Lunchbox is right. We are in a war and we’re not doing very well. face it. Our mission was accomplished when GW said it was. We should declare victory and leave. Let those people fix their own country without our military. The only reason we are there today is because of all the oil.
WAKE UP.[/quote]
Are you implying that securing our country’s energy is wrong?
The oil is important.
How would you like to pay $6 a gallon?
The oil is important and there is nothing wrong with getting out of Saddam’s hands.
Unfortunately, that was never the arguement so it is irrelevant when discussing Bush’s intentions.
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
Skystud wrote:
Lothario 90210 or whatever.
Lunchbox is right. We are in a war and we’re not doing very well. face it. Our mission was accomplished when GW said it was. We should declare victory and leave. Let those people fix their own country without our military. The only reason we are there today is because of all the oil.
WAKE UP.
Are you implying that securing our country’s energy is wrong?
The oil is important.
How would you like to pay $6 a gallon?
The oil is important and there is nothing wrong with getting out of Saddam’s hands.
Unfortunately, that was never the arguement so it is irrelevant when discussing Bush’s intentions.[/quote]
Alright then, if you think we should invade every country we want,just because we can, why not just call it “Operation Just Because”. Your thinking that might makes right is typical of most of the moronic posts I read here. I’m sure you are also one of those assholes who drive an suv that gets 12 mpg and can’t figure out why you pay so much for gas. Keep your head in the sand, moron. I, on the other hand, am only laughing at you.
Truman did a bang up job during the Korean War didn’t he?
What about LBJ during Vietnam?
They make Bush look like a mastermind.
Much of the Bush bashing in this area is pure politics.[/quote]
Bush did no research, and went in with no plan, I repeat ZERO plan. How do you get worse than that? Then after the initial idealogy was proven wrong, still persisted with the same failed tactics while showing absolute disinterest in the results.
There cannot possibly be enough Bush bashing in regards to his management of Iraq and afghanistan or any other element of his foreign policy.
And of course bashing bush is obviously not partisan, as nothing said by democrats hasn’t been said or was said by our military, or experts, or conservatives at the time and even now, including the upcoming redeployment.
It is almost incomprehensible the level of bungling, lack of forsight, lack of hindsight, and lack of interest this admin has had in regards to Iraq, and everything that has happened to date positively proves it.
Truman did a bang up job during the Korean War didn’t he?
What about LBJ during Vietnam?
They make Bush look like a mastermind.
Much of the Bush bashing in this area is pure politics.[/quote]
First, Zap, let me commend you for trying to clue me in. I really need it when talking about which wars are the good ones.
The only thing wars are good for are taking real estate. That’s it. Not setting up elections or changing ideology. Not for changing religion.
Zap, I hate to tell you this, but we shouldn’t have been in Korea. We shouldn’t have been in Vietnam. And now we shouldn’t be in Iraq. Go rent a movie for me. Go rent Fog of War. It is an account of Robert MacNamara’s life. In this movie he talks a lot about how we should act when it comes to war.
Bush did no research, and went in with no plan, I repeat ZERO plan. How do you get worse than that? Then after the initial idealogy was proven wrong, still persisted with the same failed tactics while showing absolute disinterest in the results.
…[/quote]
This just proves how crazy some of you guys really are.
One minute you complain the Bush planned to invade Iraq even before 9/11 and the next minute you say he had no plan.
Then you say he shows no interest in the war when he is about the only politician that does. Everyone else wants to pull out.
We cannot take you seriously but you are good for a laugh.
Truman did a bang up job during the Korean War didn’t he?
What about LBJ during Vietnam?
They make Bush look like a mastermind.
Much of the Bush bashing in this area is pure politics.
First, Zap, let me commend you for trying to clue me in. I really need it when talking about which wars are the good ones.
The only thing wars are good for are taking real estate. That’s it. Not setting up elections or changing ideology. Not for changing religion.
Zap, I hate to tell you this, but we shouldn’t have been in Korea. We shouldn’t have been in Vietnam. And now we shouldn’t be in Iraq. Go rent a movie for me. Go rent Fog of War. It is an account of Robert MacNamara’s life. In this movie he talks a lot about how we should act when it comes to war. [/quote]
We shouldn’t have been in WWI. We shouldn’t have been in WWII.
There should never, ever be a war. War is bad. We all understand this.
We shouldn’t have been in WWI. We shouldn’t have been in WWII.
.
clumsy comparison…I don’t even need to tell you why.[/quote]
Clue me in. Either the US stands against evil dictators or it doesn’t. I see more justification for our involvement in Iraq than I do for our WWI involvement.
We could easily have avoided WWII if we would have turned our backs on human suffering and let the dictators have their way.
We shouldn’t have been in WWI. We shouldn’t have been in WWII.
.
clumsy comparison…I don’t even need to tell you why.
Clue me in. Either the US stands against evil dictators or it doesn’t. I see more justification for our involvement in Iraq than I do for our WWI involvement.
We could easily have avoided WWII if we would have turned our backs on human suffering and let the dictators have their way.[/quote]
Before we were fully invested in WWII there was an incident in Hawaii called the attack on Pearl Harbor, that certainly justified our involvement at least so far as Japan was concerned. In Europe before Pearl Harbor we were comparable to England or Italy in Iraq we committed battleships guns money etc. Hitler had also killed something like 6 million people.
I agree that we shouldn’t let an evil despot sit in power, the problem with analogizing the situation in WWII to the one in Iraq is that the justification has changed so many times as to why we are there.
I agree that we shouldn’t let an evil despot sit in power, the problem with analogizing the situation in WWII to the one in Iraq is that the justification has changed so many times as to why we are there.[/quote]
I feel the same.
Zap, you might also want to study The Treaty of Versailles, The Weimar Republic and the economies of all the countries involved.
I have to go now, I’m watching our country get into a nuclear standoff. AGAIN. This time with China, Russia and Iran, with a slight possiblity of a cameo appearance by n.korea.
No, the best policy is the most effective one…and that was no-flyzones,sanctions, and strategic strikes. We eliminated WMD for little $$ and contained Saddam…and it worked liked gang-busters!
…
It also let an evil tyrant in charge to continue to fund terrorist acts, plot to assinate ex-presidents, etc.
While posing ZERO threat to the United States…so yeah still a good deal. Obviously.[/quote]
I still think this is among the best descriptions I’ve seen of the reasoning behind the War on Terror, with explanation of how Iraq fit into the overall strategy:
We shouldn’t have been in WWI. We shouldn’t have been in WWII.
.
clumsy comparison…I don’t even need to tell you why.
Clue me in. Either the US stands against evil dictators or it doesn’t. I see more justification for our involvement in Iraq than I do for our WWI involvement.
We could easily have avoided WWII if we would have turned our backs on human suffering and let the dictators have their way.
Before we were fully invested in WWII there was an incident in Hawaii called the attack on Pearl Harbor, that certainly justified our involvement at least so far as Japan was concerned. In Europe before Pearl Harbor we were comparable to England or Italy in Iraq we committed battleships guns money etc. Hitler had also killed something like 6 million people.
I agree that we shouldn’t let an evil despot sit in power, the problem with analogizing the situation in WWII to the one in Iraq is that the justification has changed so many times as to why we are there.[/quote]
Whether or not Pearl Harbor had occurred, WWII was truly tragic because it was unnecessary. If there had been a preemptive strike to take Hitler out for violating the obligations of the Versailles Treaty and building up his military power before he reached dangerous strength, WWII (at least the European front) may have been avoided.
The true tragedy of it was that the leaders of the 30s forgot the point of WWI, and thus made WWII inevitable by acting too late (not too little, but it was almost out of their power…).
We shouldn’t have been in WWI. We shouldn’t have been in WWII.
.
clumsy comparison…I don’t even need to tell you why.
Clue me in. Either the US stands against evil dictators or it doesn’t. I see more justification for our involvement in Iraq than I do for our WWI involvement.
We could easily have avoided WWII if we would have turned our backs on human suffering and let the dictators have their way.
Before we were fully invested in WWII there was an incident in Hawaii called the attack on Pearl Harbor, that certainly justified our involvement at least so far as Japan was concerned. In Europe before Pearl Harbor we were comparable to England or Italy in Iraq we committed battleships guns money etc. Hitler had also killed something like 6 million people.
I agree that we shouldn’t let an evil despot sit in power, the problem with analogizing the situation in WWII to the one in Iraq is that the justification has changed so many times as to why we are there.[/quote]
We were playing around in WWII long before Pearl Harbor by denying Japan oil while we sold weapons and food to the Allies and used our Navy to safeguard the shipments.
I agree that we shouldn’t let an evil despot sit in power, the problem with analogizing the situation in WWII to the one in Iraq is that the justification has changed so many times as to why we are there.
I feel the same.
Zap, you might also want to study The Treaty of Versailles, The Weimar Republic and the economies of all the countries involved.
…
[/quote]
I would venture I have a much better handle on the situation than you do.
Blaming German aggression on the Treaty of Versailles is overly simplistic.
I would venture I have a much better handle on the situation than you do.
Blaming German aggression on the Treaty of Versailles is overly simplistic.[/quote]
Then why didn’t we invade cuba?, Libya? The costs of going to war unilaterally, far out weigh the benefits … as we are finding out. Going to war with every country with a dictator and going it alone is simplistic. Selling that dictator wmd and then invading him because he may or may not still have them is entrapment and telling our people at home that we are doing so to spread freedom is a joke.
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
Skystud wrote:
Lothario 90210 or whatever.
Lunchbox is right. We are in a war and we’re not doing very well. face it. Our mission was accomplished when GW said it was. We should declare victory and leave. Let those people fix their own country without our military. The only reason we are there today is because of all the oil.
WAKE UP.
Are you implying that securing our country’s energy is wrong?
The oil is important.
How would you like to pay $6 a gallon?
The oil is important and there is nothing wrong with getting out of Saddam’s hands.
Unfortunately, that was never the arguement so it is irrelevant when discussing Bush’s intentions.[/quote]
yes, it is wrong if it means we have to do it at the expense of innocent people. if we have to pay six dollars a gallon it is our fault. maybe the government should have invested more in the electric car.
Bush did no research, and went in with no plan, I repeat ZERO plan. How do you get worse than that? Then after the initial idealogy was proven wrong, still persisted with the same failed tactics while showing absolute disinterest in the results.
…
This just proves how crazy some of you guys really are.
One minute you complain the Bush planned to invade Iraq even before 9/11 and the next minute you say he had no plan.
Then you say he shows no interest in the war when he is about the only politician that does. Everyone else wants to pull out.
We cannot take you seriously but you are good for a laugh.[/quote]
Uhhgh…the density…
complained Bush had a plan to invade…
This isn’t a “complaint”.
Pointing out neocons desire to invade Iraq pre 9/11 is just called reading.
(Although I don’t know if its accurate to say Bush had a “plan to invade”. I didn’t say that…so kind of a straw man here)
That Bush went into Iraq with no plan (no phase IV) to win post invasion, is again just a matter of reading.(or watching the news).
That Bush isn’t interested, is obviously demonstrated by “stay the course”. Since victory in Iraq or afghanistan is essentially based on boots on the ground…you can see that stay the course does little to insure victory…
regardless of the fact that we will be soon redeploying in some fashion along with dividing the country more formally (only the sunnis object obviously)—“stay the course” is just what they’ll say till Baker can give them some cover.(Note: this means american lives just don’t matter to republicans advocating “stay the course” until november).