Posted on 09/16/2004 11:50:30 PM PDT by churchillbuff
Like they folded after Saddam was captured ?
Anytime anyone mentions 'exit strategy' I think of 9/11... then it takes all of my being not to beat the living shit out of the bastid!
If this is now our strategy, it has been devised in response to a messy situation that none of the war proponents warned about. On the contrary, they said that once Saddam was dislodged, the people would flock to us -- there was no warning of insurgencies on this scale.
Very good point. It was widely predicted - by supporters of this war - that once Saddam was captured, the insurgencies would have the life drained out of them. Of course, that prediction was made in response to a level of insurgency that had never been forecast by the war supporters. When, after the US initial victory, terrorism continued, the war supporters said it would die down - even stop - once Saddam was captured. Well it's been many months since his capture, and our own intelligence analysts now say the country could be headed for civil war. This was not a scenario that the war supporters warned us about before sending US troops over there. Quite the contrary: We were promised that Iraqis would put their collective arms around our soldiers in thanksgiving. No doubt many of them have, but there are thousands of "insurgents" -- who now control large parts of the country - who have not.
You have no idea how glad I am you were't around during WWII. We'd all be speaking German now if people like you kept pointing out every single thing that didn't go exactly the way it was predicted to go.
Why don't you just admit it? You are a DNC plant here to cause trouble and give the lurkers the impression that the war was wrong and not connected to AQ.
I notice you have not, because you cannot, respond to all the ways that AQ was linked to Iraq.
And now we have Rep. Chris Shays and others reporting that Iraq's Money for Food Program was used to fund Al Qaeda.
But in your world, that's okay. We should have just let it continue.
I think you are loathesome. You give aid and comfort to terrorists, just like Kerry.
I'm not going to let that pass, because it's patently wrong. Andrew Sullivan - a big supporter of the invasion - calls himself a "neocon." William Bennett, Jean Kirkpatrick -- also big supporters of the war -- are generally called neocons, and they have not disclaimed the term. None of these people is Jewish, if I'm informed correctly. The term was coined by either Irving Kristol or Norman Podhoretz - not to be a synonym for "Jewish," but rather to describe FORMER DEMOCRATS who became REPUBLICANS in response to the McGOVERNITE TAKEOVER of the DEMOCRATIC PARTY. Generally, what motivated them was a hawkish foreign policy -- strength in standing up to the Soviet Union. Unfortunately, a number of these neoconservatives kept the domestic liberalism that had defined them while Democrats. Some, however, didn't.
And I notice you NEVER respond to the fact that Iraq was a huge supporter of Al Qaeda. Even the Clinton administration obtained a federal indictment against OBL which mentioned his ties to Saddam.
A very quiet fact: 9/11 families have successfully sued in federal court regarding Iraq's involvement in 9/11.
And you can never respond to the facts:
1. 78 different reports from different sources provided info that Hussein's regime was actively training Iraqi intelligence officers for terrorist attacks against America.
2. Iraq provided al Qaeda with chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear training.
3. Direct meetings between senior Iraqi military officers and top Al Qaeda operatives took place. An Iraqi Fedayeen officer was present during at least on pre 9/11 planning meeting.
4. The truth about yellowcake uranium was the exact opposite of what Joe Wilson said it was. Iraq was trying to buy yellowcake uranium. In fact, Wilson's report to the CIA supported this fact, despite what he said publicly.
5. Putin said that Russian intelligence warned Washington several times in the days immediately following 9/11 that Hussein was planning to attack the US.
Try to get your facts straight before you go spouting off that Iraq wasn't a threat to the United States. Three administrations have viewed him as a threat and every player in the Democratic and Republican parties have regarded him as such. Until it became political.
You are either falling for political spin or you are part of a concerted effort to undermine the administration.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't having a range of pre-defined "exit strategies" part of the Powell Doctrine for entering conflicts with a rational, defined, targeted and achievable plan?
You should read Krauthammer's scathing review of "The Passion".
I have, and I gagged -- and resolved that I don't like Krauthammer -- but what does that have to do with this thread?
There's a lot of wisdom in what you say, but the one thing that hits home in the intelligence reports cited in this article is that there aren't enough "coalition" troops to pacify Iraq. Do you disagree with the contention that more troops are needed?
Why can't you respond to questions asked you?
Why do you keep posting negative articles?
Why can't you support the troops?
Why do you continuously try to undermine their morale?
How much does the DNC pay you?
Why don't you go away?
Why don't you accept that Iraq supported Al Qaeda?
Why do you think the Iraq war was wrong?
Why are you here?
Why do you hate the troops?
Why do you try to depress the troops?
Why don't you understand anything about history and war?
How old are you? 10?
At the least, why don't you change your screen name? Churchill would be appalled.
Spleen is not an acceptable substitute for having defined attainable, realistic goals and thinking them through. If you haven't you are wasting the lives of brave men in pursuit of a pipe dream.
There are lots of governments that are antagonistic towards us. But it would be idiotic to be at war with all of them. Just because there is a cassus belli doesn't necessarily make war a good idea.
Saddam was a huge supporter of AQ. Three administrations have deemed them a threat to America.
The Senate Intelligence Report outlined quite well the threats that Saddam had made against America for years.
But if you feel comfortable leaving Saddam in power to continue to support and TRAIN al Qaeda, I have to question your judgement.
Fer chrysake, I post news articles from newspapers, for discussion. The idea that grown, mature men and women in uniform - who see the same articles, because they're published, online, by major newspapers - are going to be damaged by discussion of any articles that I post, does them a massive disservice. And over the six years that I've posted at FR, I've posted news articles - and opinion articles - on a variety of subjects, written from a variety of perspectives. My operating perspective has been, and remains, that of a conservative.
We don't disagree on that.
The chance of this being objective is less than the chance that the CBS memos are genuine, IMHO.
You have never posted one single article that celebrates the troops, that talks about how many of them are re-enlisting, believe in their mission and believe in their Commander in Chief.
You only post articles that take the view that things are doom and gloom. When articles are posted that are positive, you are conspicuously absent.
And you still won't, and never have, answered the central question. Why the war in Iraq was wrong. Since the ties Saddam had to AQ and his support and training of AQ have been well documented by the 9/11 Commission and the Senate Intelligence Committee, you are in an impossible fix. How to oppose the war without seeming to give aid and comfort to the enemy.
Well, pal. We're onto you. You are giving aid and comfort to the enemy and that puts you in the same place as Kerry. Traitorous.
Then what about the Pakistani border area ? A much stronger case could be made for attacking there. Just because a casus belli exists doesn't mean that war is a good idea.
Intelligent policy tailors plans to resources. This was not done. You are not doing it. Foolishly optimistic assumptions were made. Perle, Rumsfeld, Veith, like you, would not face hard truths (and as for 'undermining the morale of the troops', do you think they can't see with their own eyes the truth of what I and churchillbuff have said ? do you think they are expecting crowds of cheering Iraqis in the streets ?).
Hard Truth. This "coalition of the willing" is going to unravel next year as governments bow to the will of their people and bring their boys home. Hard Truth. The Iraqi 'government' will be no stronger than it is now. Hard Truth. The insurgency will control even more than it does now. Hard Truth. It will be a cold day in hell before any foreign governments defy domestic public opinion and sign on to any future neocon military adventure.
Do a google on "no operational links" or "no operational connections" and Iraq -- and you'll see scores of newspaper reports on the Senate Intelligence Committee study and the 9-11 committee -- which both found "no operational links" between Iraq and 9-11.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.