Since this thread has turned away from its original topic, I will change it to what it has turned into.
I do not think Invading Iraq was the right move. It is going to end up costing well over a trillion dollars. Iran is funding a cheap war and supplying terrorist ieds to kill Americans, we have hit the 4000 plateau for US deaths and we did not find the wmd's.
I am not questioning if the surge is working or if this is a quigemire, I am asking if this was worth the cost.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
would this be considered stealing?
March 11, 2008 - 21:10 ET by shawn228With as much physical and monetary cost of the war, should we just take the profits for ourselves? You thoughts please.
No
March 12, 2008 - 01:49 ET by UnsaneThis is NOT ethical. After WWII the allies (especially the Soviets) stripped Germany of much of what it had. In the case of the Soviets, they even completely gutted offices and shipped everything in them home to the Soviet Union.
Granted, the Soviet Union got the worst of it during the war so I suppose one can make an argument for demontage in that sense. But not here in the case of Iraq.
If we are here not to punish Iraq (as France did Germany after WWI; look how that turned out) but to get the country back on its own feet again, just shipping the oil back home would work at cross-purposes. Let the Iraqis sell the oil to whoever they want. Chances are the people who buy the oil will be in the Eastern Hemisphere. Europe especially can use it, and considering their over-reliance on Russia (and considering the immense backsliding Russia has been doing, and Russia's lack of qualms at using energy as a weapon - just ask Ukraine or Georgia), the NEED to diversify their energy sources BADLY.
We didn't strip Germany, Japan, Korea or other places to pay off the war - we built them up and now we trade with them instead and 1) give them less of a reason to go to war and 2) make money off the trade. I'd say history shows that this is more effective.
What we can do to help pay the war cost (example) is to cut down on pork projects, but sadly, no matter what party the Congresscritter belongs to, the mentality is that pork is bad unless it is MY pork. And I can't blame them because their constituents have the exact same mentality.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
I agree her with your
March 12, 2008 - 21:14 ET by alamojbI agree her with your comments here. I apologize for calling you " knucklehead" on the other post. Was not very dignified of me in spite of our big difference of opinion on the TTC.
No
March 19, 2008 - 10:50 ET by LionKingWe did not go there for oil, but to liberate a country from an evil dictator that posed a threat to our national security.
To steal anything from that country would put an even bigger black-mark on the USA in the world's eyes.
No it wouldn't
March 16, 2008 - 20:20 ET by Dee BunkNo it wouldn't
Thank you for everyone that
March 16, 2008 - 21:22 ET by shawn228Thank you for everyone that has voiced an opinion so far. I was just thinking that since this war might end up costing well over a trillion dollar after all is said and done, It is not really fair for America to foot the bill.
I guess we will have to think of other ways to pay for it.
America's sweetheart does gangsta rap
What is this "fair"?
March 17, 2008 - 08:27 ET by Unsane"It is not really fair for America to foot the bill." There's that word again.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
From Where Should the Money Come?
March 17, 2008 - 08:38 ET by CGattonSince the United Nations failed to provide a police force adequate to handle Iraq, and it became necessary that we do so, as the only ones capable of performing said duties, I would say that the money should come from our 'dues' to the ineffectual UN. When all monies expended in Irag have been recouped, then perhaps we can discuss contributing once again to that international pool of inaction. This time, however, it should be with the understanding that if we must again be the world's policemen out of necessity, we do so on our terms.
V/R
Clyde
"...the aspirants to tyranny are either the...men of the state, who in democracies are demagogues,... or those who hold great offices, and have a long tenure.." - Aristotle, Politics, c350BC
Costs?
March 26, 2008 - 23:40 ET by gfrrocksJust keep saying in your head, "freedom isn't free, freedom isn't free"...and you can thank an American soldier for that. We haven't been attacked since 9/11 and if one looks at all that the U.S. does around the world, don't we pay for most of everything anyway. Our politicians would have just thrown all that $$ down a useless, bottomless bloated gov't rat whole anyway. BTW, LIFE isn't fair....get over it.
Shawn, LOL-You must have filled up your car, too.
March 17, 2008 - 21:06 ET by R D HelmI hit my neighborhood QuikTrip Saturday afternoon to fill up the panzer. I put 20.48 gal. (premium, as regular unleaded is a no-no in my car) in a 20 gal. tank (I must have been running on fumes when I got there), and it set me back $69.01.
LOL-On the way home, I was screaming for war with somebody.
While I understand your sentiments, I don't think we could just take their oil (well, we could, but....). However, if they were to donate some in our direction, I wouldn't complain a bit. We did, after all, rid them of Sodamn Insane.
Problem is, Iraqi oil, according to what I have read, is not of very high quality, nor is it all that plentiful. The Iraqis will need that oil after we are out of the picture (which I hope is soon).
Of course, if my next tank full costs me $80, I might just have a change of heart. :-)
Theme for Election '08: I want my mommy!
RDH
March 17, 2008 - 22:23 ET by shawn228Here in Northern Cali premium gas cost 3.90 per gallon. I too have to put premium gas in both my cars. " Acura and Lexus" I miss my Honda Accord :-(
Cost 50 bucks to fill each up and they are only 15 and 16 gallon tanks.
Why didn't we invade Columbia or Peru? I don't mind the price going up on a gram of devils dandruff. Been meaning to cut down anyways. ..lol just kidding. Starbuck lovers would have a fit if their Joe went up though.
Shawn,
March 17, 2008 - 22:50 ET by R D HelmLOL-If those Starbucks customers see another price jump, not only are they going to be screaming for an all out invasion of Colombia, they'll be pushing for the arrest and execution of Juan Valdez and his entire family for holding out, too.
Of course, since my coffee of choice is Starbucks Colombian (which I buy whole bean in prodigious amounts and promptly freeze) I might just be out there with them.
I have to have my fresh ground cup (or three) o' love every morning, or else my whole day goes to hell in a hand basket right quickly. :-)
As for Peru, well, all we would have to say is BOO. LOL.
Theme for Election '08: I want my mommy!
Shawn...at the time we
March 17, 2008 - 23:41 ET by JerShawn...at the time we commenced our misadventure in Iraq, I recall thinking of the many negative consequences which I feared might ensue. But, I partially consoled myself with the thought "Well, at least we will have cheap oil." That worked out well, didn't it?
[However, I essentially agree with Unsane's assessment earlier in the thread. On the other hand, when we are spending something on the order of $12 billion per month to liberate and politically stabilize Iraq, I'm not so sure that cutting ourselves some favorable oil contracts would constitute "stealing".]
Jer
Jer
March 18, 2008 - 01:34 ET by Cool Arrow"Well, at least we will have cheap oil"
Jer, really?
♣ a seal
I can't speak for Jer, but why not??
March 18, 2008 - 01:47 ET by sarcasmoIf an "expert" like Paul Wolfowitz claimed at the time that "the Iraq War will pay for itself" that was a kinda logical conclusion on Jer's part, wasn't it??
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
Thanks, sarc...I couldn't
March 18, 2008 - 03:33 ET by JerThanks, sarc...I couldn't have said it better myself.
Jer
I'm just glad there's a World Bank
March 18, 2008 - 05:13 ET by sarcasmoTo get Paul Wolfowitz laid courtesy of taxpayers -- kinda makes Elliot's expensive whore look a bit cheap, though...I'm surprised the World Bank and the IMF are so popular in the USA, since they're basically internationalists screwing around with central control.
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
Yes, really, C A...but, it
March 18, 2008 - 03:40 ET by JerYes, really, C A...but, it was just a quip--not meant to be a deeply reasoned foreign policy pronouncement. But neither did I envision oil at $111 a barrel five years later.
Jer
More mutterings
March 18, 2008 - 04:29 ET by UnsaneA weaker dollar, many more people demanding slices of the oil pie, and...well, you have what we have. (I wonder what would happen to oil prices if our Congresscritters of BOTH parties set aside their pork projects and instead used that cash to help pay down the debt???)
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
For Jer
March 18, 2008 - 04:27 ET by UnsaneShawn...at the time we commenced our misadventure in Iraq Misadventure, you say? Not from my perspective...
I partially consoled myself with the thought "Well, at least we will have cheap oil." That worked out well, didn't it? That's because you weren't looking at Iraqi oil logistically. There IS a reason why Canada and Mexico supply so much of our oil: because they are closer to the United States than Iraq is. When all is said and done, most of Iraq's oil will go to European or Asian consumers.
Also, you should consider the fact that new oil infrastructure has not been placed in Iraq since Saddam was in power (although this might slowly be changing now). Iraq will require some upgrades to its oil facilities before it can really get going again in terms of exporting oil as it did previously.
On the other hand, when we are spending something on the order of $12 billion per month to liberate and politically stabilize Iraq, I'm not so sure that cutting ourselves some favorable oil contracts would constitute "stealing". Hey, that's an attitude that NEVER breeds resentment! Just as the Brits, who helped themselves to Iranian oil under VERY favorable terms in a 60 year deal starting in 1901! I don't know what Mossadegh was so bent about...
And here I am thinking that Leftists were the touchy-feely ones who want the world to LOVE us. That sounds like something an uncaring, heartless Rightist like ME should come up with!!!
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Unsane...
March 18, 2008 - 04:55 ET by JerI should have made it clear that "misadventure" was more descriptive of my views in 2003. In recent months, I have noted several times my increased optimism in light of the general successes of the surge policy.
But, for reasons which I'm sure you are well aware, the road is, and will continue to be, a difficult one in Iraq; and I think the jury remains out on the prospects for ultimate success. That said, Unsane, I essentially agree with your above comments and earlier posts.
Also, take care of yourself, and come home safe.
Jer
Jer
March 18, 2008 - 07:55 ET by shawn228I am very happy the surge is going well right now. It would be huge mistake to withdrawal at the moment.
I have always said I support the truth, but regret our decision to invade. IMO removing Saddam, his sons and giving Iraqis the right to vote was not worth the price we paid. GWB, Donald Rumsfeld, and Dick Cheney all admitted the intelligence was faulty and there were no WMD.
shawn
March 18, 2008 - 08:37 ET by JerShawn...no tears need be shed over the fact Saddam is no longer around to act on his penchant for murderous thuggery.
That said, I simply believed our 2003 invasion was engaging in the wrong war at the wrong time, for, at the very least, the following reasons:
--It shifted our focus, as well as limited assets, from the more important mission of completely destroying the Taliban, pacifying Afghanistan, and locating and liquidating bin Laden and his Al Quaeda high command.
--The democratization of Iraq would prove to be an incredibly daunting, if not impossible, task.
--Our continued but necessary occupation of that country could be disruptive to the larger objectives of the war on terror because it would serve to radicalize young Arabic and Islamic men and women, providing Al Quaeda with a steady supply of recruits to threaten us for generations.
--It would squander the post 9/11 good will which had been generated among our more traditional allies, but who were mystified by our rush to exercise the military option in Iraq.
--Unless Saddam were on the verge of developing deliverable nuclear weapons, his WMD threat, even if it existed, was manageable. Of course, if he could be directly connected to 9/11, he should justifiably suffer the ultimate consequences. Otherwise, his general capacity for mischief was containable. As it turned out, the WMD threat was neglibible, his connection to 9/11 nonexistent, and his ties to Al Quaeda extremely tenuous if there were any at all.
Jer
Interspersed comments
March 20, 2008 - 03:42 ET by Unsane--It shifted our focus, as well as limited assets, from the more important mission of completely destroying the Taliban, pacifying Afghanistan, and locating and liquidating bin Laden and his Al Quaeda high command. Hey, I'll be sure to call my friends over in Bagram and Kandahar and let them know that we aren't focused on Afghanistan. That might be good for a laugh or two! And, once again, the Left is obsessed with catching bin Laden. Why? Because I suppose once we capture him, rose gardens will spontaneously blossom worldwide, world peace will be declared, and we can focus on building a bigger, better Nanny State! (Where those same people were in the 1980s, when Abu Nidal was the bin Laden of the age, I of course do not know, but I didn't hear of them wanting to abandon Western Europe to go hunt down Nidal.)
--The democratization of Iraq would prove to be an incredibly daunting, if not impossible, task. Daunting, yes. Impossible? No.
--Our continued but necessary occupation of that country could be disruptive to the larger objectives of the war on terror because it would serve to radicalize young Arabic and Islamic men and women, providing Al Quaeda with a steady supply of recruits to threaten us for generations. Funny. Overlord did not lead to radicalized Nazis. I toured Japan and did not catch a whiff of hostility, even in a city I visited which was put to the torch with firebombs (to say nothing of Hiroshima or Nagasaki, which I did not visit). And on and on and on. If you are so worried about making enemies and making people mad at the United States, I submit that you were late as of 3 July 1776.
--It would squander the post 9/11 good will which had been generated among our more traditional allies, but who were mystified by our rush to exercise the military option in Iraq. That "goodwill" was generated because some out there, especially in Western Europe, cannot tolerate a strong, powerful United States. They know that we can do what they cannot, for they lack the will and the means to do it. So they hate us for it. Therefore, if we are weak, they LOVE us. When the United States goes on the march, as stated in Foreign Policy once, rather than "face the reality squarely" that they are a bunch of whiny, powerless Nanny States, they'd "rather moralize on the evils of unilateralism". I, for one, would much rather have the United States FEARED than loved. For, if we are feared, people are less likely to pull off 9/11/01 style attacks, much less anything else of lesser magnitude.
--Unless Saddam were on the verge of developing deliverable nuclear weapons, his WMD threat, even if it existed, was manageable. Why do you think we are fretting about Iran's pursuit of WMDs? the same reason we were with Saddam: he could not be trusted to NOT engage in terrorist activity with one. Therefore it was much less manageable than you think. Of course, if he could be directly connected to 9/11, he should justifiably suffer the ultimate consequences. Otherwise, his general capacity for mischief was containable. Containable? Again, not the way you think. Just ask Iraq's eastern neighbor how easy it is to inflict mayhem far beyond their borders. As it turned out, the WMD threat was neglibible what's some mustard gas and cease-fire violations between friends, right???, his connection to 9/11 nonexistent, and his ties to Al Quaeda extremely tenuous if there were any at all. But he and Abu Nidal were apaprently boys. They found Nidal dead on the streets of Baghdad as the invasion began. Hmmmmmmmmm......
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Hi Unsane...gotta run, but
March 20, 2008 - 04:30 ET by JerHi Unsane...gotta run, but one quick question. If the Left is "obsessed" with bin Laden, how would you describe John "I'll chase Osama to the gates of Hell" McCain?
Jer
I gotta perception of misconception....
March 20, 2008 - 03:28 ET by UnsaneI have always said I support the truth, but regret our decision to invade. IMO removing Saddam, his sons and giving Iraqis the right to vote was not worth the price we paid. It is MUCH better to have the United States be a whiny Nanny State, after all. This advancing freedom across the world crap is just highly overrated, I guess. Right, Shawn? GWB, Donald Rumsfeld, and Dick Cheney all admitted the intelligence was faulty and there were no WMD. Actually, yes, there WERE WMDs, and you should be thankful that the search engine on NB sucks now. Mustard gas was found in Iraq two years ago or so, but all the Leftists started crying about how "degraded" it was. Except for one little thing: chemical weapons don't "degrade" easily. Oh yes, and not to mention the shells found in Iraq that were capable of delivering those non-existent WMDs.
Besides, Shawn, as much as you want to believe dogmatically that WMDs were THE reason we went to war, they were in fact A reason. In fact, the United States had the right to resume hostilities the instant our aircraft were painted by Iraqi radars in the "no-fly zones."
Finally, our allies were getting wobbly. France, in particular. You see, they need to fund their Nanny State somehow, so they were positively aching for sanctions to be lifted so they could freely do business with their old buddy again. Of course, then they were flagrantly violating the sanctions in 2000, they whined about how they were only doing humanitarian missions because the sanctions hurt only the children. Right.............
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
"Actually, yes, there WERE
March 20, 2008 - 08:08 ET by shawn228"Actually, yes, there WERE WMDs, and you should be thankful that the search engine on NB sucks now."
Without fail, someone will point me to freestinkers invading Iraq thread
Perhaps you can answer a question freestinker refuses to. Are the President, The Vice President, and the former Secretary of Defense lying when they say the intelligence was faulty and there were no WMD's?
I do not see how we have advanced freedom in the world, when Iran is extremely close to having a nuke now. Do you think you would dare pull this sh*t if we were not pre occupied in Iraq?
Right now they are just sitting back and waging a cheap war, buy supplying insurgents with IED's.
The problems now in Iraq
March 20, 2008 - 12:24 ET by BinxlyThe problems now in Iraq are not of exactly our making. Sure, our presence is nto appreciated over there, but you need to understand the 'why.' There are currently 3 different sects within the nation of Iraq who, for all purposes, want to be autonamous of one another or some even wanting THEIR will to be the way of Iraq. Its one of those 'my way or the highway' mentalities. However, one of the three merely wants independence, and personally, I don't see a big issue with it. Turkey would not be pleased if Kurdistan *was* granted full independence (since currently it functions almost completely autonamous of the Iraqi nation) but frankly I'm not too keen on Turkey as is.
The other two sects are the more Secular Arab Sunni, and the Shiites. Most of Saddam's former ba'thist party were Sunni. Many were not exactly pleased with Saddam's rule, but have made it a royal pain in the rear by stalling literally any group progress in Iraq. First they refused to participate in elections and then participated in the drafting of their constitution only RIGHT before it's deadline.
The issue here is the Sunni are more in line with the former model of government, a secular, Arab nation that ran very similarly to the previous Ba'thist model of government before we invaded. The Shiites however, are more 'buddy buddy' with Iran, some even tied to leadership in Iran, and are pushing for a more Muslim state, a nation who's law is based directly off of Islam. The Kurds, well, being the main victim of Saddam's rule, they oddly enough want nothing more than to be left the hell alone and as to no surprise with a national identity as such, have also been the biggest support for Americans since we got there. The only real issue they have is sticky situations such as the appropriation of Kirkut and other 'Kurdish" cities who also happen to be a melting pot of Sunni, Shiite, Kurds and even a small minority of Christians.
I used to believe in a unified Iraq, and the surge indeed is working, but you cannot FORCE progress onto people. That's why most liberals here in the US eventually lose favor among the public. Because they shove their progressive agenda down our throats. We need to be careful we are presenting liberty and freedom as a right for all, yet, in a democracy, the people rule. If the people decide on something aside from our democratic model, it is not our place to say otherwise. That said, the problem LIES in the community. Tensions run high, and like oil and water, some elements will never mix, no matter how hard you try and stir. Even if it was possible, using force to attain integration is not a wise idea either.
I certainly have no bulletproof plan for Iraq, but, if tensions continue, I suggest that we find some way to amicably 're zone' the nation of Iraq. It is quite possible that the tensions are too high and bad blood runs too deep to ever hope for a unified Iraq. I personally would much rather have 3 self-sufficient nations, all independent, that are at least civil rather than having to keep an enourmous amount of our troops over there to keep the peace for the next century. I'm aware US presence will be necessary, but if the land was split amicably, we could be sure the violence would also decline.
we did not find wmd's
March 20, 2008 - 23:45 ET by shawn228Binxly,
The main objective was to find wmd's. We did not find them. I am not saying the surge is not working or we are in a quigmire. Pulling out now is not a option and we have to see this through..This war was not worth the price we paid. If we never invaded, we would be in better position with Iran and North Korea
Seems everytime I say this, someone will give me a no win, closed ended question like. Do you wish we had Saddam back? Of course I do not wish we had Saddam back, but the objective was to find wmd, not to take out a brutal dictator. For every Saddam, there is a Ahmadinajad, or a Kim Jong.
Without invading Iraq, we would be much better financially and militarily.
Cyclosarin, Mustard Gas, Sarin, Tabun, and (tons of) Uranium
March 20, 2008 - 23:49 ET by Free StinkerBut you still can't make the Cyclosarin, Mustard Gas, Sarin, Tabun, and (tons of) Uranium go away.
And the UN has even admited that the "old" WMD found was not degraded.
Stinker, you overlooked the
March 21, 2008 - 00:00 ET by NL207Stinker, you overlooked the approximately 4 tons of VX gas that Saddam was known to have manufactured, and incidentally, which has never been accounted for.
Silly me.
March 21, 2008 - 00:04 ET by Free StinkerSilly me.
Thanks for the correction NL! ;-)
Pledge to not support RINOs ever again!
Well Free
March 21, 2008 - 00:12 ET by shawn228Thank your for the links/articles. Here is the official Iraq Survey group study. It says that there were no wmd's.
Once again. "I don't know" is not a option for a answer. Is the President lying when he along with the VP and Donald Rumsfeld when they say intelligence was faulty and there were no wmd's?
A yes or no will do just fine thanks :-)
No doubt authored by many
March 21, 2008 - 00:19 ET by NL207No doubt authored by many of the same intelligence analysts who earlier said Saddam had stockpiles of WMD. Do we have a credibility problem yet?
From your reference:
"This report also builds upon the work of a broader universe of people who have striven to understand the role of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq during the past decade or more. United Nations inspectors and analysts around the world have wrestled with this issue trying to sort out reality and develop policies to mitigate suffering and avoid conflict. Hopefully this report will provide some answers or at least more data for constructive review."
translation: International Intelligence Analysts, who almost to a man agreed that Saddam had WMD prior to 2004.
NL207
March 21, 2008 - 00:37 ET by shawn228Obviously the intelligence was wrong prior to the invasion. Many people thought Iraq had wmd. I was one of them. I don't nor did I ever fault the Bush adminstration for invading.
Hindsight is 20/20 and we can not look back and only look foward. If I knew then what I know now, I would not have been enthusiastic for invading.
It should be equally
March 21, 2008 - 00:59 ET by NL207It should be equally obvious that the intelligence is still wrong. There are still more WMD's in Iraq. Even the most optimistic experts including David Kay agree that something on the order of 5% of all WMD's Saddam created are unaccounted for. This includes the VX gas he produced, the most deadly chemical weapon ever invented.
It should also be obvious to you that the choice of Iraq as the killing field for Al Qaeda was an isnpired move. Iraq is the one middle east country in which we have the best chance of rooting out and killing the Al Qaeda fighters that would be drawn to any US invasion in the region. The other corollary reasons to choose Iraq as the central battlefield against the Islamic militants are also compelling: It is a major oil player. Its population is diverse and is more heavily westernized than any other nation in that region with the possible exception of Iran. It's repressive leader was a member of a minority faction within the country. There is a significant Kurdish minority yearning for autonomy that we have largely provided them with, making them very loyal supporters. There is a significant Christian minority. The majority Shiites were being oppressed and murdered. Even the Sunni Sheiks are finding a stake for themselves and their tribes in the success of this undertaking. Most of the country is arid or semi-arid landscape, maximizing the power of air and armor assets.
If we can ever defeat the radicals without waging all-out war against Islam as a whole, it will be in Iraq.
NL207
March 21, 2008 - 01:13 ET by shawn228I guess freestinker has gone to bed because he would have used his juvenile scoreboard by now.
If there are any WMD left in Iraq, they must have been made 10 yrs before the invasion, because the final report said Sadamm stopped that program at least that long.
"It should also be obvious to you that the choice of Iraq as the killing field for Al Qaeda was an isnpired move."
No arguments out of me on that one. That is just the thing NL207, if we are not there to begin with, Americans would not be in the thick of this Holy war between Shia and Sunni. Iran is arming insurgents with IED"S and killing our troops. Oil is 109 dollars per barrel so obviously we are spending lots of funds for gas for humvees and our fighter planes. This war is going to cost well over a trillion dollars before it is over. No more brutal dictator, Iraqis can vote, we have a launching pad to invade Iran if we want to. We sure paid a big price for another countries right to vote. I wonder how happy the Iraqis are right now? Sadamm is gone and their country is in ruins and we have proven we cannot protect them.
You're not paying attention
March 21, 2008 - 02:42 ET by NL207You're not paying attention to what the objectives were. If we were seeking to use war as a means to control oil, that would have been accomplished by now. $109 per barrel has a lot more to do with no domestic production and monetization of the national debt.
The object of this exercise was to defeat the militants who were ultimately responsible for 9-11. This means break Al Qaeda's back. To that end, the Iraq war has been a success. Huge numbers of their active forces have been killed. More importantly, their supporters and followers have been shown both in Iraq and Afghanistan that the militants aren't going to protect them and may even harm them.
We aren't there to provide security within Iraq. That is the job of the Iraqi government. We are there to kill al the Al Qaeda fighters. Any security we provide is only a means to that end.
We really don't care about the Sunni-Shiite dispute. When they are killing each other they are not over here flying airplanes into buildings.
The "final report" is no more credible than the previous reports were. WMD material was found scattered all over Iraq. Even your 'final report' admits all of it hasn't been accounted for.
I am paying attention just fine
March 21, 2008 - 08:26 ET by shawn228I never said this war all about oil. I said 109 per barrel is costing us a lot of money because we are using a lot of gasoline in this war.
"The object of this exercise was to defeat the militants who were
ultimately responsible for 9-11. This means break Al Qaeda's back."
This theory has been proven wrong time and time again. If you see a quote anywhere from our leaders, that the objective for invading Iraq was to break Al Qaeda's back, I would love to see it. The admininstration was given authorization for invading because we thought they had wmd's. Nothing more.
"To that end, the Iraq war has been a success. Huge numbers of their
active forces have been killed. More importantly, their supporters and
followers have been shown both in Iraq and Afghanistan that the
militants aren't going to protect them and may even harm them"
I agree with some of what you say here. There have been many top miitants killed, but it seems for everyone we kill or capture, there is always someone to take their place.
"We really don't care about the Sunni-Shiite dispute. When they are
killing each other they are not over here flying airplanes into
buildings. "
"We aren't there to provide security within Iraq. That is the job of
the Iraqi government. We are there to kill al the Al Qaeda
fighters. Any security we provide is only a means to that end."
How many people that flew airplanes in our buildings were Iraqi? I would think after invading a country and taking out their leader, that saying I don't care about the citizens safety, we are only concerned about ourselves is a pretty flippant attitude.
The "final report" is no more credible than the previous reports were.
WMD material was found scattered all over Iraq. Even your 'final
report' admits all of it hasn't been accounted for.
The difference between mine and freestinkers are his are articles and opinions, this is a official report. Yes not all the wmd material was recovered, but more importantly it said that Sadamm abandoned his weapon program 10 yrs ago. Same with a new Pentagon report the Bush administraton does not want released.
Shawn
March 21, 2008 - 11:19 ET by MrShyWMD SchmoubleyouMD!!
Why do you and everyone on the left endlessly obsess over this? Who knows who screwed up as far as the belief that Saddam had them, FACT IS this administration -- and many in the congress and senate, please remember -- believed he DID, which is why the war was constitutionally authorized, and so Bush did his duty as commander in chief based on the intelligence he had. Get off his back already, he did nothing "illegal".
Which then brings me to so many great dividends this war in Iraq has brought, which you blindly ignore because you just don't like Bush:
I would think after invading a country and taking out their leader...
Wow, so to mute the fact that we took out a dictator, you're now referring to Saddam as their leader ?? (ugh)
I agree with some of what you say here. There have been many top miitants killed, but it seems for everyone we kill or capture, there is always someone to take their place.
Well, no. In the theater of Iraq, very few have been "taking their place" in the past year since we finally started to succeed in Iraq. Then, if you look worldwide terror-wise, when was the last real coordinated, mass-casualty attack on a city/country? I'll give you the answer, London 2005. But really, that was not so coordinated, and the bombs and people involved were not that sophisticated, so really Madrid 2004. That's 4 years and running of relative peace from terror. Before this, every year there were horrible attacks, from the late 1980's through 9/11.
If you see a quote anywhere from our leaders, that the objective for invading Iraq was to break Al Qaeda's back, I would love to see it.
Like I stated in my opening, who cares NOW??? And who cares whenever? Again, the administration and many others, including Clinton in the 90's, saw Saddam as a threat. Finally, a president took action. Aren't you extremely happy that we have indeed broken Al Qaedas back? Aren't you ecstatic? I know I am.
Aren't you feeling a lot safer, now that a terrible dictator and a corruptly-run regime smack in the center of the cancerous, unstabble-for-decades Middle East has now been replaced by a democratic state? Liberals love democracy, right? Only a fool would not see that as a major achievement and a plus for world peace.
* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *
For REAL Change
Mr Shy and his hero Bush
March 21, 2008 - 16:04 ET by shawn228I really hate to nitpick about reading comprehension, but kindly show where I said or even implied Bush did anything illegal or I do not like him.
My point is the main purpose of this invasion was to find wmd's. We did not do that.
And no, I do not feel any safer now, because Iran is much more dangerous now and North Korea officially has the bomb now and they are actually daring us to invade them.
Sure i'm glad Saddam is gone, but a trillion dollars, 4000 lives, a nuclear North Korea, countless Iraqi lives was not worth the price.
Shawn, sadly...
March 21, 2008 - 16:14 ET by sarcasmoIt's looking more like $3 Trillion plus, if the WaPo's math is right...
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
I know Sarc
March 21, 2008 - 16:20 ET by shawn228I kept the # at 1 trillion just in case somebody accused me of listening to the msm and their exagerrations. I did not feel like going off course, today, which almost always happens.
Shawn
March 21, 2008 - 16:15 ET by MrShyYeah, my hero Bush. You got that right. I think he's truly one of the greats, in regards to his guts and real integrity. How do you like that for a statement?
As for the rest of what you wrote, fair enough. We see it/him very differently, and not much else to say on that.
War kills and costs money, I know, that's the downside. But wars have been waged many times in the past by well-meaning Democrat and Republican presidents alike. Wars in the past have killed way more soldiers than this one. This is another war during another presidency, that's it. Naturally, going to war brings out the polarized viewpoints as so much is sacrificed, and so much is at stake.
* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *
For REAL Change
You STILL don't get it.
March 21, 2008 - 22:48 ET by NL207You STILL don't get it. You and all the rest of this liberal, pseudo-intellectual rabble keep harping on the 'nationality' of the 9-11 hijackers and how none of them were Iraqi nationals and how most of them were Saudi nationals! This is utterly irrelevant! We are involved in a RELIGIOUS war. The enemy is a religion. That religion is Fundamentalist Islam in all of its manifestations. Anyone who supports, sympathizes with, aids or joins Al Qaeda is the enemy, regardless of national origin. My personal guess is that 15% or more of all Islam are the enemy. This about 200 milllion or more people. They probably represent a sampling of at least 100 different nationalities.
The above is what makes this war such a bitch. To kill or defeat this body of people is very difficult under the Geneva Conventions of War because the enemy is not playing by the Geneva rules. This is an asymmetrical war.
Bush's strategy for defeating this threat is long term. It may take a century or more to have full effect and if it succeeds, it will change the world. That is what it takes to defeat something like this thtreat. The Democrats have zero vision in this mattter. They offer nothing but capitulation to this enemy. Capitulation, Chamberlainesque appeasement are only going to fail in the face of the Islamofascists just as these same strategies failed in the face of the Fascists 70 years ago.
Shawn, Leon, Sarc (evidently) and more....
March 26, 2008 - 23:06 ET by MrShyRead NL207 above, PLEASE.
Thank you NL. What we're undertaking -- and it's a courageous and visionary thing -- is so beyond the many narrow, save-the-whales -BUT- me-now-first minds on the left.
We're doing two things in parallel: a) cleaning out the swamp, as one poster put it, and b) reshaping the general Middle East region ideologically, starting with Iraq which is geographically smack in the middle of this chaotic stew of rogue/dictatorship states with the roots of dangerous radical Islam. It made a lot of sense, as it was an incredibly unstable and unpredictable country, ruled by a tyrant.
Like NL says, it's a multi-step process, and this war is just the first step. It's a long-term vision, and one I'm all for.
* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *
For REAL Change
Mr. Shy
March 26, 2008 - 23:08 ET by shawn228Wow Shy, you puckered up so close to NL's and Peskydanes, you know what, that you can taste what they had for lunch today
The waters are quite over polluted and that scares me, but I don't know if I ever said mentioned anything about whales.
It does not scare you that Iran might have nukes very soon and we are just standing by and letting it happen?
If by this post you mean my
March 26, 2008 - 23:23 ET by MrShyIf by this post you mean my nose is firmly up NL's arse, then my nose is fully up his arse because I completely agree with him. Did you read his post? We both share a belief, confidently, that we're engaged in an asymmetrical war with a radicalized/perverted interpretation of a religion being promoted by a good percentage (maybe not 15, maybe 10 or less, but that's still MILLIONS) of the Muslim world, which is already spreading globally, but still very much concentrated in the Iraq/Iran/M.E. region.
Iran having nukes scares me, as do many other very real scenerios -- of which there are so many, in this complex struggle we're in. Iran is in this mix of Bush's long term strategy, believe me. And don't ask me how it will be passed on to whoever the next president is (D or R) as I haven't a clue, and it's all very scary. Nothing is gauranteed, Shawn, and any bomb can go off anywhere, any time. It's a scary world we're in, but Iraq removed, Saddam-wise, removes one scary piece -- WMD's aside -- and establishing a democracy there will be a major victory for us and the free world.
Again, in NL's words, because he is more eloquent than I am:
It may take a century or more to have full effect and if it succeeds, it will change the world.
None of us know how it will shake out... if it succeeds.... it's a strategy, and a very gutsy one. The alternative is more of the same -- capitulation and sanctions -- and over many decades it's only gotten worse. 9/11 marked the foot-down turn this president decided to take.
* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *
For REAL Change
I've seen it over and over here...Nothing new.
March 26, 2008 - 23:12 ET by sarcasmoI'm with this guy instead, thanks, because I think it's safe to say he has just a teeny, tiny bit more expertise in the area of national security than NL207. :) All 8 questions rock, IMO, but I especially liked #8, probably for the same reason people here will especially-hate it. The article is worth reading, and might even be worth thinking-about...
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
Sarc
March 26, 2008 - 23:36 ET by MrShyI know nothing about RP, but I'll take a look at it, thanks.
I still believe there's really no other approach than the very painful, long-term one drawn up by Bush/Cheney/Rummie/Hitler/Chimpy...
:)
* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *
For REAL Change
Scheuer's not RP...
March 27, 2008 - 04:00 ET by sarcasmoBut he is a 22 year veteran of the CIA, hence my remark about experience. He was the head of the Bin Laden unit before he became an author & started saying sensible things. No wonder the news media didn't want to listen...
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
Sarc, You haven't a clue
April 7, 2008 - 00:00 ET by NL207Sarc, You haven't a clue what I do for a living. For all you klnow, I could be a senior member of the DIA or CIA.
And as fior your buddy, RP, he is an idiot. He thinks that securing the remaining nukes held by the former Soviet Union is going to prevent AQ from obtaining a bomb he admits they have sworn to use on the US. Read it. He says that right in your link. This is what I think the real deal looks like:
(1) The KGB/Organizatsiya have already stung AQ once. They sold AQ several of the former Soviet suitcase Nukes for millions. They neglected to tell AQ the triggers for those nukes have a shelf life of about 6 months before they need to be refreshed. All the triggers supplied were years old... defunct. KGB have systematically killed/eliminated all the people who know how to make the triggers for those nukes. The net effect was to suck out all of AQ's big cash for nothing. There have been persistent reports of this for years and I do not buy the claims that all these weapons have been accounted for.
(2) There are other players who both have access to nukes and some incentive to supply them to AQ. In particular, Pakistan and N. Korea. Ron Paul says nothing about them in his piece on LewRockwell. Implication ==> RP has no idea what to do about this.
(3) There are players who may soon get nukes and might also supply AQ. Iran in particular. RP has no plans to do a damn thing about Ahmadinejad and the rest of those nut jobs in Iran.
Ron Paul is most certainly not the man.
Shawn
March 21, 2008 - 10:49 ET by Free StinkerIs the President lying when he along with the VP and Donald Rumsfeld
when they say intelligence was faulty and there were no wmd's?
No. They are wrong, but not lying.
freestinker
March 21, 2008 - 15:54 ET by shawn228Now we are getting somewhere. Thank you for finally answering the question. I will respond to you as soon as I finish my response to Mr Shy
No WMD found
March 21, 2008 - 17:07 ET by shawn228I know you have links/articles from everything from the Fox News to the New York Times. Wow the New York Times. They are the newspaper that said Iraq one yr away from a nuke. That article was the main reason you said you believed that Iraq would have unleashed a nuke attack within a few years wasn't it? Never new you put so much stock in the Liberal New York Times.
The thing is , unless you have level 5 access to Pentagon files,the President, The VP, and The former Secretary of Defense has access to many things you and I are not privy to.
If we truly found wmd, that would have justified the war. Think about if Free, wouldn't the President love to say neener neener, we found them and I was right all along. He has not done so, he has admitted to not finding any wmd. Why is this? Come on free, isn't there a small smidge of all chance he could be right?
WMD found
March 21, 2008 - 17:11 ET by Free StinkerHow could that be the case?
None of these reports have been retracted.
Pledge to not support RINOs ever again!
Why would they be retracted?
March 21, 2008 - 17:21 ET by shawn228They were not reports free they were articles. I don't know why they were not retracted, just like I don't know why all the books and articles about why man was never on the moon retracted. Beats me:-)
I believe the government took the opposite position on that one as well. Could this be a big government cover up?
Or how bout Bush lied, people died? That is not true either right? I have not heard of any retraction. Have you?
This will be a Broadway
March 21, 2008 - 17:38 ET by Free StinkerThis will be a Broadway muscial soon, scored by Elton John.
It's the circle . . . the circle of lie . . .
Pledge to not support RINOs ever again!
freestinker?
March 21, 2008 - 18:23 ET by shawn228Yeah, I heard something about that too. People thought it would be coming out, but the goverment says not to be expecting it anytime soon. I think it was scored by Elton John too, but I think It was called..
Sorry seems to the hardest word.
Yeah, if Bush would just
March 21, 2008 - 19:58 ET by Free StinkerYeah, if Bush would just say "Sorry, I'm not man enought to keep fighting the Democrats & the MSM on this issue" . . .
Pledge to not support RINOs ever again!
freestinker
March 21, 2008 - 22:31 ET by shawn228I was just having fun with you FS. I don't expect him to say sorry either. Rocket Man or Goodbye Yellow Brick Road would not have been as funny a punchline:-)
Breifly
March 25, 2008 - 08:03 ET by UnsaneSure, our presence is nto appreciated over there, but you need to understand the 'why.' If the Iraqis wanted us to leave, well, there are 25 MILLION of them vs. 150,000 or so of us.
From my perspective, things in Iraq, while not perfect, are getting better.
I used to believe in a unified Iraq, and the surge indeed is working, but you cannot FORCE progress onto people. Really? South Korea had scant little practice with democracy before 1945. Now they are one of the most robust democracies on earth. After years of imperfect democracy, eventually leading to dictatorship, the Germans were given the "Basic Law" and that still governs their country. History seems to contradict you.
I would go on and on, but my time is limited. (Which also explains why I have yet to respond to your scolding/lecturing posts elsewhere.)
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Have you ever wondered
March 18, 2008 - 18:54 ET by alamojbHave you ever wondered where in the US the current drilling is going on? Baker-Hughes has a weekly drilling rig count which reports the number of wells being drilled weekly. (If the well takes three weeks to drill it may be on three different weeks report).
The most recent drilling rig count listed showed 1,792 oil and gas wells being drilled in the US. The site even breaks it down by state. I provide a link to the latest report. There is also a lot of historical data on the site.
If you are reading this comment several days after I posted it, you may need to go back to the Baker-Hughes site to get a link to the latest reports.
http://investor.shareholder.com/bhi/rig_counts/rc_index.cfm
Getting too skinny up thereNL207
March 22, 2008 - 01:12 ET by shawn228I don't mean to be rude but if there is anyone missing the point it is you. You keep bringing up the point of religious war, or defeating Islam. I am talking about why we went war with Iraq in the first place. It was to find wmd remember? If you think I am wrong, I would love for you to find me a quote from President Bush about invading Iraq because of religion.
I believe we were talking about the reasons for going to war in the first place. If you decide to change to subject, that is fine. Just because I am Liberal does not mean I do not have reading comprehension.
Ok you want to talk about defeating islamic fundamentalist right? Ok then, so we the surge is working and there are less suicide bombers. Lets just say the best scenario that can happen happens. We have brought a relative peace to Iraq, then we are ready to pull out. What happens after our troops come home? We liberated a country, but left it in ruins, we lost 4000 troops, a trillion dollars, 30000 Iraqis dead and i'm assuming there are as many innocent women and children as Al Queda members that have been raped and tortured. Are there going to be less Islamic Facist that will be plotting revenge against our country? Is a nucleaur Iran a good thing?
There are many people in this country that worship Islam as well, do we go after them too?
"it may take a century or more to have full effect and if it succeeds, it will change the world "
I am unsure of what you mean here. Do you mean invade whereever there are Muslims. Yes I am asking alot of questions, because I am unsure about what you want to do. I will wait for your solution.
Shawn
March 22, 2008 - 01:29 ET by RESTLESS 1I found some interesting reading for you.
Religion was not the specific reason for our going into Iraq. But the fact is that fanatical islamists want to destroy our way of life. The ironic thing is most of what they dislike about us are liberal sacred cows. Abortion, homosexuality, promiscuous behavior, etc... NL207 is saying we are at war with fanatical islam. We have been for a long time, we just didn't know it. Both WTC attacks sounded the bell for us. Some figured it out before 1993, but 9/11 brought it home for good. Do we invade all Islmaist countries? Depends. If there is a threat, we may have to. I don't have all of the answers, but I do know we can't cower to this threat.
Restless1
March 22, 2008 - 01:39 ET by shawn228Thank you for the link, but I think that should go to Montana Lyons and not me. I have not faulted Bush for invading Iraq, nor have I held the Dems unaccountable.
If I did not make myself clear the first and second time. I will try a third. I supported the war in the beginning and I still do, retreat is not a option at the moment.
I am just saying that the intelligence was flawed and there were no wmd and this war was not worth the terrible price we paid. I do not think it is right to cower to a threat either. I do think we might have jumped the gun a little though. We should have given Hans Blix a little more time.
Shawn
March 22, 2008 - 01:49 ET by RESTLESS 1My apologies.
As for giving Hans Blix more time, wouldn't Saddam share some copability in that? Wasn't he the one that kept kicking the weapons inspectors out? That was another reason for the invasion. That and the continued defiance of U.N. resolutions. It may have not been about religion, but it was about more than just WMD. The U.N., along with countries like France, Germany, and Russia, would have been happy to stay out, but that would have resulted in the islamofascists believing that the U.N. and the U.S. were weak on terror. They did not have as big a stake in this as we are the "great satan" in their eyes.
Again, I apologize if I lumped you in with others on this site that lack your reason and inteligence.
restless
March 22, 2008 - 02:03 ET by shawn228No problem restless and thank you for the kind words. I was fooled too, and in hindsight we should have given him more time, but we can never change history.
I don't know if I am going off topic, but If I may I want to go on soapbox for while. I realize this site is about media bias, and yes I admit there is one. Because there is Republican President and administration, most articles are about the evil msm. How they are exaggerating gas prices, foreclosures etc.
Gas prices are ridiculous right now and they have been going up for the last eight yrs and it affecting peoples way of life. The low US dollar is felt all over the country. Foreclosures are up 70 percent this year, and we are 9 trillion in debt.
Guaranteed if a Dem president gets elected, he/she will be blamed for everything under the sun. I am sick of partision politics on both sides.
Ugh
March 25, 2008 - 08:19 ET by UnsaneGas prices are ridiculous right now and they have been going up for the last eight yrs and it affecting peoples way of life. The low US dollar is felt all over the country. Foreclosures are up 70 percent this year, and we are 9 trillion in debt. When life hands us lemons, most of us want to make lemonade with them, even if lacking in sugar. You, on the other hand, go running, almost every time, to hide underneath the skirt of the Nanny.
Gas prices are ridiculous? You don't say? Perhaps people ought to stop living 50 miles or so from work and make better decisions (gasp!!!). This is part of the reason why downtown Houston (for example) is experiencing a comeback: people are sick of the commuting, so they are pulling closer to where they work for shorter, cheaper commutes.
It's all about that damned Life thing.
Sorry, Shawn, just because you were born does not mean you are owed, PROMISED and GUARANTEED a strong dollar (or trips to Canada). You want a stronger dollar? Why not save 20% of your income every paycheck and encourage your friends to do the same? If people did that in droves in this country, the dollar's value would rise again...something important to currency fetishists like yourself. Besides, as others have pointed out, there are some benefits to a weaker dollar...which don't matter to you, because those trips you make to YVR are your BIRTHRIGHT...right?
Foreclosures are up 70% this year? Doubtless you want the government to do something about it. I'd rather see those losers who overextended themselves fall on their faces. You whine about that, yet something like 94% of homeowners make their mortgage payments, no problem. (But that is a typical Shawn solution: when people make bad decisions, like overextend themselves when buying a home, we should all immediately feel sorry for them, and coddle, pamper, and baby them instead of letting them fall on their face and learn from their idiocy. No one should have to feel or suffer CONSEQUENCES, right?)
$9 triliion debt. No one gives a sh!t about it. Sad but true. As Tom Clancy once put it, we should be demanding the same level of efficiency from government that we demnad from GM but we don't. If people truly gave a damn about that, we'd stop electing Congresscritters who raid the cookie jar for pork products (example).
Besides, what does the debt matter to you? If it were $900 trillion, but you were being coddled, pampered, babied, and constantly lavished endless government goodies, you would be orgasmically HAPPY. Because the government, in your view, is here to inoculate you and shield you from the pain of Life.
As for Iraq: apparently you believe like religion that we are only here for WMDs we have in fact found (that you swear we haven't). Um, there are a LOT more reasons than that for what is happening here. Lots of posters have pointed them out to you but you just keep on crying about how we haven't found WMDs (which other posters have pointed out that yes we have found them). Maybe when I have more time I'll try to paint a picture. Until then, let me put it this way: I'd rather have the terrorists die in Baghdad than in Houston.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
LOL unsane
March 25, 2008 - 20:43 ET by shawn228I just decided to go on a little soapbox with restless and I went a little off topic. I was not saying the goverment is responsible, I was just saying the msm has a right to report bad news.
I never said I want the government to do anything about foreclosures or the dollar. I am saying things are not very rosy right now that is all!
I did not know it would spawn another one of your essay size post. I said it in the past, you and Trach can really have size contest one day "now now get your mind out of the gutter, I meant size in text"
"As for Iraq: apparently you believe like religion that we are only here
for WMDs we have in fact found (that you swear we haven't).'
That is the reason we went to war Unsane. It was all about finding wmd. As much as you deny it. If this was about Iraq violating santions and shooting at our planes, do you think we still would have invaded. Please no long winded answers. Yes or no.
Shawn
March 25, 2008 - 21:09 ET by MrShyShawn, I'm a bit tired/lazy right now to go and Google his final speech that announced our invasion of Iraq, but.....
Where did he ever say, explicitly, that (to this effect) "We are going to war to find and dismantle the WMD's in Iraq" ???
Seriously, "your side" just harps and harps on this one thing, and you think that by repeating this mantra that Bush simply stated "we are going in for WMD's"-- a fabrication -- that it becomes fact. It is NOT a fact that he went in solely to find WMD's, it was ONE of the arguments -- a primary one, sure, but still just one!
Fine, no clear WMD's. If he never mentioned WMD's but instead said we were going in to free the people, well the left would have bitched just as much. Shawn, the left doesn't like Bush, period. No matter what his main argument was to go in, he was going to be tarred and feathered, regardless.
War is hell enough without a completely biased media that A) doesn't like war, regardless, and B) doesn't like a Republican in the White House.
* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *
For REAL Change
Sorry to cut in, Mr Shy
March 25, 2008 - 21:29 ET by JerSorry to cut in, MrShy...but, with all due respect--baloney!
Finding and destroying Saddam's WMDs was "the" primary reason, not "a" primary reason for the invasion of Iraq. Regime change, Iraqi freedom, hints of ties to Al-Quaeda and 9/11 were secondary and peripheral.
Moreover, Bush enjoyed broad media and public support after 9/11 and before Iraq.
Finally, I'm on the "left" and I like President Bush.
Jer
Jer, how many UN resolutions, etc!
March 25, 2008 - 21:35 ET by PawpawNNotice that the UN always has Resolutions, never any Solutions. I believe we were on the 13th or 14th resolution that Sadaam had blown off. He gave more BJs to the UN than ML did to BJC. Check the Congressional record for the info on what they voted for and why.
PawpawN..I actually thought
March 25, 2008 - 21:53 ET by JerPawpawN..I actually thought it was more like 17 resolutions, but you may be right. Anyway, I think that after about 10, who's counting? I'll stipulate that Saddam was a rogue, a political thug, a murderer, and a generally all-around not so nice guy.
I read the Congressional authorizing resolution in its entirety several months ago.
I still believe the war was a mistake at the time, and continues to be a mistake, but I hope I am proved wrong and that Iraq will be successfully transformed into a stable and peaceful democracy.
Jer
Jer, with all due respect
March 25, 2008 - 22:45 ET by MrShyJer, with all due respect in return, if you "like President Bush" than why are you countering my perceived "baloney" with real spin-baloney of yours?
I said, "solely" based on the WMD argument. "Solely" is not "a primary" or "the primary" (and my use of "the" was not to de-primary the word "primary" deliberately.) Still, it was not THE reason. It was primary, yes. So, again.... not the only reason.
"Secondary" and "peripheral" are still the additional reasons. So, again, you've mucked things up with your semantics. But I'm arguing with Shawn, and you apparently, and asking did Bush say "we are going in to find WMD's"? Period. With no other secondary reasons? Answer is, no, he did not.
Therefore, implicating Bush for "lying us into war" because we did not find WMD's is, in turn, a lie in yours/Shawn's defense in this argument.
(man, my head hurts now....)
* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *
For REAL Change
Mine, too...I'm going to bed.
March 25, 2008 - 23:03 ET by JerMine, too...I"m going to bed.
Jer
I'm looking forward to your answer mr shy
March 25, 2008 - 22:14 ET by shawn228It was all about finding the wmd Mr. Shy. The video that I am linking is extremely liberal I admit it, but it shows many scenes of Bush talking about wmd and Saddam trying to link 911 to Iraq and saying he was trying to obtain nucleaur material.
"Fine, no clear WMD's. If he never mentioned WMD's but instead said we
were going in to free the people, well the left would have bitched just
as much "
They would not have bitched and moaned, because without the threat of wmd the Bush admininstration would not have got authorization to go to war in the first place shy.
And I disagree with the tared and feathered part, he had close to a 90 percent approval rating. Going from that to the high twenties is his own doing.
If you don't think wmd was he main part of why he got authorization to go to war, I would love for you to find me some articles otherwise.
btw mr shy, since you both get along so well. Here is video for both you and freestinker. It is Bush saying there were no wmd and admitting Iraq had nothing to do with 911. He also admits wmd is the main reason he invaded Iraq. Also he is trying to save face.
It is NOT a fact that he went in solely to find WMD's, it was ONE of the arguments -- a primary one, sure, but still just one!
Perhaps you might want to take a stab at answering a question I posted for Unsane. Do you believe congress would have given this adminstration approval to go to war, if there was not the threat of wmd?
Shawn
March 25, 2008 - 22:33 ET by MrShyHAHAHAHAA...... I gotta say, I really did break out laughing right at the first words of your post:
The video that I am linking is extremely liberal I admit it, but...
Hahahahaha...... sorry, just really funny. Okay, once I stop laughing I will go click on this link and check it all out... the "extremely liberal" source you've so kindly provided (haha)
I'm sorry, I really am laughing... and not at you, seriously. I'm actually admiring that you just came out and admitted it.
Okay, again, I will return with more thoughts (well, with a post that isn't just laughter :p)
* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *
For REAL Change
Shawn
March 25, 2008 - 22:58 ET by MrShyPerhaps you might want to take a stab at answering a question I posted for Unsane. Do you believe congress would have given this adminstration approval to go to war, if there was not the threat of wmd?
No. He was smart enough to know he needed every argument possible. Again, he honestly felt there were many very legitimate reasons to take this tyrant out -- because there WERE. Go and see Jer's own admission, in his post above.
He had many arguments to make the case that taking Saddam out was in everyone's benefit and best interests. He chose WMD to be THE PRIMARY one, as it connects with people's most immediate concerns. Nothing wrong with picking one of many good arguments for going in, if getting authorization required making the case to Congress.
Soooo... you have my answer to this. What's your point, Shawn?
It was not THE "sole" argument, we all agree, correct? How many times do I have to re-emphasize this to you?
* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *
For REAL Change
You know Shy
March 25, 2008 - 23:03 ET by candanceIt's not Bush's fault he believed Saddam was making WMD's or that he believed Saddam was a threat to the entire world.
He was working with the information he'd been given.
candance
March 25, 2008 - 23:12 ET by MrShyI know, I know.... :p
That's a whole other nonsensical part of the left's argument. It was intelligence that all of our government shared, and has nothing to do with any "mistake" or "lie" by Bush whatsoever.
I'm just trying to finally nail and expose Shawn's WRONG insistance that Bush told us "we're going in for this one purpose: to find WMD's".
* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *
For REAL Change
Shy
March 25, 2008 - 23:17 ET by candanceYou should seriously copy the link to that video...and the next time anyone says "Bush lied" you can just show them that and ask them exactly what changed so much in four years.....
mr shy
March 25, 2008 - 23:26 ET by shawn228You are so trying to twist my words. I never said Bush lied, and I know he truly thought Saddam had wmd's. That video was just to show you how often Bush used the wmd reason for going to war.
You even admit that he never would have got the authorization go to war without the wmd rational, so I really do not see how you think you won this debate.
What are the other reasons? To free the people of Iraq from a ruthless leader? So he can stop supporting terrorism? Well why not Iran or Cuba? WMD's are the reason he got the red light for this war Shy. I wish you would stop making it look like I do not support the mission. I have said many times I support the troops and leaving is not a option. I am simply stating, this war was not worth the price we paid.
We are there to clean out
March 25, 2008 - 23:33 ET by PeskyDaneWe are there to clean out the swamps. It's going to take a while. The adults have come to terms with it.
agreed PeskyDane
March 25, 2008 - 23:40 ET by shawn228There is no option, but victory at the moment. I was just letting mr shy know that there is no way he would have got authorization for invading Iraq without the wmd argument. Of course this adminstration is going to throw in the "getting rid of the tyrant" argument to pull at peoples heartstrings., but we did not find wmd. We are paying for 90 percent of the war cost. Yes the surge is working, but there is still no end in site. Iran might go nuclear. North Korea already has them. Yeah this war was worth the cost huh?
No WMD's
March 25, 2008 - 23:36 ET by candanceThere is one thing about lefties that always annoys me. When intelligence says what you want to hear, it's gospel truth. When it says what you don't want to hear, it's obviously flawed.
Why did Bush admit that the US hadn't found any WMD's? Because he knew he had to. Yes they were there (I've talked with multiple sources who personally confirmed this) but Bush couldn't physically bring them into the public square for a variety of reasons. And if he had said, "we found some but we can't show you" the libs would have never let that go. So, having to choose between showing the goods or conceding the point, he decided the concede the point and move on.
I know you don't believe me and honestly I don't know why I'm wasting my time, but maybe someone out there will get some good from this.
candane
March 25, 2008 - 23:50 ET by shawn228"When intelligence says what you want to hear, it's gospel truth. When
it says what you don't want to hear, it's obviously flawed."
I am not sure if that is a shot toward leftist in general or towards me candance, but if it is directed at me, I would lie an example of me not believing intelligence. Your right that I believe the intelligence was flawed for not finding wmd, but that has been admitted by the President,The VP and the former SOD
" they were there (I've talked with multiple sources who personally
confirmed this) but Bush couldn't physically bring them into the public
square for a variety of reasons. And if he had said, "we found some but
we can't show you" the libs would have never let that go."
Ok, well i'm not sure what the variety of reasons could be, but I imagine if many men gave their lives for the invasion, the variety f reasons must be pretty good for him to say we did not find wmd. Bush would love nothing better than to say we found them, so he can say "I told you so" He woud feel so vindicated. You not concede that he might be right?
sorry Shawn
March 25, 2008 - 23:53 ET by candanceI did not mean that as a personal thing - twas one of those "you people" remarks. Sorry if my intention wasn't clear.
And as for Bush's remarks, I believe my friends (and family) over a politician any day, no matter what party he belongs to.
What i'm saying Candance is.......
March 25, 2008 - 23:59 ET by shawn228.....what possible reason could the most powerful men "politically" in this country have for saying we did not find them?
They have everything to gain and nothing to lose. They're the people that are responsible for the war and they would not justify it if they found the weapons they were looking for?
You said a variety of reasons, i'm curious on even one of that variety.
a couple of reasons
March 26, 2008 - 00:03 ET by candance1) They were seen fleeing the country on the back of a truck and could not be confiscated.
2) They came from our supposed allies.
3) They were tedious in nature and would quickly be dismissed as "not a real WMD."
thx candance
March 26, 2008 - 00:15 ET by shawn228Okay, those are legitimate things that could have happenned. thx for the insight, i did not think of that before. Even though we do not agree on many things, it is always a pleasure to debate you. Good night :-)
Shawn, Jer, Bal, Leon, MSM, CNN, MSNBC, NYTimes, Europe, etc..
March 26, 2008 - 00:05 ET by MrShyMarch 26, 2008 - 00:33 ET by PeskyDane
We are there to clean out the swamps. It's going to take a while. The adults have come to terms with it.
That's it, above. Right there, in a nutshell. Thanks, Pesky one :)
* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *
For REAL Change
LOL Shy
March 26, 2008 - 00:06 ET by candanceYour amazing insight is always well appreciated. :-)
And Commander McCain is
March 26, 2008 - 00:12 ET by JerAnd Commander McCain is going to take us to the gates of Hell to capture bin Laden, and keep us bogged down in the swamps for the next 100 years. God help us.
Jer
hey dude
March 26, 2008 - 00:14 ET by candanceDon't blame me for that right there. I'm all for us winning in Iraq but not in another hundred years.
That's Mr. dude to you
March 26, 2008 - 00:30 ET by JerThat's Mr. dude to you young lady. But, I'll attach a codicil to my will instructing my great-grandchildren not to blame the Tar Heel dudette for our l00 year stay in Iraq.
Jer
OK, you linked to Wiki.
March 25, 2008 - 23:02 ET by PeskyDaneOK, you linked to Wiki. Perhaps you should go back to KOS with the other children.
Shawn.... again :p
March 25, 2008 - 23:08 ET by MrShyOkay, yes, that video is a waste of yours and my time. Silly. But SHAWN, the first Wikipedia link is all we need, and this debate is over! It's right there near the top:
The objectives of the invasion, according to U.S. President George W. Bush and U.K. former PM Tony Blair were "to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people."
You've got what looks to me like three primary reasons, with WMD's listed first. Again, not to be a broken record, but.... WHAT ARE WE DEBATING ABOUT? He made a few cases for going in, one did not pan out, okay. Not very good intelligence, I guess, or he snuck whatever he had out of Iraq. But..... so?????? There are several very strong arguments made for going in, as stated by the ever-so-revered Wikipedia.
Can we put an end to this "debate"?
* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *
For REAL Change
Sorry for cutting in again, Shy
March 25, 2008 - 23:27 ET by JerSorry for cutting in again, Shy, but yes the debate can be ended just as soon as you admit you're wrong. <wink>
Good night, Jer
sigh
March 25, 2008 - 23:28 ET by shawn228because the other two would not have held water with the wmd argument.
I think it also comes down
March 25, 2008 - 23:56 ET by tracheostomyI think it also comes down to what a liberal will accept as a bona-fide WMD.
And according to the feedback I've read, it is nothing less than a satellite-guided ICBM with a 30,000 mile range and nothing else ever. . .period.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
trach
March 26, 2008 - 00:02 ET by shawn228Even 1 fully assembled chemical weapon, or even something manufactured 10 yrs before the invasion, because that is when the official report says Iraq stopped their weapons program.
C'mon Shawn, you know how
March 26, 2008 - 00:11 ET by tracheostomyC'mon Shawn, you know how bad I am with the comprehensive lists, but I'm sure if you looked around a bit. . . >;)
Oh yeah. And I forgot to add, ". . .on a flat-bed truck, with a parade and giant Vegas-style neon signs flashing "W-M-D" on the front, sides, and back."
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
LOL
March 26, 2008 - 00:12 ET by candanceaint that the truth.
Oh, herro
March 26, 2008 - 00:14 ET by tracheostomyOh, herro der!
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Wow freestinkers list
March 26, 2008 - 00:24 ET by shawn228Golly I have never seen that before. Maybe someone should forward this to the President, since he is wrong and all.
Shawn: Golly I have never
March 26, 2008 - 21:15 ET by tracheostomyShawn: Golly I have never seen that before.
I figured you were just ignoring it.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
with a 100 megaton
March 26, 2008 - 00:02 ET by Jerwith a 100 megaton warhead...minimum.
Jer
lol Jer :-)
March 26, 2008 - 00:11 ET by shawn228I forgot to mention how much I love the Presidents sense of humor
And no, I do not doubt the President feels bad for many troops losing their lives, but it was still tasteless and tacky.
Mr. Shy you have won this debate
March 26, 2008 - 22:33 ET by shawn228If you have used South Korean Judges...lol
Shawnmeister
March 26, 2008 - 22:49 ET by MrShyYou'll notice I wrote:
WHAT ARE WE DEBATING ABOUT?
and...
Can we put an end to this "debate"?
Never did I write that I won or lost any debate, but rather, was recognizing that there was no debate anymore, in my eyes. There were clearly several (3, as specified in the Wikipedia link) arguments made by "BushMcChimpyDarthHalliburton", and WMD's was one of them -- and yes, they made it the primary one, along with secondary and third ones, to strengthen their case for going in. Wouldn't you use everything at your disposal to make your case for doing something? Yes, you would.
So?
* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *
For REAL Change
sigh
March 26, 2008 - 23:12 ET by shawn228He could have invaded Iraq on the WMD argument alone, he could not have invaded with all the other reasons combined.
For shawn
March 27, 2008 - 04:13 ET by UnsaneThat is the reason we went to war Unsane. It was all about finding wmd. As much as you deny it. It was A reason. Obviously you did not watch the 2003 State of the Union address as I did. I saw that with rapt attention, as the case made for war there would directly impact me. But then, there is no convincing you. "WAAAAHHHH!!! WE DIDN'T FIND WMDs!!!!! WAAAAAHAAHHHHHH!!!!! THAT WAS THE ONLY REASON WE WENT TO WAR!!!!! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!!!!!" is your dogma, and no matter what else anyone does to show you otherwise, you are still stuck on that mode.
If this was about Iraq violating santions and shooting at our planes, do you think we still would have invaded. Please no long winded answers. Yes or no. What's this? Attempting to dictate to me the length of my responses? Did you not learn anything from that idiot moderator when she tried to do the same to Fred Thompson?
Back in July 2000, I was watching BBC News when I saw a report that France was flagrantly violating UN sanctions by flying in doctors and other personnel directly into Baghdad for "humanitarian reasons". The French were whining that because their Nanny State was and is cash strapped, they needed to do business with their old buddy Saddam again...oh, I mean, they whined that "the sanctions only hurt the children!!!" Never mind that most of the resources the Iraqis then got was mostly diverted to the military...
Even then I knew something had to be done due to the unraveling of the sanctions regime, due to some being on the take, due to others desperately needing money, etc. When the case for war was being made, it really didn't surprise me.
Also, you may recall that even Mr. Greatthings was given to occasionally having additional troops deploy to Saudi to rattle the sabers against Saddam Hussein, as well as send in the occasional cruise missile or so (June 1993, December 1998).
Short answer: yes. The sanctions could not be sustained, and Iraq could not be trusted to not be a breeding ground for terrorism. Oh, and by the way, we found mustard gas in Iraq, and NB pointed this out in the summer of 2006. All the resident Leftists whined constantly that those munitions were degraded. News flash: chemicals don't friggin degrade. I'd almost rather face a nuclear attack than a chemical one.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Iraq: Weapons Threat, Compliance, Sanctions, and US Policy
March 26, 2008 - 03:49 ET by mastersofdeceitFWIW
"We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them against each other,
rout them out of their safe hiding places, and bring them to justice."
President George W. Bush
September 24, 2001
Unsane, Shawn, et al...
March 26, 2008 - 16:31 ET by RESTLESS 1I am copying and pasting from another thread, the meat of which was not replied to by RF80:
Seems this has been addressed as well, by the U.N.:
"The “Air Force document” recently received by UNMOVIC introduces additional uncertainty in accounting as it indicates that 6,526 fewer aerial CW bombs had been “consumed” during the Iraq Iran War. This would mean that approximately 1000 tonnes of agent (predominantly Mustard, but also Sarin and Tabun) had not consumed as previously thought. Iraq has explained that the “Air Force” document, which had been complied by one of its officers in 1995, was incomplete. According to Iraq, data on consumption of CW filled munitions positioned at three airbases was not included as the airbases had been occupied in 1991 and the records destroyed. This explanation is being reviewed by UNMOVIC. The Sulphur Mustard contained in artillery shells that had been stored for over 12 years, had been found by UNMOVIC to be still of high purity. It is possible that viable Mustard filled artillery shells and aerial bombs still remain in Iraq."
Will link the whole report when I get home.
See Unsane
March 26, 2008 - 20:27 ET by shawn228Note R1's post. To the point and informative. I am looking forward to his full post. You sure you didn't like Seinfeld? The show about nothing?. No offense but lots of times your long posts are about nothing.. just kidding.
Oh, and damn Shawn, don't
March 26, 2008 - 21:07 ET by RESTLESS 1Oh, and damn Shawn, don't freak me out like that. I was wondering how my post got moved to another thread. :)
well hyuk hyuk, gorsh
March 26, 2008 - 21:05 ET by RESTLESS 1Flattered here Shawn. Here is the link as promised above. I hope you have plenty of drive space, as it is about 173 pages long. The quote above is from page 77. Hmmm, I guess I COULD just cut and past the whole thing. That would be a nice long post, just the way you like them.
restless1
March 26, 2008 - 22:24 ET by shawn228"That would be a nice long post, just the way you like them."
Just want to clear something up. I don't mind long posts. Heck I can I be guilty of them, just like everyone else.
There is a difference with a long post with substance and one that says what do you want? a Naaaaaaaannny State? or Why don't you stoooop your Whiiiiiiniing and going off topic. Or post that copy and past your whole post and go through it line by line and twisting your words.
I admit I did not read al 173 pages and skimmed through them. Yes not all the weapons and chemicals have been accounted for and that is not a good thing. The thing is none of these weapons have been manufactured in the past 10 yrs.The official report says Saddam stopped his weapons program a long time ago and I believe the report. The worst part except for our dead solders is Iran. They would not dare pull this Sh*t if we were not pre occupied in Iraq.
Actually, Shawn
March 26, 2008 - 22:33 ET by RESTLESS 1I was replying to posts above about the chemical weapons and the degradation of these weapons. Too many times people post about "no wmd in Iraq". Total nonsense. Saddam used them on the Kurds. If he was so innocent and had stopped his programs, then he would have let the weapons inspectors finish their jobs and not continually kicked them out. There were multiple reasons for going into Iraq, not just wmd, and Saddam himself is to blame for us being there. He could have avoided all of this if he had complied with u.n. resolutions.
As far as IF we should have went in, HELL YES. If you have a problem with HOW we went in, then we would find some agreement there.
Yes!
March 26, 2008 - 22:45 ET by tracheostomyShawn: Just want to clear something up. I don't mind long posts. Heck I can I be guilty of them, just like everyone else.
Oh, that is so getting bookmarked. =)
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
See what I mean R1?
March 26, 2008 - 22:53 ET by shawn228About twisting words.
I'm sure that quote will
March 26, 2008 - 22:56 ET by RESTLESS 1I'm sure that quote will come back to haunt you again and again.
Hehe. . .I'm loading it up
March 26, 2008 - 23:13 ET by tracheostomyHehe. . .I'm loading it up for continual rotation. Thinking of maybe even making it my new sig.
Twist this Shawn. I'm not the one that's literally dictated to others the length of their posts.
Shawn: Do you think you can perhaps keep the lengths of you post down a little bit, i don't want to feel like I am reading a textbook everytime, also I know what I said you really don't need to highlight everything.
Shawn: At least you kept your post short. Thx for that;-)
Shawn: Maybe I should be grateful, I have had good debate on this thread for two days now. No extra long posts with someone copying and pasting of words. I'm actually enjoying my thread now.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
trach
March 26, 2008 - 23:16 ET by shawn228You have far too much time on your hands. God speed man......God speed.
NO SHAWN!!!
March 26, 2008 - 23:21 ET by tracheostomyYou're saying the others here don't have the guts to take me to task and hold me accountable if I ever took your statements out of context. I don't twist your words Shawn, you just have a convenient excuse to whine about the delivery system.
The method works as long as I'm not quoting you out of context, yet to this DAY you have yet to demonstrate exactly how I have done this in the past.
You're far from a victim Shawn, and I think you're above playing that card myself, so act like it.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
lol trach
March 26, 2008 - 23:29 ET by shawn228I never said the people don't have the guts to take you to task. I feel since you are conservative, they tolerate your ways.
If you have a problem with me trach, perhaps you can stop answering my post to other people? Hmm why not just ignore me?
I remember someone that stuck up to you and you went to the mods with it. I just don't like it when you constantly interupt my post or twist my words, otherwise I have no problem with you trach, you just have thin skin
Shawn
March 26, 2008 - 23:33 ET by MrShyIf you are still hankering to keep this debate going on Iraq, WMD's, etc., can you start a new forum/thread?
When it gets this long, my browser freezes... and I'm probably not alone here. I'm using another browser now, but I don't like using it :( (does funny things with my posts, for one.)
* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *
For REAL Change
Mr. Shy: If you are still
March 26, 2008 - 23:41 ET by tracheostomyMr. Shy: If you are still hankering to keep this debate going on Iraq, WMD's, etc., can you start a new forum/thread?
Why is he even running this thread to begin with? I had so much respect for him in the past; now this crap. I was convinced Shawn was a real thinking liberal that could argue from the facts at hand, but he's not. Even people that aren't Bush fans can understand the whole "no blood for oil;" "Bush lied" arguments are DOA when presented with the evidence.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Well Trach
March 26, 2008 - 23:44 ET by MrShyHe's our adopted liberal, so we need to give him unconditional love regardless of his growth.
Or do I speak for just myself here? :p
* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *
For REAL Change
Not for yourself alone Shy, but I'm starting to wonder. . .
March 26, 2008 - 23:54 ET by tracheostomyI just figured something as basement-level basic that even Joe Lieberman could get would convince him. . .
Quote: "I am disappointed by Democrats who are more focused on how President Bush took America into the war in Iraq almost three years ago, and by Republicans who are more worried about whether the war will bring them down in next November's elections, than they are concerned about how we continue the progress in Iraq in the months and years ahead." Lieberman, WSJ 2005
But, no. I'm starting to believe other NBers when they accuse him of trolling. Putting a thread up like this one, this far into the war, is just too much for non-trolls to even think of bringing up. If he's genuinely not convinced by now, you need to wonder what "evidence" he's still hanging tenaciously onto.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Trach
March 27, 2008 - 00:18 ET by MrShyHe just wants to whine and bitch over spilt milk, apparently. A very liberal-esque tendency, oui?
* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *
For REAL Change
Shy,
March 27, 2008 - 00:31 ET by tracheostomyMr. S: He just wants to whine and bitch over spilt milk, apparently. A very liberal-esque tendency, oui?
I. . .guess. But I gave him more credit than that for a long time.
However, on observing the approach he takes to the last few threads that he participates in. . .it's like he engages in discussion for discussion's sake alone, as if the dialogue itself were of some intellectual value to him. It's like he walks out of a thread the exact same person going in.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Mr Shy
March 26, 2008 - 23:44 ET by shawn228I have my page for 300 post. How do you have your settings? botg taught me how to do this. On you veiwing options there are 3 boxes. On the third one from the left chg your settings to 300 comments per page. If this still does not work, then we can talk about a new thread. fair enough?
thx shawn
March 26, 2008 - 23:53 ET by MrShyBut it's not my browser settings.... it just can't handle (that browser, for some reason) when the HTML/code is too long, and it just crashes....
No biggie, I'm probably the only one w/ this problem.
Like Trach said, I shouldn't be encouraging more of this "dabate" anyway... :p
* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *
For REAL Change
no problem Mr. Shy
March 26, 2008 - 23:59 ET by shawn228I don't mean the browser, I meant on the top of the NB page.
Maybe it is time for a new computer to go along with your cool new LCD. I wonder why trach is so ticked with me? I told him he can just ignore me and now he says I am telling him how to post. Too funny. Have a good night shy and you too trach, I would give you a good night kiss and make it all better, but you find that sinful. :-)
Shawn: I never said the
March 26, 2008 - 23:37 ET by tracheostomyShawn: I never said the people don't have the guts to take you to task. I feel since you are conservative, they tolerate your ways.
No, you didn't say that (because I didn't quote you), but that's what you are saying from a baseless accusation. Regardless, you sure said it now.
If I use a quote to twist another member's words on anything, even on something the majority agrees with, then it makes us all look bad.
I've quoted members on some thoughts in a post, noticed their train of thought change mid-stream, and deleted my whole response, with nothing but EDIT left in the space.
Shawn: If you have a problem with me trach, perhaps you can stop answering my post to other people? Hmm why not just ignore me?
Oh, now he's telling me how to post again. . .!
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Shawn, as a percentage of GDP, compared to other wars...
March 27, 2008 - 00:16 ET by R D Helm...Iraq barely even shows up on the radar.
And I realize that 4,000 dead seems a really high number, but when compared to other wars, it is surprisingly low, given the length of time involved.
Theme for Election '08: I want my mommy!
RDHelm
March 27, 2008 - 00:23 ET by MrShyRDH, can you elaborate on this? The GDP part and how that relates to a war? I'm dumb with gross domestic product/economics stuff :p
And yes, Shawn, Helm is right. Do you know how many died in Vietnam?.... which MORE people saw (and see) as a true waste of a war, where we were not fighting some dangerous Muslim ideology that was spreading worldwide -- which I believe we are, now -- or removing a tyranical dictator. I think the number was 65,000!
* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *
For REAL Change
MrShy...R D's second link
March 27, 2008 - 01:04 ET by JerMrShy...R D's second link provides the total U.S. military deaths, combat and otherwise, in all American wars, including, of course, Viet Nam.
Jer
Mr. Shy, GDP is short for Gross Domestic Product.
March 27, 2008 - 23:49 ET by R D HelmYou can find out more here.
LOL-When I took both Micro and Macro economics in college back in the late '80's, it was still referred to as GNP (Gross National Product).
I just don't trust my memory to explain the subtle differences accurately.
Theme for Election '08: I want my mommy!
Those are important points,
March 27, 2008 - 01:36 ET by JerThose are important points, R D...but it should be noted that the financial burden illustrated by the graph in your first link compares the per centage of annual GNP. For example, the current Iraqi war is presented as roughly equivalent to the Mexican War in economic terms. Yet the length of the latter was less than two years, while the former is now in its sixth year. Thus the total cost of the Mexican War, even measured in current dollars, would be substantialy less than Iraq.
Regarding military fatalities, one could argue that if the war is a mistake, one is too many, but if the war is necessary and just, there may be no number which is too great. I think our military's performance in Iraq is outstanding--despite incredibly difficult circumstances--and is deserving of our highest praise and support. And, hopefully, our efforts there will prove successful by every standard of measure.
Jer
BTW...you're second link is very interesting. I read a good bit of military history, but I was surprised that U.S. combat deaths in WWII exceeded those in the Civil War [Federal and Confederate combined].
Jer,
March 27, 2008 - 23:56 ET by R D HelmI realize that, and also that the chart relates the info on an annual basis, and it is also based on 2006 numbers, but, it was the best visual I could find in the time I had. LOL-I really wasn't trying to pull the wool over anybody. Honest. :-)
And yes, I too was surprised the the WW II combat deaths exceeded those of the Civil War, given the huge disparity in the total U.S. population of both eras.
Theme for Election '08: I want my mommy!
RDH
March 27, 2008 - 08:03 ET by shawn228You do have a point RDH. Thank you for your civil answer. It seems I am trying to have a civil conversation, but when people give me sarcasm or attitude, I can give as good as I get. Apparently some folks are accusing me of trolling. "an accusation I have not heard for a long time"
Maybe this is not the right time, to talk about this sensitive topic
Shawn,
March 28, 2008 - 00:48 ET by R D HelmFirst of all, don't worry about what others might say. God knows I don't. Then again, I ain't wired like most, and I have very thick skin. Helpful, that is.
Believe me, I want this thing in Iraq to be over as much as you and Jer. If you ask me, it should have been over two years ago. Not only that, but there is more than enough blame to go around here, too, and, as you well know, I have been rather vocal in my disdain for the way this thing has been run, from the top down.
However, the biggest problem is that many today are just not willing to accept collateral damage as in years past. They think everything is going to be a surgical in-and-out, and only the bad guys get killed. As such, we are having to fight this thing an a somewhat PC fashion. Trust me, in all my readings of military history, that just isn't possible.
Yes, modern technology has certainly allowed us to sharply reduce the numbers of the innocent that are killed in combat, as well as the number of our own soldiers who are killed, but there are limits. At some point, if you impose rules of engagement that are politically, rather than practically motivated, you are going to start seeing losses mounting among your own soldiers.
I have a lot of military people in my family, including several who were officers, one of which was a S.E.A.L. They have pretty much all told me that our losses have been twice what they should have been, due solely to the way we are conducting this fight.
William T. Sherman (who burned my hometown to cinders, btw) had the philosophy of getting it over with as quickly as possible. Yes, many more would be killed initially, but, in the long-term, not only would the fight be much shorter, many more lives would be saved as well.
In WW II, George S. Patton, Jr. followed essentially the same premise. Though he was reviled by some at the time, as they were calling him "old blood and guts," history has more than proven him correct.
Remember, in one day, this country lost 700 soldiers just rehearsing for D-Day.
I'm just trying to introduce a little perspective here, that's all.
Theme for Election '08: I want my mommy!
Ugh
March 27, 2008 - 04:24 ET by UnsaneI do not think Invading Iraq was the right move. It was the right move. Is it better to kill the terrorists in Baghdad, or in Boston? Your call. It is going to end up costing well over a trillion dollars. You whine about that, yet you desperately want a Nanny State that will make that cost pale in comparison. Oh, and for all of that, you'll get a Nanny State with ZERO ability to project power, thus turning a great nation of rugged individuals with the ability to project power globally into a whiny Nanny State full of welfare addicts that couldn't project power to Long Island.
Iran is funding a cheap war and supplying terrorist ieds to kill Americans for Iran that ISN'T cheap. Their economy sucks. Did you know that only the United States imports more gasoline than Iran does, for instance? , we have hit the 4000 plateau for US deaths and not only does that suck, but let's just say I didn't update my will recently just because. That being said though, during WWII we lost that many in the span of days or hours. Are you telling me that you are to weak-kneed to defend freedom? The sad truth is that occasionally defense requires VIOLENCE, and that this requires people to die. I live with that little reailty every single day. and we did not find the wmds Again, Shawn, 1) that was not the only reason we went to war and 2) we found the friggin things! You should be thankful the search engine on NB now sucks, because if it was awesome, I'd pull out the thread from the summer of 2006 that showcases a discovery of mustard gas, quite unpleasant to inhale or mess with. (But ALL the Leftists whined endlessly about "how degraded" they were. Right. Farmers in France still develop mustard blisters on occasion when they plow old battlefields, 90 years later. So much for degrading).
If we can get Iraq on its feet and no longer a world threat - indeed, a thriving, successful member of the community of nations, the entire world wins, and it will be worth the cost. And we are getting there, no thanks to the whiners and complainers in the world.
By the way, congratulations. This gives a massive lie to a portion of our conversations via PM. You clearly don't support my mission or that of my troops.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
"By the way,
March 27, 2008 - 07:57 ET by shawn228"By the way, congratulations. This gives a massive lie to a portion of
our conversations via PM. You clearly don't support my mission or that
of my troops."
Ok, now that one hurts and it is a cheap shot. I do not know how you can say such a thing to me. I have told you over and over again, how much I support the troops and our mission. I am just saying if we had a do over, I am not so sure we should have done the same thing.
I have also told you over and over again how much I appreciate troops on the front line, like yourself for your selfless sacrifice and I pray that you come home safe. That does not change regardless of how I feel about the benefits vs the cost of the war,
Serious Question
March 27, 2008 - 10:50 ET by candanceOkay I have a serious question for lefties on here. Not trying to be snarky. It's a serious issue that demands serious thought.
One of the arguments against the war is that Iran might get a nuke any day now and Iraq is a distraction. The logical end of this premise is that if we weren't in Iraq, we could do more to stop Iran.
But I'm trying to understand how that could work in practicality.
We're already doing everything we legally can to stop Iran from getting nukes. Just like with Iraq before the war, the UN is slapping down sanctions and Iran is giving them the finger. When the sanctions prove useless (as they always do) what happens then?
Why do we complain about troops violating a country's sovereign will but the UN imposing economic punishment is seen as justified? What is the difference? Does it not boil down to an outward force imposing its will onto a country?
Say Iran announces they have nukes. Okay. What happens then? Do we line up troops and prepare to fight? How do soldiers fight the the nuclear option? Say they invade our allies in the region - do we send troops to help them fight, even if we risk a nuclear attack?
Sounds like a pretty crappy situation either way. But how do we prevent it? Sanctions on Iran have been happening on and off for 13 years. They don't appear to be working. So what else can we do? Do we infiltrate the country and give support to those who want to topple the government? Oops, we're already doing that and we tried it in Iraq in the 90s. Do we send NATO troops in there like we did in Serbia? Oops, the UN called that war illegal.
I hate to sound like a party pooper, but with Iran we have two options: start a war to call their bluff or wait until we have another Cuban Missile Crisis.
If anyone else has a better solution, then by all means, tell me now. And please explain how the war in Iraq is preventing us from doing it.
Candance...you are correct
March 27, 2008 - 15:44 ET by JerCandance...you are correct that this is a serious issue and deserves serious thought. So, I will do so and then give you my views. Bear in mind, however, than when we lefties express dissenting opinions on our Iraqi policies, including the wisdom of the 2003 invasion itself, we are frequently accused of one or more of the following:
1. A fundamental naivete and failure to understand the dangers of Islamic terrorism, and the fanatical determination of our Muslim enemies to do us harm
2. Defeatism, accompanied by a penchant for accomodating and appeasing our adversaries, rather than confronting them
3. An affliction with BDS which cripples our ability to objectively assess critical issues affecting our national security
4. A reflexive anti-military and even anti-American mindset manifesting, among other pathologies, a lack of support for our troops and their mission
5. Outright sympathy for terrorists and others who would do us ill
With that in mind, why don't you in the meantime peruse the words of the author of the following essay...someone who may not be so readily dismissed as a misguided lefty:
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0227-33.htm
Jer
agreed Jer
March 27, 2008 - 15:59 ET by candanceWe can all agree that our initial plan in Iraq didn't work.
I'm not here to bash you or say you are anti-troop. I simply want to know what your plan is for stopping Iran and how the war in Iraq is an impediment to that.
Thank you for your post Jer
March 27, 2008 - 20:13 ET by shawn228Your post says it all. I have no doubt you know what I have been saying Jer, but I need to clear up a few things with some members. So far I have been accussed of
: trolling
: saying Bush Lied "mostly by mr shy"
: Defeatism
: I don't support the troops
: Crying over spilt milk.
I have said over and over again how much I support the troops and how important I vital it is that we win in Iraq. Pulling out now would be disastrous, I also hate it that Liberals want to coddle terrorist and I believe we need to do whatever it takes to extract information.
For some reason, because I am saying that it was not worth the price we paid, I am getting accused of things, that simply are not true. I believe I have been civil and am I show people the same respect that they show me, I have never said I don't support the troops and want to withdrawal. If anyone can tell me how I said or even implied any of those things I would like to hear it.
okay Shawn
March 27, 2008 - 22:59 ET by candanceI never said you didn't support the troops and if other people did then I'm sorry. I can't be everywhere at once.
Maybe the third time's a charm: what do you suggest we do with Iran?
Good morning Candance
March 28, 2008 - 09:27 ET by shawn228I thought I was responding to Jer's post. You have not accused me Candance, but apparently people like Mr. Shy enjoy fanning the flames to give the impression that I said Bush lied or I am whining.
I admit I have been avoiding your question on purpose. Why? Because I am afraid to open up another can of worms. I believe that our military is stretched thin. I do not believe the secretary of defense would increase tour of dutys from 12 months to 15 months for no reason. This is JMO, so I hope I will not be flamed with listening to msm propoganda
Since we are stretched thin, I do not believe we have the troops to invade Iran without using nucleaur weapons. Well we could, but we would be leaving the homeland extremely vulnerable. I do not know the answer candance. The only real answer I can think of is to wait for Israel to do it first.
"And please explain how the war in Iraq is preventing us from doing it."
Iran deciding to defy the UN and continuing with its Nucleaur program is a reason for going to war. If we were not in Iraq, we would have given them a chance to stop or face an invasion. This is very different than Iraq. Iraq was not making nucleaur reactors. Iran is!! We could have developed a decent size coalition to invade Iran. There is no way, we can build that coalition today. The United States creditibility is damaged because we did not find the wmd's "at least that is what the governments position is". I do not know the UK will even help us this time. The US will have to go in alone.
fair enough Shawn
March 28, 2008 - 12:14 ET by candanceI'm not here to flame you or insult your intelligence, and *for time being* I implore my fellow conservatives to avoid starting an argument.
You honestly believe that, not for the war in Iraq, we could invade Iran to stop their plans? Not trying to be snarky - I am really surprised at that answer. You really think the UN would call that legal? France and Russia are barely willing to go along with the sanctions...no way the UN approves us invading.
And say we do decide to invade them anyhow, against international opinion. Iraq had a lot of enemies in the region and was not as influencial as Iran. You really think Syria and Hezbollah would just sit back and let that happen? Al Qaeda is slipping into Iraq to cause trouble - you don't think they'd do that in Iran as well? Would that war not be as much of a quagmire as Iraq?
I believe we might have
March 28, 2008 - 19:36 ET by shawn228I believe we might have gotten the green light from the UN back then to invade Iran. There is a big difference between suspecting someone of having wmd's and that country letting in inspecters than a country that admits to enriching uranium and is pretty much daring us to invade them.
"You really think Syria and Hezbollah would just
sit back and let that happen? Al Qaeda is slipping into Iraq to cause
trouble - you don't think they'd do that in Iran as well? Would that
war not be as much of a quagmire as Iraq? "
Iran has a bigger army and has some serious torpedoes that have the capability to take out our destroyers. Hezbolla would do as much damage as they can. I am not sure about Syria. Yes we would have suffered a lot of casualties, but there is a difference between invading on speculation than reality.
Green light from the UN back
March 28, 2008 - 19:55 ET by general companyGreen light from the UN back then? We wouldn't get it now, and they have violated more resolution now then they had back then. The UN is anti USA, they will side with anyone over us, don't believe me? Convince me otherwise. BTW if we were at war with Iran they would not be able to launch a torpedo before they were sinking. Their little grandstanding with their weapons was for "your/MSM" benefit not our militaries.
Also Syria and the other terrorist would help Iran about as much as they did Iraq.
"Always do right. This will gratify some people, and astonish the rest". Mark Twain
you really believe that?
March 28, 2008 - 21:08 ET by candanceYou really believe the UN would give us the green light? Honestly? Seriously?
They condemned our invasion in Bosnia. They condemned our mission in Mogadishu. They condemned Israel invading Lebanon two years ago. Some of them are barely going along with the sanctions - and you think they'll allow us to invade Iran?
admits to enriching uranium
They admit to developing peaceful energy...
invading on speculation than reality
We're using the exact same methods of gathering intel...
I don't mean to sound rude or insinuate that you are naive. But I'm flabbergasted that you think the UN would've gone along with it.
Speaking of which, lots of countries don't have any troops in Iraq right now - what are they doing to stop Iran?
Iraqi Nukes
March 28, 2008 - 22:40 ET by Free StinkerCandance,
You probably won't be surprised to learn that even the Russians admit the UN wouldn't have done anything:
Insightful quote from The Russian business weekly Itogi:
"Even if Colin Powell had presented the UN with an atomic bomb confiscated from Saddam, the Europeans would have been unlikely to agree to start a war."
Pledge to not support RINOs ever again!
candance
March 28, 2008 - 22:50 ET by shawn228I said "might have". If they did not, The US should have invaded anyway. I believe we would have had more support from Allied countrys than what we got, going into Iraq.
"Speaking of which, lots of countries don't have any troops in Iraq right now - what are they doing to stop Iran? "
No one is doing anything to stop Iran now, including the United States. I personally do not think Iran would have the guts to enrich uraniam if he US gave them an ultimatum back then. They know we are too pre occupied in Iraq to do anything and there is no way our democratic congress would give the green light for another war either.
A few words for you, Shawn...
March 28, 2008 - 22:58 ET by BlondeSung to a Beach Boys tune....
Bomb, bomb, bomb.....bomb, bomb Iran.
Bomb, bomb, bomb.....bomb, bomb Iran. Oh....bomb Iraaaaaan.....
Courtesy, of course, of John McCain.
Think about it, Shawn. Like you were Imadinnerjacket.
Iran will stop, when we tell them to. Loudly enough.
Period, paragraph, end of story.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
P.S. Shawn
March 28, 2008 - 22:59 ET by BlondeAn original inscription on the U.S. flag was....
"Don't tread on me".
We'll get back to our roots, eventually. Bet on it.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Hi Blondie :-)
March 28, 2008 - 23:22 ET by shawn228Long time no see. Have you started on construction for the pool this year?
Polls are important because they reflect how people feel at the moment, a year ago they thought the front runners would be Guiliani and Clinton.
Presently the polls have McCain beating the Dem nominee by as much as 10 points. Anything can change between now and November.
If a Democrat is elected to the White House, I do not see how we can stop Iran before they develop a bomb.
Shawn,
March 28, 2008 - 23:30 ET by R D HelmAnything can change between now and November.
Yeah, like McCain having a total implosion, followed by a complete melt-down. Before the convention in September, even.
Maybe tomorow-wow, what a cool birthday present fer me that would be!
Well, there is always hope. :-)
Theme for Election '08: I want my mommy!
RDH
March 29, 2008 - 00:01 ET by shawn228Happy B day for tomorrow. Any big plans?.
Shawn,
March 29, 2008 - 00:17 ET by R D HelmBBQ. :-)
Hickory smoked Boston Butt roast, de-boned, shredded and baked in sauce for a couple of hours in the oven, my killer potato salad, slaw, beans and warm pecan pie with vanilla ice cream.
Oh, and a bottle of Jack Daniels, just fer fun. LOL.
And I am sneaking off to the driving range while the meat is in the oven. I have a new driving iron I am itching to try out. I can't seem to hit my woods anymore.
Theme for Election '08: I want my mommy!
Hickory smoked Boston Butt
March 29, 2008 - 00:37 ET by JerHickory smoked Boston Butt roast, de-boned, shredded and baked in sauce for a couple of hours in the oven, my killer potato salad, slaw, beans and warm pecan pie with vanilla ice cream.
Stop it, dammit...just stop it. It's sheer cruelty.
By the way, R D...I bought an expensive smoker not long ago, and I have spent hours carefully following a couple of different chicken recipes, and they haven't been any better than the $5 pre-cooked rotisserie (sp?) hens from my local Kroger. I may PM you for some expert advice.
Also, what range do you generally go to? I often go on Sat. or Sunday aft. [I was planning to go tomorrow, but it's supposed to rain all day.]
Jer
Jer, I usually go t a
March 29, 2008 - 13:39 ET by R D HelmJer,
I usually go t a small driving range on Sandy Plains Road. When I feel the need for the real thing, I go to the Fox Creek golf course on Windy Hill Rd.
It looks like I won't be able to make it today, though. Been hearing thunder around.
Theme for Election '08: I want my mommy!
R D...Well I just returned
March 29, 2008 - 17:03 ET by JerR D...Well I just returned from dodging lightning at the range at Morgan Falls [my golfing buddy lives just around the corner]. I know of the one at Sandy Plains, but I have never practiced there. However, I have been to Fox Creek and Legacy just down the road on Windy Hill about a thousand times. You've probably seen me at Fox Creek....I'm the one hitting banana slices toward Windy Hill and yelling Oh sh*t! a lot.
Jer
BTW...Happy 44th!
sounds awesome RDH
March 29, 2008 - 10:21 ET by shawn228Awesome RDH. What a coincidence, my wifes birthday is today as well.
I have been on diet from red meat for months, tonight I will chomp on filet mignon. Can't wait.
Why the hell would you
March 29, 2008 - 13:35 ET by RESTLESS 1Why the hell would you abstain from red meat? I couldn't do it myself. No way.
Since this thread has become a potpourri of sorts, do you think the Cowboys should go after Pac-Man Jones, given his history?
You can PM me if you want to keep the thread on topic. Hmm, guess I could have PM'd you with the question. Oh well.
R1
March 29, 2008 - 14:52 ET by shawn228High cholesteral and trygliceride.s Docs orders. He said only to indulge once in a great while. I am using the wife's birthday as an excuse.
This thread is about everything under the sun anyways, so what the heck.
Yes the Cowboys should go after Pac Man jones. In the 90s they could not handle the bad boys, but it seems they have been doing well with TO. They are doing a better job than the Niners and Eagles anyway.
Shawn
March 29, 2008 - 15:30 ET by RESTLESS 1I think they should get him too. That would allow Roy Williams to sort of be the fourth linebacker with two good cover corners. Would like to see one more addition to the O line and maybe one more reciever.
pools and polls
March 28, 2008 - 23:33 ET by MrShyI like pools, I hate polls.
And Blonde is correct, Iraq was/is just phase one. Iran is numero dos. We are doing the world a great service, but so much of it (thanks to the wonderful work of the global media and it's "news" journalists) is completely short-sighted, and hence, totally ungrateful.
* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *
For REAL Change
Small favor please, If you
March 29, 2008 - 08:00 ET by shawn228Small favor please, If you decide to reference other peoples post, that is all fine and dandy
"Read NL207 above, PLEASE."
" my nose is firmly up NL's arse, then my nose is fully up his arse"
"That's it, above. Right there, in a nutshell. Thanks, Pesky one :) "
"And yes, Shawn, Helm is right"
And Blonde is correct, Iraq was/is just phase one
If you decide to go try to attack my character, could you at least try to be more accurate, or at least back up what you say with examples. Thank you
"Which then brings me to so many great dividends this war in Iraq has
brought, which you blindly ignore because you just don't like Bush:"
"It was intelligence that all of our government shared, and has nothing to do with any "mistake" or "lie" by Bush whatsoever."
"He just wants to whine and bitch over spilt milk, apparently. A very liberal-esque tendency, oui? "
No one is doing anything to
March 29, 2008 - 00:36 ET by general companyNo one is doing anything to stop Iran now, including the United States.
That is BS, we are forever increasing the pressure on them through our Allies. We could do more, but our Reps are cowards, and some are even traitors. But we are cool with that arnt we? Thats why many are elected for 20yrs in a row.
"Always do right. This will gratify some people, and astonish the rest". Mark Twain
"That is BS, we are forever
March 29, 2008 - 10:39 ET by shawn228"That is BS, we are forever increasing the pressure on them through our Allies."
Its actually kind of like a case of bad deja' vu. I remember the exact same scenario with North Korea a few years ago. We waited too long and now they have the bomb. Thank goodness diplomatic progress is being made there, I am not sure the same progress can be made after Iran has the bomb. Especially from a leader that says "Israel must be wiped from the map"
Dalai Lama on the Iraq War
April 5, 2008 - 00:22 ET by wepFrom www.clearfogblog.wordpress.com
In September 2003, Scott Lindlaw of the Associated Press, reported
“The Dalai Lama said Wednesday that the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan may have been justified to win a larger peace, but that is it too soon to judge whether the Iraq war was warranted. ‘I think history will tell,’ he said in an interview with The Associated Press on Wednesday, just after he met with President Bush.”
It takes longer than five years, don’t you think, to assess the effect of a historical event as significant as the War on Terror and the battle for Iraq?
"It takes longer than five
April 5, 2008 - 09:45 ET by shawn228"It takes longer than five years, don’t you think, to assess the effect
of a historical event as significant as the War on Terror and the
battle for Iraq?"
You make a good point wep. Only time will tell.