Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 10/7/2004 2:41:44 PM EST
I think the administration did what they had to do to convince the American people and Congress to go to war without giving our objective away to the terrorists. I think getting rid of Saddam Hussein and liberating Iraq was only a nice side effect of the true goal, which was to draw the terrorists to one location FAR AWAY FROM HERE so we could fight them somewhere other than on our soil. What some call a quagmire, I believe was the intended outcome -- redirecting the War on Terror from America and Afghanistan to Iraq.

Iraq was a logical choice because we already had the infrastructure for a war there, from bases in Saudi Arabia to satellites in the correct positions, to a military already trained in desert warfare.

We were more than justified in attacking Iraq given their repeated violations of UN resolutions over the last 11 years, but I didn't think we should go at first because we were in Afghanistan already. But now that I see what has happened since we invaded, I am much more supportive and actually quite impressed with the planning of Rumsfeld, et al. MUCH easier to fight Al Queda on the familiar turf of Iraq than to fight them in Afghanistan or God forbid, NYC/DC/LA/etc.

Am I a crackpot or a genius??? Neither? Discuss.
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 2:44:09 PM EST
I thought everyone knew that?

Its what I have allways thought .
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 2:45:23 PM EST
Iraq=terrorist roach motel. No check out time, ever.
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 2:45:55 PM EST
Afghanistan IS far away from here, no? [/DUh]
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 2:47:29 PM EST
It's like GWB says, the harder they fight us shows how we're causing them to hurt.
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 2:52:35 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/7/2004 2:53:51 PM EST by kindstranger]
You are half right. Also think about how we are putting the squeeze around Iran and have our buddy arm around Syria. Combined with Israel at our side, we now logistically and geographically control (kinda) the entire middle east.
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 2:53:11 PM EST
That is a good idea you have but I don't think that is what the intention was. I think Saddam had WMD and he was able to hide them real good.
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 2:54:20 PM EST
I think Iraq is going to be the staging area for the rest of the arabs that think they need to die for god.
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 2:56:08 PM EST
The theory is that the last terrorists will migrate to sub-saharan Africa (where they will still be able to find willing martyrs due to poor economies) but that's off in the next decade or two.
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 2:56:43 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/7/2004 2:57:25 PM EST by DScott]
Since when do we give a shit about the UN, their resolutions, or anything else they come up with?

Link Posted: 10/7/2004 2:56:52 PM EST

Originally Posted By EagleArmsHBAR:
That is a good idea you have but I don't think that is what the intention was. I think Saddam had WMD and he was able to hide them real good.



I think so too. However, to simplify election issues for the stupid sound byte voters, Bush has strategically punted on the WMD issue to focus on a simple, plausible for the average voter position of French and German collusion, which the public is inclined to believe readily.
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 2:58:21 PM EST

I think Saddam had WMD and he was able to hide them real good.



Today on Fox news they had a segment in which the talking head stated that about two weeks out from the war Saddam called in his top generals and said they did not have WMD. He had played his cards and convinced everyone, his generals and our intel guys that he had them.
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 2:59:26 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 3:00:17 PM EST

Originally Posted By ClayP:
Iraq=terrorist roach motel. No check out time, ever.



Good metaphor. And good analysis.
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 3:00:39 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/7/2004 3:02:09 PM EST by Bobby_the_Hun]
Forget Iraq! I like your avatarWhat's the story behind it ????
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 3:03:03 PM EST
Why did we go to Iraq?

Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9,2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years .. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members.. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction .. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real"
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Link Posted: 10/7/2004 3:03:17 PM EST
My dad also believes this was the reason; to draw the terrorists into a second front where they could be easily identified and killed.
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 3:04:05 PM EST

Originally Posted By spm681:
I think Iraq is going to be the staging area for the rest of the arabs that think they need to die for god.



I wonder when they are going to run out of virgins when they get to heaven...with so many of them dieing for Allah...
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 3:05:19 PM EST

Forget Iraq! I like your avatarWhat's the story behind it ????


Are you asking about mine??

If so, it is a F-100 taking off from Tuy Hoa in Vietnam. The tail number is SK-063 and was the plane that my father was assigned to. I don't know if it's him piloting it in this photo but I like it anyways.

I pulled it off F-100.org (i think thats right). I was doing a google search on the Air Guard in Vietnam when Terry McCauliff was acting like a pussy a while back and found the website. I think the 100's are some of the coolest looking planes the US has ever flown.
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 3:05:49 PM EST
LadyLiberty, you are far smarter than the smartest Democrat.
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 3:05:53 PM EST

Originally Posted By EagleArmsHBAR:
That is a good idea you have but I don't think that is what the intention was. I think Saddam had WMD and he was able to hide them real good.



In Syria.
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 3:06:18 PM EST

Originally Posted By Lightning_P38:

Originally Posted By Tras:
Afghanistan IS far away from here, no? [/DUh]



It didn't have the power of attraction like Iraq does, Afghanistan is a non arab backwater, when you put GIs in the middle of an arab country you really get them whipped up and foaming at the mouth. They have been showing up in far better numbers than they did for Afgahnistan.



Not only that, it seems to me that Afghanistan is a much harder terrain for our guys to fight on (mountains, caverns and caves) as opposed to Iraq which is pretty much an open wasteland.
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 3:07:34 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 3:08:01 PM EST

Originally Posted By Da_Bunny:
LadyLiberty, you are far smarter than the smartest Democrat.



That's not saying much . . . should I be flattered or offended?
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 3:11:17 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 3:18:45 PM EST

Originally Posted By LadyLiberty:
I think the administration did what they had to do to convince the American people and Congress to go to war without giving our objective away to the terrorists. I think getting rid of Saddam Hussein and liberating Iraq was only a nice side effect of the true goal, which was to draw the terrorists to one location FAR AWAY FROM HERE so we could fight them somewhere other than on our soil. What some call a quagmire, I believe was the intended outcome -- redirecting the War on Terror from America and Afghanistan to Iraq.



Bingo! This is the obvious reason, except to the Left wing idiots…

ANdy
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 3:24:57 PM EST

Originally Posted By spm681:

Forget Iraq! I like your avatarWhat's the story behind it ????


Are you asking about mine??

If so, it is a F-100 taking off from Tuy Hoa in Vietnam. The tail number is SK-063 and was the plane that my father was assigned to. I don't know if it's him piloting it in this photo but I like it anyways.

I pulled it off F-100.org (i think thats right). I was doing a google search on the Air Guard in Vietnam when Terry McCauliff was acting like a pussy a while back and found the website. I think the 100's are some of the coolest looking planes the US has ever flown.



No, Ladyliberty's avatar. (Sorry for the hi-jack, Miss L.L.)
spm681-Always nice to know the story behind each avatar, Thanks.
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 3:27:54 PM EST

Originally Posted By kindstranger:
You are half right. Also think about how we are putting the squeeze around Iran and have our buddy arm around Syria. Combined with Israel at our side, we now logistically and geographically control (kinda) the entire middle east.



Bingo!

I suspect that there is a deep, DEEP strategy going on here and that one day W or his successor (after 2008) will pop up and say, "GOTCHA!".

He's pulled rope-a-dopes before. I think this is one, too....
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 3:36:03 PM EST
I'm not so sure about this - Maybe some military folks can chime in on this one, but I'd venture to say a war fought in a barren country is much easier for us to dominate in because you can much more effectively use fast moving aircraft and large bombing runs. Urban warfare gives the enemy many more places to hide, vintage points, roads and conduits to where they can funnel attacks.

Not to mention that the scum can live in homes with real food instead of hiding underground or in caves.

I personally would rather fight a major offensive against Al Quida when my snipers can pick them off from 1000+ yards away than wonder what was down the next alley, have to contend with women and children non-combatants, etc....

Regardless of this, Iraq has now poised us to have a large fast-reaction force in the middle east, and that scares the crap out of every Arab there. Now they cannot screw with Israel in a major way, because they know what would come next...

Doc
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 3:40:01 PM EST
Iran has a lot of Iraq's plans from GW1.Now I would imagine they have WMD from them also.I think you will see Isreal go into Iran before the elections or very soon after.
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 3:43:59 PM EST

Originally Posted By LadyLiberty:
I think the administration did what they had to do to convince the American people and Congress to go to war without giving our objective away to the terrorists. I think getting rid of Saddam Hussein and liberating Iraq was only a nice side effect of the true goal, which was to draw the terrorists to one location FAR AWAY FROM HERE so we could fight them somewhere other than on our soil. What some call a quagmire, I believe was the intended outcome -- redirecting the War on Terror from America and Afghanistan to Iraq.

Iraq was a logical choice because we already had the infrastructure for a war there, from bases in Saudi Arabia to satellites in the correct positions, to a military already trained in desert warfare.

We were more than justified in attacking Iraq given their repeated violations of UN resolutions over the last 11 years, but I didn't think we should go at first because we were in Afghanistan already. But now that I see what has happened since we invaded, I am much more supportive and actually quite impressed with the planning of Rumsfeld, et al. MUCH easier to fight Al Queda on the familiar turf of Iraq than to fight them in Afghanistan or God forbid, NYC/DC/LA/etc.

Am I a crackpot or a genius??? Neither? Discuss.

You are on the right track, Tiberius, J. Caesar, Cincinatus, would all be smiling on the good ol USA now. The Roman Empire depended on commerce and the barbarians were a threat to Rome and the rest of the lucrative locations. The Romans had outposts all over the fringes of their empire with small garrisons to lure barbarians, as soon as word of the besieged Roman outposts got back to Rome the legions cavalry would attack and annilhiate the barbarians and rescue the outposts. Change the scerario to the 21st century and todays cavalry legions have names like "air strikes", QRF, Spectre 130, Rapid Armor. The Romans fought on their own terms, which is what we are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan.....
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 3:55:23 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/7/2004 4:00:00 PM EST by LadyLiberty]

Originally Posted By Bobby_the_Hun:

Originally Posted By spm681:

Forget Iraq! I like your avatarWhat's the story behind it ????


Are you asking about mine??

If so, it is a F-100 taking off from Tuy Hoa in Vietnam. The tail number is SK-063 and was the plane that my father was assigned to. I don't know if it's him piloting it in this photo but I like it anyways.

I pulled it off F-100.org (i think thats right). I was doing a google search on the Air Guard in Vietnam when Terry McCauliff was acting like a pussy a while back and found the website. I think the 100's are some of the coolest looking planes the US has ever flown.



No, Ladyliberty's avatar. (Sorry for the hi-jack, Miss L.L.)
spm681-Always nice to know the story behind each avatar, Thanks.



It's MRS. LL. See sig for avatar story link.

ETA oops I forgot I removed it -- hold on while I retrieve link.

ETA www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=71&t=269438

/hijack
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 4:16:30 PM EST

Originally Posted By HiramRanger:

Why did we go to Iraq?

Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9,2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years .. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members.. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction .. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real"
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003




Where did these senators get their info on WMD's, from the news networks? Hell no, they are acting on secret security briefings that they (and WE DON'T) have access to daily!

The information that was available at the time was it was in the best interest of the US to remove Sadam, even the Dims said so in so many words.


Top Top