MrsWakely said... Your "points" about Saddam aren't worth addressing. Yes, brutal dictator, yes his military popping off a few shots at our aircraft, yes, some vague plot to kill Bush 1, yes, would "like" to re-constitute his WMD program if he could, yes, yes, yes.
Reason to invade Iraq? NO.
So, you've thrown Bush and Cheney under the bus now? They're not your boys? Colin Powell is? You mean, the ONE guy the world trusted not to lie I know I did), who then went and did just that at the U.N.? (see his 2nd in command Lawrence Wilkerson's, feelings about his former boss). Apparently it takes more courage to tell George Bush where to go with his fabrications and bullshit, than it does to survive multiple combat tours in Vietnam. Who knew? Colin Powell is laying low and sucking down speaking fees because he KNOWS the first line of his obit will be: "screwed the pooch on Iraq." John McCain? Honorable fellow. Great courage under fire. Years of public service. But, alas, dead wrong on Iraq. The American people are SICK TO DEATH of being told by people like John McCain that, if they don't support the war, or don't agree with him that we may have to be in Iraq for "50, even 100 years" that they are somehow unpatriotic. I'd say a better word would be "sane." And the analogies that are made to Korea or WWII or Japan? Patently absurd to anyone who knows their military history, which is why it's become so obvious McCain's unqualified to serve as President: he knows better. Korea was an incursion to help fend off the North Korean communists, backed by the Chinese communists. It was fought horribly and ineptly at first, until Truman finally relieved Macarthur, and we got a coherent strategy in place, which resulted in pushing the Chinese back above the 35th parallel, whereupon a "truce" was declared, and where we have helped, by our presence, the South Koreans maintain the demilitarized zone for decades. There is NO inherent analogy to the situation in Iraq. Japan? We tragically, but rightly (in my opinion) obliterated Japan with two atomic bombs, forcing them to surrender at the end of WWII. We then undertook the task of helping them off their knees, and guiding them towards the Democratic society they are today. Again, NO analogy to Iraq. When I hear "what if we cut and run during the 'Battle of the Bulge' "? it makes my blood boil. We entered WWII because we were ATTACKED by Japan and forced to respond (remember - we were NOT attacked by Iraq - EVER), we fought, with our allies (where are our real "allies" in Iraq? What very few there are, are leaving quick because their people understand George Bush is, and was, full of shit) a brutal 4 year war to save the world from Hitler's Nazism and Japan's fanatic Imperialism. There is NO correlation between the nobility and sacrifice of those two bits of American military history, and the cluster-fuck that is Iraq.
There is NO scenario on the horizon, whereby we will convince the Muslim world that we should be allowed to stay as occupiers in Iraq. And, again, I ask you, what did Iraq have to do with 9/11? According to Bush himself - "nothing." So why did we invade? Because they were "a gathering threat" as you say? To whom, exactly? Certainly not to the United States. Piro confirmed what we've known for years - Saddam HATED Bin laden, considered him a "radical" (Wow. Saddam Hussein considers Bin Laden a RADICAL?) and wanted nothing, NOTHING, to do with him . Saddam was a SECULAR dictator, who viewed Islamic fundamentalist militants a THREAT TO HIM AND HIS POWER. Hello? So, where exactly is there a "gathering threat" severe enough to INVADE THE WRONG COUNTRY? We had Bin Laden surrounded at Tora Bora, the CIA asks for enough troops to tighten the noose, and they are TURNED DOWN. why? Because our sieve head of a President and his entire sieve-head administration has decided they need those troops to invade IRAQ - A COUNTRY THAT DID NOT ATTACK US AND HAD NOTHING - ZERO - TO DO WITH 9-11.
What exactly about the above, do you STILL not understand?
January 28, 2008 11:28 AM
Travis said... So my "points" aren't worth addressing? Such as acts of war against US aircraft, patrolling the no fly zone that was set up under the UN's ok? Attempting to assassinate a US President? Those two in of themselves are reason enough to warrant his removal from power.
Far be it for me to "throw them under the bus", but if you ask who "my boys" are, I have a much higher level of respect for my mentioned people then Bush and Cheney.
I don't question your patriotism, I just question your judgment. There's a big difference. I notice you don't mention "Stormin' Norman", but that's ok.
I have mentioned previously, that I thought that our building permanent US bases in Iraq was a bad idea, maybe you should search through my site, like I've said THREE TIMES NOW to see my viewpoint on various issues. You see, the problem that you face is that you're not researching who you're debating. You're making assumptions about my positions about issues and thinking that they mirror Bush and Cheney's. Do you share identical views of John Murtha? You mentioned him by name, did you think that the Marines who were charged with killing Iraqi civilians were "cold blooded killers", or did you think they deserved a fair trial just like every other American citizen?
You mention we were not attacked by Iraq, ever, but then you admit in your first sentence that Iraq was "popping off a few shots at our aircraft".
As an FYI, we were being fired at WEEKLY by Saddam's forces. It wasn't just a "few" as you say. If it was a once or twice thing, I might even be able to forgive it as an act of mistaken identity.
Our "real allies" have been few and far between. Even Canada has said they want to remove their forces from Afghanistan. You remember Afghanistan right? The country that was harboring Al-Qaeda and was being lead by the Taliban.
It goes back to my earlier point that our allies cannot be counted on when the chips are down.
Also, please, I'm going to say this one last time, PLEASE research a bit more on the subject of me and my viewpoints. Unlike a lot of people on the Internet, I can differentiate between Al-Qaeda and Iraq.
There is where you and I agree. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Otherwise I would have asked for them to be eradicated with nuclear weapons.
As a side note, what DOES constitute an act of war that you would justify an invasion for? How much does it take for you to meet your limit and want to fight back? How many men must die before you'll do anything about it?
I don't know what kind of messed up ways of thinking you have, but if you fire upon my jets that are there under a UN mandate, unless it's a case of mistaken identity, your anti-aircraft weaponry are the least of your worries at that point.
January 28, 2008 1:52 PM
Travis said... You still haven't said a word about releasing Saddam. I'd REALLY like to hear your opinion on that.
January 28, 2008 2:01 PM
6 comments:
"Release Saddam?" Why would ANYONE have advocated releasing Saddam? Democrat or Republican? Liberal or Conservative? I don't really follow whack-job conservative sites, but, I'm not going out on a limb when I say the argument over "releasing Saddam" seemed to pass the vast majority of us in the "fact based community" by. NO ONE was advocating the release of Saddam, except, you know, maybe, Saddam. You ought to put that point where it belongs. Away.
The "acts of war" you cite? Do you REALLY think, that if George the Brain-Dead had gone to Congress and asked for an authorization for war because of those things, that he would have received one? Uh, no. If they were "acts of war" then why didn't your boy march up to Capitol Hill day one and say he wanted to invade Iraq? All of those things you mentioned had been happening under his predecessor. Why not? Because it would be RIDICULOUS to even TRY to make a case that THAT was worth going to war over. Are you KIDDING with that argument? Stormin' Norman? Wait and see. Nowhere NEAR the top military commanders. Took down a 5th rate army in two weeks. Hard work? Sure. Lots of planning? Absolutely. His standing next to, say, Grant, or, Washington, or, Eisenhower, or, Andrew Jackson, just to mention a few of the DOZENS of more accomplished U.S. commanders in our history? Not even in the stadium pal. He did a nice job in a two week war, where we kicked the living shit out of a bunch of outclassed losers. Give me a break. Oh, and Patton? Absolutely. Tough as nails. Ran the Germans right over the Rhine. Agressive and smart. Also more than a little nuts. Wanted to roll right on and invade Russia don't you know. Among the many problems with that, the U.S. public was about as interested in invading Russia, still our "ally" at the time, as they were in invading Canada. The Russians, even more than the U.S., broke the back of Hitler's army at Stalingrad. The history of great armies that got bogged down in the vast expanses and brutal winters of Russia is long and sorry. Invading Russia would have been a complete and utter disaster, which both FDR and Truman knew, which is why they moved Patton out of power before he did something irreparably stupid.
Is this all you got?
Oh, and "I don't care what the rest of the world thinks" What are you, insane? What the fuck does THAT mean? Do you really think we are going to succeed in the 21st century with that as a policy? Get real.
And Afghanistan? What about it? Started out fine, now it's turned into essentially a holding action because we don't have nearly enough troops or allies there to make a sustained difference. THEY'RE IN IRAQ. We are, in a word, backsliding. We NEED allies. In case you didn't notice, the First Gulf War, featuring an apparent hero of yours, Stormin' Norman (pretty grandiose nickname for what he actually accomplished from his decidedly NON front line position in Saudi Arabia, or Kuwait, or wherever he actually spent those two weeks the grunts were doing the actual fighting), was a real coalition, including Arab nations, to apply overwhelming force and get the job done. Allies are where it's at my friend. Check out ANY successful prosecution of ANY war. Your unilateralism speaks to a deep ignorance of military history. George Bush and his supporters (you) have unilateralized us right into the shitter. It will take YEARS to get us out of the hole YOU and the rest of the right-wing, neo-conservative, clod-heads have gotten us in.
Well releasing Saddam would have been the "right thing to do" according to your logic. If the war was an illegal one, then Saddam should have rightfully been released. Oh wait, you KNEW he was a bad guy AND a threat to our nation, yet you want to have it both ways. You wanted Saddam gone, but you didn't have the backbone to do anything about it.
I find it pretty pathetic though that you want to have it both ways.
That's something children try to do.
Take a look at public opinion polls around WWII, you'll see that there were divisions in the publics perception of the war then as much as we are experiencing today, but will far greater casualties. 4,000 dead soldiers is 4,000 too many, but far and away is it much safer because of the state of the art gear and tactics that our men and women now enjoy.
Norman wanted to go after Saddam, but was overruled by George Bush Sr., a mistake on George's part in my opinion.
We can argue back and forth all day long if you'd like, I have the time.
You don't understand "I don't care what the rest of the world thinks"? Really?
So far, you've been articulate, if not a little overzealous with your arguments, so I at least assumed that you could understand what I meant when I said it.
Do you honestly think that your liberal Presidential candidate saviors are going to "undo the damage" that you speak of? I make no bones about it, America and Americans comes first in my book. If some country gets all pissy that we don't offer help in the amount and way that they like, fuck them. Let them ask China for help, their economy is robust and they can stand to start parting with their funds.
Oh wait, that's right, China doesn't give two shits about anyone else, but themselves. But yet, we're the pariah's of the world because we're tired of dealing out billions in aid and getting spit in our faces for our troubles.
And I'm talking about public opinion, not a military action. But if you'd like to argue that one, we can.
As an FYI, the Iraqi army was the fourth largest in the world when we went up against them. The US, Russia, China, then Iraq. So don't think that we just whipped up on a couple of guys in a jeep, these were tough opponents and they got their asses handed to them.
As for the coalition forces? Not to take anything away from them, but the largest group besides us was the Saudi's, and they had around 50,000 men in there. We had over 500,000. Seems kinda low on their end for them to defend their homeland.
Also, if Musharraf isn't going to allow our soldiers into Pakistan, AND he's not hunting Bin Laden, then what do you suggest? I mean, obviously, according to your argument, we've taken our eye of Afghanistan and Bin Laden, so, oh wise one, what ever do we do?
You're in charge now, let's hear your grandiose plan to get Bin Laden, restore America's reputation, and rid the world of bad people?
Travis
The release Saddam thing is boring. It's like you're arguing that if you break into a store and come upon some guy raping a child, logic dictates to those opposed to the breaking into the store, that the guy should be allowed to continue raping the child. You're ascribing to me one of those arguments that I have no interest in. It's on a long list of the Bush defenders warped logic: "So... you're saying the world is NOT better off with Saddam gone?" Try to hold two thoughts in your head at the same time. 1. Invasion? Wrong. 2. Saddam? Bad. "Sadamm bad" doesn't therefore justify "invasion wrong." By that logic - hey let's invade North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, Burma! Let's go get those bad guys! They're practically everywhere!
To compare public sentiment in WWII as somehow comparable to now is simply misinformed. The American public NEVER had a nearly 70% disapproval rating during WWII. Get your facts straight.
Norman wanted to go after Saddam and invade Baghdad? Another mark against him as far as I'm concerned. That was as stupid an idea in '91 as it was in '03. Bush 1 was right. Also, the agreement we had with our allies, especially our Arab allies at the time, explictly stated we NOT do that. Just expel Saddam from Kuwait. That was the deal. Had we unilaterally gone to Baghdad, we'd have found ourselves in the same mess we're in now. I refer you to Vice President Cheney's comments on the matter at the time. He subsequently lost his mind.
MAYBE the 5th largest army at the time. I know that was the statistic. But, a Girl Scout troop nonetheless. 2 weeks pal. Speaks for itself.
Immediately after 9/11, I would have supported going into Pakistan if necessary, and I'm fairly sure the entire world would have supported, if not at least tolerated, that action. Problem is - YOUR BOY FUCKED IT UP. We had him in Afghanistan! And YOUR BOY BLEW IT. Why? Why did your boy blow it? Answer me that question. The call comes in and they tell the President "we have Bin Ladin surrounded. We just need some more troops." You'd think he say "get them there immediately." Capture or kill Bin Ladin and his guys - payback for 9/11, respected in the entire world, message of strength through force when attacked, game over, right? Sure we stay on the offense, we keep at it, we hunt the others when they pop up, but we have the respect and cooperation of the world. INSTEAD? Bush says "Nope. We need those troops for IRAQ. Iraq will make Afghanistan look like a playground fight." WHAT? Bin Ladin in Afghanistan, the guy who attacked us, Saddam in Iraq, all the President's top terrorism experts, Richard Clarke, etc., are saying, "uh, no Mr. President, there's really no reason to believe Iraq did this," but Bush ignores them and INVADES THE WRONG COUNTRY AND LETS BIN LADIN GET AWAY. And you defend this guy? How fucking dumb are you?!
The topic of releasing Saddam is "boring"? What kind of fucked up logic do you have in your head? Were you dropped on it as a child? If the war is "illegal", which it was according to you, then ALL spoils from that war need to be put back into it's place before we invaded, INCLUDING RELEASING SADDAM. But you don't want that. You want to claim that the topic is "boring" for some unknown reason.
Let's not forget that Bush had warned Saddam and given him 48 hours to leave the country, or we were coming in. We gave him plenty of chances, and Saddam gambled that he would get one more. He lost.
Now, you and I can bicker about the size of Iraq's army all day long, but the facts are that the Iraqi army was decimated because of good planning and almost perfect execution.
I bring up WWII public sentiment simply because you brought up the past as well. America didn't want to even get involved in WWII until Japan attacked us. But that's the past, let's focus on the issue at hand shall we?
But yet, you STILL haven't answered my questions. You're saying that Bush fucked up a chance to get Bin Laden. Ok, fair enough. However, I'm asking YOU what YOU would do right now to get him.
But yet, you don't offer a solution, you only complain about Bush, which seems so stereotypical for a liberal. Complain, yet do nothing.
I've said before, and I'll say it here, since you obviously won't even bother to do the most elementary research on me and my opinions.
If Musharraf says he isn't hunting Bin Laden and won't allow the US to go in to look for him, either covertly or overtly, then that makes him a fair game. He's either sympathizing with Bin Laden, or too scared to do anything about it.
But let's focus on Iraq, the main reason you've been writing to me all this time.
With Saddam as a threat, or appearing to be a threat, his vast resources allows him to make 9/11 look like a walk in the park. Bush, right or wrong, decided that wasn't a risk he was willing to take. He decided, with just about every other politician agreeing, that Saddam was a threat, he had WMD's, and he needed to go.
Yet, you even agree with me on every level of his being a threat. The acts of war, the older WMD's that he had, attempted assassination of a President, you agree that they all happened.
Yet, you do nothing about them.
Yet another example of you complaining about something, yet wanting to do nothing about it.
You also never answered my question about how much does it take to get you riled up enough to want to fight back? How many men need to die before you'll give the order to shoot back?
Do you even read my posts, or do you skim them for key words and then make your arguments? Do you have a Bush voodoo doll that you keep next to your MacBook and wait for Conservative blogs to mention anything even remotely positive about Bush then get your head spinning around?
Is that what happens?
Wars have been started by a single person or single ship firing on another person or ship. We were getting fired upon CONSTANTLY. I think we've shown enough restraint when it came to Saddam, and when he was up to his old shenanigans again, I find it refreshing for a politician to finally stand up and say "That's it, you're done".
Post a Comment