U.S. Formally Ends War In Afghanistan

[konradv]

Hindsight is 20/20. Go back and review what was known and what was widely assumed. Further Iraq was underminding sanctions. Your comments are non sequiturs.

I don't need to go back and review anything. I was saying this when it happened. Sanctions violations were an excuse, not a reason There are no non sequiturs in what I've been saying

 

[francoHFW]

A) There were a lot of excuses for going into Iraq, but no "we have to do it now" reasons. B) That's because too many people fell for the excuses cited in A) and blew what chance there was.

That's a non-sequitur. Rabbi Rules!
You will make any reason an "excuse" so argument with you is pointless. The truth is there was tremendous pressure as Iraq worked to undermine sanctions and return to their WMD program. All this in the aftermath of 9/11. Do you really need to see the list of Democrats howling for Bush to "do something" yet again?

There was no "smoking gun". Nothing about Iraq was urgent. I deny any "non sequitur". This all about your inability to distinguish between excuses and reasons. U.N. rulings and technical violations of previous agreements are excuses; direct attack or threat of attack are reasons. The former aren't immediate threats and the latter, theoretical at best and imaginary at worst

Hindsight is 20/20. Go back and review what was known and what was widely assumed. Further Iraq was underminding sanctions. Your comments are non sequiturs.

Obama knew enough in 2002, without hindsight, to know that invading Iraq was an idiotic idea. So did I.

You didn't. You come in third in that contest lol.

No, he opposed it out of knee jerk reaction of pacificism and anti-Bushism. Most Democrats supported it, including Hillary.

Pure Pubcrappe, dupe. Read his speech 10/2002. Absolutely right on all counts. Hillary and others would have seemingly committed political suicide in the jingoistic bs time Pubs produced. Then we found out they were total liars and incompetents.

Transcript Obama s Speech Against The Iraq War NPR

 

[Katzndogz]

Khomeni declares victory and defeat of America. Which is true.

 

[francoHFW]

Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances. The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don't oppose all wars.

My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain. I don't oppose all wars.

After Sept. 11, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again. I don't oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism.

What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income — to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear — I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaida. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with bin Laden and al-Qaida, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings. You want a fight, President Bush?

Let's fight to make sure that the U.N. inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe. You want a fight, President Bush?

Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair. The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not — we will not — travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.

Just why he'll be remembered as a very good, if not great, president.

 

[The Rabbi]

Hindsight is 20/20. Go back and review what was known and what was widely assumed. Further Iraq was underminding sanctions. Your comments are non sequiturs.

I don't need to go back and review anything. I was saying this when it happened. Sanctions violations were an excuse, not a reason There are no non sequiturs in what I've been saying

Arent you the smarty pants!

 

[francoHFW]

Khomeni declares victory and defeat of America. Which is true.

Bs, fear mongered Foxbat. They won't get a bomb. They actually don't seem to want one. What did you expect him to say lol?

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

That's a non-sequitur. Rabbi Rules!
You will make any reason an "excuse" so argument with you is pointless. The truth is there was tremendous pressure as Iraq worked to undermine sanctions and return to their WMD program. All this in the aftermath of 9/11. Do you really need to see the list of Democrats howling for Bush to "do something" yet again?

There was no "smoking gun". Nothing about Iraq was urgent. I deny any "non sequitur". This all about your inability to distinguish between excuses and reasons. U.N. rulings and technical violations of previous agreements are excuses; direct attack or threat of attack are reasons. The former aren't immediate threats and the latter, theoretical at best and imaginary at worst

Hindsight is 20/20. Go back and review what was known and what was widely assumed. Further Iraq was underminding sanctions. Your comments are non sequiturs.

Obama knew enough in 2002, without hindsight, to know that invading Iraq was an idiotic idea. So did I.

You didn't. You come in third in that contest lol.

No, he opposed it out of knee jerk reaction of pacificism and anti-Bushism. Most Democrats supported it, including Hillary.

Pure Pubcrappe, dupe. Read his speech 10/2002. Absolutely right on all counts. Hillary and others would have seemingly committed political suicide in the jingoistic bs time Pubs produced. Then we found out they were total liars and incompetents.

Transcript Obama s Speech Against The Iraq War NPR

Would you take up arms and fight for your country?

 

[blackhawk]

Anyone care to hazard a guess at what's to come?

Don't really need to guess the Taliban will likely take control of large areas of the country again and in time it will become the home of Al-Qaeda or some type of Al-Qaeda off shoot.

 

[francoHFW]

There was no "smoking gun". Nothing about Iraq was urgent. I deny any "non sequitur". This all about your inability to distinguish between excuses and reasons. U.N. rulings and technical violations of previous agreements are excuses; direct attack or threat of attack are reasons. The former aren't immediate threats and the latter, theoretical at best and imaginary at worst

Hindsight is 20/20. Go back and review what was known and what was widely assumed. Further Iraq was underminding sanctions. Your comments are non sequiturs.

Obama knew enough in 2002, without hindsight, to know that invading Iraq was an idiotic idea. So did I.

You didn't. You come in third in that contest lol.

No, he opposed it out of knee jerk reaction of pacificism and anti-Bushism. Most Democrats supported it, including Hillary.

Pure Pubcrappe, dupe. Read his speech 10/2002. Absolutely right on all counts. Hillary and others would have seemingly committed political suicide in the jingoistic bs time Pubs produced. Then we found out they were total liars and incompetents.

Transcript Obama s Speech Against The Iraq War NPR

Would you take up arms and fight for your country?

Yes, stupid.

 

[Desperado]

There was no pressing reason to go into Iraq when we did. Should have waited to deal with Saddam until after Afghanistan was settled.

I agree that 9/11 was used as an excuse to invade Iraq, rather than to eliminate some immediate security threat. GW's well-intentioned, if unrealistic, goal was to create a new kind of Arab democracy that could serve as a model to break the unending conflicts in that region. A more practical (and less costly) goal would have been to depose Saddam and divide that "country"* into several administrative districts which could decide to unify or remain independent at some future date. In the meantime, we would have been able to establish a permanent military presence to counter Iranian threats to that region.

*Created out of thin air by British and French diplomats by drawing lines on a map in 1919 (Treaty of Versailles)

Well Intentioned? It was an outright lie!
Remember During the 2000 campaign, George W. Bush argued against nation building and foreign military entanglements. In the second presidential debate, he said: "I'm not so sure the role of the United States is to go around the world and say, 'This is the way it's got to be.'"
So what happened?

The 9/11 attacks happened in 2001, Brainiac.

So what does that have to do with Iraq and Nation Building?

Any statements made before 9/11/11 are irrelevant to this discussion.

No they are not! I will ask again what did Iraq have to do with 9/11?
Why should the US even think about Nation Building in a sovereign country?

 

[Desperado]

If it is over, than we should be bringing all the troops and equipment home.
If we are not, than, it is not over, no matter what they say.

So WWII is still going?

One would think so since we still have thousands of troops in the Axis Countries not to mention our troops in South Korea.
There is no logical reason for them still being there. Need to bring them home too.

 

[Carib Gyal]

No they are not! I will ask again what did Iraq have to do with 9/11?
Why should the US even think about Nation Building in a sovereign country?

No kidding. President Obama ended that war before he started it again.

 

[francoHFW]

If it is over, than we should be bringing all the troops and equipment home.
If we are not, than, it is not over, no matter what they say.

So WWII is still going?

One would think so since we still have thousands of troops in the Axis Countries not to mention our troops in South Korea.
There is no logical reason for them still being there. Need to bring them home too.

Fine, but not Korea- those N. Koreans are nuts.

 

[francoHFW]

No they are not! I will ask again what did Iraq have to do with 9/11?
Why should the US even think about Nation Building in a sovereign country?

No kidding. President Obama ended that war before he started it again.

Hardly- ISIS started it because Booosh's RW a-hole Maliki ruined Iraq discriminating against Sunnis. Then he fought Pub calls to send combat troops, instead got ME countries to help. We have advisers and Air Power only. A very smart president. Nice change.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Good. I agree with this. If Obama had done the same with Iraq as his own cabinet members recommended, there would be no ISIS right now.

Maybe he's not so hard to learn, after all.

Obama got a long term security deal (SOFA) with the Afghan Government. It is through 2024 with no deadline for complete withdrawal of US troops mandated in the agreement.

Had Bush been able to negotiate a similar real long term deal in Iraq rather than a short three year fix, then Obama would not have had his hands tied and things may have turned out differently there as well.

But you Obama haters appear to have mixed emotions over a contingency force remaining in Afghanistan with many of you declaring the Taliban takes over again anyway, while the same bitchers and moaners have constantly insisted that 10,000 troops staying in Iraq would have prevented the DAIISH invasion last June.

You may want to re-phrase your statement. "there would be no ISIS right now." The roots of ISIS go deep into the 2003 US invasion and messed up occupation of Iraq following the removal of an anti-alQaeda secular Sunni government there ostensibly to ferret out and remove weapons of mass destruction by military force.

 

[Avatar4321]

I'll consider it over when troops at home.

 

[Carib Gyal]

Good. I agree with this. If Obama had done the same with Iraq as his own cabinet members recommended, there would be no ISIS right now.

Maybe he's not so hard to learn, after all.

Obama got a long term security deal (SOFA) with the Afghan Government. It is through 2024 with no deadline for complete withdrawal of US troops mandated in the agreement.

Had Bush been able to negotiate a similar real long term deal in Iraq rather than a short three year fix, then Obama would not have had his hands tied and things may have turned out differently there as well.

But you Obama haters appear to have mixed emotions over a contingency force remaining in Afghanistan with many of you declaring the Taliban takes over again anyway, while the same bitchers and moaners have constantly insisted that 10,000 troops staying in Iraq would have prevented the DAIISH invasion last June.

You may want to re-phrase your statement. "there would be no ISIS right now." The roots of ISIS go deep into the 2003 US invasion and messed up occupation of Iraq following the removal of an anti-alQaeda secular Sunni government there ostensibly to ferret out and remove weapons of mass destruction by military force.

I have no problem with the US military, which always kicks ass as it is trained to do.

The politicians are another issue altogether. I have a problem with pretty much all of them.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

bb 10435167

Further Iraq was underminding sanctions.

What sanctions were being undermined by Iraq

 

[The Rabbi]

bb 10435167

Further Iraq was underminding sanctions.

What sanctions were being undermined by Iraq

Go read the archives, dumbshit. I'mnot here to educate you. That's probably a fool's errand anyway.

 

[Indofred]

So, what did we accomplish?

Your arms industry made a fortune.
A lot of corrupt politicians got paid off for keeping the war going.
A lot of US families got free funerals for their sons and husbands.
Loads of extra people hate America and Americans, putting lots of your people in danger.