Originally Posted By Bruiser "My question is... why do you believe stuff that you can't prove?" Ask yourself. Where are those pesky WMDs? The North Pole?
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>This is a point that I understand is going to be hammered home by the white House in the upcoming weeks.<< It's all they've got. How nice it would be if all this back and forth was spent examining why the intellegence on Iraq was so wrong in regards to WMD and working on ways to prevent such a collosal... mess up ... in the future. Instead, it's all about posturing.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<Ask yourself. Where are those pesky WMDs? The North Pole?>> Ask Clinton, Kerry, Kennedy, Gore, Biden , Reid, Boxer, Edwards and dozens of other democrats who insisted SAddam had WMD's. I think they were moved to Syria myself.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy << Instead, it's all about posturing. >> By the democrats. The President is simply trying to win a war and keep the country safe. We are about to win, yet the left can't have this it seems.
Originally Posted By Bruiser "Ask Clinton, Kerry, Kennedy, Gore, Biden , Reid, Boxer, Edwards and dozens of other democrats who insisted SAddam had WMD's." Ask Comet, Cupid, Donner and Blitzen! "I think they were moved to Syria myself." Who told you that? Jessica Lynch?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>I think they were moved to Syria myself.<< Wouldn't it be nice to know how that was achieved while the whole world was focused on Iraq? That should be of some concern. And if they were moved to Syria, why in the world have the terrorists who now posses them shown such restraint in using them? They have no restraint in regards to blowing up innocents at weddings and in marketplaces, so why would they not use WMDs if they had them?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Not only does Al-Zarqawi refute your statement, but you called all the insurgents terrorists the other day rather than call them an army.> Al-Zarqawi doesn't refute my statement, and yes, the insurgents are terrorists.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<They have no restraint in regards to blowing up innocents at weddings and in marketplaces, so why would they not use WMDs if they had them?>> That's a good question K2man. Maybe they don't exist, maybe they are unuseable or hidden away. The 9/11 report and the Butler report said Saddam WAS in the process of getting Nuclear weapons and that if he was not removed he would have had them is a short amount of time. It's a good thing for the world he is gone. It's a good thing that Iraq works as a democracy and that we kill as many terrorists as possible. YOu would think everyone could at least agree on that.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>It's a good thing for the world he is gone. It's a good thing that Iraq works as a democracy and that we kill as many terrorists as possible. YOu would think everyone could at least agree on that.<< I do agree with that. But I do not want to ever again go into a war with such screwed up intel. Think of it this way: What if instead of NO WMDs, there had been vast, ready-to-go stockpiles of it unleashed on our soldiers and the Iraqi people, and who knows how many others, More than we'd ever dreamed of? I want LESSONS to be learned here, so that we never again have to do so much backpeddling and spinning of uncomfortable truths (no WMDs). My anger is that this administration is more interested in looking good, and too many Democrats in making him look bad, for us to even begin to move toward anyone learning a lesson. I would think we all could agree on that as well.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<I do agree with that. But I do not want to ever again go into a war with such screwed up intel.>> I bet Bush would stand and cheer and say Amen to that! Whatever they pay him, it's not enough.
Originally Posted By crapshoot <<Bush's attempt to "drain the swamp" in iraq has actually increased the terrorist presence from 'nil' to 'overflowing' into neighboring nations.>> "The $64 billion oil-for-food program operated under U.N. oversight from 1996 to 2003. According to the Volcker report, it attracted a large and unusual cast of participants, from Australian wheat farmers to Russian politicians, former French diplomats, U.S. oilmen and Iranian terrorists. Some of the money paid to Iraq in kickbacks and bribes may be funding insurgents who are killing U.S. troops in Iraq, the report says." Sorry folks, but Iraq is much more complicated than he said/she said.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<I wish it were true - or at least true enough to stop the insurgency in any meaningful way.>> <Looks true to me. <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/" target="_blank">http://www.nationalreview.com/</a> smitht/smith200511210820.asp> Sorry, a rah-rah article from the National Review is not going to cut it. The insurgency is alive and well despite recent successes against it - which is the point. You've got everyone from the usually hawkish marine Murtha to the former under sec'y of defense under Reagan pointing out that this thing can not be won militarily. The best the military can do is slow it down.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer You really can't defeat an insurgency with the military. You might push it underground for a few years, but it's still going to be there as long as the occupying force is there.
Originally Posted By crapshoot <<You might push it underground for a few years, but it's still going to be there as long as the occupying force is there.>> Wow, I guess I failed to read that in Insurgency 101. There is no evidence whatsoever that when we leave Iraq, so will the insurgents. They seem to be attacking and killing alot of the Iraqi population. My opinion is that those leading the insurgents are simply looking for weak spots in Iraq as well as sending a propoganda message against the west. These leaders are grasping at straws by conduting suicide missions, much like Japan did in the final months of WWII. But when we leave, we will leave Iraq in a position to deal with these problems with a capable military and strong judicial system.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Sorry, a rah-rah article from the National Review is not going to cut it.> Of course. You only believe foundationless opinion from left wing sources. <You've got everyone from the usually hawkish marine Murtha to the former under sec'y of defense under Reagan pointing out that this thing can not be won militarily.> And somehow their opinion is worth more than the many military experts that say we're winning, and can point to the tangible evidence that supports it? I don't think so.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "Of course. You only believe foundationless opinion from left wing sources." Of course. You only believe foundationless opinion from right wing sources.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh My source points to the tangible evidence that supports his position.
Originally Posted By itsme >>"Of course. You only believe foundationless opinion from left wing sources." Of course. You only believe foundationless opinion from right wing sources. ------ If someone gives one credit, they must give the other the same credit also.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>Wow, I guess I failed to read that in Insurgency 101.<< They don't cover that in 101. You need to be in the upper level classes before you get to the political aspects of insurgency.
