Bush won the right to go back to Texas. And ?? was what would have happen if Mc Cain won. WEll he had no plan so hard to answer. I woulld say with that in mind we be in a super world of hurt. And nothing being done to help get out of the mess Bush left us. With no hope but more tax breaks fortop 3%. :shrug:
sometimes I wonder
- Thread starter jer-z jock
- Start date
I'll have to get back to you tomorrow. My computer lost sound but I think the point you are making is that the Dems were for the War when it started and then became against it once it was harder than expected. Is that right??
- Feb 26, 2001
- 13,593
- 164
- 63
Hey, I think you ask alot of interesting questions. Lets see how I do after a couple quarts of alcohol.
First of all, militarly, they have won 2 wars in spectacular fashion:
1st of all - If you look at this strickly militarly, youd have to say its a massive success. The invasion of Iraq is one of the most successful ever. Hands down, that was amazingly well done.
#2 the put down of the insugency. How many times in history has the foriegn invader gotten involved in a civil war backing a weak government and actually come out on top? I dont recall anytime in history were thats ever happened until now. Say what you will, but hats off to the people who made this happen. Maybe I'm wrong. But I dont think so.
So, the real question after the military success, is how did this further out cause?
To that, I would say, we just dont know. Who the hell knows what would have happened if we let Sadam alone. I would imagine the nuke inspectors would be long gone. I would also guess international will to keep them nuke free would have disolved as Iran and n Korea kept it up. So, we'd have a dictator with previous nuke/chem experience with hatred towards the US and Iran going full bore to be as nuclear as Iran. Instead we have a fragile democracy there. The only one in arab lands. And, its right next to the biggest threat to society since the cold war.
As far as whipping up opposition, Id say horse shit to that. Worrying about the European street is useless. Their governments want us to act, they just want to score points with there own. They've lived in a bubble of US protection for 60 years. They are spoiled children and their polticians treat them as such. In the arab world, they only respect power. We killed a lot of the worst in Iraq. Draining the swamp you might say. Never, ever has the arab population respected a democratic thought or compasion from leaders. They respect brutal power and that is it. Which makes Iraq all the more amazing and dangerous to the leaders of that part of the world.
Id rather have US troops bracketing a maniac about to acquire a nuke than to have them only on one side with another maniac on the other side.
I would have much more to say, but I'm getting rather wasted. Nicely, nicely wasted.
- Sep 27, 2005
- 1,171
- 14
- 0
Damn sheep, you think America care about democracy.
Iran had democracy until the CIA and England over throw it. Operation ajax!
Yes I think that most people in the country dems and repubs alike were for the war in the beginning. We were all told that Saddam had WoMD. He didn't have them and that was what 7 years ago. Now after being told that there was no Weapons of Mass Destruction many people felt "lied" to and of course the Democrats would change their stance on the war after being "lied" to and of course it was a great way for them to get re elected. Not to hard to figure out the Dem strategy.
I still ask you, WTF does the video have to do with what you wrote?
Democrats and the Liberal news media are in my opinion, responsilbe for more DEATH in Iraq, because they played POLITICS while we have troops on the ground,
- Skulnik
[First of all, militarly, they have won 2 wars in spectacular fashion:
1st of all - If you look at this strickly militarly, youd have to say its a massive success. The invasion of Iraq is one of the most successful ever. Hands down, that was amazingly well done. -Flapjack
You are seriously misguided. A success? Of course we should be able to smash a country like Iraq and eliminate insurgents. That goes without saying, but what made it unsuccessful was the fact that they underestimated the enemy, lost many more civilian and military lives than they ever imagined, underestimated the length of time for occupancy, and lowered military morale. Most of the military guys that I know who served, love to serve their country but just don't understand why the hell they were over there. If we knew then what we knew now, we woul e of never entered into that war. I am not blaming Bush and conngress for entering the war if they really thought that Saddam had WoMD. I just don't think it was very successful
1st of all - If you look at this strickly militarly, youd have to say its a massive success. The invasion of Iraq is one of the most successful ever. Hands down, that was amazingly well done. -Flapjack
You are seriously misguided. A success? Of course we should be able to smash a country like Iraq and eliminate insurgents. That goes without saying, but what made it unsuccessful was the fact that they underestimated the enemy, lost many more civilian and military lives than they ever imagined, underestimated the length of time for occupancy, and lowered military morale. Most of the military guys that I know who served, love to serve their country but just don't understand why the hell they were over there. If we knew then what we knew now, we woul e of never entered into that war. I am not blaming Bush and conngress for entering the war if they really thought that Saddam had WoMD. I just don't think it was very successful
Skulnik, I can respond specifically to your incessant Youtube link you show as some kind of proof that dems lied, or some such crap. How many of the videos before 2002 cited that Hussein had WMD's and were going to present an imminent danger to the U.S? Many people theorized that he might be trying to do that, many people asserted that they thought he would keep trying to do it, etc. None of any repute with any real evidence could show that he had any.
2002 is pretty much the magical time, especially late in the year when the NIE was released (which had been disproved by different sources which were ignored and written off by administration sources) with the main "proof" later proven to be forged and false. Nonetheless, this is when the majority of dems - the people you hold responsible to this day (the saddest joke of all) were going off the information they were given in this fabricated report to say that he had them. It's that simple, and it was an election year, as I mentioned. They certainly didn't want to appear weak or terror-sympatizers, as the right wing fought long and hard to portray them. They were given false info, they were under tremendous political pressure to go along with it, and they fell in line. They can be ridiculed for that, I suppose, but again, you continue to avoid blame for Bush and Co., and say that others were to blame.
It's ridiculous and simply wrong. Seems to be a comfortable position for you most of the time. Let me guess, you're going to respond again with the same Youtube link that will prove my point if you look at history? Go for it...works for me...:shrug:
2002 is pretty much the magical time, especially late in the year when the NIE was released (which had been disproved by different sources which were ignored and written off by administration sources) with the main "proof" later proven to be forged and false. Nonetheless, this is when the majority of dems - the people you hold responsible to this day (the saddest joke of all) were going off the information they were given in this fabricated report to say that he had them. It's that simple, and it was an election year, as I mentioned. They certainly didn't want to appear weak or terror-sympatizers, as the right wing fought long and hard to portray them. They were given false info, they were under tremendous political pressure to go along with it, and they fell in line. They can be ridiculed for that, I suppose, but again, you continue to avoid blame for Bush and Co., and say that others were to blame.
It's ridiculous and simply wrong. Seems to be a comfortable position for you most of the time. Let me guess, you're going to respond again with the same Youtube link that will prove my point if you look at history? Go for it...works for me...:shrug:
The thing is - right wingers like yourself and others here and elsewhere continue to say dems are against war, against being tough on terror, and most likely would not have been for this at face value. And then they are blamed for being for the actions when they were given this information.
Very convenient - assess blame and ridicule others when they don't belong to the movement and party line you defend, no matter what stance they take. Easy course, easy position, no credibility - but who cares, when you're on "the right," right?
Very convenient - assess blame and ridicule others when they don't belong to the movement and party line you defend, no matter what stance they take. Easy course, easy position, no credibility - but who cares, when you're on "the right," right?
Well, there it is Chadman. Skulnik can't "debate" you because he has no answers. Sadly, he has only Youtube links, which often aren't even relevant to the topic at hand.
They certainly sounded like that - especially in the year leading up to this election. Harry Reid, et al were so happy to trumpet the "fact" that we lost the war and should have listened to hmm? who? Oh yeah, that guy running for president for the dems. And, they along with Obama, practically fought each other for a place in front of the cameras to tell the world our military was going to fail with its surge.
As far as making comparisions to the civil war that broke out in Iraq with the US civil war, maybe you can tell me which wars in which countries it is appropriate to compare, and which ones its not. I can tell from your comments you are a real scholar. If you could provide a list of which wars are OK to compare with which others, I'd really appreciate that. Would the lack of resolve shown by leadership in Vietnam vs the resolve shown in Iraq be a better comparision for you? Or, if you are going to go into a foreign country - for whatever reason, right or wrong - win the f'ing war. Give the military the chance to come home victors as opposed to defeated. Leave that country on your own terms with stated goals accomplished. The world is watching our actions. AQ watched what what we did in Somali after being attacked and were emboldened. The resolve and spirit shown by the military and our leaders are being watched closely by our enemies. Once again, whether the war was right or wrong, has NOTHING to do with this specific point. We were there and we were victorious.
I found my way to this thread by accident but have to comment.
The war has cost so much money that we have far less than we should in our coffers for infrastructure, health care and future military operations. (I think we belong in Darfur and similar venues to defeat genocide rather than squandering soldiers' lives and resources for oil acquisition.)
I am a strong supporter of President Obama's but certainly don't like all of his decisions. The pervasive business-first climate in the previous administration has set up the President and the country for a steep climb out of this hole. Twelve weeks into this tough slog I think bipartisan support would be the most patriotic position.
My favorite idiots? The tea-baggers who seem to forget that we have to have taxation to pay for everything. And Rush Limbaugh's comment: "Now, just imagine the hue and cry had a Republican president ordered the shooting of black teenagers on the high seas." is despicable and should hurt him. Instead, it energizes the anti-intellectuals and morons who have enriched and empowered him. OK, back to baseball!!
J
The war has cost so much money that we have far less than we should in our coffers for infrastructure, health care and future military operations. (I think we belong in Darfur and similar venues to defeat genocide rather than squandering soldiers' lives and resources for oil acquisition.)
I am a strong supporter of President Obama's but certainly don't like all of his decisions. The pervasive business-first climate in the previous administration has set up the President and the country for a steep climb out of this hole. Twelve weeks into this tough slog I think bipartisan support would be the most patriotic position.
My favorite idiots? The tea-baggers who seem to forget that we have to have taxation to pay for everything. And Rush Limbaugh's comment: "Now, just imagine the hue and cry had a Republican president ordered the shooting of black teenagers on the high seas." is despicable and should hurt him. Instead, it energizes the anti-intellectuals and morons who have enriched and empowered him. OK, back to baseball!!
J
Just because Obama would think that a surge would fail doesn't meant that he was rooting against the US as you suggest. I think there are times the Vikings will lose but I always root for them. As far as comparing the civil war this is what you worte, "Did the North lose the civil war because they thought the war would be over in a few months and dragged on for years costing hundreds of thousands of lives and $? War is hell, yet there are still victors" I ask you how the hell that compares the civil war that broke out in Iraq with the civil war the US had?? So as for scholars you are not up there. Also, there were many many republicans who didn't want to be associated with Bush that did not want the surge either. Wasn't there a few generals who didn't recommend the surge either... Yes we were victorious but not successful..
Were they both civil wars?
Was the US involved in both?
Did they both drag on much longer then expected?
Was the US Gov't on the side fighting the insurgency?
Did the Admin stick it out despite significant pressure to yield by both the public and rival politicians in election years?
Check, check, check, check, check...
Yeah, you're right. There are ABSOLUTELY no similarites what so ever any where between the two. How dare I even make a reference to another war in order to illustrate a point. I must be reel dum.
Yes, I am sure they were. So whats your point? Are you saying Tthey were spineless and more concerned with getting re-elected? Yeah, there are plenty of worthless pieces of garbage in the rep party as well. As for generals, I dont recall any serving generals speaking out against the surge. Retired generals are a dime a dozen and you are bound to get some of them to agree or disagree with any move the military makes. You don't get on TV agreeing with things.
Then at the end of your statement, you say "yes we were victorious." Isnt that exactly what I said in my second post - except my statement was MORE qualified than yours - saying "MILITARILY successful?" While furthering our cause was much more difficult to assess. What in gods name am i missing? Did you hit the bottle a little early this morning?
The US fight with Iraq was not a civil war... You can't go to war and invade another country and call it a civil war. Now a civil war may have broke out between Iraqis later. Comparing the length of time to military success is what I am getting to. You can't compare the two wars when it comes to length of time and military success. The military success in Iraq is insignificant to the success of the Civil War.
What I am saying iis just because the Military was victorious doesn't mean that they were successful. The point I was getting to is that you suggest that democrats who opposed a surge were rooting for the Military to lose. So would you then suggest that the republicans who opposed the surge were rooting for the military lose too?
