To our liberal friends

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Good grief we didnt go over there to lose the war or drag it out this long so I am not going to buy your assumption that this was all predictable.

Its not an assumption, Simpson. It was predicted back in 1991. Not only that but Donald Rumsfeld was heavily criticised by military commanders for sending an understrength force into Iraq (precisely because it would leave US troops open to guerila attack) that was insufficient to ensure law and order over the population (and for having no plan to ensure transition to an interim government).

The reasons for going to war has no bearing in where you anger might be directed? It was widely thought that he had nuclear capability and in light of 9/11 we knew certain issues couldnt be ignored.

No Simpson - because Saddam Hussein and the Taliban aren't part of our Democratic process. Our leaders are answerable to us, people in other countries not so much.

There's no requirement for anyone to "hate" the enemy.

[_Simpson_ 250]

US sent rockets flying to Afghanistan to topple the Taliban Government then for hiding Osama Bin Laden. Thousands of death, Afghanistan in ruins, no Osama Bin Laden. US thought they did something good. The good thing is they ruined the regime that is hostile towards US. But, at the same time, it caused chaos in that part of the world.

Vietnam and Cambodia. US thought the domino effect would get more allies for the Communistic countries and devour the democracy of the world eventually. US bombed Vietnam, destroying cities, civilians, and US government issue service men. Result, US couldn't win and suffered thousands of death. Not only that, the CIA plotted with Lon Nol (Prime Minister of Cambodia) to bring Cambodia into an ally of the US. It failed and sufferred massive reprercussion.

Therefore, it is necessary to remove troops from the Middle East and let the Afghany fight their own civil war just as Cambodia and Vietnam.

USA, root of all evil, go it.

I supported the Irag invasion. I know now that the threats we thought existed don't and I wish we would of never gone in there but lets face it were trying to make things stable over there and get the hell out. I think it would be horrible of us not too take the responsibility of making the region stable again before getting out and were definitely moving in the right direction.

Edited October 21, 2009 by _Simpson_

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If you supported the government's case for war, you weren't very well informed.

[_Simpson_ 250]

Good grief we didnt go over there to lose the war or drag it out this long so I am not going to buy your assumption that this was all predictable.

Its not an assumption, Simpson. It was predicted back in 1991. Not only that but Donald Rumsfeld was heavily criticised by military commanders for sending an understrength force into Iraq (precisely because it would leave US troops open to guerila attack) that was insufficient to ensure law and order over the population (and for having no plan to ensure transition to an interim government).

The reasons for going to war has no bearing in where you anger might be directed? It was widely thought that he had nuclear capability and in light of 9/11 we knew certain issues couldnt be ignored.

No Simpson - because Saddam Hussein and the Taliban aren't part of our Democratic process. Our leaders are answerable to us, people in other countries not so much.

There's no requirement for anyone to "hate" the enemy.

A war could not be won in Iraq is the argument your making, you have to realize that is false. What are you going to say when we are out and the gov. is stable. The price was too high? Yes we could of done things alot better than what we have but to tell me that there was no winnable course just doesnt fly with me.

Of course theres no requirement for hate but if you dont hate people who target innocent people you really have issues.

[Niels Bohr 72]

If the US want to take responsibilities, finish what they left in Cambodia and Vietnam. Especially make Cambodia stable. As it stands, it's run by a very oppressive government that came about because of hatred.

Edited October 21, 2009 by Niels Bohr

[_Simpson_ 250]

If you supported the government's case for war, you weren't very well informed.

Good reasons for believing he had the capability.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Good grief we didnt go over there to lose the war or drag it out this long so I am not going to buy your assumption that this was all predictable.

Its not an assumption, Simpson. It was predicted back in 1991. Not only that but Donald Rumsfeld was heavily criticised by military commanders for sending an understrength force into Iraq (precisely because it would leave US troops open to guerila attack) that was insufficient to ensure law and order over the population (and for having no plan to ensure transition to an interim government).

The reasons for going to war has no bearing in where you anger might be directed? It was widely thought that he had nuclear capability and in light of 9/11 we knew certain issues couldnt be ignored.

No Simpson - because Saddam Hussein and the Taliban aren't part of our Democratic process. Our leaders are answerable to us, people in other countries not so much.

There's no requirement for anyone to "hate" the enemy.

A war could not be won in Iraq is the argument your making, you have to realize that is false. What are you going to say when we are out and the gov. is stable. The price was too high? Yes we could of done things alot better than what we have but to tell me that there was no winnable course just doesnt fly with me.

No, that's not the argument I was making.

What I said was that the planning and implementation of the Iraq war were fvcked from the get go, and in such a way that even lay people could see it. Everything that happened subsequently was entirely predictable.

That said - I'm not sure how you'd measure "winning". Iran has a direct influence of several of the major factions in Iraq (including the Al Sadrists), perhaps strengthening the regional superpower amounts to a "win"?

Of course theres no requirement for hate but if you dont hate people who target innocent people you really have issues.

I don't find hate a particularly useful emotion. It tends to cloud a person's judgment.

[_Simpson_ 250]

If the US want to take responsibilities, finish what they left in Cambodia and Vietnam. Especially make Cambodia stable. As it stands, it's run by a very oppressive government that came about because of hatred.

Iraq is no Vietnam. I think we can have a stable gov in Iraq again and we need to exhaust all our options before pulling out.

[Niels Bohr 72]

I think my point just flew away.

If the US want to take responsibilities, finish what they left in Cambodia and Vietnam. Especially make Cambodia stable. As it stands, it's run by a very oppressive government that came about because of hatred.

Iraq is no Vietnam. I think we can have a stable gov in Iraq again and we need to exhaust all our options before pulling out.

[_Simpson_ 250]

Good grief we didnt go over there to lose the war or drag it out this long so I am not going to buy your assumption that this was all predictable.

Its not an assumption, Simpson. It was predicted back in 1991. Not only that but Donald Rumsfeld was heavily criticised by military commanders for sending an understrength force into Iraq (precisely because it would leave US troops open to guerila attack) that was insufficient to ensure law and order over the population (and for having no plan to ensure transition to an interim government).

The reasons for going to war has no bearing in where you anger might be directed? It was widely thought that he had nuclear capability and in light of 9/11 we knew certain issues couldnt be ignored.

No Simpson - because Saddam Hussein and the Taliban aren't part of our Democratic process. Our leaders are answerable to us, people in other countries not so much.

There's no requirement for anyone to "hate" the enemy.

A war could not be won in Iraq is the argument your making, you have to realize that is false. What are you going to say when we are out and the gov. is stable. The price was too high? Yes we could of done things alot better than what we have but to tell me that there was no winnable course just doesnt fly with me.

No, that's not the argument I was making.

What I said was that the planning and implementation of the Iraq war were fvcked from the get go, and in such a way that even lay people could see it. Everything that happened subsequently was entirely predictable.

That said - I'm not sure how you'd measure "winning". Iran has a direct influence of several of the major factions in Iraq (including the Al Sadrists), perhaps strengthening the regional superpower amounts to a "win"?

Of course theres no requirement for hate but if you dont hate people who target innocent people you really have issues.

I don't find hate a particularly useful emotion. It tends to cloud a person's judgment.

I guess winning would be considered going in there and accomplishing what we set out to do. I hardly doubt Iraq and Iran are going to unite as a result of us helping install a democratic government.

Hate isnt a useful emotion, yeah so what but to feel nothing when innocent people are killed is weird, silly humans.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Good grief we didnt go over there to lose the war or drag it out this long so I am not going to buy your assumption that this was all predictable.

Its not an assumption, Simpson. It was predicted back in 1991. Not only that but Donald Rumsfeld was heavily criticised by military commanders for sending an understrength force into Iraq (precisely because it would leave US troops open to guerila attack) that was insufficient to ensure law and order over the population (and for having no plan to ensure transition to an interim government).

The reasons for going to war has no bearing in where you anger might be directed? It was widely thought that he had nuclear capability and in light of 9/11 we knew certain issues couldnt be ignored.

No Simpson - because Saddam Hussein and the Taliban aren't part of our Democratic process. Our leaders are answerable to us, people in other countries not so much.

There's no requirement for anyone to "hate" the enemy.

A war could not be won in Iraq is the argument your making, you have to realize that is false. What are you going to say when we are out and the gov. is stable. The price was too high? Yes we could of done things alot better than what we have but to tell me that there was no winnable course just doesnt fly with me.

No, that's not the argument I was making.

What I said was that the planning and implementation of the Iraq war were fvcked from the get go, and in such a way that even lay people could see it. Everything that happened subsequently was entirely predictable.

That said - I'm not sure how you'd measure "winning". Iran has a direct influence of several of the major factions in Iraq (including the Al Sadrists), perhaps strengthening the regional superpower amounts to a "win"?

Of course theres no requirement for hate but if you dont hate people who target innocent people you really have issues.

I don't find hate a particularly useful emotion. It tends to cloud a person's judgment.

I guess winning would be considered going in there and accomplishing what we set out to do. I hardly doubt Iraq and Iran are going to unite as a result of us helping install a democratic government.

Hate isnt a useful emotion, yeah so what but to feel nothing when innocent people are killed is weird, silly humans.

I guess you bought the mythology.

[_Simpson_ 250]

Good grief we didnt go over there to lose the war or drag it out this long so I am not going to buy your assumption that this was all predictable.

Its not an assumption, Simpson. It was predicted back in 1991. Not only that but Donald Rumsfeld was heavily criticised by military commanders for sending an understrength force into Iraq (precisely because it would leave US troops open to guerila attack) that was insufficient to ensure law and order over the population (and for having no plan to ensure transition to an interim government).

The reasons for going to war has no bearing in where you anger might be directed? It was widely thought that he had nuclear capability and in light of 9/11 we knew certain issues couldnt be ignored.

No Simpson - because Saddam Hussein and the Taliban aren't part of our Democratic process. Our leaders are answerable to us, people in other countries not so much.

There's no requirement for anyone to "hate" the enemy.

A war could not be won in Iraq is the argument your making, you have to realize that is false. What are you going to say when we are out and the gov. is stable. The price was too high? Yes we could of done things alot better than what we have but to tell me that there was no winnable course just doesnt fly with me.

No, that's not the argument I was making.

What I said was that the planning and implementation of the Iraq war were fvcked from the get go, and in such a way that even lay people could see it. Everything that happened subsequently was entirely predictable.

That said - I'm not sure how you'd measure "winning". Iran has a direct influence of several of the major factions in Iraq (including the Al Sadrists), perhaps strengthening the regional superpower amounts to a "win"?

Of course theres no requirement for hate but if you dont hate people who target innocent people you really have issues.

I don't find hate a particularly useful emotion. It tends to cloud a person's judgment.

I guess winning would be considered going in there and accomplishing what we set out to do. I hardly doubt Iraq and Iran are going to unite as a result of us helping install a democratic government.

Hate isnt a useful emotion, yeah so what but to feel nothing when innocent people are killed is weird, silly humans.

I guess you bought the mythology.

I bought into several countries intelligence saying that he had the capabilities.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Ah yes I heard that one too

[Niels Bohr 72]

Okay.

Lets try this again. If IRAQ is such a concern for human rights, what is wrong that North Korea is still a functioning government of oppression.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Okay.

Lets try this again. If IRAQ is such a concern for human rights, what is wrong that North Korea is still a functioning government of oppression.

Because the war on terror was never about human rights. Neither was much of the US' interventionist past.

Edited October 21, 2009 by Gene Hunt