I Hate Dialysis Message Board
Off-Topic => Off-Topic: Talk about anything you want. => Topic started by: bigshot99 on March 19, 2007, 01:49:25 PM
-
Location: New York city,New York.
Target, World Trade center.
Date: February,26.1993.
Attack Type: car bombing,Attempted release of Sodium Cyanide
Fatalities- 6
Injuries- 1,042
Prepetrator: al-qaeda terrorists led by Ramzi yousef
Motive American aid to to israel,and involvement in the middle east
Location: Saudi arabia,,kohbar towers
Target: US Military
Date: June 25,1996
attack Type: car bombing
Fatalities- 20
Injuries: 372
Next Target
Location: aden,yemen
Target: USS Cole.
Date: oct,12,2000.
Attack Type: Suicide bombing by small craft
Fatalities: 17
Injuries; 37
Prepetrators, al-qaeda
Bill clintons responce
Limited reprisal...
Now America backed Bill clinton on this..
Next Target;
Location: New York city, New York
Target: World Trade center,,one,and two. The Pentagon, somerset county, Pennsylvana where the passengers and members of the flight crew attempted to retake control of their aircraft from the hijackers
Target: thats the fourth target was suspected WASHINGTON DC:
NOW the DEMOCRATIC party has launched attacks President Bush for the war that they have given approval for.
now the psychological works has the american people growing war weary,
now what will the democratic paryt have us do,,reunify iraq through political means alone
THAT WILL NOT WORK,,KEEP KICKING ASS AMERICA.
EDITED: Fixed spelling error in title - Goofynina/Admin.
Merged with thread "Target America" - Goofynina/Admin.
-
I wonder what all these people who are anti-war, would have done after 911.
The media keeps reporting all the bad, everyday. Few show the good. I have many Brothers over there, I get first hand experiences all the time. The media reports what they make money reporting and play on emotions.
-
I wonder what all these people who are anti-war, would have done after 911.
The media keeps reporting all the bad, everyday. Few show the good. I have many Brothers over there, I get first hand experiences all the time. The media reports what they make money reporting and play on emotions.
There is one difference here and that's post 911 has nothing to do with Iraq. I am all for hunting down Osama, but in my opinion Iraq was just Bush Jr's way of finishing off what daddy couldn't. That and Iraq has seemed to make a really convenient diversion to the fact that we can't find and seem to have given up on Osama. If you have noticed there is no talk about him or Al Quida anymore, it's all Iraq. The whole war on terror was started by 911 but has lost it's focus and went in a direction it shouldn't have at this point. We should have finished what we started, then gone looking for other things. There was no immediate threat from Iraq, plus there were no weapons of mass destruction and Bush has admitted to that and the fact that the intelligence that he got about it was "shakey". These are just my opinions so I'm sure there are people that will disagree with me. I just think that people wouldn't be "war weary" if we were fighting a good war for a good reason.
-
Iraq has seemed to make a really convenient diversion to the fact that we can't find and seem to have given up on Osama. If you have noticed there is no talk about him or Al Quida anymore, it's all Iraq.
We ARE still in Afganistan looking for Osama, its the liberal media reporting only what it wants too that makes you think we are not there,if you listen closely you will hear a little bit that creeps through their bias on occasion.
as for Iraq- http://ihatedialysis.com/forum/index.php?topic=2290.0
this thread is very informative
-
Don't get me wrong I am by no means anti-war. I support our troops 150% for the excellent job that they do putting their life's on the line for our freedom. I just think we lost focus and took a turn we should have taken a little further down the road. Damn mapquest screwed up the directions again, lol.
-
Support the troops that are sent to the war, but do not support the war.
-
There is one difference here and that's post 911 has nothing to do with Iraq. I am all for hunting down Osama, but in my opinion Iraq was just Bush Jr's way of finishing off what daddy couldn't. That and Iraq has seemed to make a really convenient diversion to the fact that we can't find and seem to have given up on Osama. If you have noticed there is no talk about him or Al Quida anymore, it's all Iraq. The whole war on terror was started by 911 but has lost it's focus and went in a direction it shouldn't have at this point. We should have finished what we started, then gone looking for other things. There was no immediate threat from Iraq, plus there were no weapons of mass destruction and Bush has admitted to that and the fact that the intelligence that he got about it was "shakey". These are just my opinions so I'm sure there are people that will disagree with me. I just think that people wouldn't be "war weary" if we were fighting a good war for a good reason.
We took down Saddam because of 9/11.
9/11 was the final straw. No more sitting back and let terrorists, those that fund and support terrorists continue on with business as usual.
Iraq has a long history of terrorist attacks and planned and failed attacks on the US.
It was very simple. We could no longer let Saddam continue on doing business as usual until he got a "lucky" hit on the US.
Yes we have not found Osama.
However Clinton said he was going to bring him to Justice long ago,(well he did refuse to take him from Sudan once) however I think old Bill is probably down in Florida with OJ and they are playing golf and trying to figure out if they should look for Ron and Nichols killer first or if they should hunt down Osama first.
-
http://bloggingheads.tv/video.php?id=225&cid=1165
Above Michael Hirsh lays out the rational alternate world view in a handy video format. Or you can read it here: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2007/0704.hirsh.html :
"No Bush official embodied this agenda of demolishing liberal internationalism better than John Bolton. Here, a man whose writings and speeches had embraced a policy of delegitimizing the UN and international law was made steward of those very institutions. (And that was in the second term.)
The presence of this other agenda is why so much of what the Bush team did seemed to have so little to do with 9/11 and the direct challenge of al-Qaeda. It was the antipathy of Bush and his senior officials to liberal internationalism that drove the president to address a challenge that mandated the most judicious use of the international system—al-Qaeda-style terrorism—by spitting in the face of that system. And to commit the essentially irrational act of invading Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, at a moment when the chief culprits of 9/11 were still at large (and after Bush had won a 15–0 Security Council vote giving him complete inspection access to Iraq: a great triumph, had he stopped there)."
-
http://bloggingheads.tv/video.php?id=225&cid=1165
Above Michael Hirsh lays out the rational alternate world view in a handy video format. Or you can read it here: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2007/0704.hirsh.html :
"No Bush official embodied this agenda of demolishing liberal internationalism better than John Bolton. Here, a man whose writings and speeches had embraced a policy of delegitimizing the UN and international law was made steward of those very institutions. (And that was in the second term.)
The presence of this other agenda is why so much of what the Bush team did seemed to have so little to do with 9/11 and the direct challenge of al-Qaeda. It was the antipathy of Bush and his senior officials to liberal internationalism that drove the president to address a challenge that mandated the most judicious use of the international system—al-Qaeda-style terrorism—by spitting in the face of that system. And to commit the essentially irrational act of invading Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, at a moment when the chief culprits of 9/11 were still at large (and after Bush had won a 15–0 Security Council vote giving him complete inspection access to Iraq: a great triumph, had he stopped there)."
At least now we know why you fail to comprehend the issues.
Hmm seems to me the UN deemed itself illegitimate when it failed to abide by its own charter concerning Iraq, and al-qaeda, not to mention a host of other things it failed to do across the world.
-
Yea lets spend another 400+ BILLION dollars and 3000+ lives and just keep "fighting" another 4YEARS!! I admire anyone who joins the armed forces but I wish they weren't burdened with this situation. Of course they believe in what they are being told to do. That belief is all they have so far away from home. I am all for the DEMOCRATS shaking things up, they can't possibly make things any worse off then our ass of a president and his administration has.
-
Iraq has seemed to make a really convenient diversion to the fact that we can't find and seem to have given up on Osama. If you have noticed there is no talk about him or Al Quida anymore, it's all Iraq.
We ARE still in Afganistan looking for Osama, its the liberal media reporting only what it wants too that makes you think we are not there,if you listen closely you will hear a little bit that creeps through their bias on occasion.
as for Iraq- http://ihatedialysis.com/forum/index.php?topic=2290.0
this thread is very informative
I think all media is reporting we have not caught Osama yet. :) Anyway, I think if we really really wanted to smoke him out we could. We're going about this the wrong way. There's no incentive for the Afghanistanis to find him. They play dirty over there, it's their way of life. They don't play by our rules. We don't understand their way of life where they have tribes and familial affiliations that go back generations. We have to start to think like they do.
Donna
-
I think all media is reporting we have not caught Osama yet.
Obviously I said- We ARE still looking for Osama in Afganistan-I never said he was found-you must have mis-read my post.The United States is still very much in Afganistan-the media just chooses to report very little about it because it does not further the liberal agenda.
-
Iraq has seemed to make a really convenient diversion to the fact that we can't find and seem to have given up on Osama. If you have noticed there is no talk about him or Al Quida anymore, it's all Iraq.
We ARE still in Afganistan looking for Osama, its the liberal media reporting only what it wants too that makes you think we are not there,if you listen closely you will hear a little bit that creeps through their bias on occasion.
as for Iraq- http://ihatedialysis.com/forum/index.php?topic=2290.0
this thread is very informative
We're on our heals in Afghanistan. The Democrats among others have decried Bush's Iraq adventure because it took focus and resources from the real fight in Afghanistan and Waziristan. The "liberal media" has reports after reports, week after week for the last five years about Afghanistan. The only person responsible for bungling the fight against al Qaeda is Bush, solely, unavoidably.
-
Yea lets spend another 400+ BILLION dollars and 3000+ lives and just keep "fighting" another 4YEARS!! I admire anyone who joins the armed forces but I wish they weren't burdened with this situation. Of course they believe in what they are being told to do. That belief is all they have so far away from home. I am all for the DEMOCRATS shaking things up, they can't possibly make things any worse off then our ass of a president and his administration
A truth that no one, democrat, republican, or independent can argue with is that the war in Iraq has gone on longer than it should. The media, in specific, the liberal branch masterfully twists the facts to serve their purpose by telling exclusively the negative aspects of the war in Iraq. Yes, they do print factual casualty reports about the number of civilians that are killed every day. However, do they print the reasons that those casualties are incurred? Do they tell you that the casualties are the result of a Sunni insurgent planted explosive? The Liberal media likes to publish reports stating how many soldiers die every day in an effort to reduce troop morale. What they don't tell you is WHY troops die every day. They don't tell you that the eight soldiers or marines that were killed in a helicopter crash died while they were transporting medical personnel and supplies to help civilians. The thing that liberal media likes to ignore is the full time job that America's troops have now that the corrupt regime has been ousted from power. It is imperative that we maintain peace and order in Iraq lest Sunni insurgent forces sympathetic to Saddam Hussein and his ideals should wrest power from the fledgeling provisional government, a task which would be no more difficult than smothering an infant in its crib. Should insurgent forces seize control of the political arena in Iraq once again, all America has to look forward to is more war than has already been made necessary and all Iraqi citizens can look forward to is another Saddam-style dictatorial regime controlling every aspect of their day to day lives. The TRUTH of the matter is that our troops in Iraq, the brave men and women who sacrifice time being at home with their families and friends and endanger their lives on a day to day basis are doing so to ensure that DEMOCRACY, the very thing which this country, this AMERICAN nation is founded upon and which makes the AMERICAN nation the greatest country on the face of the planet is brought to a people less fortunate than ourselves. They are bringing a critical institution to a people not fortunate enough to have been born and live on American soil. The saddest fact is that the very democracy and freedom they fight for is the same democracy and freedom that allows liberal minded radicals to criticize, chastise and demonize them for trying to do the good thing, the right thing.
EDITED- Fixed quote tag, Kitkatz,moderator
-
Would you suggest genocide? If we all agree that the war has gone on too long then what are we doing? We haven't been able to end it in four years and now that we realize we've been at it longer than expected we're just going to wrap things up now and come home? I haven't heard ANYONE say "wait a minute , we're almost done." We want to change a divided country with a long history. What do people say..."you can't teach an old dog new tricks." I just think that the cause/intention may be good but we went about it the wrong way.
-
Would you suggest genocide? If we all agree that the war has gone on too long then what are we doing? We haven't been able to end it in four years and now that we realize we've been at it longer than expected we're just going to wrap things up now and come home? I haven't heard ANYONE say "wait a minute , we're almost done." We want to change a divided country with a long history. What do people say..."you can't teach an old dog new tricks." I just think that the cause/intention may be good but we went about it the wrong way.
My god man,your talking GENOCIDE?? wheres the logic in that type of thinking. no i would not suggest genocide. Are troops are fighting in the battle field and here at home you want the DEMOCRATIC PARTY to shake things up.THEY JUST EMBOLDEN THE ENEMY. Now our enemy thinks we do not have the stomach for a long war. 3000, K. I. A. in four years at war is not bad,I would not say,lets wrap it up men and go home.But i would say support the troops with what ever amount of money it takes to reunify Iraq so the bastards don't have nukes. And yes it will take more time.But thats in no way suggesting GENOCIDE,,Hell thats all they know over there is fighting and killing. I believe We have tryed political resolve, and diplomacy,
-
Would you suggest genocide? If we all agree that the war has gone on too long then what are we doing? We haven't been able to end it in four years and now that we realize we've been at it longer than expected we're just going to wrap things up now and come home? I haven't heard ANYONE say "wait a minute , we're almost done." We want to change a divided country with a long history. What do people say..."you can't teach an old dog new tricks." I just think that the cause/intention may be good but we went about it the wrong way.
My god man,your talking GENOCIDE?? wheres the logic in that type of thinking. no i would not suggest genocide. Are troops are fighting in the battle field and here at home you want the DEMOCRATIC PARTY to shake things up.THEY JUST EMBOLDEN THE ENEMY. Now our enemy thinks we do not have the stomach for a long war. 3000, K. I. A. in four years at war is not bad,I would not say,lets wrap it up men and go home.But i would say support the troops with what ever amount of money it takes to reunify Iraq so the bastards don't have nukes. And yes it will take more time.But thats in no way suggesting GENOCIDE,,Hell thats all they know over there is fighting and killing.We have tryed political resolve,
and diplomacy
But we cannot act like there will be no impact on America.
EDITED: Fixed Quote Tag Error - Sluff, Administrator
-
We're on our heals in Afghanistan. The Democrats among others have decried Bush's Iraq adventure because it took focus and resources from the real fight in Afghanistan and Waziristan. The "liberal media" has reports after reports, week after week for the last five years about Afghanistan. The only person responsible for bungling the fight against al Qaeda is Bush, solely, unavoidably.
Actually that would fall to Bill Clinton and the democratic party.
History shows us this pretty well.
From failings to fight al-qaeda in the 90's by letting them hit US target after US target to his failures on information about 9/11 terrorists planning and training for 5 years under his Administration to that of REFUSING to take bin laden from Sudan when they offered him up to us.
-
You are correct sir,funny how thats over looked.Bill Clinton just kept his eyes closed and allowed the build up.Now the Democratic Party excepts no responsibility.
-
all they know over there is fighting and killing. I believe We have tried political resolve, and diplomacy,
If we agree that fighting and killing is all they know and we have tried without sauces political resolve and diplomacy then what is left to do? Why are we trying to change a country that doesn't belong to us? Bush and his administration want us to think by not backing down in Iraq we will have success in the war on terrorism but the truth is that terrorism is the world over and there is no way to get rid of it. It would be like trying to rid the earth of roaches. You can't just kill a few of them and think the rest will change their way. The only way to be free of a roach problem would be to wipe out the species or at least kill enough of them and prevent reproduction as to maintain a tolerable level of infestation
Now our enemy thinks we do not have the stomach for a long war.
How would you possibly know what our enemy thinks or feels? That is your preception not theirs. They have always felt their actions are just and that they can accomplish what they want to or they wouldn't be who they are. Just as you wouldn't be who you are if you didn't have you thoughts and beliefs. author=bigshot99 link=topic=3105.msg44398#msg44398 date=1174559254]
3000, K. I. A. in four years at war is not bad,I would not say,lets wrap it up men and go home.
Thats totally a matter of opinion. Considering where it has gotton us, 3000 American deaths is very sad.
I noticed you had nothing to say about the $$$$$$$ we have spent and will continue to spend on foreign soil. I sure could use some of that for medical assistance for one thing. Lets see.....what else could we do with that money for our people (Americans) or for our country? I am not suggesting that fighting terrorism is not necessary but why don't you take a look around. We seem to be relatively alone in our approach. If it was such a great idea then why hasn't everyone united as a planet on an issue that undoubtedly effects the world around.
Do any of us as loving, caring, generally peacefull people have any idea how these terrorists think and feel? Personally, I believe the two sides are from different worlds that will always co-exist so we should be more concerned with protecting our home instead of looking to kill an entire population. It's going to be a neverending battle.
Edited: Fixed quote tag errors - Sluff, Administrator
-
If we agree that fighting and killing is all they know and we have tried without sauces political resolve and diplomacy then what is left to do? Why are we trying to change a country that doesn't belong to us? Bush and his administration want us to think by not backing down in Iraq we will have success in the war on terrorism but the truth is that terrorism is the world over and there is no way to get rid of it. It would be like trying to rid the earth of roaches. You can't just kill a few of them and think the rest will change their way. The only way to be free of a roach problem would be to wipe out the species or at least kill enough of them and prevent reproduction as to maintain a tolerable level of infestation
We are trying to change Iraq for the better because we could no longer let Saddam continue on his many aspects of terrorism. The very fact is Saddam committed acts of terror on the US and had tried many other such acts against us. What do you propose we do about that? Let him continue until he got "lucky" and pulled off his own 9/11 style of attack?
Terrorism most likely will continue, however one doesn't sit back and do nothing about it nor do they commit genocide on an entire race of people as you seem to suggest.
How would you possibly know what our enemy thinks or feels? That is your preception not theirs. They have always felt their actions are just and that they can accomplish what they want to or they wouldn't be who they are. Just as you wouldn't be who you are if you didn't have you thoughts and beliefs.
Well I cannot speak for Bigshot99 on this but I am willing to bet he knows this by a very simple statement that bin laden made on this subject after Clinton pulled troops in Somalia.
Bin Laden is quoted after Somalia by ABC news as saying “The youth…realized more than before that the American soldier was a paper tiger and after a few blows ran in defeat.”
Thats totally a matter of opinion. Considering where it has gotton us, 3000 American deaths is very sad.
Over 6000 US troops died on D-Day alone. While the death of a soldier is not good, 3000 deaths in 4 years is not bad considering all things.
I noticed you had nothing to say about the $$$$$$$ we have spent and will continue to spend on foreign soil. I sure could use some of that for medical assistance for one thing. Lets see.....what else could we do with that money for our people (Americans) or for our country? I am not suggesting that fighting terrorism is not necessary but why don't you take a look around. We seem to be relatively alone in our approach. If it was such a great idea then why hasn't everyone united as a planet on an issue that undoubtedly effects the world around.
The amount spend in this war on terror is minor compared to that the US gives out in aid every year to foreign nations or that which private citizens donate to foreign countries every year.
-
author=BigSky link=topic=3105.msg44567#msg44567 date=1174668710]
author=George Jung link=topic=3105.msg44554#msg44554 date=1174663909]
If we agree that fighting and killing is all they know and we have tried without sauces political resolve and diplomacy then what is left to do? Why are we trying to change a country that doesn't belong to us? Bush and his administration want us to think by not backing down in Iraq we will have success in the war on terrorism but the truth is that terrorism is the world over and there is no way to get rid of it. It would be like trying to rid the earth of roaches. You can't just kill a few of them and think the rest will change their way. The only way to be free of a roach problem would be to wipe out the species or at least kill enough of them and prevent reproduction as to maintain a tolerable level of infestation
We are trying to change Iraq for the better because we could no longer let Saddam continue on his many aspects of terrorism. The very fact is Saddam committed acts of terror on the US and had tried many other such acts against us. What do you propose we do about that? Let him continue until he got "lucky" and pulled off his own 9/11 style of attack?
Terrorism most likely will continue, however one doesn't sit back and do nothing about it nor do they commit genocide on an entire race of people as you seem to suggest.
No. That is not what I am suggesting. I don't really know what to suggest. Maybe find a way to handle things from our own soil. Protect what is ours. With your way of this war it will never end. After Iraq someone else will come along. Maybe a more "worry about yourself attitude" would be appropriate, instead of trying to change the world. It doesn't feel like everyone wants to change as we do. These acts of violence are not going to help.
When I travel into a foreign country as an American I am trying to be as inconspicuous as possible. Nothing flashy, mind my own business as to not disturb the culture. Culture is a key word here. When I am at home I can be myself and defend what I believe and flash all i want(I don't flash but I could if I wanted to). Point is I don't go bullying my ways to the world but I will defend at all costs to protect myself. Protecting ones self does not institute reforming a country and its culture. We make changes and take precautions.
author=BigSky link=topic=3105.msg44567#msg44567 date=1174668710]
author=George Jung link=topic=3105.msg44554#msg44554 date=1174663909]
How would you possibly know what our enemy thinks or feels? That is your preception not theirs. They have always felt their actions are just and that they can accomplish what they want to or they wouldn't be who they are. Just as you wouldn't be who you are if you didn't have you thoughts and beliefs.
Well I cannot speak for Bigshot99 on this but I am willing to bet he knows this by a very simple statement that bin laden made on this subject after Clinton pulled troops in Somalia.
Bin Laden is quoted after Somalia by ABC news as saying “The youth…realized more than before that the American soldier was a paper tiger and after a few blows ran in defeat.”
I'm not talking about what Bin Laden has said. I'm talking about what those people think and feel deep inside.
author=George Jung link=topic=3105.msg44554#msg44554 date=1174663909]
Thats totally a matter of opinion. Considering where it has gotton us, 3000 American deaths is very sad.
Over 6000 US troops died on D-Day alone. While the death of a soldier is not good, 3000 deaths in 4 years is not bad considering all thing.
I am considering that we are no closer to the success of the cause, not what happened during D-Day. This is a different time era and physically and psychologically, war is different. There really are no comparisons.
author=George Jung link=topic=3105.msg44554#msg44554 date=1174663909]
I noticed you had nothing to say about the $$$$$$$ we have spent and will continue to spend on foreign soil. I sure could use some of that for medical assistance for one thing. Lets see.....what else could we do with that money for our people (Americans) or for our country? I am not suggesting that fighting terrorism is not necessary but why don't you take a look around. We seem to be relatively alone in our approach. If it was such a great idea then why hasn't everyone united as a planet on an issue that undoubtedly effects the world around.
The amount spend in this war on terror is minor compared to that the US gives out in aid every year to foreign nations or that which private citizens donate to foreign countries every year.
Well when you put it that way I guessi t's totally justifyable. What??? Guess I missed something. I thought we had a national debt.
EDITED: Quote tag errors- kitkatz, Moderator
-
We're on our heals in Afghanistan. The Democrats among others have decried Bush's Iraq adventure because it took focus and resources from the real fight in Afghanistan and Waziristan. The "liberal media" has reports after reports, week after week for the last five years about Afghanistan. The only person responsible for bungling the fight against al Qaeda is Bush, solely, unavoidably.
Actually that would fall to Bill Clinton and the democratic party.
History shows us this pretty well.
From failings to fight al-qaeda in the 90's by letting them hit US target after US target to his failures on information about 9/11 terrorists planning and training for 5 years under his Administration to that of REFUSING to take bin laden from Sudan when they offered him up to us.
Looks like the American public does not agree with your analysis of the situation.
http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/mar/23/poll_dems_beating_the_gop_on_national_security
"A new poll finds that Democrats are more trusted than Republicans to handle the generic issue of "national security" — suggesting that the Iraq War has wiped out the Republican Party's edge in this area. The new Rasmussen poll asked respondents: "Which political party do you trust more to handle national security?" Forty-six percent of respondents chose the Democrats, while only 44% picked the Republicans. This isn't a single outlier, either: Rasmussen has repeatedly put the Democrats with an advantage on the issue since the Fall elections."
I would guess the Bush presidency has destroyed the Republican party. At one time Republicans valued intellectual honesty but this president only wants sycophants in his administration. That worked so long as there was no congressional oversight. I would bet that the President now wishes that he'd had at least one person around that would have pointed out the baseless premises of current policy.
-
More information about the tectonic shift in American politics over the last six years from Pew Research. Here's an LA Times article:
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-pew23mar23,1,7389496.story?coll=la-headlines-politics&ctrack=1&cset=true
Here is a PDF of the whole report: http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/312.pdf
(H/t http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/)
"It's a devastating indictment of the Bush-Rove strategy for conservatism and the Republican party. They may have created the most loyally Democratic generation since the New Deal with the under 25s. But check the other findings out. Party identification is now 50 percent Dem and 35 percent GOP. The country is now divided in two over the question of whether military strength is the key to ensuring peace; in 2002 62 percent were hawks and 34 percent were doves. Religious intensity is falling; acceptance of gay people is rising. The younger generation is the most secular of any. Support for the military has never been stronger - people don't blame the troops for the war. The country is divided down the middle on torture, but still in favor of preemptive war in some circumstances. Sorry, Dinesh, ( http://www.dineshdsouza.com ) but women's equality and freedom are values now overwhelmingly popular among all groups, including Republicans, and strongest among the young. Since Bush has been president, there has been a sharp decline in the number of Americans favoring "old fashioned values about family and marriage." In the last ten years, opposition to gay marriage has dropped ten points and support has risen ten points. There has also been a striking twelve point increase in support for affirmative action over the past decade - all of it among whites."
Assuming we keep a two party system what do you suppose will form the basis for what replaces the GOP? Or do you think there will be a fractuer into multiple parties? Do we even need political parties?
It turns out that Karl Rove has gone a long way toward securing a permanent majority in American politics ... for liberals and Democrats. The collapse of a coherent, freedom-loving, reality-based conservatism is surely part of the reason.
-
No. That is not what I am suggesting. I don't really know what to suggest. Maybe find a way to handle things from our own soil. Protect what is ours. With your way of this war it will never end. After Iraq someone else will come along. Maybe a more "worry about yourself attitude" would be appropriate, instead of trying to change the world. It doesn't feel like everyone wants to change as we do. These acts of violence are not going to help.
We did that, it didn't work remember.
I'm not talking about what Bin Laden has said. I'm talking about what those people think and feel deep inside.
::)
I am considering that we are no closer to the success of the cause, not what happened during D-Day. This is a different time era and physically and psychologically, war is different. There really are no comparisons.
In other words those of yesteryear had more of a backbone.
Well when you put it that way I guessi t's totally justifyable. What??? Guess I missed something. I thought we had a national debt.
Hate to tell you but the money spent on this war on terror would merely be but a drop in the bucket compared to the vast amount of money spend on medical care by the government alone. This war has hardly contributed to the National Debt as you seem to think also.
-
Looks like the American public does not agree with your analysis of the situation.
Peoples opinions are fickle and play little into anything as people far too soon forget and most of all rarely pay attention to what was going on in the first place. Especially considering the vast amount of Americans in this country know not just what occurred and didn't occur in the war on terror under the Clinton Administration.
-
No. That is not what I am suggesting. I don't really know what to suggest. Maybe find a way to handle things from our own soil. Protect what is ours. With your way of this war it will never end. After Iraq someone else will come along. Maybe a more "worry about yourself attitude" would be appropriate, instead of trying to change the world. It doesn't feel like everyone wants to change as we do. These acts of violence are not going to help.
We did that, it didn't work remember.
What we are doing now isn't working either.
I am considering that we are no closer to the success of the cause, not what happened during D-Day. This is a different time era and physically and psychologically, war is different. There really are no comparisons.
In other words those of yesteryear had more of a backbone.
No. In other words...although principals of war carry on throughout history adjustments must be made to fit the time and the cause. Here we are involved in Gorilla warfare in a country that now is said to be in a civil war. We are not making any head way. America has always had a strong backbone and always will. Upcoming generations are going to have to clean up your mess if we don't find someone to turn things around. And with a quickness!
Well when you put it that way I Guess it's totally justifyable. What??? Guess I missed something. I thought we had a national debt.
Hate to tell you but the money spent on this war on terror would merely be but a drop in the bucket compared to the vast amount of money spend on medical care by the government alone. This war has hardly contributed to the National Debt as you seem to think also.
Considering what we have gotton in return? I don't know....seems.....? You could be right though.....maybe that is the direction we need to go. And that's a great attitude I think. Well we like to spend tons of $$ we don't have already so why stop now. Who do you think is going to pay up? We need to think more about the future and less about the past. The livelyhood of our children will depend on it. So argue that. Some day, somehow, someone will pay.
EDITED: fixed quote tags- kitkatz,moderator
-
What we are doing now isn't working either.
Actually its working far better than what you suggested.
-
Actually its working far better than what you suggested.
You are in the minority with that opinion. Not by much, but the number grows as our president continues to fail and the people of this country become more aware of it. It takes some time and mistakes, you know, for humans to change their mind about something they once believed was right.
I don't see how sending a country into a civil war is working. Since you seem to have the point of view that is most popular......ohh, wait, you don't have the popular point of view. Nevermind.
-
You are in the minority with that opinion. Not by much, but the number grows as our president continues to fail and the people of this country become more aware of it. It takes some time and mistakes, you know, for humans to change their mind about something they once believed was right.
I don't see how sending a country into a civil war is working. Since you seem to have the point of view that is most popular......ohh, wait, you don't have the popular point of view. Nevermind.
Just how many terrorist attacks have occurred on the mainland US since we went on offense compared to us being on defense?
-
Just how many terrorist attacks have occurred on the mainland US since we went on offense compared to us being on defense?
I'm not arguing the fact that something needed to be done. Come on. It's how we are doing it that bothers me. It's our actions, today, 4 years into a "war". Does terrorism only exist in Iraq? No. Yet, no other country has had a successful attack on our homeland either, and we are not present with military involvement in their countries. That means we do not necessarily need to have hand to hand combat to achieve success.
-
Yes we have spent a lot of money in this war, and remember America did not start this.We got hit hard ,all in one day.Lost more lives in one day than in 4 years of fighting this war. fighting in the middle east has been going on for god knows how long now,the beginning of time??.Now they, or may i say,the enemies over there have made a noticeable impact on this country.We do our best when fighting to make sure we hit the right target.but our enemies in Iraq hit any where and hit any body.our freedom is not free.
my dad will not talk about WWII much but he did tell me that in one day they lost More than 3000 men just in the taking of one island.thats how i can justify that we have done a good job , i do have a good friend that came to to visit me when he was on leave form the war in Iraq just a month ago,and states that the troops are doing good over there and support the war.
-
Just how many terrorist attacks have occurred on the mainland US since we went on offense compared to us being on defense?
I'm not arguing the fact that something needed to be done. Come on. It's how we are doing it that bothers me. It's our actions, today, 4 years into a "war".
Ohh thats right NONE have occurred since our going on the offense. Hmm so far its been the longest stretch in the past past 12 years that an attack hasn't occurred on the mainland since going on offense.
Does terrorism only exist in Iraq? No. Yet, no other country has had a successful attack on our homeland either, and we are not present with military involvement in their countries. That means we do not necessarily need to have hand to hand combat to achieve success.
That actually has nothing to do with the issue. There are only a handful of countries that sanction and fund terrorism. However there are many countries that Al-Qaeda and its associates operate in. BTW yes we are in these other countries involved with military maneuvers and other things trying to keep terrorism from spreading. We may not be in actually physical combat in those countries but we (our military) are undertaking various things to keep Al-Qaeda and its associates from taking a foothold in those countries.
The biggest supporters of terrorism right now are Iran and Syria, and their day is soon coming, one way or another.
There is a reason Iran and Syria meddle in Iraq. They cannot afford for Iraq to be stable because then they will be put to task when Iraq is stable.
-
That actually has nothing to do with the issue. There are only a handful of countries that sanction and fund terrorism. However there are many countries that Al-Qaeda and its associates operate in. BTW yes we are in these other countries involved with military maneuvers and other things trying to keep terrorism from spreading. We may not be in actually physical combat in those countries but we (our military) are undertaking various things to keep Al-Qaeda and its associates from taking a foothold in those countries.
The biggest supporters of terrorism right now are Iran and Syria, and their day is soon coming, one way or another.
There is a reason Iran and Syria meddle in Iraq. They cannot afford for Iraq to be stable because then they will be put to task when Iraq is stable.
I think it does have to do with the issue. It says that we don't necessarily have to be on the offensive (hand to hand combat) in order to achieve success.
I know our military is present the world round, sorry you think I'm a complete dumb ass but I'm not. Because of the coincidence, it seems that you would like to use that to support your belief. I am also not saying that 4 years ago we should never have gone on an offensive after 9/11. Of course I felt that way. The entire country felt many emotions and was angry at what had taken place. It still doesn't make things justifiable to continue as we are. Do you suggest that 4 years later this is the ONLY way to protect ourselves? I feel like we should be better/smarter than that. 4 years ago we defiantly needed to make a point and show that we will not stand for our citizens to live in fear but since then we have missed our exit on the highway of fighting terrorism. (not an exit of the cause but our exit to reach our destination. (It's like we are using Map Quest.)
As for Iran and Syria. What does that mean? More war? Are we now going to spend our lives fighting? Or do you think that we will solve everything with Iraq? If you think that Iraq would be our last stop with our current strategy you are tremendously underestimating this enemy. Also, why does the U.S. seem to be the only one fighting for a cause that would benefit the world over? Maybe others don't agree with our strategy? Seriously, it's a world cause correct? So why all the focus on the U.S. and lack of allied support?
-
So you say we HAVE spent a lot of money? Bigsky says it was just a drop in the bucket.
There is no argument that the lives lost in the 9/11 attack are a tremendous loss but to use those number to justify is wrong.
Our enemies have been fighting since "the beginning of time" (so to speak). So lets join them right? Wrong. Are they ever going to stop? That is what they do, what they know. Making changes of that magnitude take lots of time, generations, so what good is our current strategy? Again, it's not the cause I would argue but the way in witch it is being dealt with.
You are justifying loss of life with more loss of life? If this were WWII again then the numbers could be compared side by side to gauege success/failure, but IT ISN"T WWII. Principals of war carry over from one to the next and we should learn from each one as we have done, but that does not make it right to put the statistics to a test of measurement.
No offense but this statement is going to seem rude.
I did not need my dad to tell me that we lost over 3000 lives while taking the beach. Ever played the video game "Medal of Honor: Frontline"?
I'm glad to hear that your friend is doing well. No doubt the guys over there support what they are being told to do. From day one in boot camp the brainwashing begins. Anyway, could you imagine what it would be like to be there and not believe in what you are doing? I will say this again, it is not our troops that I am upset with, I support them as human individuals, but rather our leaders on the levels of making the decisions that put our troops in such a position. Our troops are outstanding people who deserve the utmost respect. And I'll give them that all day long.
-
I forgot to ask why you started a duplicate thread?
-
I just have a comment about the troops.
We do not give them the right equipment. We don't even give them the the things they need every day. I was part of a group who sent care packages over there when the war first started and the ordinary, everyday thing we take for granted they do not have.
My main problem is the care they get when they get home. Whoever runs the hospitals should be ashamed of themselves for having these hospitals in such poor condition. There's no excuse for that. THese men and women gave so much to the war effort and lost so much in return. The hospitals are moldy, rat infested, dirty and the staff isn't exactly up to par either. My great uncle spent some time in a VA hospital in East Orange, NJ. He was a WW2 veteran and this place was a shithole, excuse my French. He developed sores and BITES from rodents while he was there. We got him out, thank God. My dad who is a Korean War Veteran used to say don't ever put me in a VA hospital. My family through the years has been in every war this country has ever been in from the Revolutionary War through the Iraq war. We have to start taking better care of our veterans. Men and women who have lost limbs, who have been horribly burned, who suffer from mental illness due to the war have to be taken care of. Their families have to be taken care of. The waste, the corruption all has to end.
If you don't support the war, fine, I don't support the war myself. But I support the brave military men and women who serve their country. We got into this mess now's the time to try to see an end to it. I don't know how or what's going to happen next but I do know that we have to do whatever we can to support the troops.
Just my :twocents;
Donna
-
I forgot to ask why you started a duplicate thread?
Well the duplicate thread, now thats my fault,Sorry about that. I'm over due for a vacation,,lol,,
-
I think it does have to do with the issue. It says that we don't necessarily have to be on the offensive (hand to hand combat) in order to achieve success.
What it says is that you had no idea we were military involved in these other countries as backed up by your statement of:
Yet, no other country has had a successful attack on our homeland either, and we are not present with military involvement in their countries.
I know our military is present the world round, sorry you think I'm a complete dumb ass but I'm not.
Well from your previous statement, ya ok ;)
As for Iran and Syria. What does that mean? More war? Are we now going to spend our lives fighting? Or do you think that we will solve everything with Iraq? If you think that Iraq would be our last stop with our current strategy you are tremendously underestimating this enemy. Also, why does the U.S. seem to be the only one fighting for a cause that would benefit the world over? Maybe others don't agree with our strategy? Seriously, it's a world cause correct? So why all the focus on the U.S. and lack of allied support?
Either we fight terrorists or we surrender. Terrorists very nature do not want to coexist with us peacefully.
Also the world is fighting terrorism, expand your source of news coverage.
So you say we HAVE spent a lot of money? Bigsky says it was just a drop in the bucket.
If you are going to reference something I said in this thread , AT LEAST have the courtesy not to take it out of context to what was actually said.
What I actually said: Hate to tell you but the money spent on this war on terror would merely be but a drop in the bucket compared to the vast amount of money spend on medical care by the government alone.
I'm glad to hear that your friend is doing well. No doubt the guys over there support what they are being told to do. From day one in boot camp the brainwashing begins.
Sorry but our troops are not ignorant like you and John Kerry try to make them out to be. You should really be ASHAMED of yourself for even trying to suggest they are weak minded. >:( >:(
-
Quote from: George Jung on March 25, 2007, 01:43:01 PM
I'm glad to hear that your friend is doing well. No doubt the guys over there support what they are being told to do. From day one in boot camp the brainwashing begins.
I am a friend to several veterans of Iraq, one of my good friends is in Navy flight school as we write.
That is an APPALLING statement.
-
I think it does have to do with the issue. It says that we don't necessarily have to be on the offensive (hand to hand combat) in order to achieve success.
What it says is that you had no idea we were military involved in these other countries as backed up by your statement of:
Yet, no other country has had a successful attack on our homeland either, and we are not present with military involvement in their countries.
I know our military is present the world round, sorry you think I'm a complete dumb ass but I'm not.
Well from your previous statement, ya ok ;)
It's common knowledge that U.S. military bases and Embassies are world wide.
Sorry you have to attempt to attack me personally in order to support your position or to discredit mine. Buddy ;)
Also the world is fighting terrorism, expand your source of news coverage.
Ahhh....but not everyone is going about it as we still are. Prime Minister Blair and who else? Remember I'm talking about our tactics, not the cause. :clap;
So you say we HAVE spent a lot of money? Bigsky says it was just a drop in the bucket.
If you are going to reference something I said in this thread , AT LEAST have the courtesy not to take it out of context to what was actually said.
What I actually said: Hate to tell you but the money spent on this war on terror would merely be but a drop in the bucket compared to the vast amount of money spend on medical care by the government alone.
Sorry bout that. You're right. that is a great way to compare things. Let's justify our misappropriated spending with health care (something in America everyone needs). :thumbdown;
I'm glad to hear that your friend is doing well. No doubt the guys over there support what they are being told to do. From day one in boot camp the brainwashing begins.
Sorry but our troops are not ignorant like you and John Kerry try to make them out to be. You should really be ASHAMED of yourself for even trying to suggest they are weak minded. >:( >:(
So I could have stated that differently but I am not ashamed of myself. I am not suggesting our troops are ignorant or weak minded. I said I admire what the do. It no doubt takes a strong person to live the military life. I could not do it so I am defiantly grateful for all they do. You can't argue that they follow orders and it is those orders I have a problem with. And I'm sorry but from day one in boot camp brain washing, or whatever you want to call it, begins.
-
Quote from: George Jung on March 25, 2007, 01:43:01 PM
I'm glad to hear that your friend is doing well. No doubt the guys over there support what they are being told to do. From day one in boot camp the brainwashing begins.
I am a friend to several veterans of Iraq, one of my good friends is in Navy flight school as we write.
That is an APPALLING statement.
Look. I just am pointing out that the majority of our troops are not in command. The majority of them are taking orders and those people are taking orders and they all have to follow orders, most of them without question. They are trained to do a job so when the time comes to carry out those orders there is no question. They (the majority) do what they are told and believe in their heart it is the right thing and that is most commendable, in my opinion.
So I apologize if I was unclear or if I am misunderstood but I would never say anything with the intent to disrespect our men and women fighting for our countries welfare and safety. I have the highest respect for them as humans and protectors of our homeland.
-
Quote from: George Jung on March 25, 2007, 01:43:01 PM
I'm glad to hear that your friend is doing well. No doubt the guys over there support what they are being told to do. From day one in boot camp the brainwashing begins.
I am a friend to several veterans of Iraq, one of my good friends is in Navy flight school as we write.
That is an APPALLING statement.
Look. I just am pointing out that the majority of our troops are not in command. The majority of them are taking orders and those people are taking orders and they all have to follow orders, most of them without question. They are trained to do a job so when the time comes to carry out those orders there is no question. They (the majority) do what they are told and believe in their heart it is the right thing and that is most commendable, in my opinion.
So I apologize if I was unclear or if I am misunderstood but I would never say anything with the intent to disrespect our men and women fighting for our countries welfare and safety. I have the highest respect for them as humans and protectors of our homeland.
I can understand your statement and I really feel you meant no disrespect to the troops. :) :) :) :)
Anyway, my cousin is a Navy veteran and he talks about his time in the military very rarely. He did tell me that once you get in they OWN you. Hey own your body, your soul, everything about you. It's part of the deal, they try to break you in boot camp to weed out the weak ones. They know who's going to make it and who's not. The military made a good man out of him, he's a responsible adult with a family now who completely got his life changed around by the Navy. He had no future in NJ where he came from, he was involved with gambling and was headed downwards quickly. He did really well in HS so he was accepted into the Navy. He went through school with the Navy and now he works for a famous Fortune 500 Co as a vice president in security. I'm really proud of him and what he's done with his life. I really think he would have ended up dead if he didn't go in when he did. He helped Rudy Guiliani's team right after 9/11with his security training and he does a lot of charity work. Maybe if a lot of young men and women went into the military they'd straighten out their lives and become responsible adults.
-
Not really on topic ...... How about the Pat Tillman situation? I cried watching his funeral on t.v., it was incridably touching. It's sort of sad that his family has to go through this.
-
So you say we HAVE spent a lot of money? Bigsky says it was just a drop in the bucket.
There is no argument that the lives lost in the 9/11 attack are a tremendous loss but to use those number to justify is wrong.
Our enemies have been fighting since "the beginning of time" (so to speak). So lets join them right? Wrong. Are they ever going to stop? That is what they do, what they know. Making changes of that magnitude take lots of time, generations, so what good is our current strategy? Again, it's not the cause I would argue but the way in witch it is being dealt with.
You are justifying loss of life with more loss of life? If this were WWII again then the numbers could be compared side by side to gauege success/failure, but IT ISN"T WWII. Principals of war carry over from one to the next and we should learn from each one as we have done, but that does not make it right to put the statistics to a test of measurement.
No offense but this statement is going to seem rude.
I did not need my dad to tell me that we lost over 3000 lives while taking the beach. Ever played the video game "Medal of Honor: Frontline"?
I'm glad to hear that your friend is doing well. No doubt the guys over there support what they are being told to do. From day one in boot camp the brainwashing begins. Anyway, could you imagine what it would be like to be there and not believe in what you are doing? I will say this again, it is not our troops that I am upset with, I support them as human individuals, but rather our leaders on the levels of making the decisions that put our troops in such a position. Our troops are outstanding people who deserve the utmost respect. And I'll give them that all day long.
I was just talking with my dad about this war and that there is an out cry about 3000 k.i.a. in the past 4 years of this war. Now with all due respect, and i know you say that you can not compare WWII,,, to this war,But the FACT remains that we lost a hell of a lot more men in WWII, than this war .Now theres not many men from WWII left around to tell there story of that war,And my dad is,and he is a hell of a dad ,and husband, and men , so i would much rather hear his storys than play a game and guess how many men were lost......
-
I would also enjoy to hear you fathers stories about his experience in WWII. I find it very interesting to learn about history from someone who lived it. You are fortunate to have a brave man as your dad. He sounds like a good man.
I was just talking with my dad about this war and that there is an out cry about 3000 k.i.a. in the past 4 years of this war. Now with all due respect, and i know you say that you can not compare WWII,,, to this war,But the FACT remains that we lost a hell of a lot more men in WWII, than this war .Now theres not many men from WWII left around to tell there story of that war,And my dad is,and he is a hell of a dad ,and husband, and men , so i would much rather hear his storys than play a game and guess how many men were lost......
With each war that passes there are less and less lives lost due to technological advances. Better weapons, more accurate tracking systems and such. So it comes as no suprise that less lives are lost. The style of combat is different. I think people are upset because we can't see progress that measures up to the cost, financially and loss of life. There is a better way. WWII was just that, a world war, and while our cause is also of a worldly concern the world does not support our tactics. Americans have a not so nice of a reputation right now outside of the U.S.
Anyways, all I wanted to do was to point out that the great loss of life from WWII is widely exposed, so much so that there are games about it. I do receive my information from much more reliable sources. It's kinda funny to me.....in high school I hated history....now I find it most interesting. Maybe you could start some sort of thread about your dad's stories as you learn about them. I know you said he doesn't like to talk much about it but I personally would love to hear more.
-
It's common knowledge that U.S. military bases and Embassies are world wide.
Sorry you have to attempt to attack me personally in order to support your position or to discredit mine. Buddy ;)
Actually its more than just that.
Attack you? LOL What a joke. This is gonna burst your bubble but using YOUR OWN WORDS against you is not attacking you.
You made the false statement, not me. You want to blame someone for "discrediting" you, you best look in the mirror and blame that individual for making the statement in the first place.
Ahhh....but not everyone is going about it as we still are. Prime Minister Blair and who else? Remember I'm talking about our tactics, not the cause. :clap;
Well I wouldn't expect everyone to fight terrorism in the same manner as us. Countries fight to what they think needs done.
As to Iraq more countries signed up for this action than signed up for the first Gulf War.
Who else you say??
How about those in Iraq.
South Korea, Slovenia, Australia, Georgia, Republic of Macedonia, El Salvador, Bulgaria, Latvia, Mongolia, Albania, Lithuania, Armenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina Bosnia, Czech Republic, Azerbaijan,Estonia, Romania, Denmark, Kazakhstan, Moldova, Netherlands, Slovakia, Poland
Sorry bout that. You're right. that is a great way to compare things. Let's justify our misappropriated spending with health care (something in America everyone needs). :thumbdown;
::) Really now, just how did Congress wrongly appropriate this money?
-
Ahhh....but not everyone is going about it as we still are. Prime Minister Blair and who else? Remember I'm talking about our tactics, not the cause. :clap;
Well I wouldn't expect everyone to fight terrorism in the same manner as us. Countries fight to what they think needs done.
As to Iraq more countries signed up for this action than signed up for the first Gulf War.
Who else you say??
How about those in Iraq.
South Korea, Slovenia, Australia, Georgia, Republic of Macedonia, El Salvador, Bulgaria, Latvia, Mongolia, Albania, Lithuania, Armenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina Bosnia, Czech Republic, Azerbaijan,Estonia, Romania, Denmark, Kazakhstan, Moldova, Netherlands, Slovakia, Poland
Let's see the first President Bush was able to marshal the following actual commitments of at least 500 troops or more:
Military of the United States: 575,000 troops
Military of Saudi Arabia: 52,000 troops (only 20-40,000 took part in the Liberation of Kuwait & Battle of Khafji)
Military of Turkey: 50,000 troops (did not take part in any battle)
Military of the United Kingdom: 43,000 troops Operation Granby
Military of Egypt: 35,000 troops
Military of Syria: 16,000 troops
Military of France: 14,663 troops Opération Daguet
Military of Kuwait: 7,000 troops
Military of Pakistan: 5,500 troops
Military of Canada: 4,500 troops Operation FRICTION
Military of Spain: 3,000 troops
Military of the United Arab Emirates: 2,000 troops
Military of Morocco: 2,000 troops
Military of Bangladesh: 2,000 troops
Military of Oman: 950 troops
Military of Italy: 800 troops, 8 Panavia Tornado attack aircraft
Military of Niger: 500 troops
And of course financially the cost of the war to the United States was calculated by Congress to be $61.1 billion. About $52 billion of that amount was paid by different countries around the world so the US net financial cost was ... wait for it ... about 10 Billion dollars. The first President Bush's war was a success and his decision to not go to Baghdad was clearly the smart decision. The father's war was a success for the World and all involved except Iraq.
Now for the boy's war:
There are six countries with more than 500 troops in Iraq: the US of course;
Military of United Kingdom ~7,200;
Military of South Korea ~2,300
Military of Australia 850
Military of Poland 900
Military of Romania 865
(source http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_orbat_coalition.htm )
And as for the cost I think we are spending in excess of 10 Billion dollars each month.
The boy's war has been a disaster for everyone involved except for Iran and the people who sucker punched us on 9/11. The boy is in way over his head and we're stuck with this incompetent administration for possibly over 650 more days.
-
The fact that more countries are in Iraq and more supported this war in Iraq speaks far more about the importance of this action. The number of troops each has sent there matters not. To even set such an arbitrary number like that is not only insulting to those governments trying to help but even more so to those who are on the ground risking their lives for a better Iraq.
You bring up cost.
By all means explain to us the nuances of driving Saddam from Kuwait with that of liberation and overhaul and security in present day Iraq and bringing it into the 21st century.
-
The initial statements of support were a credit to America's long history of international leadership - countries were willing to take an American president's word. Since those heady days in the summer of 2003 what's happed?
Countries which had troops in or supported operations in Iraq at one point but have pulled out since: Nicaragua (Feb. 2004); Spain (late-Apr. 2004); Dominican Republic (early-May 2004); Honduras (late-May 2004); Philippines (~Jul. 19, 2004); Thailand (late-Aug. 2004); New Zealand (late Sep. 2004); Tonga (mid-Dec. 2004) Portugal (mid-Feb. 2005); The Netherlands (Mar. 2005); Hungary (Mar. 2005); Singapore (Mar. 2005); Norway (Oct. 2005); Ukraine (Dec. 2005); Japan (July 17, 2006); Italy (Nov. 2006); Slovakia (Jan 2007).
Countries planning to withdraw from Iraq: Poland had earlier claimed that it would withdraw all soldiers by the end of 2006. It however extended the mandate of its contingent through at least mid-2007. Denmark announced that it would withdraw its troop contingent by August 2007.
Countries which have recently reduced or are planning to reduce their troop commitment: South Korea is planning to withdraw up to 1000 soldiers by the end of 2006. Poland withdrew 700 soldiers in Feb. 2005. Between May 2005 and May 2006, the United Kingdom reduced the size of its contingent by 1,300. The United Kingdom also is planning to reduce significantly the size of its contingent by the end of 2007, with an initial reduction of 1,600 troops followed by an additional 500 troops by end of 2007.
The world came when we asked and they now straggle off scratching their heads mumbling wtf? The true price of this misguided detour will not ever be fully reckoned. What price should we put on this countries diminished stature? What country is ever going to be able to come to our side on the word of our president? Every President has had the ability to put the reputation of the United States on the line and since WWII that has been enough for our friends and allies. Since WWII we've had the power to say trust us. Now? Does Bush have that ability now? Will the next president enter office with that power?
-
(the) liberation and overhaul and security in present day Iraq and bringing it into the 21st century.
Really? Creating a Shiite theocracy , a Kurdish homeland and Sunni tribal area out of the once secular, yet despotically ruled state is bringing Iraq into the 21st century? Was that a typo? Because if you had wrote 11th century I might think you knew what you were talking about.
-
The initial statements of support were a credit to America's long history of international leadership - countries were willing to take an American president's word. Since those heady days in the summer of 2003 what's happed?The world came when we asked and they now straggle off scratching their heads mumbling wtf? The true price of this misguided detour will not ever be fully reckoned. What price should we put on this countries diminished stature? What country is ever going to be able to come to side on the word of our president? Every President has had the ability to put the reputation of the United States on the line and since WWII that has been enough for our friends and allies. Now? Does Bush have that ability now? Will the next president enter office with that power?
Actually it was far more than his word.
They thought something needed done. You forget that during the first Gulf War many countries had troops there but they didn't actually do a whole lot of combat. This time around troops were on the ground trying to help rebuild Iraq.
We do what is right, not because what someone may think of us. If we did stuff because we were worried what others might well think of us we would not have fought the Revolutionary War. For pity us the upstart rebellious people that thought we should have a FREE country.
Doing the right thing is never popular.
Our reputation? I am not worried.
Saddam was the one who violated 12+ years and 16+ resolutions from the UN. Saddam was the one who funded and had terrorist acts committed and was linked to terrorist groups. Saddam was the one who continued on with banned programs, Saddam was the one who made threats to the US and committed acts of terror against the US.
That hardly makes us the bad guy.
You jab a stick in a sleeping bears a** long enough he will wake up. We woke up and we bit back.
Hey after all we could have dropped all resolutions against Iraq like France wanted us to do. Or we could have undercut UN resolutions like France, Russia, China and Germany did in order to make a buck off Iraq.
-
(the) liberation and overhaul and security in present day Iraq and bringing it into the 21st century.
Really? Creating a Shiite theocracy , a Kurdish homeland and Sunni tribal area out of the once secular, yet despotically ruled state is bringing Iraq into the 21st century? Was that a typo? Because if you had wrote 11th century I might think you knew what you were talking about.
Secular?
You must be trying to avoid that Saddam was a ruthless dictator that was responsible for the murder of millions of innocent men, women and children.
We are making it so people do not have to worry about the government dragging them or their family off and killing them, nor do they have to worry about their children being taken and raped or husbands seeing their wife raped or beaten in front of them by a government officials.
We have eliminated a threat in Saddam.
As such is it too much to ask that since this threat is removed that we do not allow the country to fall to terrorists and resort to its former self or that like the Taliban?
-
:popcorn;
-
(the) liberation and overhaul and security in present day Iraq and bringing it into the 21st century.
Really? Creating a Shiite theocracy , a Kurdish homeland and Sunni tribal area out of the once secular, yet despotically ruled state is bringing Iraq into the 21st century? Was that a typo? Because if you had wrote 11th century I might think you knew what you were talking about.
Secular?
You must be trying to avoid that Saddam was a ruthless dictator that was responsible for the murder of millions of innocent men, women and children.
I think despotically ruled covers it.
We are making it so people do not have to worry about the government dragging them or their family off and killing them, nor do they have to worry about their children being taken and raped or husbands seeing their wife raped or beaten in front of them by a government officials.
Why was that the problem of the US military? There are many other humanitarian causes that we can't address because Iraq has consumed our resources. If we had allowed Iraq to muddle along how many people could we have kept alive in Darfor? How many more would be alive in Afgahnistan. The opportunity costs of the Iraq war will never be known but clearly they are considerable.
We have eliminated a threat in Saddam.
And replaced that penny antie dictator with a civil war, and an emboldened Iran facing an exhausted US military.
As such is it too much to ask that since this threat is removed that we do not allow the country to fall to terrorists and resort to its former self or that like the Taliban?
The threat has been multiplied while we've alienated our historic allies. What, I ask you, is our current objective? Do you consider a Shiite theocracy , a Kurdish homeland and Sunni tribal area a success?
-
I think despotically ruled covers it.
That barely touches it.
Why was that the problem of the US military? There are many other humanitarian causes that we can't address because Iraq has consumed our resources. If we had allowed Iraq to muddle along how many people could we have kept alive in Darfor? How many more would be alive in Afgahnistan. The opportunity costs of the Iraq war will never be known but clearly they are considerable.
Because we do the right thing. Saddam was a threat to us and the world. We eliminated that threat. Is it really too much to ask that we do not let it revert to what it was?
Darfor? None. Its pretty clear where the dems would stand against the US doing anything. Can we say Somalia?
And replaced that penny antie dictator with a civil war, and an emboldened Iran facing an exhausted US military.
Penny ante? Hmm a man responsible for the murder of over a million people is penny ante? A man who was a major funder of terrorism is penny ante? A man who tried to commit and committed attacks on the US is penny ante? Good grief talk about downplaying what the man did :o Just what did the man need to do to be a "major" player? Kill a billion people? What arbitrary number are you going to set for this for him to be more than "penny ante"?
Iran was already emboldened. Kohbar Towers ring a bell?
The threat has been multiplied while we've alienated our historic allies. What, I ask you, is our current objective? Do you consider a Shiite theocracy , a Kurdish homeland and Sunni tribal area a success?
We never alienated our allies. They alienated us by subverting UN resolutions designed to take care of Saddam.
Our objective was to eliminate the threat being Saddam. We have done that. Just because we eliminated Saddam, in good faith we cannot just let the rest of Iraq fall to the wolves, we owe humanity more than that.
We brought democracy to Iraq and must insure that it blooms.
Democracy comes in many forms and it does not certainly mean that Iraq will be identical to that of the US in how it follows democracy.
-
Wisdom is limited and hope blinds, it's time to see Iraq for what it is and not as what we wish we had wrought.
The strategy for concluding a civil war into some kind of Shiite theocracy , a Kurdish homeland and Sunni tribal area is plausible - the Biden soft partition. Who's going to tell the President?
-
BigSky - What I said was..."and we are not present with military involvement in their countries."
Well, I suppose I am not quite as articulate as you are but it was a statement to be taken in context. Meaning, we are talking about a ongoing war in Iraq and nowhere else in the world do we have the number of troops as we do there , nor are they acting as they are in Iraq.
I should have been more clear with my statement but if you have a problem with that we can do something about it.
Attack you? LOL What a joke. This is gonna burst your bubble but using YOUR OWN WORDS against you is not attacking you.
You made the false statement, not me. You want to blame someone for "discrediting" you, you best look in the mirror and blame that individual for making the statement in the first place.
Yes. Those were my words. Just because I wasn't as clear as I could have been (really thought it would be understood since we are talking about a p*cking war.) doesn't make it false. Thats my poor cummincation and you using it to your advantage. Weak punch.
By the way, the next time I look in the mirror and admire what a fine young man I am I will stand there for an extra minute and admire some more. I am so glad more and more Americans seeing things in a new light and less and less look at the situation as you do.
Well I wouldn't expect everyone to fight terrorism in the same manner as us. Countries fight to what they think needs done.
As to Iraq more countries signed up for this action than signed up for the first Gulf War.
Who else you say??
How about those in Iraq.
South Korea, Slovenia, Australia, Georgia, Republic of Macedonia, El Salvador, Bulgaria, Latvia, Mongolia, Albania, Lithuania, Armenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina Bosnia, Czech Republic, Azerbaijan,Estonia, Romania, Denmark, Kazakhstan, Moldova, Netherlands, Slovakia, Poland
You wouldn't expect everyone to fight terrorism as we are? You got to be joking! :clap; NOBODY who is anybody is fighting this as we are. This is who you are talking about? - South Korea, Slovenia, Australia, Georgia, Republic of Macedonia, El Salvador, Bulgaria, Latvia, Mongolia, Albania, Lithuania, Armenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina Bosnia, Czech Republic, Azerbaijan,Estonia, Romania, Denmark, Kazakhstan, Moldova, Netherlands, Slovakia, Poland
lol oh man....I don't know what else to say right now.....
-
I would also enjoy to hear you fathers stories about his experience in WWII. I find it very interesting to learn about history from someone who lived it. You are fortunate to have a brave man as your dad. He sounds like a good man.
I was just talking with my dad about this war and that there is an out cry about 3000 k.i.a. in the past 4 years of this war. Now with all due respect, and i know you say that you can not compare WWII,,, to this war,But the FACT remains that we lost a hell of a lot more men in WWII, than this war .Now theres not many men from WWII left around to tell there story of that war,And my dad is,and he is a hell of a dad ,and husband, and men , so i would much rather hear his storys than play a game and guess how many men were lost......
With each war that passes there are less and less lives lost due to technological advances. Better weapons, more accurate tracking systems and such. So it comes as no suprise that less lives are lost. The style of combat is different. I think people are upset because we can't see progress that measures up to the cost, financially and loss of life. There is a better way. WWII was just that, a world war, and while our cause is also of a worldly concern the world does not support our tactics. Americans have a not so nice of a reputation right now outside of the U.S.
Anyways, all I wanted to do was to point out that the great loss of life from WWII is widely exposed, so much so that there are games about it. I do receive my information from much more reliable sources. It's kinda funny to me.....in high school I hated history....now I find it most interesting. Maybe you could start some sort of thread about your dad's stories as you learn about them. I know you said he doesn't like to talk much about it but I personally would love to hear more.
George may i say , my friend, unfortunately,,this verry well could be the early stage of WWIII,, remember Germany nazism ,the people in iraq dont push back against the extremist,because there will be a high price for them to pay,,like there families. this will, i believe continue to come our way, sooner or later,,, just like 9/11...did ????
-
BigSky - What I said was..."and we are not present with military involvement in their countries."
Well, I suppose I am not quite as articulate as you are but it was a statement to be taken in context. Meaning, we are talking about a ongoing war in Iraq and nowhere else in the world do we have the number of troops as we do there , nor are they acting as they are in Iraq.
I should have been more clear with my statement but if you have a problem with that we can do something about it.
Ohh I know what you said, I quoted you on it...remember? I really do not think one can be more specific than actually quoting.
You can try to change what you meant all you want but it doesn't float. It was quite clear what you said and there was no other context. Funny how when confronted, time and time again you claim after the fact you actually meant something else and not what you said.
Yes. Those were my words. Just because I wasn't as clear as I could have been (really thought it would be understood since we are talking about a f****** war.) doesn't make it false. Thats my poor cummincation and you using it to your advantage. Weak punch.
By the way, the next time I look in the mirror and admire what a fine young man I am I will stand there for an extra minute and admire some more. I am so glad more and more Americans seeing things in a new light and less and less look at the situation as you do.
Your statement was indeed false and I am not buying your excuse as to poor communication as it was far past that point of mere poor communication. You have made several statements that show a clear pattern of more than poor communication, they are that of which are deliberate in nature. However the misspelling of the word "communication" was a nice touch. ;)
While Epoman allowed some language, I think using the f word outright is a bit over the top considering younger people also have access to this board.
Do not be getting prissy with me for calling you out on false statements you make.
NOBODY who is anybody is fighting this as we are. This is who you are talking about? - South Korea, Slovenia, Australia, Georgia, Republic of Macedonia, El Salvador, Bulgaria, Latvia, Mongolia, Albania, Lithuania, Armenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina Bosnia, Czech Republic, Azerbaijan,Estonia, Romania, Denmark, Kazakhstan, Moldova, Netherlands, Slovakia, Poland
lol oh man....I don't know what else to say right now.....
Discounting those other countries in Iraq now are you?
-
this very well could be the early stage of WWIII,, remember Germany Nazism ,the people in Iraq don't push back against the extremist,because there will be a high price for them to pay,,like there families. this will, i believe continue to come our way, sooner or later,,, just like 9/11...did ????
DING, DING, DING this is right on the money. We have bent all the rules and probably broken a few along the way leading us to ultimate disaster. It won't be long if we continue to follow the path Bush has set for us that WWIII will begin and we will be the bad guys with the world against us. If we keep policing the world and doing what we want regardless of what the UN or our own people say will be outcast and attacked. 9/11 sympathy can only take us so far before the nations of the world finally say "ok this has gone far enough".
-
BigSky - think what you like. False statements time and time again? When I said military involvement is was intended to mean an involvement such as in Iraq (since that is what we were talking about. Sorry that is beyond your comprehension. Sometimes what one means is not always expressed properly and can also be misleading in its form. I want to thank you. I am always trying to learn more and improve myself in any way possible and you challenging me is a good way to exercise my communication abilities, I will try to do better. However, I stand firm on everything I believe wheather I said exactly what I meant or not.
You know what is "funny" to me? It's how your post are more and more about personal attacks rather than about the subject. I agree though, it is easier to find fault in me as opposed to how I view the circumstances of U.S. involvement in THE WAR on terrorism.
Yes. I will discuss "those" countries now. I was unaware of the extent of some of their involvement. Maybe because it is so minimal they are not talked about often. Sorry to leave the little guys out but where are the major powers of the world? Are they in that list, I didn't see them?
Hey, If you still have a problem ...like I said ...We can get togeather and work it out (if you know what I mean).
Well to get back on subject, what were you saying about those power house countries?
-
BigSky - think what you like. False statements time and time again? When I said military involvement is was intended to mean an involvement such as in Iraq (since that is what we were talking about. Sorry that is beyond your comprehension. Sometimes what one means is not always expressed properly and can also be misleading in its form. I want to thank you. I am always trying to learn more and improve myself in any way possible and you challenging me is a good way to exercise my communication abilities, I will try to do better. However, I stand firm on everything I believe wheather I said exactly what I meant or not.
Ya right ;) Funny how of all the threads of yours I have seen you only mysteriously have that problem in the political threads. Hmm why is that?
You know what is "funny" to me? It's how your post are more and more about personal attacks rather than about the subject. I agree though, it is easier to find fault in me as opposed to how I view the circumstances of U.S. involvement in THE WAR on terrorism.
I have yet to personally attack you. I clearly point out your false statements. If you don't like that, then don't make em in the first place. If you really think I am suppose to sit back and roll over and let you post em you are sadly mistaken.
Yes. I will discuss "those" countries now. I was unaware of the extent of some of their involvement. Maybe because it is so minimal they are not talked about often. Sorry to leave the little guys out but where are the major powers of the world? Are they in that list, I didn't see them?
Hmm first you claim I attack you because I confront your obvious false statements and then you admit you didn't even know. So that begs the question, why did you make such claims in the first place without doing research?
Hey, If you still have a problem ...like I said ...We can get togeather and work it out (if you know what I mean).
So is that a threat?
-
this very well could be the early stage of WWIII,, remember Germany Nazism ,the people in Iraq don't push back against the extremist,because there will be a high price for them to pay,,like there families. this will, i believe continue to come our way, sooner or later,,, just like 9/11...did ????
DING, DING, DING this is right on the money. We have bent all the rules and probably broken a few along the way leading us to ultimate disaster. It won't be long if we continue to follow the path Bush has set for us that WWIII will begin and we will be the bad guys with the world against us. If we keep policing the world and doing what we want regardless of what the UN or our own people say will be outcast and attacked. 9/11 sympathy can only take us so far before the nations of the world finally say "ok this has gone far enough".
What about Iran,Are they in the right ,What in the devil are they doing now, Iran is way past Breaking rules.Iraq ,,same thing. America is not the bad guy .
AMERICA IS THE TARGET..........
-
BigSky - think what you like. False statements time and time again? When I said military involvement is was intended to mean an involvement such as in Iraq (since that is what we were talking about. Sorry that is beyond your comprehension. Sometimes what one means is not always expressed properly and can also be misleading in its form. I want to thank you. I am always trying to learn more and improve myself in any way possible and you challenging me is a good way to exercise my communication abilities, I will try to do better. However, I stand firm on everything I believe wheather I said exactly what I meant or not.
Ya right ;) Funny how of all the threads of yours I have seen you only mysteriously have that problem in the political threads. Hmm why is that?
I don't think that is so. The majority of my posts in other threads are highly opinionated with different values than that of a POLITICAL thread such as this. Maybe it could also be in part that you don't necessarily want to disagree with them. And by the way, I have made communication errors in those post you talk about but because I use the personal message feature to clarify some of them you wouldn't have any idea. Nice assumption though and I appreciate your vote of confidence.
I have yet to personally attack you. I clearly point out your false statements. If you don't like that, then don't make em in the first place. If you really think I am suppose to sit back and roll over and let you post em you are sadly mistaken.
Okay. Looking back on it you're right. I will improve on my statements, I am not above that, in fact I already thanked you. Can we move on?
Yes. I will discuss "those" countries now. I was unaware of the extent of some of their involvement. Maybe because it is so minimal they are not talked about often. Sorry to leave the little guys out but where are the major powers of the world? Are they in that list, I didn't see them?
Hmm first you claim I attack you because I confront your obvious false statements and then you admit you didn't even know. So that begs the question, why did you make such claims in the first place without doing research?
I made the claim in reference to what I consider to be real political superpowers, not some piss ant that really has a very small effect on the outcome of the situation. Anybody of considerable major importance in that list? Any support there that might influence someone "bigtime" that what is going on should be supported world wide? Damn man, we are struggling to get half of America to support what is happening and you suggest that the world is behind us?
Hey, If you still have a problem ...like I said ...We can get togeather and work it out (if you know what I mean).
So is that a threat?
Hmmmmm? How about we get back to the subject. I said I stand corrected for the poorly stated thought so can we move on? We were talking about major world support I think.
What about Iran,Are they in the right ,What in the devil are they doing now, Iran is way past Breaking rules.Iraq ,,same thing. America is not the bad guy .
AMERICA IS THE TARGET..........
If Iran and Iraq are breaking rules that means we can do it to? America is a target, because we stand for something that somehow poses a threat to groups of people in some of these countries. We need to be setting an example, not follow down a path of ignorance and wrong doing. How do you think we will be perceived by the rest of the world community if we lower ourselves and our standards, no matter who the enemy is or what they do.
-
What about Iran,Are they in the right ,What in the devil are they doing now, Iran is way past Breaking rules.Iraq ,,same thing. America is not the bad guy .
AMERICA IS THE TARGET..........
I never said that any what any other country is doing is good. There are certain rules by which we as a nation are supposed to uphold when we joined the UN. There are plenty of countries out there that did not join or that have broken those rules. Either way it's not our specific duty to hunt those nations down breaking those very same rules. Because we have been doing this the popularity of the US in other countries is failing fast and we are being seen as the aggressor not the defender. That's all I'm saying.
-
I don't think that is so. The majority of my posts in other threads are highly opinionated with different values than that of a POLITICAL thread such as this. Maybe it could also be in part that you don't necessarily want to disagree with them. And by the way, I have made communication errors in those post you talk about but because I use the personal message feature to clarify some of them you wouldn't have any idea. Nice assumption though and I appreciate your vote of confidence.
Opinionated or not, a untrue statement is still a falsehood.
I made the claim in reference to what I consider to be real political superpowers, not some piss ant that really has a very small effect on the outcome of the situation. Anybody of considerable major importance in that list? Any support there that might influence someone "bigtime" that what is going on should be supported world wide? Damn man, we are struggling to get half of America to support what is happening and you suggest that the world is behind us?
First of all the term superpower is a worthless term and the methods used to determine what a superpower is, are worthless and mean absolutely nothing IMO.
To get right down to it in technical terms the US is the only superpower, even called the hyperpower after the collaspe of the Soviet Union. So to other superpowers being involved it matters not because there are no others by definition of a superpower.
Some countries are well known more than others, Australia, Czech Republic, Denmark etc. etc. Just because these other countries may not be well known to you, hardly lets them be marginalized in what they are doing or the commitment they have made to fight terrorism, take down Saddam and help rebuild Iraq.
What about Iran,Are they in the right ,What in the devil are they doing now, Iran is way past Breaking rules.Iraq ,,same thing. America is not the bad guy .
AMERICA IS THE TARGET..........
If Iran and Iraq are breaking rules that means we can do it to? America is a target, because we stand for something that somehow poses a threat to groups of people in some of these countries. We need to be setting an example, not follow down a path of ignorance and wrong doing. How do you think we will be perceived by the rest of the world community if we lower ourselves and our standards, no matter who the enemy is or what they do.
Only problem is examples have been set and Iran refuses to follow that of others.
Iran is a terrorist state plain and simple.
From kidnapping Americans and holding them hostage, to funding terrorism around the world to its most recent act of kidnapping and holding British troops hostage.
Time someone starts knocking off their leaders and religious clerics.
-
I don't think that is so. The majority of my posts in other threads are highly opinionated with different values than that of a POLITICAL thread such as this. Maybe it could also be in part that you don't necessarily want to disagree with them. And by the way, I have made communication errors in those post you talk about but because I use the personal message feature to clarify some of them you wouldn't have any idea. Nice assumption though and I appreciate your vote of confidence.
Opinionated or not, a untrue statement is still a falsehood.
I STAND CORRECTED. CAN WE MOVE ON NOW? I PROMISE I WILL SAY WHAT I MEAN AND MEAN WHAT I SAY.
-
I made the claim in reference to what I consider to be real political superpowers, not some piss ant that really has a very small effect on the outcome of the situation. Anybody of considerable major importance in that list? Any support there that might influence someone "bigtime" that what is going on should be supported world wide? Damn man, we are struggling to get half of America to support what is happening and you suggest that the world is behind us?
First of all the term superpower is a worthless term and the methods used to determine what a superpower is, are worthless and mean absolutely nothing IMO.
To get right down to it in technical terms the US is the only superpower, even called the hyperpower after the collaspe of the Soviet Union. So to other superpowers being involved it matters not because there are no others by definition of a superpower.
Some countries are well known more than others, Australia, Czech Republic, Denmark etc. etc. Just because these other countries may not be well known to you, hardly lets them be marginalized in what they are doing or the commitment they have made to fight terrorism, take down Saddam and help rebuild Iraq.
FIRST OF ALL, that's why I said what I consider to be......
That "To get right down to it" statement you made.....yea, you lost me on that one. Are you feeling ok?
If Iran and Iraq are breaking rules that means we can do it to? America is a target, because we stand for something that somehow poses a threat to groups of people in some of these countries. We need to be setting an example, not follow down a path of ignorance and wrong doing. How do you think we will be perceived by the rest of the world community if we lower ourselves and our standards, no matter who the enemy is or what they do.
Only problem is examples have been set and Iran refuses to follow that of others.
Iran is a terrorist state plain and simple.
From kidnapping Americans and holding them hostage, to funding terrorism around the world to its most recent act of kidnapping and holding British troops hostage.
Time someone starts knocking off their leaders and religious clerics.
Regardless of what you think we can set an example, and we can start off by setting an example that mistakes can be made and corrected by a major country.
You say those soldiers were kidnapped? Do you know for sure they were not in the wrong waters?
What exactly do you mean someone should knock off their leaders and religious clerics? Are you implying that we need to overthrow these countries that we have differences with?
-
FIRST OF ALL, that's why I said what I consider to be......
That "To get right down to it" statement you made.....yea, you lost me on that one. Are you feeling ok?
You didn't quantify who you considered to be a superpower.
Sorry but to "name" a superpower to meet your discretion is like trying to prove a negative.
We all know what a superpower happens to be and to meet your arbitrary view to what one is matters not because the world doesn't view who is and is not a superpower by your view or anyone elses, but by the classical definition and conditions that must be met to be a superpower.
You say those soldiers were kidnapped? Do you know for sure they were not in the wrong waters?
What exactly do you mean someone should knock off their leaders and religious clerics? Are you implying that we need to overthrow these countries that we have differences with?
It comes down to whom I believe. Iran who sponsors and commits terrorism or Britain who does not.
As to your second question,
Only those that have committed terrorist acts against us, of which Iran has a long history of doing.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superpower - Well there seems to be many OPINIONS on what constitutes "a superpower", so I thought I would make my statement less plyable and just name some of the world "leaders" (as I am going to call them that, you can call them whatever you like).
I thought this was noteable:
Characteristics of a superpower
The criteria of a Superpower are not clearly defined, but most definitions rely on measurements of four types of influence:[14]
Economic Power Comparative GDP size? Role in world trade?
Military Power Force projection capability? Troop size? Naval size?
Political Power Influential foreign policy? UN leadership?
Cultural Power Role of history? Worldwide art, music, film?
The European Union as an entity encompasses 492 million people and produces annually 30% of the worlds nominal GDP.As a consequence of subjective measurements, the identity of Superpowers might be disputable, but a superpower should be a hegemony in most aspects of geopolitics. This means a superpower should be a hegemon in terms of both hard power and soft power. A superpower should have the ability to project power around the world. In the modern world, this requires not only a strong land army, but also the air and sealift capabilities to deploy and supply that military in furtherance of national interests, as well as public support for doing so. The military is generally backed by a strong economy, one that has the capability of controlling the global market. In recent times, indications of a strong economy has been shown through space research, a key part of competition between the two Cold War superpowers.
It is also considered necessary to be able to project soft power, or cultural influence, across numerous regions of the world. Cultural influence implies a developed philosophy and ideology. The Cold War superpowers showed this through their spread of Western culture as well as the differing ideologies of capitalism and communism. Each built their own cultural blocs via these differing ideologies.
My list of "bigtimers" - countries who I believe should look up to the U.S., countries that we should "pave the way for", and show examples of worldly conduct that they will look UP to.
China, Germany, France, Italy, Japan, USSR, United Kingdom, India, Austria/Hungry,and Canada. (in no particular order) Of course the U.S. also.
You say those soldiers were kidnapped? Do you know for sure they were not in the wrong waters?
What exactly do you mean someone should knock off their leaders and religious clerics? Are you implying that we need to overthrow these countries that we have differences with?
It comes down to whom I believe. Iran who sponsors and commits terrorism or Britain who does not.
As to your second question,
Only those that have committed terrorist acts against us, of which Iran has a long history of doing.
Sounds like you're ready for an old fashion lichin'. How admireable!!!
-
Arriving in Lebanon, Ban Ki-moon says dialogue is key to national unity
Ban Ki-moon
29 March 2007 – Continuing a diplomatic tour of the Middle East, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon arrived in Beirut today, where he said dialogue and compromise are key to Lebanon’s national unity.
Mr. Ban, who has so far visited Iraq, Egypt, Palestine, Israel, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, said the trip has been instructive. “I have listened attentively and I have learned a great deal about the region and the challenges it is facing. I realize these challenges are particularly serious in Lebanon, where I trust a return to dialogue and reconciliation will prevail,” he said.
“We have seen how easily political tensions can spill over into violence. All sides would lose from such an escalation. I believe that dialogue and compromise are the only ways to stability and national unity,”
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=22063&Cr=lebanon&Cr1=
-
Interesting stats here.
www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0320/p01s01-ussc.html
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/03/17/iraq.protest.ap/index.html?eref=rss_topstories
I found this one most interesting.
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_page/250.php?nid=&id=&pnt=250&lb=hmpg1
-
As to your second question,
Only those that have committed terrorist acts against us, of which Iran has a long history of doing.
Sounds like you're ready for an old fashion lichin'. How admireable!!!
To sane people its called eliminating a threat.
When time and time one again commits threats and acts of violence against another the victim has the right to defend ones self and eliminate that threat from ever occurring again.
-
So you are talking about genocide again?
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was adopted by the UN General Assembly in December 1948 and came into effect in January 1951. It defines and outlaws genocide, as a result of campaigning by Raphael Lemkin who had coined the term some years earlier. All participating countries are required to prevent and punish actions of genocide in war and peacetime.. The total number of states who have ratified the convention is currently 137.
The Convention (in article 2) defines genocide as
“ ...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. „
—Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article II
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Prevention_and_Punishment_of_the_Crime_of_Genocide
You were saying something about "SANE" people?
-
this very well could be the early stage of WWIII,, remember Germany Nazism ,the people in Iraq don't push back against the extremist,because there will be a high price for them to pay,,like there families. this will, i believe continue to come our way, sooner or later,,, just like 9/11...did ????
DING, DING, DING this is right on the money. We have bent all the rules and probably broken a few along the way leading us to ultimate disaster. It won't be long if we continue to follow the path Bush has set for us that WWIII will begin and we will be the bad guys with the world against us. If we keep policing the world and doing what we want regardless of what the UN or our own people say will be outcast and attacked. 9/11 sympathy can only take us so far before the nations of the world finally say "ok this has gone far enough".
so who's to say ,what country,that we have gone far enough.or maybe its the " DEMOCRATIC PARTY". yes because now they will not approve the money that our troops need until a time table is set to pull out. the democrats will not ship or will not approve the money to ship the 300 ARMORED VEHICLES to our troops who are at war until this time table is set. keep the politics out of this war and let America put a end to the terrorists that have attacked this country,and to hell with who thinks we have to far with this war. America has not gone far enough,keep up the good fight,and don't forget about 9/11 .and don't forget about the DEMOCRATIC PARTY that wants to let our enemy know what we plan to do.
-
So you are talking about genocide again?
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was adopted by the UN General Assembly in December 1948 and came into effect in January 1951. It defines and outlaws genocide, as a result of campaigning by Raphael Lemkin who had coined the term some years earlier. All participating countries are required to prevent and punish actions of genocide in war and
peacetime.. The total number of states who have ratified the convention is currently 137.
The Convention (in article 2) defines genocide as
“ ...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. „
—Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article II
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Prevention_and_Punishment_of_the_Crime_of_Genocide
You were saying something about "SANE" people?
Please tell me you are smart enough to even comprehend that striking back at those that commit acts of war against you is not genocide? Not to mention the UN nor any country I know of, doesn't even call defending ones self from those that commit acts of war genocide.
For you to even suggest that the US cannot defend itself against those that commit acts of war against us without it being genocide is well..... quite frankly the most foolish thing I have heard in my life.
And yes, that is exactly what you are saying be even asking that question you did.
-
Please tell me you are smart enough to even comprehend that striking back at those that commit acts of war against you is not genocide?
Of course I am.
I never said that "striking back", or however you choose to classify what is going on , is genocide. I am however saying that by your methods (from what you have said and my interpretation), it would take violent acts that can be categorized as acts of genocide........ and eliminate that threat from ever occurring again.
I just can't see it as a realistic goal (to stop the threat) with our current methods and tactics. If we are going to have any chance of freeing the WORLD of terrorism it is going to take a unity and a commitment from everyone in the world community to join togeather and carry out a plan and enforce it in an international/worldly setting. It's not just about 9/11, it's about our future and we need to conduct ourselves as such. We went to war after 9/11. We didn't just sit back and take it. Four years later how much closer are we to freeing the wold of this god awefull threat? For me, being liberal is not a sign of weakness but a sign of the times. I too, will stand up for what I believe is right and go all the way with it. I believe there is a better way to a chance of success for eliminating the threat. Killing is not the only way to put a squeeze on somebody as our government proves to us time and time again.
For you to even suggest that the US cannot defend itself against those that commit acts of war against us without it being genocide is well..... quite frankly the most foolish thing I have heard in my life.
And yes, that is exactly what you are saying be even asking that question you did.
Defend ourself? Do you think it is so simple to just overthrow these powers that make up terrorism threats? As I am viewing it, if what we have already attempted has not brought us to success, than in order to accomplish what you are speaking of (more force?), would indeed necessitate an environment for more killing, alot of killing! The majority of the people that the threat is comprised of are religious. Are we capable of changing the all powerful religious belief of another by taking out a few leaders? No. They then become martars. Maybe they just need to be influenced somehow and progressively over time, minimizing the violence, that can be achieved. Under attack as those rotten bastards are only sends them into a stealth mode, the very approach I think may be a good one. A silent, aggressive attack with intelligence and not a traditional full on military battle. If you are going to eliminate this threat by killing you are going to have to kill a whole bunch of people, which would be genocide.
What gives you the right to say exactly what I am saying? I'm sorry to displease you but that is your interpertation. That is what fits your argument and what you would like me to be saying. Nobody died and made you the almighty god of interpretation. Why don't you think about that some more and get back to me.
-
Of course I am.
I never said that "striking back", or however you choose to classify what is going on , is genocide. I am however saying that by your methods (from what you have said and my interpretation), it would take violent acts that can be categorized as acts of genocide.
Actually you did just by the question you stated. That or you are unable to understand the difference between those leaders in Iran who are behind terrorism and that of the people themselves in Iran. Killing leaders who are behind terrorism so that it does not occur again from them is far from Genocide. Its called defending ones self.
I just can't see it as a realistic goal (to stop the threat) with our current methods and tactics. If we are going to have any chance of freeing the WORLD of terrorism it is going to take a unity and a commitment from everyone in the world community to join togeather and carry out a plan and enforce it in an international/worldly setting. It's not just about 9/11, it's about our future and we need to conduct ourselves as such. We went to war after 9/11. We didn't just sit back and take it. Four years later how much closer are we to freeing the wold of this god awefull threat? For me, being liberal is not a sign of weakness but a sign of the times. I too, will stand up for what I believe is right and go all the way with it. I believe there is a better way to a chance of success for eliminating the threat. Killing is not the only way to put a squeeze on somebody as our government proves to us time and time again.
How many terrorist attacks have occurred on the mainland US since we have started this? Ohh wait that was asked and answered already wasn't it!!!!!!!!
Defend ourself? Do you think it is so simple to just overthrow these powers that make up terrorism threats? As I am viewing it, if what we have already attempted has not brought us to success, than in order to accomplish what you are speaking of (more force?), would indeed necessitate an environment for more killing, alot of killing! The majority of the people that the threat is comprised of are religious. Are we capable of changing the all powerful religious belief of another by taking out a few leaders? No. They then become martars. Maybe they just need to be influenced somehow and progressively over time, minimizing the violence, that can be achieved. Under attack as those rotten bastards are only sends them into a stealth mode, the very approach I think may be a good one. A silent, aggressive attack with intelligence and not a traditional full on military battle. If you are going to eliminate this threat by killing you are going to have to kill a whole bunch of people, which would be genocide.
I never said anything about overthrowing powers.
You asked:
"What exactly do you mean someone should knock off their leaders and religious clerics?" -George Jung
And I responded---Only those that have committed terrorist acts against us, of which Iran has a long history of doing.
I think that pretty specific to who. I never said anything about knocking off all leaders and clerics, only those that have committed terrorist acts against us. You may not know it, but not all leaders and clerics of Iran are behind terrorism.
What gives you the right to say exactly what I am saying? I'm sorry to displease you but that is your interpertation. That is what fits your argument and what you would like me to be saying. Nobody died and made you the almighty god of interpretation. Why don't you think about that some more and get back to me.
Not too hard to see by your innuendo in how you worded the question and what you posted there George. ::)
-
[quote author=George Jung link=topic=3164.msg46068#msg46068 date=1175359945
Of course I am.
I never said that "striking back", or however you choose to classify what is going on , is genocide. I am however saying that by your methods (from what you have said and my interpretation), it would take violent acts that can be categorized as acts of genocide.
Actually you did just by the question you stated. That or you are unable to understand the difference between those leaders in Iran who are behind terrorism and that of the people themselves in Iran. Killing leaders who are behind terrorism so that it does not occur again from them is far from Genocide. Its called defending ones self.
Reply - Knocking off a few leaders is not going to end terrorism. They become martyrs and someone else steps into their shoes. Religion also has a big hand in their motivation doesn't it? Or is it that you don't fully understand the scope of this threat?
I just can't see it as a realistic goal (to stop the threat) with our current methods and tactics. If we are going to have any chance of freeing the WORLD of terrorism it is going to take a unity and a commitment from everyone in the world community to join togeather and carry out a plan and enforce it in an international/worldly setting. It's not just about 9/11, it's about our future and we need to conduct ourselves as such. We went to war after 9/11. We didn't just sit back and take it. Four years later how much closer are we to freeing the wold of this god awefull threat? For me, being liberal is not a sign of weakness but a sign of the times. I too, will stand up for what I believe is right and go all the way with it. I believe there is a better way to a chance of success for eliminating the threat. Killing is not the only way to put a squeeze on somebody as our government proves to us time and time again.
How many terrorist attacks have occurred on the mainland US since we have started this? Ohh wait that was asked and answered already wasn't it!!!!!!!!
Reply - Yes. It was asked already. So we are going to have to continue at this pace for how long, spending how much money and lives? We can't do it forever.
Defend ourself? Do you think it is so simple to just overthrow these powers that make up terrorism threats? As I am viewing it, if what we have already attempted has not brought us to success, than in order to accomplish what you are speaking of (more force?), would indeed necessitate an environment for more killing, alot of killing! The majority of the people that the threat is comprised of are religious. Are we capable of changing the all powerful religious belief of another by taking out a few leaders? No. They then become martars. Maybe they just need to be influenced somehow and progressively over time, minimizing the violence, that can be achieved. Under attack as those rotten bastards are only sends them into a stealth mode, the very approach I think may be a good one. A silent, aggressive attack with intelligence and not a traditional full on military battle. If you are going to eliminate this threat by killing you are going to have to kill a whole bunch of people, which would be genocide.
I never said anything about overthrowing powers.
You asked:
"What exactly do you mean someone should knock off their leaders and religious clerics?" -George Jung
And I responded---Only those that have committed terrorist acts against us, of which Iran has a long history of doing.
I think that pretty specific to who. I never said anything about knocking off all leaders and clerics, only those that have committed terrorist acts against us. You may not know it, but not all leaders and clerics of Iran are behind terrorism.
Reply - A few leaders here and there has not and will not accomplish what has been set out to accomplish. Don't you think there is someone ready to fill those shoes? Religious beliefs don't just go away!
What gives you the right to say exactly what I am saying? I'm sorry to displease you but that is your interpertation. That is what fits your argument and what you would like me to be saying. Nobody died and made you the almighty god of interpretation. Why don't you think about that some more and get back to me.
Not too hard to see by your innuendo in how you worded the question and what you posted there George. ::)
Reply - An innuendo is a remark or question, typically disparaging, that works obliquely by allusion. The intention is often to insult or accuse someone in such a way that one's words, taken literally, are innocent. As I said.... Nobody died and made you the almighty god of interpretation. I simply don't see how a few leaders is going to correct things and by staying at war AS WE ARE will be ineffective unless you plan on wiping them out. Comprende Amigo? Yes, I am accusing your idea of; taking down some leaders is going to rid us of terrorism approach, as being irrational and inneffective. There you have it, straight up, so it's easy for you to interpret. Let me say it one more time...Striking back is not genocide (this is not striking back anymore). I believe if we are to eliminate the threat in the way in which you suggest going about it would necessitate genocide.
EDITED: Fixed quote tag errors - Sluff, Administrator
-
Reply - Knocking off a few leaders is not going to end terrorism. They become martyrs and someone else steps into their shoes. Religion also has a big hand in their motivation doesn't it? Or is it that you don't fully understand the scope of this threat?
No one said it would end it. However it will put a huge dent in it.
Understand the scope of this threat? LOL Funny you bring that up because even simpleton knows that Muslim terrorists base what they do out of the Koran. Jeeeesh did you think you actually knew something everyone else didn't know long ago?
Reply - Yes. It was asked already. So we are going to have to continue at this pace for how long, spending how much money and lives? We can't do it forever.
Hmm you tell me. In one day we lost 3000 lives and billions of dollars in damage to the US. Terrorists losses were minor.
War on terror. In four years we have lost just over 3000 lives, still cost billions of dollars with no loss to economy and we have killed thousands and thousands of terrorists and made the US just a little bit safer than it was.
As long as their our terrorists willing to disregard human life at all costs we will have to fight them. However you may ship yourself over to the ME and give up now if you wish.
Reply - A few leaders here and there has not and will not accomplish what has been set out to accomplish. Don't you think there is someone ready to fill those shoes? Religious beliefs don't just go away!
It doesn't matter if someone is there to fill there shoes. If those that wish to take the place commit to the same line of committing terrorism they will meet the same fate as those they replaced. Not all people in Iran have such a backwards view of the Koran and that they are to kill all those that do not believe in it.
Reply - An innuendo is a remark or question, typically disparaging, that works obliquely by allusion. The intention is often to insult or accuse someone in such a way that one's words, taken literally, are innocent. As I said.... Nobody died and made you the almighty god of interpretation. I simply don't see how a few leaders is going to correct things and by staying at war AS WE ARE will be ineffective unless you plan on wiping them out. Comprende Amigo? Yes, I am accusing your idea of; taking down some leaders is going to rid us of terrorism approach, as being irrational and inneffective. There you have it, straight up, so it's easy for you to interpret. Let me say it one more time...Striking back is not genocide (this is not striking back anymore). I believe if we are to eliminate the threat in the way in which you suggest going about it would necessitate genocide.
The very fact you posted the "question" in that manner shows your hand.
"Nobody died and made you the almighty god of interpretation". -GJ
Never said I was there george, its not too hard to figure out what you were trying to allude to george. Just like when you made your veiled threat to me.
You can also quite with the lip service of indignation because I am not buying it. Just as I didn't buy your lip service about supporting our troops after you slammed them as being brainwashed.
Yes this is striking back at them. That is what normal people do to protect themselves. If someone keeps committing acts of murder and violence do you really think sitting back and doing nothing will lessen them from doing even more of them. We merely have to look from the time that Iran kidnapped Americans and held them hostage under Carter to the continue attacks by them to this day.
Carter could have stopped this very easliy from being where it is today. That would be, release all hostages unharmed in 24 hours or else we will be warming up the ICBM's.
They committed acts of terror against us and continue to push these acts to this day in Iraq against the troops. To even think killing those that commit such acts of terror and murder against us as being genocide has got to be the most ignorant thing I have heard IMO.
-
I'm going to post this for now. I have to think some more about how I want to address recent comments in question. In the mean time here are some things to contemplate.
Iraq By the Numbers
March 19, 2007
Today, on the four-year anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, our military is stretched to the breaking point, Iraq is descending deeper into civil war, and the president is moving more—and more poorly prepared—troops into battle. The Center for American Progress has repeatedly advocated for a new strategy that would redeploy troops from Iraq to focus more attention on completing the mission left unaccomplished in Afghanistan and strengthen our ground troops by making sure that they are well-equipped and prepared—mentally and physically—when they are sent overseas. Clearly, we need a change in U.S. policy in Iraq:
The Cost in American Lives is Rising
3,217: Number of American troops killed in Iraq since the beginning of the war
54: Percentage of troops killed who were 24 years old or younger
Coalition Support is Waning
49: Number of countries in the Coalition of the Willing when the invasion began in 2003
21: Number of countries in the Coalition by mid-2007 after Britain, Denmark, and South Korea reduce their forces
135,000: Number of American troops in Iraq
11,095: Number of non-American troops that will remain in Iraq after the upcoming Coalition withdrawals
Staying the Wrong Course
29,100: Number of additional troops President Bush and his generals have officially requested to send to Iraq as part of an escalation strategy
Up to 50,000: Likely number of additional combat and support troops that will actually have to be deployed for the escalation, according to a Congressional Budget Office report
59: Percentage of Americans who think the Iraq war was a mistake
13: Percentage of Americans who prefer the option of sending more troops to options involving some form of withdrawal
Our Troops Are Being Pushed Beyond Their Limits
31: Number of Army combat brigades that have served two or more tours in Iraq or Afghanistan, out of 44 total
420,000: Number of troops that have deployed more than once
50: Percentage of troops more likely to suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder if they serve more than one tour
50,000: Number of troops on whom “stop-loss” has been imposed, meaning they are prevented from leaving the Army when their enlistment end date arrives
Our Veterans Are Not Receiving Adequate Support
23,417: Number of troops wounded in Iraq
9 out of 10: Number of disabled veterans who have been made to wait for benefit evaluations longer than the Pentagon’s own standard of 40 days
76: Percentage of Americans who think the Bush administration has not done enough to care for Iraq war veterans
Violence is Increasing
150,000: Estimated number of Iraqi civilians killed by violence since the beginning of the war, according to the Iraq Health Minister (a conservative estimate)
34,452: Number of Iraqi civilians killed by violence in 2006, according to the U.N.
19: Average number of daily attacks by insurgents in December 2003
77: Average number of daily attacks by insurgents in December 2004
185: Average number of daily attacks by insurgents in December 2006
5,000: Estimated strength of insurgency nationwide in Iraq, November 2003
20,000-30,000: Estimated strength of insurgency nationwide, October 2006
Basic Needs Are Still Unmet
75: Percentage of Iraqis who believe security is poor, according to a June 2006 survey
3,700,000: Estimated number of Iraqis who have fled the country or been internally displaced
20: Percentage of the Iraqi population living below the poverty line (or 5,600,000 people)
25-40: Estimated unemployment rate for Iraqi population
14.2 to 26.5: Estimated percentage of Iraqis who are malnourished
75: Percentage of Iraqi elementary schoolchildren who attended school last year, according to the Iraq Ministry of Education
30: Percentage of Iraqi elementary schoolchildren who attend school now, according to the Ministry of Education
Costs are Mounting
100.8 bil.: Annual cost of the war in Iraq, according to current monthly spending of 8.4 bil. per month
$463 bil.: Cumulative estimated cost of the Iraq war as of 2007
$5.6 bil.: Estimated cost of the escalation, according to Bush administration
Up to $27 bil.: Estimated cost of the escalation, according to the CBO
$633 bil.: Projected cumulative cost of the Iraq war come 2008, figuring in the cost of the escalation
21: Percentage of the FY 2007 National Security Budget spent on Iraq this is not peanuts people! - George
8: Percentage of the budget spent on homeland security
0.07: Percentage of the budget being spent on international broadcasting and educational cultural exchanges to win the war of ideas with terrorist groups
Americans Are Not Safer
75: Percentage of more than 100 foreign policy experts surveyed who think the war in Iraq had a “very negative impact” on protecting the American people from global terrorist networks and in advancing U.S. national security goals
75: Percentage of foreign-policy experts who think the United States is losing the war on terror
3,194: Number of terrorist attacks worldwide in 2004, as reported by the U.S. government’s National Counterterrorism Center
11,100: Number of terrorist attacks worldwide in 2005, as reported by the U.S. government’s National Counterterrorism Center
1: Rank of Iraq among all nations as a training ground for terrorists
There are no longer any good or easy options in Iraq. However, the United States can minimize the damage to its troops, its national security, and the security of Iraq and the region by redeploying troops from Iraq to address the mounting terrorist threat in Afghanistan. This strategy, in tandem with multiple diplomatic efforts involving Iraq’s neighbors in serious negotiations, just might allow the United States to extricate itself from the Bush administration’s war of choice in Iraq with our national security interests intact.
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/03/iraq_by_the_numbers.html
Oh.......BigSky, please take some time to read this a few times.
-
Understand the scope of this threat? LOL Funny you bring that up because even simpleton knows that Muslim terrorists base what they do out of the Koran. Jeeeesh did you think you actually knew something everyone else didn't know long ago?
Gee...i just thought maybe you don't fully comprehend...at least from the body of your comments I couldn't tell. Guess I AM a "simpleton"? That is what you are saying isn't it? I don't necessairly think everyone sees it that way though. I think alto of Americans saw an attack and wanted revenge.
Reply - Yes. It was asked already. So we are going to have to continue at this pace for how long, spending how much money and lives? We can't do it forever.
Hmm you tell me. In one day we lost 3000 lives and billions of dollars in damage to the US. Terrorists losses were minor.
War on terror. In four years we have lost just over 3000 lives, still cost billions of dollars with no loss to economy and we have killed thousands and thousands of terrorists and made the US just a little bit safer than it was.
As long as their our terrorists willing to disregard human life at all costs we will have to fight them. However you may ship yourself over to the ME and give up now if you wish.
I'm glad you think U.S. pockets are that deep to spend billions of $$$ a month with no end but the fact is my friend it is just not possible. Hey.....can you smell that coffee? I doubt anyone in the U.S. wants to get into a hundred year religious war with a foreign country. There ARE other ways to fight terrorism.
Reply - An innuendo is a remark or question, typically disparaging, that works obliquely by allusion. The intention is often to insult or accuse someone in such a way that one's words, taken literally, are innocent. As I said.... Nobody died and made you the almighty god of interpretation. I simply don't see how a few leaders is going to correct things and by staying at war AS WE ARE will be ineffective unless you plan on wiping them out. Comprende Amigo? Yes, I am accusing your idea of; taking down some leaders is going to rid us of terrorism approach, as being irrational and inneffective. There you have it, straight up, so it's easy for you to interpret. Let me say it one more time...Striking back is not genocide (this is not striking back anymore). I believe if we are to eliminate the threat in the way in which you suggest going about it would necessitate genocide.
The very fact you posted the "question" in that manner shows your hand.
"Nobody died and made you the almighty god of interpretation". -GJ
Never said I was there george, (1)its not too hard to figure out what you were trying to allude to george. Just like when you made your veiled threat to me.
You can also quite with the lip service of indignation because(2) I am not buying it. Just as I didn't buy your lip service about supporting our troops after you slammed them as being brainwashed.
Yes this is striking back at them. That is what normal people do to protect themselves. If someone keeps committing acts of murder and violence do you really think sitting back and doing nothing will lessen them from doing even more of them. We merely have to look from the time that Iran kidnapped Americans and held them hostage under Carter to the continue attacks by them to this day.
Carter could have stopped this very easily from being where it is today. That would be, release all hostages unharmed in 24 hours or else we will be warming up the ICBM's.
They committed acts of terror against us and continue to push these acts to this day in Iraq against the troops. To even think killing those that commit such acts of terror and murder against us as being genocide has got to be the most ignorant thing I have heard IMO.
Let's see: (1)If thats the case, you're like momas puddin' to me and (2) Well thats good to hear BigSky..... and (3) I didn't think it...the UN does.
-
Hind site is always 20/20. I have never said that "I have felt as I do today from day one". If I were to say such a thing I would be a liar. I remember being in a hospital bed the morning of the 9/11 attacks. I remember it like it was yesterday. I, like the majority of Americans felt a wide range of emotion. When we went on the offensive I felt proud to be an American. I tuned in day and night whenever possible to the news in search of gratification that someone was going to pay for what had been done to our homeland, in hopes of putting an end to the present danger.
I am not exactly sure when my thoughts about the war started to waver but I do know, now, over four years into this "fight", I am unhappy and disappointed with the very little amount of progress made, that I am aware of (if any real progress at all). I believe this war on terrorism is a war that requires full support from the world community with a unified plan and goals, and that is not where we are. Why? What is it about this administration that clouds their thought process and in return is taking all of us down this lonely road? I am not a politician, obviously, but I do feel as if I am at leat an average American. Anyone who is still in favor of this war in Iraq please take some time and reconsider the current methods at use. In no way would I ever suggest to sit back and do nothing but I believe in my heart there is a better way. The situation is very complicated and surely there are not going to be easy answers but if the powers that be try other strategies we will find one of success. We ALL want the same basic thing and that is happiness. Would peace not help bring that to us. Lets achieve OUR goals and those goals of ALL terrorist fighting countries. There is a way.
Random thought - George
-
Gee...i just thought maybe you don't fully comprehend...at least from the body of your comments I couldn't tell. Guess I AM a "simpleton"? That is what you are saying isn't it? I don't necessairly think everyone sees it that way though. I think alto of Americans saw an attack and wanted revenge.
Do you even think about what you type before you type it? ::)
I'm glad you think U.S. pockets are that deep to spend billions of $$$ a month with no end but the fact is my friend it is just not possible. Hey.....can you smell that coffee? I doubt anyone in the U.S. wants to get into a hundred year religious war with a foreign country. There ARE other ways to fight terrorism.
The fact is what we spend now is very little compared to what the costs will be in the future if we do not halt its expansion now. Costs of today are always cheaper than costs of tomorrow.
Let's see: (1)If thats the case, you're like momas puddin' to me and (2) Well thats good to hear BigSky..... and (3) I didn't think it...the UN does.
Ahh are you trying to insult me now george? LOL
As to this situation george it is indeed you who thinks it, not the UN.
The UN Charter allows for countries to defend themselves from those that commit attack on it. It does not consider that when one defends itself, that it is genocide.
If we were to kill those that are terrorists in Iran it would fall under the International law of self defense. Also it seems to escape you that we are not giving any regard to a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. We would be killing terrorists in the Iran government who are behind terrorism and have committed such acts against the US.
As much as you wish for it to be, terrorists are not covered by the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, especially when it comes down to the fact they have attacked first.
Also you might note that the Convention excludes from the definition of genocide the killing of members of a social class, members of a political or ideological group. BTW which would be terrorists.
-
The fact is what we spend now is very little compared to what the costs will be in the future if we do not halt its expansion now. Costs of today are always cheaper than costs of tomorrow.
Nobody ever said to sit back and wait for the next twenty years to happen bro.
[Ahh are you trying to insult me now george? LOL
Well I figured it was merited by the "simpleton" implication. Yea...I was insulting you.
As much as you wish for it to be, terrorists are not covered by the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, especially when it comes down to the fact they have attacked first.
I am good with that. But, does that mean we have to kill all of the children who are pointing machine guns at Americans too? Call it/classify it however you like according to whom ever you like. Point being is that we are going to either have to kill generations or search for an alternative answer. To achieve real change in the ME we must change our strategies, as in get out of the actual hand to hand combat in Iraq and form a global plan with support from ALL four corners. It's narrow minded fools like yourself that just might deserve more of the blame for our shortcomings in the years to come than the supreme jack ass himself who is running this country. I'm guessing you are one of those people who thinks we should evacuate all of the innocent women and children of Iraq and then just blow the shit out of everyone else. I'm not saying that is so, I'm simply saying that is how you come across to me. I hope I am wrong.
BigSky - did you read the "numbers" post a few replies back? What trends would you like to see change?
-
Is this discussion actually going anywhere anymore?
-
Nobody ever said to sit back and wait for the next twenty years to happen bro.
Despite what you think there is no choice about fighting. Either we fight today or we fight tomorrow.
Well I figured it was merited by the "simpleton" implication. Yea...I was insulting you.
Tsk tsk george. There was no implication. I suggest you reread what I said because it seems your temper has flared and your anger and hate towards me is making you misread or comprehend what was exactly said in that sentence.
I am good with that. But, does that mean we have to kill all of the children who are pointing machine guns at Americans too?
It depends on context.
If a child is pointing a gun and is refusing to disarm when instructed and is going to try to kill an American or anyone else for that matter, then yes, we kill them if need be. As much as one may not like it, the fact is a child is just as capable of killing as an adult is capable of doing.
Call it/classify it however you like according to whom ever you like. Point being is that we are going to either have to kill generations or search for an alternative answer. To achieve real change in the ME we must change our strategies, as in get out of the actual hand to hand combat in Iraq and form a global plan with support from ALL four corners. It's narrow minded fools like yourself that just might deserve more of the blame for our shortcomings in the years to come than the supreme jack ass himself who is running this country. I'm guessing you are one of those people who thinks we should evacuate all of the innocent women and children of Iraq and then just blow the shit out of everyone else. I'm not saying that is so, I'm simply saying that is how you come across to me. I hope I am wrong.
Ahh more insults. LOL
There is one way and one way only to fight terrorists. That is too hunt them down and kill them. It will take hand to hand combat because one cannot use smart bombs to get them all.You might note to date we have killed more terrorists in 1 month under Bush than we did in 8 years under Clinton. When Clinton took office Al-Qaeda was in only a handful of countries, by the time he left office Al-Qaeda had operatives in almost every country on the planet. The fact that Clinton failed to fight terrorism like he should have now has us "paying the piper".
Your problem is you do not see the big picture, while the US and other countries are trying to change future generations from becoming terrorists we realize that we must also deal with those that are terrorists NOW! Those that are terrorists now are not going to change their ways.
It is only fueled by the propaganda that gets put out by them in the ME about the US. I.E. Pepsi=pay each penny to save Israel.
What educated person believes crap like that.
Do you even understand that the US pumps billions of dollars into 3rd world economies to an effort to help them live with some hope and try to counter the propaganda that the US is some big bad wolf that is responsible for the problems of the world? We have dumped far more money into helping other countries than we have spent on this war on terror. The fact is Bush is taking on terrorism on two fronts which is necessary because one cannot only try to change future generations beliefs about the US but must also take on those that are attacking it now.
We had unprecedented terrorist attacks on the US by muslim extremists during the Clinton years and did nothing. That alone has caused far more shortcomings and caused far more damage than us fighting terrorism now.
After all it was Clinton's FAILURES and cut and run policy in Somalia that led directly to Bin Laden saying the US was a paper tiger and led him to the decision to strike the mainland US.
BigSky - did you read the "numbers" post a few replies back? What trends would you like to see change?
I'm not going to get into a debate about numbers, Numbers can be made to do anything one wants.
I.E. 3,217: Number of American troops killed in Iraq since the beginning of the war
In California alone from 2003-2005 over twice as many people in California were murdered.(7,300+) Maybe we should pull out of California?
Not only did this country think the war in Iraq was needed but Congress did also. One doesn't go to war and then undercut the troops in the middle of the job they are doing.
The fact is we are no longer at war with Iraq. What we are doing now is trying to rebuild Iraq and keep terrorists from overwhelming the fledgling government. We are fighting terrorists who want the Iraq government to fall.
This mission is very important, it is an important element in the grand strategy of fighting terrorism in the Middle East.
This is no different than the roughly seven years we spent in Japan and Germany helping rebuild and help fighting the spread of Communism.
-
BigSky, I find it very interesting and suspect that you would rather go back and forth with me (mostly about me) rather than to discuss numbers. If it is like you say, "Numbers can be made to do anything one wants.", then you would make them do what you want and debate it. It is alot easier to turn what I say around though, I'll give you that! It's also quite funny to me how you are so preceptive to decipher implications that I have supposedly made but can so easily dismiss yourself from making one yourself. I think the "simpleton" innuendo was pretty clear and I did read it again, several times.
Understand the scope of this threat? LOL Funny you bring that up because even simpleton knows that Muslim terrorists base what they do out of the Koran. Jeeeesh did you think you actually knew something everyone else didn't know long ago?
I think nextnoel might be on to something. I for one would like to continue this debate but only if it is more constructive. I would just like to add one more thing before letting go for now. Contrary to what you think BigSky, I do not carry hatred or anger toward you nor is my temper "flaring", I simply believe that at this point in time the U.S. needs to make changes (drastic ones) in strategies on the war on terrorism. Have we revisited the time when we sought support from the world round? That did mean something once. My friends this is a non traditional battle, and one that in my opinion cannot be won by ourselves (essentially we are alone), change will result in more efficiency and effectiveness. I for one have no doubt about that!
-
A TIMELINE OF THE IRAQ WAR
Comment on this timeline here.
2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007
2003
MARCH 19, 2003: Bush launches invasion of Iraq
MARCH 30, 2003: Donald Rumsfeld: We know where the WMD are
We know where [the weapons of mass destruction] are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat. [ABC This Week, 3/30/03]
APRIL 1, 2003: Pfc. Jessica Lynch recovered by U.S. forces. What the Pentagon framed as a heroic rescue was later revealed to have been staged. [Guardian, 5/15/03]
APRIL 9, 2003: Saddam Statue Toppled
The Los Angeles Times later reported that the fall was “stage-managed” by the Army. [LAT, 7/3/04]
APRIL 11, 2003: Donald Rumsfeld: Stuff happens
Think what’s happened in our cities when we’ve had riots, and problems, and looting. Stuff happens! … Freedom’s untidy, and free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things. They’re also free to live their lives and do wonderful things, and that’s what’s going to happen here. [DoD briefing, 4/11/03]
APRIL 16, 2003: Bush signs $79 billion supplemental spending bill for Iraq [DoD, 4/16/03]
APRIL 23, 2003: USAID Administrator Andrew Nastios Claims Rebuilding of Iraq Could Be Accomplished With $1.7 Billion
TED KOPPEL: I mean, when you talk about 1.7, you’re not suggesting that the rebuilding of Iraq is gonna be done for $1.7 billion?
NATSIOS: Well, in terms of the American taxpayers contribution, I do, this is it for the US.
[…]
KOPPEL: You’re saying the, the top cost for the US taxpayer will be $1.7 billion. No more than that?
NATSIOS: For the reconstruction. And then there’s 700 million in the supplemental budget for humanitarian relief, which we don’t competitively bid ’cause it’s charities that get that money.
KOPPEL: I understand. But as far as reconstruction goes, the American taxpayer will not be hit for more than $1.7 billion no matter how long the process takes?
NATSIOS: That is our plan and that is our intention. And these figures, outlandish figures I’ve seen, I have to say, there’s a little bit of hoopla involved in this. [ABC, Nightline, 4/23/03]
MAY 1, 2003: Mission Accomplished
[M]y fellow Americans: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. [Bush, 5/1/03]
MAY 9, 2003: Paul Wolfowitz: We agreed on WMD rationale for bureaucratic reasons
The truth is that, for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason [to go to war]. [Wolfowitz, 5/9/03]
MAY 29, 2003: Bush: We found the WMD
We found the weapons of mass destruction. [Bush, 5/29/03]
JUNE 6, 2003: Rumsfeld blames Iraq problems on “pockets of dead-enders”
In those regions where pockets of dead-enders are trying to reconstitute, Gen. Franks and his team are rooting them out. In short, the coalition is making good progress. [USA Today, 6/18/03]
JULY 2, 2003: Bring ‘Em On
There are some who feel like — that the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is, bring them on. [Bush, 7/2/03]
JULY 6, 2003: Joseph Wilson writes op-ed in the New York Times
It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such [yellowcake] transaction had ever taken place. [NYT, 7/6/03]
JULY 11, 2003: Condoleezza Rice: Doubts about Iraq intel were not communicated to Bush
All that I can tell you is that if there were doubts about the underlying intelligence in the NIE, those doubts were not communicated to the President. [WH Gaggle, 7/11/03]
JULY 14, 2003: Bush says he had good intelligence before the war
I think the intelligence I get is darn good intelligence. And the speeches I have given were backed by good intelligence. [Bush, 7/14/03]
JULY 22, 2003: Saddam’s sons, Uday and Qusay, are killed in a U.S. raid in Mosul [CNN, 7/22/03]
AUGUST 7, 2003: Attack on Jordanian Embassy
Violence returned to the streets of Baghdad with a vengeance yesterday when at least 11 people were killed in a massive car bomb explosion outside the Jordanian embassy, leading to fears that guerrilla fighters may now be turning their attention towards so-called soft targets. [Guardian, 8/8/03]
AUGUST 20, 2003: Attack on United Nations Headquarters in Baghdad.
The U.N. special representative in Iraq [Sergio Vieira de Mello] and at least 16 others died Tuesday in a bomb explosion that ripped through the organization’s headquarters in Baghdad. … At least 100 people were wounded. [CNN, 8/20/03]
SEPTEMBER 3, 2003: Report shows Bush failed to plan
A secret report for the Joint Chiefs of Staff lays the blame for setbacks in Iraq on a flawed and rushed war-planning process that ‘limited the focus’ for preparing for post-Saddam Hussein operations. [Washington Times, 9/3/03]
OCTOBER 19, 2003: Bush ignored the experts
A yearlong State Department study predicted many of the problems that have plagued the American-led occupation of Iraq, according to internal State Department documents and interviews with administration and Congressional officials. [NYT, 10/19/03]
NOVEMBER 6, 2003: Bush signs $87 billion supplemental spending bill into law [Bush, 11/6/03]
NOVEMBER 20, 2003: Richard Perle suggests Iraq war was illegal
I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing. [Guardian, 11/20/03]
NOVEMBER 28, 2003: Bush makes surprise Thanksgiving visit to Iraq, poses with fake turkey
DECEMBER 14, 2003: Saddam is captured
Ladies and gentlemen. We got him! [Bremer, 12/14/03]
2004
JANUARY 17, 2004: 500 U.S. soldiers dead in Iraq since the invasion [Commondreams.org, 1/19/04]
JANUARY 22, 2004: CIA officers warn of civil war
CIA officers in Iraq are warning that the country may be on a path to civil war, current and former U.S. officials said Wednesday, starkly contradicting the upbeat assessment that President Bush gave in his State of the Union address. [Knight-Ridder, 1/22/04]
JANUARY 28, 2004: Iraq Survey Group inspector David Kay reports
It turns out that we were all wrong, probably in my judgment, and that is most disturbing. [Kay, 1/28/04]
FEBRUARY 4, 2004: 109 Iraqis die in suicide bomb attacks in Kurdish-held Irbil [AP, 2/4/04]
FEBRUARY 10, 2004: U.S. Military uncovers letter addressed to senior al-Qaida operatives seeking help in waging a “sectarian war”
Brigadier general Mark Kimmit: “There is clearly a plan on the part of outsiders to come into this country and spark civil war, breed sectarian violence and try to expose fissures in the society.” [Guardian, 2/10/04]
FEBRUARY 19, 2004: Chalabi declares that he and Bush administration have been “heroes in error.” [Telegraph, 2/19/04]
MARCH 5, 2004: Former chief U.N. weapons inspector declares Iraq war illegal
The former chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix has declared that the war in Iraq was illegal, dealing another devastating blow to Tony Blair. [Independent, 3/5/04]
MARCH 18, 2004: General Garner speaks out
Jay Garner, the US general abruptly dismissed as Iraq’s first occupation administrator after a month in the job, says he fell out with the Bush circle because he wanted free elections and rejected an imposed program of privatization. [Guardian, 3/18/04]
MARCH 24, 2004: Bush jokes at the Radio and Television Correspondents Association Dinner
Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere. [Bush, 3/24/04]
APRIL 19, 2004: Bob Woodward reveals CIA Director George Tenet said there was a “slam dunk case” against Iraq
About two weeks before deciding to invade Iraq, President Bush was told by CIA Director George Tenet there was a “slam dunk case” that dictator Saddam Hussein had unconventional weapons, according to a new book by Washington Post journalist Bob Woodward. [CNN, 4/19/04]
APRIL 21, 2004: Five suicide car bombings strike near police stations in the southern city of Basra, killing at least 74 people. [AP, 4/21/04]
APRIL 28, 2004: Images of torture at Abu Ghraib are revealed
APRIL 2004: Up to this point, the deadliest month in Iraq, and second highest total overall. 135 U.S. servicemembers lost their lives. [Washington Post, 11/1/05]
MAY 5, 2004: Appearing on Arab TV, Bush expresses sorrow over prisoner abuse
The American people are just as appalled at what they have seen on TV as Iraqi citizens have. The Iraqi citizens must understand that. [NYT, 5/5/04]
MAY 11, 2004: Video released showing Nicholas Berg, an American contractor, being beheaded by Iraqi militants. [USA Today, 5/11/04]
MAY 31, 2004: Four Blackwater contractors killed and their bodies mutilated in Fallujah
The group were shot and burnt in their cars, before a cheering crowd dismembered the corpses and hung two of them from a bridge. [BBC, 3/31/04]
JUNE 28, 2004: U.S. transfers sovereignty to Iraq. Bush’s response: “Let freedom reign!”
AUGUST 27, 2004: Bush acknowledged for the first time that he made a “miscalculation of what the conditions would be” in postwar Iraq [Reuters, 8/27/04]
AUGUST 30, 2004: “Catastrophic Success”
BUSH: Had we had to do it over again, we would look at the consequences of catastrophic success–being so successful so fast that an enemy that should have surrendered or been done in escaped and lived to fight another day. [Time, 8/30/04]
SEPTEMBER 7, 2004: Death toll of U.S. soldiers in Iraq reaches 1,000 [CNN.com, 9/8/04]
SEPTEMBER 15, 2004: Bush administration requests that the Senate shift $3.4 billion of the $18.4 billion Iraqi aid package meant for reconstruction work to improving security measures [NYT, 9/15/04]
SEPTEMBER 16, 2004: Intelligence report delivered to Bush warns of civil war. Bush’s response: the CIA is “just guessing”:
A classified National Intelligence Estimate prepared for President Bush in late July spells out a dark assessment of prospects for Iraq, government officials said Wednesday. The estimate outlines three possibilities for Iraq through the end of 2005, with the worst case being developments that could lead to civil war, the officials said. [NYT, 9/16/04; Bush, 9/21/04]
SEPTEMBER 16, 2004: U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan declares Iraq war illegal
When pressed on whether he viewed the invasion of Iraq as illegal, he said: “Yes, if you wish. I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal.” [BBC, 9/16/04]
SEPTEMBER 23, 2004: Bush heralds Iraqi poll
I saw a poll that said the right track/wrong track in Iraq was better than here in America. [Bush, 9/23/04]
SEPTEMBER 28, 2004: Another report showing Bush was warned about conditions in post-war Iraq
The same intelligence unit that produced a gloomy report in July about the prospect of growing instability in Iraq warned the Bush administration about the potential costly consequences of an American-led invasion two months before the war began, government officials said Monday. [NYT, 9/28/04]
OCTOBER 5, 2004: Paul Bremer: Never had enough troops
We never had enough troops on the ground. [CNN, 10/5/04]
OCTOBER 7, 2004: Duelfer Report: Iraq did not have WMD
Saddam Hussein did not possess stockpiles of illicit weapons at the time of the U.S. invasion in March 2003 and had not begun any program to produce them, a CIA report concludes. [CNN, 10/7/04]
OCTOBER 25, 2004: The New York Times reports that about 380 tons of powerful explosives disappeared from military installation called Al Qaqaa sometime after the U.S.-led war began in March 2003 [NYT, 10/25/04]
NOVEMBER 2, 2004: Bush wins re-election [Washington Post, 11/4/04]
NOVEMBER 8, 2004: U.S. forces launch all-out assault on Fallujah
The U.S. military said 10 troops and two members of Iraq’s security forces were killed in the first two days of the battle, the largest military operation since the U.S.-led invasion last year. U.S. and Iraqi leaders hope the assault will break the grip of insurgents who have held Fallujah for nearly seven months. [Washington Post, 11/10/04]
NOVEMBER 2004: The most deadly month in Iraq. 137 U.S. troops died. [Washington Post, 11/1/05]
DECEMBER 8, 2004: Donald Rumsfeld: You go to war with the Army you have
As you know, you go to war with the Army you have. They’re not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time. [Rumsfeld, 12/8/04]
DECEMBER 20, 2004: Blasts kill at least 64 in Iraq’s holy cities [Washington Post, 12/20/04]
2005
JANUARY 12, 2005: WMD search in Iraq is declared over
U.S. inspectors have ended their search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in recent weeks, a U.S. intelligence official told CNN. [CNN, 1/12/05]
JANUARY 27, 2005: 30 Marines, Sailor Die In Copter crash in Iraq, the deadliest single event for U.S. forces since the invasion [Washington Post, 1/27/05]
JANUARY 30, 2005: U.S. loses track of nearly $9 billion in Iraqi funds
The CPA provided less than adequate controls for approximately $8.8 billion of Development Fund for Iraq (DFI) funds provided to Iraqi ministries through the national budget process. [CPA Report, 1/30/05]
JANUARY 30, 2005: Iraqis vote to form a Transitional National Assembly
JANUARY 2005: 106 U.S. troops killed this month. [NYT, 11/1/05]
FEBRUARY 28, 2005: Car bombs kill at least 114 Iraqis in Hilla. [BBC, 2/28/05]
MARCH 2, 2005: Army missed its February recruiting goal by more than 27 percent, the first time in almost five years that the Army failed to meet a monthly target. [USA Today, 3/2/05]
MARCH 3, 2005: Death toll of U.S. troops in Iraq hits 1,500 [London Telegraph, 3/3/05]
MARCH 31, 2005: Silberman-Robb commission, the presidential commission on Iraqi WMD, concludes:
[T]he intelligence community was dead wrong in almost all of its prewar judgments. [USA Today, 3/31/05]
MAY 1, 2005: Downing Street Memo revealed
Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. [Downing Street Memo, 7/23/02]
MAY 11, 2005: Bush signs supplemental spending bill, providing nearly $76 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan [State Department, 5/12/05]
MAY 30, 2005: Dick Cheney: Insurgency in its “last throes”
I think they’re in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency. [CNN Larry King Live, 5/30/05]
JUNE 12, 2005: National Guard misses recruiting target for ninth month in a row
The Army National Guard, a cornerstone of the U.S. force in Iraq, missed its recruiting goal for at least the ninth straight month in June and is nearly 19,000 soldiers below its authorized strength. [AP, 7/12/05]
JUNE 23, 2005: Cheney revises “last throes” comment
BLITZER: “He says that the insurgency now is at a strength undiminished as it was six months ago, and he says there are actually more foreign fighters in Iraq now than there were six months ago. That doesn’t sound like the last throes.”
CHENEY: “No, I would disagree. If you look at what the dictionary says about throes, it can still be a violent period — the throes of a revolution.” [CNN, 6/20/05]
JUNE 27, 2005: Rumsfeld: “Insurgencies tend to go on five, six, eight, 10, 12 years.” [Fox News Sunday, 6/27/05]
JULY 18, 2005: Death toll rises to 100 in suicide blast in Iraq [Washington Post, 7/18/05]
AUGUST 7, 2005: Cindy Sheehan camps out at Bush’s Texas ranch
AUGUST 31, 2005: Nearly 1,000 Shiites killed in mass stampede during religious festival [CNN, 9/1/05]
SEPTEMBER 9, 2005: Colin Powell, on his pre-war speech to the UN:
It’s a blot. I’m the one who presented it on behalf of the United States to the world, and [it] will always be a part of my record. It was painful. It’s painful now. [ABC News, 9/9/05]
SEPTEMBER 30, 2005: Army misses recruiting target for previous fiscal year by widest margin since 1979
The Army is closing the books on one of the leanest recruiting years since it became an all-volunteer service three decades ago, missing its enlistment target by the largest margin since 1979 and raising questions about its plans for growth. [AP, 9/30/05]
OCTOBER 7, 2005: IAEA chief Mohamed El Baradei, who disputed U.S. pre-war assertions that Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq had an active atomic weapons program, is awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. [AP, 10/7/05]
OCTOBER 13, 2005: Bush administration paid no attention to warnings of post-war chaos
A review by former intelligence officers has concluded that the Bush administration ‘apparently paid little or no attention’ to prewar assessments by the Central Intelligence Agency that warned of major cultural and political obstacles to stability in postwar Iraq. [NYT, 10/13/05]
OCTOBER 15, 2005: Iraqis vote to ratify draft constitution [AP, 10/25/05]
OCTOBER 26, 2005: American military death toll reaches 2,000 [MSNBC.com, 10/26/05]
OCTOBER 2005: 4th deadliest month in Iraq; 92 American servicemembers killed [NYT, 11/1/05]
NOVEMBER 8, 2005: Powerful new evidence emerged yesterday that the United States dropped massive quantities of white phosphorus on the Iraqi city of Fallujah during the attack on the city in November 2004 [Independent, 11/8/05]
NOVEMBER 15, 2005: U.S. Senate votes 79-19 to demand regular reports from the White House on progress towards a phased pullout of troops from Iraq [CNN, 11/16/05]
NOVEMBER 18, 2005: Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) calls for U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq
The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion. The American public is way ahead of us. The United States and coalition troops have done all they can in Iraq, but it is time for a change in direction. Our military is suffering. The future of our country is at risk. We cannot continue on the present course. [Murtha, 11/17/05]
NOVEMBER 30, 2005: National Strategy for Victory In Iraq unveiled by White House
DECEMBER 15, 2005: Iraqis vote to elect members of Iraqi Assembly. The United Iraqi Alliance, the Shiite Muslim’s most powerful party, won a majority of the seats. [CNN, 1/20/06]
DECEMBER 17, 2005: Lieberman: Bush has turned corner on Iraq
The last two weeks have been critically important and I believe may be seen as a turning point in the war in Iraq and the war on terrorism. [AP, 12/17/05]
DECEMBER 18, 2005: Bush: “[M]uch of the intelligence turned out to be wrong.” [Bush, 12/18/05]
2006
JANUARY 6, 2006: Approximately 140 killed in Iraq, “one of the bloodiest days since the U.S.-led invasion of the country in 2003″ [Washington Post, 1/6/06]
JANUARY 24, 2006: Army has become “thin green line”
Stretched by frequent troop rotations to Iraq and Afghanistan, the Army has become a “thin green line” that could snap unless relief comes soon, according to a study for the Pentagon. [AP, 1/24/06]
JANUARY 29, 2006: ABC newsman Bob Woodruff and cameraman Doug Vogt seriously injured in Iraq [ABC, 1/29/06]
FEBRUARY 2, 2006: Rumsfeld doubts “long war” in Iraq
“Is Iraq going to be a long war?” Mr. Rumsfeld answered, “No, I don’t believe it is.” [Washington Times, 2/2/06]
FEBRUARY 3, 2006: Bush requests additional $70 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan, $120 billion total for 2006 [Washington Post, 2/3/06]
February 22, 2006: Iraq’s Golden Mosque in Samarra badly damaged in a bomb attack that fuels sectarian tensions
Up to 1,300 Iraqis feared dead. [Washington Post, 2/27/06]
FEBRUARY 28, 2006: Another report reveals Bush administration did not plan for post-war
The Bush administration never drew up a comprehensive plan for rebuilding Iraq after the March 2003 invasion. [Washington Times, 2/28/06]
MARCH 11, 2006: “Bush Goes on Offensive To Explain War Strategy” [Washington Post, 3/11/06]
MARCH 19, 2006: “Complete victory”
On the eve of the third anniversary of the Iraq invasion, President Bush yesterday promised to “finish the mission” with “complete victory,” urging the American public to remain steadfast but offering no indication when victory may be achieved. [Washington Post, 3/19/06]
MARCH 19, 2006: Time Magazine reveals that U.S. Marines killed at least 15 unarmed Iraqi civilians in Haditha the previous November
According to eyewitnesses and local officials interviewed over the past 10 weeks, the civilians who died in Haditha on Nov. 19 were killed not by a roadside bomb but by the Marines themselves, who went on a rampage in the village after the attack, killing 15 unarmed Iraqis in their homes, including seven women and three children. [Time, 3/19/06]
MARCH 21, 2006: Bush says some U.S. troops will remain in Iraq at least until 2009
QUESTION: [W]ill there come a day when there will be no more American forces in Iraq?
BUSH: That, of course, is an objective, and that will be decided by future Presidents and future governments of Iraq. [Bush press conference, 3/22/06]
MARCH 30, 2006: Jill Carroll, a Christian Science Monitor journalist, is freed by her captors in Iraq [CSM, 3/31/06]
APRIL 12, 2006: Washington Post reports that Pentagon-commissioned team had concluded in May 2003 that trailers did not produce WMD
On May 29, 2003, 50 days after the fall of Baghdad, President Bush proclaimed a fresh victory for his administration in Iraq: Two small trailers captured by U.S. and Kurdish troops had turned out to be long-sought mobile “biological laboratories.” He declared, “We have found the weapons of mass destruction.” The claim, repeated by top administration officials for months afterward, was hailed at the time as a vindication of the decision to go to war. But even as Bush spoke, U.S. intelligence officials possessed powerful evidence that it was not true. [Washington Post, 4/12/06]
APRIL 21, 2006: Jawad al-Maliki, “an experienced political operator and advocate for Iraq’s Shiite Muslims,” is chosen to replace Ibrahim al-Jaafari as prime minister [Washington Post, 4/22/06]
APRIL 23, 2006: A former top CIA official, Tyler Drumheller, reveals evidence that Bush was told before the war by a high-level Iraqi informant that Iraq did not possess WMD [CBS News, 4/23/06]
APRIL 30, 2006: Powell says Bush went to war without enough troops
Powell: “I made the case to General Franks and Secretary Rumsfeld before the president though that it was not sure we had enough troops… [They] believed they had the appropriate troop level.” [ITV, 4/30/06]
MAY 18, 2006: CIA Director Michael Hayden: “I wasn’t comfortable” with Bush administration approach to prewar intelligence [CNN, 5/18/06]
MAY 20, 2006: Prime Minister Maliki oversees the formation of Iraq’s first permanent constitutional government since the fall of Saddam Hussein [Washington Post, 5/20/06]
MAY 25, 2006: Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki says Iraqi troops will be ready to handle security by end of 2007 [CNN, 5/25/06]
JUNE 8, 2006: Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of al-Qaida in Iraq, is killed during a U.S. air raid [AP, 6/8/06]
JUNE 15, 2006: Number of U.S. troops killed in Iraq reaches 2,500 [Reuters, 6/15/06]
JUNE 15, 2006: With support of Iraq’s President, Iraqi Vice President asks Bush for a timeline for the withdrawal of foreign forces from Iraq [AP, 6/15/06]
JUNE 20, 2006: Japan announces it plans to withdrawal its 600 soldiers from Iraq in the coming weeks [ABC News, 6/20/06]
JUNE 20, 2006: Iraqi National Security Adviser writes that U.S. troops should be out of Iraq by the end of 2007
We envisage the U.S. troop presence by year’s end to be under 100,000, with most of the remaining troops to return home by the end of 2007. [Washington Post, 6/20/06]
JUNE 20, 2006: Mutilated bodies of two U.S. soldiers who were kidnapped four days earlier are found dead
Maj. Gen. Abdul-Aziz Mohammed, an Iraqi Defense Ministry official, said the soldiers “were killed in a barbaric way.” [USA Today, 6/20/06]
JULY 3, 2006: Pfc. Steven Green charged with the rape and murder of a young Iraqi girl
Revealed last week and denounced by clerics as showing the “real, ugly face of America”, the case could be particularly damaging to the U.S. image in Iraq’s conservative Muslim society even after several other murder cases in the past few weeks. [Reuters, 7/3/06]
JULY 8, 2006: Four other soldiers charged with participating in the rape and murders; a fifth charged with dereliction of duty for failing to report the crimes [Bloomberg, 6/9/06]
JULY 12, 2006: White House budget document reveals that administration will ask for another $110 billion to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan [White House Office of Management and Budget, 7/12/06]
JULY 13, 2006: Rampant violence grips Baghdad, over 140 people killed
Last month, Mr. Maliki implemented a security plan for Baghdad, where the sharp rise in violence over the past few months has been felt most acutely. But the strategy, which features a constellation of new checkpoints, has not curbed the mayhem. [NYT, 7/13/06]
AUGUST 3, 2006: The head of U.S. Central Command, Gen. John Abizaid, suggests that civil war is possible in Iraq.
ABIZAID: “I believe that the sectarian violence is probably is as bad as I’ve seen it in Baghdad in particular, and that if not stopped, it is possible that Iraq could move toward civil war.” [CNN, 8/3/06]
AUGUST 7, 2006: The top U.S. military official in Iraq, Gen. George Casey, says that civil war in Iraq is “certainly possible,” calling it “the most significant threat right now” in the country. [ABC News, 8/7/06]
AUGUST 15, 2006: 3,438 Iraq civilians died in July, “the deadliest month of the war for Iraqi civilians.” [New York Times, 8/15/06]
AUGUST 16, 2006: 1,666 bombs exploded in Iraq in July, “the highest monthly total of the war.” [New York Times, 8/16/06]
AUGUST 19 2006: 1,249 days since the war began — the war in Iraq surpasses the length of WWII. [The Nation, 8/18/2006]
AUGUST 21, 2006: Bush: “We’re not leaving [Iraq] so long as I’m the president.” [CNN, 8/21/2006]
AUGUST 21, 2006: Bush acknowledges Iraq had “nothing” to do with 9/11. [Fox News, 8/21/2006]
AUGUST 22, 2006: Marine Corps begins involuntary troop recalls. “The U.S. Marine
Corps will start ordering what could be thousands of inactive service members to return to duty in the coming months to counter a steady decline in the number of such troops who volunteer.” [Reuters, 8/22/2006]
AUGUST 28, 2006: “A suicide car bombing and clashes between Shiite militia and Iraqi security forces left at least 50 people dead Monday in a brutal contradiction of the prime minister’s claim that bloodshed was decreasing” The dead included eight American soldiers, one of the U.S. military’s deadliest weekends in months.” [AP, 8/28/2006]
AUGUST 29, 2006: Rumsfeld calls war critics “quitters” who “blame America first” for giving “the enemy the false impression Americans cannot stomach a tough fight” [LA Times, 8/29/2006]
AUGUST 30, 2006: Rumsfeld compares Iraq war critics to those who believed Hitler could be “appeased” [CNN, 8/30/2006]
SEPTEMBER 6, 2006: Baghdad morgue revises August death toll upward 300 percent
“[T]his means that a much-publicized drop-off in violence in August — heralded by both the Iraqi government and the US military as a sign that a new security effort in Baghdad was working — apparently didn’t exist.” [ABC News, 9/6/2006]
SEPTEMBER 11, 2006: Cheney: war critics aid terrorists.
CHENEY: terrorists are encouraged, obviously, when they see the kind of debate that we’ve had in the United States, suggestions, for example, that we should withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq. [Meet the Press, 9/11/2006]
SEPTEMBER 20, 2006: Iraq becomes the deadliest place for journalists to work. A new study by the Committee to Protect Journalists found that of the 580 journalists who have been killed over the last 15 years, 78 reporters died in Iraq. [Reuters, 9/20/2006]
SEPTEMBER 21, 2006: Number of civilian deaths continues to rise. “The number of civilians slain in Iraq reached an unprecedented level in July and August, which saw 6,599 violent deaths,” a new U.N. report shows. Researchers also noted “the growth of sectarian militias and death squads, and a rise in “honor killings” of women. [AP, 9/21/2006]
SEPTEMBER 24, 2006: President Bush describes Iraq violence as “just a comma” in history. [CNN, 9/24/2006]
SEPTEMBER 24, 2006: New National Intelligence Estimate determines Iraq war has increased terror threat.
“A stark assessment of terrorism trends by American intelligence agencies has found that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks.” [New York Times, 9/24/2006]
SEPTEMBER 26, 2006: Pentagon announces 3,800 U.S. soldiers will be staying in Iraq about six weeks beyond their one-year combat tours. [USA Today, 9/26/2006]
SEPTEMBER 27, 2007: 71 percent of Iraqis want U.S. forces To withdraw within a year. [World Public Opinion, 9/27/2007]
OCTOBER 2, 2006: 3,000 Iraqi civilians die in August 2006, up from 2,000 deaths in August of 2005, according to findings from the Brookings Institution. [New York Times, 10/2/2006]
OCTOBER 3, 2006: 58 percent of Americans believe the Bush administration has deliberately misled the American public about the war in Iraq. [CNN, 10/4/2006]
OCTOBER 4, 2006: Powell objects to “stay the course” strategy.
“Only the Iraqi people can resolve this … taying the course isn’t good enough because a course has to have an end.” [Star Tribune, 10/2/2006]
OCTOBER 4, 2006: Al Qaeda letter says prolonging the Iraq war “is in our interest.”
“The most important thing is that you continue in your jihad in Iraq …Indeed, prolonging the war is in our interest, with God’s permission.” [Counterterrorism Center at West Point, 10/4/2006]
OCTOBER 4, 2006: Iraq and Afghanistan war vets say military is overstretched, underequippied. 63 percent of all Iraq and Afghanistan veterans believe the Army and Marine Corps are overextended. 67 percent of Army and Marine veterans believe their forces are overextended. [VoteVets Action Fund, 10/4/2006]
OCTOBER 6, 2006: In Baghdad, Rice says Iraq is “making progress.” Her trip “began inauspiciously when the military transport plane that brought her to Baghdad was forced to circle the city for about 40 minutes” because the airport was under attack. [New York Times, 10/6/2006]
OCTOBER 8, 2006: U.S. casualties in Iraq spiking.
“The number of U.S troops wounded in Iraq has surged to its highest monthly level in nearly two years as American GIs fight block-by-block in Baghdad to try to check a spiral of sectarian violence that U.S. commanders warn could lead to civil war.” [Washington Post, 10/8/2006]
OCTOBER 11, 2006: 655,000: The number of Iraqis who have died since March 2003, according to a team of epidemiologists at Johns Hopkins University. [Washington Post, 10/11/2006]
OCTOBER 12, 2006: British Army chief: “We must quit Iraq soon.”
“The head of the Army is calling for British troops to withdraw from Iraq ’soon’ or risk catastrophic consequences for both Iraq and British society.” [The Daily Mail, 10/12/2006]
OCOTBER 14, 2006: Three in four Americans support bringing troops home from Iraq. A new Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll finds that nearly three in four Americans (73 percent) agree that U.S. troops should start to come home. [Fox News, 10/14/2006]
OCTOBER 15, 2006: Hagel: “We need to find a new strategy, a way out of Iraq.”
“The American people are not going to continue to support, sustain a policy that puts American troops in the middle of a civil war.” He added, “So we need to find a new strategy, a way out of Iraq, because the entire Middle East, Wolf, is more combustible than it’s been probably since 1948, and more dangerous, and we’re in the middle of it.” [CNN, 10/15/2006]
OCTOBER 17, 2006: The number of embedded journalists reporting in Iraq has dropped to its lowest level.
Some journalists blame the decline on Pentagon bureaucracy, the reporting restrictions journalists face, and pressure by some commanders to avoid “negative” coverage. [Editor and Publisher, 10/17/2006]
OCTOBER 18, 2006: “Ten U.S. soldiers were killed in Iraq on Tuesday, one of the bloodiest days of the war for American forces outside of major combat operations.” [Washington Post, 10/18/2006]
OCTOBER 18 2006: Electricity levels in Baghdad at lowest since U.S. invasion. Residents of Baghdad are receiving just 2.4 hours of electricity this month, compared to an average of 16-24 hours of electricity before the U.S. invasion. The lowest level prior to this month was 3.9 hours/day. [Brookings Institution, 10/18/2006]
OCTOBER 19, 2006: Staff on the House Veterans Affairs Committee report that the “number of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans who have sought help for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) doubled — from nearly 4,500 to more than 9,000 — from October 2005 through June 2006.” [McClatchy, 10/18/2006]
OCTOBER 20, 2006: Former top Bush administration official calls for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.
Richard Armitage proposed notifying “the Iraqis that we’re going to be drawing down a reasonable but careful percentage of our troops over a reasonable interval of months — just for example, 5 percent of troops every three months.” [New Jersey Express Times, 10/20/2006]
OCTOBER 23, 2006: Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA): “We have to face the fact that Iraq is a civil war.” [CNN, 10/23/2006]
OCTOBER 24, 2006: 19 percent of Americans believe the United States is winning the war in Iraq, an all-time low. [USA Today, 10/24/2006]
OCTOBER 30, 2006: October is the fourth deadliest month for American troops since the war began. “The U.S. military announced the death of the 100th servicemember killed in Iraq this month.” [CBS News, 10/30/2006]
NOVEMBER 1, 2006: Classified military briefing reports Iraq “edging toward chaos.”
A classified briefing prepared two weeks ago by the United States Central Command portrays Iraq as edging toward chaos, in a chart that the military is using as a barometer of civil conflict. … An intelligence summary at the bottom of the slide reads “urban areas experiencing ‘ethnic cleansing’ campaigns to consolidate control” and ‘”iolence at all-time high, spreading geographically.” [New York Times, 11/1/2006]
NOVEMBER 2, 2006: 1,289 Iraqi civilians estimated to have died in October 2006 in political violence. The number — nearly 42 people per day — was up 18 percent from the 1,089 of such fatalities in September. [Washington Post, 11/2/2006]
NOVEMBER 3, 2006: “Rumsfeld must go.” A group of military publications — the Army Times, Air Force Times, Navy Times, and Marine Corps Times — call on Rumsfeld to resign:
“It is one thing for the majority of Americans to think Rumsfeld has failed. But when the nation’s current military leaders start to break publicly with their defense secretary, then it is clear that he is losing control of the institution he ostensibly leads.” [MSNBC, 11/3/2006]
NOVEMBER 5, 2006: Saddam sentenced to death by hanging.
Iraq’s High Tribunal on Sunday found Saddam Hussein guilty of crimes against humanity and sentenced him to hang for the 1982 killing of 148 Shiites in the city of Dujail. [AP, 11/5/2006]
NOVEMBER 8, 2006: Donald Rumsfeld resigns as Secretary of Defense. One day after the midterm elections that turned control of Congress over to the Democrats, Bush announced Rumsfeld would step down and be replaced by former CIA Director Robert Gates. [CNN, 11/8/2006]
NOVEMBER 9, 2006: Iraqi health minister reports 150,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed in the war — “about three times previously accepted estimates.” [Forbes, 11/9/2006]
NOVEMBER 12, 2006: Up to 150 people are abducted from a government research institute in downtown Baghdad, “the largest mass abduction since the start of the U.S. occupation.” Iraq’s higher education minister orders all universities closed. [Washington Post, 11/13/2006]
NOVEMBER 20, 2006: Iraqis demand U.S. troops withdraw.
“Seven out of ten Iraqis overall–including both the Shia majority (74%) and the Sunni minority (91%)–say they want the United States to leave within a year.” [World Public Opinion poll, 11/20/06]
NOVEMBER 23, 2006: 144 people die in the war’s deadliest attack to date.
“In the deadliest sectarian attack in Baghdad since the American-led invasion, explosions from five powerful car bombs and a mortar shell tore through crowded intersections and marketplaces in the teeming Shiite district of Sadr City on Thursday afternoon, killing at least 144 people and wounding 206, the police said.” [New York Times, 11/23/2006]
NOVEMBER 25, 2006: The Iraq insurgency is now self-sustaining financially,”raising tens of millions of dollars a year from oil smuggling, kidnapping, counterfeiting, corrupt charities and other crimes … a classified United States government” concludes. [New York Times, 11/25/2006]
NOVEMBER 27, 2006: NBC News decides to refer to war in Iraq as a “civil war.” [MSNBC, 11/27/2006]
NOVEMBER 28, 2006: A classified Marine Corps intelligence report concludes that in Western Iraq, “the social and political situation has deteriorated to a point” where U.S. and Iraqi troops “are no longer capable of militarily defeating the insurgency in al-Anbar.” [Washington Post, 11/27/2006]
NOVEMBER 29, 2006: Pentagon plans Iraq escalation.
“The Pentagon is developing plans to send four more battalions to Iraq … partly to boost security in Baghdad … The extra combat engineer battalions of reserves, likely to be sent to Baghdad, would total about 3,500 troops.” [AP, 11/29/2006]
NOVEMBER 29, 2006: 68 percent of Americans say they believe there is a civil war in Iraq. [Wall Street Journal, 11/29/2006]
NOVEMBER 30, 2006: Condoleezza Rice says Iraq is not in a civil war because “the Iraqis don’t see it that way.” [CBS Evening News, 11/30/06]
DECEMBER 2, 2006: “Not working well.” Donald Rumsfeld, describing the Iraq strategy in a classified memo written two days before he resigned. [New York Times, 12/2/2006]
DECEMBER 5, 2006: Gates acknowledges U.S. is not winning the war in Iraq. Asked if he believes the U.S. is winning the war in Iraq, Defense Secretary nominee Robert Gates responds, “no, sir.” [Fox News, 12/5/2006]
DECEMBER 6, 2006: Iraq Study Group Report released. Key recommendations include:
RECOMMENDATION 22: The President should state that the United States does not seek permanent military bases in Iraq. If the Iraqi government were to request a temporary base or bases, then the U.S. government could consider that request as it would in the case of any other government.
RECOMMENDATION 35: The United States must make active efforts to engage all parties in Iraq, with the exception of al Qaeda. The United States must find a way to talk to Grand Ayatollah Sistani, Moqtada al-Sadr, and militia and insurgent leaders.
RECOMMENDATION 40: The United States should not make an open-ended commitment to keep large numbers of American troops deployed in Iraq.
[United States Institute of Peace, 12/6/2006]
DECEMBER 8, 2006: 71 percent of Americans who disapprove of President Bush’s handling of the Iraq war, an “alltime high.” [AP, 12/8/2006]
DECEMBER 19, 2006: The White House is “aggressively promoting” a plan to send “15,000 to 30,000 more troops” to Iraq “over the unanimous disagreement of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,” the Washington Post reports. [Washington Post, 12/19/2006]
DECEMBER 19, 2006: 11 percent of Americans support escalating the war in Iraq by adding at least 20,000 additional U.S. forces. [CNN, 12/19/2006]
DECEMBER 20, 2006: Army Gen. John Abizaid, commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East, submit plans to retire. [LAT, 12/20/06]
DECEMBER 21, 2006: Lieberman: “I strongly believe that additional U.S. troops must be deployed to Baghdad.” [AP, 12/21/2006]
DECEMBER 21, 2006: 32 journalists died in Iraq in 2006, “the deadliest year for the press in a single country that the Committee to Protect Journalists has ever recorded.” [Committee to Protect Journalists, 12/21/2006]
DECEMBER 23, 2006: 76. Number of American troops who have died in Iraq this month, “making December the second deadliest month for U.S. servicemen in 2006.” [AP, 12/23/2006]
DECEMBER 30, 2006: Saddam executed by hanging. The execution was conducted just before the Sunni Muslim celebration of Eid al-Adha. “It was a slap in the face to Sunni Arabs.” [Salon, 12/30/06]
Bush: “When it came to execute him, it looked like it was kind of a revenge killing. And it sent a mixed signal to the American people and the people around the world. And it just goes to show that this is a government that has still got some maturation to do.” [PBS Newshour, 1/16/07]
DECEMBER 2006: 3rd most deadly month in Iraq. 112 U.S. troops killed. [icasualties]
2007
JANUARY 2, 2007: 16,723 Iraqis died violent deaths in 2006, according to Iraqi authorities. Iraqi civilian deaths hit a record high in December 2006. [New York Times, 1/2/2007]
JANUARY 2, 2007: Gen. George Casey warns against troop escalation in Iraq.
“It’s always been my view that a heavy and sustained American military presence was not going to solve the problems in Iraq over the long term.” [New York Times, 1/2/2007]
JANUARY 2, 2007: “For the first time, more troops disapprove of the president’s handling of the war than approve of it. Barely one-third of service members approve of the way the president is handling the war, according to the 2006 Military Times Poll.” [Military Times, 1/2/2007]
JANUARY 3, 2007: Death toll of U.S. soldiers in Iraq reaches 3,000 [CNN, 1/3/07]
JANUARY 10, 2007: New troops in Iraq lack needed armor.
“The thousands of troops that President Bush is expected to order to Iraq will join the fight largely without the protection of the latest armored vehicles that withstand bomb blasts far better than the Humvees in wide use, military officers said.” [Baltimore Sun, 1/10/2007]
JANUARY 10, 2007: Bush announces escalation. “I’ve committed more than 20,000 additional American troops to Iraq.” [Bush, 1/10/2007]
JANUARY 11, 2007: 70 percent of Americans oppose sending more troops to Iraq.
“Just 35 percent think it was right for the United States to go to war, a new low in AP polling and a reversal from two years ago, when two-thirds of Americans thought it was the correct move.” [AP, 1/11/2007]
JANUARY 11, 2007: Hagel on escalation:”The most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam.” [CSPAN, 1/11/2007]
JANUARY 19, 2007: $8.4 billion: The cost of the Iraq war per month. “It rose from a monthly ‘burn rate’ of about $4.4 billion during the first year of fighting in fiscal 2003.” [LA Times, 1/19/2007]
JANUARY 20, 2007: 25 U.S. service members killed, marking “the third-deadliest day for American troops since the March 2003 invasion of Iraq.” Twelve of the U.S. deaths on Saturday came in the crash of a Black Hawk helicopter northeast of Baghdad. [Baltimore Sun, 1/22/2007]
JANUARY 22, 2007: Sen. John Warner (R-VA) introduces resolution opposing Bush’s Iraq plan. [Washington Post, 1/23/07]
JANUARY 26, 2007: The White House has “authorized the U.S. military to kill or capture Iranians who are believed to be working with Iraqi militias.” [Washington Post,1/25/2007]
JANUARY 30, 2007: The Army and Marine Corps “are short thousands of vehicles, armor kits and other equipment needed to supply” the extra 21,500 troops President Bush plans to send to Iraq. “It’s inevitable that that has to happen, unless five brigades of up-armored Humvees fall out of the sky,” one senior Army official said. [Washington Post, 1/30/2007]
FEBRUARY 1, 2007: 150 Iraqis are killed in suicide bomb attack on a crowded market in Hilla, Iraq. [ABC News, 2/1/2007]
FEBRUARY 2, 2007: Iraqi civilian deaths hit monthly high.
“Iraqi officials said on Thursday that nearly 2,000 civilians had died in January, a new monthly high that suggests that a crackdown by the government of prime minister Nouri al-Maliki against militias has failed to yield any immediate results.” [2/2/2007]
FEBRUARY 2, 2007: National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq declares Iraq is worse than a civil war. The document states that the term civil war “accurately describes key elements of the Iraqi conflict,” though it “does not adequately capture the complexity of the conflict.” [Washington Post, 2/3/2007]
FEBRUARY 2, 2007: Bush requests another $100 billion for Iraq
“President George W. Bush will ask Congress for $99.7 billion for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars for rest of fiscal year 2007 and more than $145 billion for fiscal year 2008. … That money comes on top of $70 billion that Congress approved for the current fiscal year, adding up to a total of $170 billion and making it the most expensive year yet for the war.” [Reuters, 2/2/07]
FEBRUARY 4, 2007: “There has been an ongoing effort to target our helicopters,” chief U.S. military spokesman William Caldwell told reporters in Baghdad. “We have had four helicopters shot down … It appears they were all the result of some kind of ground fire.” [Washington Post, 2/5/2007]
FEBRUARY 6, 2007: Pace: Not enough equipment to support escalation.
“U.S. Marine Gen. Peter Pace admitted to the Senate Armed Services Committee Tuesday equipment will be a problem when U.S. forces in Iraq are increased. … Pace said the military has about 41,000 armored vehicles in Iraq — fewer than will be needed ‘to cover all of the troops that are deploying.’ Pace says it will be July before enough equipment is in place.” [UPI, 2/6/2007]
FEBRUARY 10, 2007: Gen. David Petraeus officially takes charge of U.S. forces in Iraq, replacing Gen. George Casey, who will become Army chief of staff. [Defenselink, 2/12/07]
FEBRUARY 12, 2007: Car bombings kill at least 80 in Iraq.
“Thunderous explosions and dense black smoke swirled through the center of Baghdad Monday when at least two car bombs - one parked in an underground garage - tore through a crowded marketplace, setting off dozens of secondary explosions and killing at least 71 people, police said. Another bombing nearby killed at least nine.” [AP, 2/12/2007]
FEBRUARY 13, 2007: 63 percent of Americans want all U.S. troops home from Iraq by the end of 2008. [CBS News, 2/13/2007]
FEBRUARY 16, 2007: The House opposes escalation. By a vote of 246-182, the House of Representatives passes a resolution opposing President Bush’s escalation in Iraq, marking the first time in four years that Congress has voted decisively against Bush’s Iraq policy. [C-SPAN, 2/16/2007]
FEBRUARY 17, 2007: Senate rejects debate on anti-escalation resolution.
“The Senate gridlocked on the Iraq war in a sharply worded showdown on Saturday as Republicans foiled a Democratic attempt to rebuke President Bush over his deployment of 21,500 additional combat troops. The vote was 56-34.”
That was four short of the 60 needed to advance the measure, which is identical to a nonbinding resolution that passed the House. [C-SPAN, 2/17/2007]
FEBRUARY 18, 2007: A Washington Post investigation reveals that returning soldiers face deplorable conditions at Walter Reed’s outpatient center
The entire building, constructed between the world wars, often smells like greasy carry-out. Signs of neglect are everywhere: mouse droppings, belly-up cockroaches, stained carpets, cheap mattresses. [Washington Post, 2/18/2007]
FEBRUARY 21, 2007: Tony Blair announces a timetable for the withdrawal of U.K. troops from Iraq. [BBC, 2/21/2007]
FEBRUARY 22, 2007: 8th helicopter shot down in Iraq in a month
“Insurgents shot down an eighth US helicopter in Iraq yesterday in what the Pentagon acknowledges is a change of tactics, as well as the use of more sophisticated weaponry.” [Guardian, 2/22/07]
FEBRUARY 22, 2007: Insurgents turn to chlorine bombs
“For the third time in a month, Iraqi insurgents have set off a make-shift chemical bomb. All three have used chlorine, which can kill if inhaled and can burn the eyes and skin. The use of chemicals in attacks is a new tactic, reflecting the adaptibility of insurgent groups.” [NPR, 2/22/07]
MARCH 2, 2007: Pentagon says 7,000 more troops will be sent to Iraq.
“President Bush’s planned escalation of U.S. forces in Iraq will require as many as 28,500 troops, Pentagon officials told a Senate committee Thursday.” [USA Today, 3/2/07]
MARCH 8, 2007: “Democratic leaders in the U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday proposed legislation that would bring American combat troops out of Iraq by August 2008 at the latest.” [Reuters, 3/8/07]
“At the same time Senate Democrats were preparing their own bill with binding legislation that would require a withdrawal from Iraq to begin no less than 120 days after the legislation is enacted with the goal of redeployment by March 31, 2008.” [FoxNews.com, 3/8/07]
MARCH 10, 2007: Senior Administration Official: “Right now there is no trend” that escalation is working. [Washington Post, 3/10/07]
MARCH 12, 2007: Pentagon planning fallback strategy if escalation fails. [LAT, 3/12/07]
MARCH 13, 2007: For the first time since the Iraq war began, less than half of Americans (46 percent) believe the United States can win in Iraq. [CNN, 3/13/07]
MARCH 14, 2007: The Pentagon acknowledges Iraq is a civil war
“In its bleakest assessment of the war to date, a quarterly Pentagon report said that last October through December was the most violent three-month period since 2003. Attacks and casualties suffered by coalition and Iraqi forces and civilians were higher than any other similar time span, said the report.” [AP, 3/14/07]
http://thinkprogress.org/iraq-timeline
-
BigSky, I find it very interesting and suspect that you would rather go back and forth with me (mostly about me) rather than to discuss numbers. If it is like you say, "Numbers can be made to do anything one wants.", then you would make them do what you want and debate it.
How many terrorist attacks have occurred on the mainland since going on the offensive? How many times has saddam tried to attack us since we invaded? How many terrorists and leaders of Al-Qaeda have been captured since going on the offensive compared to how many Clinton captured by not doing anything?
Do you think terrorists just give up without a fight?
My how novel, you think its about you. Did you really think you can insult and make threats towards me and I wasnt going to point it out? Really now.
It is alot easier to turn what I say around though, I'll give you that! It's also quite funny to me how you are so preceptive to decipher implications that I have supposedly made but can so easily dismiss yourself from making one yourself. I think the "simpleton" innuendo was pretty clear and I did read it again, several times.
There is no innuendo between you and that sentence, that is pretty clear, but I cannot control your reading comprehension skills to that affect nor am I going to try. You are free to jump to conclusions.
I think nextnoel might be on to something. I for one would like to continue this debate but only if it is more constructive.
I would just like to add one more thing before letting go for now. Contrary to what you think BigSky, I do not carry hatred or anger toward you nor is my temper "flaring",
I might belief that if it were not for you constant name calling and the making of threats. ;)
When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for. That is, at the end of the first Gulf War, we knew what he had. We knew what was destroyed in all the inspection processes and that was a lot. And then we bombed with the British for four days in 1998. We might have gotten it all; we might have gotten half of it; we might have gotten none of it. But we didn't know. So I thought it was prudent for the president to go to the U.N. and for the U.N. to say you got to let these inspectors in, and this time if you don't cooperate the penalty could be regime change, not just continued sanctions."
--Bill Clinton, July 22, 2003
Iraq since the 90's has had a history of violating UN resolutions to WMD. Saddam numerous times committed, tried to commit and planned to commit numerous different attacks on the US, its people or the military.
We could no longer be the Paper Tiger of the Clinton era and in fact had to take a stand.
We could have very well went in and bombed the crap out of everything and left the country to the terrorists. However we have a little more decency than that. You forget we are rebuilding Iraq for a better future.
Even Clinton knew it was getting to be time to act.
Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)
--H.R.4655--
H.R.4655
One Hundred Fifth Congress
of the
United States of America
AT THE SECOND SESSION
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
the twenty-seventh day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-eight
An Act
To establish a program to support a transition to democracy in Iraq.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Iraq Liberation Act of 1998'.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress makes the following findings:
(1) On September 22, 1980, Iraq invaded Iran, starting an 8 year war in which Iraq employed chemical weapons against Iranian troops and ballistic missiles against Iranian cities.
(2) In February 1988, Iraq forcibly relocated Kurdish civilians from their home villages in the Anfal campaign, killing an estimated 50,000 to 180,000 Kurds.
(3) On March 16, 1988, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iraqi Kurdish civilian opponents in the town of Halabja, killing an estimated 5,000 Kurds and causing numerous birth defects that affect the town today.
(4) On August 2, 1990, Iraq invaded and began a 7 month occupation of Kuwait, killing and committing numerous abuses against Kuwaiti civilians, and setting Kuwait's oil wells ablaze upon retreat.
(5) Hostilities in Operation Desert Storm ended on February 28, 1991, and Iraq subsequently accepted the ceasefire conditions specified in United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (April 3, 1991) requiring Iraq, among other things, to disclose fully and permit the dismantlement of its weapons of mass destruction programs and submit to long-term monitoring and verification of such dismantlement.
(6) In April 1993, Iraq orchestrated a failed plot to assassinate former President George Bush during his April 14-16, 1993, visit to Kuwait.
(7) In October 1994, Iraq moved 80,000 troops to areas near the border with Kuwait, posing an imminent threat of a renewed invasion of or attack against Kuwait.
(8.) On August 31, 1996, Iraq suppressed many of its opponents by helping one Kurdish faction capture Irbil, the seat of the Kurdish regional government.
(9) Since March 1996, Iraq has systematically sought to deny weapons inspectors from the United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) access to key facilities and documents, has on several occasions endangered the safe operation of UNSCOM helicopters transporting UNSCOM personnel in Iraq, and has persisted in a pattern of deception and concealment regarding the history of its weapons of mass destruction programs.
(10) On August 5, 1998, Iraq ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM, and subsequently threatened to end long-term monitoring activities by the International Atomic Energy Agency and UNSCOM.
(11) On August 14, 1998, President Clinton signed Public Law 105-235, which declared that `the Government of Iraq is in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations.'.
(12) On May 1, 1998, President Clinton signed Public Law 105-174, which made $5,000,000 available for assistance to the Iraqi democratic opposition for such activities as organization, training, communication and dissemination of information, developing and implementing agreements among opposition groups, compiling information to support the indictment of Iraqi officials for war crimes, and for related purposes.
SEC. 3. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING UNITED STATES POLICY TOWARD IRAQ.
It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.
SEC. 4. ASSISTANCE TO SUPPORT A TRANSITION TO DEMOCRACY IN IRAQ.
(a) AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE- The President may provide to the Iraqi democratic opposition organizations designated in accordance with section 5 the following assistance:
(1) BROADCASTING ASSISTANCE- (A) Grant assistance to such organizations for radio and television broadcasting by such organizations to Iraq.
(B) There is authorized to be appropriated to the United States Information Agency $2,000,000 for fiscal year 1999 to carry out this paragraph.
(2) MILITARY ASSISTANCE- (A) The President is authorized to direct the drawdown of defense articles from the stocks of the Department of Defense, defense services of the Department of Defense, and military education and training for such organizations.
(B) The aggregate value (as defined in section 644(m) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961) of assistance provided under this paragraph may not exceed $97,000,000.
(b) HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE- The Congress urges the President to use existing authorities under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to provide humanitarian assistance to individuals living in areas of Iraq controlled by organizations designated in accordance with section 5, with emphasis on addressing the needs of individuals who have fled to such areas from areas under the control of the Saddam Hussein regime.
(c) RESTRICTION ON ASSISTANCE- No assistance under this section shall be provided to any group within an organization designated in accordance with section 5 which group is, at the time the assistance is to be provided, engaged in military cooperation with the Saddam Hussein regime.
(d) NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT- The President shall notify the congressional committees specified in section 634A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 at least 15 days in advance of each obligation of assistance under this section in accordance with the procedures applicable to reprogramming notifications under section 634A.
(e) REIMBURSEMENT RELATING TO MILITARY ASSISTANCE-
(1) IN GENERAL- Defense articles, defense services, and military education and training provided under subsection (a)(2) shall be made available without reimbursement to the Department of Defense except to the extent that funds are appropriated pursuant to paragraph (2).
(2) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS- There are authorized to be appropriated to the President for each of the fiscal years 1998 and 1999 such sums as may be necessary to reimburse the applicable appropriation, fund, or account for the value (as defined in section 644(m) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961) of defense articles, defense services, or military education and training provided under subsection (a)(2).
(f) AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS- (1) Amounts authorized to be appropriated under this section are authorized to remain available until expended.
(2) Amounts authorized to be appropriated under this section are in addition to amounts otherwise available for the purposes described in this section.
(g) AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE- Activities under this section (including activities of the nature described in subsection (b)) may be undertaken notwithstanding any other provision of law.
SEC. 5. DESIGNATION OF IRAQI DEMOCRATIC OPPOSITION ORGANIZATION.
(a) INITIAL DESIGNATION- Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall designate one or more Iraqi democratic opposition organizations that the President determines satisfy the criteria set forth in subsection (c) as eligible to receive assistance under section 4.
(b) DESIGNATION OF ADDITIONAL ORGANIZATIONS- At any time subsequent to the initial designation pursuant to subsection (a), the President may designate one or more additional Iraqi democratic opposition organizations that the President determines satisfy the criteria set forth in subsection (c) as eligible to receive assistance under section 4.
(c) CRITERIA FOR DESIGNATION- In designating an organization pursuant to this section, the President shall consider only organizations that--
(1) include a broad spectrum of Iraqi individuals, groups, or both, opposed to the Saddam Hussein regime; and
(2) are committed to democratic values, to respect for human rights, to peaceful relations with Iraq's neighbors, to maintaining Iraq's territorial integrity, and to fostering cooperation among democratic opponents of the Saddam Hussein regime.
(d) NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT- At least 15 days in advance of designating an Iraqi democratic opposition organization pursuant to this section, the President shall notify the congressional committees specified in section 634A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 of his proposed designation in accordance with the procedures applicable to reprogramming notifications under section 634A.
SEC. 6. WAR CRIMES TRIBUNAL FOR IRAQ.
Consistent with section 301 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993 (Public Law 102-138), House Concurrent Resolution 137, 105th Congress (approved by the House of Representatives on November 13, 1997), and Senate Concurrent Resolution 78, 105th Congress (approved by the Senate on March 13, 1998), the Congress urges the President to call upon the United Nations to establish an international criminal tribunal for the purpose of indicting, prosecuting, and imprisoning Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi officials who are responsible for crimes against humanity, genocide, and other criminal violations of international law.
SEC. 7. ASSISTANCE FOR IRAQ UPON REPLACEMENT OF SADDAM HUSSEIN REGIME.
It is the sense of the Congress that once the Saddam Hussein regime is removed from power in Iraq, the United States should support Iraq's transition to democracy by providing immediate and substantial humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people, by providing democracy transition assistance to Iraqi parties and movements with democratic goals, and by convening Iraq's foreign creditors to develop a multilateral response to Iraq's foreign debt incurred by Saddam Hussein's regime.
SEC. 8. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces (except as provided in section 4(a)(2)) in carrying out this Act.
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Vice President of the United States and
President of the Senate.
Comment on timeline?
How about this.
Dec 14, 2003
Saddam no longer is able to murder, beat, rape innocent men, women and children of Iraq. Saddam is no longer able to attack its neighbor countries nor attack or plan attacks on the US. Saddam is no longer able to give government aid to members of Al-Qaeda.
Is that what you want to hear?
-
Just what is the tipping point we should have waited for before taking action in Iraq there george?
After a mushroom cloud, chemical or biological attack occurred on the US from Saddam?
If any of those were to occur from Saddam, you can bet we might have responded with much more than smart bombs and millions of innocent people may well have died before its was done.
-
Even Clinton knew it was getting to be time to act.
Nobody is arguing that action must be taken. Have I ever said that? NOPE.
Is that what you want to hear?
It's interesting, but not exactly what I had in mind. Does it have to do with our current administrations position and strategies in Iraq?
-
Nobody is arguing that action must be taken. Have I ever said that? NOPE.
There was only one way to remove Saddam, that was to go in and get him.
We tried to eliminate him through bombs but were unable to do so. Short of carpet bombing or nuking Baghdad and killing millions using just bombs wasn't going to work to get him.
It's interesting, but not exactly what I had in mind. Does it have to do with our current administrations position and strategies in Iraq?
What it has to do is that we are not nor were we ever going to go in and just capture saddam and leave the country to terrorists. Our strategy in Iraq is for the bigger picture of having a start point in the middle east to help eliminate terrorism. Its not the short term goal one keeps their eye on when fighting terrorism, its the long term goal we have to keep in mind. Starting a domino affect to push democracy type governments where all people have a say, including women.
-
What if we "back out" of Iraq (majority of troops) giving a possible illusion to terrorists, and concentrate on more effective and efficient methods on seeking out leaders in terrorism with intelligence and support from the world community (covering all four corners)? Is it possible that a semi withdraw would relieve some "perceived" pressure on those whom we seek and possibly they will come out from their little tunnels or wherever they are hiding? I feel as if we (the U.S.) are at a stand still and conditions in Iraq are worsening. There are reports of a civil war going on now. I understand that this is a long term war, not in Iraq but against terrorism and also that things usually get worse before getting better but is it possible that we are at that point now. Maybe this is the worse and the better is on the way with changes in strategy. Maybe Clinton p*cked up and maybe Bush is a donkey's ass and maybe the next administration will right was has been done wrong. I am an American and exercising my voice is my right and privilege. We all want to live a peaceful life without worrying about terrorist. Unfortunately that day may never come but it sure would be nice to have a hold on it and to be regarded by the rest of the world as being the leader in anti-terrorism. Now that would be nice, that's what I would like to see.
-
What if we "back out" of Iraq (majority of troops) giving a possible illusion to terrorists, and concentrate on more effective and efficient methods on seeking out leaders in terrorism with intelligence and support from the world community (covering all four corners)? Is it possible that a semi withdraw would relieve some "perceived" pressure on those whom we seek and possibly they will come out from their little tunnels or wherever they are hiding? I feel as if we (the U.S.) are at a stand still and conditions in Iraq are worsening. There are reports of a civil war going on now. I understand that this is a long term war, not in Iraq but against terrorism and also that things usually get worse before getting better but is it possible that we are at that point now. Maybe this is the worse and the better is on the way with changes in strategy. Maybe Clinton p*cked up and maybe Bush is a donkey's ass and maybe the next administration will right was has been done wrong. I am an American and exercising my voice is my right and privilege. We all want to live a peaceful life without worrying about terrorist. Unfortunately that day may never come but it sure would be nice to have a hold on it and to be regarded by the rest of the world as being the leader in anti-terrorism. Now that would be nice, that's what I would like to see.
Why do they target America? Is because it because we meddle in the Mideast's business? If we pull out, would they leave us alone? I don't think so. Have we fought the war on terror in the best possible way? I don't think so, but I'm not sure anyone knows the best possible way. What is it that the terrorists want? I think that the bottom line is they want supremacy, and America has it. Supremacy, has been the underlying factor in war throughout history. Who do you want having supremacy, America or terrorists? I vote America!!!
-
Why do they target America? Is because it because we meddle in the Mideast's business? If we pull out, would they leave us alone? I don't think so. Have we fought the war on terror in the best possible way? I don't think so, but I'm not sure anyone knows the best possible way. What is it that the terrorists want? I think that the bottom line is they want supremacy, and America has it. Supremacy, has been the underlying factor in war throughout history. Who do you want having supremacy, America or terrorists? I vote America!!!
LOL, I think you have just summed up in one small paragrph the entire arguement that George Jung and BigSky have been having the entire time. I have to say I agree with your statement.
-
Anyone remember the children's game "King of the Mountain?
-
Anyone remember the children's game "King of the Mountain?
yep, lots of fun to play during the winter on the huge mounds snowplows made in the apartment parking lot.
-
Anyone remember the children's game "King of the Mountain?
yep, lots of fun to play during the winter on the huge mounds snowplows made in the apartment parking lot.
Right! And whoever was on top of the hill had to be knocked off - maybe we have so many wars because we never grew up!
-
Bigsky is so correct in what he is stating about this Iraq War,,,AMERICA is doing extremely well in this war, FACT..... the IRAQ extremist CAN'T DEFEAT AMERICAN,,,,,FACT...OUR ENEMY WILL NOT FACE US HEAD ,,they have use children in a car so they could go pass a check point,then parking the car the adults RUN AWAY and the car blows up with the kids in the back seat.
The only way America can be defeated in this war,,,,now pay close attention to this...
Will be by the UNDERMINING OF PRESIDENT BUSH,,BY THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY...
THAT IS GOING ON " NOW"..
FACT.. IF THE PEOPLE OF AMERICA DON'T BACK PRESIDENT BUSH IN THIS WAR AND STAND UP AND SUPPORT THIS WAR THEN AMERICA WILL FACE MORE ATTACKS.
NOW George will say,,why will America face more attacks if we dint support bush, and the war.
I will tell you why???
because our enemy will see that with a little time the American people will grow war-weary after a few years at war,then pull out.
Now if the DEMOCRATIC PARTY GETS THERE WAY IN THE UNDERMINING OF OUR PRESIDENT,, AND THIS WAR, AND WE DO PULL OUT ,,THAT MEANS THE NEXT TIME AMERICA IS AT WAR ,AND NEEDS THE BACKING OF AN ALLIANCE then guess what people,it will not be there because America will have the reputation of ,,CUT AND RUN,,,
bill Clinton was Doing nothing so AMERICA WAS ATTACKED ,,AND ATTACKED,, AND ATTACKED.
BUT NOW WE HAVE A PRESIDENT THAT STANDS UP TO KICK ASS AFTER ,9/11,,,
THANK YOU MR BUSH FOR DEFENDING AMERICA.. FIGHT THE GOOD FIGHT....
WITH PERSIDENT BUSH, AMERICA IS NOT A PAPER TIGER
The only reason
-
Anyone remember the children's game "King of the Mountain?
yep, lots of fun to play during the winter on the huge mounds snowplows made in the apartment parking lot.
Right! And whoever was on top of the hill had to be knocked off - maybe we have so many wars because we never grew up!
I vote for women to be in power! 8)
-
NOW George will say,,why will America face more attacks if we dint support bush, and the war.
The only thing George is going to say about that statement right now is..................."I have never and will never suggest that we should not support the war against terrorism." I think you may be confused about my position. I am all for a war on terror. In fact, I am so much in favor of a war on terror I want the whole world to jump into the fight. Thats how much ASS I want to kick. I take what you said as a great insult and I hope it was meant to be just that and you don't possibly believe that I don't want to put a stop to attacks on the United States of America or any other country for that matter. With the utmost sincerity - George
-
,,sorry George,i stand corrected, I dint know why in the devil i said ,George ,i meant bill,as in bill Clinton.but that was my fault. I would be upset about that statement to.
-
It's all good brother. Thank you.
I don't really see how Bill Clinton fits into the statement but I guess it doesn't matter.
-
I've been following these political debates, although I haven't joined in. I think I'm not politically educated enough to give an informed, reasoned opinion. I do, however, know someone with the education and personal experience to have formed a very valid opinion, and I thought I would quote him here. This is from the Baghdad Update that my brother-in-law emails from his post as a med tech in Baghdad.
"With all of the media hype about pulling troops out and ending this war, allow me to tell you some inside information from those who are IN this war. It's a topic we speak of frequently and the worst part of ANY war is being away from home and those we love, and of course the danger of being in a country where your death would be praised by many...but not praised by all...
Of those I speak to, and believe me I speak to many, the large majority of Soldiers, Airmen, Sailors and Marines feel that we are making a difference here. We are doing good. From those who are out knocking on doors to those who are on bases to those who fly over daily, they see changes. I don't believe one person said that this would be a clear and fast victory. I, for one, did not vote for our current President but am serving under his orders. With that, I was not excited to come over and was upset for having to leave my family. However, since being able to see what good we are doing first hand and being able to see the joy in the children's eyes after getting a pack of skittles, a pair of shoes, some pants, shirts, soaps...this IS INDEED the right place for the US to deploy its military.
To pull out now would be catastrophic. I say that only looking back in history as we did with Afghanistan. We pulled out after saying we would help (post war with Russia) and we left them hanging. We, essentially, helped to create Bin Laden. No big deal right???
By helping to create stability in so many parts of this city where there was none is a huge step. Those fighting us are truly thugs like you'd see in any major city...but they have been allowed to carry more deadly weapons for decades. They have grown accustom to having their way for years and refuse to give that up to some occupying force. Therefor, if they create and portray us as evil, they can declare us infidels and use religion to fight and gain support.
The problem is, we've created so many enemies in the past by promising something and not delivering that by leaving now or anytime soon, would create not just a resentment by a city, but by a country."
-
jbeany - I am glad to hear that your brother-in-law and the men/women he speaks with are still in good spirits. It is ultimately their strength that keeps our military togeather.
Can you imagine the condotion we would be in if they did not believe in what they were sent half way around the world to do? There are reports coming in more and more often about the physical and mental conditions of our brave men and women that are hard to argue about.
I don't believe that pulling our troops necessarily means drooping the cause. I firmly believe that a new approach to the mission is a step in the right direction. Heck, it may take years of fine tuning tactics and st rageties in order just to find effective methods of attack on terrorism. Does anybody remember why Bush insisted we invade Iraq in the first place? It was his "certainty" of weapons of mass destruction and the thought that the U.S. and the world was in immanent danger, leaving an invasion as the only option. You want to talk about propaganda? Talk about the Bush Administration after the 9/11 attacks. Did something need to be done......yea, of course it did......are we going about it the best way possible....I don't think so.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/07/guard.deployment.ap/index.html
As the body count increases in Iraq, some governors have begun to voice concerns about the military's heavy use of National Guard troops.
Oklahoma Gov. Brad Henry said the Pentagon is, in effect, reinstating the draft on the backs of National Guard units. Arkansas Gov. Mike Beebe said redeploying National Guard troops from his state would be "stretching our citizen soldiers thin." North Carolina Gov. Mike Easley said he's worried about morale and readiness.
Anybody that says our troops are better trained than ever or there is no need to worry about their condition............how do you explain this report? Aren't we as American citizens responsible for these men and women, the protectors of our freedom?
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/03/pdf/readiness_report.pdf
WASHINGTON - Coming on the heels of a controversial “surge” of 21,000 U.S. troops that has stretched the Army thin, the Defense Department is preparing to send an additional 12,000 National Guard combat forces to Iraq and Afghanistan, defense officials told NBC News on Thursday.
The troops will come from four Guard combat brigades in different states, the officials told NBC News’ chief Pentagon correspondent, Jim Miklaszewski. They said papers ordering the deployment, which would run for one year beginning in early 2008, were awaiting Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ signature.
The deployment is sure to ignite a firestorm on Capitol Hill, where Democrats in Congress are maneuvering to scale back the U.S. commitment in Iraq. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., is pushing a proposal to end most spending on the war in 2008, limiting it to targeted operations against al-Qaida, training for Iraqi troops and protection for U.S. forces.
Story continues below ↓
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
advertisement
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“I think this was all concealed until we got through the election,” said retired Army Gen. Barry McCaffrey, a military analyst for NBC News. “There’s no way to sustain the current rate of deployments without calling up probably nine National Guard brigades in the coming year for involuntary second tours.”
Gates did not mention the Guard deployment in a news conference Thursday at the Pentagon. Earlier this year, he revised Pentagon regulations to authorize more frequent Guard deployments to take some of the burden off the Army.
Surge timetable could be extended
Gates indicated Thursday that defense planners expected the U.S. military commitment to last well beyond the timetable of early next year that was put forth in the Pentagon’s arguments to send more than 20,000 regular Army troops to help quiet sectarian violence. That so-called surge of troops created intense opposition among Democrats and some Republicans in Congress early in the year.
“The truth is, I think people don’t know right now how long this will last,” he said. “The thinking of those involved in the process was that it would be a period of months, not a period of years or a year and a half or something like that."
Click for related coverage
4 U.K., 5 U.S. troops killed in Iraq
Daily Nightly: Encountering IEDs, running raids with the 3rd ID
Troops sent back to Iraq after short break
In a radio interview Wednesday, Gates warned that limiting the administration could lead to “ethnic cleansing.”
“What we do know is if Baghdad is in flames and the whole city is engulfed in violence, the prospects for a political solution are almost non-existent,” he said in an interview with syndicated radio host Laura Ingraham.
Army under heavy pressure
The grinding pace of the war is clearly wearing down the Army.
NBC VIDEO
• U.S. helicopter downed
April 5: The U.S. military helicopter came under fire near a Sunni stronghold. NBC’s Tom Aspell reports.
MSNBC
Three Army combat brigades have just been ordered back into Iraq less than a year after they left, and two brigades that were headed for Iraq were unable to take their customary four weeks of desert training at Fort Irwin, Calif.
Defense officials said the quick turnaround could hurt overall readiness by leaving those troops unprepared for other missions.
“When you only have one year or less between deployments, instead of the two that you would like to have, you then do not train to what we call full spectrum,” said Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17971410/
-
I've been following these political debates, although I haven't joined in. I think I'm not politically educated enough to give an informed, reasoned opinion.
It is our right and our duty to all of America and what we stand for, to voice our opinion. I am not heavy into politics either and I think that is also a reason many people use when it comes voting time and they choose not to participate. However, regardless of the information you have you can still speak out about it. No one ever said you can't change your position. I happen to disagree with most of what I see and hear about our current situation in Iraq and I believe more Americans need to speak out. Our future depends on it. Thank you for showing interest in our little debate here at IHD, I have become a little more informed as a result and I expect you have been also.
-
Back 2 years ago bill Clinton was talking about Bush ,and no basis to attack Iraq. MR bill Clinton is contradicting his previous statements and his comments represented a marked shift from the position he took as president .Clinton states,we have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st century.Clinton talking about Iraq states that they will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear,chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. bill Clinton also states that there is no more clear example of this threat than saddam Hussein's Iraq. his regime threatens the safety of his people, and the stability of his region and the security of all the rest of us. this was in a speech in Feb,1998 Clinton also talked about Iraq and there WMD. President Bush did not just think this up on his own about Iraq and the WMD he got some bad information and advice on WMD and is defending America and doing a good job at it. now the news media trays to make this war look bad when in fact the U. S. military is doing very well,
lets look at this, in 4 years of combat the K. I. A. is very good. you have to look at past wars and there K. I. A.
this is not Vietnam like i have heard some people say. just look at the K. I. A. DURING THAT WAR.
I to have some good Buddy's in Iraq and they to say that the troop moral is verry good and that they are making head way
this worse thing that could be done is to let the politics tell the Generals how to fight this war and when its time to pull out.
the democratic party will stop at nothing to destroy Bush . the cost of this will be Americas safety.
-
now the news media trays to make this war look bad when in fact the U. S. military is doing very well,
lets look at this, in 4 years of combat the K. I. A. is very good. you have to look at past wars and there K. I. A.
this is not Vietnam like i have heard some people say.
What other FACTS do you have to support the condition of the military? K.I.A. by itself is nothing.
-
Just three facts,now that not much but it Carry's the words of a lot of troops not all but a lot that my son is with.
fact one. my son ,he is also my buddy,
two and three,of his buddy's he was in ROTC with in school that are in Iraq
They are buddy's also of this family who came to my house to visit me while
on leave form Iraq 3 months ago to let me know they are ok and that my son was ok ,my son was not able to take leave because it was delayed.I have talked with my son and he tells me there attitude and moral is good ,and like the job that are doing.
K.I.A. is something to them ,and a lot of people AND ME.
-
Back 2 years ago bill Clinton was talking about Bush ,and no basis to attack Iraq. MR bill Clinton is contradicting his previous statements and his comments represented a marked shift from the position he took as president .Clinton states,we have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st century.Clinton talking about Iraq states that they will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear,chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. bill Clinton also states that there is no more clear example of this threat than saddam Hussein's Iraq. his regime threatens the safety of his people, and the stability of his region and the security of all the rest of us.
You are talking about a former president backpedaling. Will Bush not do the same when his term is up? Hindsight is always 20/20, people are allowed to change their position (maybe they find it easier to admit their mistakes after their term, maybe they think they are better off sticking to their guns. so to speak), in fact an ever changing position I think would be good.
Even the Democrats that sit in office as we speak know that we have to defend our future and nobody is suggesting to "allow them" to build weapons.
News Flash - Saddam is done.
this was in a speech in Feb,1998 Clinton also talked about Iraq and there WMD. President Bush did not just think this up on his own about Iraq and the WMD he got some bad information and advice on WMD and is defending America and doing a good job at it.
So it's not President Bush's fault huh? It's Mr. Clinton's fault and Mr. Bush just got bad information and advice on Weapons of Mass Destruction. Don't you think if you were going to be held accountable for your actions by ALL OF AMERICA, you had better make damn sure that you make decisions you will stand by. Maybe that's the beep beeps problem.
-
You are talking about a former president backpedaling. Will Bush not do the same when his term is up? Hindsight is always 20/20, people are allowed to change their position (maybe they find it easier to admit their mistakes after their term, maybe they think they are better off sticking to their guns. so to speak), in fact an ever changing position I think would be good.
More like Clinton is doing what he can to get his wife elected. Including lying about his position on the Iraq conflict now.
So it's not President Bush's fault huh? It's Mr. Clinton's fault and Mr. Bush just got bad information and advice on Weapons of Mass Destruction. Don't you think if you were going to be held accountable for your actions by ALL OF AMERICA, you had better make damn sure that you make decisions you will stand by. Maybe that's the beep beeps problem.
There was no bad information about WMD. The far left and the media have distorted everything about wmd and the events up to this action. From wmd to saddam attempt to buy yellowcake. The fact is we have found WMD in Iraq along with tons of other banned weapons and materials.
-
More like Clinton is doing what he can to get his wife elected. Including lying about his position on the Iraq conflict now.
I am sure you can support that. Can't you? Or are you just so far right that you only think and speak in one direction?
-
There is so much information out there who knows what to believe? i voted for Busch and I stand by my vote. I don't agree with every decision that is made, but no matter who is President, they won't make everyone happy with every decision.
-
The only way America can be defeated in this war,,,,now pay close attention to this...
Will be by the UNDERMINING OF PRESIDENT BUSH,,BY THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY...
THAT IS GOING ON " NOW"..
FACT..
So Democrat equals bad?
Republican equals good?
??? ??? ???
That's a very narrow minded way of thinking. Maybe that's your opinion but it's not a fact.
Donna
-
I am sure you can support that. Can't you? Or are you just so far right that you only think and speak in one direction?
Did you ever pay attention to all the years of what went on in Iraq during the Clinton years?
If you did you would know he is full of it on his sudden change in position just in time to fit in with the far left.
-
Did you ever pay attention to all the years of what went on in Iraq during the Clinton years?
If you did you would know he is full of it on his sudden change in position just in time to fit in with the far left.
Man, that's why I hate polotics. Everyone is ready to point a finger. To be frank with you for a second......I don't give a shit why Mr. Clinton has changed his position. I hope everyone has changed their position to a direction where we will protect our freedom. Wouldn't you change you mind after 9/11. I mean so what if he is speaking differently now about Iraq or whatever else, is he not entitled to that, are you not in any way glad about it. The man wants to protect the country.....isn't that what all Americans want? Who wants to lie down? I mean you said the man was "lying" about his position now. That doesn't make any sense! It also apperas to me that you are not answering as many questions that are coming up in this debate and what you do answer is either opinion or is not backed up by "real facts". You don't want to discuss numbers, you don't want to talk about stop-loss or admit that our military forces are being strained. How about we start with those numbers BigSky? Didn't you say that you can make numbers mean anything you want?
To answer you question about me paying attention to what went on in Iraq when Clinton was President......not as much as I was paying attention to Monica giving head in the Oval Office!
-
The only way America can be defeated in this war,,,,now pay close attention to this...
Will be by the UNDERMINING OF PRESIDENT BUSH,,BY THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY...
THAT IS GOING ON " NOW"..
FACT..
So Democrat equals bad?
Republican equals good?
??? ??? ???
That's a very narrow minded way of thinking. Maybe that's your opinion but it's not a fact.
Donna
NO, Donna. Democrat does not equate to bad just as Republican does not equate to good. If someone does take that stance i think they are foolish and narrow minded as well. I have voted in several presidential elections and have never gone all republican or all democratic. In fact I don't consider myself to be in one category or another. Personally, I take the independent vote because I don't agree with "I'm Right", or "I'm Left". Both parties have pros and cons IMO. I think as of right now I would vote for Hilliary, but I obviously need to wait and make that decision when I have enough information to be sure.
-
You don't want to discuss numbers, you don't want to talk about stop-loss or admit that our military forces are being strained. How about we start with those numbers BigSky? Didn't you say that you can make numbers mean anything you want?
Just because you copy and paste a bunch of stuff doesn't mean it backs your position up despite you thinking so.
Case in point.
1. 3,217: Number of American troops killed in Iraq since the beginning of the war
2. 54: Percentage of troops killed who were 24 years old or younger
1. Troop death in any war isn't what one wants. Those numbers do not back you up in your stance and if you think they do you are mistaken. If that was the case we better pull out of California and Washington DC as the death rate far exceeds that in only two years. How about viewing it historically? That number is roughly just over 2/10 of one percent. Which you may note is roughly over 10% less than occurred in WWII.
2. Is that number surprising to you? You might note that those that do most of the jobs in the military are younger. This happens when you have a military that has an enlistment age as low as 17.
To answer you question about me paying attention to what went on in Iraq when Clinton was President......not as much as I was paying attention to Monica giving head in the Oval Office!
I have no doubt you were.
Politics are not hard to understand.
The good majority of the far left loves Bill C. and in their eyes can do no wrong. I mean he lied in court in the Paula Jones case, had his law license stripped and then had the SC bar him from ever appearing in front of them. All while being a sitting president. This meant nothing to them.
Hilliary voted for the war and voted on it using a vast amount of information that was gathered from her husbands terms. Hillary's problem now is she wants to cater to the far left that got Bill elected. However the problem is in order for her to do that she needs to flip flop on her position. This will be deadly to her ambitions because she will alienate the center and the just left and just right folks who will vote for her and she will get hounded by the country for pulling a John Kerry.
Now she gets Bill out there dancing like a monkey and have him cater to the far left. It will not matter to them what his position was before, its just that he agrees with them now even if its not genuine. Not only will they not hold anything against him, but he may well get to enough dancing so that he draws in their vote. They will think it will be like old times since Bill will be in the WH and will great influence with Hillary. Come one now. Latest polls say that over 50% of the country fears that she may become president yet she leads in the money.
-
Politics are not hard to understand.
Well there BigSky, Obviously not for a man of such great, genius, innovation, and intelligence, such as yourself! I believe you have changed my mind with your easy to understand polotics and policies, so clearly portrayed. I am thinking to myself as I type "What was I ever thinking about? I should have listened sooo long ago." I sure do wish there were more Americans that understood polotics like you do. If someone could have explained it to me sooner, I wouldn't have read all of those articles and coppied and pasted all of that worthless information.
No, no.....I mean it! You are a wonder to me! The way you took that number report and just turned the whole thing around, that was perhaps the most impressive argument you have made for yourself. It must be the way your brain works or something and what else can I say.....that kind of genius is becoming more and more uncommon. Less and less Americans have that ability to process information such as you do. You are becoming a rare breed indeed!
You got me my friend........I am at a complete loss.....I should have heard you from the beginning of this debate but I couldn't, it may be clear to you, but please be kind and remember I don't have a fully functional genius wonder of a brain with insight like you do BigSky.
BigSky.........
-
BigSky, I almost forgot..........................
Oh, Hell, never mind!
-
I have had one person tell me that K.I.A. means nothing,can you believe that,then asks me what info i have to talk about,or make a statement the moral of the troops.Well i then told this joker that my son is over there and so on,and that K.I.A.does mean something to the troops and other people and me. When you look at past wars our K.I.A. rate is verry good,also last time i was able to talk with my son he has stated that troop moral is good and they are doing well,my son wants to stay in this fight because like the other troops there they see the head way and progress thats made by them.
sounds like you too have some one over there in Iraq.
-
the question was ,what facts and then states K.I.A. is nothing??sorry but the K.I.A. is nothing statement by you does not sound good.
-
If you happen to be talking about me, George, then you are terribly mistaken. I said that K.I.A. by ITSELF means nothing. You can not judge, compare, measure, or whatever, a war on K.I.A. ALONE. I have read you posts and I have to tell you I have been taking it easy on you, so I hope you are talking about someone else in that last post bigshot99.
-
This thread gives me a headache. :P
-
Then stay out of it. What is the point of posting that? Unless you want to up your post count, that was completely unnecessary and I for one don't get it. There is absolutely nothing constructive about "This thread gives me a headache."
-
Wow, did someone wake up on the wrong side of the bed? Talk about having an attitude for no reason. ??? I like to post what I am thinking when I read it... excuse me for being that way, but it's how I am. I guess everyone who posted about "bringing out the lawnchairs and eating popcorn" should of shut up also? ::)
Have a GREAT day. :grouphug;
-
Then stay out of it. What is the point of posting that? Unless you want to up your post count, that was completely unnecessary and I for one don't get it. There is absolutely nothing constructive about "This thread gives me a headache."
Tsk tsk, bad form, out attacking people again are you? :-[ :'(
-
Back on topic....
America has been a target for years. however we are a country that thumbs its nose at other governments. And we believe in everyone getting up on their own two feet, although the poverty I see across the nation is slowly killing us as a country.
-
If you happen to be talking about me, George, then you are terribly mistaken. I said that K.I.A. by ITSELF means nothing. You can not judge, compare, measure, or whatever, a war on K.I.A. ALONE. I have read you posts and I have to tell you I have been taking it easy on you, so I hope you are talking about someone else in that last post bigshot99.
I have talked about the past four years at war and that our casualties are verry good compared too past wars.
I do care about the men and women that we have lost in combat don't get me wrong about that part
IF the number was lets say 80,000 or 120,000 in four years compared to the real number,would that mean something.
Vietnam ,how about that war.compare the out crys about the K.I.A. in that war
that by its self caused a huge with drawl of our troops ,that lead to the " increased "air bombing campaign.
I'm sure that you care about the fact that our K.I.A. is much less that of Vietnam.
or Does that mean nothing,,GEORGE. you tell me????
EDITED: Quote tage error fixed-kitkatz,moderator
-
now the news media trays to make this war look bad when in fact the U. S. military is doing very well,
lets look at this, in 4 years of combat the K. I. A. is very good. you have to look at past wars and there K. I. A.
this is not Vietnam like i have heard some people say.
What other FACTS do you have to support the condition of the military? K.I.A. by itself is nothing.
In the context of the conversation it seems to me that we were talking about how well our military is doing. You had said the the fact is that our military is doing very well. You followed up that statement with K.I.A. statistic of some sort. Am I right so far? Are you following me? I then asked what other FACTS do you have to support the condition of our military and then noted that K.I.A. (although a factor) by itself is nothing. There are too many other factors to take into consideration when assessing this (or any) war.
*Yes the casualties are not bad compared historically. Keep in mind this war is like no other in history.
*I know you care about the young men and women we have lost just as I know all Americans do.
*Weather the number is 3,250 or 80,000 or 120,000 it all means something.
*Is Vietnam a war most people are proud of? I have been to the Memorial several times and it is very moving. It makes me feel proud to be American and I feel proud that those soldiers fought for me and you and our country. They deserve tremendous respect.
*Do I care that we haven't sustained the loss of life like we did in Vietnam (or anywhere else really) YES. Why is that even a question?
Without looking back a page or so I think I can recall you further supporting your opinion about our military status with more "facts" which were buddies of yours that are serving our military now. Three of them I believe. I have to say that your support of them is something to also be proud of. However facts they are not.
It is my opinion that we must make changes in strategy, back out of Iraq, find support from all four corners of the world if we are going to have success fight GLOBAL TERRORISM. It is not the men and women following orders that I have trouble with, my god, they are my protectors too. It is our government, the Bush Administration that jumped into this faster than you can say "weapons of mass destruction".
-
If you happen to be talking about me, George, then you are terribly mistaken. I said that K.I.A. by ITSELF means nothing. You can not judge, compare, measure, or whatever, a war on K.I.A. ALONE. I have read you posts and I have to tell you I have been taking it easy on you, so I hope you are talking about someone else in that last post bigshot99.
I have talked about the past four years at war and that our casualties are verry good compared too past wars.
I do care about the men and women that we have lost in combat don't get me wrong about that part
IF the number was lets say 80,000 or 120,000 in four years compared to the real number,would that mean something.
Vietnam ,how about that war.compare the out crys about the K.I.A. in that war
that by its self caused a huge with drawl of our troops ,that lead to the " increased "air bombing campaign.
I'm sure that you care about the fact that our K.I.A. is much less that of Vietnam.
or Does that mean nothing,,GEORGE. you tell me????
You are right Bigshot.
For someone not to claim it means anything is laughable, especially when time and time again they post that number as some effort to why we should cut and run from Iraq.
WWII roughly 10.35% of active duty troops were killed in battle. In this action that number is 2/10 of 1%. This historically unheard of in war. We have put a huge crimp into terrorist operations and have killed thousands of terrorists in battle since this war on terror started. The very least this does is buy us time to infiltrate these terrorist organizations and take them down from the inside. This is much needed time considering this wasnt done before.
The best "facts" come from those who are there. Time and time again those soldiers that have returned here, are dismayed at the negative news coverage of what is going on in Iraq and say the media and the left is highly distorting what is going on.
Claims that Bush jumped into this action are blatantly false. Anyone who paid attention seen this coming for 12+ years. Even the first two UN weapons inspectors seen this coming and Butler wrote a book outright telling people this is what it would take to make Saddam comply.
I find it really odd there george you claim Bushed jumped into this action after the US dealt with this for 12+ years but yet you turn around in the same breath and say that we have been in Iraq too long and refuse to answer the question on just what it would have taken Saddam to do before you felt action needed taken.
-
For someone not to claim it means anything is laughable, especially when time and time again they post that number as some effort to why we should cut and run from Iraq.
Quote me where I said K.I.A. means nothing.
"Cut and run" is your preception/interpertation. Quote me when I said we should run from Iraq.
WWII roughly 10.35% of active duty troops were killed in battle. In this action that number is 2/10 of 1%. This historically unheard of in war. We have put a huge crimp into terrorist operations and have killed thousands of terrorists in battle since this war on terror started. The very least this does is buy us time to infiltrate these terrorist organizations and take them down from the inside. This is much needed time considering this wasnt done before.
*Yes the casualties are not bad compared historically. Keep in mind this war is like no other in history.
I find it really odd there george you claim Bushed jumped into this action after the US dealt with this for 12+ years but yet you turn around in the same breath and say that we have been in Iraq too long and refuse to answer the question on just what it would have taken Saddam to do before you felt action needed taken.
I feel as if I am explaining myself to a child sometimes. First off I have not and will not "refuse" to give my opinion or answer a question. Fact is I have answered the question. For the final time........I AM NOT ARGUING THAT SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE TO COMBAT GLOBAL TERRORISM. That is Saddam, or no Saddam, terrorism must be stopped somehow, someway, with a unified plan from governing members of the world. Do you find that odd?
-
Quote me where I said K.I.A. means nothing.
"Cut and run" is your preception/interpertation. Quote me when I said we should run from Iraq.
Never said you said KIA means nothing....however
quote from george jung--K.I.A. by itself is nothing.
Interesting though how you post the KIA number by itself as it is suppose to mean something and try to use it as some evidence why we shouldn't be in Iraq.
Never claimed you said cut and run.
Very interesting however that you jumped to that conclusion.
I feel as if I am explaining myself to a child sometimes.
My my my. Not even an original thought on your part. :o
First off I have not and will not "refuse" to give my opinion or answer a question. Fact is I have answered the question. For the final time........I AM NOT ARGUING THAT SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE TO COMBAT GLOBAL TERRORISM. That is Saddam, or no Saddam, terrorism must be stopped somehow, someway, with a unified plan from governing members of the world. Do you find that odd?
Each country fights terrorism in their own manner to their own needs and many countries are working together to fight it.
If you think the whole world is suppose to be unified about it, it isnt going to happen. One only needs to look to saddam who violated 17+ resolutions hundreds and hundreds of times over 12+ years and the world refused to be "unified" to hold him to accord.
-
For someone not to claim it means anything is laughable, especially when time and time again they post that number as some effort to why we should cut and run from Iraq.
I have but one question. BigSky, are we reading the same posts?
-
I have but one question. BigSky, are we reading the same posts?
By all means where did I say YOU said that.
You need help.
http://www.rhlschool.com/reading.htm
-
Okay BigSky...............
For someone not to claim it means anything is laughable, especially when time and time again they post that number as some effort to why we should cut and run from Iraq.
-
Targeting America has got to be the secondary reason for invading Iraq. OIL, OIL, OIL......that is what Iraq is truly about, who controlls the 3rd biggest oil reserve.
To top things off the Iraq Parliament is considering a 2 month recess this summer....WTF.... how are they going to take a break with so much going on? To even consider a recess is a slap in the face of Americans, especially our military with all of their efforts. The hits just keep on coming..........
-
Targeting America has got to be the secondary reason for invading Iraq. OIL, OIL, OIL......that is what Iraq is truly about, who controlls the 3rd biggest oil reserve.
how do you know what its 'truly' about? Can you substantiate that? Or is that just an opinion?
This thread gives me a headache too and I will not be bullied by anyone who thinks I shouldn't post that-and I will post whatever and where ever I please- and I dont care if it pisses you off George Jung.
-
If what pisses me off?
You shouldn't not post something because of what you think someone else thinks. (does that make sense?)
Without getting into anything completely unnecessary......in response to your question, you can call it a gut feeling.