Bush: Troops to Stay in Iraq for Years

[Berzerker]

If the war was about fighting the terrorists in Iraq so we don't have to fight them here

And while we turned Iraqi neighborhoods into war zones, we tell 'em we just want to liberate them.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
It's not just this administration.

OK slow. Exactly what other politicians have been calling the shots and over ruling the Generals on the field. Let's have some examples.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Oerdin

the administration said the people will welcome them as liberators so they won't need a proper invasion force.

Even a bunch of computer geeks could work out this was wrong.

It makes me want to weep.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Wycoff
Wow. Great question! What was the reply given to Helen Thomas?

An insincere one.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie
I remember you being one of the flag-waving fanatics at the time of the invasion, Ted. I asked Americans back then why this war was so important for the American people, but the most intelligent answer was something like "STFU, Commie".

The American people wanted this war, and now they got it. You can't just quit when the bill comes. It's time to pay, in blood and tax dollars. Leaving would make things worse.

You're making an awful lot of exaggerated generalizations and actual misinformation here, but thanks.

I've never said we should cut and run. EVER

Find me one quote ever where I have EVER said we should leave. You can't, so don't even go down that road. So first of all get your facts straight.


We made the decision as a nation to go into this war and we as a nation must now deal with it. That's the bottom line so DONT GET IT TWISTED.


Secondly, the President and his entire administration deserve total blame for the following two things:

1) Lieing to the American people about the reasons for heading into the war (did you forget that part?)

2) Incomptent mismanagement of the war. This could occupy several pages including human rights abuses, strategic incompetence, and outright deception on the grandest scale imaginable

So don't project your crap on me, unlike the Reactionaries here some of us can actually become enlightenend and adjust our understanding of the situation when new information comes to light.

Or perhaps you would prefer the "stay the course," line of thinking that works so great for some of the idiots around here.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
How is Al Qaeda firmly established in Iraq? Are bin Laden and Zawahiri running training camps in Iraq ala Afghanistan that I don't know about? And do you really think the members of Al Qaeda in Iraq aren't on the run in a country with ~150,000 US troops + Iraqi security forces looking for them? They have a presence, certainly, but they had a presence before the war with Ansar al Islam and their current presence in Iraq isn't any firmer than their presence in numerous other countries. You just hear about them more because they have a better chance to kill and be killed by American soldiers than al Qaeda affiliated groups in the Sudan or the Phillipines or wherever.

Their current presense in Iraq is ironically much stronger than it ever was before the war, thanks to us.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Like I said, when the Army said "this is what I need" the Administration said you'll do it with 150k instead of 400k. The Army said "we won't be able to effectively occupy and control the country with that small a force" to which the administration said the people will welcome them as liberators so they won't need a proper invasion force.

In the beginning most of the Iraqi people were willing to give us a fair chance to see if we could do things right. There was a one year window where people were cautiously optimistic but when a year went by and there was still lawlessness because there weren't enough troops to maintain order, there were only a few hours of electricity and running water per day, the bridges hadn't even begun to be repaired, and a million other similiar things then that was when the Iraqis turned on us. Everyone but the administration seemed to know we had a narrow window and we had to show results but true to form the administration thought they could just make a few nice speeches and not actually follow through on anything. Just like in Afghanistan.

Sadly Bush still hasn't learned judging by the fact he's done the exact same thing in New Orleans and with every other new policy directive he's come up with (cutting oil use in the country, his mission to Mars plan, etc). It's clssic Bush: Make a few speeches about something dramatically different, hope the papers give you front page and a few voters like what you say, then delay the program a few days later, then cancel it a couple of months after that. He never follows through on anything and he never intended to.

Bush thinks entirely like a businessman. Unfortunately, he's really bad at business as well.

[Drake Tungsten]

Ansar al Islam was in the Kurdish-controlled portion of Iraq. That's one of the few things you can't hang on Saddam.

I wasn't trying to hang it on Saddam. Just pointing out that al Qaeda had a presence in Iraq before the war, just as they have a presence in a great number of Islamic countries. It's hardly surprising that they would have a presence in Iraq now.

Usama bin Laden hated Saddam because Saddam is about as religious as a scorpion.

I've seen no evidence of this. What limited documentation there is on the contacts between Saddam and bin Laden seem to indicate that they had a relatively cordial relationship.

However, the Baathist and al Qaeda have now formed a working alliance in Iraq.

This is also a questionable fact. There have been numerous reports of strife between the native Iraqi member of the insurgency (including the Baathists) and the foreign fighters affiliated with al Qaeda. They seem to be working toward different goals.

They aren't anymore on the run than are any bunch of guerillas---they all use hit and run tactics.

Then your comment about al Qaeda being "on the run" all over the world was bull**** then. There are plenty of places outside of Iraq where al Qaeda affiliated groups are free to act as guerillas; just look at Afghanistan, Pakistan, the Phillipines, etc. What you don't have is a country like Afghanistan before the American invasion, where al Qaeda can openly establish training camps and other infrastructure and works with the ruling government.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
If the war was about oil and securing supplies for America, then it was worthless exercise. Of course, the war was never about oil.

[snipped]

Of course, we now If the war was about giving Iraqis liberty and freedom, then we've succeeded. Of course, that's dependant on how you define "success": liberty and freedom from political oppression and dictatorship, sure, but on the other hand, now those brown-faced cowards are living under the oppression of fear due to a little terrorist bomb here and there.

First of all, the war is about oil to a large extent. Given all that silly Bush talk about "Axis of Evil," why didn't they attack Iran or DPRK? Clearly, all that talk was just giving the attack a pretext and all that "weapons of mass destruction" rubbish was to give the attack an excuse.

Saddam has been painted as some kind of evil incarnate, but is he? Furthermore, don't forget that the US helped Iraq against the war against Iran, and Rummy shook hands with him. I reject the notion that he only turned evil right after the end of that war.

This whole invasion was to set up an US lackeyally in the area so the US could exert influence over these all-important oil fields. The House of Saud doesn't exactly have a solid rule so the US had been looking elsewhere.

If the war was about "liberty" and "freedom" there are lots of choices in Africa and Bush would have done it in his first term.

[Drake Tungsten]

Saddam has been painted as some kind of evil incarnate, but is he?

Maybe not by Chinese standards. By enlightened, Western standards, however, he most definitely was evil.

[Pekka]

Oerdin, didn't Rummie make the latest BS fad doctrine anyway before the invasion? It was all built on cutting down the personal equipment and safety of frontline troops and all that.. 'mobility, mobility, light infantry' all that stuff. THat's good, except when it translates into 'the least wind resistance is achieavable by running naked'.

Or was it Cheney? I think it was Cheney. How can you let dicks like that to write about war making anyway? There's an example of a man who should stay home and play Civ instead of doing it with the world. Only thing he can do is shoot his friends in the face.

[Ted Striker]

Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz are all pretty much on the twisted page

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


First of all, the war is about oil to a large extent. Given all that silly Bush talk about "Axis of Evil," why didn't they attack Iran or DPRK? Clearly, all that talk was just giving the attack a pretext and all that "weapons of mass destruction" rubbish was to give the attack an excuse.

Saddam has been painted as some kind of evil incarnate, but is he? Furthermore, don't forget that the US helped Iraq against the war against Iran, and Rummy shook hands with him. I reject the notion that he only turned evil right after the end of that war.

This whole invasion was to set up an US lackeyally in the area so the US could exert influence over these all-important oil fields. The House of Saud doesn't exactly have a solid rule so the US had been looking elsewhere.

If the war was about "liberty" and "freedom" there are lots of choices in Africa and Bush would have done it in his first term.

But none of that proves that it is about oil. By that logic, it could just as well be about Saddam's secret supply of Arab porn, thought to be the most comprehensive in the world. Or maybe this was all an attempt to rescue alien visitors captured by the Iraqi army. Why else wouldn't Bush attack NK or Iran?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Pekka
Oerdin, didn't Rummie make the latest BS fad doctrine anyway before the invasion? It was all built on cutting down the personal equipment and safety of frontline troops and all that.. 'mobility, mobility, light infantry' all that stuff. THat's good, except when it translates into 'the least wind resistance is achieavable by running naked'.

Or was it Cheney? I think it was Cheney. How can you let dicks like that to write about war making anyway? There's an example of a man who should stay home and play Civ instead of doing it with the world. Only thing he can do is shoot his friends in the face.

Rummsfield was the point man on that policy. It sounds good except nothing is really light and every new weapon system is heavier then the last. Check out the new rifle they want to use whose prototypes weight in at twice the weight of an M-16. I understand they've removed the granade launcher and the electronic bull**** but it still weights way more then it should and requires batteries to be carried and other such junk.

One of the few good things Rumsfield did was cancel the Crusader since it was a POS to begin with though he should have cancelled the stryker as well. In fact the majority of "new" weapons systems are completely worthless POSs which use 20 year old technology, weight twice what they should, and cost way to much compared to what you get. A doubt most of them even perform better then the old systems they're supposed to replace. Just pure pork.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Saddam has been painted as some kind of evil incarnate, but is he?

Maybe not by Chinese standards. By enlightened, Western standards, however, he most definitely was evil.

Is that why most Western countries refused to join the "coalition of the willing?"