A different Iraq poll: How much is "completing the mission" worth to YOU?

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by GePap


Because it is a moronic causus belli. After all, the US would have to prove that Iraq had WMD's before it could claim that Iraq had violated anything- plus the no fly zones (not authorized by the UN) were in themselves probably an obvious breaking of the cease fire by the US and UK. Lets not forget thaqt the US was bombing Iraq regularly in the south months prior to March 2003.

Yep, the air war started months before the ground invasion, under the cover of the no fly zones. This was months before Powell gave his infamous UN speech.


This is well documented.

[Ted Striker]

Here is the inside story of what really happened with Muthra, and why Bush will be making his speech tomorrow to the nation.


Basically, the President has become unreachable, nobody can tell him anything, he's gone further into his protective zone and his own little world.

Muthra controls alot of the Pentagon expenditures, and given his military "street credibility," most of the Generals have been telling him what's really going on. They trust Muthra and he will listen to what they have to say.

So, when Muthra made that famous speech, it wasn't Muthra saying it, it was the top Generals (the non "yes" men) who are the REAL voice behind his words.

The White House knows this and was infuriated that Muthra did what he did. But they know he's right, which is why they're pissed even more.

The next phase of the war is going to be done from the air. The Air Force is NOT happy with this, as questions of who is actually going to be doing the targeting are going to come up. And as "accurate" as the bombs have become, they're still 500 pound bombs and alot of them are going to miss.

The only thing this drawdown is going to do is to shift more of the casualties from Coalition soldiers and to innocent Iraqis.


One final note, Bush himself said that the Coalition would stay as long as the Iraqi Government wanted us there. Well, they are about to ask us to leave, and a Sunni/Shia/Kurdish joint delegation has asked us to do just that.

Saddam is no longer in power. There's nothing left we can do, it's time to start getting out and let the Iraqis fix their country they way THEY want to.

[Berzerker]

the administration was going to lose far more than it was going to gain politically by being wrong about WMD.

The neo-con vision cannot be achieved in one presidency. And the fact most people agree with that vision while dis-agreeing on the path, lessens the political damage. Bush's numbers really started slipping with Cindy Sheehan and allegations of deceit, not because WMD weren't there.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Berzerker

The neo-con vision cannot be achieved in one presidency. And the fact most people agree with that vision while dis-agreeing on the path, lessens the political damage. Bush's numbers really started slipping with Cindy Sheehan and allegations of deceit, not because WMD weren't there.

Even if that's true it is extremely unlikely that Bush and company were capable of seeing this in advance and made a conscious decision to lie and take the risk that they would expose themselves almost immediately.

[Patroklos]

So, when Muthra made that famous speech, it wasn't Muthra saying it, it was the top Generals (the non "yes" men) who are the REAL voice behind his words.

You seem strangely Okay with a complete collapse of the chain of command for no good reason. Do you have ANY evidence to back this up? At leas qualify such a statment with "in my opinion" or "I think."

The next phase of the war is going to be done from the air.

Out of curiosity, and for my amusement, what on earth would make you think this. Obviously you are making this up, but the hilarity of such a retarded conclusion merits explanation.

Bush's numbers really started slipping with Cindy Sheehan and allegations of deceit,

Anyone see that picture of her sitting there by herself in Texas behind her booksigning table? Even the media gave up on her, which was really her only advocate. She simply didn't sell.

[Nickiow]

Originally posted by GePap


Because it is a moronic causus belli. After all, the US would have to prove that Iraq had WMD's before it could claim that Iraq had violated anything- plus the no fly zones (not authorized by the UN) were in themselves probably an obvious breaking of the cease fire by the US and UK. Lets not forget thaqt the US was bombing Iraq regularly in the south months prior to March 2003.

Not quite, the UK/US wanted SH paperwork to match, his documents said he had X amount of this or that, and he could prove to have destroyed y amount, the problem was x and y did not add upp, hence the perception he had some. As it turns out he had destroyed all he had, just could not prove it, and did not wanbt to prove it as it would weaken his posistion in the region let alone in the arab world.

Noi fly zones were set up by UK/US without UN aproval, the no fly for Iraq airforce was already in place and then the marsh arabs rose up, SH top air general asked the Uk for written permision to allow the Iraqi airforce to fly, he passed on the written gaurentee that this was not to put down the rebelion by the Marsh Arabs but to allow a take over aginst SH, Uk agreed and gave written permision to the Iraqi to fly over their own air space, guess what?, yep your right the airforce slaughterd the marsh arabs and no putsh come about because the man was loyal to SH and then the UK/US really got pissy and took away all flights by Iraq inor over their own country, and dropped (UK) 350 tons of minution per year for few years on any radar etc they took a dislike to.

The ceasfire was signed by the countrys as seperate from the UN, this allows them to act seperatly if they so desire on grounds of non compliance with ceasfire conditions, untill the UN takes over that responsobility, afaik it did not and the use of force was already mandated by the UN, and seperate countries could re entroduce that aspect as part of their legaql basis for further action.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Patroklos


You seem strangely Okay with a complete collapse of the chain of command for no good reason. Do you have ANY evidence to back this up? At leas qualify such a statment with "in my opinion" or "I think."



Out of curiosity, and for my amusement, what on earth would make you think this. Obviously you are making this up, but the hilarity of such a retarded conclusion merits explanation.

I do alot of reading besides newsmax.com

[MrFun]

Originally posted by GePap


Actually, none, since there was no immidiate humanitarian crisis in Iraq at the time of the invasion.

Yes -- the mass graves discovered in Iraq of thousands of dead Iraqis is all part of a smoke and mirrors illusion.