How many more body bags?

Once again, I'didn't see a quote from Bush or many of the others on that source that said it was going to be easy or quick.

 

One Bush quote is all it takes. I can wait.

Why are you doing APAL's work for him?

 

Thanks for your patience.

Just curious mostly I guess. I'm pretty sure you understand that there must be thousands of sources to go through and most will be dismissed as liberal blather. I'm betting that even a liberal blather piece of oped garbage might have a link to a decent source or two. That's alot of work ya know...it's like panning for gold, ya gotta sift alot of dirt to find one tiny nugget.

 

We lost Wake Island almost immediately and our first three naval battles, as well as our first invasion in the Solomons were disasterous defeats.

People would have been calling for FDR's head.

 

How many graves will we fill if we do "cut and run" as you desire?

 

Regardless of what the Washington Post may say, the government does not pay 33,000 a month for private security, even in Iraq. I would be heading over there myself if they did.

 

I cringe each time I hear men speak of being in some kind of good war when neither they nor their sons (although thankfully not their daughters) are there in the fight.

Thanks,
Bill
OIF '03

 

Back to my salient point.

"Either do it right or get out" I think will
become a mantra and bush will have to weigh
the decision. imho

Sincerly
Aslanspal

 

Good point!

The people of Viet Nam paid dearly for our failure to keep the promises we'd made. We sold them out in the 1973 "peace" treaty, turned a blind eye to on-going - increased - communist aggression between 1973 and 1975, and then did nothing to help them in late 1974 and early 1975. We cut and ran from that war - not on the battlefield but in Paris at the "peace" table - because it "hurt" too much. We had our cheap "peace with honor" in that we walked out with our heads up but we did so whilst others were still fighting. Our enemy continued to be supported by the major communist power of the day. Our ally was on their own. In two years they lost at a very high price. For many years afterwards there was untold suffering of those who'd previously fought at our side. We abandoned them. We've even learned to blame them for it. Indeed, they had their short comings but far greater was our contribution. We didn't have the resolve to continue with what we said we'd do. The loud mouth anti-war activists and all those that helped them - the scum of that time - won that terrible loss for us all.

Over all, I never liked him very much but I did like that part of his speech and it did reflect the true American spirit that my father and his father had. The mistake many of us made was to believe that we, as a nation, would hold to those words. We did not! When the price became high we didn't want to pay it any longer. When the burden came home we didn't like it. We really showed the world that we were strong on words but weak on conviction. Our enemy showed us what resolve really meant and they took far more casualties at our hands that we did from theirs. They believed in their cause, sent their men and women to fight at any cost, and persevered to the bitter end for what they'd said they would do.

Now, today, we have a fresh new batch of loud mouth anti-war activists. Let us see if they'll help us leave the veterans of today's conflict the same legacy we left those of the Viet Nam war. Let's see if they'll be successful in helping our nation dump Iraq's citizens and their new military, security, and law enforcement forces, who've now solidly bought into our encouragement for their democracy, right back into the hands of our enemies. Let's see if they'll help us write another disgusting chapter in our nation's history.

Let us, instead, write a new chapter around a solid and complete victory in Iraq that restores to the world the America spirit reflected in what President Kennedy spoke and many more have died backing up since the days of our founding. Let us make certain that every veteran of today's war comes who knowing they did their part for a just cause that their nation asked - even demanded - of them. Let us make certain Iraq's citizens have the opportunity we've presented to them for both their benefit and ours. We can do it if we want.

 

Bro Curtis and Carpro,

Honestly I can't recall a single instance of George Bush saying the war in Iraq would be easy and I can't seem to find any on the net. But ya know what Rumsfeld said about the WMD's

"The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

and

"Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know."

 

Happy hour has arrived!

 

I did find this about the cost estimates.

Earlier this year, experts said the war and aftermath in Iraq would cost hundreds of billions of dollars, a fact the White House refused to acknowledge as valid, even going so far as to fire Lawrence Lindsey for his realistic projections. In September, 2003, Paul Wolfowitz even told the Senate “no one said we would know anything other than this would be very bloody, it could be very long and by implication, it could be very expensive." Here’s a record of what the administration, in fact, said:

I think they "misunderestimated" the reconstruction costs to us by a wee bit.

 

Amen, Brother KenH -- Preach it!

I note the US Military death toll for 2½-years
in Iraq is equal to the death toll in the
American abortion mills for TEN HOURS. </font>[/QUOTE]Do you preach about the tactics of war and an unjust one at that?

 

I did find this about the cost estimates.

Earlier this year, experts said the war and aftermath in Iraq would cost hundreds of billions of dollars, a fact the White House refused to acknowledge as valid, even going so far as to fire Lawrence Lindsey for his realistic projections. In September, 2003, Paul Wolfowitz even told the Senate “no one said we would know anything other than this would be very bloody, it could be very long and by implication, it could be very expensive." Here’s a record of what the administration, in fact, said:

I think they "misunderestimated" the reconstruction costs to us by a wee bit. </font>[/QUOTE]We certainly do seem to be very proficient at spending tax payer money for reconstruction projects!

 

You're talking about just wars. Would anything different have happened in Viet Nam if we had left 3 years earlier or even 5 years earlier?

 

Another blatant lie by A-PAL. Or perhaps he'll suprise us all with a source. I remember him saying, from the beginning, that this would be a long fight. </font>[/QUOTE]Bush declared victory on May 2, 2003. He also explicitly linked the conflict in the Gulf to the 11 September 2001 terror attacks on the United States.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2989459.stm

 

The "Mission Accomplished" was the defeat of Saddam's former military forces. That was a good thing to celebrate because some had, as in 1990, predicted it to be a "blood bath" for us. We won that round rather quickly and very decisively.

The subsequent "missions" are being accomplished - one by one - as Iraq takes on more responsibility for its own security, seeks to establish a more permanent government, and starts the process of self government that's new to a whole nation. These steps aren't as dramatic and they're not without setbacks or problems.

 

I did find this about the cost estimates.

Earlier this year, experts said the war and aftermath in Iraq would cost hundreds of billions of dollars, a fact the White House refused to acknowledge as valid, even going so far as to fire Lawrence Lindsey for his realistic projections. In September, 2003, Paul Wolfowitz even told the Senate “no one said we would know anything other than this would be very bloody, it could be very long and by implication, it could be very expensive." Here’s a record of what the administration, in fact, said:

I think they "misunderestimated" the reconstruction costs to us by a wee bit. </font>[/QUOTE]We certainly do seem to be very proficient at spending tax payer money for reconstruction projects! </font>[/QUOTE]From some reports I've read it seems we're equaly adept (thoroughly proficient) at misplacing taxpayer funds and playing dumb when confronted about it.

 

The problem with your "salient" point is that it isn't salient. It assumes a false premise- That we aren't doing it right now.

Our guys are killing alot more of the bad guys than the bad guys are killing of us. At the same time, we have provided an environment and the resources to rebuild the infrastructure so that the developing government will have its best shot at success.

We were in Japan, Korea, Germany, etc. for years to ensure that their developing democracies didn't get destroyed. The dividends for those investments have been tremendous. We have been in Iraq for 2.5 years and you premise a question on the faulty premise that we are failing.

Is the operation perfect? No. Is it very good? Yes. Is it expensive? Yes. If we stay the course and don't follow the advice of the party and ideology that gave us Vietnam, the Bay of Pigs, and the Iran Hostage fiasco then we should see tremendous dividends again.