U.S. troops pull out of Baghdad, Iraqis rejoice

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

EXCLUSIVE: Cheney fears Iraq withdrawal will 'waste' U.S. sacrifices

From the above-linked article:

Quote

Mr. Cheney told The Washington Times' "America's Morning News" radio show that he is a strong believer in Gen. Ray Odierno, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, and that the general is doing what needs to be done.

"But what he says concerns me: That there is still a continuing problem. One might speculate that insurgents are waiting as soon as they get an opportunity to launch more attacks."

Does anybody else find it odd that the former VP is expressing concerns about a plan that his administration was part of creating and that was mandated by the Iraqi government?

That will present mnealtx with a quandry.

To paraphrase ANOTHER poster.... "Cheney isn't VP anymore".

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

EXCLUSIVE: Cheney fears Iraq withdrawal will 'waste' U.S. sacrifices

From the above-linked article:

Quote

Mr. Cheney told The Washington Times' "America's Morning News" radio show that he is a strong believer in Gen. Ray Odierno, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, and that the general is doing what needs to be done.

"But what he says concerns me: That there is still a continuing problem. One might speculate that insurgents are waiting as soon as they get an opportunity to launch more attacks."

Does anybody else find it odd that the former VP is expressing concerns about a plan that his administration was part of creating and that was mandated by the Iraqi government?

That will present mnealtx with a quandry.

To paraphrase ANOTHER poster.... "Cheney isn't VP anymore".

SO you can now say that he's wrong without losing your GOP apologists card.

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

EXCLUSIVE: Cheney fears Iraq withdrawal will 'waste' U.S. sacrifices

From the above-linked article:

Quote

Mr. Cheney told The Washington Times' "America's Morning News" radio show that he is a strong believer in Gen. Ray Odierno, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, and that the general is doing what needs to be done.

"But what he says concerns me: That there is still a continuing problem. One might speculate that insurgents are waiting as soon as they get an opportunity to launch more attacks."

Does anybody else find it odd that the former VP is expressing concerns about a plan that his administration was part of creating and that was mandated by the Iraqi government?

That will present mnealtx with a quandry.

To paraphrase ANOTHER poster.... "Cheney isn't VP anymore".

SO you can now say that he's wrong without losing your GOP apologists card.

Hmm, now that Obama is trying to take credit for the position they are now in(seeing how he voted against it and cast shit on our troops and mission every chance he had) I would think you would be in full support of any decisions. He is your guy after all

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[FallingOsh 0]

Quote

saddam could have been take out by a covert operation, yet the US thought it was a good idea to let the whole world know weeks in advance what they planned on doing.

yeah, we should've sent in some nijas or maybe Chuck Norris to take out Saddam in the middle of the night. The resulting power grab and possible complete collapse of government wouldn't have even been a concern.

Quote

sayng saddam had to be stopped is one thing, unnecessarily killing thousands of civilians and soldiers by being idiotic, frivilous, and irrational is another.

So you agree Saddam had to be stopped, you just think your covert operation was the best way to go?

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.

[sundevil777 94]

Quote

Now THAT'S some good news, there.

...it wouldn't be happening if the anti-war mongers in congress had been successful at declaring the war un-winnable. They had decided to just get out as quick as possible and to hell with the result. Obama of course gave no credit to others with more wisdom once the war had started. Of course Obama can counter that he never would have had us there.

As Charles Krauthammer has noted, Obama also deserves to be criticized for his speech about a stable, sovereign, self-sufficient Iraq. For some reason he didn't mention at all that it is a democracy. As Krauthammer said, if the goal were stable and sovereign, any replacement tyrant of a dictator could have satisfied that desired result. Apparently unimportant to him is that it is a democracy that will be friendly with us. Very important distinction indeed - completely lost on the O.

In short, Obama deserves NONE of the credit for the good result of late

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[billvon 2,465]

>it wouldn't be happening if the anti-war mongers in congress had been
>successful at declaring the war un-winnable.

If they had been successful, 4000 US troops would be alive today, and 90,000 innocent Iraqis would still be here. That would have been ideal.

Unfortunately, they were not successful. The next best thing is ending the bloodshed, bringing our troops home and letting the Iraqis decide their own futures.

> Apparently unimportant to him is that it is a democracy that will be
> friendly with us.

It's also completely unimportant to me. Let them decide what they want to be. It's their country.

>In short, Obama deserves NONE of the credit for the good result of late

To me, the peacemakers will always get the credit over the warmongers.

[sundevil777 94]

Quote

If they had been successful, 4000 US troops would be alive today, and 90,000 innocent Iraqis would still be here. That would have been ideal.

Unfortunately, they were not successful. The next best thing is ending the bloodshed, bringing our troops home and letting the Iraqis decide their own futures.

If the troops had been brought home when the anti-war mongers wanted, do you agree the result would have likely been very bad? The only thing O would be able to take credit for would be that the Iraqis would have decided their own future - but wait, no they would not have, because it would have been decided for them by the militants.

Why doesn't O tell us again how he would have rather that we had no surge, but instead left as soon as possible when things were bad? Because he now wants to be taking credit for the good result.

I understand that many think the Iraq war was unnecessary.

Have there been any wars that were necessary?

Quote

It's also completely unimportant to me. Let them decide what they want to be. It's their country.

If you want a prospect for long term peace in the region, then a democratic Iraq may help that a lot. Of course if it is unimportant to you that peace in the region include the survival of Israel, then a democratic Iraq is unimportant.

I understand that your position is that we never should have invaded Iraq, that SH not honoring the cease-fire agreement of the first gulf war was unimportant. But the anti-war mongers were absolutely confident that the current result could not be achieved. When faced with what to do after the war was underway, they wanted to make a choice that would not have given us the current result, and they wouldn't have cared about it. Leadership takes more than just saying I never would have started down that path.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[redlegphi 0]

I find it odd that you think a democratic Iraq is necessarily a pro-America and pro-Israel Iraq.

[sundevil777 94]

Quote

I find it odd that you think a democratic Iraq is necessarily a pro-America and pro-Israel Iraq.

I think it extremely likely that they will be friendly to America. I think they would still rather that Israel not exist, but their leadership will realize that they must tolerate the existence of Israel, and that it isn't worth pursuing its destruction.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[marks2065 0]

Quote

>it wouldn't be happening if the anti-war mongers in congress had been
>successful at declaring the war un-winnable.

If they had been successful, 4000 US troops would be alive today, and 90,000 innocent Iraqis would still be here. That would have been ideal.

Unfortunately, they were not successful. The next best thing is ending the bloodshed, bringing our troops home and letting the Iraqis decide their own futures.

> Apparently unimportant to him is that it is a democracy that will be
> friendly with us.

It's also completely unimportant to me. Let them decide what they want to be. It's their country.

>In short, Obama deserves NONE of the credit for the good result of late

To me, the peacemakers will always get the credit over the warmongers.

Quote

thank god you don't make the desicions for the country

[billvon 2,465]

>thank god you don't make the desicions for the country

Yep. There would be 4000 US troops alive today. Would have been horrible.

[RPC1117 0]

Quote

>it wouldn't be happening if the anti-war mongers in congress had been
>successful at declaring the war un-winnable.

If they had been successful, 4000 US troops would be alive today, and 90,000 innocent Iraqis would still be here. That would have been ideal.

Unfortunately, they were not successful. The next best thing is ending the bloodshed, bringing our troops home and letting the Iraqis decide their own futures.

> Apparently unimportant to him is that it is a democracy that will be
> friendly with us.

It's also completely unimportant to me. Let them decide what they want to be. It's their country.

>In short, Obama deserves NONE of the credit for the good result of late

To me, the peacemakers will always get the credit over the warmongers.

I'm curious if you feel the same way about the Revolutionary War, WWI, and WWII?

I guess based on your statements, the United States should have never fought for freedom from Britain, should not have stepped in to help free Europe and help end Jewish annihilation. Why should we have stepped in to return democracy to France...they should have just told the Germans that they didn't want to be ruled as a dictatorship.

Look what those terrible warmongers did...afterall, appeasement and negotiation was working so well in all of these examples. I guess you feel that what was acomplished during these wars was not worth the lives that so many sacrificed.

[TankBuster 0]

Quote

a, i'm not american

b, i am not a democrat

Who cares who or what you are? I don't . But since you propagate the bullshit that it was "Bushs war of aggression" / "greedy right wingers" / liberal bullshit du jour - you need to be educated on the matter.

Quote

d, americans need to realise there are people that are not republicans and not democrats or liberals.

Ha. Well apparently whatever you are needs to realize same. YOU were the one calling out the greedy right wingers.

Quote

tha fact of the matter is that, there were no WMD's, your government blatantly lied about it,

The possibility that's conveniently ommitted by the pussy left wingers is this - had we left Saddam to pursue them (and continue to rule via domestic terror) he very likely would have succeeded, and provided them to terrorists. The Bush administration did not want to take that chance. Some leaders have the balls to make tough decisions. Most of you simply want to sit back and be armchair quarterbacks. Fine. Just acknowlege thats what you are.

The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

[billvon 2,465]

>I'm curious if you feel the same way about the Revolutionary War, WWI,
>and WWII?

Revolutionary war? Nope. That was OUR freedom we fought for. Our rights, our decisions, our lives.

World War II? Nope. We were attacked and were defending ourselves from aggressors - which the reason we have a military to begin with.

World War I? More questionable. We were not attacked, but our commercial ships were, and Germany was negotiating an alliance with Mexico against us. That was a tougher call.

Iraq? Easy call. They hadn't attacked us, they were their own country, and posed no significant threat to us.

[marks2065 0]

Quote

>I'm curious if you feel the same way about the Revolutionary War, WWI,
>and WWII?

Revolutionary war? Nope. That was OUR freedom we fought for. Our rights, our decisions, our lives.

World War II? Nope. We were attacked and were defending ourselves from aggressors - which the reason we have a military to begin with.

World War I? More questionable. We were not attacked, but our commercial ships were, and Germany was negotiating an alliance with Mexico against us. That was a tougher call.

Iraq? Easy call. They hadn't attacked us, they were their own country, and posed no significant threat to us.

Quote

neither does Iran & north Korea according to your standards. By the time Obama does something the cost will be alot greater than it would be now.

not finishing the first Iraq war is what cost the 4000 lives. See what happens when you don't finish the job at hand properly or doing things when they should be done. Maybe if the pussy liberals would have let the job be done in the first place those 4000 soldiers would still be alive.

[RPC1117 0]

Quote

>Revolutionary war? Nope. That was OUR freedom we fought for. Our rights, our decisions, our lives.

World War II? Nope. We were attacked and were defending ourselves from aggressors - which the reason we have a military to begin with.

World War I? More questionable. We were not attacked, but our commercial ships were, and Germany was negotiating an alliance with Mexico against us. That was a tougher call.

Iraq? Easy call. They hadn't attacked us, they were their own country, and posed no significant threat to us.

Ok, I'll play along-
Germany didn't attack us - Iraq didn't attack us (I might argue this one based on terrorist training, etc)
Germany was killing thousands/millions of it's own citizens - Iraq was killing thousands/millions of it's own citizens
Germany was sanctioned after WWI, it ignored sanctions - Iraq was sanctioned after Gulf War, it ignored sanctions
Germany had a dictator in Hitler - Iraq had a dictator in Saddam

I can keep going with this... The fact is that if you want to make the argument that we wrong with Iraq, you have to draw the parallel to Germany in WWII. Like it or not, the situations have many similarities. In both cases, I believe that we were right in our actions. I think that someone has a hard time saying that we were right in helping to end the Holocaust but are wrong for helping to liberate the people of Iraq from a dictator that was killing its citizens in masses.

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

Quote

>Revolutionary war? Nope. That was OUR freedom we fought for. Our rights, our decisions, our lives.

World War II? Nope. We were attacked and were defending ourselves from aggressors - which the reason we have a military to begin with.

World War I? More questionable. We were not attacked, but our commercial ships were, and Germany was negotiating an alliance with Mexico against us. That was a tougher call.

Iraq? Easy call. They hadn't attacked us, they were their own country, and posed no significant threat to us.

Ok, I'll play along-
Germany didn't attack us -

Germany and Italy declared war on the USA on 11 December 1941.

Pity some people don't know their own history.

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[billvon 2,465]

>Germany didn't attack us . . . .

Japan did, and both Japan and Germany declared war on us. They were allied in battle, and thus were our enemies.

>Germany was killing thousands/millions of it's own citizens - Iraq was
>killing thousands/millions of it's own citizens

Right - and that, alone, was not sufficient justification to kill another thousand/million innocent people.

Should we do everything we can to avoid that, diplomatically? Yes. Is it ethical to kill ten innocent people to save another ten who might have died at the hands of a dictator? No.

>Germany was sanctioned after WWI, it ignored sanctions - Iraq was
>sanctioned after Gulf War, it ignored sanctions

Right - and that, alone, was not sufficient justification for invasion.

>Germany had a dictator in Hitler - Iraq had a dictator in Saddam

Right - and that, alone, was not sufficient justification for invasion.

You're sorta making my point for me.

>The fact is that if you want to make the argument that we wrong with Iraq,
>you have to draw the parallel to Germany in WWII.

If Iraq (or an ally of Iraq) had bombed, say, McClellan Air Force Base, you might have a point. They didn't - so the two cases really have nothing to do with each other.

[billvon 2,465]

>neither does Iran & north Korea according to your standards.

If by your statement you mean "we should not invade them" I agree 100%. I am very glad we don't have the "bomb bomb Iran" president in charge now.

>not finishing the first Iraq war is what cost the 4000 lives.

If only we could have more wars that lasted longer, so many fewer people would have died! I guess we can only pray for a future of endless war; that's the only way we will end the bloodshed.

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

not finishing the first Iraq war is what cost the 4000 lives. See what happens when you don't finish the job at hand properly or doing things when they should be done. Maybe if the pussy liberals would have let the job be done in the first place those 4000 soldiers would still be alive.

Pussy Liberals like Bush Sr., Colin Powell, and Schwarzkopf??

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[marks2065 0]

Quote

>neither does Iran & north Korea according to your standards.

If by your statement you mean "we should not invade them" I agree 100%. I am very glad we don't have the "bomb bomb Iran" president in charge now.

>not finishing the first Iraq war is what cost the 4000 lives.

If only we could have more wars that lasted longer, so many fewer people would have died! I guess we can only pray for a future of endless war; that's the only way we will end the bloodshed.

Quote

Obama standing in the white house with his thunb up his but while letting Iran & North Korea assemble nuclear weapons will cost alot more lives in the furure.

the transition to a free iraq would have been much easier, cheaper, and with very few lives lost if it was done back under Bush 1. most of the lives lost and money spent this time is a direct result of no finishing the job right the first time.

[RPC1117 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

>Revolutionary war? Nope. That was OUR freedom we fought for. Our rights, our decisions, our lives.

World War II? Nope. We were attacked and were defending ourselves from aggressors - which the reason we have a military to begin with.

World War I? More questionable. We were not attacked, but our commercial ships were, and Germany was negotiating an alliance with Mexico against us. That was a tougher call.

Iraq? Easy call. They hadn't attacked us, they were their own country, and posed no significant threat to us.

Ok, I'll play along-
Germany didn't attack us -

Germany and Italy declared war on the USA on 11 December 1941.

Pity some people don't know their own history.

I'm sorry...please inform me where in my statement "Germany didn't attack us" did I say that Germany didn't declare war on the United States

Pity some people don't know how to read their own language

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

>Revolutionary war? Nope. That was OUR freedom we fought for. Our rights, our decisions, our lives.

World War II? Nope. We were attacked and were defending ourselves from aggressors - which the reason we have a military to begin with.

World War I? More questionable. We were not attacked, but our commercial ships were, and Germany was negotiating an alliance with Mexico against us. That was a tougher call.

Iraq? Easy call. They hadn't attacked us, they were their own country, and posed no significant threat to us.

Ok, I'll play along-
Germany didn't attack us -

Germany and Italy declared war on the USA on 11 December 1941.

Pity some people don't know their own history.

I'm sorry...please inform me where in my statement "Germany didn't attack us" did I say that Germany didn't declare war on the United States

Pity some people don't know how to read their own language

Since you want to play silly semantic games:

May 21, 1941 US ship Robin Moor sunk by German Navy (U69).

Sept. 4, 1941, German U boat U652 fired 2 torpedoes at USS Greer.

However, for most NORMAL people, the act of declaration of war by Hitler would be ample indication that war was coming.

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[RPC1117 0]

Quote

>Germany didn't attack us . . . .

Japan did, and both Japan and Germany declared war on us. They were allied in battle, and thus were our enemies.


You're sorta making my point for me.

>The fact is that if you want to make the argument that we wrong with Iraq,
>you have to draw the parallel to Germany in WWII.

If Iraq (or an ally of Iraq) had bombed, say, McClellan Air Force Base, you might have a point. They didn't - so the two cases really have nothing to do with each other.

The US was attacked by a terrorist group, that was primarily based in Afghanistan. Iraq was an ally of AQ and had AQ groups spread all across the country in state funded training camps. Using your own statement above....we are justified and right to go to war with AQ in Afghanistan and in Iraq.

You say that before Germany declared war on the US, the actions of Germany were not suffcient for the US to go to war with Germany. Dec 7th and Germany's declaration of war were the means of the US officially engaging in war against Germany.
I assert that the situation is the same with Iraq. Before Sept 11th, Iraq's actions were not sufficient enough for the US to go to war. Sept 11th was a "declaration of war" and we in turn went to war against those that attacked us and their allies.

[warpedskydiver 0]

Saddam had been firing SAMs at allied aircraft for over 8 years.

Wanna try again?