quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

quote:

ORIGINAL: Focus50

For cryin' out loud, the main premise for George Dubya's invasion of Iraq was about putting history straight - of fixing "one-term daddy's" half arsed mess of not finishing Saddam's reign when he really was empowered and in a stronger position to do so. 
 
One wonders where the World might be today if the Allies had called a halt once Hitler's forces were pushed back inside their own borders, too!  The current war may well be about oil, terrorism, democracy or plain ole "the right thing to do" etc - but in this case, it's also about family; that daddy fucked up and sonny was in a position to fix it, albeit with a little fabricated justification....
 
Focus.

While I am very happy Sadamm is no longer on the stage(pesky trap-door)"one-term daddy" stopped to avoid the very problems we are dealing with now .The what do you do after Sadamm thing is actually proving to be a bigger problem than Dear old Dad thought.....

quote:

ORIGINAL: Focus50

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

quote:

ORIGINAL: Focus50

For cryin' out loud, the main premise for George Dubya's invasion of Iraq was about putting history straight - of fixing "one-term daddy's" half arsed mess of not finishing Saddam's reign when he really was empowered and in a stronger position to do so. 
 
One wonders where the World might be today if the Allies had called a halt once Hitler's forces were pushed back inside their own borders, too!  The current war may well be about oil, terrorism, democracy or plain ole "the right thing to do" etc - but in this case, it's also about family; that daddy fucked up and sonny was in a position to fix it, albeit with a little fabricated justification....
 
Focus.

While I am very happy Sadamm is no longer on the stage(pesky trap-door)"one-term daddy" stopped to avoid the very problems we are dealing with now .The what do you do after Sadamm thing is actually proving to be a bigger problem than Dear old Dad thought.....

Whatever old George's reasons were for stopping at the Kuiwait-Irag border, they were strategically flawed without invoking hindsight.  There was precedence; the WWII Allies *finished* the job they set out to do, to ensure there wouldn't be any encore. 
 
Old George blinked first and, a few years later, I seem to recall Saddam getting quite some mileage out of still being in power while his main protagonists of the Gulf War (Bush Snr and, for memory, John Major) had long been punted from office.  It wasn't lost on his Arab neighbours, either....
 
When it comes to confrontation, anything half hearted is perceived as a sign of underlying weakness.  Perhaps that was a factor in old George not getting a second term from the American voters, too?  Or he didn't seek re-election?
 
Focus.

quote:

Whatever old George's reasons were for stopping at the Kuiwait-Irag border, they were strategically flawed without invoking hindsight. There was precedence; the WWII Allies *finished* the job they set out to do, to ensure there wouldn't be any encore.

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

Personally, I wish Bush II had focused more on Afghanistan in 2003, had bided his time and planned not just major military operations for Iraq, but also the political operations that would inevitably follow

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

Personally, I wish Bush II had focused more on Afghanistan in 2003, had bided his time and planned not just major military operations for Iraq, but also the political operations that would inevitably follow

...as part of my ongoing commitment to find things from those with whom i usually disagree, saying something i can heartily agree with.........

.....spot on CL. Afghanistan had justification, and had to happen before all the desired planning could take place. Iraq had little to no justification and was clearly rushed. Whatever charges can be fairly levelled at the architects of IraqII, impetuosity has to be one of them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY


Hey ... lovefest!

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY


Hey ... lovefest!

......heh, less a lovefest, more a cautious reaching out to shake hands, while keeping the other hand at your back on your weapon of choice.... [:D]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Irishknight

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY


Hey ... lovefest!

......heh, less a lovefest, more a cautious reaching out to shake hands, while keeping the other hand at your back on your weapon of choice.... [:D]

Is my clown hammer showing again?

quote:

Mark Green proposes a way to end the cycle of deception: create a Truth and Reconciliation Commission. "This worked in a very different historical situation of South Africa and can work here as well," wrote Green on HuffPost. "South Africans who engaged in murder and violence were given amnesty if they confessed under oath to their crimes and knowledge -- but would be prosecuted if they didn't.... The largely successful effort led to both truth and reconciliation."

Richard Clarke echoed Green's proposal last week, and also suggested something each of us can do: "I just don't think we can let these people back into polite society and give them jobs on university boards and corporate boards and just let them pretend that nothing ever happened when there are 4,000 Americans dead and 25,000 Americans grievously wounded, and they'll carry those wounds and suffer all the rest of their lives."

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

Yes, there were ample reasons in Desert Storm to go on to Baghdad.  The political foundation for a postwar regime change, however, was not in place, and in that regard Bush I did the right thing by stopping when he did.

quote:

Saddam was going to be taken out--that was inevitable.  He was a man hell-bent on war in the Middle East.  A little patience and a better plan would have saved more than a few American lives, IMO.

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy
Afghanistan had justification

quote:

"Postwar" was the next step *after* finishing the idiot off! Whatever plans the Allies had in mind for Germany post war, it was a given that Hitler and his cronies were never gunna be part of the new order - and they made sure of it. Step B comes after Step A....

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Daddy was allways smarter than junior...hell my dog is smarter than junior...he can lick his own balls!!!

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy
Afghanistan had justification

Yeah, that 2003 poppy crop wasn't getting in the ground with those religious fundies the Taliban in control.

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver
Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Osama say the attacks against the US were because the US had bases in the middle east?

I agree the US had the right to respond to the 9/11 attack with all the fury it could muster but let's not forget, the attack was not out of the blue but because of US long term intervention in the middle east.

Most muslim terrorism is basically the baby of western policy in the middle east. If the west had left the people in the middle east to govern themselves like we expect to be left to govern ourselves, there probably wouldn't be a terrorist problem.

Let's not pretend the US and the west are not innocent victims of terrorim

You know, I've been sitting here trying to think what comment you made that was the most outrageous to respond to, then I realized they don't deserve the dignity of a response. 

I don't agree with my government's stance on a lot of issues, including their Middle East policy, but you're  sitting there defending terrorism and blatant murder.  

These were 3,000 innocent men, women, and children that died because they happened to live in the country that a sociopathic terrorist blames for perceived injustices, and you're telling me it was their fault that they died?

What the hell kind of person are YOU?   Unbelievable!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 

What has the US's and the west's (particularly the UK) policies been in the middle east if not terrorist?

How many innocent people have been killed in the ME (before (9/11, let's not consider afterwards) because of US policy (and other western powers)?

Wasn't the US's and the UK's overthrow of the Iranian government in 1953 an act of state terrorism and how many innocent people do you think died in the chain of events that led from there? I could make a list of other policies but I'll refrain.

Of course 9/11 was wrong, of course it was an act of mass murder but to look at it in a vacuum is to put ones head in the sand. The US and the UK (when it has the power) have been commiting acts of terrorism for years. The US actively supports Israels acts of terrorism and actually bank rolls it.

The US has been commiting and defending terrorism for years so why is the US's terrorism not terrorism but someone elses is?  I'll tell you. Its a matter of convenience.

No it was not the fault of the victims of 9/11 that they died but it is rather convenient to say the people who killed them just woke up one day and thought "America is a nice peaceful country that has never done us any harm, why don't we bomb it".  As for sociopathy, look no further than your own government. What do you think their foreign policy is, social work?

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

First, the invasion of Afghanistan was justified and backed with solid intel.... what was never admitted was the simple fact that in the 1980's the CIA with the help of US Army advisors trained the rebels fighting the Soviet occupation.

When the soviets bailed, we left Afghanistan swingin in the wind, and those men we trained ended up training their kids and grandkids to use that training against us.

So, after 9/11 troops went back in to stop Al Qaida and was doing a decent job until Junior came up with the brilliant idea to invade Iraq, thus cutting available forces in Afghanistan.

And every General and staff officer that disagreed with Junior was either fired, replaced, transferred out of the Pentagon, and stuck in some back water command where the village idiot has a better chance at retiring in good shape.

We did not then, nor do we now have the strength to fight a two theatre war.  We are draining our resources of men, equipment and money, and in the process have gained little ground in Iraq and LOST ground in Afghanistan.

A few little known facts on the war on terror.
1) Clinton was the only president to come close to taking Bin Laden out.
2)  When solid evidence was gathered linking Saddam with the Hamas militia and attacks on US forces stationed in and around the middle east, the Israeli Mossad had assets within Iraq and close enough to Saddam that a three man hunter team could have been inserted and eliminated ol fuzzy lip with upmost prejudice.
3) Immediatly after Desert Storm, there was again the possibility to insert a team and eliminate Saddam, which was not acted on because Bush sr. had problems with political assassination.  Something about it being state supported terrorism.

Israel did not make the attempt simply becuase while they had the assets in place, to use them in such a way would risk the ONLY concret intel line we had.

The Iraqi civilians that did try to rise up against Saddam after Desert Storm were crushed within days....

Want to know why?  Because we left em swingin in the wind.

And people in the states are wondering why we are getting nailed by so many different insurgent groups... what reason has any Iraqi have to trust anything we say?

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

Oh wow....a Democratic committee decided just before the election that Bush "misused" intelligence. 

Are we supposed to be shocked and awed?

Edited to add:

How many of those Senators voted for invasion?  How much blood is on their hands?

Back to topic ...

Of course, none of the "Bush Lied" crowd would dare input any purely political motives on the SENATE Intelligence committee, or the wonderfully non-partisan "Jay" Rockefeller ... that stuff just doesn't happen in their world ...

Democrats Mull Politicizing Iraq War Intelligence
Wednesday, November 05, 2003
Fox News

WASHINGTON —  Fox News has obtained a document believed to have been written by the Democratic staff of the Senate Intelligence Committee that outlines a strategy for exposing what it calls "the administration's dubious motives" in the lead-up to the war in Iraq.

The memo, provided late Tuesday by a source on the Committee ... discusses the timing of a possible investigation into pre-war Iraq intelligence in such a way that it could bring maximum embarrassment to President Bush in his re-election campaign.

Among other things, the memo recommends that Democrats "prepare to launch an investigation when it becomes clear we have exhausted the opportunity to usefully collaborate with the [Senate] majority. We can pull the trigger on an independent investigation of the administration's use of intelligence at any time — but we can only do so once ... the best time would probably be next year."

The last paragraph of the memo reads, "Intelligence issues are clearly secondary to the public's concern regarding the insurgency in Iraq."

Committee Chairman Pat Roberts R-Kan., appeared clearly shocked by the memo, which Sen. Jay Rockefeller D-W. Va., ranking member on the Intelligence Committee, acknowledged was written in draft form and not meant for distribution.

Roberts said Tuesday a leaked strategy memo from Rockefeller's staff "exposes politics in its most raw form."

The memo discusses strategy for "revealing the misleading, if not flagrantly dishonest, methods and motives of senior administration officials who made the case for unilateral pre-emptive war." It discussed how Democrats could press for an independent investigation that has already been rejected by the Republican-led Congress or launch their own investigation.

In a statement, Roberts said that the memo "appears to be a road map for how the Democrats intend to politicize what should be a bipartisan, objective review of prewar intelligence."

Rockefeller did not say who wrote the memo.

...

Roberts said he believes the strategy outlined in the memo may constitute a violation of Senate ethics rules, an issue he may pursue with the ethics committee.

"I have no idea how this became public. I am a little stunned. You can't politicize the Intelligence Committee. The memo is blatantly partisan. Members of the committee on the Republican side are frustrated, outraged and indignant. I hope we can get past this," Roberts said.

...

Fox News' Brian Wilson and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

---

So ... to recap ...

1. Rockefeller has planned all along to attempt to use his committee to politically embarrass the Republicans, and time it for the best political impact for the Democrats.

2.  The Democrats had a conclusion first, and then proceeded to massage the facts to match those conclusion (shades of what they accuse Bush of doing!)

Firm