That's where we went wrong. We should have sent the politicians to oust Sadaam. Then we'd have a win-win situation.

 

Now, if we did that, I would be willing to vote to cut off funding once they got in-country.

 

 

Frances

Isn't google wonderful? Unless you're a politician.

 

Absolutely nothing hurts more than having your own words come back to haunt you...

 

 

Frances

I am an expert at preparing tax returns. My wife doesn't know what one looks like.

 

 

point taken.....can't argue with that.

America's lack of will to win in Iraq comforts the enemy much more than any perceived "incompetence."

 

Rubbish. We are not engaged in a war that our military is equipped or trained to win. I fail to see what is being accomplished by putting our military (which has effectively become a peacekeeping force) out there to be shot at by snipers, blown up by IEDs, and ambushed by RPG and mortar fire. I suppose the Sunnis and Shia would stop killing each other and begin to behave with civility if only they sensed our "will to win"...

What about the un inspectors. They were the ones that gave the information on WMD's. We as part of the un sent them, why would we not believe them? They were sent as a delegation of all members of the un. They were the eyes inside.

 

They were the eyes inside, indeed. And you know what they were reporting one month before the invasion? They were reporting that U.S. intelligence on the location of WMD's or mere evidence to their existence was garbage.

 

From a Feb 20, 2003 CBS News report:

 

"While diplomatic maneuvering continues over Turkish bases and a new United Nations resolution, inside Iraq, U.N. arms inspectors are privately complaining about the quality of U.S. intelligence and accusing the United States of sending them on wild-goose chases. "

 

"U.S. claim that Iraq is developing missiles that could hit its neighbors – or U.S. troops in the region, or even Israel – is just one of the claims coming from Washington that inspectors here are finding increasingly unbelievable. The inspectors have become so frustrated trying to chase down unspecific or ambiguous U.S. leads that they've begun to express that anger privately in no uncertain terms.

 

U.N. sources have told CBS News that American tips have lead to one dead end after another.

 

 

Example: satellite photographs purporting to show new research buildings at Iraqi nuclear sites. When the U.N. went into the new buildings they found "nothing."

 

 

Example: Saddam's presidential palaces, where the inspectors went with specific coordinates supplied by the U.S. on where to look for incriminating evidence. Again, they found "nothing."

 

 

Example: Interviews with scientists about the aluminum tubes the U.S. says Iraq has imported for enriching uranium, but which the Iraqis say are for making rockets. Given the size and specification of the tubes, the U.N. calls the "Iraqi alibi air tight."

 

The inspectors do acknowledge, however, that they would not be here at all if not for the threat of U.S. military action.

 

So frustrated have the inspectors become that one source has referred to the U.S. intelligence they've been getting as "garbage after garbage after garbage." In fact, Phillips says the source used another cruder word. The inspectors find themselves caught between the Iraqis, who are masters at the weapons-hiding shell game, and the United States, whose intelligence they've found to be circumstantial, outdated or just plain wrong."

 

 

By early 2003 (well before the President announced his decision to invade), U.N. weapons inspectors were most definitely not convinced that Iraq had WMDs.

The WSJ article is a whiny-toned collection of half-truths and distortions. If the author had half a lick of sense, he would be asking why we are on the verge of losing this war, after the President has had three and a half years of unencumbered carte blanche to prosecute it as he saw fit. The members of Congress who are just now beginning to seriously question this President's competence, are merely exercising the will of the people, which was expressed unequivocally on 7 November.

 

And if Bush starts a war with Iran, many of you will be wishing Congress had taken far more forceful steps to reign in this President. Who knows, we may look back on our fiasco in Iraq as "the good old days".

Rubbish. We are not engaged in a war that our military is equipped or trained to win. I fail to see what is being accomplished by putting our military (which has effectively become a peacekeeping force) out there to be shot at by snipers, blown up by IEDs, and ambushed by RPG and mortar fire. I suppose the Sunnis and Shia would stop killing each other and begin to behave with civility if only they sensed our "will to win"...

 

Back to the Dem mantra - "We can't.":rolleyes:

 

I'm going to make a bumper sticker, should sell millions...

 

VOTE DEMOCRAT - JUST SAY "WE CAN'T"

Back to the Dem mantra - "We can't.":rolleyes:

 

I'm going to make a bumper sticker, should sell millions...

 

VOTE DEMOCRAT - JUST SAY "WE CAN'T"

 

I'll buy one, I won't put on my car though, someone might believe I'm a Dem.

:thumb:

Absolutely nothing hurts more than having your own words come back to haunt you...

 

 

Frances

 

I guess I'll have to add outlawing the internet to my campaign platform when I run.

"Duped" would not be as accurate a term as "bullied" by jingoistic sabre rattling, with the thinly veiled implication that anyone who didn't support going to war in Iraq was unpatriotic.

So your view is that Democrats don't have the guts to do what is right in the face of public or political outcry?:sssh:

Back to the Dem mantra - "We can't.":rolleyes:

 

I'm going to make a bumper sticker, should sell millions...

 

VOTE DEMOCRAT - JUST SAY "WE CAN'T"

 

This is the whole problem with the true believers in the Iraq war, dwindling in numbers though they are. Blinded by hubris, they fail to recognize that the outcome is not entirely in U.S. hands. If the Iraqis place a higher value on killing their sectarian rivals than living together in a peaceful democracy, no amount of good old fashoned American gumption and resolve will change the situation.

This is the whole problem with the true believers in the Iraq war, dwindling in numbers though they are. Blinded by hubris, they fail to recognize that the outcome is not entirely in U.S. hands. If the Iraqis place a higher value on killing their sectarian rivals than living together in a peaceful democracy, no amount of good old fashoned American gumption and resolve will change the situation.

 

Absolutely true. Which leaves us with a few choices:

 

1. Continue the present course, at the continued cost of the lives of American soldiers, until the Iraqi people "change their minds".

2. Realize that we have taken out Public Enemy #1 for the Iraqi's and #2 (behind Bin Ladin) for the U.S. and given the people a chance at change...and exit from the scene.

Is the military really capable of and should they ever be used for anything other than defending our shores or beating the snot out of another army? Is that why we've seen so many military failures in places like Somalia, Iraq and Vietnam because we are tasking them with an assignment that they were not designed to do and with Rules of Engagement that guarantee failure?

Is the military really capable of and should they ever be used for anything other than defending our shores or beating the snot out of another army? Is that why we've seen so many military failures in places like Somalia, Iraq and Vietnam because we are tasking them with an assignment that they were not designed to do and with Rules of Engagement that guarantee failure?

The simple answer is yes. We can't give them a peaceful society if they don't want one. I have no doubt that most Iraqis would like a peaceful democratic society, but at least so far, they haven't shown that they are willing to turn in the killers among them. Trying to bring democracy to them will not succeed until the Iraqis want it to. I found some recent comments from a high Iraqi official recently very interesting. He asked for sufficient arms and supplies to allow the Iraqis to do the job themselves. I suspect that what that would mean is that we would replace one despotic strongman, who hated Iran, with a despotic strongman with ties to Iran. All at a cost of thousands of Americans and hundreds of billions of dollars.

Is the military really capable of and should they ever be used for anything other than defending our shores or beating the snot out of another army? Is that why we've seen so many military failures in places like Somalia, Iraq and Vietnam because we are tasking them with an assignment that they were not designed to do and with Rules of Engagement that guarantee failure?

 

Well stated.