How pride is killing our troops
 

I dont understand the reason behind sending more troops to Iraq. Is our president so ignorant to believe we will win the war in Iraq? Yes because he doesnt want to "lose face" on what a few intelligence reports said about what the Iraqis:rolleyes: wanted. If they want their piece of s**t country back give it to them. It is a shame that over 3000 of our servicemen went there for what? to bring more hatred against the U.S. The Middle East has ALWAYS been a problem, from biblical times till now. If they attack our so called "allies"-Israel for example let them, Im sure Israel can take care of itself. I would sit back and enjoy the show, thats what they want anyway-a full fledged war between the Jews and Muslims. I know someone will criticize my remarks and compare them to WW2 when we sat back for a while a let Hitler invade countries but come on this war is ridiculous. The Bush administration is breeding terrorists by lengthening this war. Pull out and give them a reason to attack the U.S. again. Im sure a few tactical nukes on downtown Baghdad, Tehran, Damascus, etc and televise it to the rest of the world of who the current superpower is

That paragraph just whooped my ass... I didnt get past the first sentence!

Hmm I see the very LONG paragraph now:D I didnt know we had to follow a standard English format for posting or in this case RANTING:D :o

I agree but I don't think we need to use nukes to prove we have them.

We also need to watch China. They are testing missiles again.

China is just waiting to invade Taiwan

The really sad part is you are right. We may as well try to find a save face way out. Cause it isn't going to matter this week, or 2 years from now. We are breeding them as fast as we kill them.... by killing them. 2 years, and we'll just be that much weaker, and that much more in debt.

Sadly... We've already lost and we just don't know it yet. It hurts to say that, but when has this type of Nation Building tactic ever work? Hitler got closer than anyone to doing it, and we all know how much he's loved... and how badly he failed. The situation is a thousand times worse than if we hadn't of ever went, and that means we've lost. We've turned Iraq into a haven for terrorists... We've lost.

Heck, we lost immediately at the decision to go in. I guess all those guys back in 91, like Rumsfield, saying it was a bad idea to go into Baghdad were right. Who'd guess? (Sarcasm just spewing out of that "Who'd guess?" part)

I always ask the Neo-Cons - what exactly is their goal in Iraq? The constant answer is a "free and democratic Iraq." How do they propose doing it? Well, they're not so sure. They've tried several different tactics...at least...I think. Either way, at this point, that goal is most certainly unattainable. Look at how Vietnam went - when no one took control, the place descended into chaos. Did we achieve anything? Nope. Are we going to achieve anything in Iraq? Nope.

The Neo-Cons would call me a defeatist. I'd call me a realist. I'm realistically saying that a snowball has better chances in the blazes of hell than democracy has in Iraq.

I wonder how many of the problems we're having in Iraq are due to the actions of Iran and Syria. I can understand why Bush and company thought they had an opportunity to reshape the region by invading Iraq. At the time they had a choice, consolidate our position in Afganistan, and use this success to intimidate others into cooperating, or go for broke and expand the operation. Unfortunately Bush was too Gung-Ho and impatient. Our politicians were too afraid of being branded soft on terrorism to challenge Bush before the invasion. I didn't buy the nukes/wmd tale and saw it as a trumped up pretense like the Vietnam Gulf of Tonklin.

People both for and against continuing the war in Iraq have been unable to come up with a good plan for withdrawl. This war seems doomed to last longer than WWII -- which is unbelievable. We have to either greatly escalate the level of violence or leave. If we do the former then we have to be prepared to level civilian and/or religious areas where hostiles are hiding, kill leaders/clerics that oppose our goals, take out targets in Iran and Syria if they continue to cause trouble, and let the field commanders do whatever they feel is necessary to dominate the area completely. This stategy would achieve less death and suffering than our present course.

Or we could just leave, take our lumps, and face possible future battles/involvements in the area as they develop. Will our actions have negative consequences in 5, 10, 20, 100 years? Only time will tell.

I do think though that perhaps Iraq could have been more successful if we hadn't had to fight with our hands tied behind our backs. I know the Geneva convention and all, but that really applies to fighters of a foreign nation. Al Quida is not a nation. They're a bunch of bandits with Osama's money and our weapons from back in the 80's.

I don't see who we are fighting as terrorists. They are insurgents fighting against the U.S. installed government. "We" are the threat to "them". We have conveniently labeled them as terrorists and using their war tactics as our reasoning. IED's, etc.

But the reality is, this is their only way of fighting. The only difference between what they are doing, and what we did during the revolutionary war is we didn't have as sophisticated equipment. We were also labeled terrorists by the British due to our own tactics. But I sincerely don't feel we were then, and I can't really see using a double standard today.

If our mentality changed, and we see our opposition for what they really are, then maybe..... we really "can" come up with a solution on how to fix this.

Of course, everytime I try to think this way, my mind immediately goes to the lame brain, ignorant act of putting us into this situation in the first place. And I'm still waiting for them to be held accountable.

I think it's interesting that all of the following has gotten lost in the need to "blame" the US for "the war." This was the basis (pay particular attention to paragraphs 3 and the conditions outlined in the Blix/Baradei letter) :

http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/G...df?OpenElement

Saddam "thumbed his nose" at these resolutions 17 times, with each time leading to a strong "or else" statement from the UN, then, when it came time to implement the "or else," the UN would back down -- think it had anything to do with Annan's loss of $$ in the OFF debacle? Gung ho and impatient? I think waiting for 17 slaps in the face is pretty darned patient.

As regards the following, you recall, that after the US went in, there were warehouses filled with UN humanitarian aid that had not been distributed.

http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/G...df?OpenElement

http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/G...df?OpenElement

http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/G...df?OpenElement



Also, the US is blamed for the increase in terrorist acts. As evidenced by THIS United Nations resolution (and its previous resolutions mentioned in the opening paragraph), terrorist activities were already on the rise.

http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/G...df?OpenElement

http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/G...df?OpenElement

http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/G...df?OpenElement


There is also the whole "no Al Qaeda/Iraq" cooperation evidence. Let's evidence this text:


The full text is located here: http://www.fas.org/irp/news/1998/11/98110602_nlt.html

This comes from a U.S. Justice Department Grand Jury indictment of Osama Bin Laden...written in 1998 And, remember, president Bush never said Saddam was responsible for 9/11 (despite the endless cries to the contrary) but that Al Qaeda and Iraq were cooperating.

And, believe it or not, I didn't need Fox News to tell me this -- you'll note that these are official documents -- a slow day at work and "google" and voila!

So, now I'm tired -- I'm not even gonna try to build a case for how quickly this whole thing would've been over if our "allies" (specifically France, Germany and Russia) had helped us out. But then, that would've meant exposing the fact that they had been breaking the UN resolutions as well as dipping into the OFF funds, discussing weapons...y'know, stuff like that.:D

Now, I can state one thing for a 100% pure gold certainty: IF the US had not gone in preemptively and Saddam had begun to dump chemical or biological weapons on its "enemies" -- or even "dirty bombs" (which, it's just been proven that one can carry weapons-grade uranium, wrapped in a plastic bag, in their shirt pocket:rolleyes: ) the entire world would have whiplash as their heads snapped toward the US and they cried, "Why in the hell didn't you do something?"



PS: Darn! I almost forgot. There is one thing I got from Fox News while searching for official documents. For some light reading, here's the entire 9/11 Commission report. :D

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/911Report.pdf

Haha... where is the Macro from Friday saying "DAMMMMMMN" when you need it?

LOL

Role Reversal- Lets say Iraq was a superpower with a large military,allies(Iran,Syria,Saudi Arabia etc. and "decide" that the U.S. is secretly building a weapon of mass destruction(in this case the Big Mac)Now we refuse to stop "production" of the Big Mac which prompts outrage from the Muslim alliance(sanctions,media blasting,etc.)Military force is inevitable and the invasion begins. Republicans(Shiites in Iraqs case) and Democrats(Sunni's) fight for their existence to LIVE despite the problem with the Big Mac. Now an invasion force is in your back yard telling you have a curfew and can come in at any time of day an charge you as a enemy combatant. You deny everthing connected to the Big Mac but are still charged with a unknown crime. You are later released but everything you know is gone wife,kids,relatives from sectarian violence (mentioned above) . You see where this is going. More Later:D

Can you say Apples and Oranges? :rolleyes:

There is no way you can compare Shiites and Sunnis to Democrats and Republicans...well, maybe Democrats;)

What people continue to forget is that, though the US took it upon themselves to unilaterally fulfill the toothless threats of the UN, if you read the resolutions, this was a worldwide condemnation. It aint as if the President just woke up one morning, and over his coffee said, "Hey, let's go invade Iraq." Even the Democrats, though, of course, tauting diplomacy over armed conflict (yes, let's go hug 'em and kiss 'em on the cheek while they lie to us, instead of letting 'em lie to us from a distance), KNEW that Saddam was a threat and had to go...

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp


I repeat -- there's no way we'll ever know for sure about Saddam's intentions. History will have the final say. As we've heard recently, Gerald Ford was a dope, by most people's assessment, for pardoning Nixon -- when he did it. We came to realize, over time, that it was his BEST decision -- to the detriment of his own political career. Whether history proves that President Bush's decisions were right or wrong, there is one thing, for sure, that history will prove: the vitriol and "sour grapes" from the opposing party was an aid and comfort to the enemy. We've already heard from Al Zawahiri that he's watchin' TV and enjoying the show.

Meanwhile, take a look at a couple of people beyond the scope...

http://www.humanevents.com/article.p...t=yes&id=19143

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...462149,00.html

So if Iran HAS nuclear technology and the UN is NOT doing anything about it, will America step up to the plate again? I hope not but time will tell. War has this capability to bring EVERY issue of its evil head out to the world. Why we went I dont really know or ever will it seems to me a "outside" country will complicate the problem. We will see;)