferences would list this as the optimal solution, but that it was preferred to the decision Bush made. Obviously we all would have preferred that our troops would never have had to go into Iraq in 1991 to begin with.
Click to expand...

Don't mean to be a pain, but that's a series of mischaracterizations & non-answers.

The "meat" of the U.N. demands was WMD's. We didn't invade Iraq to stop the oppression, or free the people, despite the operation's name. We went into Iraq because of Saddam's alleged non-compliance with the UN mandates. Guess what? There were no WMD's once we got there. Beyond that, Hans Blix reported in March of 2003 that inspectors had "unfettered access to all suspected sites." So, we could have confirmed that little WMD fact without a 7 year war.

For Darfur & Sudan, you said the U.S. should step in, but can't. That really doesn't do us much good.

You have always said the Iraq War was "inevitable." Bull. Saddam was toothless; even his neighbors didn't consider him much of a threat anymore. "WMD's" was an overblown hysteria, compounded by 9/11.
 
Onceler said:
Don't mean to be a pain, but that's a series of mischaracterizations & non-answers.

The "meat" of the U.N. demands was WMD's. We didn't invade Iraq to stop the oppression, or free the people, despite the operation's name. We went into Iraq because of Saddam's alleged non-compliance with the UN mandates. Guess what? There were no WMD's once we got there. Beyond that, Hans Blix reported in March of 2003 that inspectors had "unfettered access to all suspected sites." So, we could have confirmed that little WMD fact without a 7 year war.
Click to expand...

No, it was NOT a mischaracterization. you asked MY thoughts and opinions, not what was stated by the Bush administration. Everything I stated is correct, regardless of what reasons Bush gave for going into Iraq.

As I have stated many times in the past, this was inevitable in my opinion. I simply did not agree with the timing of the entry due to Afghanistan.

1) Pretending the UN suddenly became effective is nothing short of a joke. Every major intelligence agency thought he had WMD's. Saddam was a master at playing the UN puppets. It was the buildup of troops on the border that forced Saddam to suddenly 'comply' with the UN. The fact that no WMDs were found doesn't change any of that. Saddam played us and everyone into believing he had them. It was only when he realized we were coming for him that he realized his charade had finally backfired on him.

2) The UN failed us for ten years and yet you want the world to believe that suddenly they were getting everything they needed simply because Blix said so? Blix and the UN failed. period. Bottom line, Saddam duped the UN for a decade, bribed his way to more power through the oil for food scandal, starved his own people in the process and continued with is murderous and rape filled reign of terror.

For Darfur & Sudan, you said the U.S. should step in, but can't. That really doesn't do us much good.
Click to expand...

Wrong. I stated in those situations we SHOULD have gone in... and in both we COULD have gone in.

I stated that we couldn't go in EVERYWHERE... such as China, Iran, Pakistan etc...

But areas where mass murder was occurring we are morally obligated to intervene... such as we did in Kosovo.

You have always said the Iraq War was "inevitable." Bull. Saddam was toothless; even his neighbors didn't consider him much of a threat anymore. "WMD's" was an overblown hysteria, compounded by 9/11.
Click to expand...

LMAO.... so every intelligence agency thought he had WMD's, everyone KNEW he supported terrorist groups in Palestine, yet YOU knew he was toothless? Perhaps you should have shared your hard intelligence on the region with Presidents Clinton and Bush. Had Clinton known as you did that Saddam was toothless he could have pulled our troops out in the mid 1990's. You really should not have kept your intelligence on the matter to yourself.

No question the WMD's were over hyped... but Bush's stupidity doesn't change what I stated one bit.
 
Superfreak said:
No, it was NOT a mischaracterization. you asked MY thoughts and opinions, not what was stated by the Bush administration. Everything I stated is correct, regardless of what reasons Bush gave for going into Iraq.

As I have stated many times in the past, this was inevitable in my opinion. I simply did not agree with the timing of the entry due to Afghanistan.

1) Pretending the UN suddenly became effective is nothing short of a joke. Every major intelligence agency thought he had WMD's. Saddam was a master at playing the UN puppets. It was the buildup of troops on the border that forced Saddam to suddenly 'comply' with the UN. The fact that no WMDs were found doesn't change any of that. Saddam played us and everyone into believing he had them. It was only when he realized we were coming for him that he realized his charade had finally backfired on him.

2) The UN failed us for ten years and yet you want the world to believe that suddenly they were getting everything they needed simply because Blix said so? Blix and the UN failed. period. Bottom line, Saddam duped the UN for a decade, bribed his way to more power through the oil for food scandal, starved his own people in the process and continued with is murderous and rape filled reign of terror.



Wrong. I stated in those situations we SHOULD have gone in... and in both we COULD have gone in.

I stated that we couldn't go in EVERYWHERE... such as China, Iran, Pakistan etc...

But areas where mass murder was occurring we are morally obligated to intervene... such as we did in Kosovo.



LMAO.... so every intelligence agency thought he had WMD's, everyone KNEW he supported terrorist groups in Palestine, yet YOU knew he was toothless? Perhaps you should have shared your hard intelligence on the region with Presidents Clinton and Bush. Had Clinton known as you did that Saddam was toothless he could have pulled our troops out in the mid 1990's. You really should not have kept your intelligence on the matter to yourself.

No question the WMD's were over hyped... but Bush's stupidity doesn't change what I stated one bit.
Click to expand...

So what if he was complying because troops were amassed at the border? He was complying. The inspectors could have done their job, and we could have verified what it took us 7 year, over a trillion dollars and many lives to find out.

NIE's from 2001-2003 repeatedly stated that Saddam was not even a threat to his immediate neighbors. No way around that one. I wasn't "keeping it to myself." It was out there for anyone who even had the slightest interest in avoiding an unnecessary 7-year war to peruse.
 
For the cost of the war we could have bought every Iraqi citizen a swimming pool for there back yard, or educated every Iraqi child to college level.
 
Jarod said:
Strange, I thought that Bush would not publish timelines because it was giving stragety away to the enemy...
Click to expand...

He did not state specific DATES as to 'we will do 'x' by date 'y''.

But he did state that once security was able to be turned over to the Iraqi army/police THEN the draw down of troops could begin. THAT is a timeline, just not one that sets arbitrary dates. Instead, they use actual conditions on the ground to dictate the WHEN.

Setting specific dates for being done in a military operation is nothing short of ignorant. There are far too many intangibles that can effect the situation. Not to mention it provides the opponents a 'if I survive until day 'x', we will win' date.
 
Superfreak said:
A very good question. I will answer in multiple parts:

1) First, there is a difference between Iraq and 'other' parts of the world. This being that we had troops on the northern and southern borders of Iraq for 10 years with sanctions against the country stemming from the first Gulf War. Thus, our options were to get Saddam to comply with the UN sanctions (this obviously failed miserably given his circumvention of oil for food), keep our troops there until Saddam died, pull our troops off the borders without either of the first two options being completed (which would have obviously been seen as a victory for Saddam), or finally, to remove Saddam from power.

2) As for what I think... yes, in situations like Darfur and the Sudan, I think the UN (or at least the US) should step in when dictatorships are allowing ethnic cleansing on a mass scale. We should step in, just as we did in Kosovo. That said, I understand your point that we cannot possibly step in everywhere.

3) When Mott and others continue to harp on the 'unjustified' war and how 'wrong' it was to go into Iraq. They are essentially saying we should not have gone in. That means reverting to the status quo where those things most certainly occurred. This is not to say their preferences would list this as the optimal solution, but that it was preferred to the decision Bush made. Obviously we all would have preferred that our troops would never have had to go into Iraq in 1991 to begin with.
Click to expand...
You're damned straight we shouldn't have gone in. Doing so, particularly on what turned out to be false and misleading information was immoral as hell when you consider that Iraq did not present a clear and present danger to our national security which was the ONLY VALID REASON TO GO TO WAR WITH THEM!

Anything else is just the nit witted rationalizations of a bunch of chicken hawks.

Oh, and BTW, we didn't go into Iraq in 1991, other then on a short tactical basis. We went into Kuwait but you do have a point about liberating Kuwait. Did the threat to Kauaiti oil represent a clear and present danger to our national security?
 
Last edited:
Damocles said:
I notice that Desh didn't note that it was right on Bush's timeline.
Click to expand...

bush specifically said combat troops would be pulled out by August 2010?

How could bush give a timeline beyond January 20, 2009? Any incoming president could change it, no matter what he said previously.
 
Onceler said:
So what if he was complying because troops were amassed at the border? He was complying. The inspectors could have done their job, and we could have verified what it took us 7 year, over a trillion dollars and many lives to find out.

NIE's from 2001-2003 repeatedly stated that Saddam was not even a threat to his immediate neighbors. No way around that one. I wasn't "keeping it to myself." It was out there for anyone who even had the slightest interest in avoiding an unnecessary 7-year war to peruse.
Click to expand...

Again, as stated many times in the past... Saddam had played the "I am complying" game with the UN many times over the previous decade. The second he thought we weren't actually coming in, he would have simply restarted his games. You keep pretending that 'this time' it was somehow different.

As for the NIE's.... then do tell us why it is that the Dems voted to allow Bush to use force? They also received that intel... why would they not come out and state it? Oh yeah, they were 'duped' by the ignorant Bush man.
 
Superfreak said:
Again, as stated many times in the past... Saddam had played the "I am complying" game with the UN many times over the previous decade. The second he thought we weren't actually coming in, he would have simply restarted his games. You keep pretending that 'this time' it was somehow different.

As for the NIE's.... then do tell us why it is that the Dems voted to allow Bush to use force? They also received that intel... why would they not come out and state it? Oh yeah, they were 'duped' by the ignorant Bush man.
Click to expand...

Whats funny is that he WAS complying, at least regarding WMD...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top