News flash: the war in Iraq is NOT a war against terror

[payne66801]

We are waging a war that is costing a billion plus a day and then in the very next breath BUSH ( AKA IDIOT) SAYES we are going to be broke on funding social secrity???? How in the %^&* did he get into office in the first place... Got a news break for you people you better voice your opionions by mailing letters and such to you local and state reps. The people in office have no worries about ss as they are weathly already. They think there is war in other countries take ss away and this country would look alot like mexico.. Todays 20-40 yr olds are not preparing for our over and over mistakes with these presidents. We bashed clinton and he had the economy going in the right direction. Then when all is going well get a republican in so we can go to war again.???? Makes no sense ???? Nobody wants us over there we have 80% of the euros hating us for thinking we rule everything.. Mind your own business some time makes sense. Yes the bombing was bad but bush killed that many over again by sending our troops over there. THEY HAVE BEEN FIGHTING OVER REL. ISSUES FOR 2000 YEARS WHY WOULD THEY LISTEN TO A COUNTRY THAT IS BARELY 200 YRS OLD AND HAS IS OWN ISSUES???
I prey for all the troops families that will be torn apart by this needless war. Bush has no business running a dairy farm let alone the country..... I wonder if Bush would like to be away from friends and family over the holidays. I bet he does not go to irag to greet the troops over christmas!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I think most people support the troops all the way I just do not think trying to set up a new goverment is worth ONE DAD OR MOM in a country that does not want us there.
If you think they do talk to someone that knows people from that region. Not what the tv tells you do not be blind...

 

[scubadoo]

Originally Posted by jones
Come on, think about what a silly point this is. No one has made this point, read my entire post and try to put the thoughts together to understand just the most basic of complexity in thinking and reasoning. I know you can do it if you try hard. And I've yet to hear anyone say they don't support a war on terror. Did you just add that in there for effect, to create an absurdity, to try and make your point sound like you were responding to someone who doesn't support a war on terror? Proper context, proper quoting within the context, focus, I know you can do it.
Some points in your posts are implicit and not explicit......I understand my ignorance may place me beneath you.
I also understand you do not consider your position as not supporting the war on terror or the troops. I have simply stated clearly that I beleive your position does little in support of the war, troops and the policy on terror in general. . I have provided you with my reasons as to my postion .
I understand it is hard for you to see this..which is okay. But, you have already stated I am ignorant...please lower your expectations.

 

[scubadoo]

Originally Posted by jcrim
If you all remember, Bush originally justified this war by claiming that there were weapons of mass destruction... WHAT HAPPENED TO THOSE BUSH? When he failed to get those, he shifted his explanation to this lie about a war against terror.
Jones...just to refresh your memory...from the original poster of the thread.
Please, not all of my posts are directed at or in response to you. So, my posting of the quotes included others that have stated the same position.
I believe if you view the thread...you will see many have stated Bush misled..I simply have expanded the scope.
I understand this makes some uncomfortable.

 

[farmboy]

I doubt these folks will sponsor terrorists.

 

[jones]

Originally Posted by ScubaDoo
I beleive the post was in response to many views in this thread that Bush misled. Please do not think every post is directed at you.....
my apologies
Although, don't get me wrong..Bush did mislead in a very big way. I just haven't argued for anyone, or for any particular party. I hardly think that I personally represent any certain party. Just a bit confused as to where the obvious partisan bashing keeps coming from. This shouldn't be an argument about elephants versus donkeys. Although I know that some people have a hard time ever really getting away from that.

 

[darth tang]

Originally Posted by payne66801
We are waging a war that is costing a billion plus a day and then in the very next breath BUSH ( AKA IDIOT) SAYES we are going to be broke on funding social secrity???? How in the %^&* did he get into office in the first place... Got a news break for you people you better voice your opionions by mailing letters and such to you local and state reps. The people in office have no worries about ss as they are weathly already. They think there is war in other countries take ss away and this country would look alot like mexico.. Todays 20-40 yr olds are not preparing for our over and over mistakes with these presidents. We bashed clinton and he had the economy going in the right direction. Then when all is going well get a republican in so we can go to war again.???? Makes no sense ???? Nobody wants us over there we have 80% of the euros hating us for thinking we rule everything.. Mind your own business some time makes sense. Yes the bombing was bad but bush killed that many over again by sending our troops over there. THEY HAVE BEEN FIGHTING OVER REL. ISSUES FOR 2000 YEARS WHY WOULD THEY LISTEN TO A COUNTRY THAT IS BARELY 200 YRS OLD AND HAS IS OWN ISSUES???
I prey for all the troops families that will be torn apart by this needless war. Bush has no business running a dairy farm let alone the country..... I wonder if Bush would like to be away from friends and family over the holidays. I bet he does not go to irag to greet the troops over christmas!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I think most people support the troops all the way I just do not think trying to set up a new goverment is worth ONE DAD OR MOM in a country that does not want us there.
If you think they do talk to someone that knows people from that region. Not what the tv tells you do not be blind...
Al Franken? Is that you? I could take the time to pick apart your points and show you the faults in the position and points and how they are unrelated, but I can already tell by the way you presented your points, it would be lost on you. I find it funny you bring up the media and to not believe them, yet spout the same exact talking points the media does when criticizing Bush.

 

[scubadoo]

Originally Posted by jones
my apologies
Although, don't get me wrong..Bush did mislead in a very big way. I just haven't argued for anyone, or for any particular party. I hardly think that I personally represent any certain party. Just a bit confused as to where the obvious partisan bashing keeps coming from. This shouldn't be an argument about elephants versus donkeys. Although I know that some people have a hard time ever really getting away from that.
Unfortunaley, the donakey are making the case...and some or even backing from their original posi.
I believe many in this thread have stated it was a mistake to make the WMD a central issue. In hindsight, that was a mistake Bush made. However, if one is going to say they were misled by the president...we must expand the scope....and make sure all those statements see the light of day.
When one mentions Bush...and leaves out ALL the others of both parties...it leaves one to assume the elephant misled...but the donkey was silent on the issue and never made the same claim.
In the spirit of objectivity....lets look at all the battle cries, comments and concerns....and simply say many whou point the finger at Bush...are pointing three fingers at themsleves.

 

[jones]

For those who keep asking to see a "plan" proposed by those who oppose this administrations handling of this war. Here's one plan put forth.
By Gen. (ret.) Wesley Clark
New York Times
December 6, 2005
Doha, Qatar
While the Bush administration and its critics escalated the debate last week over how long our troops should stay in Iraq, I was able to see the issue through the eyes of America's friends in the Persian Gulf region. The Arab states agree on one thing: Iran is emerging as the big winner of the American invasion, and both President Bush's new strategy and the Democratic responses to it dangerously miss the point. It's a devastating critique. And, unfortunately, it is correct.
While American troops have been fighting, and dying, against the Sunni rebels and foreign jihadists, the Shiite clerics in Iraq have achieved fundamental political goals: capturing oil revenues, strengthening the role of Islam in the state, and building up formidable militias that will defend their gains and advance their causes as the Americans draw down and leave. Iraq's neighbors, then, see it evolving into a Shiite-dominated, Iranian buffer state that will strengthen Tehran's power in the Persian Gulf just as it is seeks nuclear weapons and intensifies its rhetoric against Israel.
The American approach shows little sense of Middle Eastern history and politics. As one prominent Kuwaiti academic explained to me, in the Muslim world the best way to deal with your enemies has always been to assimilate them - you never succeed in killing them all, and by trying to do so you just make more enemies. Instead, you must woo them to rejoin society and the government. Military pressure should be used in a calibrated way, to help in the wooing.
If this critique is correct - and it is difficult to argue against it - then we must face its implications. "Staying the course" risks a slow and costly departure of American forces with Iraq increasingly factionalized and aligned with Iran. Yet a more rapid departure of American troops along a timeline, as some Democrats are calling for, simply reduces our ability to affect the outcome and risks broader regional conflict.
We need to keep our troops in Iraq, but we need to modify the strategy far more drastically than anything President Bush called for last week.
On the military side, American and Iraqi forces must take greater control of the country's borders, not only on the Syrian side but also in the east, on the Iranian side. The current strategy of clearing areas near Syria of insurgents and then posting Iraqi troops, backed up by mobile American units, has had success. But it needs to be expanded, especially in the heavily Shiite regions in the southeast, where there has been continuing cross-border traffic from Iran and where the loyalties of the Iraqi troops will be especially tested.
We need to deploy three or four American brigades, some 20,000 troops, with adequate aerial reconnaissance, to provide training, supervision and backup along Iraq's several thousand miles of vulnerable border. And even then, the borders won't be "sealed"; they'll just be more challenging to penetrate.
We must also continue military efforts against insurgent strongholds and bases in the Sunni areas, in conjunction with Iraqi forces. Over the next year or so, this will probably require four to six brigade combat teams, plus an operational reserve, maybe 30,000 troops.

 

[jones]

But these efforts must go hand-in-glove with intensified outreach to Iraqi insurgents, to seek their reassimilation into society and their assistance in wiping out residual foreign jihadists. Iraqi and American officials have had sporadic communications with insurgent leaders, but these must lead to deeper discussions on issues like amnesty for insurgents who lay down their arms and opportunities for their further participation in public and private life.
Iraq, for its part, must begin to enforce the ban on armed militias that was enshrined in the new Constitution, especially in the south. Ideally, this should be achieved voluntarily, through political means. But American muscle will have to be made available as a last resort. The Iraqi government should request that for the next two years, six to eight American brigades serve as a backup, available as a last resort if there is trouble in cities with large militia factions like Baghdad, Basra and Najaf. And it is vital that the Pentagon provide our forces with better crowd-control training and many more translators than they have now.
As important as these military changes are, they won't matter at all unless our political strategy is rethought. First, the Iraqis must change the Constitution as quickly as possible after next week's parliamentary elections. Most important, oil revenues should be declared the property of the central government, not the provinces. And the federal concept must be modified to preclude the creation of a Shiite autonomous region in the south.
Also, a broad initiative to reduce sectarian influence within government institutions is long overdue. The elections, in which Sunnis will participate, will help; but the government must do more to ensure that all ethnic and religious groups are represented within ministries, police forces, the army, the judiciary and other overarching federal institutions.
And we must start using America's diplomatic strength with Syria and Iran. The political weakness of Bashar al-Assad opens the door for significant Syrian concessions on controlling the border and cutting support for the jihadists. We also have to stop ignoring Tehran's meddling and begin a public dialogue on respecting Iraqi independence, which will make it far easier to get international support against the Iranians if (and when) they break their word.
Yes, our military forces are dangerously overstretched. Recruiting and retention are suffering; among retired officers, there is deep concern that the Bush administration's attitude on the treatment of detainees has jeopardized not only the safety of our troops but the moral purpose of our effort.
Still, none of this necessitates a pullout until the job is done. After the elections, we should be able to draw down by 30,000 troops from the 160,000 now there. Don't bet against our troops.
What a disaster it would be if the real winner in Iraq turned out to be Iran, a country that supports terrorism and opposes most of what we stand for. Surely, we can summon the wisdom, resources and bipartisan leadership to change the American course before it is too late.

 

[jcrim]

Just a thought...
I've always considered the terrorist leaders to be very cowardly. I mean they recruit young muslims to martyr themselves for the cause while they are safe. You don't see Osama carrying out a suicide mission.
In this war, Bush has ORDERED young American husbands and dads to risk/sacrifice themselves for his cause. Does anybody think that Bush has the moral character to die for this cause himself?? Is his life so much more valuable than any one of the almost 3000 young Americans that have been killed thus far?

 

[jones]

Originally Posted by ScubaDoo
When one mentions Bush...and leaves out ALL the others of both parties...it leaves one to assume the elephant misled...but the donkey was silent on the issue and never made the same claim.
In the spirit of objectivity....lets look at all the battle cries, comments and concerns....and simply say many whou point the finger at Bush...are pointing three fingers at themsleves.
Just as with any issue, we will find both donkeys and elephants guilty of selfish political posturing, avoiding the real issues, compromising their integrity for personal and political gain.
I'm an animal lover, but these are really very dangerous animals we have on our hands.

 

[darth tang]

Originally Posted by jcrim
Just a thought...
I've always considered the terrorist leaders to be very cowardly. I mean they recruit young muslims to martyr themselves for the cause while they are safe. You don't see Osama carrying out a suicide mission.
In this war, Bush has ORDERED young American husbands and dads to risk/sacrifice themselves for his cause. Does anybody think that Bush has the moral character to die for this cause himself?? Is his life so much more valuable than any one of the almost 3000 young Americans that have been killed thus far?
Yes......if he isn't then why does he, and every other president before him, have a bunch of SS bodyguards? The average American doesn't. Why should the President?There is one very significant difference. Bush doesn't ask the troops to strap bombs to themselves and blow themselves up killing civilians and children. You can not compare the two. And if this is the comparrison you are making you have to question the integrity of EVERY President that has ordered us into war or ordered troops into a hostile zone of combat with few exceptions like Washington, Eisenhower, and so forth.
See you are letting your obvious dislike/hatred for Bush cloud your vision and thoughts.
Jones, I like Clark's plan.......even if I think as a General he made questionable decisions..But his plan is NOT what is coming out of the Bush opposition's mouth. Boxer, Kerry, Clinton, Kennedy and company are asking for immediate troop withdrawl or a set deadline. Clark is asking for more troops and an extended stay in Iraq of 4 years. Completely opposite of what is being voiced the loudest and most often.
Bush's plan has us out of Iraq in approximately 18 months with a couple of bases built to station troops just like in Korea, Germany, and Japan.

 

[1journeyman]

Payne,
Others have been merciful and glazed over your post. I won't be:
First, am I the only only who sees the irony in this:
Originally Posted by payne66801
( AKA IDIOT) SAYES
SS can be reformed, and has to be... SS was broken from the day it was implemented (by your party). It was going to be bankrupt whether or not we have a war.
Originally Posted by payne66801
How in the %^&* did he get into office in the first place...
It's called 2 elections... the results looked something like this...

 

[jones]

Originally Posted by Darth Tang
Boxer, Kerry, Clinton, Kennedy and company are asking for immediate troop withdrawl or a set deadline.
I think the term "immediate" withdraw is actually more of a runaway media propoganda point. I'm not sure I've heard anyone actually use the word immediate to be honest.
Murtha actually said "at the earliest practicable date", Hilary Clinton said an immediate withdraw would be a "big mistake", Mark Warner said "This democrat doesn't think we need to re-fight how we got into the Iraq war. I think we need to focus more on how to finish it."
The immediate withdraw debate all started over Murthas comments, unfortunately the public took the bait and accepted the premise that he called for "immediate" withdraw, as in tomorow. It was then thrown all around and repeated over and over again by the propoganda machine. That just simply isn't what he said.
Anyway, there are many different opinions out there. It's not fair or practical to dismiss them all and turn this into a black and white issue, with only two sides to choose from. Over simplifying the issue just as is done to practicly every issue out there. For this country to continue to grow and evolve, we have to learn to collectively approach issues from a fair and broad view point, free from personal and political agenda, somehow. We are at grid-lock here on issues dire to our survival, we seem to have lost our common sense and perspective of broad and future implications on issues even beyond that of the war. I believe we are in a VERY dangerous situation in this country. I guess this is my biggest problem with all of this.

 

[1journeyman]

Now, let's continue..
Originally Posted by payne66801
... Got a news break for you people you better voice your opionions by mailing letters and such to you local and state reps.
Agreed... more Americans need to be involved and EDUCATED about politics. I doubt that is a "news break" to the people here. I'd suspect from the relative quality of discussion that most posters here have written their representitives.
Originally Posted by payne66801
... The people in office have no worries about ss as they are weathly already. They think there is war in other countries take ss away and this country would look alot like mexico..

I've spent some time in Mexico.. SS is not their problem. Do you honestly believe it is???
Originally Posted by payne66801
... Todays 20-40 yr olds are not preparing for our over and over mistakes with these presidents.
Have you ever seen how much a SS check is for? Unless you enjoy eating Ramen noodles and living in a cardboard box I suggest you don't plan on a SS check as your retirement plan.....
Originally Posted by payne66801
... We bashed clinton and he had the economy going in the right direction.
Absolutely, if the "right direction" is a recession... Sorry, but the country was in a recession at the end of Clinton's regime.
Originally Posted by payne66801
... Then when all is going well get a republican in so we can go to war again.???? Makes no sense ????
Our country was attacked half a dozen times under Clinton. He failed to act.... he started the war by being too wrapped up in chasing skirts to see the real problem. We were going to have a war with terrorists either way; unfortunately his inaction cost 3,000 lives on 9-11-01.
Originally Posted by payne66801
... Nobody wants us over there we have 80% of the euros hating us for thinking we rule everything..
Murpha, is that you? 80%, what's so magical about that number... the euros always hate us... we continually prove that socialism is a failure... that drives them insane...
Originally Posted by payne66801
Mind your own business some time makes sense. Yes the bombing was bad but bush killed that many over again by sending our troops over there. THEY HAVE BEEN FIGHTING OVER REL. ISSUES FOR 2000 YEARS WHY WOULD THEY LISTEN TO A COUNTRY THAT IS BARELY 200 YRS OLD AND HAS IS OWN ISSUES???
So, you are saying, we should just suck it up and let them randomly kill us occasionally?
Here's an idea... maybe if we had a national lottery every 20 years and just sacrificed a few thousand people to allah they would leave us alone?
Originally Posted by payne66801
... I prey for all the troops families that will be torn apart by this needless war.
I'm sure they find that reassuring... I personally hope your "prayers" are a little more well thought out, however...
Originally Posted by payne66801
... Bush has no business running a dairy farm let alone the country.....
Yes, we'd be much better off with rational decision makers like you running things... clearly you look at facts before you say things...
Originally Posted by payne66801
... I wonder if Bush would like to be away from friends and family over the holidays. I bet he does not go to irag to greet the troops over christmas!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
How much??? How much are you willing to bet? I bet he WILL be over in Iraq during the holidays.
Originally Posted by payne66801
... I think most people support the troops all the way I just do not think trying to set up a new goverment is worth ONE DAD OR MOM in a country that does not want us there.
Ahh, here we go... Ya, the Iraqi's really want Saddam back... they miss the gang rapes, public executions, WMD tests on their own populations, etc.. they hate us Americans...
Talk to returning Allied soldiers. They'll straighten you out on this real fast...
Originally Posted by payne66801
... If you think they do talk to someone that knows people from that region. Not what the tv tells you do not be blind...
I've done so.. have YOU?

 

[jones]

And I'm also not saying that no democrat has called for "immediate" withdraw, just that I haven't seen it. There are a lot of democrats out there, it's entirely possible. I'm sure someone around here would be happy to find the quotes if they have. It wouldn't change my opinion on the matter however.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by jcrim
Just a thought...
I've always considered the terrorist leaders to be very cowardly. I mean they recruit young muslims to martyr themselves for the cause while they are safe. You don't see Osama carrying out a suicide mission.
In this war, Bush has ORDERED young American husbands and dads to risk/sacrifice themselves for his cause. Does anybody think that Bush has the moral character to die for this cause himself?? Is his life so much more valuable than any one of the almost 3000 young Americans that have been killed thus far?
Sometimes "moral character" means making difficult choices... We were attacked on 9-11; President Bush issued a "War on Terrorism". We were attacked in Somalia, President clinton ordered a retreat..
If you would like to go back 150 years we can.. having our generals on the front line and all.. I'm sure clinton's experience touring Russia during vietnam will serve his battlefield prowess well...

 

[reefraff]

Murthas proposal was to start an orderly withdrawl now. Despite what some members of his party have tried to claim there were no provisions in the plan for anything but withdrawing our troops which was estimated to take six months. That is the same kind of withdrawl the liberals forced in Vietnam rather than Nixion's approach of a more gradual one that would have at least given the south a chance to become oganized enough to defend itself. We will never know if Nixon's plan would have worked any better but we do know cut and run got somewhere around 2 million people killed in Southeast Asia.

 

[scubadoo]

Originally Posted by jcrim
Just a thought...
I've always considered the terrorist leaders to be very cowardly. I mean they recruit young muslims to martyr themselves for the cause while they are safe. You don't see Osama carrying out a suicide mission.
In this war, Bush has ORDERED young American husbands and dads to risk/sacrifice themselves for his cause. Does anybody think that Bush has the moral character to die for this cause himself?? Is his life so much more valuable than any one of the almost 3000 young Americans that have been killed thus far?
I will analyze your comment..,..first, the american people and most of the politicians including Democrats in the beginning supported the war. Please see quotes I have posted as a memory refersher. I beleive you cannot call this soley a Bush plan meaning he Lone Rangered this thing without support from Amrecia in general. So, I do not beleive you could tem this war "his" cause.
I cannot answer as to if he would pick up a weapon...you would have to ask him. In general though, the terrorists will gladly send folks on susicide missions...telling them to strap bombs on their body, etc, etc. I do not beleive the president has ordered such missions. So...the scarifice one makes in our military vs the sacrifice one make as a member of the terrorist group is different. THe difference is I do not beleive our military orders, encourages, supports or plans known suicide missions where death to th e one(s) given the order is a certainty. Certainly, death will occurr in any war.
Your question deals in speculation. Yes, I am of the opinion he would.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by Darth Tang
Jones, I like Clark's plan.......even if I think as a General he made questionable decisions..But his plan is NOT what is coming out of the Bush opposition's mouth. Boxer, Kerry, Clinton, Kennedy and company are asking for immediate troop withdrawl or a set deadline. Clark is asking for more troops and an extended stay in Iraq of 4 years. Completely opposite of what is being voiced the loudest and most often.
Agreed. Clark's plan is much more like our current one than anything murpha, clinton, durbin or "flip flop" has come up with.
Not than I'm a big Clark fan either... he's way to "pro UN" for my tastes.