My position on Iraq

D

Dixie - In Memoriam

New member
Well, it hasn't changed one bit. I still feel it was the right thing to do, and we will be better off in the long run for having done it. I still feel there were things Bush and Rumsfeld bungled and misjudged, but the objective was met and it was what needed to be done.

No sooner than I logged in, Mainey was hitting me with the latest body count number... My question to Mainey is, why hasn't something been done? Congress has been in Democrat control for over 4 years, and our troops are not home yet? He acts like it's MY fault they are still in Iraq, but the Democrats in charge of Congress control the funding for the war, and without their support, it couldn't continue. So, why are we still in Iraq, Democrats?

You don't want to face the truth, you don't even want to think about it! You've managed to convince or dupe a whole bunch of really stupid people into buying your Michael Moore contrived bullshit, and you think this means you were right all along. In fact, you are not right about Iraq, never have been, and probably never will be. It will take upwards of 50 years for us to fully realize the benefit of Iraqi liberation, and forming an opinion on it now, is equivalent to me saying... well, those latest government mandates for carbon emissions haven't stopped global warming, so it is concluded there is nothing we can do about it.

Big problems take an enormous amount of time and effort to solve, and the instability in the middle east, is a BIG problem. You have no solutions, other than to ignore the problem, or try to sit down and talk to unreasonable people who have vowed to use your 'diplomacy' against you. It might be okay if there was any indication that would work, but we've tried it and it doesn't work, at least not with radical Islam.

It still amazes me, how liberals (of all people) are opposed to liberation! Opposed to toppling a tyrant who was violating the rights of women routinely, denying basic human rights to almost everyone, and feeding people into wood chippers who disagreed with him. For whatever reason, you want to make excuses for him, justify his behavior, and accept these atrocities as part of life we just have to deal with. If you were a principled bunch, it would seem you would be in favor of liberating millions, giving women the right to vote, and allowing minorities a voice in the political process.
 
I actually clicked on this thinking that there might have been some sort of epiphany, or at least a sober re-assessment of all of the woefully wrong predictions & premature declarations of "victory."

Oh, well; it's official, anyway. No hope for you.
 
Like I said... Nancy Pelosi is Speaker of the House, the Democrats are in charge, why haven't they brought the troops home? If the overwhelming and vast majority of people in this country, share your pinheaded view on Iraq, why do you figure we are still there?

Let me make this easy for you... because it is the right thing to do. It's not the popular thing, it's not the easiest thing, but it is the right thing. Regardless of whether you think it was wise to do it, regardless of whether you would have done things differently, it is still the right thing to do, to keep our forces in Iraq until it is stabilized.

Now, I have often asked myself... Dixie, why are so many pinheads opposed to Iraq? The only conclusions I can come up with are, you are a bunch of political partisans who oppose Iraq because a republican supported it.... you are devout socialists who seek to destroy America from within... You don't believe we can do a thing about terrorism other than to let the government have more control over our personal lives, and that only happens when we stick our heads in the sand and get blind-sided by the terrorists. If you are opposed to Iraq, it is likely one or more of those reasons.
 
Dixie said:
Well, it hasn't changed one bit. I still feel it was the right thing to do, and we will be better off in the long run for having done it. I still feel there were things Bush and Rumsfeld bungled and misjudged, but the objective was met and it was what needed to be done.

No sooner than I logged in, Mainey was hitting me with the latest body count number... My question to Mainey is, why hasn't something been done? Congress has been in Democrat control for over 4 years, bullshit!and our troops are not home yet? He acts like it's MY fault they are still in Iraq, but the Democrats in charge of Congress control the funding for the war, and without their support, it couldn't continue. So, why are we still in Iraq, Democrats? I am furious with my party for not doing more to end the war, but the lack of 60 votes in the senate has hampered the process

You don't want to face the truth, you don't even want to think about it! You've managed to convince or dupe a whole bunch of really stupid people into buying your Michael Moore contrived bullshit, and you think this means you were right all along. In fact, you are not right about Iraq, never have been, and probably never will be. It will take upwards of 50 years for us to fully realize the benefit of Iraqi liberation, and forming an opinion on it now, is equivalent to me saying... well, those latest government mandates for carbon emissions haven't stopped global warming, so it is concluded there is nothing we can do about it. expecting to cram the seeds of a jeffersonian multicultural democracy down the throats of the Iraqi people and expecting it to grow under an american armed occupation is ridiculous and always has been.

Big problems take an enormous amount of time and effort to solve, and the instability in the middle east, is a BIG problem. You have no solutions, other than to ignore the problem, or try to sit down and talk to unreasonable people who have vowed to use your 'diplomacy' against you. It might be okay if there was any indication that would work, but we've tried it and it doesn't work, at least not with radical Islam. and yet you condone Petraeus sitting down and talking with sunni warlords in Iraq - who still have wet american blood on their hands and give them weapons and money to buy their cooperation. how droll!

It still amazes me, how liberals (of all people) are opposed to liberation! Opposed to toppling a tyrant who was violating the rights of women routinely, denying basic human rights to almost everyone, and feeding people into wood chippers who disagreed with him. For whatever reason, you want to make excuses for him, justify his behavior, and accept these atrocities as part of life we just have to deal with. If you were a principled bunch, it would seem you would be in favor of liberating millions, giving women the right to vote, and allowing minorities a voice in the political process.
Click to expand...

The world is full of assholes. I am not opposed to helping the people under their oppressive yoke cast them aside. I am opposed to invading, conquering and occupying a country that did NOT attack us and that had NOTHING to do with the attacks of 9/11 and wasting a HUGE portion of our military might in babysitting that occupation while the assholes that attacked us are free to hold a televised outdoor graduation ceremony for hundreds of suicide bombers in a location not a stone's throw from where they were hiding out the day the attacked us.

The sunnis and shiites in the artificially constructed "country" of Iraq are NEVER going to agree to live peacefully with one another...and that issue is separate and distinct from the issue of stateless islamic extremism and its continuing threat to our country. Iraq is counterproductive to the war against our enemies. period.
 
Last edited:
Desh said:
"Congress has been in Democrat control for over 4 years"

Man do you live in a fantasy land.
Click to expand...

he forgets it was only 2006 when we won control of both houses of congress and he welched on his bet with me like a spineless girlieman. It would appear that, not only did he not grow a set of balls during his sabbatical, or develop a sense of ethics, he apparently lost some memory as well!

a sad state of affairs, indeed.:p
 
Dixie, you're arguing 2 different things w/ the latter post...the one with the "new" Bushie talking point that "if Iraq was so wrong, why aren't the Dems pulling us out?", which - of course - is inane on its surface & down to its core.

I disagree with people who think we need to stay until Iraq is "more stabilized," but not as much as I disagree with the fools who thought it was right to begin with. See, Iraq is an almighty clusterfuck right now; it's the King of clusterfucks, the Tiger Woods of clusterfucks, if you will. Anything that happens now, whether we stay or go, is a crapshoot, and literally anything could happen. Me? I say you err on the side of saving American lives, not continuing to send kids on their 3rd or 4th tour of duty & bring 'em home. I understand when someone says that's irresponsible now that we have created this almighty clusterfuck, but disagree with them, since they can't guarantee a damned thing if we do stay.

I guess that's all a long-winded way of saying that you lost me here: "I still feel it was the right thing to do". That, to me, is utterly, wholely indefensible. It is either collossolly stupid, or plain evil. I doubt you're truly evil, so.....
 
Dixie said:
Well, it hasn't changed one bit. I still feel it was the right thing to do, and we will be better off in the long run for having done it. I still feel there were things Bush and Rumsfeld bungled and misjudged, but the objective was met and it was what needed to be done.

No sooner than I logged in, Mainey was hitting me with the latest body count number... My question to Mainey is, why hasn't something been done? Congress has been in Democrat control for over 4 years, and our troops are not home yet? He acts like it's MY fault they are still in Iraq, but the Democrats in charge of Congress control the funding for the war, and without their support, it couldn't continue. So, why are we still in Iraq, Democrats?

You don't want to face the truth, you don't even want to think about it! You've managed to convince or dupe a whole bunch of really stupid people into buying your Michael Moore contrived bullshit, and you think this means you were right all along. In fact, you are not right about Iraq, never have been, and probably never will be. It will take upwards of 50 years for us to fully realize the benefit of Iraqi liberation, and forming an opinion on it now, is equivalent to me saying... well, those latest government mandates for carbon emissions haven't stopped global warming, so it is concluded there is nothing we can do about it.

Big problems take an enormous amount of time and effort to solve, and the instability in the middle east, is a BIG problem. You have no solutions, other than to ignore the problem, or try to sit down and talk to unreasonable people who have vowed to use your 'diplomacy' against you. It might be okay if there was any indication that would work, but we've tried it and it doesn't work, at least not with radical Islam.

It still amazes me, how liberals (of all people) are opposed to liberation! Opposed to toppling a tyrant who was violating the rights of women routinely, denying basic human rights to almost everyone, and feeding people into wood chippers who disagreed with him. For whatever reason, you want to make excuses for him, justify his behavior, and accept these atrocities as part of life we just have to deal with. If you were a principled bunch, it would seem you would be in favor of liberating millions, giving women the right to vote, and allowing minorities a voice in the political process.
Click to expand...

Isolationist first, liberal second.
 
Dixie said:
Like I said... Nancy Pelosi is Speaker of the House, the Democrats are in charge, why haven't they brought the troops home? If the overwhelming and vast majority of people in this country, share your pinheaded view on Iraq, why do you figure we are still there?
Click to expand...

Because of the Pelosi lead Republican house.
 
Keeping Saddam Hussein under control was not only right, but essential in the fight against terror. It does not matter whether he was involved with 9/11 or not: He WAS directly involved with support of international terrorism, even to the point of flaunting it. And his transgressions would have gotten worse, not better, over the years, had it gone on.

That being said, invasion and occupation, considering other factors, was NOT the right thing to do. We may have been able to pull it off in 1991, given we had much more support from the international community, plus the international precedent of not leaving a leader guilty of a war of conquest in power. But we chose to leave Saddam in power in fear of creating the quagmire we have today. That decision was, IMO, a mistake we were paying for in continued flaunting by Saddam, his deliberate playing with the entire WMD fiasco, etc. I believe that given the international situation coupled with the fact we were fighting back against a war of aggression committed against an economic ally, we could have avoided the current situation through the judicial use of international cooperation we could have had in 1991, but was not available to us in 2003.

Contrary to the claims of many anti-war protesters, the sanctions we were using against Saddam were starting to break down - and never worked all that well in the first place. While the reports state there were no WMDs and no viable bioweapons programs, it also stated that there were significant signs that Saddam was pursuing a renewal of his weapons programs - and was succeeding in some areas.

But even then, invasion and occupation were not a correct course of action in light of the international situation. While I in no way support the idea that the UN or anyone else dictate U.S. foreign policy, we none the less need to recognize we are part of an alliance - to include both military and economic treaties - with much of the rest of the world. Ignoring that - which Bush basically did - was a major error in judgment (one of the bigger ones of many big screw ups) which has led to the current situation.

But leaving things as they were would have put too much power in Saddam's hands - which we would have eventually regretted. So invasion is out, but so is the status-quo being called for by the anti-war crowd. The thing is, congress voted on a measure that gave a WIDE latitude in how to handle the problem, by giving unspecified authority to use military force.

That force SHOULD have been used, but without the invasion. We could have simply bombed the shit out of those places we suspected were being used for nefarious purposes. And we could/should have used the games Saddam played with the UN inspection teams as TAI indicators. Saddam said they can't go someplace, we bomb it. That would have ended Saddam's game playing in a hurry, and let him know without any doubt we were serious about keeping his WMD programs thoroughly suppressed.

Meanwhile we should have given maximum ground effort to the Afghanistan front, instead of making it a secondary "while we're at it" effort. We should have gone in, shoving Osama Bin Laden into his little hidey hole, then fucking carpet bombed the entire area his hideaways were located, sealing the SOB in some deep hole somewhere and let him rot.
 
Good Luck said:
Keeping Saddam Hussein under control was not only right, but essential in the fight against terror. It does not matter whether he was involved with 9/11 or not: He WAS directly involved with support of international terrorism, even to the point of flaunting it. And his transgressions would have gotten worse, not better, over the years, had it gone on.
Click to expand...

Up to this point, I think you are fairly accurate, except that we had no way of "controlling" Saddam Hussein from the outside. Our intelligence was shoddy to say the least, and what we did know (or think we knew) wasn't good. So, how do you effectively insure you have him under control? It's impossible, and it was a risk we simply couldn't afford to take after 9/11.

That being said, invasion and occupation, considering other factors, was NOT the right thing to do. We may have been able to pull it off in 1991, given we had much more support from the international community, plus the international precedent of not leaving a leader guilty of a war of conquest in power. But we chose to leave Saddam in power in fear of creating the quagmire we have today.
Click to expand...

No, Bush Sr. left him in power because the same weak-kneed mealy-mouth liberals who are screaming about the war today, were pleading with us to give him one last chance. You are right, we should have taken him out in '91, no questions asked. But Bushes seem to lack that certain something... that backbone or balls... whatever, that enables them to pull the trigger and do what they should do. Daddy got shot down because he hesitated, then got booted out of office because he backed down on his tax pledge, and his son followed the same pattern with Iraq. He followed Colin Powell through the UN maze, instead of executing executive authority and getting the job done. Do you think Clinton would've handled Saddam the same as Bush? No way! He would have taken Saddam out in the dark of night, and given a 10-minute press conference the next day, and that would have been the end of it.

That decision was, IMO, a mistake we were paying for in continued flaunting by Saddam, his deliberate playing with the entire WMD fiasco, etc. I believe that given the international situation coupled with the fact we were fighting back against a war of aggression committed against an economic ally, we could have avoided the current situation through the judicial use of international cooperation we could have had in 1991, but was not available to us in 2003.
Click to expand...

Again, it doesn't matter what we SHOULD have done in 1991. Because we should have done something years ago, doesn't mean we shouldn't do it now.

Contrary to the claims of many anti-war protesters, the sanctions we were using against Saddam were starting to break down - and never worked all that well in the first place. While the reports state there were no WMDs and no viable bioweapons programs, it also stated that there were significant signs that Saddam was pursuing a renewal of his weapons programs - and was succeeding in some areas.
Click to expand...

The entire WMD thing was overboard, in my opinion. The "fault" I have with Bush is his incessant basing of the war on WMD's, which he had to be smart enough to understand, were never going to be found. How he let the media dwell on this, and his political adversaries thrive on this for so long, is beyond me. The basis, premise, reason, whatever, should have never been presented on the grounds of WMD's alone, and it often was.

But even then, invasion and occupation were not a correct course of action in light of the international situation. While I in no way support the idea that the UN or anyone else dictate U.S. foreign policy, we none the less need to recognize we are part of an alliance - to include both military and economic treaties - with much of the rest of the world. Ignoring that - which Bush basically did - was a major error in judgment (one of the bigger ones of many big screw ups) which has led to the current situation.
Click to expand...

The "international situation" was, the UN voted unanimously to support serious consequences for failure to comply, then wanted to back down when he didn't comply. Bush should have realized this was going to happen, the UN has never acted against any nation with "serious consequence" other than passing a freaking resolution. Woooo... that's serious! The Bush Mistake here was going to the UN in the first place. If the administration argument was based on CIA intelligence which suggested a direct threat to our security, the president need not consult the UN about action.

But leaving things as they were would have put too much power in Saddam's hands - which we would have eventually regretted. So invasion is out, but so is the status-quo being called for by the anti-war crowd. The thing is, congress voted on a measure that gave a WIDE latitude in how to handle the problem, by giving unspecified authority to use military force.

That force SHOULD have been used, but without the invasion. We could have simply bombed the shit out of those places we suspected were being used for nefarious purposes. And we could/should have used the games Saddam played with the UN inspection teams as TAI indicators. Saddam said they can't go someplace, we bomb it. That would have ended Saddam's game playing in a hurry, and let him know without any doubt we were serious about keeping his WMD programs thoroughly suppressed.
Click to expand...

For your information, and not a lot of people are aware of this, we had been routinely bombing "nefarious locations" in Iraq out of our bases in Saudi Arabia since 1995 under president Clinton. Each time we bomb buildings, there is a real possibility of collateral damage, and I am sure it did happen over the years, we just didn't hear about it.

I had your idea when all this UN inspection debacle was taking place, I said they should target a presidential palace each day until Saddam capitulated.

Meanwhile we should have given maximum ground effort to the Afghanistan front, instead of making it a secondary "while we're at it" effort. We should have gone in, shoving Osama Bin Laden into his little hidey hole, then fucking carpet bombed the entire area his hideaways were located, sealing the SOB in some deep hole somewhere and let him rot.
Click to expand...

Here is another myth perpetrated by the left, we didn't make Afghanistan a "secondary effort" at all. This particular country is one of the most difficult battle terrains in all of the world, ask the Russians. We bombed the holy shit out of Tora Bora, for three days! Another critical Bush mistake, was trusting the bastards who made the deal in the desert, to bring Osama out of the caves. The reasoning was understandable, we couldn't easily get heavy artillery in there, it would have taken us weeks to do what they thought could be done in a day.

The motivation, rationale, and reasoning for the war were legitimate, and probably should have come in '91, or sooner, for that matter. The results of a liberated Iraq are not going to be realized immediately, or maybe not even in our lifetime, but I believe it will have been the right thing to do, when history looks back on it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top