|
Post by RealistState on Apr 14, 2004 7:56:37 GMT -5
A Strategy for Iraq Washington Post April 13, 2004 "A Strategy for Iraq" Op-Ed by Senator John Kerry To be successful in Iraq, and in any war for that matter, our use of force must be tied to a political objective more complete than the ouster of a regime. To date, that has not happened in Iraq. It is time it did. There has been a political objective from the beginning. Kerry just doesn't have a clue or either he is just lying again. [/color][/quote] The reason we were all told was the threat of weapons of pkmtyolm destruction. [/color][/quote] Well, that is slightly different from what the President said last night. And the number is not really small. An awful lot of Iraqis are not happy with the occupation. [/color][/quote] We went to war for 9/11 by attacking Afghanistan and the Al Queda. We went to war with Iraq for their threat of WMD. Even the President and his people have found no viable linkage with Saddam Hussien and the 9/11 attack. [/color][/quote] Failure means death of Americans. Even Democrats don't wish for that. You do realize that some of the soldiers dying in Iraq are Democrats (and Republicans and Liberals and Conservatives and Libertarians and so on). [/color][/quote] Read above. [/color][/quote] Again, read above. [/color][/quote] The failure in Vietnam was that the US had no clear cut policy. We propped up corrupt regimes, and both Johnson (D) and Nixob (R) were not open and honest with the American people. [/color][/quote] Yes, I assume your talking about the "pork" filled military spending bill. BTW, how does the VP former company Halliburton fulfill the "full use of assets" formula. It must be nice to have people in high places so you don't have to go through messy competive bids for lucrative governmant contracts. [/color][/quote] And President Bush must have been listening to congress (and should have listened to that General before he fired him...unfortunately I can't recall his name right now). [/color][/quote] And what is the strategy? Turn the governing over to the Iraqis on June 30 (I assume this year). To who? [/color][/quote] Well, June 30 is fast approaching. Hopefully President Bush's plan will be fully developed soon. [/color][/quote] One would hope that anyone elected to this high office could handle the load. [/color][/quote] How so? He is only part of the body of congress. Policy is set by the Executive branch. [/color][/quote] Not according to the administration. The Iraqis were going to welcome us as liberators. [/color][/quote] Originally the administration did not want the UN involved at all in post-war Iraq. Why now? [/color][/quote] This distrust between the Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites was known long before we went into Iraq, so it should be no surprise at all and should have been part of the original planning. [/color][/quote] The biggest failure as I already have stated was Johnson and Nixon not being open and honest with the American people.
|
|
|
Post by RealistState on Apr 14, 2004 7:57:55 GMT -5
[/color][/quote]
Failure is a "two-way" street, my friend. Need I remind you of the "no child left behind" program.
[/color][/quote]
Isn't that the "bunch" that President Bush is reaching out to now?
[/color][/quote]
Unfortunately, the "go it alone" strategy does not seem to be working.
[/color][/quote]
Think about it...why would any country want to commit troops into the mess in Iraq.
[/color][/quote]
Again, then why did President Bush try to forge an international coalition, and why is he reaching out to the UN now?
[/color][/quote]
And when those WMDs are found.....
Sadly, our administration was misled by Chilabi about those WMDs, and we fell for it hook, line and sinker.
[/color][/quote]
We really didn't have much of a choice. I guess we could have walked away after Saddam was captured, but the vacuum would have created another Taliban-like country.
And BTW, other than Tony Blair, I don not think Mr Bush asked for the opinion or advise of any other world leader.
[/color][/quote]
They were "snubbed" by the present administration. Perhaps a new administration can repair that "snub".
[/color][/quote]
In a free and open society, debate and disagreement is a sign that democracy is working. why would you want to stifle that?
[/color][/quote]
As I've suggested before, you really need to get a grip on what "treason" means.
|
|
|
Post by RealistState on Apr 14, 2004 8:07:44 GMT -5
[/color][/quote]
Lies and distortions? Which one are those? The failure to find WMDs, the failure to make the 9/11 and Saddam link? The "Mission Accomplished" banner on the ship?
[/color][/quote]
The polls would indicate otherwise. And that's not the work of the Kerry campaign alone.
[/color][/quote]
Actually it was the career military in the Pentagon that made the decision to only send "light" armor for what was intended to be a police action. You really need to keep your "facts" straight.
[/color][/quote]
Again, review your "facts". Under US law, the US military can never be subject or controlled by a foreign power. In order for that to happen, it would require an act of Congress, not the opinion of the executive branch.
|
|
|
Post by Kee on Apr 14, 2004 15:16:31 GMT -5
[/color][/quote]
Americans like to say that the world changed as a result of the September 11,2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. It would be more accurate to say that the attacks produced a dangerous change in the thinking of some of our leaders, who began to see our republic as a genuine empire, a new Rome, the greatest colossus in history, no longer bound by international law, the concerns of allies, or any constraints on its use of military force. The American people were still largely in the dark about why they had been attacked or why their Sate Department began warning them against tourism in an ever-growing list of foreign countries. (“Why do they hate us?” was a common complaint heard on talk shows, and the most common answer was “jealously.”) But a growing number finally began to grasp what most non-Americans already knew and had experienced over the previous half century—namely, that the United States was something other than what it professed to be, that it was, a military juggernaut intent on world domination.
Americans may still prefer euphemisms like “lone superpower,” but since 9/11, our country has undergone a transformation from republic to empire that may well prove irreversible. It suddenly became “un-American” to question the Bush administration’s “war on terrorism, “let alone a war on Iraq, or on the whole “axis of evil” or even on the sixty or so countries that the president and his secretary of defense announced contained al-Qaeda cells and so were open targets for unilateral American intervention. The media allowed themselves to be manipulated into using sanitized expressions like “collateral damage,” “regime change,” “illegal combatants,” and “preventive war” as if these somehow explained and justified what the Pentagon was doing. At the same time, the government was making strenuous efforts to prevent the new International Criminal Court from ever having the option of considering war crimes charges against American officials.
Excerpt from The Sorrows of Empire, Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic, by Charlmers Johnson
**edit to add omitted text (see italics) re the media**
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Apr 15, 2004 8:10:30 GMT -5
The reason we were all told was the threat of weapons of pkmtyolm destruction. How was this incorrect or a lie? [/color] Well, that is slightly different from what the President said last night. And the number is not really small. An awful lot of Iraqis are not happy with the occupation. Compared to the total population, it is a small number. They won't last long. [/color] We went to war for 9/11 by attacking Afghanistan and the Al Queda. We went to war with Iraq for their threat of WMD. Even the President and his people have found no viable linkage with Saddam Hussien and the 9/11 attack. There is evidence for anyone who wishes to look and see it. [/color] Failure means death of Americans. Even Democrats don't wish for that. I believe there are many Democrats who do wish to see many american deaths. They are mostly in Washington D.C. [/color] You do realize that some of the soldiers dying in Iraq are Democrats (and Republicans and Liberals and Conservatives and Libertarians and so on). Yes. [/color] The failure in Vietnam was that the US had no clear cut policy. We propped up corrupt regimes, and both Johnson (D) and Nixob (R) were not open and honest with the American people. What about Kennedy(D)? [/color] Yes, I assume your talking about the "pork" filled military spending bill. Who added trhe pork? [/color] BTW, how does the VP former company Halliburton fulfill the "full use of assets" formula. It must be nice to have people in high places so you don't have to go through messy competive bids for lucrative governmant contracts. I know there are many companioes just lining up to work in a war zone while the fighting is all around them, and you did say FORMER company. Can you name any companies willing to work in a war zone that are qualified to do what is required? [/color] And President Bush must have been listening to congress (and should have listened to that General before he fired him...unfortunately I can't recall his name right now). Actually he lets his commanders in the field make those decisions. [/color] Well, June 30 is fast approaching. Hopefully President Bush's plan will be fully developed soon. We all hope for the same thing. [/color] Not according to the administration. The Iraqis were going to welcome us as liberators. Most of them did, but they are impatient. The interviews I've seen with soldiers in the field admit that the partisan media is NOT presenting the total picture of the situation in Iraq, The partisan media is bent on defeating Bush in November. Whether you like Bush or not, this faulty media reporting isolated incidents as major events should worry you. They are trying to shape the thinking of people who only look at them for their political information. Iraq is much better off today than it was a little over a year ago, and the Iraqi's know it. That's why they beg the U.S. not to abandon them as Clinton ran from Somalia. [/color] Originally the administration did not want the UN involved at all in post-war Iraq. Why now? We don't want to share control of the situation with the U.N. How can you say we didn't want U.N. involvement? Did you forget all of the U.N. resolutions that were ignored by Saddam? The U.N. has no guts and that's why we don't share leadership with them.
This distrust between the Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites was known long before we went into Iraq, so it should be no surprise at all and should have been part of the original planning. They are. [/color] The biggest failure as I already have stated was Johnson and Nixon not being open and honest with the American people. This has nothing to do with Bush. [/color]
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Apr 15, 2004 8:30:43 GMT -5
[quote author=RealistState
Again, then why did President Bush try to forge an international coalition, and why is he reaching out to the UN now? He did. Your memory is very short. The French, Germans, and Kofi Annan all had their hands in Saddam's piocket and didn't want to mes sthat up. Bush fooled them.[/color]
And when those WMDs are found.....
Sadly, our administration was misled by Chilabi about those WMDs, and we fell for it hook, line and sinker. Only Bush? What about Clinton, the U.N., KERRY, and everyone else?
We know Saddam had them. We know he had the capability to make more. Saddam had many months because of your valued U.N. sidestepping, to hide them. That is a big desert and the case isn't closed yet. I believe they are there somewhere and will be found in time. You've jumped on a bandwagon that has broken wheels and isn't going anywhere. [/color] We really didn't have much of a choice. I guess we could have walked away after Saddam was captured, but the vacuum would have created another Taliban-like country. Walked away? Do you actually think the war on terror is finished? Buddy, you're disillusioned. [/color]
And BTW, other than Tony Blair, I don not think Mr Bush asked for the opinion or advise of any other world leader. We are the world leader! No one else has the capability to lead!
This is where Kerry is so wrong. He would allow countries like Somalia, Sudan, France and Germany to set our agenda and determine when and how we should defend our own shores. [/color]
They were "snubbed" by the present administration. Perhaps a new administration can repair that "snub". They got what they deserved. It's about time we have a president who doesn't take their stupid crap! Never forget, WE lead and they follow, and are grateful to do so. [/color]
In a free and open society, debate and disagreement is a sign that democracy is working. why would you want to stifle that? You can't run into a theater and yell "fire", and you shouldn't be able to give aid and comfort to the enemy by talking against the president's policy on war in a time of war, which we are involved in. Wake up man, this is a world war we're fighting. [/color]
As I've suggested before, you really need to get a grip on what "treason" means. Supplying aid and comfort to an enemy is treason. This is what Kerry is doing by encouraging the enemy to hang on to see if he gets elected. They think they will get a better deal with Kerry. That;s why they support him. [/color]
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Apr 15, 2004 8:41:09 GMT -5
Lies and distortions? Which one are those? The failure to find WMDs, the failure to make the 9/11 and Saddam link? The "Mission Accomplished" banner on the ship? Partisan bashing of Bush doesn't change the facts. What you list above are facts and not distortions. [/color] The polls would indicate otherwise. And that's not the work of the Kerry campaign alone. Wait till November. [/color] Actually it was the career military in the Pentagon that made the decision to only send "light" armor for what was intended to be a police action. You really need to keep your "facts" straight. The facts are straight, and the original mission that Bush 1 started was changed by your hero Clinton without a change in equipment. What Bush started was successful, and what Clinton changed it to was a failure! [/color] Again, review your "facts". Under US law, the US military can never be subject or controlled by a foreign power. In order for that to happen, it would require an act of Congress, not the opinion of the executive branch. Under Clinton, there was a soldier who was court marshalled for refusing to wear the U.N. helmat, and I think the uniform too! He said he took an oath to the USA, not the UN! Review your own "facts". [/color]
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Apr 15, 2004 8:44:02 GMT -5
Americans like to say that the world changed as a result of the September 11,2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. It would be more accurate to say that the attacks produced a dangerous change in the thinking of some of our leaders, who began to see our republic as a genuine empire, a new Rome, the greatest colossus in history, no longer bound by international law, the concerns of allies, or any constraints on its use of military force. The American people were still largely in the dark about why they had been attacked or why their Sate Department began warning them against tourism in an ever-growing list of foreign countries. (“Why do they hate us?” was a common complaint heard on talk shows, and the most common answer was “jealously.”) But a growing number finally began to grasp what most non-Americans already knew and had experienced over the previous half century—namely, that the United States was something other than what it professed to be, that it was, a military juggernaut intent on world domination.
Americans may still prefer euphemisms like “lone superpower,” but since 9/11, our country has undergone a transformation from republic to empire that may well prove irreversible. It suddenly became “un-American” to question the Bush administration’s “war on terrorism, “let alone a war on Iraq, or on the whole “axis of evil” or even on the sixty or so countries that the president and his secretary of defense announced contained al-Qaeda cells and so were open targets for unilateral American intervention. The media allowed themselves to be manipulated into using sanitized expressions like “collateral damage,” “regime change,” “illegal combatants,” and “preventive war” as if these somehow explained and justified what the Pentagon was doing. At the same time, the government was making strenuous efforts to prevent the new International Criminal Court from ever having the option of considering war crimes charges against American officials.
Excerpt from The Sorrows of Empire, Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic, by Charlmers Johnson Is there a point to this foolishness? [/color]
|
|
|
Post by RealistState on Apr 15, 2004 16:58:46 GMT -5
The reason we were all told was the threat of weapons of pkmtyolm destruction. How was this incorrect or a lie? [/color][/quote] So where are they. Didn't VP Cheney say they knew exactly where they were? [/color][/quote] I am praying they you are right on that one. [/color][/quote] Then how come the administration has backed away from that claim? [/color][/quote] If you trully believe that, I am very concerned for you. [/color][/quote] Yes, Kennedy was responsible for sending the original advisors. We'll never know if he would have escalated it the way Johnson and Nixon did. [/color][/quote] If you have to ask, then you do not know. [/color][/quote] Actually the competition is pretty fierce for "re-building" contracts. It's just that some did not have to compete. [/color][/quote] No, this general was fired for saying we did not have enough troops to support the "peace". [/color][/quote] Which media are you watching? I haven't seen too many soldiers interviewed about the partisan coverage. [/color][/quote] Was this the same partisan media that covered the Monica Lewinsky scandal ad naseum? You didn't answer the question...why does President Bush want the UN now? [/color][/quote] I know that. Your the one that brought Vietnam into this discussion in your rebuttal of Sen Kerry's op-ed piece. But President Bush can learn from the mistakes of Johnson and Nixon.
|
|
|
Post by RealistState on Apr 15, 2004 17:35:20 GMT -5
Again, then why did President Bush try to forge an international coalition, and why is he reaching out to the UN now? He did. Your memory is very short. The French, Germans, and Kofi Annan all had their hands in Saddam's piocket and didn't want to mes sthat up. Bush fooled them.[/color][/quote] Not short at al. I recall it very well. But you still didn't answer the question...why is he reaching out to the UN now? [/color][/quote] I did say "we", so I would assume that everyone in leadership that listened to Chalabi was fooled...including Clinton, Kerry and the present leadership. But it was this leadership who acted on it. And it may turn out to be the cause of their undoing. [/color][/quote] One can only hope that there will be some vindication. Otherwise it may turn out to be "bluff and blunder" by Saddam, and the lies told by Chalabi to our leaders. [/color][/quote] Well, we did walk away from Afghanistan well the Soviet Union fell apart. It gave rise to the Taliban and fomented the hatred of the US that exist today. [/color][/quote] Are we really defending our own shores when anyone can walk across our border with a suitcase of junk? Wouldn't our military serve a better cause by being deployed along our boarders? [/color][/quote] Then again I ask, why is President Bush reaching out to the UN now? [/color][/quote] You realize that there have dissenting group since the birth of this Nation? In every war, there has always been one group or another that has opposed it in one form or another. Dissenting opinion has never weakened us as a country., it has always made us stronger. So to state that giving "Aid and comfort" is an over used phrase that really has no meaning. It is disingenuous in a free and open society. [/color][/quote] Again, you may wish this, but wishing does not make it true. Just look at the US Code regarding treason, and you'll see that you are wrong in your assessment taht not supporting the President's policy is not a treasonable offense. Unless you are advocating a totalitarian government, dissent will always be with us.
|
|
|
Post by Onion on Apr 15, 2004 17:42:55 GMT -5
You know RealistState, Im almost certain that genesda just wants to start trouble. Look how he signs his posts "It's not safe enough to elect liberal Democrats, especially the French looking Kerry.", I mean come on!! That is probably one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard!
He can't have a normal, adult disscussion or debate. He and others call names constantly just like children. How does he expect anyone to take him seriously??
He's nothing but a troll. Best thing to do with annoying childern is to ignore them and they'll go away. Because they can't exactly argue by themselves.
|
|
|
Post by RealistState on Apr 15, 2004 17:46:05 GMT -5
Lies and distortions? Which one are those? The failure to find WMDs, the failure to make the 9/11 and Saddam link? The "Mission Accomplished" banner on the ship? Partisan bashing of Bush doesn't change the facts. What you list above are facts and not distortions. [/color][/quote] Yes, the fact are: - No WMDs have been found - The administration has stated they found no link between 9/11 and Saddam - And the "Mission Accomplished" banner was premature [/color][/quote] That is why we're a democracy. [/color][/quote] Yes, the "fact" is that the Pentagon made the decision under George H Bush what armament was required. [/color][/quote] Then review the "facts". He was court martialed for defying an order of a US officer, not UN. Under military code, defying a direct order from a superior is a court martial offense.
|
|
|
Post by RealistState on Apr 15, 2004 18:11:45 GMT -5
You know RealistState, Im almost certain that genesda just wants to start trouble. Look how he signs his posts "It's not safe enough to elect liberal Democrats, especially the French looking Kerry.", I mean come on!! That is probably one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard! He can't have a normal, adult disscussion or debate. He and others call names constantly just like children. How does he expect anyone to take him seriously?? He's nothing but a troll. Best thing to do with annoying childern is to ignore them and they'll go away. Because they can't exactly argue by themselves. Oh, I have been having these exchanges with gene for some time now. He does make this forum interesting.
|
|
|
Post by Kee on Apr 15, 2004 20:55:02 GMT -5
Is there a point to this foolishness? [/b][/color][/quote] Only for those interested in an informed opinion. ;D
|
|
|
Post by HomeAtLast on Apr 15, 2004 21:06:49 GMT -5
You know RealistState, Im almost certain that genesda just wants to start trouble. Look how he signs his posts "It's not safe enough to elect liberal Democrats, especially the French looking Kerry.", I mean come on!! That is probably one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard! He can't have a normal, adult disscussion or debate. He and others call names constantly just like children. How does he expect anyone to take him seriously?? He's nothing but a troll. Best thing to do with annoying childern is to ignore them and they'll go away. Because they can't exactly argue by themselves. Wowww...how profound of you, but then it does seem like I read that somewhere else on these boards....hmmmm
|
|