- Joined
- Oct 3, 2006
- Messages
- 1,531
- Reaction score
- 232
- Location
- Chapel Hill, NC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Iraq is not their land.
The fact is more and more listen to Reid and Pelosi and see America as weakening and will join the stronger side. If we allow them to take over Iraq then you better start hunkering down and waiting for their attack here.
Wake up, they were attacking us and killing us long before we were in Iraq, only a fool thinks this is only about Iraq.
There is no way that the House can cut off funding for the war.
Here is something for those that would pull out (surrender) of Iraq to think about.
On Dec 16, 1944, three German armies and the Sixth SS Panzer Army attacked allied forces through the Ardennes. This was the begining of the Battle of the Bulge. Do to perseverance, courage, strength and great leadership the allied forces prevailed. The Germans were on the run by January 25, 1945. By the end of the battle 19,000 American service members were dead. This was a single battle of many fought by our brave men during WWII. By the end of the war America had lost 405,399 of the bravest most honorable men ever alive.
WWII was fought and won with support and sacrifice of the American people, our politicians and the media.
Today with all the cowards, quiters, and spineless wimps in congress as well as the liberal media we could not win WWII. The greatest generation is almost gone. America no longer has what it had back then. The will to win and never accept defeat.
Yes there is all they have to do is not pass a funding bill, all the rest of your obfuscation aside, if they want to end the war then cut off the funding that is their perogative as the legislative branch what is not in their power is to pass unconstitutional legislation which violates the executives authority of CinC.
It is too bad for the US, but a foreign technologically advanced military force is at a huge disadvantage against a local force, with support of the people, who has infinite patience, using asymmetric warfare. Someone should have realized that before this things started. Or people should have listened to those that realized it. Realizing it now doesn't make someone a coward. It just makes those that started this mess incompetent.
That's it! Let's regress back to the 40's! That'll solve all of our problems!
Or we could just reverse that and point out how many American soldiers died for the fruitless war that was Vietnam, all because America didn't pull quick enough. There's too sides to every sword.
I don't see many parallels between this war and WWII. Here are some key differences:
1) there was never a real coalition in this war
2) Iraq was contained
3) this war was off target from the global threat of terrorism
4) many people predicted that this war would divide the allies of the US and unite the enemies of the US - and it did
It is too bad for the US, but a foreign technologically advanced military force is at a huge disadvantage against a local force, with support of the people, who has infinite patience, using asymmetric warfare. Someone should have realized that before this things started. Or people should have listened to those that realized it. Realizing it now doesn't make someone a coward. It just makes those that started this mess incompetent.
Actually, that's exactly what you said. You claimed that most groups field their largest forces just before they collapse, in response to a question about al-Qaeda's new strength. The obvious implication was that you think al-Qaeda is about to collapse. Please don't insult our intelligence and pretend that you meant something else.
Great post. The US is at a huge disadvantage because their enemy (the insurgents) don't care who they kill - so long as US soldiers are in the mix. Leading to many innocent people getting caught in the middle.
Totally separate from that are those who want power in Iraq. It is a tribal country. Two tribes are battling for control. The US leaving will not solve that particular issue. We took away the Dictator who stopped the battle between the two tribes. They don't want Democracy - it's not in their makeup - they won't live by majority rule - they are tribal. Who the hell do the US think they are enforcing Democracy in Iraq? Did we want the Russians enforcing Communism on us?
I'm not afraid of getting attacked by any terrorists, you can go ahead and hunker down though since you seem so petrified.
And do you really think these moderate Muslims turning radical think that radicals are the stronger side?? No, they think they must defend their beliefs.
They attacked us... it's called 9/11. You act like it was a reoccuring everyday fanaza.
And I never said this "only" about Iraq. But if you sit there and say that Iraq was a terrorist harboring nation before we entered there like it is today, you are sadly mistaken.
We should have sent more forces into Afghanistan,
or gone after the tribal sects in Pakistan,
instead, we entered a country that caused no threat to America....
Our military did not loose Vietnam, The Idiots in Washington did.
Great post. The US is at a huge disadvantage because their enemy (the insurgents) don't care who they kill - so long as US soldiers are in the mix. Leading to many innocent people getting caught in the middle.
In my heart, I think back when we saw there were no WMD, we should have pulled out, said oops, and let the chips fall where they may.
The Dems need to take strong action, and get us out of there now.
Bush has his reasons for doing what he's doing, but too many lives are being lost for nothing in MHO. We're going to have to fight terrorism no matter what happens in Iraq.
An American soldier recently asked why he re-enlisted in the Army said ""I will never except defeat. I will never quit."
You know, that's friggin' great - good for him. I never quit either. The American people have spoken, however. It is not up to that soldier, or our President, or any other one person. Democracy means that the majority rule. More people vote for person 1 than vote for person 2, so person 1 gets into office - majority rule. Those who voted for person 2 just have to suck it up. The majority of people in the US think that we shouldn't be fighting this war in Iraq, therefore we shouldn't be.
We're so desperate to bring Democracy to Iraq - and trust me I can see why we want to - that we're ignoring it here in our own country? How is that right? At the minute we have a minority who want to impose their will by keeping us at war.
Do you think the President will pull them out if Congress does not pass the funding bill? Or, do you think he will keep them there unpaid and without necessary equipment? The President alone has the power to pull them back as Commander in Chief.
Right, because the military being totally out-smarted by guerrilla fighters had nothing to do with it? It was all Washington's fault.
There are two sides to a war: political and military. You lost on both sides.
No connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda was found before America went into Iraq.
Also, reports still suggest that al-Zarqawi and Bin-Ladens interests were fairly separate when it comes to Iraq, whilst they do have the same 'stop the Americans' mentality.
So, if anything, American presence created the Al Qaeda presence.
That's an out and out lie.
Zarqawi swore allegiance to OBL and AQ.
Ya because if we weren't in Iraq these people would just be run of the mill fine up standing citizens working 9-5 joe smoe jobs. :roll:
Publicly available manuscript said:THE PRESIDENT: It's my honor to welcome Tony Blair back to the White House. We just had a wide-ranging discussion on a lot of issues. I appreciate my friend's commitment to peace and security. I appreciate his vision. I appreciate his willingness to lead. Most importantly, I appreciate his understanding that after September the 11th, 2001, the world changed; that we face a common enemy -- terrorists willing to kill innocent lives; that we now recognize that threats which gather in remote regions of the world must be dealt with before others lose their lives.
Tony Blair is a friend. He's a friend of the American people, he's a friend of mine. I trust his judgment and I appreciate his wisdom.
Welcome.
THE PRIME MINISTER: First of all, can I say how delighted I am to be back in the White House and to see President Bush. And as he's just described to you, we had an excellent discussion, covering all the key issues of the day. And I would like to praise his leadership in the world since September the 11th, particularly, on what I think are the two key issues that face our world today -- which are issues of international terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. And I think both of those issues come together because they threaten the peace and the order and the stability of the world.
And what is essential is that in every respect, in every way that we can we mobilize international support and the international community, in order to make sure that these twin threats that the world faces are dealt with. And I have no doubt at all that we can deal with them. But we should realize those two threats -- terrorism, weapons of mass destruction -- are not different, they're linked. And dealing with both of them is essential for the future peace and security and prosperity of the world.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Fournier. Here's what we're going to do. I will call upon a reporter. The Prime Minister will call upon a reporter. And we'll do this three different times. Start with you.
President George W. Bush welcomes British Prime Minister Tony Blair upon his arrival to the White House Friday, Jan. 31, 2003. White House photo by Paul Morse Q Thank you, sir. First, quickly to the Prime Minister, did you ask President Bush to secure a second U.N. resolution and to give the inspectors more time? And, President Bush, the U.N. says -- the U.N. inspectors say Saddam is not complying, you say Saddam is not complying, why wait a matter of weeks? What's -- why hold up on the decision?
THE PRESIDENT: First of all, you violated the two-question rule -- as usual. He's had a bad habit of this. I'll start.
Saddam Hussein is not disarming. He is a danger to the world. He must disarm. And that's why I have constantly said and the Prime Minister has constantly said this issue will come to a head in a matter of weeks, not months.
THE PRIME MINISTER: The whole point about the present situation is that when President Bush made his speech to the United Nations, when we went down the United Nations route, we passed Resolution 1441. And I think it really repays reading that, because we said very clearly that Saddam had what we said was a final opportunity to disarm, and that he had to cooperate fully in every respect with the U.N. weapons inspectors.
As Dr. Blix said in his report to the Security Council earlier this week, he's not doing that. And therefore, what is important is that the international community comes together again and makes it absolutely clear that this is unacceptable. And the reason why I believe that it will do that is precisely because in the original Resolution 1441, we made it clear that failure to disarm would lead to serious consequences.
So this is a test for the international community. It's not just a test for the United States or for Britain. It's a test for the international community, too. And the judgment has to be, at the present time, that Saddam Hussein is not cooperating with the inspectors, and therefore is in breach of the U.N. resolution. And that's why time is running out.
Andy.
Q A question for the President, if I may. What is the status, in your view, of any second resolution? Is it something that you think it's worth spending time and energy trying to assemble and, if so, why?
THE PRESIDENT: First, let me reiterate what I just said. This is a matter of weeks, not months. Any attempt to drag the process on for months will be resisted by the United States. And as I understand the Prime Minister -- I'm loath to put words in his mouth -- but he's also said weeks, not months.
Secondly, I want to remind you, I was the guy that went to the United Nations in the first place. I said, why don't we come together as a world to resolve this issue, once and for all. Why doesn't the United Nations stand up as a body and show the world that it has got the capacity to keep the peace.
So, first of all, in answer to one part of your question, this just needs to be resolved quickly. Should the United Nations decide to pass a second resolution, it would be welcomed if it is yet another signal that we're intent upon disarming Saddam Hussein. But 1441 gives us the authority to move without any second resolution. And Saddam Hussein must understand that if he does not disarm, for the sake of peace, we, along with others, will go disarm Saddam Hussein.
Steve.
Q Thank you, sir. Mr. President, is Secretary Powell going to provide the undeniable proof of Iraq's guilt that so many critics are calling for?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, all due in modesty, I thought I did a pretty good job myself of making it clear that he's not disarming and why he should disarm. Secretary Powell will make a strong case about the danger of an armed Saddam Hussein. He will make it clear that Saddam Hussein is fooling the world, or trying to fool the world. He will make it clear that Saddam is a menace to peace in his own neighborhood. He will also talk about al Qaeda links, links that really do portend a danger for America and for Great Britain, anybody else who loves freedom.
As the Prime Minister says, the war on terror is not confined to just a shadowy terrorist network. The war on terror includes people who are willing to train and to equip organizations such as al Qaeda.
See, the strategic view of America changed after September the 11th. We must deal with threats before they hurt the American people again. And as I have said repeatedly, Saddam Hussein would like nothing more than to use a terrorist network to attack and to kill and leave no fingerprints behind. Colin Powell will continue making that case to the American people and the world at the United Nations.
THE PRIME MINISTER: Adam.
Q One question for you both. Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?
THE PRESIDENT: I can't make that claim.
THE PRIME MINISTER: That answers your question. The one thing I would say, however, is I've absolutely no doubt at all that unless we deal with both of these threats, they will come together in a deadly form. Because, you know, what do we know after September the 11th? We know that these terrorists networks would use any means they can to cause maximum death and destruction. And we know also that they will do whatever they can to acquire the most deadly weaponry they can. And that's why it's important to deal with these issues together.
Q Mr. President and Prime Minister, if I could, sir, the arms inspectors made their report on Monday this week. You've both made clear that it's a question of weeks, not months. And here we are at the end of the week and the Iraqis are suddenly inviting the arms inspectors back to Baghdad for further consultations. Could I ask both of you what you make of that?
THE PRESIDENT: Let's see if I can be polite. Saddam Hussein has had 12 years to learn how to deceive, and I would view this as more deception on his part. He expects to be able to convince 108 inspectors that he is open-minded. The only way that he can show that he is truly a peaceful man is to not negotiate with inspectors, is not to string the inspectors along, but to disarm in front of inspectors. We know what a disarmed regime looks like. We know what it means to disarm. There's no negotiations. The idea of calling inspectors in to negotiate is a charade. If he is going to disarm, he must start disarming. That's the only thing he needs to talk to the inspectors about, is, here, I'm disarming.
THE PRIME MINISTER: That's absolutely right. If you look back at the history of this, for 12 years, he's played these games. And that's why it's so important to realize what the U.N. inspectors were put back in to do. The U.N. inspectors -- and this is the crucial point, because it's on this basis that the whole issue of the U.N. authority rests -- the U.N. inspectors did not go back into Iraq to play a game of hide-and-seek with Saddam. They didn't go back in as a detective agency. They went back in under an authority that said that they had to cooperate fully, in every respect: the interview of witnesses, not just access to sites; honest, transparent declarations in the material they had. They're not doing that.
Now, why are they calling back the inspectors? I think it's fairly obvious. It's because as the pressure grows, they want to play the same games as they've been playing all the way through. That's why it's important we hold to the path that we've set out. They have to disarm. They have to cooperate with the inspectors. They're not doing it. If they don't do it through the U.N. route, then they will have to be disarmed by force.
Nate.
Q Mr. President, an account of the White House after 9/11 says that you ordered invasion plans for Iraq six days after September the 11th -- Bob Woodward's account. Isn't it the case that you have always intended war on Iraq, and that international diplomacy is a charade in this case?
THE PRESIDENT: Actually, prior to September the 11th, we were discussing smart sanctions. We were trying to fashion a sanction regime that would make it more likely to be able to contain somebody like Saddam Hussein. After September the 11th, the doctrine of containment just doesn't hold any water, as far as I'm concerned.
I've told you the strategic vision of our country shifted dramatically, and it shifted dramatically because we now recognize that oceans no longer protect us, that we're vulnerable to attack. And the worst form of attack could come from somebody acquiring weapons of mass destruction and using them on the American people, or the worst attack could come when somebody uses weapons of mass destruction on our friends in Great Britain.
Recently, Tony Blair's government routed out a poison plot. It should say to the people of Great Britain, there is a present danger, that weapons of mass destruction are a danger to people who love freedom. I want to congratulate you on your fabulous job of using your intelligence and your law enforcement to protect the people of Great Britain.
Today, Italy rounded up yet another cell of people who are willing to use weapons of mass destruction on those of us who love freedom.
And so, no, quite the contrary. My vision shifted dramatically after September the 11th, because I now realize the stakes. I realize the world has changed. My most important obligation is to protect the American people from further harm. And I will do that.
Thank you all very much.
Really? By what conservative haven of knowledge did you derive this information from? Because, as far as I have seen or read, no connection was found. Wasn't that the words of the 9/11 commission?
Didn't Bush also contradict himself during a 2003 press conference with Tony Blair (Which was aired on Sky News, by the way, so don't say it didn't happen) by saying that "he couldn't make that claim" that there was a connection between Saddam and Al-Qaeda?
Seeing as though you're so fond of providing links, here's a few for you:
No Saddam, al-Qaida link found - Conflict in Iraq - MSNBC.com
BBC NEWS | World | Americas | Saddam 'had no link to al-Qaeda'
FOXNews.com - 9/11 Panel: Still No Iraq Connection - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum
For the past two years, rather than to pursue our oversight roll to insure that some of the key findings and recommendations of these reports and others were enacted, this Committee’s usefulness as an oversight body and as a key element in our national security apparatus has been consumed by a rear-view mirror investigation pursued for political ends.
Simply stated this second series of reports is designed to point fingers in Washington and at the administration. The conclusions in the reports were crafted with more partisan bias than we have witnessed in a long time in Congress. The “Phase II” investigation has turned the Senate Intelligence Committee, a committee initially designed to be the most bipartisan committee in the Senate, into a political playground stripped of its bipartisan power, and this fact has not gone unnoticed in the Intelligence Community.
http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?