How Do We Know That the War is Going Well?

[JamieinNH]

Uh huh. That's what I figured.

Putting words in my mouth is part of your game.

No words in your mouth... There is just no need to try to explain it to you if you're not going to admit your mistake in that the quote doesn't fit and you're streching it to try to make it fit.

Again a question to you... What Nation are we fighting?

Jamie

 

[JamieinNH]

Low oil supplies can and will undermine national security. Iraq threatened the world's supply. You can not have a mad man in control of it.

That is the most craziest answer I have heard. We didn't go into Iraq because of Oil. Your Commander and Chief said as much!

Maybe if we wanted to worry about the oil supply and how it would affect our country, we should have better programs in place to remove our dependecy from oil.

Unless they are possessors of or are a threat to a region that possesses, vast oil reserves they are only a threat to themselves.

So you don't really care about the "mad man" killing his neighbors or his own people. You only care about the oil.

Jamie

 

[carpro]

No words in your mouth... There is just no need to try to explain it to you if you're not going to admit your mistake in that the quote doesn't fit and you're streching it to try to make it fit.

Again a question to you... What Nation are we fighting?

Jamie

Kennedy did not mention war, or fighting any nation, in his statement.

"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty."

But he did say "Pay any price".

It is clear to me that he meant for America to support the cause of liberty without thought to "price", but he didn't say we had to "fight" any "nation"at all as part of the "price".

Why is it democrats alway try to put a dollar value on liberty? The liberty that we enjoy was not purchased with money.

It is clearly priceless.

But democrats always want to reduce it to dollars and cents, like trying to decide whether to buy a Ford or a Chevrolet. With one you get liberty. With the other you don't. Which one do you buy? Only the cheapest, even if it doesn't come equipped with "liberty", is the answer of democrats.

End.

 

[Palatka51]

So you don't really care about the "mad man" killing his neighbors or his own people. You only care about the oil.

Jamie

Jamie you are sooo good at putting words in the mouths of others. May we please stick to the debate and not make personal attacks? You do not know me or my cares.
Oil keeps my lights on.
Oil gets me to work every day.
Oil keeps my house warm every wintry day.
Oil keeps it cool in the summer.
Of course I care about oil and if you believe that Mr Bush did not care about the oil then you were deceived not I. Plus you'll note that it was one of my criteria that Saddam's treatment of his neighbors and people that I did and do support our decision to go to war.

1. Did Saddam attack his neighbors? Yes. Iran and Kuwait.
2. His motivation was to secure the regions oil reserves for his own nefarious means.
3. Did he gas his own? Yes.

Oh and if you do not care for the free flow of oil then turn of your heat, air, lights and get a horse and that just might leave more for me. Plus it just might make the world a safer place.

 

[NiteShift]

You want us to believe that JFK was talking about the 'new found liberty' of the Iraqi people..

No, but he did have in mind the liberty of the South Vietnamese. If you’ll recall, the escalation in Viet Nam began shortly after.

 

[NiteShift]

Let's see.. We went into Iraq because they posed a "danager" to the USA and they were a breeding ground for weapons of mass destruction (never found)

"do we take some ambiguous route to give Saddam more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made?" - President Clinton

"There are such things as international outlaws. I'm not sure China is, but I'm quite sure Iran and Iraq are." - Howard Dean

"I can support the president, I can support an action against Saddam Hussein because I think it's in the long term interests of our national security." - Hillary Clinton

"Serving on the Intelligence Committee and seeing day after day and week after week the briefings on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons; he can not be allowed to have those weapons. It‘s just that simple!" - John Edwards

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Nancy Pelosi

 

[NiteShift]

So what about all the other countries? There are many countried that aren't treating their people well. They are straved, beaten controlled beyond belief. Under your premise we should have invaded them also..

Which country do you want to invade next? If you need a list of "opportunities" please let me know.

Yes give us that list. But keep in mind that:

During Operation Desert Storm, the active duty Army had 18 combat divisions. Clinton cut them down to 10.

The number of tactical air wings in the Air Force was cut from 37 at the time of Desert Storm to 20 under Clinton.

The Navy had 568 ships in the late 1980s, was downsized to a fleet of just 276 under Clinton.

 

[Ivon Denosovich]

<insertion of oneself>

Yes give us that list.

Oh, NiteShift, oh, Niteshift... to pretend that:

1) An actual list is required

2) You couldn't write the list yourself

3) Peradventure you did write the list, our allies such as Saudi Arabia would actually make the list...

But keep in mind that:

DDuring Operation Desert Storm, the active duty Army had 18 combat divisions. Clinton cut them down to 10.

The number of tactical air wings in the Air Force was cut from 37 at the time of Desert Storm to 20 under Clinton.

The Navy had 568 ships in the late 1980s, was downsized to a fleet of just 276 under Clinton.

All true. And from the perspective of feasibility, idealism is admittedly a weak argument. But that is precisely why the mere concept of nation building is strictly an ideological construction and never a pragmatic one. In fact, picking out a "good guy" in the Middle East (and how conservatives claim to know who the good guys are is a case study in opportunism) is nothing short of mind numbing verbal gymnastics. The syllogism goes something like this:

Kuwait enforces Islamic law.

Saddam attacks Kuwait.

In spite of the fact Kuwait enforces Islamic law, Kuwait deserves protection. Protection marketed under the auspices of freedom. Because, God forbid!, religious fascism should ebb and flow with competition. The only decipherable litmus test that correlates with the policing services proffered is, establishment= forces of good; newbies= downfall of western civilization. And in more dramatic language no less.

Bush's misappropriation of the term 'democracy' is tantamount to calling the KKK populists. Case in point: our (read: his) ally Pakistan.

 

[NiteShift]

Ivon, I'm not going to try and make a case for the Iraq invasion. My point above was that people in both parties and of several nationalities had for years been raising the alarm, and spoke of the need to -Do Something About Saddam-. Then when Bush actually did something, and things went south, they all disavowed their own words or pretended to have never said them. I can at least respect those who were against it from the start. But once we're in a war, it is important to stop the carping and see it through to a successful conclusion.

As for the use of idealistic language prior to military action: well Kennedy used it regarding opposition to the Communists ("we shall pay any price, bear any burden"); Jefferson used it ("The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."); Clinton used it regarding Haiti ("To those who have blocked the restoration of democracy...any opposition, any delay will only result in stronger measures taken by the United States").
It goes with the territory.

 

[KenH]

see it through to a successful conclusion.

Which happened years ago when Saddam Hussein was removed from power and the Iraqi people were handed a representative form of government on a silver platter paid for by American blood and treasure.

It's time to bring our troops home while remaining engaged diplomatically to help the Iraqi people if they are willing to keep what has been handed to them.

 

[NiteShift]

Which happened years ago when Saddam Hussein was removed from power and the Iraqi people were handed a representative form of government on a silver platter paid for by American blood and treasure.

To have left at that point strikes me as similar to a surgeon opening a man up, removing some internal organs, and then walking away with the patient on the table and his belly laid-open.

It's time to bring our troops home while remaining engaged diplomatically to help the Iraqi people if they are willing to keep what has been handed to them.

They are willing evidently, and have died in droves. IED's have killed hundreds of them standing in line to enslist, and after the mess is cleaned up, the survivors get right back in line.

 

[Ivon Denosovich]

But once we're in a war, it is important to stop the carping and see it through to a successful conclusion.

I'd like to agree to that. I'm just not sure there can be a successful conclusion in Iraq.

 

[poncho]

That's your choice.

Speaking for myself, I haven't given up any liberties at all.

No you've just confused govt granted privileges with liberties. Your liberties have been gone for awhile now Bubba. That's probably why you don't miss them...you never knew them.

 

[KenH]

1) To have left at that point strikes me as similar to a surgeon opening a man up, removing some internal organs, and then walking away with the patient on the table and his belly laid-open.

2) They are willing evidently, and have died in droves. IED's have killed hundreds of them standing in line to enslist, and after the mess is cleaned up, the survivors get right back in line.

1) I said we had to remain engaged. We should not walk away.

2) Without their politicians showing that same stick-to-it-ness their representative form of government cannot succeed.

 

[carpro]

No you've just confused govt granted privileges with liberties. Your liberties have been gone for awhile now Bubba. That's probably why you don't miss them...you never knew them.

Not everyone is a paranoid CT. :BangHead:

 

[poncho]

Not everyone is a paranoid CT. :BangHead:

Great come back! Quick, simple, easy to remember and requires no thought at all. Bravo. You've mastered an establishment talking point. Whoopie! :laugh:

 

[carpro]

Great come back! Quick, simple, easy to remember and requires no thought at all. Bravo.

You have made it easy. All your posts are basically the same. The only thing that changes is the conspiracy that frightens you at the moment.

 

[poncho]

You have made it easy. All your posts are basically the same. The only thing that changes is the conspiracy that frightens you at the moment.

Don't you ever get tired of being so under informed? Just think, if you were really informed we might be able to have a decent discussion. Man, I get tired of waiting (months and years) for you guys to get the news on cable.:laugh:

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

Going to infowars to get information is equivilent to going to the insane asylum.

 

[JustChristian]

Because its casualties havent been splashed all over the front page of the main stream newspapers and cable news shows.

"The total number of enemy attacks has fallen for four consecutive months, and has now reached levels last seen before the February 2006 Samarra mosque bombing. IED explosions have plummeted to late-2004 levels. Iraqi civilian casualties, which peaked at 3,000 in the month of December 2006, are now below 1,000 for the second straight month. The number of coalition soldiers killed in action has fallen for five straight months and is now at the lowest level since February 2004."

http://townhall.com/Columnists/RichLowry/2007/11/12/quiet_victory

How many noncombattents have been killed or forced to flee the country?