Blah Blah Blah.. Me, Me, MEEEEEEE! MOMMY, I WANT IT MY WAY!
I've heard enough DemoCRAP to last me a lifetime. And you're spewing DemoCRAP.
Do your own damn research, there's plenty out there for lazy RAT minded people like you..
Posted on 04/06/2008 5:47:27 PM PDT by do the dhue
The Baghdadis caught between these extremes know that the only thing standing in the way of another sectarian conflagration is the U.S. military. This may explain why every Iraqi who offers me a view on American politics seems to be praying for a McCain victory.
(Excerpt) Read more at time.com ...
“Not one drop.”
I don’t think we had that option, as Saddam was in breach of not only his obligations relating to WMDs, but also in regards to terrorism. You would have to hope these violations don’t result in Americans being killed.
“I don’t think we had that option, as Saddam was in breach of not only his obligations relating to WMDs”
Really? Proof?
“but also in regards to terrorism.”
There is terrorism in many nations around the world. nations that might actually BE a threat to the United States. Iraq? Please...
NO kidding. Just like talking to a lefty.
[Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism]
http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/15016.htm
RATS are self righteous sycophants who stand tall only in their closets,
while issuing orders that get people killed.
Blah Blah Blah.. Me, Me, MEEEEEEE! MOMMY, I WANT IT MY WAY!
I've heard enough DemoCRAP to last me a lifetime. And you're spewing DemoCRAP.
Do your own damn research, there's plenty out there for lazy RAT minded people like you..
“There is terrorism in many nations around the world. “
You’ll note that this doesn’t not alleviate Saddam’s responsibilities to the council.
“nations that might actually BE a threat to the United States. Iraq? Please...”
The U.S. congress decided that Saddam’s violations represented a ‘continuing threat to the national security of the United States’. The President agreed. Why do you disagree?
Thank you for your input, or whatever.
You’re welcome, and God Bless You.
“The U.S. congress decided that Saddam’s violations represented a ‘continuing threat to the national security of the United States’. The President agreed. Why do you disagree?”
He had no means to attack the U.S.
He knew what it would mean for him if he did.
The Congress and the President both saw the same (tragically) wrong intel.
I disagree with their conclusion because we have seen that they were wrong. I am not blind, I am not stubborn. I supported the invasion based on the WMD argument. This has been proven to be at BEST a mistake. At worst? I don’t even care to think of the worst.
“He had no means to attack the U.S.”
You have no way of knowing this. Saddam’s breach of his obligations relating to terrorism suggest otherwise, along with intel shared with us from other council members.
“The Congress and the President both saw the same (tragically) wrong intel.”
This statement doesn’t make much sense. Saddam blatently violated the obligations of the cease fire. As congress concluded, this represented a threat to the security of the U.S. This isn’t ‘wrong intel’.
And the “stockplies” of WMD’s? The rolling “lab-trucks” I guess those weren’t mistakes either? Someone better tell General Powell that he still has credibility.
Hey, that's important. We can't always change each others' minds, but at least we can understand what the other guy is thinking.
If someone kicks open your front door branishing a shotgun, and you're armed,
do you shoot? or take the chance that your family will die?
All of the above
“If someone kicks open your front door branishing a shotgun, and you’re armed,
do you shoot? or take the chance that your family will die?”
So we attacked Iraq because sometime off in the distant future that might have somehow maybe been able to mount and offensive on the United States?
Wow. Sweden better watch out.
Well, didn't America wait for Japan to attack Pearl Harbor?
Are you really smart? Grunthor?
Because if you are,
Please tell Africa how to avoid another Genocide.
Can you predict, and tell Africans how to avoid another Genocide?
My GOD MAN! Stop the Future from HAPPENING "Grunthor"!
Only you, "Grunthor" can stop world tragedy, in the world., outside of your window,
um, near your car, next to the lawn sprinklers, watering your dog poop,
feeding the worms, that eat people....
BUSH'S FAULT!
We were legally at war with Iraq. It is to late to turn around and go back. You get your way and we pull out now, then you should make the promise that the demorats who oppose the war and Clinton or Oboma should make:
Millions will not be murdered like what happened in Cambodia, Laos, and South Vietnam after we pulled out there.
Iran and/or Syria will not come in and oppress the Iraqi people.
al qeada will not come in and build terrorist training camps that we will have to go back and dig out after another tragic incident occurs in the US.
The terrorist will not look at a pull out as a victory and use this as a platform to recruit for their cause.
Good, bad, or indifferent we must finish this job. We debated before we went, we will have plenty of time to debate it when it is over, but during it we need to show support for a successful completion. We can debate the details as to what went right and what went wrong later.
Anti war sentiment leads to disaster. See Vietnam. BTW: This might be interesting to you. You can see that it was important to Vietnam to change the feeling towards the war at home in order to achieve victory. Our media is no help and a lot of those in the demoratic party are no help today too:
How North Vietnam Won The War The Wall Street Journal, Thursday August 3, 1995
What did the North Vietnamese leadership think of the American antiwar movement? What was the purpose of the Tet Offensive? How could the U.S. have been more successful in fighting the Vietnam War? Bui Tin, a former colonel in the North Vietnamese army, answers these questions in the following excerpts from an interview conducted by Stephen Young, a Minnesota attorney and human-rights activist. Bui Tin, who served on the general staff of North Vietnam's army, received the unconditional surrender of South Vietnam on April 30, 1975. He later became editor of the People's Daily, the official newspaper of Vietnam. He now lives in Paris, where he immigrated after becoming disillusioned with the fruits of Vietnamese communism.
Question: How did Hanoi intend to defeat the Americans?
Answer: By fighting a long war which would break their will to help South Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh said, "We don't need to win military victories, we only need to hit them until they give up and get out."
Q: Was the American antiwar movement important to Hanoi's victory?
A: It was essential to our strategy. Support of the war from our rear was completely secure while the American rear was vulnerable. Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9 a.m. to follow the growth of the American antiwar movement. Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda, and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses. We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of American actions in the war and that she would struggle along with us.
Q: Did the Politburo pay attention to these visits?
A: Keenly.
Q: Why?
A: Those people represented the conscience of America. The conscience of America was part of its war-making capability, and we were turning that power in our favor. America lost because of its democracy; through dissent and protest it lost the ability to mobilize a will to win.
Q: How could the Americans have won the war?
A: Cut the Ho Chi Minh trail inside Laos. If Johnson had granted [Gen. William] Westmoreland's requests to enter Laos and block the Ho Chi Minh trail, Hanoi could not have won the war.
Q: Anything else?
A: Train South Vietnam's generals. The junior South Vietnamese officers were good, competent and courageous, but the commanding general officers were inept.
Q: Did Hanoi expect that the National Liberation Front would win power in South Vietnam?
A: No. Gen. [Vo Nguyen] Giap [commander of the North Vietnamese army] believed that guerrilla warfare was important but not sufficient for victory. Regular military divisions with artillery and armor would be needed. The Chinese believed in fighting only with guerrillas, but we had a different approach. The Chinese were reluctant to help us. Soviet aid made the war possible. Le Duan [secretary general of the Vietnamese Communist Party] once told Mao Tse-tung that if you help us, we are sure to win; if you don't, we will still win, but we will have to sacrifice one or two million more soldiers to do so.
Q: Was the National Liberation Front an independent political movement of South Vietnamese?
A: No. It was set up by our Communist Party to implement a decision of the Third Party Congress of September 1960. We always said there was only one party, only one army in the war to liberate the South and unify the nation. At all times there was only one party commissar in command of the South.
Q: Why was the Ho Chi Minh trail so important?
A: It was the only way to bring sufficient military power to bear on the fighting in the South. Building and maintaining the trail was a huge effort, involving tens of thousands of soldiers, drivers, repair teams, medical stations, communication units.
Q: What of American bombing of the Ho Chi Minh trail?
A: Not very effective. Our operations were never compromised by attacks on the trail. At times, accurate B-52 strikes would cause real damage, but we put so much in at the top of the trail that enough men and weapons to prolong the war always came out the bottom. Bombing by smaller planes rarely hit significant targets.
Q: What of American bombing of North Vietnam?
A: If all the bombing had been concentrated at one time, it would have hurt our efforts. But the bombing was expanded in slow stages under Johnson and it didn't worry us. We had plenty of times to prepare alternative routes and facilities. We always had stockpiles of rice ready to feed the people for months if a harvest were damaged. The Soviets bought rice from Thailand for us.
Q: What was the purpose of the 1968 Tet Offensive?
A: To relieve the pressure Gen. Westmoreland was putting on us in late 1966 and 1967 and to weaken American resolve during a presidential election year.
Q: What about Gen. Westmoreland's strategy and tactics caused you concern?
A: Our senior commander in the South, Gen. Nguyen Chi Thanh, knew that we were losing base areas, control of the rural population and that his main forces were being pushed out to the borders of South Vietnam. He also worried that Westmoreland might receive permission to enter Laos and cut the Ho Chi Minh Trail.
In January 1967, after discussions with Le Duan, Thanh proposed the Tet Offensive. Thanh was the senior member of the Politburo in South Vietnam. He supervised the entire war effort. Thanh's struggle philosophy was that "America is wealthy but not resolute," and "squeeze tight to the American chest and attack." He was invited up to Hanoi for further discussions. He went on commercial flights with a false passport from Cambodia to Hong Kong and then to Hanoi. Only in July was his plan adopted by the leadership. Then Johnson had rejected Westmoreland's request for 200,000 more troops. We realized that America had made its maximum military commitment to the war. Vietnam was not sufficiently important for the United States to call up its reserves. We had stretched American power to a breaking point. When more frustration set in, all the Americans could do would be to withdraw; they had no more troops to send over.
Tet was designed to influence American public opinion. We would attack poorly defended parts of South Vietnam cities during a holiday and a truce when few South Vietnamese troops would be on duty. Before the main attack, we would entice American units to advance close to the borders, away from the cities. By attacking all South Vietnam's major cities, we would spread out our forces and neutralize the impact of American firepower. Attacking on a broad front, we would lose some battles but win others. We used local forces nearby each target to frustrate discovery of our plans. Small teams, like the one which attacked the U.S. Embassy in Saigon, would be sufficient. It was a guerrilla strategy of hit-and-run raids.
Q: What about the results?
A: Our losses were staggering and a complete surprise;. Giap later told me that Tet had been a military defeat, though we had gained the planned political advantages when Johnson agreed to negotiate and did not run for re-election. The second and third waves in May and September were, in retrospect, mistakes. Our forces in the South were nearly wiped out by all the fighting in 1968. It took us until 1971 to re-establish our presence, but we had to use North Vietnamese troops as local guerrillas. If the American forces had not begun to withdraw under Nixon in 1969, they could have punished us severely. We suffered badly in 1969 and 1970 as it was.
Q: What of Nixon?
A: Well, when Nixon stepped down because of Watergate we knew we would win. Pham Van Dong [prime minister of North Vietnam] said of Gerald Ford, the new president, "he's the weakest president in U.S. history; the people didn't elect him; even if you gave him candy, he doesn't dare to intervene in Vietnam again." We tested Ford's resolve by attacking Phuoc Long in January 1975. When Ford kept American B-52's in their hangers, our leadership decided on a big offensive against South Vietnam.
Q: What else?
A: We had the impression that American commanders had their hands tied by political factors. Your generals could never deploy a maximum force for greatest military effect.
The above is from the Wall Street Journal. The below is from my heart:
It is my opinion that our Troops won this war. It is the people who stayed home who lost the war. We lost our resolve and tied the hands of our politicians. If we would have kept our resolve and let the politicians make the decisions necessary to win, it would have been over sooner with less men paying the price. Not to mention the millions that died in Cambodia, Laos, and South Vietnam after we pulled out. It took the North two years to rebuild (with the help of China and Russia) after we pulled out, in order to take South Vietnam.
We must not allow this to happen again. We must stand behind our Troops and their leaders. We must allow our leaders to do what is necessary to win the war. We must not allow the commie traitors to steal our resolve away again. I say stand a post for our Troops
Oh, and the constitution party are a bunch of lunatics - no wonder you like them so much!
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.