I remember a couple years ago...

[shamrock]

some guys like Kosar and Stevie and the overwhelming minority on the site said and were called out for

1.there was no weapons of mass destruction.

2.Cheney Rummy and Jr. along for the ride had a preconceived agenda regarding Iraq.

3.leaving Afghanistan and attacking Iraq would be a disaster and we would be there for years and years suffering many casualties.

4.invading Iraq would only escalate the number of anti American terrorism.


Don't think anyone can hate disagree with #1 at this point any longer, even the most brain washed Bush supporter.

Downey Street memo openly supports what many suspected in for years, Cheney and company manipulated and manufactured themselves a War.

I distinctly remember Kosar, who I don't even know, saying invading Iraq specifically Baghdad would be disastrous, taking years and years and many casualties, and would never be successful.

Others argued we'd kick their ass in 2 weeks or other ridiculous things, like they were really going to line up and fight like the Red Coats or Napoleon

Bush in his flight suit announced war was over like 2 or 3 years ago. Cheney followed with ridiculous statements recently (check sMurphy' s signature line) and we are still there, guys wandering around with targets on their head waiting to die. Others driving around waiting for their vehicle to explode because of ied, hardly any "ass kicking going on". Bush so efficient hasn't even captured obl yet, 4 years later.

Lastly it isn't even a argument, more terrorist activities than ever now.

 

[kosar]

Thanks, Shamrock.

You're exactly right. And if I was any less lazy or any more of an ' I told you so' guy I would pull up a ton of threads from jan/feb/march of 2003.

What's sad is that those same people who defended this occupation back then still consider it a worthwhile mission(and God forbid they ever speak a bad word about our 'strategy'). Because of political predilections. That's beyond sad, but it must be easy when it's not them or their kids in harms way for absolutely nothing. Sick, really.

But of course, anybody who hates this war is 'unpatriotic,' they spit on the troops and they should be banished to North Korea.

Ignorance is bliss, I guess, but it doesn't usually kill and/or maim 15,000 of our young men and women who signed up to defend our homeland, which of course doesn't, and never has, had anything to do with Iraq.

 

[Master Capper]

Shamrock,

Your exactly right, but unfortunately many that post here are myopic and cannot or refuse to see the other side of the coin. Without naming names you can bet that there are a handful here that will tell you that all four of your points are wrong or that Clinton is to blame for the mess in Iraq/

 

[ferdville]

Welll, can't disagree with almost all of what you point out. While terrorist actions have escalated to a point, they have come to a standstill in the U.S. Remember, prior to 9/11 there were incidents on American soil (WTC, etc) and actions directed at the US (USS COLE) among others. I guess it isn't much consolation to see that the activities have shifted to other areas, but it is something. And there is no shortage of myopia on either side of the coin. There will always be those that will never change their attitudes despite overhwhelming evidence. But I see that many people here who were fervent Bush supporters have expressed some real concern about what he has done and is doing. Count me in that group.

 

[smurphy]

The notion that terrorism has "shifted to other areas" could be right. But then again, it only takes one attack (see London) to completely turn that theory on it's head. It's really difficult to say either way about whether we've stopped terrorism here. There were 8 1/2 years in between the WTC attacks.

I appreciate the Kosars and Wesley Clarks of the country who basically said this is what would happen. As a gambler, you appreciate all the accurate handicappers.

The country gave the administration everything after 9-11. Full support, a blank check, lots and lots of flag stickers. Bush had 80% approval for simply opening his mouth and saying what he should say following the attack. The administration took liberties with our unconditional love, to say the least. They are either incompetent for not doing their homework, or have completely misled us and hid behind phony patriotism for alterior motives. I don't know how much point there is in arguing over which of these occured, but obviously neither is acceptable.

I can't even predict what will happen from this point forward. I don't want to. All I know is the next big thing will probably be bigger than the last big thing, and I can't imagine that we'd be ready for it.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Don't think anyone can hate disagree with #1 at this point any longer, even the most brain washed Bush supporter.

Downey Street memo openly supports what many suspected in for years, Cheney and company manipulated and manufactured themselves a War.

I distinctly remember Kosar, who I don't even know, saying invading Iraq specifically Baghdad would be disastrous, taking years and years and many casualties, and would never be successful.

Others argued we'd kick their ass in 2 weeks or other ridiculous things, like they were really going to line up and fight like the Red Coats or Napoleon

#1 Assuming everyone on both sides have at one time stated they assumed Iraq had WMD's on pretense they had em before- used em and many could not be accounted for I would say anyone that thought they didn't have them BEFORE the war would be a bookies dream.

#2 Downey Street memo been discussed previously--if you believe that a liberal had originals but destryed them to make copies of originals--refer again to bookies dream.

#3 don't remember anyone saying war on terror would be accomplished over night.

#4 The occupation of Afgan and surrender of Iraq troops was shortest campaigns in history of world--Russia couldn't occupy Afgan in 10 years.

and as mentioned numerous times the occupation of both took less time then Clinton and Crew to squelch Waco fiasco.
While lots of tactics could have been improved after hindsight--I am sure glad we didn't use the Somolia tactic.

---and while on predictions were there any that forsaw both Iraq and Afgan having democracies in short time.Any that saw Lybia giving em up with no fight what so ever--how about Pakistan-Iraq-Afgan-Lybia-Suadi-and many other Muslim states joining in fight against terrorist?????

 

[gardenweasel]

the "minority" also includes marco,ocelot,smurphy,danmurphy,djv,i love wr,master capper,eddie........not to mention kosar and stevie....

and now...much to my chagrin...the great" buddy" joins the fray...that one hurts...

with some additional occasional support from extrapolator,ny sportsfan and pro 190....


so,don`t feel to bad for "the minority",shammy....

they`re a vicious few...

and if anybody remembers their history,there were "insurgent" killings in germany more than 10 years after ww2 concluded....

to think that things change overnight in a region that has had "0" democracies in the entirety of history a little pollyanna....

 

[kosar]

and as mentioned numerous times the occupation of both took less time then Clinton and Crew to squelch Waco fiasco.

What in the hell does Waco have to do with this? You always mention this, but it makes no sense in this context. Yes, Waco was handled poorly and so was the Elian Gonzalez mess. How is it that you ignore what is CURRENTLY happening and always manage to wrap it back around to Clinton?

If anything, his army laying down shows how little of a threat that Iraq was to us.

And these 'democracies' in Afghanistan and Iraq that you're squawking about? Let's discuss those after we leave those countries. And really, who gives a shit about Libya.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

I agree not good comparison Matt--but I thought it would fair to those that compared on going terrorst activties with time table it took to occupy the countries and to those that think somehow we are not in Afgan anymore.

and on what happens to afgan and Iraq when we leave--I don't know but do know there are many Iraq's dieing everyday for their freedom and 50 more stepping up to take each one place.
I think they will be ok and if so whom do you think will be more disappointed Algazeera or NYT--UBL/Zarchawi or Kennedy Durbin and Puloski???

 

[kosar]

and on what happens to afgan and Iraq when we leave--I don't know but do know there are many Iraq's dieing everyday for their freedom and 50 more stepping up to take each one place.

I think they will be ok and if so whom do you think will be more disappointed Algazeera or NYT--UBL/Zarchawi or Kennedy Durbin and Puloski???

While it's admirable that Iraqi's are dying every day, I think we'll find that in the end, there will be no 'freedom.' It's virtually a certainty. I highly doubt that many would be 'disappointed if we leave those places with a lasting democracy, but we should try to be realistic.

How arrogant can we be to believe that after centuries of dictatorships and chaos, we can come in, blow some shit up and leave them with our political system that is totally foreign to them and that it will stick?

It may be ugly, but it's the truth. It's the very last chance for W to save any face for this Iraq farce and he'll spend every last dollar to try to make it happen, but let's face it, it never will.

It has nothing to do with the evil media, Teddy Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi or anything else. Really, it just boils down to common sense and human nature.

 

[ferdville]

That is why you scare me, Matt. You are brief, to the point, and make a hell of a lot of sense.

 

[CHARLESMANSON]

WANT TO DEBATE NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION???????????? I'll open up a new thread tonight, just for you and Kosar...ok Shamrock?? would you debate me??

also.....Downing Street memo?? The guy had a photo copy and the original mysteriously "vanished" huh??? Is that like the Rather memo?? LOL ...you liberals are sooooooooooooo desperate.

ALSO------
Awful funny how all of the troops who ARE THERE in Iraq tell us that Iraq IS NOT the disaster that the American Leftist media makes it out to be. I know people who are there......let me know if you would like to see some of the emails that I get from the troops. You also failed to mention that Iraq had a higher voter turnout than we did. Gee...cant force a democracy on a society huh?? lol

You are just talking out of your ass. You seriously have no clue about what things ARE REALLY LIKE in Iraq do you?? Typical liberal.

BTW...more Americans are killed in any major city in the U.S. each month then they are in Baghdad so don't give me this shit. The only reason you are saying Iraq wasn't worth it is because your political party is on the wrong side of history.

 

[djv]

Iraq is just bright and cheri place everyday. They say only folks moving to live their are insurgents. And of course the great coalitions once formed by GW is down to what 4 countries. Most man power except for the Brits is on us and our tax payers.
We leave and civil war follows. Of course there is a type of civil war going on right now. Neat place. And of course the come back is always. Saddam killed many people to. So two wrongs now make a right.

 

[smurphy]

BTW...more Americans are killed in any major city in the U.S. each month then they are in Baghdad so don't give me this shit.

OK OK, Can't let this one fly by. Actually pulled some numbers on the worst murder rates in the US and they don't compare to rates Americans face in Iraq. I'm not expressing an opinion here, I just don't like erroneaous geography facts.

Most recent charts I could find were for 2002. Overall, murder rates in big cities have dropped since then:

City ......Murders per 100,000
(1) Washington, DC 45.8
(2) Detroit 42.0
(3) Baltimore 38.3
(4) Memphis 24.7
(5) Chicago 22.2
(6) Philadelphia 19.0
(7) Columbus 18.1
(8) Milwaukee 18.0
(9) Los Angeles 17.5
(10) Dallas 15.8

In Iraq in 2004, there were 639 American deaths due to HOSTILE action. This does not include accidents. I don't know the exact average number of troops we kept there during that time, but 150,000 is probably a good guess. That would make the "Murder rate" if you will about 426 per 100,000.

So, you are saying that 426 is less than 45.8 ??? ...To say nothing of the dismemberement rate or other permanent damage rate. Those discrepencies would probably be the 200-1 range when comparing Iraq to a major US city.

Look man, your rants are entertaining. I even find some points to essentially be unarguable because it comes down so heavily on opinion. I hate this kind kind of innacuracy though. Come on Manson, all that time in the prison library and you should be able to understand basic demographics better.

 

[ferdville]

Smurph - no doubt your figures are accurate. But we are comparing apples to oranges. All of our troops over there are adults and involved in war time activity. US residents would include young kids, old ladies, etc., etc. While you could say that anyone living in South (Central) LA is in a pseudo war zone, the comparison is still a little far fetched. Would be interested in knowing what the murder rate is among gang bangers in the major cities. Have absolutely no clue, but I am guessing it may be a lot closer to Iraq casualties than regular population.

 

[smurphy]

Why are we comparing apples to oranges then? I'll hazard to guess that Manson's point was something to the effect of it being safer in Baghdad then it is in DC. While DTB and Rush Limbaugh may agree with that assertion, I doubt there are any numbers anywhere that could back up such a crazy statement.

I guess if you want to bring old ladies and children into the stats, then we'd have to drag in the numbers of of old ladies and children killed by insurgents, terrorists, and coalition forces to compare that safety level to DC or another big scary American city. I don't think you want to see those numbers. They will undoubtedly be worse than the first.

 

[smurphy]

....holding my breath for Freeze's abortion numbers to prove how dangerous it is for babies in the US.

 

[ferdville]

My point was that we were comparing two very different groups. Soldiers involved in battle would certainly have a higher death rate than the average US citizen in South Dakota. Too lazy to look it up but would be interesting to see what rates in other wars were, probably all horrendously higher than in Iraq. Of course, we fight wars differently today so that is not a fair comparison either. No matter how you look at it, too many soldiers have died for too little gain.

 

[smurphy]

Soldiers involved in battle would certainly have a higher death rate than the average US citizen in South Dakota.

...and contrary to what the urban-bashers want to believe, the soldiers also have a much higher casualty rate than the average citizen in the most dangerous US city.

I'm not the one who brought it up. Maybe they are oranges and apples. I just want to make sure the census of these apples and oranges is correct. Our country is already in enough shite because of innacuracies and manipulated numbers.

 

[CHARLESMANSON]

This is all fine and dandy but it still doesn't explain why the troops and the Iraqis themselves see the Iraq mission as a success. They are the ones who are ACTUALLY THERE so I will take their word for it. You liberals spend too much time reading the NY Times.