I wonder who said this about Iraq???

cussin'it · Oct 25, 2004

Gee, guess who said the following:

"To occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab world against us and make a broken tyrant into a latter-day hero ... assigning young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning them to fight in what would be an un-winnable urban guerilla war. It could only plunge that part of the world into even greater instability."

George Bush Sr, in A World Transformed, 1998

Who said of Saddam Hussein "He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours?"

Colin Powell in February 2001

Who said of containment against Saddam Hussein "We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt ?"

Condoleezza Rice in July 2001

But when it comes to serving their ends we are to accept miscalculations and outright deceptions as being peripheral to the decision to send young men and women to their deaths?

If you feel that using whatever means, including lying to your own populous justifies the end, an end which is highy suspect, then go :finger: yourself.

cussin'it · Oct 25, 2004

Not a single response from the totalitarian hatemongers

You mutherfuks are pathetic. You don't have an argument, because the facts are what they are. Your boys are liars and hypocrites that caused death and destruction, giving us bullshyt the whole time.

docmercer--banned · Oct 25, 2004

You forgot one:

"The question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam worth?" Cheney asked during the 1992 speech. "And the answer is not very damned many. So I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the president made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq."

VOLTITAN · Oct 25, 2004

"To occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab world against us and make a broken tyrant into a latter-day hero..."

If we had gone ahead past the mandate just to expell Saddam out of Kuwait, it would have shattered the coalition at the time, thus turning the Arab coalition against us. Also it is clear and if you listen to Bush the elder, he thought Saddam was finished and his regime would fall apart (broken tyrant)

As for the rest of the statements, they were all Pre-9/11...I don't think we have to cover what happened on that day. Whatever you think about the decision to go to war in Iraq, there was obviously a Pre-9/11 mindset about Saddam and a Post-9/11. Pre-9/11 he was only looked at as a regional threat. After 9/11 the theory was that he could align himself with terrorists and supply them with WMD to be used against us on our soil. Notice I said theory. That was the stated reason for war as we all know.

mudbone · Oct 26, 2004

VolTitan: "As for the rest of the statements, they were all Pre-9/11...I don't think we have to cover what happened on that day. Whatever you think about the decision to go to war in Iraq, there was obviously a Pre-9/11 mindset about Saddam and a Post-9/11. Pre-9/11 he was only looked at as a regional threat. After 9/11 the theory was that he could align himself with terrorists and supply them with WMD to be used against us on our soil. Notice I said theory. That was the stated reason for war as we all know."

Which obviously Bush Admin got it wrong. They fvcked up. they made a mistake. Like we used to say in the Marine Corps, "too bad, so sad" or "good initiative, poor judgement".

Like Richard Clark said, "Attacking Iraq after 9/11 made as about as much sense as attcking Mexico after Pearl Harbor" (apologies to Richard Clark for paraphrasing).

The only thing that changed after 9/11 is that the Bush Admin who was asleep at the wheel have now been nudged awake to the realities of the world. Unfortunately they still view these realities thru the prism of the still groggy and recently awaken.

American · Oct 26, 2004

cussin'it said:
Not a single response from the totalitarian hatemongers

QUOTE]

Try this. Since 9/11 there hasn't been an attack on U.S. soil. Bush invaded Iraq, and there is resistence and fighting. But they are attacking our military and not U.S. citizens here at home. They are coming to us. Would you rather have the extremists attacking U.S. citizens or have them slug it out with our very capable, professional military at a site half-way around the world? Bush moving the conflict away from the states is probably the best thing he could have done, and every day our troops are taking out more of these enemies.

VOLTITAN · Oct 26, 2004

mudbone,
I am a former Marine also...Semper Fi. Bush acted on a theory. Everyone and their brother thought Saddam had chemical and biological weapons. Why? Easy, he gased the Kurds and also used them in the Iran/Iraq war. Did they show you those slides during NBC training from that war??? Anyway, we also think we blew up some during Gulf War I and our troops were exposed to nerve agent. (Artillery shells, I think it was the former drug czar's Army unit, Gen. Barry McCaffrey) Also there is a strong likelihood he moved them across the border to Syria or destroyed them when our invasion was immenent. Or, he destroyed them in 92 but kept playing games with UN inspectors because he wanted people to still fear him. Hard to look into the mind of a mad man.
We haven't found them...I agree, big problem and big mistake in intel. The much larger problem to me is the overall strategy for stabilizing the country and keeping the peace and/or defeating any type of guerilla resistance/insurgency. The CIA, DOD (Rumsfeld), Pentegon, Joint Chiefs, CENTCOM and yes, the Bush administration (Cheney et al) did a poor job in assessing how tough this was going to be. The words "cake walk" and "they will greet us with flowers" or "this isn't what we war gamed for" all should never have been uttered and we should have planned better. More troop strength to deal with the borders and influx of radical islamic fighters and also more troops to deal with an insurgency. Having said all that, this idea of an "easy" war or "low casualty, quick total victory" conflict is something I think was born out of Gulf War I and also our constant media attention /24 hr news cycle. Any setback is magnified, especially in an election year.
The question going foward is what needs to be done now. I think we have no choice but to stay and not cut and run like Clinton did in Somalia. That is what the insurgents want and are counting on.(us leaving soon) If it relates to the election, both men say they are staying the course in Iraq. Bush is married to this war and a divorce in his case in unlikely. IMO, Kerry would be the more likely to cut and run, maybe not right away, but he loves the UN and if Bush loses then the terrorists would see that as a victory and I wouldn't put it past Kerry to negotiate some "deal" (after all, he went to Paris to negotiate with communists during Vietnam) with insurgents who will turn Iraq into another Iran.

RobFunk · Oct 26, 2004

we knock down the current dictatorship they build a new one even more hateful of america they attack us we lose. this is why the current bush plan is bad

docmercer--banned · Oct 26, 2004

Volitian:

First off .. I appreciate your service to this country. I never spent a day in the military and to hear Cheney trash Kerry is flat ass disgusting ...

Bottom line is one can not drop tanks into a Muslim culture and tell em they are going to accept Democracy ... this administration had plans way before 9-11 to invade Iraq - hello, folks, let us intro a word known as UNOCAL ???? ....

I feel for our kids ... it is only gonna get worse as latest reports are for 20,000 insurgents inside Iraq and growing ... and God help our kids when Sharon flies F16's into try and take out the Iran reactors ... our kids are gonna get caught in one bloody Mess

I pray Bush does not do a Chicken PR stunt like he did last year and fly into Iraq on Thanksgiving ... damn, for a guy who did not listen to his Generals, he was AWOL during his service to this country, has put orders on not showing coffins of kids coming back home and has not ATTENDED one single funeral he had one big set of balls to show up in Iraq to "show he cares" about our kids

Lets face facts .... PRESIDENT CHENEY had a hardon to help Junior take out the "man who tried to kill Daddy in 93" and with the Religious Fanatics lining up for places in this new govt, Junior can take another hit on his crack pipe in regards to Democracy in Iraq ..

mudbone · Oct 27, 2004

VolT,

Semper fi.

I go back to what Seymour Hersh's reporting told of his contacts with Israeli officials, which IMO have a better read on Middle East than US does...and they told him that the faster we cut and run the better cause the ultimate cause of a democratic Iraq is doomed, so we might as well cut our losses.

IMO, Bush's policies have no basis in reality and will needlessly result in more casualties and catastrophic injuries with nothing to show for it at the end of the day. Add to that $200 billion spent and counting. Do I feel good forecasting this? Hell, no. Do I believe it to be the truth? Yes, I do based on Defense Intelligence Agency estimates as well as CIA estimates.

I hate sounding pessimistic but I think it's a disservice to the men and women risking their lives over their to not realistically assess the situation.