Brave Iraqi Freedom Fighters attack New World Order Baghdad HQ

[Defiant]

"As if the economy wasn't down the drain already"

And what exactly do you think another 9/11 would do, increase our economy? The damage will be done, so we might as well have a massive buildup.

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by Lord Merciless


Our enemies in Iraq don't have big powers supporting them. The reason we gave in Viet Nam was that we didn't really want to face off China and USSR.

How is this linked to your statement that VC didn't bomb American cities and my reply that Iraq didn't either. Changing subjects, are we?

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by Defiant
"As if the economy wasn't down the drain already"

And what exactly do you think another 9/11 would do, increase our economy? The damage will be done, so we might as well have a massive buildup.

A massive buildup of new skyscrapers preferably.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

\
Given the deep, and profoundly ideological divisions in the administration (outlined above) I dont see how waiting any further would have resolved the division over the occupation strategy.

Who in the administration is in charge? You don't let competing ideological camps among advisors prevent you from making unequivocal policy choices.

And at what point would you have made this change - In early March? Retreating at that point would very likely have made re-entry in a few months politically impossible, would have left the Kuwaitis and Qataris in the lurch and very vulnerable, and would have undercut the Pal-Israeli peace process and other US initiatives.

Preliminary RFQ's and studies for a few Iraqi rebuilding projects were issued by USAID back in November, which means they were initiated at least a few months earlier. The notion of invading Iraq didn't suddenly pop up back around March or even January, either. It's not a "retreat" if you don't prematurely commit your troops and reinforce that commitment before you've decided on how you're going to follow up.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Who in the administration is in charge? You don't let competing ideological camps among advisors prevent you from making unequivocal policy choices.



Preliminary RFQ's and studies for a few Iraqi rebuilding projects were issued by USAID back in November, which means they were initiated at least a few months earlier. The notion of invading Iraq didn't suddenly pop up back around March or even January, either. It's not a "retreat" if you don't prematurely commit your troops and reinforce that commitment before you've decided on how you're going to follow up.

1. who should be in charge? - well President Bush obviously - I think it his fault that this disharmony is not being managed.

2. Change in January? but i think in January they expected to resolve the dispute by March. Should Pres. Bush have seen that it wasnt being resolved - yes. But then the right action would have been to choose one course or the other(IE the State approach or the Dod approach) , not to postpone the invasion. ISRT that Kuwait and Qatar had already openly supported the US position by January.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Olaf Hårfagre


Iraq didn't either.

No. But al qaeeda did, And AQ was born in the swamp that is the mideast. And Iraq is the starting point for draining that swamp. So dont be disingenous.

[DanS]

Our currrent economy is suffering from a mild case of depression, sort like before WW2. I don't recall WW2 hurting our economy badly.

Eh? We just suffered the mildest recession on record and are back to growth.

[HershOstropoler]

"but i think in January they expected to resolve the dispute by March."

The decision must have been made in summer or autumn 2002.

"AQ was born in the swamp that is the mideast"

And currently you are trying to fight malaria by extending the swamp.

[lord of the mark]

BBC:

"But, for the most part, reaction to the blast worldwide was one of indignation and determination to press on with the UN's work.

Such terrorist incidents cannot break the will of the international community to further intensify its efforts to help the people of Iraq

Mexico's UN Ambassador, Adolfo Aguilar Zinser, called on the Security Council to "show its strength" in a display of unity before an "abominable act of terrorism".

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Olaf Hårfagre
I read a first-hand report by a journalist who had visited a site of a road-block shooting as the one you describe. The Americans killed some guys in a car which caught fire and burned with the bodies inside. The soldiers just walked away, without even asking who they just killed or why. The locals had to put out the fire and clean up the mess.

More likely they thought it might be a car bomb and ran for cover. Maybe you don't know this but the terrorists often have a small event to attract attention (thus getting people to crowd around) then they set off the main blast. They just love that trick.

In any event if a person doesn't want to get shot the solution is very simple. DO AS THE GUY WITH THE GUN TELLS YOU TO DO! Walk slowly, don't make any quick or sudden moves, make sure you are in plain sight & that you look people in the eye (that will make doublely sure they've seen you and will not be surprised). It's common sense but I guess common sense isn't so common or else you wouldn't have idiots refusing to stop at check points and trying to mow through them at 70 mph.

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


No. But al qaeeda did, And AQ was born in the swamp that is the mideast. And Iraq is the starting point for draining that swamp. So dont be disingenous.

So, as a comparison, if Columbian terrorists attacked Americans, you would go invade Nicaragua beacuse they are part of the "Hispanic swamp"? How logic...

[GePap]

Originally posted by Defiant
GePap,
Again, you underestimate the RESOLVE of this country, if Saudis are funding it and the Americans are mad enough, it will happen. And if thousands of muslims want to fight us in Saudi(if that is where we attack), they better bring a whole lot of body bags. Americans will not take these hits(if they continue) forever, why should they?

Becuase cheap gas and economic growth are more important than a few thousand dead. As for your "American people", these are the same people who can be convinced that many hijackers were Iraqis, that WMD's were brimming in Iraq, so forth and so on. They are also the ones that are as likely not to vote as to vote. I remember al the calls for blood right ater 9/11., In the end they went no where. A seocnd attack would not bring them about either: if only becuase a second attack is less shocking thasn the first. If the first faile dto rbing armageddon, so will the second. (realize of course that Iraq is an example of the gov. using anger as a tool, not the end result of anger).

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


Becuase cheap gas and economic growth are more important than a few thousand dead. As for your "American people", these are the same people who can be convinced that many hijackers were Iraqis, that WMD's were brimming in Iraq, so forth and so on. They are also the ones that are as likely not to vote as to vote. I remember al the calls for blood right ater 9/11., In the end they went no where. A seocnd attack would not bring them about either: if only becuase a second attack is less shocking thasn the first. If the first faile dto rbing armageddon, so will the second. (realize of course that Iraq is an example of the gov. using anger as a tool, not the end result of anger).

You didnt see the op-ed yesterday by Sen Kyl and Sen Schumer?? - yes Kyl and Shumer together !!!!!!
There is tremendous concern and anger about Saudi - and has been since 9/11 - the admin has held it off, insisting that Saudi was now cooperating. By the time the problems with their cooperation were becoming apparent, the Iraq war was in sight, and many (not all) of those most concerned about Saudi were content to put Saudi off till Iraq was done. Now Saudi again seems to be cooperating - lots of terrorists arrested or killed, real actions against money flows, and at least some talk about incitement. IF there is another big attack there will be a major renewed focus on Saudi. At the very least, their "cooperation" will have to be both major and public. IF there is little or no cooperation, the pressure to do something about Saudi will be intense. Of course if this were to happen while Iraq is still unresolved this would be very difficult - both in terms of our agenda for the region (where we want a New Iraq established before attempting reform Saudi) and in terms of available US troops.

[GePap]

Oh, yes and two senators get you? Zip.

Saudi Arabia has been, and is a vital US ally in the region. that has not changed, as least not as long as most of our interest in the area remain unchanged, which they do.

[Defiant]

GePap,
"One death is a tragedy, a thousand is a statistic", is the idea you promote, if we fail to let one death move us anymore we are not any better than the terrorists.

If you do not understand this all the righteous arguments in the world won't convince you, and that is truly too bad, because the next terrorist casualty could be your 3 year old daughter, that's how I think everyday when I argue these points, as if it was my daughter on that bus in Israel.