Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: SittinYonder
All this talk about "freely elected leadership," "rebuilding Iraqi infrastructure," and training a police/military force to "defend the new country" is a lot of nonsense, when you consider that Iraq isn't even a real country anymore (not that it ever was).

If you want to see true failure, pull out the troops now and watch Iraq dissolve into a civil war where Taliban-like terrorists take over and provide al Qaeda and the like with a nation base - just like they had in Afghanistan - sponsored by Iran.

Great -- then level the place to the ground and start all over again. There's no reason to have U.S. troops building a dysfunctional nation in a Third World sh!t-hole thousands of miles away.

I hate to break this to you, but Iraq has already dissolved into a simmering civil war -- with U.S. troops serving as "peacekeepers" among people who don't have even a simple understanding of what a free country is.

Here's the only quote that matters, as far as I'm concerned . . .

"Well, just as it’s important, I think, for a president to know when to commit U.S. forces to combat, it’s also important to know when not to commit U.S. forces to combat. I think for us to get American military personnel involved in a civil war inside Iraq would literally be a quagmire. Once we got to Baghdad, what would we do? Who would we put in power? What kind of government would we have? Would it be a Sunni government, a Shi’a government, a Kurdish government? Would it be secular, along the lines of the Ba’ath Party? Would be fundamentalist Islamic? I do not think the United States wants to have U.S. military forces accept casualties and accept the responsibility of trying to govern Iraq. I think it makes no sense at all." --- Dick Cheney, U.S. Secretary of Defense, 4/7/91

Someone needs to explain to me why the same Dick Cheney who thought it was a terrible idea to invade Iraq in 1991 -- when the U.S. and its coalition had 500,000 troops in the region -- yet somehow decided it would be feasible to do it in 2003 with only 130,000+ troops.

75 posted on 05/02/2007 6:38:49 AM PDT by Alberta's Child
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies ]


To: Alberta's Child
All this talk about "freely elected leadership," "rebuilding Iraqi infrastructure," and training a police/military force to "defend the new country" is a lot of nonsense, when you consider that Iraq isn't even a real country anymore (not that it ever was).

Interesting...ususally one regards a country with a constitution, borders, and army, etc. as a real country. Why doesn't Iraq qualify?

OK, pop quiz:

If we leave, the Al Qaeda guys in Iraq qill only do one of two things. They will stay in the country, or they will leave.

If they stay, what will they do?

If they leave, where will they go and what will be their next step?

76 posted on 05/02/2007 6:44:40 AM PDT by Mr. Silverback (A pacifist sees no distinction between the arsonist and the fireman--Freeper ccmay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies ]

To: Alberta's Child
All this talk about "freely elected leadership," "rebuilding Iraqi infrastructure," and training a police/military force to "defend the new country" is a lot of nonsense

Then call Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and tell them that you appreciate the good work they're doing in the House and Senate and that you support them. Say as much nice stuff to them as you can, so that maybe you can make them feel better about themselves after they get my message.

78 posted on 05/02/2007 6:50:23 AM PDT by SittinYonder (Ic þæt gehate, þæt ic heonon nelle fleon fotes trym, ac wille furðor gan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies ]

To: Alberta's Child
"Well, just as it’s important, I think, for a president to know when to commit U.S. forces to combat, it’s also important to know when not to commit U.S. forces to combat. I think for us to get American military personnel involved in a civil war inside Iraq would literally be a quagmire. Once we got to Baghdad, what would we do? Who would we put in power? What kind of government would we have? Would it be a Sunni government, a Shi’a government, a Kurdish government? Would it be secular, along the lines of the Ba’ath Party? Would be fundamentalist Islamic? I do not think the United States wants to have U.S. military forces accept casualties and accept the responsibility of trying to govern Iraq. I think it makes no sense at all." --- Dick Cheney, U.S. Secretary of Defense, 4/7/91

Did it occur to you that we had a lot of troops already tied up in Afghanistan already?

So what did our "undermanned" force of 130,000 troops do? We took down an entire country in 4 weeks. Completely defeated his military, took down the government.

Here's a question 4 you - When Dick Cheney made that statement in 1991, had the first WTC bombing, the African Embassy Bombings, the Khobar Towers Bombings, the Assasination Attempt on President Bush I, the USS Cole Bombing, and the 9/11 Attacks, had any of these taken place yet?

Do you think Dick Cheney might have realized that we've waited around too long to take care of a pressing problem?

111 posted on 05/02/2007 7:52:00 AM PDT by Bryan24 (When in doubt, move to the right....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson