Iraq can thank George Bush

#51
#51
rjd970 said:
Your statement seems like grasping at straws in any reason you can find to defend the last administration's handling of this war.
Click to expand...

as a veteran of the 1st Gulf War, I don't need some left wing pinhead lecturing me on how I justify support for a conflict I believed in from the beginning. There are plenty of legitimate criticisms, chief among them the failure to account for an insurgent campaign and the slow reaction to it. I've never blindly followed anybody in my life and I don't ever intend to. If you want to think otherwise, then perhaps you're the one grasping at straws to justify an existence predicated on weakness and appeasement.

I'm thankful that you and people like you didn't get their wish of an immediate and unconditional withdrawal.
 
#52
#52
I can't believe some so called "Americans" that are disappointed in victory. Do you hate America that bad? So bad you actually want to see her defeated in wars?

American terrorists would best describe some of you. A malignant cancer on this nation. :shakehead:
 
#53
#53
OWB said:
Winning a war that he started under false pretenses against a country that could barely defend themselves? All hail George Bush then! I guess I could beat up the kid in the wheelchair down the street to get that kind of sense of accomplishment.
Click to expand...

False pretenses? Remind me why we went.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#54
#54
rjd970 said:
You don't think it was mismanaged, considering more troops have died post "mission accomplished" than before?

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the military has done a superb job in spite of gross negligence by the policy makers.
Click to expand...
policy makers bow to several different constituencies. These guys had to appease our press and hurt our effort some, but never enough to imperil it.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#55
#55
rjd970 said:
I disagree. How many have lasted this long after major combat operations ceased? WWI, WWII, Korea, Gulf War...none had more US troops die after MCO.
Click to expand...
Are you really prepared to dissect these operations?

The mismanagement of policy at the end of WWI fueled worldwide resentment and the fanatical nationalism in Germany that led to WWII. I am quite positive that more US troops died in WWII than in WWI.

The policies that guided the US through the European Theater in WWII directly led to the Cold War. There are still many historians out there that will set forth very compelling arguments as to why we actually lost WWII on the strategic level.

Korea...You really think that the policy makers managed that one well??? I don't even know how to respond to a statement that is so radically out of touch with the facts surrounding the conflict.

The Gulf War displayed the sweeping tactical and operational prowess of the American military machine. However, it did not result in a resounding strategic victory (if it resulted in a strategic victory, at all).
 
#56
#56
therealUT said:
Are you really prepared to dissect these operations?

The mismanagement of policy at the end of WWI fueled worldwide resentment and the fanatical nationalism in Germany that led to WWII. I am quite positive that more US troops died in WWII than in WWI.

The policies that guided the US through the European Theater in WWII directly led to the Cold War. There are still many historians out there that will set forth very compelling arguments as to why we actually lost WWII on the strategic level.

Korea...You really think that the policy makers managed that one well??? I don't even know how to respond to a statement that is so radically out of touch with the facts surrounding the conflict.

The Gulf War displayed the sweeping tactical and operational prowess of the American military machine. However, it did not result in a resounding strategic victory (if it resulted in a strategic victory, at all).
Click to expand...
That is our fault for following the UN mandate. We should have told the UN to go to Hell, and went after Saddam then.
 
#57
#57
MG1968 said:
as a veteran of the 1st Gulf War, I don't need some left wing pinhead lecturing me on how I justify support for a conflict I believed in from the beginning.
Click to expand...

Where did I question your support for GWI? The objective of the conflict was achieved, Saddam was out of Kwuait when we finished.

MG1968 said:
There are plenty of legitimate criticisms, chief among them the failure to account for an insurgent campaign and the slow reaction to it. I've never blindly followed anybody in my life and I don't ever intend to. If you want to think otherwise, then perhaps you're the one grasping at straws to justify an existence predicated on weakness and appeasement.

I'm thankful that you and people like you didn't get their wish of an immediate and unconditional withdrawal.
Click to expand...

This has no point to what I was saying. I don't care what your reasons are for following and not following anybody in life.

And what are you talking about with weakness and appeasement? I support the fact that Iraq needed to be delt with. I always have, I just think the way this administration went about doing it, and the handling of it afterward, was incompetent.
 
#59
#59
VolByBirth said:
Oil.
Click to expand...

not a thing wrong with that. I know it's fun to crucify "Big Oil", but take a look at your everyday life and pay attention to all the things made with petroleum products. Even if our cars and trucks ran on good intentions, our economy would still grind to a halt without oil.

besides, it beats the hell out of the rationale radical Islam uses to wage war against the west.
 
#60
#60
therealUT said:
Are you really prepared to dissect these operations?

The mismanagement of policy at the end of WWI fueled worldwide resentment and the fanatical nationalism in Germany that led to WWII. I am quite positive that more US troops died in WWII than in WWI.

The policies that guided the US through the European Theater in WWII directly led to the Cold War. There are still many historians out there that will set forth very compelling arguments as to why we actually lost WWII on the strategic level.

Korea...You really think that the policy makers managed that one well??? I don't even know how to respond to a statement that is so radically out of touch with the facts surrounding the conflict.

The Gulf War displayed the sweeping tactical and operational prowess of the American military machine. However, it did not result in a resounding strategic victory (if it resulted in a strategic victory, at all).
Click to expand...

I think you have totally broken from reality.
 
#61
#61
Headed For Home said:
I think you have totally broken from reality.
Click to expand...
I certainly broke from your perception of reality quite a while ago.

Our failure to beat the Russians to Berlin cost us tremendously. A cost that we are still paying today. The Nazi's and the Japanese were defeated in WWII. However, the case for the ultimate victor...most certainly debatable.
 
#62
#62
therealUT said:
I certainly broke from your perception of reality quite a while ago.

Our failure to beat the Russians to Berlin cost us tremendously. A cost that we are still paying today. The Nazi's and the Japanese were defeated in WWII. However, the case for the ultimate victor...most certainly debatable.
Click to expand...

To have made a significant change to the status of the world powers exiting WWII would have meant an immediate assult on Russia. Their leadership was the problem not the fact that we did not continue the war upon an allie.
 
#63
#63
MG1968 said:
not a thing wrong with that. I know it's fun to crucify "Big Oil", but take a look at your everyday life and pay attention to all the things made with petroleum products. Even if our cars and trucks ran on good intentions, our economy would still grind to a halt without oil.

besides, it beats the hell out of the rationale radical Islam uses to wage war against the west.
Click to expand...

Who's crucifying big oil?

Comparing our (US) rationale with radical Islam is laughable. Do you really want to start justifying our decisions because they are better than Radical Islam? That's like saying -- "I only stole this item, this guy over here murdered some one -- so comparatively I'm great".

The issue is this: we went to war over oil. If you had polled the U.S. if they agreed with a war on oil (vs. the WMD/War on Terror sell) the approval would have been significantly lower.

As for "all the things made with petroleum products" -- that's not because petroleum is the best solution, it's the cheapest solution (because historically the price of oil has been so low). It's the same for corn being used in everything (high fructose corn syrup, etc).

So the question is: is going to war and losing soldiers worth having the lowest cost alternative for our citizens?
 
#64
#64
VolByBirth said:
The issue is this: we went to war over oil.
Click to expand...
No.

At the time, we had great, not just good, relationships with the countries that hold 56% of the world's oil reserves. I have a hard time believing that unilaterally and in defiance of much of the world, we went into Iraq for a share in an extra 9% of those reserves.

Why would the US potentially alienate both Saudi Arabia (21.5%), Kuwait (8.3%), and the UAE (8%) in order to gain at most 9%???

Iraq was a target simply because the Administration wanted to show the world that the America is not weak and that we will enforce international law and internationl treaties, through our military might, upon nations who continually choose to act in defiance of such.

If you want to make the argument that one of the reasons for choosing Iraq, over North Korea, Iran, and/or other "rogue" nations, was due to their resources, that could not only offset the costs of the campaign, but also lead to a long-term return on our investment, so be it. It was not, however, a primary cause for our involvement.
 
#65
#65
VolByBirth said:
Who's crucifying big oil?

Comparing our (US) rationale with radical Islam is laughable. Do you really want to start justifying our decisions because they are better than Radical Islam? That's like saying -- "I only stole this item, this guy over here murdered some one -- so comparatively I'm great".

The issue is this: we went to war over oil. If you had polled the U.S. if they agreed with a war on oil (vs. the WMD/War on Terror sell) the approval would have been significantly lower.

As for "all the things made with petroleum products" -- that's not because petroleum is the best solution, it's the cheapest solution (because historically the price of oil has been so low). It's the same for corn being used in everything (high fructose corn syrup, etc).

So the question is: is going to war and losing soldiers worth having the lowest cost alternative for our citizens?
Click to expand...
The issue is this: WE WON!

Despite liberal's claims of defeat. Liberals can't even hide their disappointment that America can claim victory. :shakehead:
 
#67
#67
therealUT said:
No.

At the time, we had great, not just good, relationships with the countries that hold 56% of the world's oil reserves. I have a hard time believing that unilaterally and in defiance of much of the world, we went into Iraq for a share in an extra 9% of those reserves.

Why would the US potentially alienate both Saudi Arabia (21.5%), Kuwait (8.3%), and the UAE (8%) in order to gain at most 9%???

Iraq was a target simply because the Administration wanted to show the world that the America is not weak and that we will enforce international law and internationl treaties, through our military might, upon nations who continually choose to act in defiance of such.

If you want to make the argument that one of the reasons for choosing Iraq, over North Korea, Iran, and/or other "rogue" nations, was due to their resources, that could not only offset the costs of the campaign, but also lead to a long-term return on our investment, so be it. It was not, however, a primary cause for our involvement.
Click to expand...

So we went to war because we wanted to show we were tough? That's an even better reason.
 
#68
#68
VolByBirth said:
So we went to war because we wanted to show we were tough? That's an even better reason.
Click to expand...
It most certainly is. I hate to break it to you but respect is paramount in world affairs. Respect is born of fear. Fear is instilled through might.

The Arab community has viewed the US has weak since 1979. That view continues today. If we ever want the situation in the Middle East to stabilize, we must use extreme force and brutality against those who continuously preach a hatred for the US and the West. The US policy makers, and voters, will also have to learn to stomach bloodshed and American casualties.
 
#69
#69
therealUT said:
It most certainly is. I hate to break it to you but respect is paramount in world affairs. Respect is born of fear. Fear is instilled through might.

The Arab community has viewed the US has weak since 1979. That view continues today. If we ever want the situation in the Middle East to stabilize, we must use extreme force and brutality against those who continuously preach a hatred for the US and the West. The US policy makers, and voters, will also have to learn to stomach bloodshed and American casualties.
Click to expand...

The shiz that Obama pulled last week is playing right into the clerics' hands.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#70
#70
I imagine that the entire Arab world is simply viewing Obama as Jimmy Carter 2.0, and licking their chops.
 
#72
#72
therealUT said:
It most certainly is. I hate to break it to you but respect is paramount in world affairs. Respect is born of fear. Fear is instilled through might.

The Arab community has viewed the US has weak since 1979. That view continues today. If we ever want the situation in the Middle East to stabilize, we must use extreme force and brutality against those who continuously preach a hatred for the US and the West. The US policy makers, and voters, will also have to learn to stomach bloodshed and American casualties.
Click to expand...


So do you believe we've gained respect from the Arab world from this insurgency?
 
#73
#73
VolByBirth said:
So do you believe we've gained respect from the Arab world from this insurgency?
Click to expand...
Yes, we have gained respect from those who hold weight in the Arab world.

We are still far below the level of respect we had prior to letting a bunch of disorganized, overzealous college kids, who were in way over their heads, hold our embassy hostage in Iran. An event to which our response should have been a complete annihilation of Tehran and every last oil refining facility in Iran.

Yet, our persistence in Iraq through 2005 and 2006, has certainly shocked the power players in Iran, Syria, Lebanon, and Saudi.
 
#74
#74
VolByBirth said:
Exactly what did we win?
Click to expand...
We hung a dictator who tortured and gassed innocent men, women, and children. We established a Democracy. We freed a nation from tyranny.

I know it must suck, to be a liberal and see America victorious. Liberals were a bit hasty in rejoicing America's defeat.
 
#75
#75
SavageOrangeJug said:
We hung a dictator who tortured and gassed innocent men, women, and children. We established a Democracy. We freed a nation from tyranny.

I know it must suck, to be a liberal and see America victorious. Liberals were a bit hasty in rejoicing America's defeat.
Click to expand...

Shame on those liberal bastards for focusing on negative things... like consequences and such...
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top