So we won the Iraq war, Obama is getting the credit, and leftists are still crabby

[MaggieMae]

You ******* hypocrite. You don't give two shits over 4,000 Americans dead. If you did you would actively be protesting the Afghan War where 1270 Americans have already died. But that would involve some kind of moral stand that was half way consistent, a thing you are incapable of. So instead you hide behind U.S. casualties to make some idiotic point.

You have some sense of morality. And some warped sense of judgment.

But that doesn't stop you from making off the cuff remarks that are way far from reality. I would normally dismiss you and this idiotic post of yours, but. Afghanistan. Remember that the September 11 terrorists were trained in Afghanistan? That bin Forgotten had his base of operations there? What was in Iraq? Terrorists who attacked us? Weapons of Mass Destruction? NO! That's why Iraq was the waste it is and why Bush is an idiot for prying open that can of worms.

Now, go figure out a few things and stop making an ass of yourself by posting your assumptions and calling them facts.

I dunno, Clinton, Kerry, Edwards, Albright, Gore, etc. sure thought Iraq was a threat.... before Bush ever set foot in office I might add.. and in case you're date challenged, that's pre 9/11.

None of them ever called for an outright invasion. If the US was intent on invading every country led by a tyrant, then we would have invaded North Korea, Iran, Zimbabwe, Libya, etc.

 

[MaggieMae]

You ******* hypocrite. You don't give two shits over 4,000 Americans dead. If you did you would actively be protesting the Afghan War where 1270 Americans have already died. But that would involve some kind of moral stand that was half way consistent, a thing you are incapable of. So instead you hide behind U.S. casualties to make some idiotic point.

You have some sense of morality. And some warped sense of judgment.

But that doesn't stop you from making off the cuff remarks that are way far from reality. I would normally dismiss you and this idiotic post of yours, but. Afghanistan. Remember that the September 11 terrorists were trained in Afghanistan? That bin Forgotten had his base of operations there? What was in Iraq? Terrorists who attacked us? Weapons of Mass Destruction? NO! That's why Iraq was the waste it is and why Bush is an idiot for prying open that can of worms.

Now, go figure out a few things and stop making an ass of yourself by posting your assumptions and calling them facts.

Oh please. Your response is simply pitiful. What UN resolutions did Afghanistan violate? What treaties did we have with Afghanistan that they violated? How many al Qaeda members are in Afghanistan now (according to the administration fewer than 100)?
What are our goals in Afghanistan? Has the war there made us safer?
You are talking out of Obama's ass. And my characterization of you as a morally-challenged hypocrite remains.

The reason Afghanistan remains a danger is The Taliban. During the initial invasion in 2002, it took about 3 months to drive out The Taliban, but then US forces were redeployed to Iraq, leaving so few troops in Afghanistan that the Taliban regenerated and returned. Now they're there in full force and ready to once again provide cover for al-Qaeda which can't get a solid foothold in Pakistan. AQ needs Afghanistan.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The major morally-challenged individuals are the liars on this board, which include The Rabbi, bigreb, WickedJester, etc. Their running dogs like Lib and divecon and saveliberty and others are not morally challenged; they simply don't think things through.

 

[MaggieMae]

Lefties are miserable *****. Not sure if being leftwing makes you miserable or being miserable inclines a man to be leftwing.

Don't care much either. I just avoid personal contact with miserable *****... they're buzzkill.

This is funny. All I ever see are angry righties, and I've recently been asking myself why? Looks like they'll take over the House, will be able to stop health care reform from getting funded, kow-tow to the Wall Street heavies, lower taxes, and live happy as pigs in shit, at least for awhile. You'd think the righties posting here would be changing their avatars to celebratory images, like champagne and beer, smiling revolutionaries with rifles in the air or holding placards with pics of Barack Obama with a big red X across his face. But nope. All I see are pissed off pubs. Go figure.

 

[Jarhead]

You have some sense of morality. And some warped sense of judgment.

But that doesn't stop you from making off the cuff remarks that are way far from reality. I would normally dismiss you and this idiotic post of yours, but. Afghanistan. Remember that the September 11 terrorists were trained in Afghanistan? That bin Forgotten had his base of operations there? What was in Iraq? Terrorists who attacked us? Weapons of Mass Destruction? NO! That's why Iraq was the waste it is and why Bush is an idiot for prying open that can of worms.

Now, go figure out a few things and stop making an ass of yourself by posting your assumptions and calling them facts.

Oh please. Your response is simply pitiful. What UN resolutions did Afghanistan violate? What treaties did we have with Afghanistan that they violated? How many al Qaeda members are in Afghanistan now (according to the administration fewer than 100)?
What are our goals in Afghanistan? Has the war there made us safer?
You are talking out of Obama's ass. And my characterization of you as a morally-challenged hypocrite remains.

The reason Afghanistan remains a danger is The Taliban. During the initial invasion in 2002, it took about 3 months to drive out The Taliban, but then US forces were redeployed to Iraq, leaving so few troops in Afghanistan that the Taliban regenerated and returned. Now they're there in full force and ready to once again provide cover for al-Qaeda which can't get a solid foothold in Pakistan. AQ needs Afghanistan.

Really, now. So exacltly where did the driven out Taliban go and exactly how did they return?

I laugh when I see people on here type posts that are ludicrous.

Yes, we had them "dispersing" and yes, we screwed up by easing off and concentrating on Iraq.

But the taliban did not take American Airlines out of the country and relaxed in the carribean waiting for an opening to return.

You are pathetic Maggie. Know what you are talking about before you post. You are starting to sound like Truthmatters.

 

[MaggieMae]

Oh please. Your response is simply pitiful. What UN resolutions did Afghanistan violate? What treaties did we have with Afghanistan that they violated? How many al Qaeda members are in Afghanistan now (according to the administration fewer than 100)?
What are our goals in Afghanistan? Has the war there made us safer?
You are talking out of Obama's ass. And my characterization of you as a morally-challenged hypocrite remains.

UN resolutions!?!?! Since when did any of the reolutions passed by the United Nations ever hold such value to you and your ilk? Since when does anything about the United Nations hold any value to the unilateralist, neo-con idiots who started this mistake in Iraq? I guess any port in a storm.

And how many Al Qeada operatives were in Afghanistan on September 12, 2001? How many were in Iraq on that same date?

Dismantling, disrupting and otherwise impeding Al Qeada IS the seminal goal of this undertaking. Not revenge for a death threat against Papa. Not completing Papa's start in '91. Not for all the crappy intelligence, shady interrogations or all the war profiteering Halliburton and their compatriots should we ever again be asked to sacrifice the best of this generation in some stupid, ill-conceived invasion of a nation that did not attack us.

I thought the UN stamp of approval was a sine qua non for any U.S. military action among you lefties. Now suddenly it's irrelevant?
You are right to point out the number of al Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan on 9/12/01. That is why Bush was right to send SF into the country to unseat the Taliban. How many were there on 1/20/09? How many are there now? If so, why is Obama ramping UP the war, instead of winding it down?
al Qaeda is not the seminal goal (do you even understand the word??) of this operation. Pres Bush made it clear that making the world unsafe for terrorists is the central goal. That includes states that sponsor them. Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism for over 20 years. Add in the WMD programs, which all Dems agreed were there, violations of UN accords, etc etc and Iraq was a logical next phase.
But you bring up the lives of US soldiers in Iraq like they were holy and then dismiss casualties in Afghanistan like their sheep. This is what makes you a hypocrite.

With all of the solid information regarding Iraq, wmd, the leadup to the invasion, and everything in between now available at the click of a mouse, I think you must be one of perhaps 12 other people in the entire world who believe as you do.

 

[MaggieMae]

Anyone else notice the lack of celebration on the left for the Iraq war being effectively over? Spare me the distinctions, the "war" in Iraq was over in 1991 but that didn't make Kurdistan safe by any means. However, today is a momentous day.

So why is the left so crabby? Their guy just proved himself to be not only a statesman, but someone who is willing to admit a previous error AND STILL deliver a great military accomplishment as Commander in Chief.

Is there some sense of perpetual unhappiness?

Seeing as how I know people who are leaving to serve in Iraq in the next couple of weeks, I don't think it's over....I think they are lying to us, but then again, the government doesn't give a crap about the American people, I'm beginning to think it never did.

The new embassy in Baghdad will employ 8,000 people, both civilian and military. There's still training that the US military will do to prepare Iraqi soldiers to defend their own country. The difference is the majority of military complements will not be infantry, but will come from support branches.

 

[asterism]

i'd be happy to explain. that part of the world was relatively stable before george decided to go in to make up for his bedwetting as a child. now, it's a clusterfuck that we'll be lucky to extricate ourselves from within 20 years.

Do you have any information to show that Iraq was relatively stable?

we won militarily; i've never disputed that. even rummy couldn't manage to **** that up, no matter how hard he tried.

the japs won pearl harbor in the military sense-how'd that work out?

They lost the war, just like Saddam's Iraq.

We successfully transformed Japan's culture from militarism to that of a non-Christian culture that interacts fully with western civilization. That has not happened in Iraq.

Was that the case in 1952? No.

 

[hortysir]

The reason Afghanistan remains a danger is The Taliban. During the initial invasion in 2002, it took about 3 months to drive out The Taliban, but then US forces were redeployed to Iraq, leaving so few troops in Afghanistan that the Taliban regenerated and returned. Now they're there in full force and ready to once again provide cover for al-Qaeda which can't get a solid foothold in Pakistan. AQ needs Afghanistan.

Really, now. So exacltly where did the driven out Taliban go and exactly how did they return?

I laugh when I see people on here type posts that are ludicrous.

Yes, we had them "dispersing" and yes, we screwed up by easing off and concentrating on Iraq.

But the taliban did not take American Airlines out of the country and relaxed in the carribean waiting for an opening to return.

You are pathetic Maggie. Know what you are talking about before you post. You are starting to sound like Truthmatters.

Since both of ya'll seem to be pointing at the Taliban as the central parasite in this matter, I'll pose this question here:

Why is Petraeus, obviously acting on orders, wanting to reel the Taliban in to be part of a peace process in the region?
When did they stop being an enemy combatant?
What can they bring to the table?

 

[onecut39]

You really don't get it? They wanted to loose because if we win that makes America strong.

Who wanted us to lose, outside the extreme fringe left?

It is not a question of who wanted us to win but who was able to see we cannot win.

We haven't won and we won't. In five or ten years Iraq will look much like it did in 2000.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Do you have any information to show that Iraq was relatively stable?



They lost the war, just like Saddam's Iraq.

We successfully transformed Japan's culture from militarism to that of a non-Christian culture that interacts fully with western civilization. That has not happened in Iraq.

Was that the case in 1952? No.

If you can prove that, go for it, asterism. I will tell you right now: you can't. No, Iraq is not similar at all to Japan or Germany. We did not have the raw overwhelming force called for by Colin Powell, and instead ended up with that bastardized compromise of, Tommy Franks - Don Rumsfeld: the "win the battle, lose the peace" blueprint. They fulfilled it, by heavens.

 

[asterism]

We successfully transformed Japan's culture from militarism to that of a non-Christian culture that interacts fully with western civilization. That has not happened in Iraq.

Was that the case in 1952? No.

If you can prove that, go for it, asterism. I will tell you right now: you can't.

Interesting. You made a claim and I said that it wasn't the case. Now you're demanding that I prove a negative.

How about you prove your claim? Show me where a non-Christian culture emerged that interacted fully with western civilization a mere 7 years after being defeated.

No, Iraq is not similar at all to Japan or Germany. We did not have the raw overwhelming force called for by Colin Powell, and instead ended up with that bastardized compromise of, Tommy Franks - Don Rumsfeld: the "win the battle, lose the peace" blueprint. They fulfilled it, by heavens.

Should we have just nuked Baghdad then?

 

[MaggieMae]

Oh please. Your response is simply pitiful. What UN resolutions did Afghanistan violate? What treaties did we have with Afghanistan that they violated? How many al Qaeda members are in Afghanistan now (according to the administration fewer than 100)?
What are our goals in Afghanistan? Has the war there made us safer?
You are talking out of Obama's ass. And my characterization of you as a morally-challenged hypocrite remains.

The reason Afghanistan remains a danger is The Taliban. During the initial invasion in 2002, it took about 3 months to drive out The Taliban, but then US forces were redeployed to Iraq, leaving so few troops in Afghanistan that the Taliban regenerated and returned. Now they're there in full force and ready to once again provide cover for al-Qaeda which can't get a solid foothold in Pakistan. AQ needs Afghanistan.

Really, now. So exacltly where did the driven out Taliban go and exactly how did they return?

I laugh when I see people on here type posts that are ludicrous.

Yes, we had them "dispersing" and yes, we screwed up by easing off and concentrating on Iraq.

But the taliban did not take American Airlines out of the country and relaxed in the carribean waiting for an opening to return.

You are pathetic Maggie. Know what you are talking about before you post. You are starting to sound like Truthmatters.

WTF?! Where did I even subtly imply that The Taliban disappeared entirely? Ironically, except for your silly comment about relaxing in the Carribean, you are agreeing with me. You okay? (Or were you just itching to find something posted by me so you could call me pathetic...kinda pathetic, I think.)

If not, time to learn something:

BBC News - Who are the Taliban?

Soon after 9/11 the Taliban were driven from power in Afghanistan by a US-led coalition, although their leader Mullah Mohammad Omar was not captured - and neither was Osama Bin Laden.

In recent years the Taliban have re-emerged in Afghanistan and grown far stronger in Pakistan, where observers say there is loose co-ordination between different Taliban factions and militant groups.

The main Pakistani faction is led by Hakimullah Mehsud, whose Tehrik Taliban Pakistan (TTP) is blamed for dozens of suicide bombings and other attacks.

 

[MaggieMae]

The reason Afghanistan remains a danger is The Taliban. During the initial invasion in 2002, it took about 3 months to drive out The Taliban, but then US forces were redeployed to Iraq, leaving so few troops in Afghanistan that the Taliban regenerated and returned. Now they're there in full force and ready to once again provide cover for al-Qaeda which can't get a solid foothold in Pakistan. AQ needs Afghanistan.

Really, now. So exacltly where did the driven out Taliban go and exactly how did they return?

I laugh when I see people on here type posts that are ludicrous.

Yes, we had them "dispersing" and yes, we screwed up by easing off and concentrating on Iraq.

But the taliban did not take American Airlines out of the country and relaxed in the carribean waiting for an opening to return.

You are pathetic Maggie. Know what you are talking about before you post. You are starting to sound like Truthmatters.

Since both of ya'll seem to be pointing at the Taliban as the central parasite in this matter, I'll pose this question here:

Why is Petraeus, obviously acting on orders, wanting to reel the Taliban in to be part of a peace process in the region?
When did they stop being an enemy combatant?
What can they bring to the table?

There's two factions of The Taliban, the good guys and the bad guys (although they all LOOK like bad guys). It depends on the tribe and where they live. As this article points out, better than the one I previously posted, it's complicated. I think Petraeus will use his skills at persuasion, just as he did during "The Awakening" in Iraq where he managed to cull out the good guys from the bad and convince them that they would be better off if they laid down their arms and became part of the solution, not the problem.

Pakistan and the Taliban: It’s Complicated - ShaveMagazine.com

 

[JakeStarkey]

Was that the case in 1952? No.

If you can prove that, go for it, asterism. I will tell you right now: you can't.

Interesting. You made a claim and I said that it wasn't the case. Now you're demanding that I prove a negative.

How about you prove your claim? Show me where a non-Christian culture emerged that interacted fully with western civilization a mere 7 years after being defeated.

No, Iraq is not similar at all to Japan or Germany. We did not have the raw overwhelming force called for by Colin Powell, and instead ended up with that bastardized compromise of, Tommy Franks - Don Rumsfeld: the "win the battle, lose the peace" blueprint. They fulfilled it, by heavens.

Should we have just nuked Baghdad then?

No, we should not have invaded unless we were willing to go in with overwhelming force. We tried to do it Bush lite, and the Iraqis and some Americans paid the horrible price for that.

You can't argue Germany or Japan in 1952, you did not provide evidence, yet you jump me for evidence that 65 years have proved to be so: Japan and German westernized, capitalistic, and committed to minority rights. Prove it if you can about 1952 (since that was your claim), but you know you can't.

 

[asterism]

If you can prove that, go for it, asterism. I will tell you right now: you can't.

Interesting. You made a claim and I said that it wasn't the case. Now you're demanding that I prove a negative.

How about you prove your claim? Show me where a non-Christian culture emerged that interacted fully with western civilization a mere 7 years after being defeated.

No, Iraq is not similar at all to Japan or Germany. We did not have the raw overwhelming force called for by Colin Powell, and instead ended up with that bastardized compromise of, Tommy Franks - Don Rumsfeld: the "win the battle, lose the peace" blueprint. They fulfilled it, by heavens.

Should we have just nuked Baghdad then?

No, we should not have invaded unless we were willing to go in with overwhelming force. We tried to do it Bush lite, and the Iraqis and some Americans paid the horrible price for that.

I don't necessarily disagree, but I'm not sure the increased number of casualties would have been worth it.[/quote]

You can't argue Germany or Japan in 1952, you did not provide evidence, yet you jump me for evidence that 65 years have proved to be so: Japan and German westernized, capitalistic, and committed to minority rights. Prove it if you can about 1952 (since that was your claim), but you know you can't.

So you have no evidence that Japan was stable in 1952 then correct?

 

[asterism]

Some reading for you Jake:

Embracing defeat: Japan in the wake ... - Google Books

Japan was hardly stable. Even this book calls 1952 "the end of the occupation," which is not quite true since we're still there in massive numbers.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Interesting. You made a claim and I said that it wasn't the case. Now you're demanding that I prove a negative.

How about you prove your claim? Show me where a non-Christian culture emerged that interacted fully with western civilization a mere 7 years after being defeated.



Should we have just nuked Baghdad then?

No, we should not have invaded unless we were willing to go in with overwhelming force. We tried to do it Bush lite, and the Iraqis and some Americans paid the horrible price for that.

I don't necessarily disagree, but I'm not sure the increased number of casualties would have been worth it.

You can't argue Germany or Japan in 1952, you did not provide evidence, yet you jump me for evidence that 65 years have proved to be so: Japan and German westernized, capitalistic, and committed to minority rights. Prove it if you can about 1952 (since that was your claim), but you know you can't.

So you have no evidence that Japan was stable in 1952 then correct?[/QUOTE]

This statement is known as "common knowledge." It is acceptable as it is. If you can disprove it, your welcome to do so.

Your position is unstable and growing more so at the moment.

I suggest that you reread pages 535 to 562 in Embracing defeat: Japan in the wake and come back tell us what you forgot to tell us above.

 

[asterism]

This statement is known as "common knowledge." It is acceptable as it is. If you can disprove it, your welcome to do so.

Interesting twist. "Common knowledge" as a proof. Ok.

Your position is unstable and growing more so at the moment.

I suggest that you reread pages 535 to 562 in Embracing defeat: Japan in the wake and come back tell us what you forgot to tell us above.

I have no idea what you are talking about, so feel free to correct me. This was your claim:

We successfully transformed Japan's culture from militarism to that of a non-Christian culture that interacts fully with western civilization. That has not happened in Iraq.

Was that the case in 1952? No.

If you can prove that, go for it, asterism. I will tell you right now: you can't.

This shows that not to be the case:

...

...

Japan had not been transformed from militarism to that of a non-Christian culture that interacts fully with western civilization by 1952. Post war Japan was chaotic. We could go on and on debating snippets from books and I doubt it would change either of our minds. However, your claim to fact by virtue of "common knowledge" has been repudiated and disproven. It is at this point just your opinion, of which you have offered no substantiation.

 

[hortysir]

Really, now. So exacltly where did the driven out Taliban go and exactly how did they return?

I laugh when I see people on here type posts that are ludicrous.

Yes, we had them "dispersing" and yes, we screwed up by easing off and concentrating on Iraq.

But the taliban did not take American Airlines out of the country and relaxed in the carribean waiting for an opening to return.

You are pathetic Maggie. Know what you are talking about before you post. You are starting to sound like Truthmatters.

Since both of ya'll seem to be pointing at the Taliban as the central parasite in this matter, I'll pose this question here:

Why is Petraeus, obviously acting on orders, wanting to reel the Taliban in to be part of a peace process in the region?
When did they stop being an enemy combatant?
What can they bring to the table?

There's two factions of The Taliban, the good guys and the bad guys (although they all LOOK like bad guys). It depends on the tribe and where they live. As this article points out, better than the one I previously posted, it's complicated. I think Petraeus will use his skills at persuasion, just as he did during "The Awakening" in Iraq where he managed to cull out the good guys from the bad and convince them that they would be better off if they laid down their arms and became part of the solution, not the problem.

Pakistan and the Taliban: It’s Complicated - ShaveMagazine.com

That was a good read.
Thank you