The news makes it apparent that there are BOTH Iraqis and foreigners involved, amigo. There are several factions of each and they all have conflicting agendas. They are united only in opposing US troops. It is clear that there are Iraqis who support democracy, but the insurgency makes it apparent that there are very many who will oppose it violently. The insurgents hide in the general Iraqi population, who allow this. And they all want us gone . . . either sooner or later. Exactly! I've made that very point here before. We really never lost the Vietnam War. How can you lose a war in which you win every battle? We quit the war in Vietnam. Why? Because it was in our best interest to do so. Lousy politics indeed drove the Vietnam war. It lost public support because it was costing us much and gaining us nothing. Lousy politics is also driving the Iraq War. Those of us who have seen this pattern before already see the Vietnam parallels. Already 52% of America recognizes the Iraqi misadventure has not made America safer. In time, everybody will. After 8 years in Vietnam, every person in America knew we had to leave it, the military most of all. The military was used badly by the politicians in Vietnam. History repeats itself in Iraq. We have already won the war, so cannot lose it. Neither can we lose or win this occupation. Occupations are inherently unwinnable. In time we will simply quit because it is in our best interest to do so. Better sooner than later, I say. If we learned any lessons from Vietnam it was to either go in with everything you've got and win it quickly with overwheming force (Kuwait, Panama, Grenada) or you pound them hard with airpower and never get your ground troops entangled (Libya, Kosovo, Afghanistan). The recipe for disaster is to send in an inadequate force limited in what they are allowed to do, fight the enemy's preferred guerrilla war instead of our high-tech AirLand war doctrine, and order them to occupy a country where the population hates us and doesn't want us there (Vietnam, Lebanon, Somalia, Iraq). I seriously question the political decisionmakers that are conducting this Iraqi occupation which is costing us 400 million dollars day and 15,000 American casualties so far. These excellent troops deserve better political leadership.
Perhaps you didn't read this part of Bush's address to the UN. :grin: "From 1991 to 1995, the Iraqi regime said it had no biological weapons. After a senior official in its weapons program defected and exposed this lie, the regime admitted to producing tens of thousands of liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents for use with Scud warheads, aerial bombs, and aircraft spray tanks. U.N. inspectors believe Iraq has produced two to four times the amount of biological agents it declared, and has failed to account for more than three metric tons of material that could be used to produce biological weapons. Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons. United Nations' inspections also revealed that Iraq likely maintains stockpiles of VX, mustard and other chemical agents, and that the regime is rebuilding and expanding facilities capable of producing chemical weapons. And in 1995, after four years of deception, Iraq finally admitted it had a crash nuclear weapons program prior to the Gulf War. We know now, were it not for that war, the regime in Iraq would likely have possessed a nuclear weapon no later than 1993. Today, Iraq continues to withhold important information about its nuclear program -- weapons design, procurement logs, experiment data, an accounting of nuclear materials and documentation of foreign assistance. Iraq employs capable nuclear scientists and technicians. It retains physical infrastructure needed to build a nuclear weapon. Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon. Should Iraq acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year. And Iraq's state-controlled media has reported numerous meetings between Saddam Hussein and his nuclear scientists, leaving little doubt about his continued appetite for these weapons. Iraq also possesses a force of Scud-type missiles with ranges beyond the 150 kilometers permitted by the U.N. Work at testing and production facilities shows that Iraq is building more long-range missiles that it can inflict mass death throughout the region." CSPAN-Bush Address to the UN . . . or this pre-war speech by Bush in October 2002. :lol: "Tonight I want to take a few minutes to discuss a grave threat to peace, and America's determination to lead the world in confronting that threat. The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime's own actions -- its history of aggression, and its drive toward an arsenal of terror. Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people. The entire world has witnessed Iraq's eleven-year history of defiance, deception and bad faith. Members of the Congress of both political parties, and members of the United Nations Security Council, agree that Saddam Hussein is a threat to peace and must disarm. We agree that the Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten America and the world with horrible poisons and diseases and gases and atomic weapons. " The White House--Remarks by the President on Iraq :lol:
Kinda ruins your and the lefts argument Bush lied :hihi: :lol: Can't have it both ways Red. Please read your post again to where it talks about UN Inspectors and what they believe before you pass this off as Bush's rhetotic. You can come after me about the UN and what I believe I suppose but it isn't about me and what I believe. Its about the UN, the sacred organization of the left that they will not say one bad word about but they'll sure criticize the right and America! :usaflagwa Its kinda funny, all of this, UN admitted WMD's and yet they are all gone and Bush lied. Don't worry, they are either burried and we haven't found them or they are in Iran or Syria. Btw, any insurgents in Iraq are in the minority such as the Bush lied people in this country. Most are from neighboring countries because no Arabian country wants Iraq to go democratic, it would then seal the Monarchs doom in those countries. The few true Iraqis with insurgents are Saddam loyalists and those wanting power of the country. If you think most Iraqis don't want us there you must be watching too much Liberal news network.
All I'm saying is this: I find it extremely ironic that yourself and others continually bash and dismiss the UN, then turn right around and use the UN sanction 'violations' as a crutch to justify the invasion. You can't write off the institution, then use the breaking of their rules as a defense.
I don't have to. It didn't ruin my argument, it is my argument! martin stated that Bush did not mention WMDs in getting American support for the war. This proves that statement false. Bush is making an overt case for Iraq having WMD's and falsely states that Iraq "possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons." I have no idea what case you are trying to make. According to the CIA’s Duelfer’s Report Iraq: 1. had no WMD’s. 2. “had no . . . strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions” ended. 3. Iraq failed “to acquire long range Iraq’s nuclear program ended in 1991 following the Gulf War. 4. “Iraq unilaterally destroyed is undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter.” 5. In spite of exhaustive investigation, ISG found no evidence that Iraq possessed, or was developing BW agent product systems mounted on road vehicles or railway wagons.” Bush only told half of the story, of course. Those same UN inspectors later oversaw the destruction of tons of chemical weapons over 8 years and believed that no more existed. The UN inspectors including American inspector Scot Ritter, all warned Bush that he was not going to find the nuclear weapons and chemical weapons that he insisted existed. He failed to listen. Sourdough, old friend, there are days that I think you're about half a bubble off of plumb. Not only is the UN not the "scared organization of the left", but you've never heard me promote or defend the UN here. The UN is a non-issue to me. You are the one who criticises the UN at every opportunity, but then you hold up justifications of Bush going to war to retaliate for UN resolution violations by Iraq. Even though the UN did not sanction this. It is not that I care about UN sanctions. I don't. I just think it is idiotic to denounce the UN and alternately promote their resolutions as justifications for going to war. You are hallucinating now. Just like Bush, you can't admit any error. The UN inspectors found and eliminated all of the WMDs and they said so. Bush lied, Sourdough. Most of the highlighted portions of his statements above contain lies. I made you a long list of Bush's lies last fall, remember? Link There are now more to be added. Top 40 Bush Lies I can't imagine what you are watching to come up with these astounding views. Not even FOX tries to picture the Iraqis as welcoming us. How much love from the raghead bastards do you see? Tell me where to go see it! I think you are dreaming.
i wanted saddam to obey these particular terms, regardless of who said them. if the terms were tigerragandrew's idea and we stopped fighting because saddam agreed to obey them, i expect them to be obeyed. i dont see any irony. we simply want saddam to behave and do what he said he would.
We, as posters on a internet forum, don't make policy. My own personal belief is that we should withdraw from the UN and let it collapse like the rotten structure it is, and whatever resolutions the remaining members spout off be damned. However, I don't have a say in such matters, and for the time being, we ARE a member of the UN. And until such time as we aren't, it is incumbent upon us to help make sure that the resolutions of that body are enforced.
I agree that occupations are inherently unwinnable. Eventually, you have to leave the country to govern itself. I'm all for getting our troops out of Iraq - WHEN the time is right. Right now, I don't think the time is right. We're still doing a lot over there that is helping the Iraqis get on the right track and their security forces still need our help and training. As that starts coming along, I think we'll see a gradual pullout of our troops. We could argue for the rest of our lives about the cause for this war. But for what? The fact is, we already went to war and defeated Saddam. Why keep going on and on and on about whether Bush lied or not? I don't think anybody is going to be convinced one way or the other anymore. We owe it to those 15,000 casualties (many of whom would probably kill to be back on the battlefield with their units) to see this through.
