My position on Iraq

[Beefy]

The "war" will never be won militarily or conventionally. This war is a war of ideologies and we "win" when our interests and our ideology prevails in the world. Fighting this as if it were a conventional military battle against geographically tied nation states will doom us to failure, IMHO.

Spot fuckin' on. Spot on. This is what the wing nuts can't understand. Its as abstract as the "war on 'terror'". War on "terror"?

War on a tactic of war? How do you defeat that? And how do you defeat it by treating it as if it is personified by a country, namely Iraq?

Good to see you Maineman.

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

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.

It still amazes me that supposed conservatives that should like to keep government spending low has no problem paying for food medicine, roads schools etc while getting shot at in a country that has nothing to do with us.

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

kind of weird both dixie and maineman show up at the same time. I have a new theory that they are the same person and this person has multiple personalities. he usually sits around talking to himself and arguing but every once and a while he'll argue against himself on message boards. I'm calling him bozak.

 

[Beefy]

kind of weird both dixie and maineman show up at the same time. I have a new theory that they are the same person and this person has multiple personalities. he usually sits around talking to himself and arguing but every once and a while he'll argue against himself on message boards. I'm calling him bozak.

Yeah, I noticed that too. Its like they were both lurking, waiting for on or the other to open the door to the old flame.

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

this board was lacking conversations pertaining to raping each others children.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

1: The bombing in Iraq WAS minimal. All you need do is look at what happened when we REALLY started bombing Iraq (remember "Shock and Awe?) to compare what a concentrated effort looks like compared to a minimal token effort. Yea, we hit this and that target once or twice a month with a half dozem smart bombs or a couple cruise missiles. That IS minimal considering our goals.

2: The UN inspectors were never "kicked out". They were withdrawn when the UN decided it was going no where, and also decided against taking any additional actions to force the issue. Ditto the second effort. And yes, they were there to assure the WMDs on record were destroyed. When the counts of destroyed weapons came up short, that is when Bush turned it into an excuse to invade.

3: The effort in Afghanistan was minimized because Iraq was already being targeted. Or are you unaware that the process of going to pointing at Iraq (ie: Saddam) as a character of significant threat to garnering Congressional support (as well as public support) took a good two years to accomplish?

I know for a fact which USMC units were sent to Afghanistan, which were held in reserve for Afghanistan, and which units were held aside "just in case they were needed elsewhere" - with the "elsewhere" being Iraq. I know which units were given warning orders to TRAIN for Iraq (ie: given engineering maps of the region, terrain analysis, orders of battle of enemy troops, started playing war games using the region as the scenario and using Iraqi forces and doctrine in OpFor, etc.) a full 18 months before we invaded. No, we did NOT underestimate the forces needed in Afghanistan. We simply decided that Afghanistan was a secondary front in the war on terror, and that as long as we kept OBL on the run, it would be as effective as killing him. (Which is true from a tactical stand point, but not so true from a political/strategic stand.)

1. Shock and Awe was bombing specifically targeting the regime of Saddam Hussein, after we stated our objective to remove him from power. Prior to that, we were routinely targeting outpost facilities, in the no-fly zone, where our intelligence thought he was working with WMD's. Two completely different missions. The point is, strategic bombing campaigns do not confirm or verify what happened to nearly 80,000 liters of chem/bio weapons, or if there was the equipment and materials to produce even more. And they also would have never drug Saddam Hussein out of his spider hole, we don't have strategic bombs that will do this yet.

2. Yes, the UN inspectors were asked to leave by Saddam Hussein, and they obliged. Shortly thereafter, they passed a "tough resolution" condemning him, which started this entire thing. The mistake we made, was allowing the debate to take place, on how to get inspectors back into Iraq again. What was the purpose of this, if Saddam had no intention of cooperating? This happened under Clinton, and what he should have done at that point, was unleash Shock and Awe without further notice, but this was not politically expedient for our dear president at that particular time, so he didn't. Bush inherited the problem, along with the alQaeda problem, and actually chose to step up the efforts against alQaeda, rather than tackling Saddam. After 9/11, the entire foreign policy of the US changed. Prior to 9/11, our Foreign Enemy #1 was Saddam Hussein. It's highly unfair to do a retrospective and try to place blame on anyone for 9/11, because it was everybody's fault, we had a different foreign policy.

3. The problems we have faced have absolutely NOTHING to do with the size of ground forces, in Afghanistan OR Iraq. This has been another myth propagated by the anti-war left, and allowed to fester with the inept ability of communication of this administration. The Problem is... Bush moved away from his own advice and philosophy, and tried to fight terrorists with conventional warfare. Why has not one official from the administration made the point, that our military strategy and deployment worked to defeat the regime of Saddam Hussein, within a few weeks? That was our basic military objective, because our military alone can't ever defeat terrorism completely. As for the idea we were short-handed in either war, only about 1/10 of our active duty personnel available have been in either country, at any given time.

Because it has been left out there by the inept communicators, the public is allowed to soak it all in and come to accept things that just aren't accurate. We are not in a "War" at all, not by conventional definition, and haven't been for quite some time. Our soldiers continue to be the targets, along with Iraqi officials, of terrorist attacks from radical Islamic elements mostly outside of Iraq. I'm sorry, but that is no war, at least not a conventional one.

Now watch the pinheads rush to put my words in their sig...

 

[Mott the Hoople]

last poll I saw said 82% of Americans think we are headed in the wrong direction.

Only because the other 18% are still studying the map! LOL

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Hey Dixie! Long time no type. I still see you haven't given it up yet? Ya know Dixie, it don't take to much objectivity to draw the conclusion that invading Iraq was the biggest foreign policy fuck up of the last fifty years. I only need to put some $4/gallon gas in my car to be reminded of that fact.

Hows things in Alabama? Ya'll still teaching creationism as science and indicting competent democrats?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Originally Posted by Desh
last poll I saw said 82% of Americans think we are headed in the wrong direction.

Only because the other 18% are still studying the map! LOL

I believe that 82 percent think we are headed in the wrong direction, hell I'm one of them! We're headed down the path to liberal communist socialism! The more us conservatives scream for conservatism, the more our politicians try to out-liberal each other. Yes, we are definitely not moving in the RIGHT direction!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Hey Dixie! Long time no type. I still see you haven't given it up yet? Ya know Dixie, it don't take to much objectivity to draw the conclusion that invading Iraq was the biggest foreign policy fuck up of the last fifty years. I only need to put some $4/gallon gas in my car to be reminded of that fact.

Hows things in Alabama? Ya'll still teaching creationism as science and indicting competent democrats?

Hey there Mott, where's my fuckin' beer????

Gas prices have squat to do with war in Iraq or Afghanistan. When you are filling your tank with the precious substance, remember that we are saving our environment, protecting the endangered species living in ANWR, keeping our oceans clean off the coast of California and the Gulf of Mexico. By paying $4~5 a gallon for gas, we are helping to reduce carbon emissions, which will reverse the global warming trend. Also remember, while you are pumping that stuff, after dropping your trousers for the oil company, you must also allow Uncle Sam to rape you in the ass with their gasoline taxes, which are substantially more than any profit made by the oil company.

The reason the gas price is high, is because we buy oil from other people, and they realize we depend on it, so it's really a matter of supply and demand. Contrary to popular belief, the evil Dick Cheney and incompetent George W. Bush, were unable to steal a single drop of Iraqi oil, following this war which was supposedly fought for that very oil. I guess they lied to us when they said it was a war for oil?

Indicting competent democrats? There is no such thing as a "competent democrat!"

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Hey there Mott, where's my fuckin' beer????

Gas prices have squat to do with war in Iraq or Afghanistan. When you are filling your tank with the precious substance, remember that we are saving our environment, protecting the endangered species living in ANWR, keeping our oceans clean off the coast of California and the Gulf of Mexico. By paying $4~5 a gallon for gas, we are helping to reduce carbon emissions, which will reverse the global warming trend. Also remember, while you are pumping that stuff, after dropping your trousers for the oil company, you must also allow Uncle Sam to rape you in the ass with their gasoline taxes, which are substantially more than any profit made by the oil company.

The reason the gas price is high, is because we buy oil from other people, and they realize we depend on it, so it's really a matter of supply and demand. Contrary to popular belief, the evil Dick Cheney and incompetent George W. Bush, were unable to steal a single drop of Iraqi oil, following this war which was supposedly fought for that very oil. I guess they lied to us when they said it was a war for oil?

Indicting competent democrats? There is no such thing as a "competent democrat!"

ROTFLMAO!!!!

DIXIE you old war elephant! I can't send you Carolina Blonde any more cause I'm back up north. Will you settle for some Lienenkugels? Those Cheeseheads know how to brew some beer now!!!!

 

[maineman]

ROTFLMAO!!!!

DIXIE you old war elephant! I can't send you Carolina Blonde any more cause I'm back up north. Will you settle for some Lienenkugels? Those Cheeseheads know how to brew some beer now!!!!

Lienie's are awesome. My now deceased father would walk down the block from his law practice and have a conrned beef on rye and a Lienie's every day for lunch up until the day he quit going to work... at age 88.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Lienie's are awesome. My now deceased father would walk down the block from his law practice and have a conrned beef on rye and a Lienie's every day for lunch up until the day he quit going to work... at age 88.

I was in Wisconsin visiting family a few weeks ago. I picked up a case of Leine Red and a case of Dopplebock. I finished off the Dopplebock saturday, I'm down to my last 3 reds

We have a local pub here in Columbus called Thurmans cafe. Their specialty are incredible hamburgers and Leine on draft.

 

[Cypress]

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.

^ This was pretty representative of the Conservative view on Iraq from 2003 at least until Obama became president in 2009.

Conservatives on this board and it's predecessors almost to a man thought the Iraq war was an awesome idea.


JPP liberals, virtually to a man and woman thought the invasion of Iraq was a dumbass and dangerous idea.

 

[Cypress]

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.

There's the money quote demonstrating that 15 years ago, one of the board's most prominent conservatives intuitively knew that liberals had largely opposed the Iraq war.