jerryzflies 0 #51 July 1, 2009 QuoteSaddam had been firing SAMs at allied aircraft for over 8 years. Wanna try again? I haven't mentioned either Iraq or Saddam. Your response is NON SEQUITUR. Please pay attention.If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,990 #52 July 1, 2009 >Obama standing in the white house with his thunb up his but while letting >Iran & North Korea assemble nuclear weapons will cost alot more lives in >the furure. I'd prefer a guy who stands with his "thunb" up his "but" than one who kills thousands of innocent people. But that's just me. >the transition to a free iraq would have been much easier, cheaper, >and with very few lives lost if it was done back under Bush 1.by the Iraqis. Fixed it for you. We're not the world's police, and should not kill people to install governments for political reasons. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #53 July 1, 2009 Quote>Obama standing in the white house with his thunb up his but while letting >Iran & North Korea assemble nuclear weapons will cost alot more lives in >the furure. I'd prefer a guy who stands with his "thunb" up his "but" than one who kills thousands of innocent people. But that's just me. >the transition to a free iraq would have been much easier, cheaper, >and with very few lives lost if it was done back under Bush 1.by the Iraqis. Fixed it for you. We're not the world's police, and should not kill people to install governments for political reasons. Quotetell that to the murdered people of Iraq thanks to us pulling out of the first war leaving them to be slaughtered by sadam. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #54 July 1, 2009 Iraqi people murdered by Saddam/us/insurgents. whatever. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #55 July 1, 2009 QuoteQuotenot finishing the first Iraq war is what cost the 4000 lives. See what happens when you don't finish the job at hand properly or doing things when they should be done. Maybe if the pussy liberals would have let the job be done in the first place those 4000 soldiers would still be alive. Pussy Liberals like Bush Sr., Colin Powell, and Schwarzkopf?? Quoteno like the EU and the libs in congress. the pressure to stop was from outside the bush admin. Bush wanted to finish just didn't have the backing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #56 July 1, 2009 QuoteIraqi people murdered by Saddam/us/insurgents. whatever. Quoteeverything would have been fine if Sadam didn't invade another country and exterminate thousands of his own countrymen Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #57 July 1, 2009 QuoteIn Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- no like the EU and the libs in congress. the pressure to stop was from outside the bush admin. Bush wanted to finish just didn't have the backing. source for that info? My understanding was that the decision to withdraw after liberating Kuwait came from the top, ie, specifically Bush/Powell/Schwarzkopf. Can you cite a source? edited to add a 1992 quote from noted Pussy Liberal, Dick Cheney: "I would guess if we had gone in there, I would still have forces in Baghdad today. We'd be running the country. We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home. And the final point that I think needs to be made is this question of casualties. I don't think you could have done all of that without significant additional U.S. casualties, and while everybody was tremendously impressed with the low cost of the (1991) conflict, for the 146 Americans who were killed in action and for their families, it wasn't a cheap war. And the question in my mind is, how many additional American casualties is Saddam (Hussein) worth? And the answer is, not that 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." Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #58 July 1, 2009 QuoteQuoteIn Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- no like the EU and the libs in congress. the pressure to stop was from outside the bush admin. Bush wanted to finish just didn't have the backing. source for that info? My understanding was that the decision to withdraw after liberating Kuwait came from the top, ie, specifically Bush/Powell/Schwarzkopf. Can you cite a source? edited to add a 1992 quote from noted Pussy Liberal, Dick Cheney: "I would guess if we had gone in there, I would still have forces in Baghdad today. We'd be running the country. We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home. And the final point that I think needs to be made is this question of casualties. I don't think you could have done all of that without significant additional U.S. casualties, and while everybody was tremendously impressed with the low cost of the (1991) conflict, for the 146 Americans who were killed in action and for their families, it wasn't a cheap war. And the question in my mind is, how many additional American casualties is Saddam (Hussein) worth? And the answer is, not that 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." Quoteand you believe this speech to be anything other than a face saving speech? Cheney believed what he said here so much that when he became VP he finished what was started a decade earlier. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
downwardspiral 0 #59 July 1, 2009 Don't forget about when Clinton left them hanging in 96.www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,990 #60 July 1, 2009 >tell that to the murdered people of Iraq thanks to us pulling out of the >first war leaving them to be slaughtered by sadam. I'll let you tell a grieving mother that she should be happy that her son was blown to bits by a US bomb instead of by Saddam's troops. Let us know if she thanks you for your kind bombing. Killing innocent people is really not solved by killing more, despite what the movies tell you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #61 July 1, 2009 QuoteKilling innocent people is really not solved by killing more, despite what the movies tell you. It appears that we're being told that it will solve things--so long as the innocents we're killing are in Afghanistan, instead of Iraq.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,990 #62 July 1, 2009 >It appears that we're being told that it will solve things--so long as >the innocents we're killing are in Afghanistan, instead of Iraq. I don't think it will solve anything. It may kill most of Al Qaeda, which is our objective there. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #63 July 2, 2009 Quote had we left Saddam to pursue them (and continue to rule via domestic terror) he very likely would have succeeded, and provided them to terrorists. The Bush administration did not want to take that chance. Which one? Which “Bush administration”? Do you mean to suggest President GHW Bush and implicitly former SecDef Caspar Weinberger and former Secretary of State Colin Powell, namesake of the Powell Doctrine, were also leaders who lacked “the balls to make tough decisions”? And “armchair quarterbacks.” Should they “acknowledge that’s what [they were]” because they did not push to Baghdad in 1991? (To be explicit, I don’t think that.) Or is it more complicated than the portrayal suggests? I’m not sure the sole metric that I’d want to apply to have the right to a valid opinion and perhaps, even some expertise that might be worth considering is whether or not an individual has made decisions that directly impacted foreign deployment of US service members or civilians. Most military service members don’t make direct decisions on US foreign policy yet they are often the ones charged with implementing and executing policies. They frequently have valuable insight, imo. Otoh, there are quite a few soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, and others who I’ve met – maybe I’m just really special? – who actively value input of those who might fit your description of ‘armchair quarterbacks’ who haven’t made direct foreign policy decisions. Perhaps if more “armchair quarterback” expertise would have been sought and listened to, many of the pre-invasion errors (e.g., the aluminum tubes) and post-initial invasion (e.g., disbanding Iraqi army and the later) choices that figured prominently in later problems would have been avoid or minimized (e.g., rise of insurgencies 2004-2006) … or they might have happened anyway. While I think the first part of President Eisenhower’s famous quote on planning is hyperbolic, the second is profound, again imo: “In preparing for battle I have always found that plans are useless, but planning is indispensable.” Or alternatively as I heard earlier this week, the Marine Corps “the 7Ps" rule: “Proper planning prevents piss poor performance.” (think I forgot a “p” ... [embarrassed] ... irony at its finest, eh? ) Process matters. The Army generally calls them lessons learned rather than “armchair quarterbacking.” /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #64 July 2, 2009 Quote … while letting Iran & North Korea assemble nuclear weapons will cost alot more lives in the furure. If you were a decision-maker, what would you propose the US do w/r/t Iran and DPRK differently than what is currently being done? What is your desired end-state? How do you plan to achieve that end-state? What specific actions would you pursue and by what means? E.g., by what methods & means are securing access to the nuclear facilities, and what consequences are you willing to accept for your decisions? How will you deal with China w/r/t DPRK? How will you deal with Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Iran limiting transit through or closing the Straits of Hormuz? It is tempting and easy to toss out one-liners. I look forward to hearing your specific plans. And to show that I’m not asking of others anymore than I am willing to do myself, I provided some of my own detailed proposals on ends, ways, and means w/r/t US foreign policy toward Iran in this thread (posts 1, 47, 49, 50-53, 56, 59, 63, 64, 69, 72). /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #65 July 2, 2009 Quote Don't forget about when Clinton left them hanging in 96. I'm guessing that you're referring to the missile strikes, yes? Am confident that you'll tell me if you mean something else. After that, what was Hussayn's general stance toward the Kurds? Did Hussayn expand his operations against the Kurds? /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TankBuster 0 #66 July 2, 2009 It's Proper Prior Planning..... a bit redundant but I think whoever coined it must have just wanted a bunch o p's. Your point is well taken, as usual. I was speaking of my own perceptions of 43 admin. I fine with lessons learned, but what I think is not intellectually honest with a lot of the Bush bashers is simply to say the war is a farce because there were no WMDs found. He wouldn't let us inspect, he was warned, etc, so imo we had to find out and/or prevent. My comments on the AQ's were limited to those folks.The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,990 #67 July 2, 2009 >what I think is not intellectually honest with a lot of the Bush bashers is >simply to say the war is a farce because there were no WMDs found. The war was not a farce; there are a lot of dead bodies, and that's about as real as it comes. The primary _rationale_ for the war was a farce. There were no WMD's and no hard evidence that there were any. >He wouldn't let us inspect . . . Actually, he did. Before we pulled the UN inspection team out, he was giving them access to everywhere they asked to go. > he was warned . . . And he backed down. >so imo we had to find out and/or prevent. Then why did we stop the inspections that would have found out? It's clear that the administration wanted a war. PNAC was very clear on that particular desire, and he implemented its recommendations. If it hadn't been WMD's, it would have been something else - human rights violations, the threat of UAV's, the "domino effect" in the Middle East. The war was the desired result. The rest was just PR. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryzflies 0 #68 July 2, 2009 QuoteIt's Proper Prior Planning..... a bit redundant but I think whoever coined it must have just wanted a bunch o p's. Your point is well taken, as usual. I was speaking of my own perceptions of 43 admin. I fine with lessons learned, but what I think is not intellectually honest with a lot of the Bush bashers is simply to say the war is a farce because there were no WMDs found. He wouldn't let us inspect, FACT - Bush Administration tells UNSCOM inspectors to leave Iraq, 17 March 2003. UNSCOM had reported cooperation of Iraq regime in its last report. FACT - UNSCOM found no evidence of WMDs and reported as such. FACT - Coalition troops found no WMDs or evidence of any active program. FACT - The Bush administration lied its way to the invasion by suppressing all intel contrary to its position.If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #69 July 2, 2009 Quoteand you believe this speech to be anything other than a face saving speech? Cite a source then. EVERY account I have heard about the Bush I leadership indicated that they ended the Gulf War the way they did due to their own ideas. Accounts from Schwarzkopf, Powell, as well as Cheney all agree on this. They were in the middle of running a war, they weren't going to call up the EU or UN or the Evil Liberal Media to ask for their approval. If you believe they were knuckling under to Evil Liberals or Evil Europeans, cite a source. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
headoverheels 333 #70 July 2, 2009 I'm seeing more coverage here on DZ than in the press. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
downwardspiral 0 #71 July 2, 2009 Quote Quote Don't forget about when Clinton left them hanging in 96. I'm guessing that you're referring to the missile strikes, yes? Am confident that you'll tell me if you mean something else. After that, what was Hussayn's general stance toward the Kurds? Did Hussayn expand his operations against the Kurds? /Marg You mean the retaliatory missile strikes due to the assassination attempt on Bush Sr.? I think that was in 93. I Don't know much about what happened in 96 because there isn't much info that I've been able to find. The first I heard about it was in Robert Baer's book See No Evil. It would seem we [Clinton] encouraged an Iraqi insurgency while promising our support. When the event took place Clinton yanked his support, torpedoing the entire operation because Iraqi commanders, opposed to Saddam and essential to the uprising, did not act due to no US support. Hundreds were killed and hundreds more were exiled. The event is referenced here...Imperial Overreach: Washington's Dubious Strategy to Overthrow Saddam Hussein. Scroll down to the material in the Scribd box. There might be a lot of info in the analysis regarding that event but I haven't had time to read it.www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
redlegphi 0 #72 July 2, 2009 Quote I'm seeing more coverage here on DZ than in the press. That would be because our national press corps almost universally sucks, regardless of left or right bias. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
downwardspiral 0 #73 July 2, 2009 QuoteQuoteIt's Proper Prior Planning..... a bit redundant but I think whoever coined it must have just wanted a bunch o p's. Your point is well taken, as usual. I was speaking of my own perceptions of 43 admin. I fine with lessons learned, but what I think is not intellectually honest with a lot of the Bush bashers is simply to say the war is a farce because there were no WMDs found. He wouldn't let us inspect, FACT - Bush Administration tells UNSCOM inspectors to leave Iraq, 17 March 2003. UNSCOM had reported cooperation of Iraq regime in its last report. FACT - UNSCOM found no evidence of WMDs and reported as such. FACT - Coalition troops found no WMDs or evidence of any active program. FACT - The Bush administration lied its way to the invasion by suppressing all intel contrary to its position. Coincidently..... FBI Interviews: Saddam Bluffed About WMD Out of Fear of Iran In interviews with the FBI before his death, the former Iraqi dictator said he was more afraid of Iran than the U.S. and denounced Usama bin Laden as "a zealot." http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/02/fbi-interviews-hussein-lied-wmd-fear-iran/?test=latestnewswww.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #74 July 2, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Don't forget about when Clinton left them hanging in 96. I'm guessing that you're referring to the missile strikes, yes? Am confident that you'll tell me if you mean something else. After that, what was Hussayn's general stance toward the Kurds? Did Hussayn expand his operations against the Kurds? You mean the retaliatory missile strikes due to the assassination attempt on Bush Sr.? I think that was in 93. I was thinking of the September 1996 actions described here: "The United States launched a second missile strike against Iraq's southern air defenses tonight, just hours after President Clinton vowed that he would make President Saddam Hussein ''pay a price'' for sending his troops into the Kurdish enclave in northern Iraq. "Three Navy ships and a submarine in the Persian Gulf launched 17 cruise missiles less than a day after the first American attack, in which 27 cruise missiles were fired against Iraqi military targets. "Officials described the new attack as a ''mop-up operation'' intended to eliminate air-defense sites not destroyed in the earlier mission and to underscore the message to Mr. Hussein that he must end his military action." Thanks for the links. Have read Baer's book but haven't read Isenberg's article. Will. (See lots of endnotes - yeah!) Is the failed support for Iraqi insurgency in 1996 to which you were referring "when Clinton left them hanging in 96"? /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
downwardspiral 0 #75 July 2, 2009 Quote Is the failed support for Iraqi insurgency in 1996 to which you were referring "when Clinton left them hanging in 96"? yup www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
