Has your position on Iraq changed?

Iraq Forum

Given the current state of Iraq with a new elected government and Prime Minister, the fact they the Iraq Army and Police are taking over many coalition duties in rooting out insurgents. PM Maliki offering an olive branch to insurgents who don't have blood on their hands and have not been involved in terrorist activities. Al Zarqawi dead, Saddam near death (once found guilty at trial). The Japan forces leaving and the leak that U.S. Forces who are returning will not be replaced. It appears that things are starting to wind down.

Does the events over the past year or two change any of your opinions or position on the Iraq War?

I thought that it was fine that we went over there, but we should have NEVER stayed this long. So, my opinion hasn't changed. I think that we've helped, in a lot of ways. But, we've also caused more animosity toward the U.S. and that doesn't help us. Then again, having a brain dead president, in my opinion, wouldn't help, at all, no matter what.

Absolutely it's changed. It's kind of like watching a movie, and right when you thought it couldn't get any worse, Tom Arnold walks into the room.

Ergo, it's like a giant turd rolling down a turd mountain, gaining more velocity and more turd as it wreaks a turdly havoc in all that come in contact with it.

-HECK!

Yeah but Saddam is out of power isn't he?

Iraq is a mess and nothing that has transpired so far leads me to believe otherwise. So Iraq has a new government so what. That’s like waxing over the dirt of a dirty car and talking about how nice a wax job it is.

I really wish I could say otherwise but nothing so far has changed my position that this invasion was based on delusions of grandeur.

Man, I though 1OP was capping. But he only helped me prove our point. Oooodaaaaaaaaalaaaaaaaleeeeeeey.

-HECK!

You know what's funny, everybody want the US out of Iraq except the Iraqi's.

Well, I wouldn't want to die either.

Are you sure they want us to stay there ET?

However you're right, we can't just leave now but this was predictable to the rational. It's like they've learned nothing of history. Again we're bogged down in an endless battle that will never end as long as we're in that county. In fact, even when we leave (if we can) I don't see the violence ending.

Too many miscalculations here ET. Why you continue to have confidence in this guy (Bush) defies logic.

Absolutely, They want us to stay until they are sure they can handle security. Then they want us to go.

You'll be wrong again about the bogged down thing. Nothing's bogged down.

What do you believe he miscalculated. He said it would take a long time right up front. So did Rummy remember the when he said it would be a long hard slog.

They already admitted ET that this war hasn’t gone as planned. They never foresaw this insurgency nor did they believe they would be still there fighting to this date. In fact, they miscalculated from day one.

The budget us bursting at the seams, our troops are dying slowly bet steadily and there’s no end in sight to the conflict. So I ask you, do you honestly believe they thought this would be the case?

I believe Bush knows this was a mistake and if he could take it back he would. Now he's in the position to have to, instead of want to.

I remember hearing this administration say it wouldn't take long and wouldn't cost a lot of money. Chalk that up with all the other fluff we've come to expect.

And now a special guest, the President:

"First, just if I might correct a misperception. I don't think we ever said -- at least I know I didn't say that there was a direct connection between September the 11th and Saddam Hussein. We did say that he was a state sponsor of terror -- by the way, not declared a state sponsor of terror by me, but declared by other administrations. We also did say that Zarqawi, the man who is now wreaking havoc and killing innocent life, was in Iraq. And so the state sponsor of terror was a declaration by a previous administration. But I don't want to be argumentative, but I was very careful never to say that Saddam Hussein ordered the attacks on America."
-President George W. Bush, Mar. 20, 2006

"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and Al Qaeda, because there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda."
-President George W. Bush, Jun. 17, 2004

---------

-HECK!

I'm sorry... I was snoozing during that... I will try to read it again, but each time I do, my eyes start to droop.

Through the Dubya speak?

-HECK!

Uh huh... he is just one very UNinteresting person to listen to.

I think he's great to listen to. Just can't wait for that next ignorant doozy to slip out of his speak hole. I can only imagine his speech writers shudder everytime he starts to talk.

-HECK!

I'm sure that they do...

I bet they write these speeches, and then PRAY that he will actually FOLLOW them.

Direct connection and relationship aren't the exact same thing. There can be a relationship between two people who never speak to eachother in their lives if they have the same attitude and the same enemy.

I'm glad I don't have to give speeches to millions/billions of people who are waiting to scrutinize every word, especially if I read it wrongly. I'm a terrible public speaker. I've tried giving speeches in class and though I passed, I probably sounded a lot like the president. I'm not saying I'm not an idiot, but I don't think he's any dumber than I am. None of us know what it's like to have a job like that. President.

I think mastery of the English language isn't that tall of a prerequisite for someone running our country and deciding our collective fate.

-HECK!

Bush's inability to string a sentence together is one of his saving graces. Makes him look like a regular Joe, honest, struggling, trying hard to do the right thing. Total BS, of course.

I'm sure it plays well in the sticks, too. Some might actually start to think "suiciders" is a word.

-HECK!

It is a find indeed. Self-serving doubletalk, lies and plausible deniability and it appears to have fallen on deaf ears.

"A harmless hilarity and a buoyant cheerfulness are not infrequent concomitants of genius; and we are never more deceived than when we mistake gravity for greatness, solemnity for science, and pomposity for erudition." -Charles Caleb Colton

-HECK!

Only in your mind, chief. You talk of a left agenda, man, throw a glance in the mirror and turn the head right. Or maybe left, because it reflects the other way... you get the point.

-HECK!

Again Websters
You really need to get a better grasp of the English language

tie ( P ) Pronunciation Key (t)
v. tied, ty·ing, (tng) ties
v. tr.

To bring together in relationship; connect or unite: friends who were tied by common interests;

Where do you get this stuff and what does any of it have to do with now?

Okay you got me, Al Qaeda was formed in 1988. I'm sure they didn't amount to much that year and a half to two years before the 1990's.

Let me make a correction

In 1996, Saudi dissident Osama bin Laden moved to Afghanistan upon the invitation of the Northern Alliance leader Abdur Rabb ur Rasool Sayyaf. When the Taliban came to power, bin Laden was able to forge an alliance between the Taliban and his Al-Qaeda organization. It is understood that al-Qaeda-trained fighters known as the 055 Brigade were integrated with the Taliban army between 1997 and 2001. The generally accepted view in the West is that the Taliban and bin Laden had very close connections.

Thanks for saving me the time h@ts in clarifying this.

ET, the point I was making is that the US funded and help to create Al Qaeda. The US helped Saddam and this Administration was trying to do business with the Taliban in trying to build a pipeline through Afghanistan. All this while he knew of these same ties to Al Qaeda you mention above and did nothing, then magically turned around and convinced people like yourself that he’s an expert on fighting global terrorism.

Whoa, the US helped fund and create Al Qaeda??? That's a new one for me. and which administration was trying to do business with the Taliban? Point me in a direction that I can read all of this please.

Since THIS administration was in office a mear 7 months I don't believe that they could have been doing business with Al Qaeda.

I "think" he is saying we helped fund the Afghani's when the Russians invaded, and the remnants of those freedom fighters became Al Qaeda over time. But I'm guessing, I don't want to put words in anybody's mouth.

Information out there is abundant on this stuff ET. It’s been well discussed in these forums countless times. Do some research on the Taliban and this current administration. You will discover that in approximately April of 2001, they were invited to this country to talk about doing business supposedly to stop drug sales of opium. In May of 2001, Bush sent them 43 million dollars. He knew OBL was there in Afghanistan, along with Al Qaeda.

And yes, during the Russian invasion of Afghanistan, the CIA helped this same group who now call themselves Al Qaeda. They were Afghans and others who filed into that country just like they’re doing with Iraq today. The CIA trained them and supplied them with weapons and they are using these same weapons to shoot American Warships out of the skies over Baghdad and Afghanistan.

Try something very basic like Wikipedia for starters. There’s plenty of basic info on Al Qaeda there. Then try Taliban and Saddam. You just may find out that things aren’t as black and white as you now perceive them to be.

Yes I've read all that.

So what do you take all this to mean? What are you trying to say with this information?

Are you saying that because we tried to reduce the opium output out of Afganistan that we are some how responsible for all the attrocities that the Taliban commiting and responsible for the Taliban working with Al Qaeda?

I don't really get the point you are trying to make.

Are you trying to say the Al Qaeda is a product of the U.S.????

ET, you can’t possibly this tunnel sighted can you?

The Taliban was harboring OBL. They also had Al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan and unlike Saddam, the Taliban and Al Qaeda clearly had a collaborative relationship. You do remember the bombing of the US Embassy in Africa? Or how about the attack in Yemen on the US Naval ship docked in the harbor there?

Don’t you think it’s kind of a conflict that we would ignore all this and try to start a working relationship with the Taliban? Especially since Bush is such a czar in fighting terrorism.

What else you may not know is that the US has been trying to get to build a pipeline through Afghanistan, pumping natural gas across it to Pakistan and India to name a couple countries. US contracting companies like Bechtel and Halliburton was lobbying them hard in the latter 90’s to build the infrastructure.

I just happen to believe this was on the (hidden) agenda when the Taliban was invited to the US but even if it wasn’t, how do you do business with a regime that’s harboring the terrorist and terror group that is responsible for so much carnage against the US?

DATES DUDE, look at the dates, yes you can make those statements but you have to look at the dates. TIME LINE!!!

Things change throughout the years. Just like Germany and Japan during WWII were our enemy now they are our allie. Just because we work with someone one day doesn't mean they will be our friend the next. People change regeme's change.

I don’t believe it’s this hard trying to get to understand this. Germany and Japan AREN’T harboring terrorists groups that are presently attacking US infrastructures and interests around the world. The Taliban WERE. For heaven sake, they just bombed the naval destroyer in the Yemen harbor the year before. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

Secondly, you speak of timelines as if it’s not important anymore, yet you consistently point to Saddam’s atrocities committed almost 2 decades earlier as justification for invading Iraq.

You’re being inconsistent and you have double standards.

It's called making an analogy. Do you understand what an analogy is?

Second what I said was that you are disregarding the timelines in trying to make your points. For instance you can't seem to grasp that Bush didn't become president until the end of Feb 2001 the attack happend in the beginning of Sep 2001. Roughly 6 months. You are blaming the Bush administration for things that happened before he came into office. You have Al Qaeda coming into power at the same time as the Taliban when that wasn't the case. You blame Bush for things that happend during the Clinton Administration. That's what I am talking about with the TIMELINE.

You have selective amnesia and foresight. I’ve don’t none of what you claim above.

Let’s start with 9/11. Are you saying that Bush had no responsibility during his administration for the safety of this nation because it started during the Clinton era?

Everyone knew Al Qaeda was attacking US Embassies and military targets. They were sworn to the destruction of America. So since Bush came into office “after” their sworn declaration, this makes it ok for him to do business with the regime that’s training Al Qaeda in their country to help destroy us?

I also pointed out that this administration had a report stating that Al Qaeda was determined to strike in the US and that they intended to hijack planes. Bush got that report in August of 2001.

Lastly, I never said the Taliban, Al Qaeda and Saddam came into power at the same time. I was merely pointing out that the US provided them with training and weapons and in the Taliban’s case, we had them here in America trying to do business with them.

I really don’t know how to be any plainer here.

OneofPeace, the master of twist, I can't respond right now but I will later if I'm sober enough.

I guess that would explain your perceptions of reality ET.

Zing!

I think that addressing points instead of shouting "timeline" might help those better understand what you are trying to share with the group. And please don't blame Clinton. Because if you do then have to through it back to Ronnie for helping the Afghans/Taliban/OBL vs. the USSR, and we all know how that ended.

-HECK!

A real star is the U.S. soldier who was sent to disarm a bomb next to a road north of Baghdad. He approached it, and the bomb went off and killed him.

—Ben Stein