GOP Traitors in a Time of War... - Page 4 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 08-19-2005, 12:31 PM   #46
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,483
Local Time: 02:16 AM
i've been planning a long response, but work has been busy today.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 08-19-2005, 01:43 PM   #47
Blue Crack Addict
 
phanan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: in the darkness on the edge of town
Posts: 25,060
Local Time: 02:16 AM
I would have supported the war in Iraq more if we hadn't rushed into it so soon after the war in Afghanistan. I don't care what anyone says - there are loose ends that should've been tied up better in Afghanistan before we turned our attention to Iraq.

And as for the presidential election, the appeal of the OTHER candidate plays a major role in the outcome, not just the issues. I know a lot of people who voted for Bush even though they disliked both him and his handling of the war so far because they didn't think Kerry would be a good President. If the Democrat party had had a more formidable challenger, Bush wouldn't have been re-elected.
__________________

__________________
phanan is offline  
Old 08-23-2005, 04:35 PM   #48
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:16 AM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: GOP Traitors in a Time of War...

Quote:
Originally posted by unosdostres14


C'mon be realistic. You can't honestly believe that war was the sole determining factor in this election. You know social issues was HUGE. You know homeland security was a key issue. Don't forget the "sit down and have a drink with" vote. People have many economic, social, and military reasons for voting for a President. It isn't just ONE issue.




If Bush has done all these amazing, incredible feats in the last 9 months, explain his horrible job approval rating. America must be seeing something is wrong, right?



I guess Irvine is saying that SURE, I guess it was alright to take action against Saddam. BUT!, do you agree with the treatment of prisonors at Abu Ghraib? When you pick up the newspaper and read that, in one week, 30 soldiers from the same state died, do you think, "They are dying for a good cause. These men and women are really protecting the freedom of the citizens of the US."?



Obviously the POLITICANS are gonna say that. They're clearly gonna say the elections won't be a success, they are POLITICIANS! That doesn't mean that every word that every Democratic congressman has uttered is the opinion of all Democrats. It's childish to assert that Democrats would not have achieved what the Republicans achieved, as there's no way of comparing. That's like saying that Al Gore would have been a better President than Millard Fillmore. You can't say that the Democrats would have failed at something they never did.



Americans are still dying. Until Americans stop dying, how can we be confident that this war is a success? Especially when there's no way to forsee WHEN American troops can leave. It could be one year, two years, five years until the Iraqi army can control themselves.




Like I said earlier, no one knows when the Iraqi army will be ready. Therefore, you can't deny that Americans COULD POSSIBLY be dying in Iraq for many years to come.



President Bush was NOT SUPPOSED TO SAY, "Saddam Hussein sought significant quanitites of uranium from Africa". He did. They were picking and choosing which intelligence to keep and which to ignore.




It's a good point. Many people are better off without Saddam in power. But is that worth American deaths? Is it our duty to destroy all bad dictators? Why didn't we attack him earlier in 2000 or 2001? He was a bad dictator then. Fidel is bad. Why not declare war on him. It would've been more convenient. I don't wanna come off as a smart alec, but I really DON'T UNDERSTAND why we needed to take such forceful and unilateral action against him. Was there any specific thing he did that put the USA's safety/liberty at risk? War is supposed to be a LAST RESORT. Did the US have no choice but to declare war on Iraq or else the freedom of our country would have been compromised? I really don't know how you can answer yes to any of these.




These facts are cute, but I can't believe what you're saying. Are you trying to suggest that the US in it's current military situation could go to war with another country???? Actually 2 more countries with your math. We could get rid of the whole "axis of evil"! (Another brilliant move by this administration). C'mon....you can't believe that the US is capable of war with another country. People are serving their second, third, and fourth tours in Iraq. The brigades that are in the United States CAME HOME from Afghanistan and Iraq and want to STAY ALIVE with their FAMILIES. They already served this country nobly. We can't just send them wherever.





But at what cost? Why did so many Americans have to die? Were they protecting our freedom? And don't start talking about 9/11 because a) many investigations by the 9/11 commission, CIA, etc. have said Saddam wasn't connected with 9/11 and b) the terrorists that are killing Americans now WENT there AFTER they realized we had ground forces in Iraq (without sufficient body armor and protection). The fact is, Americans dying in Iraq aren't protecting our freedom and safety.



So you undoubtedly believe in the partisan politics in America.
No other issue is more important or commands more attention than the war. There is no other single issue that can impact a country more than a war. The other issues that you listed may be important to some people, but not everyone because they do not involve the costs that a war entails. The clearest and most accurate sign of how America felt about the war in Iraq was shown in November 2004 when George Bush was re-elected by the first majority for a president since 1988.

As for the job approval rating, these polls are often inaccurate as the November 2004 election proved. George Bush has similar job approval ratings before the election and Zogby used such polls to claim that Bush would not win.

Abu Ghraib was an isolated incident. Terrorist and prisoners in US prisons get better treatment than they would anywhere in the world. My bestfriend flew and escort mission in Iraq for a terrorist from Abu Ghraib that needed a liver transplant. Imagine that, risking his life to insure that a terrorist could get the best medical treatment possible. Just one little story the you won't learn from the mainstream media, but something US soldiers and Marines experience on a daily basis. United States military personal have saved the lives of thousands of insurgents and terrorist who only moments before being hit were trying to kill them.

The Men and Women of the United States military are not only protecting the freedom and interest of the United States in Iraq, they are protecting the freedom and interest of the entire Planet!

You can judge Democratic presidential candidates by their previous actions and what they support to arrive at a conclusion of whether they would make or would have been a good president or not.

In every war the United States has ever fought in, with the exception of the Kosovo war, Americans were dying at every point in the conflict. That alone is no way to determine if the war is successful or how long it would take. It will probably take 5 or 6 years before the Iraqi military can completely take over the job of security from coalition forces.

The Bush administrations central case for war in Iraq was presented in UN resolution 1441, it was NEVER the Niger case with Uranium. That was a piece of supporting intelligence, but not even close to being the central case for war.


The United States did not remove Saddam simply because he was a "bad dictator like Fidal".

How many dictators can you name have: invaded and attacked four different countries unprovoked in the last 20 years, used WMD more times than any leader in history, threatened the planets energy supply with seizure and or sabotage, murdered over 1.7 million people, been in violation of 17 UN resolutions past under Chapter VII rules of the United Nations, been inviolation of a ceacefire agreement, involved in smuggling 4 Billion dollars worth of goods across his border in violation of UN sanctions and the UN weapons embargo.

How many dictators can you name have done all the above in the last 20 years?

The planet is dependent on the energy reserves in the Persian Gulf. Without them it would send the global economy into the worst depression anyone has every seen in history, which would threaten the security and stability of democracy and freedom worldwide. There for, anything that threatens the energy reserves in the Persian Gulf is a massive security threat to the entire planet and cannot be tolerated. This is why the United Nations Security Council passed multiple UN resolutions against Saddam requiring him to Verifiably disarm of all WMD after his brutal invasions and attacks on Kuwait, Saudia Arabia and Israel. Military action was authorized if Saddam failed to comply because his failure to comply was scene as a massive security risk to the planet in light of his previous behavior in invading and attacking countries and using WMD on a mass scale.

From 1991 to 1998, Saddam did cooperate off and on with the international community on many issues in regards to disarmament. But by 1997-1998, Saddam almost completely stopped cooperation and by the end of 1998, the UN inspectors were forced out. Bill Clinton should have gone to war in 1999 or at least taken more aggressive military action to get Saddam back in line than he did. The four days of heavy bombing Clinton did do did little to change Saddam's mind about thing.

Clinton occupied with the war in Kosovo let the Iraq situation be pushed on to the next administration. From 1998 to 2002, there was a serious erosion of the sanctions and weapons embargo that had attempted to keep some level of containment upon Saddam. In 2002, the Bush Administration was faced with a grave situation in respect to Saddam that had to be dealt with. Saddam's failure to verifiably disarm of all WMD, his new ability to get new weapons because of the erosion of sanctions and the embargo, required that Bush along with the international community take immediate action to stop any more deteriation of the situation and finally resolve the disarmament issue.

Bush got 3rd UN security Council resolution authorizing the use of military force against Saddam if he failed to verifiably disarm of the remaining unaccounted for WMD. Saddam failed to do this when the inspectors arrived, and then the coalition invasion of Iraq was launched, an invasion that was long overdue.


The facts I listed about current US military force structure are just that, facts. The United States military does have a total of 88 brigades currently and only 17 of them are in Iraq. The United States has had the capability to fight a large number of conflicts all over the world at the same time since World War II. The reason many troops are experiencing their second and third deployments in Iraq is that the Bush administration has restricted the use of National Guard units to a certain degree. National Guard Brigades make up nearly half the force and without them, the active component operating under a rotation scheduale with one year on deployment and followed by a year home must constantly be rotating these troops. But, Active Duty Brigades currently resting in the United States can be sent anywhere in the world if they are needed. In addition the President can change the deployment schedual of the National Guard and send all 39 brigades overseas if need be. If the emergency was serious enough, all 88 brigades could be deployed overseas indefinitely! Notice that in World War II, there was NO rotation schedual and soldiers and marines served overseas until the war was over.

Outside of the Combat Brigades, there are special support units and special forces Units that are not available in such large numbers and these troops may be experiencing a much higher rate of deployment than the rest of the force.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 08-23-2005, 04:44 PM   #49
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:16 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by phanan
I would have supported the war in Iraq more if we hadn't rushed into it so soon after the war in Afghanistan. I don't care what anyone says - there are loose ends that should've been tied up better in Afghanistan before we turned our attention to Iraq.

And as for the presidential election, the appeal of the OTHER candidate plays a major role in the outcome, not just the issues. I know a lot of people who voted for Bush even though they disliked both him and his handling of the war so far because they didn't think Kerry would be a good President. If the Democrat party had had a more formidable challenger, Bush wouldn't have been re-elected.
The United States military is required to and has had the capability to operate in many different conflicts at the same time for decades. Large numbers of Tanks and armored vehicles which make up the majority of the United Sates Army Brigade forces would not have helped at all in tying up any alleged loose ends in Afghanistan. The Military increased the number of troops in Afghanistan by a factor of 10 to 1 after the Taliban was defeated there.

The Situation in Iraq could not wait just as military action against Germany in World War II could not wait. It would have been foolish for the United States to have just concentrated on Japan until it was defeated and not to have engaged Germany in World War II. It would have been crazy to have allowed Saddam all this time to obtain new weapons and prepare for war, while trying to complete the mission in Afghanistan. Catching Bin Ladin is a matter of good intelligence, not thousands of troops and armored vehicles restricted to a small road system in difficult terrein. Sending thousands of armored Vehicles into Afghanistan would not have increased the chances of finding Bin Ladin, and many would argue that it would have hindered the effort.

Most importantly though, neglecting a serious risk to US national security does not enhance solving another security problem or contribute to overall national security.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 08-23-2005, 08:43 PM   #50
Blue Crack Addict
 
phanan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: in the darkness on the edge of town
Posts: 25,060
Local Time: 02:16 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


The United States military is required to and has had the capability to operate in many different conflicts at the same time for decades. Large numbers of Tanks and armored vehicles which make up the majority of the United Sates Army Brigade forces would not have helped at all in tying up any alleged loose ends in Afghanistan. The Military increased the number of troops in Afghanistan by a factor of 10 to 1 after the Taliban was defeated there.

The Situation in Iraq could not wait just as military action against Germany in World War II could not wait. It would have been foolish for the United States to have just concentrated on Japan until it was defeated and not to have engaged Germany in World War II. It would have been crazy to have allowed Saddam all this time to obtain new weapons and prepare for war, while trying to complete the mission in Afghanistan. Catching Bin Ladin is a matter of good intelligence, not thousands of troops and armored vehicles restricted to a small road system in difficult terrein. Sending thousands of armored Vehicles into Afghanistan would not have increased the chances of finding Bin Ladin, and many would argue that it would have hindered the effort.

Most importantly though, neglecting a serious risk to US national security does not enhance solving another security problem or contribute to overall national security.
In my opinion, they should've increased the number of troops in Afghanistan even more, not armored vehicles.

The situation in Iraq had gone on for over a decade. Another year would not have made any difference.
__________________
phanan is offline  
Old 08-24-2005, 12:27 AM   #51
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:16 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by phanan


In my opinion, they should've increased the number of troops in Afghanistan even more, not armored vehicles.

The situation in Iraq had gone on for over a decade. Another year would not have made any difference.
No the situation in Iraq, no inspectors on the ground, the serious weakening of sanctions and the weapons embargo had only been going on for a few years. Probably the most important national security objective of the United States is insuring the safety and security of Persian Gulf energy supplies to the rest of the planet. The siezure or sabotage of such supplies would have an intolerable impact on the rest of the planet.

The required force was sent into Afghanistan and if more was needed, more could have been sent. There has never been more than 20 US brigades in Iraq at any one time, while the total number of Army, National Guard, and Marine Brigades stands at 88 brigades. So, once again this idea that Iraq took away from the operation in Afghanistan is a false one, and General Tommy Franks has expressed this fact!
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 08-24-2005, 07:31 AM   #52
Blue Crack Addict
 
phanan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: in the darkness on the edge of town
Posts: 25,060
Local Time: 02:16 AM
More force was needed in Afghanistan. We have not realized our true objective there yet. Utilizing all of our resources in Afghanistan first would have been a better way of doing things.

As for Iraq, we could have worked with the United Nations and other countries to reinforce sanctions and the weapons embargo while we continued our primary objective in Afghanistan. If the desired result still did not present itself by the time our mission in Afghanistan was complete, a true United Nations coalition would no doubt had been formed to resolved the Iraq issue.
__________________
phanan is offline  
Old 08-24-2005, 08:07 AM   #53
The Fly
 
s_tielemans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 59
Local Time: 08:16 AM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: GOP Traitors in a Time of War...

Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


How many dictators can you name have: invaded and attacked four different countries unprovoked in the last 20 years, used WMD more times than any leader in history, threatened the planets energy supply with seizure and or sabotage, murdered over 1.7 million people, been in violation of 17 UN resolutions past under Chapter VII rules of the United Nations, been inviolation of a ceacefire agreement, involved in smuggling 4 Billion dollars worth of goods across his border in violation of UN sanctions and the UN weapons embargo.

How many dictators can you name have done all the above in the last 20 years?
Except for the UN resolutions part I'd think George W. is well on his way...
__________________
s_tielemans is offline  
Old 08-24-2005, 03:18 PM   #54
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:16 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by phanan
More force was needed in Afghanistan. We have not realized our true objective there yet. Utilizing all of our resources in Afghanistan first would have been a better way of doing things.

As for Iraq, we could have worked with the United Nations and other countries to reinforce sanctions and the weapons embargo while we continued our primary objective in Afghanistan. If the desired result still did not present itself by the time our mission in Afghanistan was complete, a true United Nations coalition would no doubt had been formed to resolved the Iraq issue.
No one in is right mind would have sent every single US military combat brigade into Afghanistan. The United States has many security needs around the globe that have to be met, Afghanistan has never been the only one. General Tommy Franks is one of the greatest and most experienced Generals in US history. He sent in the proper force and the United States occupation force has been the most successful occupation force in the history of Afghanistan! Realize Afghanistans history goes back 5,000 years. But for an earlier reference, compare what the United States has succeeded in doing in Afghanistan to what the Soviet Union did with 10 years in the country with 6 times as many troops!

The operation in Afghanistan has been a flying success, and the only way Bin Ladin will be captured will be through non-military means, meaning, CIA or foreign intelligence services.

Once again, in World War II, the United States did not concentrate all of its resources on defeating Japan before going after Germany. A doctor treating a sick patient does not just treat one problem at a time.

The United States had been continuosly working with the United Nations and other countries to reinforces sanctions and the weapons embargo FOR YEARS!!!!!!!!!!! Despite the best efforts in this area, the situation had only become worse, not better. The United States and the coalition launched the invasion of Iraq to remove Saddam in March 2003. This invasion was a long overdue necessity. The United Nations has passed more resolutions in approval of US and coalition policy in Iraq than for any other conflict in history. More than 50 countries participated in the coalition in way or the other, so these comments about it not being a true coalition because France and Germany backed out are rubbish.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 08-24-2005, 03:25 PM   #55
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:16 AM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: GOP Traitors in a Time of War...

Quote:
Originally posted by s_tielemans


Except for the UN resolutions part I'd think George W. is well on his way...
Really, George Bush is a dictator? I think even the "far left" here at FYM would not even go that far.

George Bush has launched unprovoked invasions and attacks on four different countries? Iraq and Afghanistan were not unprovoked invasions, but if you could name just one, that would be interesting.

George Bush has used WMD more times than any leader in history? George Bush has never used WMD even once.

George Bush has threatened the worlds energy supply with seizure and sabotage? On the contrary, Bush's policies and well as the policies of early presidents have increased the energy supply available to the planet as well as making it more secure from disruption.

George Bush has murdered over 1.7 million people? He may have mangled the english language 1.7 million times, but Bush has not murdered anyone.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 08-24-2005, 03:34 PM   #56
Blue Crack Addict
 
phanan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: in the darkness on the edge of town
Posts: 25,060
Local Time: 02:16 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


No one in is right mind would have sent every single US military combat brigade into Afghanistan. The United States has many security needs around the globe that have to be met, Afghanistan has never been the only one. General Tommy Franks is one of the greatest and most experienced Generals in US history. He sent in the proper force and the United States occupation force has been the most successful occupation force in the history of Afghanistan! Realize Afghanistans history goes back 5,000 years. But for an earlier reference, compare what the United States has succeeded in doing in Afghanistan to what the Soviet Union did with 10 years in the country with 6 times as many troops!

The operation in Afghanistan has been a flying success, and the only way Bin Ladin will be captured will be through non-military means, meaning, CIA or foreign intelligence services.

Once again, in World War II, the United States did not concentrate all of its resources on defeating Japan before going after Germany. A doctor treating a sick patient does not just treat one problem at a time.

The United States had been continuosly working with the United Nations and other countries to reinforces sanctions and the weapons embargo FOR YEARS!!!!!!!!!!! Despite the best efforts in this area, the situation had only become worse, not better. The United States and the coalition launched the invasion of Iraq to remove Saddam in March 2003. This invasion was a long overdue necessity. The United Nations has passed more resolutions in approval of US and coalition policy in Iraq than for any other conflict in history. More than 50 countries participated in the coalition in way or the other, so these comments about it not being a true coalition because France and Germany backed out are rubbish.
Obviously, I wasn't referring to every single brigade that we have, but certainly much more than what was used. I disagree that only non-military means is the way to capture bin Laden. I can't possibly believe someone would call the operation in Afghanistan a success when the main objective for going there has yet to be realized!

And comparing WWII to Afghanistan and Iraq is preposterous. We got involved in WWII very late, and as a result our total resources for that war never approached other countries. But today, we are the primary resource for the war in Iraq, along with Britain. You say more than 50 countries have participated in the coalition in one way or another, but what you fail to mention is that it is nowhere near the degree of what we do because they are much smaller countries. If Russia or China were involved as much as we are, along with the aforementioned France and Germany, I'd have a different opinion.

It is most likely that an invasion of Iraq would have been necessary at some point, but at the time, not every alternative had been exhausted, and we should have waited until it had been. Most likely, if we had done things right in Afghanistan, we would have been able to turn our attention to Iraq when that moment arrived.
__________________
phanan is offline  
Old 08-24-2005, 05:53 PM   #57
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 02:16 AM
I have never liked the WWII comparisons either.....
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 08-24-2005, 07:23 PM   #58
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:16 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by phanan


Obviously, I wasn't referring to every single brigade that we have, but certainly much more than what was used. I disagree that only non-military means is the way to capture bin Laden. I can't possibly believe someone would call the operation in Afghanistan a success when the main objective for going there has yet to be realized!

And comparing WWII to Afghanistan and Iraq is preposterous. We got involved in WWII very late, and as a result our total resources for that war never approached other countries. But today, we are the primary resource for the war in Iraq, along with Britain. You say more than 50 countries have participated in the coalition in one way or another, but what you fail to mention is that it is nowhere near the degree of what we do because they are much smaller countries. If Russia or China were involved as much as we are, along with the aforementioned France and Germany, I'd have a different opinion.

It is most likely that an invasion of Iraq would have been necessary at some point, but at the time, not every alternative had been exhausted, and we should have waited until it had been. Most likely, if we had done things right in Afghanistan, we would have been able to turn our attention to Iraq when that moment arrived.
I'm sorry you don't understand the World War II comparison, I was only trying to demonstrate to you that a nation cannot properally provide for its security when it only attempts to solve one security problem at a time. Doing that simply hurts US security. The United States has had far more important security needs in the Persian Gulf for DECADES that exist independent of a comparitively temporary problem that arose in Afghanistan.

The main objective in going to Afghanistan was to remove it as a major base and staging ground for Al Quada and the United States has accomplished that objective. It has never been the #1 security objective to simply catch a single person. The United States is at war with Al Quada as whole, not just Bin Ladin. If and when the United States captures Bin Ladin, it will still be fighting Al Quada and other Islamic terrorist cells around the world.

When was the last time that Russia, China, France and Germany were involved to the degree that you suggest in a US led military operation?

In regards to Iraq, every alternative to invasion had been exhausted years earlier. The invasion was long overdue and the erosion of sanctions and the weapons embargo was steadily making the security situation worse to a degree that could not be fully known.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 08-24-2005, 09:02 PM   #59
Blue Crack Addict
 
phanan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: in the darkness on the edge of town
Posts: 25,060
Local Time: 02:16 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


When was the last time that Russia, China, France and Germany were involved to the degree that you suggest in a US led military operation?
Is this a trick question? You only mention World War II once every other paragraph lately and yet ask this? When it's obvious that all four of the countries mentioned above played pivotal roles in that war...

The U.S. wasn't involved from the beginning with WWII, but it was very clear during the latter part of it that they assumed a leadership role amongst the Allies and were the driving force that finally put it to an end.

And the main objective in Afghanistan was Al Quaida AND bin Laden himself. As far as I can tell, neither objective has been carried out yet. The one thing we did do was oust the Taliban - a step in the right direction, but certainly not enough.

And not every alternative was used for Iraq - if it had been, I'm sure the United Nations would have been more forthcoming to use force at the time.
__________________
phanan is offline  
Old 08-24-2005, 10:14 PM   #60
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:16 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by phanan


Is this a trick question? You only mention World War II once every other paragraph lately and yet ask this? When it's obvious that all four of the countries mentioned above played pivotal roles in that war...

The U.S. wasn't involved from the beginning with WWII, but it was very clear during the latter part of it that they assumed a leadership role amongst the Allies and were the driving force that finally put it to an end.

And the main objective in Afghanistan was Al Quaida AND bin Laden himself. As far as I can tell, neither objective has been carried out yet. The one thing we did do was oust the Taliban - a step in the right direction, but certainly not enough.

And not every alternative was used for Iraq - if it had been, I'm sure the United Nations would have been more forthcoming to use force at the time.
The United Nations Security Council approved of the operation to remove Saddam if he failed to meet his obligations by a 15-0 vote. The United States and its Allies spent 12 years working and trying to provide the security needed without having to go to war against Saddam. Even very limited military action was used, and it did not work.

Afghanistan is no longer the base and recruiting center for Al Quada that it was when the Taliban were in power. The operation has been one of the most successful military operations in US history. If you want a bit of perspective, just compare this operation to the Soviet operation there in the 1980s when they had 6 times as many troops. The goal of the Afghanistan operation was to take away Al Quada's main Headquarters, training and recruiting area and that goal was accomplished. Most of what remained of Al Quada fled into and Pakistan are hiding in various cities until they are caught by Pakistani authorities.

The point I was trying to make with the question was that there never has been a coalition in history that involved all those countries(Germany, France, Russia, China) so to expect the current coalition to only be a real coalition if all those countries are involved is absurd.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:16 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com