5 Years ago TODAY!

[jeezeweeze]

Originally Posted by Army_of_One

Lest you forget the 3000+ that were killed and maimed in the WTC attack. I believe (just my thoughts so back off lady..lol) that if we DON'T have soldiers (that volunteer by the way) in Iraq, Afghanistan and others places to numerous to mention, doing what they do best (and yes sometimes dying) that we WILL have it here. I don't want to see ANYONE killed or maimed and in your idealist little mind of a perfect world I guess that is the way it would be..but guess what, we don't LIVE in THAT world. I would rather have soldiers doing what they do and unfortunately paying the price that see KIDS or MOTHERS here being carried away in body bags or stretchers because a mall or daycare was blown up by some terrorist. If you think the Islamic fundamentalist DON'T want that to happen you are naive beyond reason. Either WE take the FIGHT to THEM or they come here. Which one would you prefer. There's no good choice in that matter but that's why we have people running the country to make those decisions for us. You would shut your windows and blinds and ignore what's going on around you until they are burning your house down...then what? You can either be proactive or reactive...take your pick. We REACTED to 9/11 because Clinton FAILED to be PROACTIVE. NOW Bush is being PROACTIVE and you are bitching....what do you want?

:b iglaugh:

I know one thing.... Georgie W is one of the best puppeteers I have seen in my lifetime... Someone check Army for strings... He could get all tangled up and fall off his ivory tower and break his rose colored glasses.
That there is funny I don't care who you r............... get r dun....

[Binky Bainbridge]

The reasons for invading Iraq was supposedly for "regime change" and the belief held by some that Iraq had WMD. As it turned out Iraq was a paper tiger and the real problems started appearing after George W's mis-timed and inaccurate boast of "mission accomplished".

But what about REAL rogue states, those that actually DO HAVE WMD and who regularly threaten the US. I'm talking about North Korea who seems to get away with a lot more than Saddam ever did. Kim can starve, imprison and torture his people, make all kinds of dangerous threats towards the US but I don't hear Bush or Cheney threatening to invade and bring about regime change there? I wonder why? Double standards? The fact that there are no rich oil reserves in North Korea? Or is it because Kim has nuclear weapons?

Just a few of the threats made by North Korea over the past few years with no military response from Bush & Cheney:

N Korea threatens US with first strike

Pyongyang asserts right to pre-emptive attack as tensions rise over American build-up

This article appeared in the Guardian on Thursday February 06 2003 .

North Korea is entitled to launch a pre-emptive strike against the US rather than wait until the American military have finished with Iraq, the North's foreign ministry told the Guardian yesterday. Warning that the current nuclear crisis is worse than that in 1994, when the peninsula stood on the brink of oblivion, a ministry spokesman called on Britain to use its influence with Washington to avert war.

"The United States says that after Iraq, we are next", said the deputy director Ri Pyong-gap, "but we have our own countermeasures. Pre-emptive attacks are not the exclusive right of the US."

North Korea Threatens To Wipe Out US Forces In South Korea

- by Staff Writers
Seoul (AFP) Jun 19, 2006

North Korea on Sunday threatened to "mercilessly wipe out" US forces in case of war during a national meeting to mark leader Kim Jong-Il's 42 years' work at the ruling party.

The threat, in a ruling party report carried by the Korean Central News Agency (KCNA), came as North Korea was reportedly preparing to test-fire a long-range missile despite strong protests from the United States and its allies.


Choe Thae Bok, a ranking Workers Party official, said Washington was "hell-bent on provocations of war of aggression" in the report to mark the 42nd anniversary of Kim's start at the party, KCNA said.

North Korea Threatens to Reduce South Korea to ‘Ashes’ at Slightest Provocation

By CHOE SANG-HUN
Published: March 31, 2008


SEOUL, South Korea — North Korea continued Sunday to lash out at the new conservative government in Seoul, threatening to reduce the South to “ashes” if the South Korean government made the “slightest move” to attack.
The warning, one of the harshest in years, was a response to a statement by Kim Tae-young, the head of the South’s Joint Chiefs of Staff, that his military would strike suspected North Korean nuclear weapons sites if Pyongyang attempted to attack the South with atomic bombs.

North Korea threatens:
U.S. bases 'sea of fire'
South: 690,000 American troops,
2,000 planes to be dispatched to peninsula
Posted: February 05, 2005
WorldNetDaily.com

U.S. military bases will become a "sea of fire" if war breaks out on the Korean peninsula.

That's the latest threat from North Korea, while South Korea says close to 700,000 American troops would be sent to the region.

"There are no limitations in the striking power of our armed force. If U.S. imperialists ignite flames of war, we will strike all their bases first and turn them into a sea of fire," North Korean air force officer Huh Ryong told Pyongyang's Central Radio monitored by South Korea's Yonhap news agency.

[Flying Dutchman]

Ok, this is going to be a long one so to everybody who doesn’t like to read a lot please skip.

I try to look at things as logically and unemotionally as possible. For those who hate Bush, and I mean hate him, it is hard for you to look at the war without letting that cloud your judgment. While I am not overly fond of him, I do not hate him. I realize that politics carries with it a certain amount of lies, deceit, half-truths and falsehoods. I know that backroom deals are made and the partisanship in Washington causes many good ideas to be washed away. I also understand military strategy, somewhat, but I do not imply I am always correct or even an expert.

My opinions:

Yes, North Korea poses a more serious threat than Iraq did or does. They also border the largest communist country on the planet. China does not want us anywhere close to them, nor do we wish to be close to them. We do not want a war with China. Also, the people of NK seem to enjoy their government. Attacking NK would mean attacking its citizens, which is not a good thing. There is no strategic reason to attack them since China somewhat keeps them in check and we can try and let diplomacy work.

I agree that we should have finished what we started in Afghanistan. Unfortunately, our policy and the UN’s policy is not for us to take over, but to “liberate” and turn it over to it’s own leaders. This would work if the leaders were not tribal members, but we cannot help that. If we could go Roman, it would make things easier but to many do not like the idea of being heavy footed. That’s a shame.

I personally believe Iran is our biggest threat, more so economically than militarily. I also believe that our government (both repubs and dems) knew this also. So, strategically how does one put a military force in close proximity of one’s enemy? Ahhhhhhh…Iraq. We would not have to attack the populace, they did not like Saddam. We would not have to fight against any opposing country, since none of Iraq’s neighbors liked Saddam either. We could go in, get rid off him, turn the country over to it’s own people and keep our military there. We knew that Iran wanted, or wants to, control the oil. We also knew that Saudi Arabia did not like Iran but does not have the military or control of its people to put up a very good fight. If you think that WMD’s were the only reason to take them out, then you are gullible. I think our government THOUGHT there were WMD’s there, but did not care one way or another. It sure sounded good as an added reason. If you give Bush credit for making that up…you think more of him than I do. If he truly lied about it…I can guarantee you a whole butt load of them would have been found. If he has the power to start a war, it is only reasonable to think he could have WMD’s planted there after invading. Kind of like a throw down.

Now come the problems.
Tribal leaders. Instead of wanting to get their country on track, they would rather attack and fight each other. We are not the ones randomly blowing up civilians…they are. It’s like a neighborhood allowing the drug dealers to run it. Everybody is scared to do anything. Add to that the porous borders and trying to fight an enemy that looks just like everybody else…it becomes a mess. The other added problem is the American public’s inability to stay committed and focused. Bin Laden had it right, our people cannot handle a drawn out fight. If we were a boxer, we would not want to fight past 4 rounds. We are a nation of instant gratification and results.
The money. No doubt, this war is expensive. I think it is naive to believe the money would be spent elsewhere. The money spent on the war is, and was, earmarked precisely for the war. It is not being taken out of other funds, our taxes have not been raised, and we are not being rationed. Come to think of it, we Americans haven’t really made any sacrifices monetarily for this war. Could the money spent be used elsewhere? Yes it could. Would it be? No it would not. Look at how much the presidential candidates have spent so far to run for office. Now, could that money have been spent elsewhere? Think it would have been? The government’s budget is not like yours and mine. It is a use it or lose it situation.
The lives lost. Any life lost is a tragedy. That being said….if I were to propose to the nation that we were going to war, against urban guerilla warfare, for 5 years, and the casualty count would be 1% a year…STRATEGICALLY that is a win. I do not discredit or dishonor those who have died by pointing out the casualties statistically. By implying they have died in vain, or for an unjust cause, does dishonor them.

You can blame Bush…you can blame Clinton….hell, you could blame your neighbor who refuses to close their blinds and walks around the house naked…that’s fine. Me, I blame a bunch of ignorant nutjobs that think their God wants them to destroy people. I blame an enemy that is so fundamentally opposite of us, it is like comparing night to day. I could care less about who could have stopped the 9/11 attacks…I care about the shitheads that planned it and carried it out. This war was waged long before 9/11; we just didn’t take it seriously. Now, we are locked in a battle that is going to outlast each of us. Our great grandchildren will be fighting this thing because we are at war with ideals. Our enemy has nothing to lose and everything to gain. That makes this a battle of attrition. I can only hope that we can stay focused long enough to finally win it.

[Army_of_One]

Originally Posted by jeezeweeze

:b iglaugh:

I know one thing.... Georgie W is one of the best puppeteers I have seen in my lifetime... Someone check Army for strings... He could get all tangled up and fall off his ivory tower and break his rose colored glasses.
That there is funny I don't care who you r............... get r dun....

I responded to your last post with a post with questions...and this is what you give me....personal attacks.....that speaks volumes of where you are coming from. If we stop pursing terrorists do you think they will attack here again? They may attack anyway. I guess as long as we didn't have soldiers dying overseas you wouldn't give a shit....personally...I DO.

[Highwayman]

Originally Posted by Flying Dutchman

Ok, this is going to be a long one so to everybody who doesn’t like to read a lot please skip....

It was a damn good read Dutch.

For anyone that forgot where the idea of WMDs came from, please review the link in my sig line.

[jeezeweeze]

Originally Posted by Highwayman

It was a damn good read Dutch.

For anyone that forgot where the idea of WMDs came from, please review the link in my sig line.

Great post


And Army, that was tongue in cheek and not an attack (from the trailer park). Sometimes I have to be cooled down by posts like FD's, because I do hate Bush and FD is right, it does cloud my judgement. To me your post was almost verbatim to what Bush has said so many times.

THANK GOD THERE IS A VOICE OF REASON(FD) IN THA HOUSE

[Army_of_One]

Originally Posted by Flying Dutchman

I try to look at things as logically and unemotionally as possible.

Is there a pill for that you could give JW. She needs a double dose of logic and a way to relieve the emotion. When you approach something emotionally and illogically you get...well you get most of her posts...lol

Originally Posted by Flying Dutchman

So, strategically how does one put a military force in close proximity of one’s enemy? Ahhhhhhh…Iraq.

I thought this was common sense. By having bases in Iraq (yeah..for all of you who believe BO and Clinton will withdraw THE troops, get real) we are right in the middle of the middle east with a presence, an influence and a force than react quickly if need be. It makes sense. Again...we will be there for a LONG TIME. So those of you (JW) that are beating the "bring the troops home" drum needs to have a cup of STFU and ride it out...

Originally Posted by Flying Dutchman

Bin Laden had it right, our people cannot handle a drawn out fight. If we were a boxer, we would not want to fight past 4 rounds. We are a nation of instant gratification and results.

Yes we are and this (Iraq/Afghanistan) is a chance to prove them wrong. The war on terror is NOT like getting a Whopper at the BK drive through...it's going to take time...A LOT of time.

Originally Posted by Flying Dutchman

Americans haven’t really made any sacrifices monetarily for this war.

Indeed but yet you have so many "Americans" sitting on their do nothing asses and bitching about troops being over seas and bitching about Bush but they don't take a minute to think about how safe they are. IMO they are some very ungrateful people.

Originally Posted by Flying Dutchman

Could the money spent be used elsewhere? Yes it could. Would it be? No it would not. Look at how much the presidential candidates have spent so far to run for office. Now, could that money have been spent elsewhere? Think it would have been?

Hell yeah it could have been spent bailing out all the people that didn't pay their mortgage that they couldn't afford.

Originally Posted by Flying Dutchman

I can only hope that we can stay focused long enough to finally win it.

Our nation needs to take some prozac on that issue. PLUS when you have great patriots like Harry Reid and Pelosi standing on the world stage and saying the war is lost and submitting bills to defund the war and the troops that makes it kind of hard.

One day, God forbid, we will have another 9/11 or probably worse. THEN people will be BEGGING for a Republican in office. How many times were we attacked under Klinton and what did he do to yield any results?

If BO is elected pres, he brings the troops home (didn't he promise that?) and ENDS the war on terror (I guess he will get all the terrorists to sign some sort of "peace accord") then we can relax here at home and let our soldiers chill....until some dirty bomb goes off at a football stadium full of men, women and children then what?

[K C Muffin]

Thanks, FD, for a very thoughtful post. I agree with all of you that US presence will last for a very long time. The price for that is very high, but the price already paid is too high to swallow graciously. Those politicians that stand up on the news and denounce the war and the effect it will have on the middle east region should be drawn and quartered. It's comfort to the enemy and shouldn't be allowed......but then again, they forget to thank the soldiers that gave them that right.....

[BroncoFan]

Originally Posted by Army_of_One

FWIW..."Papa" Bush DID finish the job in '91. The UN resolution was to push Iraq out of Kuwait, that was the mission that the coalition was there for. When that happened and Iraq signed the cease fire agreement it was over. We were not there for regime change, to overthrow any gov't or such...just to remove Iraq from Kuwait...which we did. So in essence "papa" Bush DID accomplish the mission.

Don't need to tell me about it. I am really well informed about desert storm. Just Hindsite...if we would have "accidently" taken him out then, we would be finishing up now!

[Binky Bainbridge]

Originally Posted by Army_of_One

5 Years ago Bush did say "Mission Accomplished" ...it was a little premature.

.... I'd say it was more than a "little" premature, I'd say those words will never apply to Iraq despite the deaths of our brave young service men and women and the many years a US military presence will be retained there.

Didn't the US learn anything from the quagmire of Vietnam, i.e., an occupying force, (in the case of Vietnam US troop levels were in excess of 500,000), will never subdue a nation that wants its independence, especially one in the middle east, like Iraq, where there is a strong tribal/ethnic & religious mix against anything perceived as non-Moslem. Infidels/Crusaders are unwelcome, always have been, always will be.