Pack up and leave Iraq?

[Albinonewt]

I sort of agree with Sam.

Where I differ is in sitting back and leaving the world alone and waiting for the call to come in and help. I A) don't want the world thinking that that's what we're waiting for, for the call from France that they need us and we'll come a runnin' to their aid. and B) we'll never get that call when it serves our interest. It is very unlikely we would have ever gotten a call asking us to go into either Afghanistan or Iraq and both were very important actions.

[PyRo]

Didn't Afghanistan ask us for help against the soviets? So we went in and were the ones who equiped and trained many of them?

[shartley]

Originally posted by PyRo
Didn't Afghanistan ask us for help against the soviets? So we went in and were the ones who equiped and trained many of them?

Yes.... and guess who one of their "big" leaders was? You got it.... Binladen himself.....

[aaron_mag]

Oh god please!!!! Let us move on in this board but I can't let 1stdeadeye spew his foolish ideas without saying something.

Please don't tell me you listen to that "have you forgotten" song! That has to be one of the stupidest songs ever. We can all agree that Iraq and 9/11 are two separate things (you have agreed to it in the past). I just finished that book Lies and the Liars who tell them and the author was talking about jokes he made at the expense of the Dixie Chicks. He called them the Blixie Chicks (for good old Hans the weapons inspector).

Now, however, he is realizing that the Dixie Chicks had the courage to question things while he just went with the flow and started waving the flag (he is a New Yorker after all and was terrified of a nuclear bomb being exploded on him).

I thought you had better taste than listening to that fool of an opportunist who wrote that song. I don't listen to the Dixie Chicks myself as it seems like the only song they appear to play on the radio is a cover of an Fleetwood Mac song (and not as good) but I can admire someone who is willing to put their neck out there for what they believe. The other guy is just some butt kisser who tells us all what we want to believe.

We have to stay in Iraq. The deal is done. As an economist on NPR commented we probably will not see Iraqis in a truly free democracy akin to ours. That would be a friggin miracle. One thing is certain, however, the Iraqis on a whole WILL be BETTER off without Saddam so some good will come of it (his opinion and mine as well). Thank god that some good will come from it since lives are lost and sacrifices have (and will continue) to be made by our troops. Whether the good that comes from this is truly in the interest of the average American (and the average American soldier that is the one who risks his life) is up for debate.

[Restola]

None of the people against the war could care less about Iraq or the Iraqi people.

The only thing they are concerned about is bashing Bush, "selected-not-elected", and promoting their environmental and socialist causes.

Always remember that.

[aaron_mag]

Originally posted by Restola
None of the people against the war could care less about Iraq or the Iraqi people.

The only thing they are concerned about is bashing Bush, "selected-not-elected", and promoting their environmental and socialist causes.

Always remember that.

The people for the war are only concerned about helping big business get large contracts for rebuilding Iraq. They will use things like family values and religion to pursue their own greed driven goals. They don't care about the American soldiers that die for their profit margins.

Always remember that.

Of course I don't believe that but I had to show how short sighted it sounds. Far be it that good people can disagree on complex issues in a complicated world....

[Restola]

I was being a little facetious. Would have been more obvious IRL.

[aaron_mag]

Go back and review transcripts of Hannity during Bosnia with the Clinton administration. Amazingly he does not support the president. Do you after the Iraq war (the first one) Cheney said that it is the previous president that the current president should thank for a well trained army? He thought alot of credit should go to Reagan for the performance of the army in Gulf War I.

So now we see that our army has performed well in both Afghanistan and Iraq so where is the call to Clinton from Bush and Cheney thanking him for the well invested money in technology and training? Could all these inconsistencies be politics?

My point is don't point the finger to one side. Politics are politics and everyone is trying to put their spin on it. That is why Michael J. Fox's show was called Spin City!

[FactsOfLife]

Originally posted by aaron_mag
Go back and review transcripts of Hannity during Bosnia with the Clinton administration. Amazingly he does not support the president. Do you after the Iraq war (the first one) Cheney said that it is the previous president that the current president should thank for a well trained army? He thought alot of credit should go to Reagan for the performance of the army in Gulf War I.

So now we see that our army has performed well in both Afghanistan and Iraq so where is the call to Clinton from Bush and Cheney thanking him for the well invested money in technology and training? Could all these inconsistencies be politics?

My point is don't point the finger to one side. Politics are politics and everyone is trying to put their spin on it. That is why Michael J. Fox's show was called Spin City!

You're kidding right?

It's FACT that Clinton cut the military spending by HUGE amounts.

It's FACT that Clinton on more than one occasion expressed his dislike for the military.

It's FACT that he inherited a robust economy AND the greatest military extant, and SQUANDERED both of them the same way he squandered his Presidency. He left both in shambles for the next guy to clean up the same way he leaves everything in his wake a mess.

So don't even try to make that point, it ain't flying.

[aaron_mag]

Its a fact that the cold war was over! Its a fact that the army was more than ready to handle the combat phases of Afghanistan and Iraq. Its also a fact that the precision weapons used in Afghanistan and Iraq were developed during the Clinton administration!

I also realize that it is a fact that technology grew by leaps and bounds during the Clinton administration so I am not giving Clinton credit for these wonderous leaps in technology. My point is that both sides use politics and make all sorts of outrageous claims. One of those stupid claims is that Clinton gutted the military and that the miltary was not ready to perform after Clinton was done with it.

I suppose peacekeeping in Bosnia with no casulties, defeating the Taliban in Afghanistan, and Iraq was all performed by our gutted military. Oh and by the way the plan to invade Afghanistan that was used after 9/11 was drafted under Clinton because of the U.S.S. Cole attack and embassy bombings. It was something they were thinking of pursuing (to get Bin Laden) but didn't want to have Bush inherent a war that may or may not have been necessary (bad form to hand over an administration in that state).

Some things for you to think about.

[mcveighr]

Why do the US need such a large military? Whats wrong with reducing funding? The Canadian army couldve accomplished the same thing in Afganistan and Iraq. Whats the need for a gigantic military? Its not like you're at war with any one.

[PyRo]

Do you want the king of england to just walk right back in?
Thats why we need an army.

[davidb]

I think that Clinton would at least be intelligent enough to know that they either were, or should have been being sarcastic if that call had been made.

Oh, and about all the stuff about Clinton's concern for Bush being the only reason we didn't invade Afghanistan before, BS. You're talking about the same person who had all of the W's taken off of all the White House keyboards before Bush came in, and generally made the succession as big a hassle as he could. The fact that you use the drafting of a plan as proof of Clinton's foresight is a bit silly. We probably have a plan stuffed away somewhere for if Micronesia invades China.

Its also a fact that the precision weapons used in Afghanistan and Iraq were developed during the Clinton administration!

I'm not going to argue with you on this one until you specify what weapons you're talking about, but I would ask that you do that, please. Smart bombs, cruise missles, etc. have been around for a LONG time. Predator drones are simply the logical evolution of spy planes combined with that of target drones, which, again, have been around for a LONG time, so I would imagine that the idea was not a new one by the time Clinton came into office. What precision weapons were developed under Clinton?

[Restola]

Originally posted by mcveighr
Why do the US need such a large military? Whats wrong with reducing funding?

If we are going to continue the way we have been, we do need a large military. If we're going to go to war, we should do it in a way to minimize our casualties and maximize whatever policy we are trying to impliment.

So the arguement is not about how large the military should be, only what role it should play.

[aaron_mag]

Originally posted by davidb
Oh, and about all the stuff about Clinton's concern for Bush being the only reason we didn't invade Afghanistan before, BS. You're talking about the same person who had all of the W's taken off of all the White House keyboards before Bush came in, and generally made the succession as big a hassle as he could.

Did you know there was an official investigation into all the vandalism caused by the Clinton administration when it left office? Did you also know that the official report was that no vandalism was done? No theft/damage of property. It was all a fabrication! This is the kind of BS I am talking about. Don't buy into it. Think for yourself.

Clinton was no saint. He lied under oath. He is a adulterer. Those are all givens but that other stuff is just a bunch of crap.

I'm not going to argue with you on this one until you specify what weapons you're talking about, but I would ask that you do that, please. Smart bombs, cruise missles, etc. have been around for a LONG time. Predator drones are simply the logical evolution of spy planes combined with that of target drones, which, again, have been around for a LONG time, so I would imagine that the idea was not a new one by the time Clinton came into office. What precision weapons were developed under Clinton?

All of the above. There is no reason to debate it. I totally agree with you that Predator drones are the logical evolution of spy planes. All of this stuff is the logical evolution of a bow and arrow. Wouldn't it be nice to have the arrow adjust itself after being shot? That is not the central arguments. The central argument is all this BS about liberal propaganda and liberal agenda as if it is an overwhelming conspiracy. Is there no conservative agenda? Is there no conservative propaganda? That is politics so please don't be a hypocrite.....