Bush's War

oscardeuce

Active Member
Since when have we been attacked as a Nation, and not defeated the enemy, no matter what or where they are? Our actions in the years leading up to WWII, really forced Japan's hand. Did we sit back and apologize. Did we call it "FDR's War". did we blame ourselves, and our foreign policy? Did we roll up our sleeves and get the job done?
There are many similarities the biggest difference is how the left would rather talk and blame us rather than win a war after Americans died on American soil. We did not roll over in 1812 either. I guess I prefer some of the American ideals from the 1930-1950 better than the post 1960, feminization, self defeating, self blaming attitude I see today.
 

oscardeuce

Active Member
rudedog40;2541817 said:
You can't possibly compare voting numbers in the US to those in Iraq. We've been a democracy for what, over 200 years? People in the US don't vote because they either don't care about politics, or have seen that for decades the people who are elected are either corrupt or don't live up to their promises. QUOTE]
That argument is the exact reason TO vote. I'd say many are either too lazy or ( the part I agree with) don't care. Funny I bet the folks who have not voted in 20 years would be the first to complain if they were excluded for some reason.
 

suzy

Member
Ok, we invaded to bring peace, love and democracy to Iraq. Very sweet ideation, I would say. You talk about Saddams torture as the reason we invaded. Explain Rwanda to me?
But, toppling a regime for Al-Qaeda and giving them a country to take over seems not to be in our best interest, even if the motive was to bring a wonderful peace loving home to another country. We helped AQ by removing one of their enemies. Now, they are stronger than ever. An interesting plan. I guess "plan" is not the right word, though. We obviously did not plan anything. Dubbya just gave inn to Wolfie, Rummey and Dickey. Too bad he didn't have balls like hiw father did, to stand up to them.....
 

stdreb27

Active Member
hmm, you are right, we should have left sadaam in power, we should have let him continue filling his mass graves, raping and torturing his own people.
btw did anyone see how strong al sadr is today? After fighting withIraqs army?
 

rudedog40

Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2541844
So we compare their Democratic" failures" to our 200 year old Democracy, but can't compare their successes to our 200 year old Democracy?
Sounds about right...
The Iraqi budget passed was for 48 billion... Mainly oil revenue and how to distribute it. So, not exactly "how to spend a trillion USA dollars" as some have suggested.
You're good journey. Twist it any way you can to make it sound good to you. Our "democratic failures" have nothing to do with my response. You brag the Iraqis have doubled or tripled the voting numbers in their first vote over what the US voters did 4 to 8 years ago. SURE THEY DID, IT WAS THEIR FIRST VOTE. If the US was in the same situation today, we'd probably have a 99% voter turnout. You can't compare the two countries. A new democracy will do everything better -- at first. See where their democratic process will be in 5 to 10 years from now, if it still exists. Most likely it will only exist as long as we occupy their country.
Same goes for their budget. Sure they can balance it right now. If all the US had to worry about was "oil revenues", we'd have our balance sheets perfect every year. Wish that's the only thing we have to worry about. What, you don't think they have nothing to do with all the money the US is throwing at them? Clear your mind young padawan. You have much to learn...
 

suzy

Member
How many mass graves are in Rwanda? Over a million killed. How many rapes, mutilations, child burnings were there? How many mass graves in Darfur?
You really think we invaded Iraq for human rights violations?
 

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by Suzy
http:///forum/post/2542180
How many mass graves are in Rwanda? Over a million killed. How many rapes, mutilations, child burnings were there? How many mass graves in Darfur?
You really think we invaded Iraq for human rights violations?
Darfur is under UN mandate. Remember that the next time a Democratic President wants to be their best friend. President Clinton, imho, gave way to much preference to the idiots over there.
We've posted, many many many times all of the reasons we invaded Iraq. The "human rights violations" are just icing on an ugly cake.
Here are some of the reasons again:
*17 UN Resolutions, the last one specifically calling for use of force if Saddam failed to comply.
*Joint Resolution from Congress calling for use of force
*Belief Saddam had WMDs (belief which was held by President Clinton, every leader of the Democratic party, and every major intelligence agency in the world)
*Saddam's refusal to comply with inspectors
*Saddam's continued engagement of Allied pilots in the No Fly Zone
*Saddam's supporting of international terrorists
 

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by rudedog40
http:///forum/post/2542175
You're good journey. Twist it any way you can to make it sound good to you. Our "democratic failures" have nothing to do with my response. You brag the Iraqis have doubled or tripled the voting numbers in their first vote over what the US voters did 4 to 8 years ago. SURE THEY DID, IT WAS THEIR FIRST VOTE. If the US was in the same situation today, we'd probably have a 99% voter turnout. You can't compare the two countries. A new democracy will do everything better -- at first. See where their democratic process will be in 5 to 10 years from now, if it still exists. Most likely it will only exist as long as we occupy their country.
Same goes for their budget. Sure they can balance it right now. If all the US had to worry about was "oil revenues", we'd have our balance sheets perfect every year. Wish that's the only thing we have to worry about. What, you don't think they have nothing to do with all the money the US is throwing at them? Clear your mind young padawan. You have much to learn...
*I NEVER said they doubled or tripled our voting numbers. I said "were equal to or better than".
*A new democracy will do everything better? Look at our first Presidential election in this country. Look at how few voted; Heck, look at how few were allowed to vote.
*You're trying to change the point on the budget after it was pointed out to you that you had no actual idea what their budget involved or concerned.
You're the one trying to "twist" things Rudedog, not me.
 

rudedog40

Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2543280
*I NEVER said they doubled or tripled our voting numbers. I said "were equal to or better than".
*A new democracy will do everything better? Look at our first Presidential election in this country. Look at how few voted; Heck, look at how few were allowed to vote.
*You're trying to change the point on the budget after it was pointed out to you that you had no actual idea what their budget involved or concerned.
You're the one trying to "twist" things Rudedog, not me.
Whatever you say journey. Just keep fantasizing about your perfect democratic society in Iraq. Bottom line, Iraq may have some semblance of a democracy, but it'll never be what Americans consider a democratic nation. Just because you can vote, and make decisions without having one single authority (Saddam) telling you how it'll be, can cover up the fact the Iraqi nation is in turmoil. There will always be fighting, there will always be bloodshed, there will always be fear in the minds of the people who live there. No US involvement, presence, or interaction is going to change that. Iraq has been free from Sadaam for over 5 YEARS. And the best you have to show for it is they can vote and balance their budget? How about being able to walk down the street without worrying you're going to blow your foot off, or be picked off by some stray militant bullet? I bet the people of Iraq would just like to come out of their homes after dark. At least they could have done that while Saddam was alive.
It'll be real interesting to hear your side of it once you get over there and see how it is for yourself. The group on this forum who so adamantly argue about this war, will finally have a voice and eyes to tell us what really happens on a day-to-day basis in Bagdhad. Show me all the good that goes on there journey, and I'll take back everything negative I've said to you about our little involvement in this Middle East conflict. But don't hide the negatives. I'm sure you'll find out it's not as rosy as you think it is when you step off that plane, and they shuttle you directly into a Humvee to make sure you're not used as the day's target practice.
 

crashbandicoot

Active Member
Originally Posted by rudedog40
http:///forum/post/2543390
Whatever you say journey. Just keep fantasizing about your perfect democratic society in Iraq. Bottom line, Iraq may have some semblance of a democracy, but it'll never be what Americans consider a democratic nation. Just because you can vote, and make decisions without having one single authority (Saddam) telling you how it'll be, can cover up the fact the Iraqi nation is in turmoil. There will always be fighting, there will always be bloodshed, there will always be fear in the minds of the people who live there. No US involvement, presence, or interaction is going to change that. Iraq has been free from Sadaam for over 5 YEARS. And the best you have to show for it is they can vote and balance their budget? How about being able to walk down the street without worrying you're going to blow your foot off, or be picked off by some stray militant bullet? I bet the people of Iraq would just like to come out of their homes after dark. At least they could have done that while Saddam was alive.
It'll be real interesting to hear your side of it once you get over there and see how it is for yourself. The group on this forum who so adamantly argue about this war, will finally have a voice and eyes to tell us what really happens on a day-to-day basis in Bagdhad. Show me all the good that goes on there journey, and I'll take back everything negative I've said to you about our little involvement in this Middle East conflict. But don't hide the negatives. I'm sure you'll find out it's not as rosy as you think it is when you step off that plane, and they shuttle you directly into a Humvee to make sure you're not used as the day's target practice.

As a civilian contractor it more likely a subburban ,4runner or a coupe of some sorts . And There is NOT going to be SNIPER ACTION on the runway. the twisted skewed veiw of the war blows me away .
 

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by rudedog40
http:///forum/post/2543390
Whatever you say journey. Just keep fantasizing about your perfect democratic society in Iraq. ...
I'm not fantasizing Rudedog, I'm just trying to keep facts straight on this thread.
It's a War Zone. I have no fantasy at all about that. Too many people are dying every day over there, both American, foreign, and Iraqi.
I'll be happy to post, as much as I'm allowed too, about the positives and negatives. I've always posted honestly and don't plan on changing that.
Democracy is not a natural thing. Darwin's "Survival of the Fittest" observation in nature goes against the very idea of everyone having an equal vote. Don't forget, our Democracy is far from perfect and it's been established for over 200 years. Heck, it took our country 150 years just to let women vote. It took Iraq, in the heart of Islam, 3 years... So, in some ways, they are light years ahead of our own timetable.
Depending on where you live, people are afraid to go outside after dark in this country. People are shot every day in this country.
The issue in Iraq right now is 100% attributable to iranian backed Islamic radicals (Muqtada al-Sadr and other extremist Shiite factions) and terrorists. The issue is not that the Iraqi people don't want Democracy.
 

rylan1

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/2539356
Why do you suppose they called the cease fire? Now we'll see what happens. This is a historic moment in the war. It will turn one way or the other on how the Iraqis handle the militias.
Gotta tell you several of your posts makes it seem like you are rooting against the effort. Take this one for instance. Square one? Read something besides the left wing blogs. A sudden spike in violence is hardly square one.
I'm not rooting for anything... all you GOPers are talking about how successful the Surge has been, and I feel it hasn't been because its has failed to accomplish the majority of the goals or benchmarks that went along with it... and also because the Bush Admin is taking all the credit for the reduction in violence with no mention of the cease fire...
 

rylan1

Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2541844
So we compare their Democratic" failures" to our 200 year old Democracy, but can't compare their successes to our 200 year old Democracy?
Sounds about right...
The Iraqi budget passed was for 48 billion... Mainly oil revenue and how to distribute it. So, not exactly "how to spend a trillion USA dollars" as some have suggested.
HAve you heard anything about thi budget and oil revenue... it turns out that a lot of it is missing and unaccounted for... I've heard something like Iraq has only spent like $300 Million on infrastructure while we have spent $billions.
This war has been a disaster... We went in with no exit strategy.. We didn't think about the influence Iran would have in this war and the future of Iraq. We didn't equip our soilders properly, the list goes on and on...
 

1journeyman

Active Member
The Cease Fire was called for because Muqada Al-Sadyr was seeing his forces getting exterminated. It wasn't called for for any reason other than that.
The new cease fire has been called for because he's losing control of his army of thugs and is trying to reign them in.
 

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2543558
HAve you heard anything about thi budget and oil revenue... it turns out that a lot of it is missing and unaccounted for... I've heard something like Iraq has only spent like $300 Million on infrastructure while we have spent $billions.
Nope, haven't heard about this. Feel free to link the new article and I'll happily read it.
It doesn't surprise me that we're spening more on infrastructure. How many years did we spend billions in Japan and Germany, after the war was over?
 

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2543550
I'm not rooting for anything... all you GOPers are talking about how successful the Surge has been, and I feel it hasn't been because its has failed to accomplish the majority of the goals or benchmarks that went along with it... and also because the Bush Admin is taking all the credit for the reduction in violence with no mention of the cease fire...
First off I am not in the GOP, havent been since Newt left congress.
But anyway the surge has worked EXACTLY as hoped which was to allow a downturn in the violence so Iraqis gan get their act together. While they have not met their goals or benchmarks they are moving in the right direction, You want to give credit for the substantial downturn on violence to the cease fire. That is a piece of it but certainly not all of it. But even assuming it was, why did Sadr call the cease fire when he did? If he was still stirring up crap when the additional troops arrived where do you suppose they would have been concentrated?
Reports right now are that Sadr has renewed the cease fire. If this guy decides he want a hand in Iraqs political future there is an excellent chance this is going to work. Still a long way to go but as long as things keep headed in the right direction we need to ride this out.
 

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2543563
Nope, haven't heard about this. Feel free to link the new article and I'll happily read it.
It doesn't surprise me that we're spening more on infrastructure. How many years did we spend billions in Japan and Germany, after the war was over?
"RTTNews) - Iraq will channel an additional $5 billion to its budget by the end of June, according to government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh. The government will be investing the money generated from increased oil revenue in infrastructure and services, Al-Dabbagh said in a statement on Monday.
The funds will be supplemented onto $15 billion that was already planned for economic and infrastructure development in the budget. The additional budgetary allocation will be used for "important" and "strategic" investment, the statement said.
Iraq's oil exports have increased in recent times, with an average of 1.54 million barrels sent each day through the main oil hub Basra in February, according to the Iraqi Oil Ministry.
Iraq's average production for last month was 2.4 million barrels per day. Exports averaged 1.93 million barrels per day during the corresponding period.
Iraq, like all oil-producing nations, has benefited largely by the skyrocketing oil prices, which have climbed above $100a barrel."
 

rudedog40

Member
You guys are worried about Iran, but it appears they helped with the cease fire:
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Iran was integral in persuading Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr to halt attacks by his militia on Iraqi security forces, an Iraqi lawmaker said Monday.
1 of 3 Haidar al-Abadi, who is with Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's Dawa Party, said Iraqi Shiite lawmakers traveled Friday to Iran to meet with al-Sadr. They returned Sunday, the day al-Sadr told his Mehdi Army fighters to stand down.
News of Iran's involvement in the cease-fire talks came as an al-Maliki spokesman said operations targeting "outlaws" in the Shiite stronghold of Basra would end when the mission's goals were achieved. Earlier, al-Maliki spokesman Sami al-Askari said the operation would be over by week's end, but he later recanted on the timetable.
The lawmakers who traveled to Iran to broker the cease-fire were from five Shiite parties, including the Sadrist movement. Al-Abadi would not say where in Iran the meeting was held.
The lawmakers hoped to convince Iran to cut off aid to Shiite militias and to persuade al-Sadr to end the fighting. Negotiations were difficult, but the delegation achieved its aims, al-Abadi said. Watch how the cease-fire affects Shiite vs. Shiite fights »
News of the delegation's role comes a day after Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh firmly denied there had been any direct or indirect talks between the government and al-Sadr's representatives in Najaf, where al-Sadr's headquarters is located.
Al-Dabbagh made no mention of the Iran meeting but said the government welcomes efforts by politicians to end the bloodshed in Iraq.
Iran's exact involvement in the negotiations is unclear, but two sources concur that the Islamic republic played a key role.
While al-Abadi said Iranian officials participated in the discussions, another source close to the talks said the Iranians pressured al-Sadr to craft an agreement.
Al-Sadr and some Shiite parties have close ties to Iran, a Shiite-dominated country. The talks were the latest reflection of the influence Iran wields in Iraq, where about 60 percent of the population is Shiite.
As for the operations targeting outlaws in Basra, Maj. Gen. Abdul Aziz Mohammed, commander of operations for Iraq's Ministry of Defense, told reporters at a news conference that he hoped the mission would be brief and limited. He provided no timetable.
The mood Monday on the streets in Basra was quiet, said al-Askari, the prime minister's spokesman. Shops opened in the morning, and the movement of people was almost back to normal in the center of town.
Troops and police, whom the U.S. and Britain have backed, are in control of much of Basra, and local security forces are going house-to-house in some districts to confiscate weapons and chase "the outlaws and the criminal and smuggling gangs," the spokesman said.
The Shiite militia members that were in the streets have withdrawn, al-Askari said.
There had been an all-day curfew in Basra during the operation. It was lifted Saturday, and the normal curfew of 10 p.m. to 5 a.m. is in place.
The fighting in Basra spread to other southern cities, such as Kut, Karbala and Diwaniya, and it raged in Shiite regions of Baghdad.
Authorities in Baghdad also reported a quieter situation in the capital, where there have been no reports of clashes, an Iraqi ******** Ministry official said.
Authorities in Baghdad eased a stiff, citywide curfew on Monday, but a vehicle ban remained in place in Sadr City, Shula and Kadhimiya -- three neighborhoods seen as al-Sadr strongholds. The usual 11 p.m. to 5 a.m. curfew is in place citywide.
Mohammed, the Iraqi commander, also said the situation was quiet in other southern cities where fighting had been reported.
In issuing his call to end fighting, al-Sadr demanded that the Iraqi government provide amnesty to his followers and release any supporters who were being held.
Al-Sadr suspended the operations of the Mehdi Army in August, and the cease-fire is credited with helping decrease the violence in Iraq over the last few months.
U.S. and Iraqi troops have continued to target Shiite militants who ignored the cease-fire, and the al-Sadr movement had complained before this upsurge in fighting that it was being unfairly targeted.
U.S. and British forces have supported Iraqi troops with airstrikes and shelling in Basra as well as reconnaissance and intelligence, military officials with the U.S.-led coalition have said. U.S. troops also have conducted raids and engaged in gunbattles with militia fighters alongside Iraqi troops. E-mail to a friend
 
Top