The single biggest thing that Bush's wars accomplished

[Jarhead]

IF it did, we would respond based on the agreements we have set forth in our "ally" relationship with Israel. Much as under Bush Sr, many times we did NOTHING, as Israel was more than strong enough to support themselves.

Fair enough answer although one you and I do not see eye to eye on.

And by the way...as for the "if" thing....

Are you saying that it would have been wrong for Bush to say "what IF there are NO wmd's?"

So, what IF there were? Look at the delivery technology Saddam had. SCUDs? Really? Kinda like why no one except right wing fearmongers get their panties in a wad when North Korea test fires a missile. Based on their delivery systems, they are lucky to get the damn things past their own shoreline.

Are yoiu aware that a scud missile is all that is needed for chemical warfare? You can send up all the patriots in the world and all you would be doing is helping it disperse the chemical.

 

[DiamondDave]

IF it did, we would respond based on the agreements we have set forth in our "ally" relationship with Israel. Much as under Bush Sr, many times we did NOTHING, as Israel was more than strong enough to support themselves.

Fair enough answer although one you and I do not see eye to eye on.

And by the way...as for the "if" thing....

Are you saying that it would have been wrong for Bush to say "what IF there are NO wmd's?"

So, what IF there were? Look at the delivery technology Saddam had. SCUDs? Really? Kinda like why no one except right wing fearmongers get their panties in a wad when North Korea test fires a missile. Based on their delivery systems, they are lucky to get the damn things past their own shoreline.

But as of 2001, we also saw that improvised delivery methods for terror and destruction are usable by enemies... we do know that Saddam was willing and participatory in ways to strike back at those against him (assassination attempt ring a bell)... as stated, our security needs changed after the tragedy in 2001.. and we had the justification to eliminate this wild card, and IMHO rightfully so

As I have said over and over... my military brothers and sisters would have loved the chance to finish it the first time, but our politicians (both REP and DEM) were too busy in appeasement mode to the UN... hopefully, we don't fall prey to that ever again

 

[MikeK]

For the umpteen BILLIONTH time...

Goals in Iraq
Disarming Saddam Hussein

Saddam was disarmed. That was accomplished in 1991 by the so-called "Gulf War." The fact is we invaded a disarmed and defenseless nation -- which is why it was so easy to do.

Strike a major blow in the war on terror

"Terror." Where would you jingoistic war-mongers be without that word? The only way to win the "war on terror" is to stop pissing off the people who are willing to hijack planes and fly them into your houses.

Establish democracy in Iraq, keep Iraq whole and help transform the region

What unmitigated arrogance. As if we have the ability to transform the essential nature of people whose religious conditioning and political instincts have been shaped over centuries of time by military force. The best thing we can do for the Middle Eastern people is to leave them alone and stay out of their countries. That's all they want from us.

Intimidate other rogue nations and curb proliferation

Piss off those rogue nations and make them hate us more than ever is actually what we've done. If you think they are intimidated, just wait 'til we relax our guard and believe what you so smugly put forth. We have killed, maimed and tortured hundreds of thousands of innocent people, including the deaths by bombing of babies in their cribs. Do you think that will ever be forgiven and forgotten?

Preserve and expand U.S. influence in the region, enhance Israel's security and facilitate resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Now you've come to the only factual element in your propaganda spiel. If there has been any real benefit deriving from our destruction of Iraq it imparts to Israel, our utterly useless, extremely detrimental and treacherous "ally" in the land of the Arabs. But, as you've rightly suggested, we can ignore the last part. The only resolution to the Arab/Israeli conflict will come when one faction completely wipes the other off the face of the Earth.

All of which we have had success in, except for the end part of the last one about resolving Israeli Arab relations, which is probably never going to happen anyway.... could some things have been done better? Yep... does not take away from the fact that we have victory and had success

And just what to you call "victory" and "success?" What have we won? And what have we succeeding in doing? Wrecking our economy and transforming the United States into the most feared and despised nation in the world?

 

[Jarhead]

Sad diversion. Are you disputing that over 100,00 innocent Iraqi's died?

Actually, I really dont know how many.
But I know one thing for sure....the Coalition troops did the best they can to minimize any collateral damage...so I find it highly unlikely that 100,000 civilians died at the hands of coalition activities.

We invaded. Brought our caolition buddies with us. Violence erupted. Over 100,000 Iraqi civilians died. You aren't REALLY trying to say we have no responsibility, are you?

No, that is not what I am saying.
War sux ass. I hate war.
I admire the military, I hate military action.
Unfortunately, in the world, war is going to happen.
And proper attitude is to be proactive and not reactive.

What can I tell you. It is what it is.

 

[VaYank5150]

Fair enough answer although one you and I do not see eye to eye on.

And by the way...as for the "if" thing....

Are you saying that it would have been wrong for Bush to say "what IF there are NO wmd's?"

So, what IF there were? Look at the delivery technology Saddam had. SCUDs? Really? Kinda like why no one except right wing fearmongers get their panties in a wad when North Korea test fires a missile. Based on their delivery systems, they are lucky to get the damn things past their own shoreline.

Are yoiu aware that a scud missile is all that is needed for chemical warfare? You can send up all the patriots in the world and all you would be doing is helping it disperse the chemical.

And the dispersal radius IS?

 

[MikeK]

I became a Republican on my 18th Birthday in 1979 and voted "R" in every Federal election until 08 and it was this very reason, foreign policy, I can't be that unique and as far as Democrats go, they love intervention and yeah, they used it for political expediency, I had to go third party, I refuse to choose between big government A or big government B.

I switched, too. In '07. I had to go Democrat because there is no Independent Party in New Jersey and I wish to vote in primaries. But I am by no means a Democrat, which has come to mean Republican/lite.

 

[Jarhead]

So, what IF there were? Look at the delivery technology Saddam had. SCUDs? Really? Kinda like why no one except right wing fearmongers get their panties in a wad when North Korea test fires a missile. Based on their delivery systems, they are lucky to get the damn things past their own shoreline.

Are yoiu aware that a scud missile is all that is needed for chemical warfare? You can send up all the patriots in the world and all you would be doing is helping it disperse the chemical.

And the dispersal radius IS?

Depends on the altitude of the scud when it detonates and/or is hit. It also depends on the concentration of the chemical itself.
Furthermore, weather conditions including wind and humidity come into play.

But concentration of chemical and altitude of dispersion are the two primary factors.

So....I dont know.

 

[Jarhead]

No, 4,400 of America's best were not wasted. Fuck you and the horse you rode in on. Stop using our war dead for your fucking partisan politics.

Is that your best answer?

Please tell us specifically what you believe those 4,400+ died for. But first I suggest you look up the meaning of the word jingoism.

Those 4,400 died as a result of a dilemma our government was faced with.

We had intel from not only our domestic agencies but from our ally agencies as well that seemed to imply that there were WMD's in the hands of a tyrant that has been known to invade neighbors (Kuwait) and send scuds to our allys (Israel).

Whereas invading Iraq and not finding such WMD's was a concern, the risk of not doing so was of greater concern.

That is why our 4400 brave ones died.

MikeK...you ignored this. Why? DId I not answer your question?

 

[rightwinger]

I became a Republican on my 18th Birthday in 1979 and voted "R" in every Federal election until 08 and it was this very reason, foreign policy, I can't be that unique and as far as Democrats go, they love intervention and yeah, they used it for political expediency, I had to go third party, I refuse to choose between big government A or big government B.

I switched, too. In '07. I had to go Democrat because there is no Independent Party in New Jersey and I wish to vote in primaries. But I am by no means a Democrat, which has come to mean Republican/lite.

I supported the Republicans from 76 to 1994 when Gingrich took over. The party turned nasty then and were more concerned with forcing a ultra-conservative agenda than in cooperative Government. Gingrich shutting down the Government because of a personal tiff was the final straw.
The witch hunts during eight years of Clinton were the final straw

 

[DiamondDave]

For the umpteen BILLIONTH time...

Goals in Iraq
Disarming Saddam Hussein

Saddam was disarmed. That was accomplished in 1991 by the so-called "Gulf War." The fact is we invaded a disarmed and defenseless nation -- which is why it was so easy to do.

Strike a major blow in the war on terror

"Terror." Where would you jingoistic war-mongers be without that word? The only way to win the "war on terror" is to stop pissing off the people who are willing to hijack planes and fly them into your houses.


What unmitigated arrogance. As if we have the ability to transform the essential nature of people whose religious conditioning and political instincts have been shaped over centuries of time by military force. The best thing we can do for the Middle Eastern people is to leave them alone and stay out of their countries. That's all they want from us.


Piss off those rogue nations and make them hate us more than ever is actually what we've done. If you think they are intimidated, just wait 'til we relax our guard and believe what you so smugly put forth. We have killed, maimed and tortured hundreds of thousands of innocent people, including the deaths by bombing of babies in their cribs. Do you think that will ever be forgiven and forgotten?

Preserve and expand U.S. influence in the region, enhance Israel's security and facilitate resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Now you've come to the only factual element in your propaganda spiel. If there has been any real benefit deriving from our destruction of Iraq it imparts to Israel, our utterly useless, extremely detrimental and treacherous "ally" in the land of the Arabs. But, as you've rightly suggested, we can ignore the last part. The only resolution to the Arab/Israeli conflict will come when one faction completely wipes the other off the face of the Earth.

All of which we have had success in, except for the end part of the last one about resolving Israeli Arab relations, which is probably never going to happen anyway.... could some things have been done better? Yep... does not take away from the fact that we have victory and had success

And just what to you call "victory" and "success?" What have we won? And what have we succeeding in doing? Wrecking our economy and transforming the United States into the most feared and despised nation in the world?

How many left-wing myths and talking points can you put in one post?

Killed 100's of thousands? Please link to any factual data that links "100's of thousands" or death to the direct actions of the coalition forces.. and please show where we tortured any Iraqis.... we'll be waiting

Saddam was not disarmed... and Saddam did not meet the criteria for inspection to prove disarmament

Appeasement will not win the war on terror.. no matter what you peacenicks think

People yearn for freedom.. and a government based on it is a noble goal after we rightfully destroyed the leadership in Iraq with our justified military action

Yeah.. rogue nations would just love us to do nothing

And as stated SO many times.. .we were not after 'war booty' in this action... just because you don't like what we succeeded in, because there was military action behind it, does not mean we did not win and we did not accomplish the goals set forth before and after the victory...

Success and freedom will always be despised by tyrannical rogue nations and elements (such as terror organizations)... and what they think means nothing... if they fear reprisal from their actions, that is great... I LOVE for those nations to fear us and the more they fear us, the better

 

[Jarhead]

I became a Republican on my 18th Birthday in 1979 and voted "R" in every Federal election until 08 and it was this very reason, foreign policy, I can't be that unique and as far as Democrats go, they love intervention and yeah, they used it for political expediency, I had to go third party, I refuse to choose between big government A or big government B.

I switched, too. In '07. I had to go Democrat because there is no Independent Party in New Jersey and I wish to vote in primaries. But I am by no means a Democrat, which has come to mean Republican/lite.

I supported the Republicans from 76 to 1994 when Gingrich took over. The party turned nasty then and were more concerned with forcing a ultra-conservative agenda than in cooperative Government. Gingrich shutting down the Government because of a personal tiff was the final straw.
The witch hunts during eight years of Clinton were the final straw

Seeing as you seem to support a very liberal agenda that in no way reflects the GOP of the 70's and 80's, I find that hard to believe.
I have yet to see you post any type of support for anything that reflects the GOP ideology of the 70's and 80's.

Sorry RW...I am not impressed.

 

[Bill Angel]

Fair enough answer although one you and I do not see eye to eye on.

And by the way...as for the "if" thing....

Are you saying that it would have been wrong for Bush to say "what IF there are NO wmd's?"

So, what IF there were? Look at the delivery technology Saddam had. SCUDs? Really? Kinda like why no one except right wing fearmongers get their panties in a wad when North Korea test fires a missile. Based on their delivery systems, they are lucky to get the damn things past their own shoreline.

Are yoiu aware that a scud missile is all that is needed for chemical warfare? You can send up all the patriots in the world and all you would be doing is helping it disperse the chemical.

It's interesting to note that NONE of the SCUDs that impacted Israel during the first Gulf War carried chemical warhead payloads. They DID carry explosive warhead payloads, however.

 

[VaYank5150]

Are yoiu aware that a scud missile is all that is needed for chemical warfare? You can send up all the patriots in the world and all you would be doing is helping it disperse the chemical.

And the dispersal radius IS?

Depends on the altitude of the scud when it detonates and/or is hit. It also depends on the concentration of the chemical itself.
Furthermore, weather conditions including wind and humidity come into play.

But concentration of chemical and altitude of dispersion are the two primary factors.

So....I dont know.

So......this was a direct threat to the US how?

 

[Jarhead]

And the dispersal radius IS?

Depends on the altitude of the scud when it detonates and/or is hit. It also depends on the concentration of the chemical itself.
Furthermore, weather conditions including wind and humidity come into play.

But concentration of chemical and altitude of dispersion are the two primary factors.

So....I dont know.

So......this was a direct threat to the US how?

Per my earlier "that is where we do not see eye to eye"...

Not a threat to us, no. A threat to our ally.

 

[Jarhead]

So, what IF there were? Look at the delivery technology Saddam had. SCUDs? Really? Kinda like why no one except right wing fearmongers get their panties in a wad when North Korea test fires a missile. Based on their delivery systems, they are lucky to get the damn things past their own shoreline.

Are yoiu aware that a scud missile is all that is needed for chemical warfare? You can send up all the patriots in the world and all you would be doing is helping it disperse the chemical.

It's interesting to note that NONE of the SCUDs that impacted Israel during the first Gulf War carried chemical warhead payloads. They DID carry explosive warhead payloads, however.

Correct. And as we know, they failed miserably.
However, if they had a chemical payload, every "failure" would have still had some major success.

 

[Jarhead]

For the umpteen BILLIONTH time...

Goals in Iraq
Disarming Saddam Hussein

Saddam was disarmed. That was accomplished in 1991 by the so-called "Gulf War." The fact is we invaded a disarmed and defenseless nation -- which is why it was so easy to do.
They were easier to beat when they were armed than when they were disarmed as you claim? I think you must be mistaken

Strike a major blow in the war on terror

"Terror." Where would you jingoistic war-mongers be without that word? The only way to win the "war on terror" is to stop pissing off the people who are willing to hijack planes and fly them into your houses.
So you are another one who feels that we should change who we are and how we live so people wont kill us?

What unmitigated arrogance. As if we have the ability to transform the essential nature of people whose religious conditioning and political instincts have been shaped over centuries of time by military force. The best thing we can do for the Middle Eastern people is to leave them alone and stay out of their countries. That's all they want from us.

But you approve of the idea for them to dictate to us how WE should live. OK. Cool for you.

Piss off those rogue nations and make them hate us more than ever is actually what we've done. If you think they are intimidated, just wait 'til we relax our guard and believe what you so smugly put forth. We have killed, maimed and tortured hundreds of thousands of innocent people, including the deaths by bombing of babies in their cribs. Do you think that will ever be forgiven and forgotten?

Preserve and expand U.S. influence in the region, enhance Israel's security and facilitate resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Now you've come to the only factual element in your propaganda spiel. If there has been any real benefit deriving from our destruction of Iraq it imparts to Israel, our utterly useless, extremely detrimental and treacherous "ally" in the land of the Arabs. But, as you've rightly suggested, we can ignore the last part. The only resolution to the Arab/Israeli conflict will come when one faction completely wipes the other off the face of the Earth.

All of which we have had success in, except for the end part of the last one about resolving Israeli Arab relations, which is probably never going to happen anyway.... could some things have been done better? Yep... does not take away from the fact that we have victory and had success

And just what to you call "victory" and "success?" What have we won? And what have we succeeding in doing? Wrecking our economy and transforming the United States into the most feared and despised nation in the world?
We have prevented a man who had invaded other countries for greed and shot missiles toward our ally to flex his muscles and killed thousands of his own people like Hitler did from becoming an even greater threat

Do you do any thinking for yourself or do you simply regurgitate what Maddow says?

 

[MikeK]

Hussein gassed his own people....suggesting a test of WMD's.
Hussein gave the run around to UN inspectors...suggesting he had something to hide
Not just US...but world INTEL suggested WMD's were likely

What if we did nothing and all of this were true?

Sometimes it is best to be pro-active when evidence suggests a threat than to doubt the evidence and be forced to be re-active when it is too late.

Are you suggesting that sometimes it's best to risk endless years of violent destruction, the loss of thousands of American lives, the crippling and disfigurement of tens of thousands more, the killing and maiming of hundreds of thousands of innocent foreigners, the ruin of our economy, the destruction of our reputation as a peaceful nation and the acquisition of our new reputation as torturers, just because we have some highly questionable "intelligence" that something like WMDs in Iraq might be true?

Here is just one very credible critique on the so-called "intelligence" re Saddam's WMDs.

Excerpt - London Times:

[...]

"MI6 told Tony Blair before the invasion of Iraq that a high-placed Iraqi source said that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction. The intelligence was passed to the US but was buried by the White House, according to a new book.

The book claimed that the former Prime Minister sent a top British spy to the Middle East in 2003 — three months before the invasion — to dig up enough intelligence to avoid war but that President Bush and Dick Cheney, the Vice-President, dismissed any claims or possible evidence that would stop military action.

In The Way of the World, the Pulitzer prize-winning author Ron Suskind also claimed that the White House ordered the CIA to forge a backdated, handwritten letter purportedly from the head of Iraqi Intelligence to Saddam. The letter, which came to light nine months after the invasion, was meant to demonstrate a link between the Baathist regime and al-Qaeda.

The forgery, adamantly denied by the White House, was passed to a British journalist in Baghdad and written about as if genuine by The Sunday Telegraph on December 14, 2003. The article received significant attention in the US and provided the White House with a new rationale for the invasion, Suskind claimed. The White House called the allegation absurd."

[...]

White House 'buried British intelligence on Iraq WMDs' - Times Online

 

[Jarhead]

Hussein gassed his own people....suggesting a test of WMD's.
Hussein gave the run around to UN inspectors...suggesting he had something to hide
Not just US...but world INTEL suggested WMD's were likely

What if we did nothing and all of this were true?

Sometimes it is best to be pro-active when evidence suggests a threat than to doubt the evidence and be forced to be re-active when it is too late.

Are you suggesting that sometimes it's best to risk endless years of violent destruction, the loss of thousands of American lives, the crippling and disfigurement of tens of thousands more, the killing and maiming of hundreds of thousands of innocent foreigners, the ruin of our economy, the destruction of our reputation as a peaceful nation and the acquisition of our new reputation as torturers, just because we have some highly questionable "intelligence" that something like WMDs in Iraq might be true?

Here is just one very credible critique on the so-called "intelligence" re Saddam's WMDs.

Excerpt - London Times:

[...]

"MI6 told Tony Blair before the invasion of Iraq that a high-placed Iraqi source said that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction. The intelligence was passed to the US but was buried by the White House, according to a new book.

The book claimed that the former Prime Minister sent a top British spy to the Middle East in 2003 — three months before the invasion — to dig up enough intelligence to avoid war but that President Bush and Dick Cheney, the Vice-President, dismissed any claims or possible evidence that would stop military action.

In The Way of the World, the Pulitzer prize-winning author Ron Suskind also claimed that the White House ordered the CIA to forge a backdated, handwritten letter purportedly from the head of Iraqi Intelligence to Saddam. The letter, which came to light nine months after the invasion, was meant to demonstrate a link between the Baathist regime and al-Qaeda.

The forgery, adamantly denied by the White House, was passed to a British journalist in Baghdad and written about as if genuine by The Sunday Telegraph on December 14, 2003. The article received significant attention in the US and provided the White House with a new rationale for the invasion, Suskind claimed. The White House called the allegation absurd."

[...]

White House 'buried British intelligence on Iraq WMDs' - Times Online

No.

What I am saying is sometimes you are faced with very difficult decisions and yoiu consult with many to help make the right decision.

In this case, it was the wrong decision.

But it does not mean it weas made in haste, without cause, or for selfish reasons.

28 Democrastic senators and all but one GOP senaotr agreed that the action was necessary. The military commanders agrred that the tactic of mission was sound and our caolition allies agreed that the action was necessary and going to be succeessful.

They were all wrong. But they had reason to believe they were right.

Yet many, including those that agreeed with the action decided it to be advantageous to politicize it.

And instead of being angry at those that politicized it, the anger is caste toward one man...a man that has to live with the decision for the rest of his life.

And those that supported the decision? They go on in life saying :what an ass that man was for listening to us"

And yes...that is what angers me....becuase the poeple continue to agree with and support those politicizing losers.

 

[MikeK]

I mentioned the "homeland attack" thing not becuase 9-11 was related to Iraq...I mentioned it becuase we, as a country, realized that we ARE vulnerable to outside attacks...and that we can no longer sit idly by and assume that a threat is not really a threat.

Me? I saw Iraq as a threat based on the intel that we heard about including the intel from other countries. Likewise, Hussein was most certianly acting suspiciously.

And after spending 9-12 to 9-14 diggin through dust and re-bar, I was convinced that we are vulnerable to attacks form people that hate us.

Until that day? I never thought a homeland attack was possible.

Keeping things in proper perspective, how much thought have you given to the reason for the 9/11 attack? And I'll assume you know it was not because ". . . they hate our freedom."

 

[Charles_Main]

Now that our combat forces are finally out of Iraq, the RepubliCONs want to claim victory. But what have we won? A democracy? Hardly, there was an election in the spring and it has not yet been resolved. It may never be resolved. The rest of our force is scheduled to leave by this time next year.

After we leave we will then find out what kind of country Iraq will be. My guess is that another strongman, another Saddam Hussein will take over. Perhaps another civil war first.

So then what have we accomplished? I mean beyond the trillion dollars spent, the over 4400 dead and tens of thousands of wounded American service people, the over 100,000 killed Iraqis, the millions of displaced Iraqis, the streangthening of Iran into the regional power, the shreading of the American image as "the good duys", what have we accomplished?

What we have demonstrated to the world is the strategic limit of the power of the United States. Dictators the world over now have a model to gauge their actions against. The blow back from this folly will be with us far into the future.

A trillion eh? its 709 Billion please stop perpetuating Liberal lies.