Afghanistan.. clear objective and exit strategy?

[buckman]

Originally Posted by Fly Rod

Spence

It is not the Bush plan any more. It is the OBAMA PLAN.

Obama has escalated the war by sending in more troops. It was his responsibility to pull the troops instead he sent more. And his words was that Afghanistan is where the war should be fought.

The Russians couldn't win and we are just losing a mothers child.

Pull the Troops out.

We do not win wars. The American people and the politicians will not let us win. We learned that in Vietnam.

It was President Obama's plan to widen United States involvement in Afghanistan and send in 4000 more troops, It was his plan to shift the focus from Iraq to Afghanastan. Both fronts are now a mess. His administration is a mess. You can't run a war on campaign promises and retoric. Lifes are being lost and I would like to know why. The war was why the Dems won, now tell me what they are doing.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by buckman

It was President Obama's plan to widen United States involvement in Afghanistan and send in 4000 more troops, It was his plan to shift the focus from Iraq to Afghanastan.

The focus never should have been on Iraq, a country with moderate stability, no WMDs (remember, that's why we went there) and with no more Al Qaeda presence than the US - all before Bush decided to take a personal vendetta against a man that supposedly "tried to kill my daddy" as Bush so eloquently put it. The country was a mess before Obama became president. Let's also not forget that US military involvement is now significantly reduced with the Iraqi "military" running most operations in that countries cities and towns.

The focus should be Afghanastan. The country used as the base for Bin Ladin and his terrorist training camps. There's a reason they're called "Al Qaeda in Iraq" - because they weren't there before Bush decided to oust Saddam.

I know the Spin Train has been running full steam since Obama took office (in some cases rightfully so), but let's not become deluded to who (Bush) was the one that started this entire mess.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

The focus never should have been on Iraq, a country with moderate stability, no WMDs (remember, that's why we went there) and with no more Al Qaeda presence than the US - all before Bush decided to take a personal vendetta against a man that supposedly "tried to kill my daddy" as Bush so eloquently put it. The country was a mess before Obama became president. Let's also not forget that US military involvement is now significantly reduced with the Iraqi "military" running most operations in that countries cities and towns. this is so riddled with lame drivel, but i still love ya JD...

The focus should be Afghanastan. The country used as the base for Bin Ladin and his terrorist training camps. There's a reason they're called "Al Qaeda in Iraq" - because they weren't there before Bush decided to oust Saddam.so, all of the "Al Qaeda in Iraq" poured into the country after we invaded..all of their leadership and memebership just showed up so that we could kill them, they aren't very smart are they?

I know the Spin Train has been running full steam since Obama took office (in some cases rightfully so), but let's not become deluded to who (Bush) was the one that started this entire mess.

I would suggest that Saddam, Al Qaeda and radical Islam started this mess

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

I would suggest that Saddam, Al Qaeda and radical Islam started this mess

You didn't get the updated talking points did you?

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

You didn't get the updated talking points did you?

-spence

I fished all night, haven't gotten to the RADICAL RIGHT WING TALKING POINTS website yet this morning

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by scottw

I would suggest that Saddam, Al Qaeda and radical Islam started this mess

Yes i agree. A little history here.

Saddam attacked Kuwait and we were drawn into the Gulf War.
Why Bush #1 didn't take Iraq at that time i don't know unless there
was not enough anti Saddam sentiment within Irag to take over the government.

That aside i believe we should have taken Iraq at that time as it would have avoided a lot of problems with that crazy back on his heels. Just my opinion.

Then there was the first attack on the WTC by Islamic radicals and also attacks in England if i remember right.

Enter Bin Laden with the bombing of the USS Cole along with some other
terrorist actions in the world.

Then Bin Laden with the 9/11 attack on the WTC.

Bush #2 went into Afghanistan to get Bin Laden and destroy the Al Qaeda
training camps. When Bin Laden was pushed out and the camps destroyed
i believe we should have gotten out of there.

Saddam had more then ample time to re-allow the UN inspectors to
come in for inspection for WMD. He refused and was given an ultimatum
backed by our allies and most of the Congress.
He didn't comply and we went in.
When we found nothing we should have left imho.

So i would say yes, Saddam, radical Islamics and Bin Laden started it.

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Saddam attacked Kuwait and we were drawn into the Gulf War. Why Bush #1 didn't take Iraq at that time i don't know unless there was not enough anti Saddam sentiment within Irag to take over the government.

It's worth noting that we were "drawn" into the Gulf war to protect US oil interests in Saudi Arabia, and that Saudi Arabia paid for about 2/3's the cost of the war!

The reason we didn't take out Saddam was simple. The administration understood it would have been a cluster%$%$%$%$. Even #^&#^&#^&#^& Cheney didn't support the assertion. Colin Powell coined his famous "Pottery Barn" anecdote about Iraq - you break it, you own it.

Bush 41 took a lot of heat for egging on the Shiite's in the south to stand up to Saddam, then doing nothing to help while Saddam's gunships went to work.

Then there was the first attack on the WTC by Islamic radicals and also attacks in England if i remember right.

Enter Bin Laden with the bombing of the USS Cole along with some other
terrorist actions in the world.

Then Bin Laden with the 9/11 attack on the WTC.

Bush #2 went into Afghanistan to get Bin Laden and destroy the Al Qaeda training camps. When Bin Laden was pushed out and the camps destroyed i believe we should have gotten out of there.

All having nothing to do with Saddam.

Saddam had more then ample time to re-allow the UN inspectors to come in for inspection for WMD. He refused and was given an ultimatum backed by our allies and most of the Congress.
He didn't comply and we went in.

This isn't really how it happened though.

Saddam DID let the inspectors in, and the UN inspectors found nothing. Saddam was absolutely hampering the inspection process at first, and more pressure was put on the regime to cooperate.

Before the UN, Hans Blix testified that even though Saddam was not cooperating, it was not compromising the inspection on WMD.

Blix wanted time to finish the report, which was going to state that Saddam had no WMD (the same conclusion that Duelfer came to a few years later) and this obviously conflicted with Bush's war plans which were already in motion.

-spence

[justplugit]

Spence, you must not have read the quote of ScottW that i agreed with:

Scottw Quote:
"I would suggest that Saddam, Al Qaeda and radical Islam started this mess. "

I never said Saddam had anything to do with the first WTC bombing, the Cole, or the 2nd WTC bombing.
My post was a quick chronological list from my memory of how Saddam,
Al Qaeda and radical Islam started and got us into this mess.

All Saddam had to do, if he didn't have any WMD, was allow another inspection
by the UN. He wouldn't, which added more doubt as to him having them or not.

So he chose to be invaded instead, being the crazy loon he was, and he did
start the Gulf War.

You must have a great memory, remembering Colin Powell's "Pottery Barn"
antidote about Iraq.

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

All Saddam had to do, if he didn't have any WMD, was allow another inspection by the UN. He wouldn't, which added more doubt as to him having them or not.

Again, this isn't really true. Reread your history...

And as for Saddam "starting this". He was but a player in a very large production. Had Saddam not invaded Kuwait we'd still be having the exact same issues today.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

The focus never should have been on Iraq, a country with moderate stability, no WMDs (remember, that's why we went there) and with no more Al Qaeda presence than the US - all before Bush decided to take a personal vendetta against a man that supposedly "tried to kill my daddy" as Bush so eloquently put it. The country was a mess before Obama became president. Let's also not forget that US military involvement is now significantly reduced with the Iraqi "military" running most operations in that countries cities and towns.

The focus should be Afghanastan. The country used as the base for Bin Ladin and his terrorist training camps. There's a reason they're called "Al Qaeda in Iraq" - because they weren't there before Bush decided to oust Saddam.

I know the Spin Train has been running full steam since Obama took office (in some cases rightfully so), but let's not become deluded to who (Bush) was the one that started this entire mess.

For someone who so obstinately insists that we shouldn't conjecture what motives lay behind the health care bill but only speak about what's actually in its exact language, you certainly take a conjectural leap by postulating that Bush invaded Iraq as a personal vendetta. Other than his remark that Saddam tried to kill his father, there is NO EVIDENCE of a vendetta. And the WMDs were just one of the stated reasons for the invasion, and they certainly did exist prior to the invasion, and there is CONJECTURE that they were transferred to Syria and possibly Libia, and Iraq was the easier target on war on terror, and it is now a model for possible "populist power" (as Spence likes to say) in the Middle East, and Bush was not "the one who started this entire mess." I suppose you could could go back a long, long way before Bush, but a convenient stop might be Jimmy Carter's intervention on behalf of the Mujahadin against the Soviets.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

For someone who so obstinately insists that we shouldn't conjecture what motives lay behind the health care bill but only speak about what's actually in its exact language, you certainly take a conjectural leap by postulating that Bush invaded Iraq as a personal vendetta. Other than his remark that Saddam tried to kill his father, there is NO EVIDENCE of a vendetta.

Bush doesn't appear to have been that close to his father, so I doubt he would have provoked Saddam out of a sense of revenge.

I'd wager the line was a more calculated tactic to invoke emotion among the common folk. All part of the war marketing plan.

And the WMDs were just one of the stated reasons for the invasion, and they certainly did exist prior to the invasion, and there is CONJECTURE that they were transferred to Syria and possibly Libia, and Iraq was the easier target on war on terror, and it is now a model for possible "populist power" (as Spence likes to say) in the Middle East, and Bush was not "the one who started this entire mess." I suppose you could could go back a long, long way before bush, but a convenient stop might be Jimmy Carter's intervention on behalf of the Mujahadin against the Soviets.

I don't believe we've found evidence that Saddam had any threatening WMD for years before the invasion. The Syria link is equally without substance. The story, as has been pretty much confirmed by multiple investigations is that Saddam gave up his WMD after 1998, and yet pretended to still have them with the possible intent of starting up programs after sanctions were lifted.

While I appreciate your use of "populist power" (an obvious attempt to build a bridge) I'm not sure I'd use it in the same context. Bush wasn't really looking for an Iraq of the people (i.e. their interests), but rather a western model we could use to influence the region. Bush wasn't trying to spread democracy because it was the right thing to do, but believed it was in our own long-term interest. Unfortunately he forgot to read up on Iraq and let some really misguided assumptions direct his policy.

-spence

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

Bush wasn't really looking for an Iraq of the people (i.e. their interests), but rather a western model we could use to influence the region. Bush wasn't trying to spread democracy because it was the right thing to do, but believed it was in our own long-term interest.

-spence

I believe his short term interest was to stop the WOMD and secondly, after we had been there, make it worthwhile to provide a base for long term interests in the region with the Iranian threats.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I don't believe we've found evidence that Saddam had any threatening WMD for years before the invasion. The Syria link is equally without substance. The story, as has been pretty much confirmed by multiple investigations is that Saddam gave up his WMD after 1998, and yet pretended to still have them with the possible intent of starting up programs after sanctions were lifted.


I "believe" that bits and pieces of evidence have been found that he had some such weapons and that he had plans, as you say, to restart WMD programs. Of course, "belief" and "substance" are different animals. To say that something is "equally without substance" as comparison to something you "don't believe" is a bit shifty. Nonetheless, I did say, in caps, that there is CONJECTURE that the WMDs were moved to Syria. And those conjectures have not been absolutely disproved. Certainly, no one has an answer to General Sada's claim, in his book "Saddam's Secrets" that the WMDs were moved to Syria.

While I appreciate your use of "populist power" (an obvious attempt to build a bridge) I'm not sure I'd use it in the same context. Bush wasn't really looking for an Iraq of the people (i.e. their interests), but rather a western model we could use to influence the region. Bush wasn't trying to spread democracy because it was the right thing to do, but believed it was in our own long-term interest. Unfortunately he forgot to read up on Iraq and let some really misguided assumptions direct his policy.

-spence

A western model WOULD be an "Iraq of the people." Spreading democracy, in our own long-term interest, IS the right thing to do.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I "believe" that bits and pieces of evidence have been found that he had some such weapons and that he had plans, as you say, to restart WMD programs.

I don't agree. I've read a ton on the subject and aside from a few random and useless artillery shells we really haven't found squat. The conclusion of the Duelfer Report was that Saddam destroyed his WMD in 1991.

Of course, "belief" and "substance" are different animals. To say that something is "equally without substance" as comparison to something you "don't believe" is a bit shifty. Nonetheless, I did say, in caps, that there is CONJECTURE that the WMDs were moved to Syria. And those conjectures have not been absolutely disproved. Certainly, no one has an answer to General Sada's claim, in his book "Saddam's Secrets" that the WMDs were moved to Syria.

This is the same game Cheney played with the Atta meeting in Prague. That because it hasn't been disproved it could have happened. This logic runs quite contrary to our own legal system.

To be quite matter of fact, there's really no evidence that supports the assertion. There was evidence of movement of something to Syria, but that we don't know if WMD were not there isn't evidence that there could have been.

I love how you quote an ex-General - who's trying to sell books to Americans - about a claim for which there's no evidence...oh quite to the contrary...the evidence gathered indicates there were no WMD to smuggle!

A western model WOULD be an "Iraq of the people." Spreading democracy, in our own long-term interest, IS the right thing to do.

You don't "spread" democracy, it has to be grown from within.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I don't agree. I've read a ton on the subject and aside from a few random and useless artillery shells we really haven't found squat. The conclusion of the Duelfer Report was that Saddam destroyed his WMD in 1991.


This is the same game Cheney played with the Atta meeting in Prague. That because it hasn't been disproved it could have happened. This logic runs quite contrary to our own legal system.

To be quite matter of fact, there's really no evidence that supports the assertion. There was evidence of movement of something to Syria, but that we don't know if WMD were not there isn't evidence that there could have been.

Obviously, if the evidence has been removed, you will not be able to find it. That is the purpose of removing the evidence, which Saddam had 14 months to do. A report about not finding something (that has been removed) is inconclusively worthless, unless you want to use it as fodder for argument.

I love how you quote an ex-General - who's trying to sell books to Americans - about a claim for which there's no evidence...oh quite to the contrary...the evidence gathered indicates there were no WMD to smuggle!

I love how you can so cavalierly smear someone, who was ACTUALLY IN SADDAMS ADMINISTRATION and would have insights no UN inspector, searching with blinders for something that has been removed, could ever have, and who risks deadly reprisal for publishing his book. Where is your EVIDENCE that he is lying? If you say "the evidence gathered indicates there were no WMD", the VERY POINT OF HIS BOOK IS THAT THE EVIDENCE WAS MOVED!!! And . . . oh, the ton that you've read on the subject, were the purveyors of that ton PAID? Or did they publish for free? You seem to question the motives of those who make a living from what they say (Rush et. al.) when you don't like what they say, but if what they say is OK with you, then money does not seem to be an object.

You don't "spread" democracy, it has to be grown from within.
-spence

"Spread democracy"--I was using your words. I wouldn't have put it that way. Certainly, democracy cannot be "grown from within" a dictatorship. The dictatorship must first be overthrown. Furthermore, Bush never argued that Saddam had produced new stockpiles of WMDs, he argued for stopping him before he acquired them. Saddam never verified that he had destroyed what the UN presumed remained from his previous weapons program. Even the Duelfer report believed there was evidence that he wanted to restart his previous WMD programs after the war. Certainly, all the major NATO countries and many others in the UN believed Saddam had restarted the programs and thought he was farther along than he may have been. And Bush has enumerated several reasons for the invasion other than stopping Saddam from acquiring or producing, AGAIN, WMDs. The lie, told over and over, is that Bush lied about WMDs.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Spreading democracy, in our own long-term interest, IS the right thing to do.

This whole "Spreading Democracy" mantra through war is a bs statement. Our dealings with Taiwan, that's how you spread democracy. Bush used the full force of the US military to essentially assassinate a dictator.

You're comment about "Spreading democracy ... IS the right thing to do" is nothing more than modern day Imperialism.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

This whole "Spreading Democracy" mantra through war is a bs statement. Our dealings with Taiwan, that's how you spread democracy. Bush used the full force of the US military to essentially assassinate a dictator.

You're comment about "Spreading democracy ... IS the right thing to do" is nothing more than modern day Imperialism.

I was using Spence's phrase "spreading democracy" which is a bit disdainful--I wouldn't have thought of such a phrase. Even he admitted that you can't "spread democracy." Perhaps you didn't read that banter back and forth and thought I had made up the phrase. Even so, you kind of made my head spin by equating "spreading democracy" to Imperialism. Almost like saying charity is the work of the devil.

As for our dealings with Taiwan as an example of "how you spread democracy", do you mean our military power being a deterrent to Mainland China's takeover of Taiwan? Do you mean providing Taiwan a market for its goods? I am intrigued, please explain. And, WOW, "assassinate"? This is a new method of assassination--warn someone for several months of your intentions, give him opportunities to avoid the "assassination", and after getting him, letting someone else finish the job, then, improving the lot of what and who he owned.

BTW, I wasn't chanting a "spreading democracy" THROUGH WAR mantra. Again, it was a response to Spence. There is, also BTW, a general misconception about the importance of war. So many of us like to quote Santayana's phrase that those who don't learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them. But we shun, or even more likely, aren't aware of another phrase by him--"there is eternal war in nature." He also said that war is merely resistance to change. So long as the invaded has the will and power to resist the invader, there will be war. And his dictum can be applied, not only to the "human condition" but to all of life, to all of existence. When you are enjoying a "moment of peace", be aware that all around you, and within you, countless wars are taking place. All are wars of survival. And, as Santayana also said, to live well, you must be victorious. Everything you have is a result of some war. Your very life will end when you are to weak to defeat what attacks you every minute of your existence. We are products of war, war informs everything we do. We have learned, through lessons of history, by evolution, to cooperate when it is to our benefit, when it enhances our survival, not when it is for acquiesence to some platonic ideal

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Bush doesn't appear to have been that close to his father really, have you asked them about their relationship?, so I doubt he would have provoked Saddam out of a sense of revenge.

I'd wager the line was a more calculated tactic to invoke emotion among the common folk. All part of the war marketing plan. is this similar to the stimulus marketing plan and the commie care marketing plan?


I don't believe we've found evidence that Saddam had any threatening WMD for years before the invasion. didn't stop a whole bunch of democrats from claiming that he did and also had evil nuclear intentions "prior to the invasion"...just gets forgotten like the Carter years and Woodrow Wilson...The Syria link is equally without substance prove it. The story, as has been pretty much confirmed by everyone?/most people? multiple investigations is that Saddam gave up his WMD after 1998, and yet pretended he was such a kidder to still have them with the possible probable? intent of starting up programs after sanctions were lifted. he seemed pretty much undaunted be sanctions or resolutions, managed to bribe his way around quite well...

While I appreciate your use of "populist power" (an obvious attempt to build a bridge) I'm not sure I'd use it in the same context. Bush wasn't really looking for an Iraq of the people (i.e. their interests), but rather a western model we could use to influence the region. Bush wasn't trying to spread democracy because it was the right thing to do, but believed it was in our own long-term interest OR BOTH!?. Unfortunately he forgot to read up on Iraq and let some really misguided assumptions direct his policy.

-spence

you should do seances, you have the ability to magically conjur up the intimate thoughts and dreams of so many people that you've never even met ....