Soldiers say Iraq pullout would be devastating

[Snowlock]

If that's all the mission was, then why are we still there?

There's a lot more to it than just removing Saddam.

To build a new government? We went there to throw Saddam out because he was violating UN agreements. We threw him out; mission accomplished.

 

[Snowlock]

Do you have some quotes to back that statement up? I can't recall any mention of a long protracted struggle in Iraq made prior to our invasion, but I'll admit I'm wrong if provided with the quotes.

I'll debate with you. But what I'll not do is watch TV for you. You're the one making false allegations. Show me prior to the invasion where he said we would be in Iraq short term. I'm not talking about anyone here but Bush & Rumsfeld.

 

[BVS]

I'll debate with you. But what I'll not do is watch TV for you. You're the one making false allegations. Show me prior to the invasion where he said we would be in Iraq short term. I'm not talking about anyone here but Bush & Rumsfeld.

That's what I thought.

 

[Diemen]

From Rumsfeld:

"It is unknowable how long that conflict [the war in Iraq] will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months." -in Feb. 2003

Emphasis mine. Notice how he doesn't say "the initial military conflict" but just the general conflict. And his longest estimate is in months, not years. Do you agree that the average American might take that to mean that the US would be out of Iraq in about 6 months, maybe a year tops, given that the information and (presumably) informed opinion is coming from the Secretary of Defense?

 

[phanan]

To build a new government? We went there to throw Saddam out because he was violating UN agreements. We threw him out; mission accomplished.

How can you say the mission has been accomplished while we assist in the building of a new government that is not 100% stable yet?

Removing Saddam was only the first part.

 

[phanan]

What politician at times had not misled the American people? They're all scumbags; some worse than others. But I'm not sure what that has to do with the fact that bush told us the occupation would be a long term thing prior to the invasion.

An Occupation can be considered separate from a war. After WWII we occupied Japan well into the 1950's. Are you prepared to say that WWII in fact went out into the next decade from 1945? The war with Iraq ended when Saddam's government fell. We're now in a police action against insurgents, post-war.

Good Lord, you're comparing the Allied Occupation of Japan to the War in Iraq? Do you realize how hilarious that sounds, comparing a peaceful occupation to this insurgency war?

In Iraq, the occupation is the continuation of the war there. It didn't end when Saddam was removed, and it certainly wasn't accomplished that day on the air craft carrier.

I don't know how Bush worded it back then, but by declaring the war over that day was ridiculous, because the occupation is still part of the ongoing war, in this case.

And yes, politicians mislead us all the time, but some are more serious than others. I could care less about Clinton, for example, trying to hid the fact that he got a blowjob vs. Bush trying to hide the fact that this war is an absolute disaster and shouldn't have been started at that specific time in the first place.

 

[Snowlock]

From Rumsfeld:


Emphasis mine. Notice how he doesn't say "the initial military conflict" but just the general conflict. And his longest estimate is in months, not years. Do you agree that the average American might take that to mean that the US would be out of Iraq in about 6 months, maybe a year tops, given that the information and (presumably) informed opinion is coming from the Secretary of Defense?

Hey guess what he also says it's UNKNOWABLE HOW LONG THAT CONFLICT WILL LAST.

Not to mention that you neglect to provide the full quote so we don't know what he's referring to as far as "conflict" goes. It could be the battle for Baghdad itself for all we know.

Next.

 

[Snowlock]

Good Lord, you're comparing the Allied Occupation of Japan to the War in Iraq? Do you realize how hilarious that sounds, comparing a peaceful occupation to this insurgency war?

In Iraq, the occupation is the continuation of the war there. It didn't end when Saddam was removed, and it certainly wasn't accomplished that day on the air craft carrier.

I don't know how Bush worded it back then, but by declaring the war over that day was ridiculous, because the occupation is still part of the ongoing war, in this case.

Good lord, I'm comparing the word occupation to the word occupation.

Hilarious.

And again, he didn't declare the war was over. He declared the mission was accomplished.

Try just looking at facts without the ideology microscope.

 

[BVS]

Hey guess what he also says it's UNKNOWABLE HOW LONG THAT CONFLICT WILL LAST.

Not to mention that you neglect to provide the full quote so we don't know what he's referring to as far as "conflict" goes. It could be the battle for Baghdad itself for all we know.

You don't really remember any of this do you? You're just implying your revisionist outlook...

 

[phanan]

Good lord, I'm comparing the word occupation to the word occupation.

Hilarious.

And again, he didn't declare the war was over. He declared the mission was accomplished.

Try just looking at facts without the ideology microscope.

It is hilarious when one occupation is totally different from the other.

Or do you not see that?

Oh, he declared the mission was accomplished and not that the war was over. What the hell is the difference?

Talk about an ideological microscope.

 

[Snowlock]

That's what I thought.

It's amazing how much you troll me begging for my attention. But really I gotta tell you; in all sincerity; I don't really value your thoughts so I don't really care what you have to say and your opinion means absolutely zero to me because I've written you off as just not that intelligent.

 

[Snowlock]

It is hilarious when one occupation is totally different from the other.

Or do you not see that?

Oh, he declared the mission was accomplished and not that the war was over. What the hell is the difference?

Talk about an ideological microscope.

Well for one thing, the mission was accomplished and the war wasn't over so he didn't declare the war over? And I don't know how you can claim I'm looking at it through an ideological microscope because I already said it was a dumb thing to do.

And as for the occupation, an occupation follows a war when the victorious country takes over, or occupies the losing country.

So yeah, the two occupations are similar in that both countries goverments capitulated and were ruled by the victorious army. It's not like when we were occupying France because they truely wanted us there and were actively helping us throw out an unwanted foreign army; and it wasn't like even the early occupation of german territories because when we were occupying the western and southern areas, the german army was in the field still and wasn't conquerred.

 

[Diemen]

Hey guess what he also says it's UNKNOWABLE HOW LONG THAT CONFLICT WILL LAST.

Not to mention that you neglect to provide the full quote so we don't know what he's referring to as far as "conflict" goes. It could be the battle for Baghdad itself for all we know.

Next.

Yeah but he pretty much defines the "unknowable" range as within 6 days to 6 months.

 

[VintagePunk]

From Rumsfeld:


Emphasis mine. Notice how he doesn't say "the initial military conflict" but just the general conflict. And his longest estimate is in months, not years. Do you agree that the average American might take that to mean that the US would be out of Iraq in about 6 months, maybe a year tops, given that the information and (presumably) informed opinion is coming from the Secretary of Defense?

Your memory of the events, and statements made are the same as mine. In fact, I specifically recall various military people, Gen. Wesley Clark for one, stating numerous times that the action wasn't particularly well planned, and that there weren't enough military personnel on the ground to secure the nation after the initial invasion. Even that turned out to be a vast understatement.

 

[phanan]

Well for one thing, the mission was accomplished and the war wasn't over so he didn't declare the war over? And I don't know how you can claim I'm looking at it through an ideological microscope because I already said it was a dumb thing to do.

When the President of the United States declares that the mission was accomplished, you don't think he's trying to make it sound like the war is over?

That's what it sounds like to me. It was very misleading. At least, that's my interpretation of it.

 

[randhail]

When the President of the United States declares that the mission was accomplished, you don't think he's trying to make it sound like the war is over?

That's what it sounds like to me. It was very misleading. At least, that's my interpretation of it.

Exactly.

Why in his right mind would Bush every get on an aircraft carrier and say mission accomplished if he didn't mean the war was over? I've never heard of a President celebrating a mission or battle victory with a war still going on.

 

[Snowlock]

When the President of the United States declares that the mission was accomplished, you don't think he's trying to make it sound like the war is over?

That's what it sounds like to me. It was very misleading. At least, that's my interpretation of it.

I understand that's your interpretation of it. And his stupid mistake in doing what he did was it would give us that interpretation when he shouldn't have. But you can tell he was at least considering what he was doing because he specifically said mission accomplished, not victory or success or any more concrete and final sounding words or phrases. Mission in warfare generally has a connotation of a stage. Wars are won by completing successful missions, not a single mission. I think he was celebrating the fact that we toppled Saddam's government and made the region safer against WMD (debatable, I understand); not that we won the war and and everything would be cheese curds and beer from here on out.

 

[anitram]

I'll ask again since nobody answered the first time:

Is there nobody in this stupid, corrupt administration who is in any way accountable for the chaos in Iraq?

 

[BVS]

It's amazing how much you troll me begging for my attention.

I haven't even responded to a post of your in months.

But really I gotta tell you; in all sincerity; I don't really value your thoughts so I don't really care what you have to say and your opinion means absolutely zero to me because I've written you off as just not that intelligent.

I'm not the one rewriting history in here.

 

[nathan1977]

I'll ask again since nobody answered the first time:

Is there nobody in this stupid, corrupt administration who is in any way accountable for the chaos in Iraq?

It may have been the tone of your question that kept people from responding. Just guessing.

 

[anitram]

It may have been the tone of your question that kept people from responding. Just guessing.

Hilarious.

I'd bet good money there would be no answer forthcoming anyway. Rumsfeld's doing a fantastic job.

 

[Snowlock]

perhaps we can ask the two dozen or so bodies that are found tortured with drills and shot in the back of the heads how much they like their brand new country. maybe we can ask the head and torso of a grandmother who's been split apart by a carbomb if the shopping is much better these days now that Saddam's gone.

one violent situation has been replaced by another, and the result is that more civilians die at levels that are certainly now greater than the worst days of the Hussein regime. 3,000 a month over the summer.

the fact remains: YOU got us into this, YOU get us out. it's Colin Powell's pottery barn rule: YOU broke it YOU buy it. you can level anger and invective at the rest of the world, and i'd welcome their help, but how realistic is this considering the extreme lengths the bush administration went to flout world opinion and make the point that we-are-an-empire-and-we-create-our-own-reality-thank-you-very-much? when you've effectively said "fuck off" to the rest of the world, how realistically can you expect them to come in and help you the bull in the china shop to swee up afterwards.

Yes, one violent situation was replaced by another. But there's a big But here. And a big if. But if the new Iraqi government can eventually stand on it's own, the next generation and the subsequent ones, while they may not thanks us (see France & Belgium), they will be better off.

And the whole You got us into it and you get us out thing is a fine sentiment; but not if your heart's bleeding for the dying Iraqi's. Then it shouldn't matter how they got in, everyone needs to pitch in to get them out and stop complaining from the sidelines.

 

[Snowlock]

I haven't even responded to a post of your in months.


I'm not the one rewriting history in here.

Yeah you did. You called me a spoiled rich kid or something like that not two weeks ago. You constantly follow me around, trolling; begging for a response. What is true is that I generally don't repond to you; and with the exception of today and the one two weeks ago, haven't responded to you in over a year; not that you haven't made multiple attempts to troll a reaction out of me.

But I don't care to talk to you and won't again from here on out. I'm more than happy to debate others with the exact same reponses and opinions, but you specifically I don't think are worth my time.

 

[BVS]

Yeah you did. You called me a spoiled rich kid or something like that not two weeks ago.

Here you go rewriting history again. I never said that, how would I know how much you or your parents make?

You constantly follow me around, trolling; begging for a response.

I don't follow anyone around, don't flatter yourself.

But I don't care to talk to you and won't again from here on out. I'm more than happy to debate others with the exact same reponses and opinions, but you specifically I don't think are worth my time.

No skin off my teeth.

 

[yolland]

It's amazing how much you troll me begging for my attention. But really I gotta tell you; in all sincerity; I don't really value your thoughts so I don't really care what you have to say and your opinion means absolutely zero to me because I've written you off as just not that intelligent.

This post, in particular, was unacceptably rude.

That said, this entire thread keeps treading a fine line between barely managed exasperation and open contempt. If it keeps straying into the latter it will wind up closed.

If anyone has an actual strategy for Iraq from here on out to suggest, that would be a whole lot more productive than endless rounds of finger-pointing followed by defensive polemic. All that does is mirror the stalemate that's already out there and I really don't see the point.

 

[Snowlock]

This post, in particular, was unacceptably rude.

No, it wasn't. Like I said, he's been trolling me for well over a year. I guess I just had enough of it and was just telling him so since he apparently hasn't gotten the picture that my not responding to him for TWO YEARS of replies to my posts that I don't think he's worth my time.

I think two years is patience enough. And I didn't call him names or anything; I gave him my honest reasons why I don't respond to him and hoped that by giving him my reasoning, he would give up following me around.

And I wonder, were I and BVS on each others side of the political fence would your response be the same.

If you need links to his actions, it's pretty simple to compile for you; but I'll send them in email or something instead of wasting even more time in this thread with this.

Thanks.

 

[Bonochick]

No, it wasn't.

Yes, it was.

Like I said, he's been trolling me for well over a year.

Instead of being rude, report posts when somebody "trolls you" so that a moderator and/or admin can handle it.

 

[VintagePunk]

WOW; just wow. That is so patently false that I hope you are like 12 years old or something so I can excuse your ignorance on the matter. Honestly, and that isn't a dig or a shot or anything; and if you take it that way I apologize in advance. I'm seriously and sincerely just hoping you're not old enough know better and that's allowed you to have been under informed so badly on this issue.

Here's another pretty low-blow from a few pages back, in response to Diemen, veiled in the insincere fake apology, of course.

None of my business really, but I can't stand disingenuous cries of victimization.

 

[Bluer White]

Is there nobody in this stupid, corrupt administration who is in any way accountable for the chaos in Iraq?

Hilarious.

I'd bet good money there would be no answer forthcoming anyway.

If you wait a few hours, you'll get your answer from millions of American voters. I expect that you will be relatively pleased with the election results.

 

[Dreadsox]

And I wonder, were I and BVS on each others side of the political fence would your response be the same.

How dare you attack Yolland, one of the best, most fair, and balanced moderators ever to be in here.

Yolland is CLEARLY unbiased in the handling of this place.

Take your beef someplace else.