Mission Accomplished!!

[Janett_Reno]

Something else dude, you started this thread for an argument and for alot of heat going back and forth. Just remember if everyone thought like you then it would get borring trying to chase your tail and argue with yourself. You need to appreciate others in here, not me but others in here that speaks up, where you can point out your views. No need to slam them for how they believe. Sometimes they might slam back and you might not like that. You wanted to start a heated thread and you got it, so enjoy it.

Please tell us more about this conservative movement?

[dude1394]

I do enjoy seeing our country successful against those who would destroy it. I also enjoy seeing the force for good that our country is in this world. It make me happy.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Janett_Reno

The oil companies don't back the democrats, wonder why?Figure your math up again and go have another Billy Beer.

How can you say that, the price of oil has doubled since the dems have been in office and will continue to go up and up if their policies continue to be followed. They'll be minting money.

Democrats are the best thing that ever happened to the oil companies, they continue to make their product scarce.

[Janett_Reno]

Originally Posted by dude1394

I do enjoy seeing our country successful against those who would destroy it. I also enjoy seeing the force for good that our country is in this world. It make me happy.

Who are the ones that would destroy it dude?

We have good ideas as a country dude when all people, parties, races, religions, work together as one. You must work together to do good and also we need to work with allies. Why should we foot all the bills and fight all the middle east and keep the tax payers paying for it? We had a right and we should keep on after Laden and Afganastan and even probs with Pakistan needs to be talked about and see what is best.

This adm did a great thing going into Afganastan and after Laden and i was so proud of W when he did this but then they jumped to something else and forgot the main mission.

Now it is no easy solutions dude and instead of working together all you desire is to try to benefit one people or one party at any cost. In the end do you believe like Pat, it is going to be the big war and let's get it on and stay in the middle east and patrol it there and start it there? Did you know this is what Laden said he did what he did because he wanted the final war and he wanted to bring in all muslims against jews and christians.

He could not bring in all muslims because many, many thought he was a fanatic as he is. They kicked him out of Saudi. He hated Sadam and he asked to let his army drive Sadam back to Iraq from Kuwait and he became furious when they wanted the usa to. He told reporters, his goal was to make all muslims hate jews and christians and vice versa. He also said us and the world was stealing middle eastern oil and it should be atleast 140.00 a barrell. At the time it was abut 50.00 to 60.00 a barrell. Start the big war in the middle east and oil jumps up and now today it is 147.00 a barrell.

Where i believe differ than you and Pat, is i feel we should get Laden and keep Afganastan free. I believe it will be a hard task to stay in Syria, Iraq and Iran and us run it like we want. We need the muslim population as a whole to like us as we need the jewish people and christians to. If Syria, Iraq or Iran ever tries to bomb and attack Israel, Israel has already shown they will and can defend themself and if wrong is done, then other countries step in and help.

The middle east is a hard place to run and keep it just as you and i want it to be. The facts are now, we went into Iraq and we need solutions now and both parties need to work together. It is no easy solutions.

[Janett_Reno]

Originally Posted by dude1394

How can you say that, the price of oil has doubled since the dems have been in office and will continue to go up and up if their policies continue to be followed. They'll be minting money.

Democrats are the best thing that ever happened to the oil companies, they continue to make their product scarce.

Again, you are not trying and are still attacking. You know who has been pres the last 7 1/2 years and you know the real reasons why oil is up. It is partly of China and India but that is just a small part.

Dude, w has been the one charging and minting money we don't have.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Janett_Reno

Who are the ones that would destroy it dude?

Uh the ones that attacked us. The ones that have sworn to destroy the great satan, destabalize the middle east and engage in never-endging jihad against us. You know, those folks.

This adm did a great thing going into Afganastan and after Laden and i was so proud of W when he did this but then they jumped to something else and forgot the main mission.

Imo this is because you are a shallow thinker. Defeating afghanistan took about 2 months and did not make one difference in the the future of the middle east, none. However the aggressive stance we took with iraq has already paid dividends by having a democracy in the middle east, libya no wmds, no.korea getting rid of wmds...All because of aggressiveness versus retreat. ESPECIALLY the retreat that the dems wanted when they welcomed genocide versus doing what has been greatly done.

Now it is no easy solutions dude and instead of working together all you desire is to try to benefit one people or one party at any cost.

This is where you are full of it. I'm for the USA as well as a republican. The democrats have shown themselves to be craven cowards and opportunists. They deserve scorn and ridicule.

[quote] In the end do you believe like Pat, it is going to be the big war and let's get it on and stay in the middle east and patrol it there and start it there?[quote]
Don't be an idiot.

Did you know this is what Laden said he did what he did because he wanted the final war and he wanted to bring in all muslims against jews and christians.

If he did he got a hell of a lot more than he bargained for didn't he. What he really thought would happen would be that the american people would lose the stones to do what it took to make Iraq a success. So that he would again say that he'd defeated another superpower (russia being first) and our prestige and credibility would be shot.

And he was surely correct with you and the democrats and unfortunately most of the American People. However my party was (and IS) on the right side of this conflict.
Bin Laden called the American people cowards that would run from the fight. However he didn't count on one George W. Bush who was willing to do what it took to win this, because it had to be won. No matter that he's been villified, his party is taking it on the chin, tough, tough people have to do the tough work. I'll let history sort it out and it won't look good on the democrats ledger. They are very fortunate that they couldn't force a retreat and genocide when they wanted to or history would be very critical of the democrats. I expect it will anyway when it's shown that they tried to pull a neville chamberlin in one of the worlds great challenges.

The rest of your post is junk. Osama Bin Laden believed that stuff as long as he was running the show, he never dreamed that the US would stick it out. It was the biggest mistake the lunatic ever made. But it was a good bet, he bet on so many like yourself not having the stomach to finish. Thank the lord that many americans are made of sterner stuff.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Janett_Reno

Again, you are not trying and are still attacking. You know who has been pres the last 7 1/2 years and you know the real reasons why oil is up. It is partly of China and India but that is just a small part.

Dude, w has been the one charging and minting money we don't have.

You continue to be a moron if you think that china/india aren't the main reasons for oil prices to be up. The OTHER reason is that the dems have (and continue) to block exploration for decades.

[wmbwinn]

Fiscal policy and budget are the power of Congress, not the Executive Branch ("neo con administration").

[Janett_Reno]

[QUOTE=dude1394]Uh the ones that attacked us. The ones that have sworn to destroy the great satan, destabalize the middle east and engage in never-endging jihad against us. You know, those folks.

But dude you say these folks, are these folks all in Iraq? Can we get them all there? You know where the suicide bombers came from and remember those folks are our allies. Do you have a plan for that country? Pakistan told us today, no you can't cross the border chasing people and what if we wanted to chase those folks in Pakistan What is your paln? It seems to me alot of those folks sometimes are in Syria and Iran. Look at other terrorist acts that have been targeted at us in many more middle easter countries and Africa. You can't just tell all those folks to get on over here and let's get it on. This is one of the probs of saying we are going to war with terror. Terror can be anywhere and everywhere. Now when bad acts are done to us, we don't need to stand by and do nothing. We need to but again i see you think like Pat and want to be in the heart of the middle east, stay and try to get them to come to you. In many countries and even in some of our allies, they are taught to hate us and alot of them do not live like the bible. The bible we know. How do we deal with these people and how can we make them understand us? Just because Pat said the Muslim religion was evil and i think he finally said he made a mistake saying that but we can't get them to change religions. Laden has tried and tried to make this a religion war. The folks you talk about dude, run and hide in many countries they can. Then they come out when they want to. It is a problem when we are allied to many of these countries and we need to put our heads together or our politicians and military and learn how to deal with them. Can we keep going in country after country chasing them? Then again, we can't stand by and do nothing if something is done to us.


Imo this is because you are a shallow thinker. Defeating afghanistan took about 2 months and did not make one difference in the the future of the middle east, none. However the aggressive stance we took with iraq has already paid dividends by having a democracy in the middle east, libya no wmds, no.korea getting rid of wmds...All because of aggressiveness versus retreat. ESPECIALLY the retreat that the dems wanted when they welcomed genocide versus doing what has been greatly done.

Afghanistan is still going on. Ask our troops and i don't call them shallow thinkers as they are in the middle of it. Afghanistan is very important. Laden's group, Al Queda and the Taliban keep trying to come across and we keep them going out. I think you are wrong thinking Afghanistan is not important and that it is over. Libya has been better. NK, when they need food and oil, they say we are sorry and we are going to do what you want us to. We give them food and oil and then when they run low, they say we are cranking it back up. It is a never ending process and i hope nk is getting rid of wmd's and will stay that way. It is many republicans not in support of the iraq war and things that has gone on. It is many democrats supporting that war. Again, you just throw the words out, it is those folks and you don't go far enough to tell us of those folks. You know that is a fine line you do not want to touch. That same fine line you are afraid to attack Obama on.

Our policies can't be jewish or muslim, it can't be Catholic or Baptist, it can't be just republican or democrat. It was a person and a groupd that attacked us on 9/11 and that person and group should be whom we target now. It is democrats and republicans fighting this war dude and it is also Baptist, Catholic, Muslim and Jewish and even people that have no faith, so it is wrong of you to classify one people or party as nothings. All people are important and if we do not treat them as such, it isn't a good thing. One day the real reasons will come out why we went into Iraq. It wasn't because of Sadam attacking us on 9/11. Genocide, so tell me your beliefs on Cuba, Iran Syria and NK. How about China? Can you force your way of thinking, your beliefs and if they say no, should you go attack them? Use your head first and it is more ways to get what you want than one.


This is where you are full of it. I'm for the USA as well as a republican. The democrats have shown themselves to be craven cowards and opportunists. They deserve scorn and ridicule.

If you are a republican then you need to get your facts straight. You are along ways from thinking like a conservative. Remember, you are the one that told me W Bush was more in line with a democrat than a republican.

[quote] In the end do you believe like Pat, it is going to be the big war and let's get it on and stay in the middle east and patrol it there and start it there?

Don't be an idiot.


If he did he got a hell of a lot more than he bargained for didn't he. What he really thought would happen would be that the american people would lose the stones to do what it took to make Iraq a success. So that he would again say that he'd defeated another superpower (russia being first) and our prestige and credibility would be shot.

And he was surely correct with you and the democrats and unfortunately most of the American People. However my party was (and IS) on the right side of this conflict.
Bin Laden called the American people cowards that would run from the fight. However he didn't count on one George W. Bush who was willing to do what it took to win this, because it had to be won. No matter that he's been villified, his party is taking it on the chin, tough, tough people have to do the tough work. I'll let history sort it out and it won't look good on the democrats ledger. They are very fortunate that they couldn't force a retreat and genocide when they wanted to or history would be very critical of the democrats. I expect it will anyway when it's shown that they tried to pull a neville chamberlin in one of the worlds great challenges.

It isn't looking good now as him being one of the greatest presidents. Why not get Laden and do what it takes to try to get him and put pressure on countries that is helping him? Your way of thinking, like the adm, who cares about the economy, our borders and you know the list. I won't say them all but all those things are important.
The rest of your post is junk. Osama Bin Laden believed that stuff as long as he was running the show, he never dreamed that the US would stick it out. It was the biggest mistake the lunatic ever made. But it was a good bet, he bet on so many like yourself not having the stomach to finish. Thank the lord that many americans are made of sterner stuff.

Most of your threads and post are junk also and nothing but fluff and spin trying to cut down certain races, parties and an anger you have within you need to go around many, many boards spreading the same thing. Just trying to stir up an arguement. You have no solutions or don't care to as long as you can get someone to argue with you. As far as Laden, it is important to bring him to justice and his group. We should never give that battle up and we won't.

[Janett_Reno]

Originally Posted by dude1394

You continue to be a moron if you think that china/india aren't the main reasons for oil prices to be up. The OTHER reason is that the dems have (and continue) to block exploration for decades.

Jeb and McCain wasn't Democrats. You continue to spin. Now Jeb is for controlled drilling and McSame has flopped and is for what sounds best this week. The next article shows even more fluff and spin you try to sell as you try to make it a democrat vs republican thing. Why don't you start speaking the truth instaed of spin?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://thatsmycongress.com/index.php...isting-leases/

Republicans Vote Against Quick Oil Drilling On Existing Leases
June 29, 2008 at 9:27 pm · Filed under House legislation

For the last couple of months, Republicans in Congress have been whining and complaining that gasoline prices in the United States would go down a whole bunch, if only the the Democrats in Congress would do only something to increase the amount of oil drilling taking place on federal lands.

Well, wouldn’t you know it, but last Thursday, the Democrats in Congress did just that. They proposed a law that would increase the amount of drilling for oil taking place on federal lands.

Funny thing - almost all the Republicans voted against the bill. Why? Well, H.R.6251, called the Responsible Federal Oil and Gas Lease Act, moves to increase the amount of drilling for fossil fuels on federal lands without increasing the amount of land available for oil drilling. Instead, the law would force oil drilling companies to stop slacking off and to use the federal lands they’re already leasing more efficiently.

You see, although oil companies complain that oil supply is low because there isn’t enough public land available for them to drill on, those same companies are moving as slow as slugs to actually begin drilling on the public land they’re already leasing. The huge majority of land leased for the purposes of oil exploration hasn’t actually been tapped by the oil companies yet. They’re just sitting on that land, not drilling it.

For the sake of increasing the supply of oil, as Republicans in Congress have said that they want, the Responsible Federal Oil and Gas Lease Act would have banned the federal government from granting new leases to companies that have not been drilling on the leases they already have in a timely manner. It makes perfect sense. If an oil company isn’t even using the leases of public lands they already have, why should they take on yet more leases… unless what those oil companies really want to do is just squat on their leases of public lands with oil under them only in order to prevent the oil from being drilled, thus decreasing supply and artificially driving up the cost of petroleum products so that they can make a bigger profit without doing any more work.

Those right wing members of Congress who voted against the Responsible Federal Oil and Gas Lease Act were doing the bidding of the big oil companies, regardless of the harm to the larger American economy. That’s really scummy. In fact, that kind of oil-slick corruption is downright crude.

Take note: They’re not all Republicans. 19 Democrats jumped the tracks to vote against this work ethic for oil companies. The members of Congress who had the gall to vote against the Responsible Federal Oil and Gas Lease Act and its attempt to force oil companies to become more efficient in bringing oil out of the ground and to the gasoline pump were:

[wmbwinn]

"Funny thing - almost all the Republicans voted against the bill. Why? Well, H.R.6251, called the Responsible Federal Oil and Gas Lease Act, moves to increase the amount of drilling for fossil fuels on federal lands without increasing the amount of land available for oil drilling. Instead, the law would force oil drilling companies to stop slacking off and to use the federal lands they’re already leasing more efficiently."

You don't understand.

The Dems are saying "Go ahead and increase drilling on lands where you have already determined that you are wasting your time drilling."

This has been the arguement for quite some time:

Dems: You already have permission to drill in lots and lots of places and you aren't doing it.

Reps/oil companies: There isn't any oil there. We already looked.

The Republicans voted against this silly bill because it continues to block drilling in places where there is oil.

I have a hard time understanding how these stupid arguements stay alive. Is it so hard to understand this?

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

You don't understand.

This happens a lot with Janett.

[ShaggyDirk]

Underdog, why do you even try? They should rename this forum: "The Funnies"

[Dirkadirkastan]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Uh the ones that attacked us. The ones that have sworn to destroy the great satan, destabalize the middle east and engage in never-endging jihad against us. You know, those folks.

Right, because all those turban heads are the same.

When Cheney distinguishes Iraq/911 from Iraq/Al Qaeda, be basically absolves them of any crimes. It is not a crime to make a business deal with Al Qaeda any more than it is a crime for Home Depot to sell a crowbar to someone who later commits murder with it. And what evidence is there to believe they did more than that? Cheney said they couldn't find any.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by ShaggyDirk

Underdog, why do you even try? They should rename this forum: "The Funnies"

Ah. Another person to throw tomatoes with nothing meaningful to say.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

Right, because all those turban heads are the same.

When Cheney distinguishes Iraq/911 from Iraq/Al Qaeda, be basically absolves them of any crimes. It is not a crime to make a business deal with Al Qaeda any more than it is a crime for Home Depot to sell a crowbar to someone who later commits murder with it. And what evidence is there to believe they did more than that? Cheney said they couldn't find any.

In this country, the liberal left tried to sue gun companies for the crimes committed with their products. They also tried to sue the stores who sell the guns.

I'm glad that such stupidity was blocked and law passed preventing such silly lawsuits.

Now, in your arguement, Home Depot bears no liability for the crow bar they sold which was later used in a crime.

In the issue of firearms, so long as the person passes the FBI background check, then there is no liability for the seller of the weapon to pass the weapon on to the buyer.

But, when a country deals with Al Qaeda or any other entity on the Blacklist (Terrorist list), then they are selling weapons WITH a liability. If a gun is sold without a background check, the seller has a liability. Same thing here.

Now, beyond the above, I have a hard time understanding what your point is.

[ShaggyDirk]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

Ah. Another person to throw tomatoes with nothing meaningful to say.

Ah.. until this forum understands the difference between news and editorials there doesn't exist a meaningful repsonse.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by ShaggyDirk

Ah.. until this forum understands the difference between news and editorials there doesn't exist a meaningful repsonse.

you have provided neither

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by ShaggyDirk

Ah.. until this forum understands the difference between news and editorials there doesn't exist a meaningful repsonse.

First the news:

"By Dean Yates and Mohammed Abbas
Sun Jul 13, 12:26 PM ET



BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraqi security forces are poised to launch a major crackdown in volatile Diyala province, the Interior Ministry said on Sunday, the latest in a series of operations aimed at stabilizing the country.

Sunni Islamist al Qaeda has sought to stoke tensions in the religiously and ethnically mixed northeastern province, which has seen a string of suicide bombings in recent months.

The crackdown will be the latest Iraqi-led offensive aimed at stamping government authority on areas once in the hands of Sunni Arab insurgents or Shi'ite militias.

U.S. and Iraqi officials say a campaign against al Qaeda in the northern city of Mosul and surrounding Nineveh province has helped reduce violence there. Other operations have targeted Shi'ite militias in the southern provinces of Basra and Maysan

Soon, the security forces will be in Diyala to play the role they played in Basra and Maysan and Mosul, and Diyala could be the last stage," Iraqi Interior Ministry spokesman Major-General Abdul-Kareem Khalaf told a news conference.

He did not give a date for the start of the Diyala crackdown and it was unclear if he meant the offensive would be the last major operation aimed at securing the country.

Overall attacks across Iraq were down 85 percent in June from a year ago, the Iraqi military said last week.

U.S. forces have been conducting security operations in Diyala since the beginning of the year and will take part in the new Iraqi push, a spokesman said.

The success of Iraq's recent operations has given the government confidence, which has been most apparent in calls by Iraqi leaders for a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops as part of a security deal being negotiated with Washington.

IRAQI FORCES NEAR "SELF RELIANCE"

Iraqi security forces were taking the lead in more than 75 percent of security operations, national security adviser Mowaffaq al-Rubaie told CNN television.

"We can see in a very short period of time, the Iraqi security forces will reach ... self reliance ... We can relax the requirements for foreign troops in this country," he said.

Iraqi and U.S. officials have been working on an agreement to provide a legal basis for American troops to remain when a U.N. mandate expires at the end of the year.

But negotiators had ended efforts to reach a formal Status of Forces Agreement before President George W. Bush leaves office in favor of an interim deal, the Washington Post said on Sunday, citing senior U.S. officials.

In the past week Iraqi leaders have spoken of only agreeing what they call a memorandum of understanding.

The Washington Post quoted one U.S. official close to the negotiations as saying "we are talking about dates," even though Bush has previously rebuffed calls for a timetable.

Iraq is a major issue in November's presidential election battle between Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama. McCain supports the Bush administration's current strategy, while Obama has called for a timetable for withdrawal.

Iraqi Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi, a Sunni Arab, added his support for a withdrawal timetable.

"Iraqis must know when the American and other forces will leave Iraqi land. It is our right to know, and know the truth of where the situation stands, if there is an intention for American forces to leave or not," Hashemi told Iraqiya state television in an interview broadcast on the weekend.

The Post said the "bridge" security document would likely cover only 2009, and be limited in scope, allowing basic U.S. military operations to continue once the U.N. mandate ended.

Iraq has rejected a number of Washington's demands, insisting they infringe on the country's sovereignty.

There is strong domestic pressure in Iraq to set dates for a withdrawal of U.S. forces, especially with violence at a four-year low and with Iraqi security forces getting larger.

Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's political opponents would also likely try to exploit the issue of an undefined U.S. troop presence in provincial elections later this year.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080713/ts_nm/iraq_usa_dc

----------------

Now, the editorial:

We have more evidence of the success of our military forces in Iraq as the native Iraq forces are stepping up effectively to control their own country. The investment of America in the invasion, government creation assistance, free elections, negotiations/compromises, and training/supplying the Iraqi police/military groups is paying off with an Iraq quickly moving to full sovereignty not only in name/structure but also in capability to handle its own internal affairs. The earlier situation that approached civil war is now a situation of control and dialogue and compromise.

Kudos, US Marine Corps.

-------------

Now, to my left leaning liberal friends who want to see us fail miserably so you can sing "told you so":

When will you admit that YOU are wrong?

[Dirkadirkastan]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

Now, beyond the above, I have a hard time understanding what your point is.

The trouble starts when we recall pre-9/11 Bush speaking about a humble, non-interventionist foreign policy. Since then, we always hear about how "everything changed on 9/11". So far so good, because we were attacked on our own soil. We were reacting to an act of war waged against us, not meddling in other people's business for no reason. In other words, 9/11 was our justification for invading the Middle East. But that's precisely why everything falls apart when Cheney suddenly announces Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

You can't use an event as your core justification for changing your policies, while simultaneously claiming the same event to be irrelevant to your actions.

Anyway, since this Iraq operation has nothing to with anything that ever occurred in the UNITED STATES, our actions can only be categorized as World Policing. This country is apparently willing to spend (print) billions of dollars for an operation that has nothing to do with this country, as you expressed here:

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

But, when a country deals with Al Qaeda or any other entity on the Blacklist (Terrorist list), then they are selling weapons WITH a liability. If a gun is sold without a background check, the seller has a liability. Same thing here.

The only way you can accept such an idea as World Policing is if you believe the UNITED STATES is inherently good. And that's another matter of discussion entirely.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

The trouble starts when we recall pre-9/11 Bush speaking about a humble, non-interventionist foreign policy. Since then, we always hear about how "everything changed on 9/11". So far so good, because we were attacked on our own soil. We were reacting to an act of war waged against us, not meddling in other people's business for no reason. In other words, 9/11 was our justification for invading the Middle East. But that's precisely why everything falls apart when Cheney suddenly announces Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

I think this is where your argument falls apart to be honest. When did we find this out? Certainly not from how Sadaam Hussein was acting both leading up to the invasion or the ~10 years prior.

Or are you saying that once we found out we should have then turned around and said sorry, see ya'. All the while that al queda was taking over the country.

[Dirkadirkastan]

Originally Posted by dude1394

When did we find this out?

Find what out? The whole point is that we never found anything! There was NEVER any connection between Saddam and 9/11. It's not like there was a connection that justified the war, then some event occurred that nullified that connection, prompting us to haul ass.

In light of this fact, do you really think it was appropriate to invade a country simply because the leader was acting suspicious? Sounds like guilty until proven innocent to me. Costing thousands of lives on someone immaterial to the UNITED STATES, no less.

As for jumping in because Al Qaeda was taking over the country... yeah, that's World Police.

[dude1394]

Here is what I think.

1. We were attacked by a worldwide terrorist islamic group.
2. They are able to operate because of sympathetic islamic states. Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Iran.
3. One of those(Iraq) was a sworn enemy of the US, waged war on the US, was STILL at war with the US and the US was spending many billions of dollars enforcing no-fly zones as well as enforcing sanctions.

The US likes to do things, solve problems. IMO. We've been just going along allowing terrorists to attack us all over the world. WTC1, Khobar Towers, Cole, WTCII was finally the last straw. After that we were scared to go to the mall or to pick up our mail.

It was time to put a stop to it. Now how do you do it? That's the million-dollar questions. How do you do it for good? And I mean for good or as close to good as you think you can get it.

You declare war on it. You declare war on the three axis of evils for example. You may think there was another way to do it but imo a sea-change in the middle east was needed. That culture was a complete and utter cluster-f***. Because of the success they had against Russia as well as our passive responses they had come to the conclusion that the sucide bomber was absolute, it couldn't be beaten and the west would never stand up to it.

We'll they've gotten a sea-change. In the heart of the middle-east a liberal democracy has sprung up.

And from winning versus losing, fighting versus retreating, we've influenced Libya to give up Nuclear Weapons, influenced N.Korea to give up Nuclear Weapons and we've put what is going to be a very powerful democracy next to Iran. One that we will have no problem lending aid to when needed.

This action hasn't been "world" police imo, it's been very aligned with our interests. 8 years of no attacks, the defeat of Al Queda (both militarily as well as hearts and minds). Just what we wanted to happen, obviously a hell of a lot harder than we thought. Just like the WTC we couldn't conveive of how ruthless AlQueda could be, killing muslims so that they would retaliate into a civil war, it was monstrous and effective. We could have run but we didn't and we're better off because of it.

If we'd have been beaten by the retreat the democrats proposed islamic terrorism would again be emboldened and any and all of our allies would know that our word didn't mean squat. All that would have dissappeared.

[wmbwinn]

You are really reaching and generalizing.

The Blacklist of terrorist organizations is a list created by many nations, not just the USA. The USA has not assumed a "go it alone Cowboy mentality" to the extreme that persons like to state in broad sweeping generalizations.

We went into Iraq with a large number of nations supporting us. We did not do that ourselves.

We did not go into Iraq with any sort of causal relation based on 911. We were already engaging Iraq based on the No Fly rules and other UN approved military action/supervision/enforcements that were created/approved by the UN at the end of Iraq I.

The issues of going to war in Iraq II were (at the UN level) based on violations of the UN agreements and rules of engagement dealing with post Iraq I policies.

The issue of WMD is entirely a different issue. Either:
1)the US intelligence agency sucks
2)the administration and the intelligence agency intentionally twisted the intelligence to add support to the invasion

Chances are that #2 above is more correct than #1.

But, that "spin" may not have been produced by GW Bush and his "chronies". It may have been produced by the intelligence agencies themselves to get us back into Iraq. We will never know.

But, we went into Iraq with approval of the UN. That means we are not the World's Police. We are just the main power of the UN's World Police. Because we are the most capable power in the UN, that doesn't mean when we fight under UN approval that we are acting as the World Police. The UN is the World Police.

So, in conclusion:

The terrorist list with which to not do business is created by many countries and does not represent a US solo policy

The war in Iraq was approved by the UN. Every ongoing action is UN approved. WMD was not the basis of UN approval. We will never know about the WMD issue as to what was known ahead of time and what the motivation was.

The UN is the World Police. The USA just happens to be the main hammer.

If the World Police is evil, then the UN is evil. A great number of Americans would agree that the UN is a problem.

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

You are really reaching and generalizing.

The Blacklist of terrorist organizations is a list created by many nations, not just the USA. The USA has not assumed a "go it alone Cowboy mentality" to the extreme that persons like to state in broad sweeping generalizations.

We went into Iraq with a large number of nations supporting us. We did not do that ourselves.

We did not go into Iraq with any sort of causal relation based on 911. We were already engaging Iraq based on the No Fly rules and other UN approved military action/supervision/enforcements that were created/approved by the UN at the end of Iraq I.

The issues of going to war in Iraq II were (at the UN level) based on violations of the UN agreements and rules of engagement dealing with post Iraq I policies.

The issue of WMD is entirely a different issue. Either:
1)the US intelligence agency sucks
2)the administration and the intelligence agency intentionally twisted the intelligence to add support to the invasion

Chances are that #2 above is more correct than #1.

But, that "spin" may not have been produced by GW Bush and his "chronies". It may have been produced by the intelligence agencies themselves to get us back into Iraq. We will never know.

But, we went into Iraq with approval of the UN. That means we are not the World's Police. We are just the main power of the UN's World Police. Because we are the most capable power in the UN, that doesn't mean when we fight under UN approval that we are acting as the World Police. The UN is the World Police.

So, in conclusion:

The terrorist list with which to not do business is created by many countries and does not represent a US solo policy

The war in Iraq was approved by the UN. Every ongoing action is UN approved. WMD was not the basis of UN approval. We will never know about the WMD issue as to what was known ahead of time and what the motivation was.

The UN is the World Police. The USA just happens to be the main hammer.

If the World Police is evil, then the UN is evil. A great number of Americans would agree that the UN is a problem.

As far as WMD go, the funny part is #1 above and #2 above are not the only answers. Just the only ones that most people see.

#3: There is and was more going on than has ever been released to the media, and there really were WMD's at the time, in Iraq.

What made Congress agree so easily? (screw the spin today -- what made them agree then?)

What part did Russia, France, and Germany play in it?

Did China have anything going on with it?

[purplefrog]

Imo, the reasoning behind WMDs was solid. It's still true today that there has been no accounting of the chemical and biological weapons that we know Saddam had at one time. The problem is that President Bush (along with the U.N.) decided to press Iraq by getting the inspectors back into the country. If you take that course of action then you are obligated to take direction from that source. Instead, the administration ignored the reports from inspectors that no WMDs could be found and invaded anyway. This was the biggest mistake in the whole enchilada. Imo, you either invade because it is necessary (stated reasons go way beyond WMDs) OR you send in the inspectors and take direction from them. Sending them in and then ignoring their work was an error in judgement that they could have avoided. The data appeared to change, but the course of action remained the same.

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by purplefrog

Imo, the reasoning behind WMDs was solid. It's still true today that there has been no accounting of the chemical and biological weapons that we know Saddam had at one time.

Is our intelligence so bad, that we do not know where the weapons were/are at?

Is the intelligence community really that inept?

Could there be "other" reasons?

[DirkFTW]

I'm more concerned about Iran and how we don't seem to know definitively whether they are or are not pursuing the bomb, let alone where to sabotage if they are.

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by DirkFTW

I'm more concerned about Iran and how we don't seem to know definitively whether they are or are not pursuing the bomb, let alone where to sabotage if they are.

A country with excess oil and gas needs nuclear energy why? How much of the worlds oil and gas supplies does Iran control?

Again, our intelligence community is so inept that they don't know where they are doing this at?

Russia is sending nuclear scientist to Iran to help them with this nuclear energy why? What are they getting out of it?

[purplefrog]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

Is our intelligence so bad, that we do not know where the weapons were/are at?

Is the intelligence community really that inept?

Could there be "other" reasons?

I agree there were other reasons. And I don't believe the intelligence community is that inept. Everyone believed WMDs existed going back to the Clinton administration. I believe they existed at one point in time. You suggest maybe we actually found them but for some reason refuse to release that information (at least I think that's what you're saying). It seems to me that since the inspectors did not find WMDs, and then we reported not finding them, then they were not in fact in Iraq after the invasion. Maybe Saddam feared someone would use them on him and his family so he destroyed them. And maybe he didn't document the disposal of the WMDs because he wanted to create an illusion of their existence. Sorta like the people that put signs outside their homes that read "Home Security System" when in fact they don't own one, the illusion serves a deterrent. Or maybe he shipped them out of the country just prior to the beginning of the war. Who knows... But the bottom line for me is that the inspectors could not find WMDs and we started the war anyway. Why? Because the administration decided we were going to invade Iraq shortly after 9/11 (actually its a fact that many Bush advisors had this idea back in the late 1990s). Regardless of it being a good or a bad idea the decision was made and there was no reason to give the false pretense that the UN inspectors were going to decide anything. It was a bad strategy from the beginning and they lost credibility. This credibility gap ended up hindering so much of what they tried to accomplish because the public perception turned negative and continued in a downward spiral for the remainder of the Bush presidency.

[dude1394]

Check out the graphs at michael yon's site. What a great accomplishment by our military and leaders.

Heck of a job...

http://michaelyon-online.com/index.p...d=55#yvComment

[Flacolaco]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Check out the graphs at michael yon's site. What a great accomplishment by our military and leaders.

Heck of a job...

http://michaelyon-online.com/index.p...d=55#yvComment

Yup. Pretty impressive stuff on that power point.

Good thing too...I have a close friend in Baghdad right now running security on convoys, so I hope that IED number can stay down low.

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by purplefrog

I agree there were other reasons. And I don't believe the intelligence community is that inept. Everyone believed WMDs existed going back to the Clinton administration. I believe they existed at one point in time.

They didn't just believe they existed. They knew they did because Saddam used chemical weapons on the Kurds right after we left the first time.

You suggest maybe we actually found them but for some reason refuse to release that information (at least I think that's what you're saying).

Not exactly. I said we possibly knew about them, and where they were at the time.

It seems to me that since the inspectors did not find WMDs, and then we reported not finding them, then they were not in fact in Iraq after the invasion.

The inspectors were locked out for many months, and when they were given access -- it was only limited access. They were never given free reign.

Maybe Saddam feared someone would use them on him and his family so he destroyed them. And maybe he didn't document the disposal of the WMDs because he wanted to create an illusion of their existence. Sorta like the people that put signs outside their homes that read "Home Security System" when in fact they don't own one, the illusion serves a deterrent.

Why would he destroy a valuable commodity?

Or maybe he shipped them out of the country just prior to the beginning of the war. Who knows...

Who does know?

But the bottom line for me is that the inspectors could not find WMDs and we started the war anyway. Why? Because the administration decided we were going to invade Iraq shortly after 9/11 (actually its a fact that many Bush advisors had this idea back in the late 1990s). Regardless of it being a good or a bad idea the decision was made and there was no reason to give the false pretense that the UN inspectors were going to decide anything. It was a bad strategy from the beginning and they lost credibility. This credibility gap ended up hindering so much of what they tried to accomplish because the public perception turned negative and continued in a downward spiral for the remainder of the Bush presidency.

Agreed, perception did turn negative -- fairly or unfairly.

There are more questions though that need to be asked and answered though, and most will not even be asked for another 30 years at least.

[Dirkadirkastan]

Originally Posted by Dude's link

I wish I could say the same for Afghanistan. But that war we clearly are losing: I am preparing to go there and see the situation for myself. My friends and contacts who have a good understanding of Afghanistan are, to a man, pessimistic about the current situation. Interestingly, however, every one of them believes that Afghanistan can be turned into a success. They all say we need to change our approach, but in the long-term Afghanistan can stand on its own. The sources range from four-stars to civilians from the United States, Great Britain and other places. A couple years ago, some of these sources believed that defeat was imminent in Iraq. They were nearly right about Iraq, although some of them knew far less about Iraq than they do about Afghanistan. But it's clear that hard days are ahead in Afghanistan. We just lost nine of our soldiers in a single firefight, where the enemy entered a base and nearly overran it.

That's funny. I thought you said it took two months to win in Afghanistan?

I could care less if we "win" in Iraq. And no, I don't want us to "lose" either. Iraq has nothing to do with us, which is why we should never have gone over there in the first place. It has cost thousands of lives and billions of dollars to build someone else's nation. Meanwhile, we lose lives and the dollar is going to sh*t. Funny how our government cares about some Middle Eastern country first, and its own citizens second.

Furthermore, what is the significance of this "victory"? Will we withdraw the troops, stop the bleeding, stop the spending, and perhaps save the dollar and our economy? Hell f*cking no. I fully expect the Bush administration to simply use this as fodder for sending everyone into Afghanistan, Iran, and wherever else they feel like telling people how to run things. Our plan is proven to work now, right?

[Flacolaco]

I'm sorry dude, these people are like chum and his Nash issues.

Every thread turns into "why are we in iraq in the first place." That ship has sailed. It's over. We're there. You can't change it.

The point of the thread was, "Look how much better things have gotten." Our troops are awesome.

If you don't want to talk about that, then start a new thread about WMDs, or find one of the 98 existing ones.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

Every thread turns into "why are we in iraq in the first place." That ship has sailed. It's over. We're there. You can't change it.

So we're only fighting for the sake of fighting???

AWESOME!!!





(lemme go get my G.I. Joes - I wanna play too!)

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by Underdog

So we're only fighting for the sake of fighting???

AWESOME!!!





(lemme go get my G.I. Joes - I wanna play too!)

Na, we are there for power. Just like most wars.

Most wars are political moves for power within the world. You either control or are controlled. To what extent depends on the power you amass.

[Dirkadirkastan]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

Na, we are there for power. Just like most wars.

Most wars are political moves for power within the world. You either control or are controlled. To what extent depends on the power you amass.

Get back to me when China is the world's economic powerhouse and we're groveling at their feet for mercy on our debt. It ain't gonna be long.

[ShaggyDirk]

you gotta kiss the ass baby!

[ShaggyDirk]

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

I'm sorry dude, these people are like chum and his Nash issues.

Every thread turns into "why are we in iraq in the first place." That ship has sailed. It's over. We're there. You can't change it.

The point of the thread was, "Look how much better things have gotten." Our troops are awesome.

If you don't want to talk about that, then start a new thread about WMDs, or find one of the 98 existing ones.

What a ridiculous and naive way of thinking. Ask Japan how that worked out for them.