We need to put an end to the war

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Originally posted by: Bowfinger He should have had an exit strategy in hand before we went in, and he damn well needs to shoulder the blame for dumping us there and the responsibility for getting us out.

How does anyone have an exit strategy when they go to war? A war could turn so many different directions so quickly that it would be impossible to make a sufficient number of predictions to have a working exit strategy.

I think our strategy is to get the Iraqi's governing themselves and then get out. So far we are working as fast as possible to do this. Our governement wasn't created in 30, 60 or 90 days, so it's foolish to think we were going to go in, whoop ass, and leave within a few weeks with the Iraqis completely governing themselves.

There is a big difference between strategy and tactics. A well-developed and realistic exit strategy is a must before a country initiates military action, doubly so when it is a voluntary and premeditated act of agression. There is no sign the Bush administration made plans for anything that happened after our troops took Baghdad. His "Mission Accomplished" stunt is ample evidence.

 

[dirtboy]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
There is a big difference between strategy and tactics. A well-developed and realistic exit strategy is a must before a country initiates military action, doubly so when it is a voluntary and premeditated act of agression. There is no sign the Bush administration made plans for anything that happened after our troops took Baghdad. His "Mission Accomplished" stunt is ample evidence.

I'm amused how you say we need an exit strategy, when you haven't even offered up one and only say there is a "difference" between a strategy and a tactic. That's great. I think you need an exit strategy before you post something. Looks like you are no better than a Monday morning quarterback.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
There is a big difference between strategy and tactics. A well-developed and realistic exit strategy is a must before a country initiates military action, doubly so when it is a voluntary and premeditated act of agression. There is no sign the Bush administration made plans for anything that happened after our troops took Baghdad. His "Mission Accomplished" stunt is ample evidence.

I'm amused how you say we need an exit strategy, when you haven't even offered up one and only say there is a "difference" between a strategy and a tactic. That's great. I think you need an exit strategy before you post something. Looks like you are no better than a Monday morning quarterback.

Why don't you go back and read my first post in this thread.

You're two for two replying to my posts tonight. Perhaps, like Bush himself, you're in too much of a hurry to attack. You might take a little more time to read first. Just a suggestion.

 

[dirtboy]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Why don't you go back and read my first post in this thread.

And speaking of which, here it is:

I agree with maluckey that we cannot just pull out. Doing so would be dangerous for us and devastating for the people of Iraq.

I do NOT agree we may not express our unhappiness with the situation in Iraq without proposing a plan to leave. With all due respect gentlemen, whatever happened to personal responsibilitly? Assuming you support the invasion, we didn't get us into your mess, so why are we obligated to bail you out? Show us that vaunted personal responsibility and propose your own solutions. Don't get snippy with us if we continue to exercise our First Amendment rights to criticize.

More to the point, Bush got us into this mess. He should have had an exit strategy in hand before we went in, and he damn well needs to shoulder the blame for dumping us there and the responsibility for getting us out.

And Crimson, sorry, but we should NOT have gone in in the first place; this is one of many reasons why. It's much easier to get into a mess than it is to get out of it. That's why an invasion should have been the absolute last choice. Bush was too eager to charge in with guns blazing, and now he and his supporters need to show the integrity to accept responsiblity for his recklessness. If hearing about it makes you unhappy, tough. Stop shooting the messenger and start placing responsibility where it belongs -- on the head of your leader.

Where is your mention of what our exit strategy should be or is???????? Quick to find fault and say we should do something else, but last to offer up an idea.

You're two for two replying to my posts tonight. Perhaps, like Bush himself, you're in too much of a hurry to attack. You might take a little more time to read first. Just a suggestion.

You can count! :Q Maybe if you turn me into the mods they will ban me for replying to two of your posts.

Yes, attack, attack, attack!! How did you know? This coming from the person who thinks that everyone who disagrees with him is a neocon.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: mastertech01
The all volunteer army refers to all voluntary enlistment. It refers nothing to voluntary discharge.

IT was part of the contract when they signed up.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Why don't you go back and read my first post in this thread.

And speaking of which, here it is:

I agree with maluckey that we cannot just pull out. Doing so would be dangerous for us and devastating for the people of Iraq.

I do NOT agree we may not express our unhappiness with the situation in Iraq without proposing a plan to leave. With all due respect gentlemen, whatever happened to personal responsibility? Assuming you support the invasion, we didn't get us into your mess, so why are we obligated to bail you out? Show us that vaunted personal responsibility and propose your own solutions. Don't get snippy with us if we continue to exercise our First Amendment rights to criticize.

More to the point, Bush got us into this mess. He should have had an exit strategy in hand before we went in, and he damn well needs to shoulder the blame for dumping us there and the responsibility for getting us out.

And Crimson, sorry, but we should NOT have gone in in the first place; this is one of many reasons why. It's much easier to get into a mess than it is to get out of it. That's why an invasion should have been the absolute last choice. Bush was too eager to charge in with guns blazing, and now he and his supporters need to show the integrity to accept responsiblity for his recklessness. If hearing about it makes you unhappy, tough. Stop shooting the messenger and start placing responsibility where it belongs -- on the head of your leader.

Where is your mention of what our exit strategy should be or is???????? Quick to find fault and say we should do something else, but last to offer up an idea.

You're two for two replying to my posts tonight. Perhaps, like Bush himself, you're in too much of a hurry to attack. You might take a little more time to read first. Just a suggestion.

You can count! :Q Maybe if you turn me into the mods they will ban me for replying to two of your posts.

Yes, attack, attack, attack!! How did you know? This coming from the person who thinks that everyone who disagrees with him is a neocon.

I've highlighted the part you did not read -- twice. Do you want me to explain it to you too? Any more questions?

 

[dirtboy]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

I've highlighted the part you did not read -- twice. Do you want me to explain it to you too? Any more questions?

I read it twice and nowhere didn't I see your proclaimed exit strategy. You have said we shouldn't have gone in, which I understand, but still no exit strategy. Bravo to you for failing to answer my question twice. Since you obviously are incapable of answering my question, I'll just drop it... No point in carrying on a discussion with someone who makes statements but doesn't quantify them or explain them.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
I've highlighted the part you did not read -- twice. Do you want me to explain it to you too? Any more questions?

I read it twice and nowhere did I see your proclaimed exit strategy. You have said we shouldn't have gone in, which I understand, but still no exit strategy. Bravo to you for failing to answer my question twice. Since you obviously are incapable of answering my question, I'll just drop it... No point in carrying on a discussion with someone who makes statements but doesn't quantify them or explain them.

Lord help us, I weep for our future. What I said:

I do NOT agree we may not express our unhappiness with the situation in Iraq without proposing a plan to leave. With all due respect gentlemen, whatever happened to personal responsibility? Assuming you support the invasion, we didn't get us into your mess, so why are we obligated to bail you out? Show us that vaunted personal responsibility and propose your own solutions. Don't get snippy with us if we continue to exercise our First Amendment rights to criticize.

What it means: Clean up your own damn mess. It's not my responsiblity.

Bush put us there, it's his job to get us out. If you don't like me pointing this out, too bad. He's your hero. Show the integrity and personal responibility to accept the blame instead of attacking the messenger. Clear enough?

(But I think you already knew my point. That's why you're willing to "drop" the discussion. Like many others of your persuasion, you seem to have problems admitting you were wrong about anything.)

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Why don't you go back and read my first post in this thread.

And speaking of which, here it is:

I agree with maluckey that we cannot just pull out. Doing so would be dangerous for us and devastating for the people of Iraq.

I do NOT agree we may not express our unhappiness with the situation in Iraq without proposing a plan to leave. With all due respect gentlemen, whatever happened to personal responsibilitly? Assuming you support the invasion, we didn't get us into your mess, so why are we obligated to bail you out? Show us that vaunted personal responsibility and propose your own solutions. Don't get snippy with us if we continue to exercise our First Amendment rights to criticize.

More to the point, Bush got us into this mess. He should have had an exit strategy in hand before we went in, and he damn well needs to shoulder the blame for dumping us there and the responsibility for getting us out.

And Crimson, sorry, but we should NOT have gone in in the first place; this is one of many reasons why. It's much easier to get into a mess than it is to get out of it. That's why an invasion should have been the absolute last choice. Bush was too eager to charge in with guns blazing, and now he and his supporters need to show the integrity to accept responsiblity for his recklessness. If hearing about it makes you unhappy, tough. Stop shooting the messenger and start placing responsibility where it belongs -- on the head of your leader.

Where is your mention of what our exit strategy should be or is???????? Quick to find fault and say we should do something else, but last to offer up an idea.

You're two for two replying to my posts tonight. Perhaps, like Bush himself, you're in too much of a hurry to attack. You might take a little more time to read first. Just a suggestion.

You can count! :Q Maybe if you turn me into the mods they will ban me for replying to two of your posts.

Yes, attack, attack, attack!! How did you know? This coming from the person who thinks that everyone who disagrees with him is a neocon.

Dirtboy - those on the nay side won't ever accept that we have a plan because it's all in how people perceive things. If the attack of the day is "no exit plan" then they all sit here and bleat on and on about it and then hide behind "it's your mess" BS. If they don't think Bush's plan to allow the Iraqi's to govern themselves is good enough then they should provide an alternative but they don't. Complaining about what you perceive as "no plan" is pretty baseless if you won't accept anything anyone provides. The "exit" strategy is getting the Iraqi's incharge of their own country so we don't have to do it for them which is what it has been since the start. Some of the details will and have changed - but that still doesn't mean there isn't a plan. If things didn't change - people here and elsewhere would be ranting about how Bush isn't flexible enough or some such other tripe. We ARE working toward the goal of self-governance by the Iraqis and it's too bad some people here don't understand or accept that the plan is moving forward and will be dynamic. How long did it take us to leave other places? Are we out of Kosovo? So I think all of this rhetoric about "no plan" is just political smoke that some have inhaled.
Iraq will have a self-sustaining government and we will then be able to "exit" from the daily operations of the Iraqi government and daily life.

I think alot of this "smoke" blown by the naysayers is because the UN isn't involved or the fact that 2-3 countries are conspicuously absent. The plan will succeed inspite of the sayers of nay and Iraq and the ME will be better for it. It'll take time and alot of resolve but to "get out" now would be asinine. But I am open to ideas of those who think we aren't doing things right and the "plan" isn't "good enough" but to say there isn't/wasn't a plan is just plain stupid and it shows people's inattentiveness and partisanship. You are right dirtboy - to continue to address that accusation is really a waste of time since those who repeat it - will never be satisfied no matter what anyone says.

CkG

 

[Bigdude]

We control Iraq, it's our's. Time to suck the Middle East dry of Oil, then destroy everything when we leave!

 

[johnjosh]

aslong as army don't activate selective service i have no objection to the war.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Dirtboy - those on the nay side won't ever accept that we have a plan because it's all in how people perceive things. If the attack of the day is "no exit plan" then they all sit here and bleat on and on about it and then hide behind "it's your mess" BS. If they don't think Bush's plan to allow the Iraqi's to govern themselves is good enough then they should provide an alternative but they don't. Complaining about what you perceive as "no plan" is pretty baseless if you won't accept anything anyone provides. The "exit" strategy is getting the Iraqi's incharge of their own country so we don't have to do it for them which is what it has been since the start.

Sorry, Cad, that's not an exit strategy. At best it's a concept, at worst a platitude.

Some of the details will and have changed - but that still doesn't mean there isn't a plan. If things didn't change - people here and elsewhere would be ranting about how Bush isn't flexible enough or some such other tripe. We ARE working toward the goal of self-governance by the Iraqis and it's too bad some people here don't understand or accept that the plan is moving forward and will be dynamic. How long did it take us to leave other places? Are we out of Kosovo? So I think all of this rhetoric about "no plan" is just political smoke that some have inhaled. Iraq will have a self-sustaining government and we will then be able to "exit" from the daily operations of the Iraqi government and daily life.

At what cost? Why are we doing it virtually alone?

I think alot of this "smoke" blown by the naysayers is because the UN isn't involved or the fact that 2-3 countries are conspicuously absent.

Two or three countries? ROFL. Speaking of political smoke.

The so-called "coaltion of the willing" represent less than 20% of the world's population (including the U.S.), and even then the people of the "willing" countries largely opposed the war. Excluding the U.S. and Britain, the "willing" represent about 20% of the world GDP. Only Britain and Australia offered more than a couple hundred troops. Many of the "willing" countries offered no support whatsoever beyond allowing their names to be listed. At least a couple of "willing" countries denied supporting the invasion at all.

Many of the "willing" are there because we either paid them directly, or threatened to withhold aid. Eight countries are there because they want into NATO; Bush said the U.S. would veto the memberships of any country that did not join the "willing". Outside of politics, that's usually called extortion.

More noteworthy is all of the major countries who are NOT on the list: Russia, France, Germany, China, India, Canada, Mexico, Belgium, Austria, Greece, South Africa along with most of the rest of Africa, Brazil along with most of Central and South America, and Saudi Arabia along with most of the Middle Eastern countries who did support the 1991 action. Turkey is listed as "willing" (after we offered billions of dollars), but their support was inconsistent to say the least. The "willing" does NOT include 11 of the 15 UN Security Council members.

So much for "two or three". No matter how much Bush tries to spin it, this was a US/UK invasion with an assortment of minor hangers-on offering their names in return for political favor. Pretending otherwise just damages your credibility. It would be better to acknowledge it for what it was and move on to other issues.

The plan will succeed inspite of the sayers of nay and Iraq and the ME will be better for it. It'll take time and alot of resolve but to "get out" now would be asinine. But I am open to ideas of those who think we aren't doing things right and the "plan" isn't "good enough" but to say there isn't/wasn't a plan is just plain stupid and it shows people's inattentiveness and partisanship. You are right dirtboy - to continue to address that accusation is really a waste of time since those who repeat it - will never be satisfied no matter what anyone says.

CkG

Spin it however you wish, there is no evidence the Bush administration had even a rudimentary exit strategy before we invaded Iraq. People from both ends of the political spectrum have made this observation, as have current and former military leaders. Bush bought into the absurd delusion we would be universally embraced as liberators, ignoring those who warned of resistance and failing to plan for basics like securing sensitive facilities and repairing damaged infrastructure.

Our military deserves great credit for their gallant efforts to respond to these problems on-the-fly. One can only speculate how many lives we could have saved and how much more effective we might have been if only we had an adequate plan in place before crossing the border.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Dirtboy - those on the nay side won't ever accept that we have a plan because it's all in how people perceive things. If the attack of the day is "no exit plan" then they all sit here and bleat on and on about it and then hide behind "it's your mess" BS. If they don't think Bush's plan to allow the Iraqi's to govern themselves is good enough then they should provide an alternative but they don't. Complaining about what you perceive as "no plan" is pretty baseless if you won't accept anything anyone provides. The "exit" strategy is getting the Iraqi's incharge of their own country so we don't have to do it for them which is what it has been since the start.

Sorry, Cad, that's not an exit strategy. At best it's a concept, at worst a platitude.

Some of the details will and have changed - but that still doesn't mean there isn't a plan. If things didn't change - people here and elsewhere would be ranting about how Bush isn't flexible enough or some such other tripe. We ARE working toward the goal of self-governance by the Iraqis and it's too bad some people here don't understand or accept that the plan is moving forward and will be dynamic. How long did it take us to leave other places? Are we out of Kosovo? So I think all of this rhetoric about "no plan" is just political smoke that some have inhaled. Iraq will have a self-sustaining government and we will then be able to "exit" from the daily operations of the Iraqi government and daily life.

At what cost? Why are we doing it virtually alone?

I think alot of this "smoke" blown by the naysayers is because the UN isn't involved or the fact that 2-3 countries are conspicuously absent.

Two or three countries? ROFL. Speaking of political smoke.

The so-called "coaltion of the willing" represent less than 20% of the world's population (including the U.S.), and even then the people of the "willing" countries largely opposed the war. Excluding the U.S. and Britain, the "willing" represent about 20% of the world GDP. Only Britain and Australia offered more than a couple hundred troops. Many of the "willing" countries offered no support whatsoever beyond allowing their names to be listed. At least a couple of "willing" countries denied supporting the invasion at all.

Many of the "willing" are there because we either paid them directly, or threatened to withhold aid. Eight countries are there because they want into NATO; Bush said the U.S. would veto the memberships of any country that did not join the "willing". Outside of politics, that's usually called extortion.

More noteworthy is all of the major countries who are NOT on the list: Russia, France, Germany, China, India, Canada, Mexico, Belgium, Austria, Greece, South Africa along with most of the rest of Africa, Brazil along with most of Central and South America, and Saudi Arabia along with most of the Middle Eastern countries who did support the 1991 action. Turkey is listed as "willing" (after we offered billions of dollars), but their support was inconsistent to say the least. The "willing" does NOT include 11 of the 15 UN Security Council members.

So much for "two or three". No matter how much Bush tries to spin it, this was a US/UK invasion with an assortment of minor hangers-on offering their names in return for political favor. Pretending otherwise just damages your credibility. It would be better to acknowledge it for what it was and move on to other issues.

The plan will succeed inspite of the sayers of nay and Iraq and the ME will be better for it. It'll take time and alot of resolve but to "get out" now would be asinine. But I am open to ideas of those who think we aren't doing things right and the "plan" isn't "good enough" but to say there isn't/wasn't a plan is just plain stupid and it shows people's inattentiveness and partisanship. You are right dirtboy - to continue to address that accusation is really a waste of time since those who repeat it - will never be satisfied no matter what anyone says.

CkG

Spin it however you wish, there is no evidence the Bush administration had even a rudimentary exit strategy before we invaded Iraq. People from both ends of the political spectrum have made this observation, as have current and former military leaders. Bush bought into the absurd delusion we would be universally embraced as liberators, ignoring those who warned of resistance and failing to plan for basics like securing sensitive facilities and repairing damaged infrastructure.

Our military deserves great credit for their gallant efforts to respond to these problems on-the-fly. One can only speculate how many lives we could have saved and how much more effective we might have been if only we had an adequate plan in place before crossing the border.

See dirtboy? It's basically worthless to even try to address this because the sayers of nay will just dismiss and divert to a different rant. We didn't go this alone inspite of what the nay-sayers keep trying to say and the plan will go on inspite their insistance that there isn't one.

CkG

 

[dmcowen674]

"See dirtboy? It's basically worthless to even try to address this because the sayers of nay will just dismiss and divert to a different rant. We didn't go this alone inspite of what the nay-sayers keep trying to say and the plan will go on inspite their insistance that there isn't one."

CkG

That right DB, CAD & Co, how dare those "Sayers of Nay" how Un-American of them to not go along with such a great Grandiose plan of riding the world of such scum. Who's next in the plan CAD? I've been out of the loop while I was in a Doom and Gloom Fog.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger He should have had an exit strategy in hand before we went in, and he damn well needs to shoulder the blame for dumping us there and the responsibility for getting us out.

No plan survives the initial contact with the enemy. This is a standard accepted military doctrine.
To plan for every condition, becomes impossible, especially when the enemy does no think the way you do.

Even if we had enlisted non-westerners in the exit planning (which we may have), they would have had biases that we could not have seen. Those biases would have affected the plans. Also, circumstances themselves can change things. To plan for any possible eventuality would generate permentant inertia.

The Westerners are trying to turn over control of Iraq in a staged method as Iraqis are able to accept the required responsibilities.
The West has no interest of being dragged into a Vietnam of USSR/Afganistan.

The big problem is that the Iraqi resistance exists as a hatred toward the West, they do not see us as a destroyer of the previous regime.
Once we leave with a well trained Iraqi security force, then the Iraqis will be able to deal with the problem (resistance) in their own way.
As long as the West stays around, the new Iraqi security will be seen as a Western Puppet, generating a focal point.

It would have been nice to walk in and walk back out. Nice clean war.
The resistance prevents that. Now we have to extract ourselves taking into acocunt the level of compentence of the Iraqi people to self determination/protection.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
See dirtboy? It's basically worthless to even try to address this because the sayers of nay will just dismiss and divert to a different rant. We didn't go this alone inspite of what the nay-sayers keep trying to say and the plan will go on inspite their insistance that there isn't one.

CkG

"You did not. It's only a flesh wound."

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
See dirtboy? It's basically worthless to even try to address this because the sayers of nay will just dismiss and divert to a different rant. We didn't go this alone inspite of what the nay-sayers keep trying to say and the plan will go on inspite their insistance that there isn't one.

CkG

"You did not. It's only a flesh wound."

Yep - quit denying reality then.

CkG

 

[DZip]

Just wait until Howard Dean gets elected. He will surrender to the UN and leave Iraq under UN control. This would be a satisfactory solution to those that are opposed to our current stratagy. After the troops come home he can lay them off to reduce the budget, raise our taxes and brag about the surplus he has created. Ain't America a great place to live?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

I think alot of this "smoke" blown by the naysayers is because the UN isn't involved or the fact that 2-3 countries are conspicuously absent.

Two or three countries? ROFL. Speaking of political smoke.

The so-called "coaltion of the willing" represent less than 20% of the world's population (including the U.S.), and even then the people of the "willing" countries largely opposed the war. Excluding the U.S. and Britain, the "willing" represent about 20% of the world GDP. Only Britain and Australia offered more than a couple hundred troops. Many of the "willing" countries offered no support whatsoever beyond allowing their names to be listed. At least a couple of "willing" countries denied supporting the invasion at all.

Many of the "willing" are there because we either paid them directly, or threatened to withhold aid. Eight countries are there because they want into NATO; Bush said the U.S. would veto the memberships of any country that did not join the "willing". Outside of politics, that's usually called extortion.

More noteworthy is all of the major countries who are NOT on the list: Russia, France, Germany, China, India, Canada, Mexico, Belgium, Austria, Greece, South Africa along with most of the rest of Africa, Brazil along with most of Central and South America, and Saudi Arabia along with most of the Middle Eastern countries who did support the 1991 action. Turkey is listed as "willing" (after we offered billions of dollars), but their support was inconsistent to say the least. The "willing" does NOT include 11 of the 15 UN Security Council members.

So much for "two or three". No matter how much Bush tries to spin it, this was a US/UK invasion with an assortment of minor hangers-on offering their names in return for political favor. Pretending otherwise just damages your credibility. It would be better to acknowledge it for what it was and move on to other issues.

See dirtboy? It's basically worthless to even try to address this because the sayers of nay will just dismiss and divert to a different rant. We didn't go this alone inspite of what the nay-sayers keep trying to say and the plan will go on inspite their insistance that there isn't one.

CkG

I note that you have yet to provide any evidence this "plan" existed. I'd also like to know how you reconcile your alleged fact re. "2-3 countries" vs. my real facts about who was NOT in the coalition of the so-called willing.

Would you care to actually address these two points this time, or are you just going to keep dancing with dirtboy around them?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
I note that you have yet to provide any evidence this "plan" existed. I'd also like to know how you reconcile your alleged fact re. "2-3 countries" vs. my real facts about who was NOT in the coalition of the so-called willing.

Would you care to actually address these two points this time, or are you just going to keep dancing with dirtboy around them?

No - it happens to be you who is not addressing and acknowledging things. The PLAN WAS/IS - to turn Iraq over to the Iraqi people. The timetable has changed - the plan reworked, but like I said before - things such as these are dynamic and should be amended along the way to deal with changes and challenges that arise. Just because you don't accept that there is a plan doesn't mean that there isn't one. I guess we'll just keep following the "no plan" we have in Iraq

Now again - 2-3 countries that I spoke about are Germany, France, and Russia if you had half a clue. Notice I didn't say "only" 2-3 - I said "because the UN isn't involved or the fact that 2-3 countries are conspicuously absent". The sayers of nay like to constantly whine about how those 3 weren't involved or didn't "support" it. But keep trying to paint this as "Unilateral"

It was FAR from unilateral and you know it. Those that weren't involved CHOSE to not be involved - they weren't kept out. They could have joined the coalition - but they, like the UN, didn't feel like backing up their words with action. Their choice - their problem. If they want to help - then I'm sure we'd be welcome it - but so far they have resisted helping.

Now would you care to address the question of what kind of plan you want to see? or are you just going to sit there whining and trying to deny we have a coalition and a plan?

CkG

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
No - it happens to be you who is not addressing and acknowledging things.

Of course.

The PLAN WAS/IS - to turn Iraq over to the Iraqi people. The timetable has changed - the plan reworked, but like I said before - things such as these are dynamic and should be amended along the way to deal with changes and challenges that arise. Just because you don't accept that there is a plan doesn't mean that there isn't one. I guess we'll just keep following the "no plan" we have in Iraq

plan: noun - A scheme, program, or method worked out beforehand for the accomplishment of an objective

No matter how much you want to quibble over what "is" is, "turning Iraq over to the Iraqi people" is NOT a PLAN. It is at best, an objective, at worst a deception. A plan consists of the details that get us to an objective. A plan is NOT just some vague platitude.

Can you produce any evidence this "plan" existed or not? I will take further evasions and irrelevant redefinitions of the word "plan" as a tacit admission you cannot.

Now again - 2-3 countries that I spoke about are Germany, France, and Russia if you had half a clue. Notice I didn't say "only" 2-3 - I said "because the UN isn't involved or the fact that 2-3 countries are conspicuously absent". The sayers of nay like to constantly whine about how those 3 weren't involved or didn't "support" it. But keep trying to paint this as "Unilateral"

It was FAR from unilateral and you know it.

It was effectively unilateral; your refusal to acknowledge this simple truth demonstrates how irrational some Bush apologists can be. It was the U.S. and Great Britain, with Australia providing a little supplemental support. Every other "willing" country provided token support AT MOST. Many provided nothing at all.


The facts are clear: The so-called "coaltion of the willing" represent less than 20% of the world's population (including the U.S.), and even then the people of the "willing" countries largely opposed the war. Excluding the U.S. and Britain, the "willing" represent about 20% of the world GDP. Only Britain and Australia offered more than a couple hundred troops. Many of the "willing" countries offered no support whatsoever beyond allowing their names to be listed. At least a couple of "willing" countries denied supporting the invasion at all.

Many of the "willing" are there because we either paid them directly, or threatened to withhold aid. Eight countries are there because they want into NATO; Bush said the U.S. would veto the memberships of any country that did not join the "willing". Outside of politics, that's usually called extortion.

More noteworthy is all of the major countries who are NOT on the list: Russia, France, Germany, China, India, Canada, Mexico, Belgium, Austria, Greece, South Africa along with most of the rest of Africa, Brazil along with most of Central and South America, and Saudi Arabia along with most of the Middle Eastern countries who did support the 1991 action. Turkey is listed as "willing" (after we offered billions of dollars), but their support was inconsistent to say the least. The "willing" does NOT include 11 of the 15 UN Security Council members.

No matter how much Bush tries to spin it, this was a US/UK invasion with an assortment of minor hangers-on offering their names in return for political favor. Pretending otherwise just damages your credibility. It would be better to acknowledge it for what it was and move on to other issues.

It was effectively unilateral, whether you can accept it or not.

Those that weren't involved CHOSE to not be involved - they weren't kept out. They could have joined the coalition - but they, like the UN, didn't feel like backing up their words with action. Their choice - their problem. If they want to help - then I'm sure we'd be welcome it - but so far they have resisted helping.

More lunacy from Reverso World. You are claiming that something isn't unilateral if one offers to let others participate, regardless of whether they actually do? Do I have that right? So if I decide to beat up someone, it's not a unilateral action as long as I invite my neighbors to help? Even when they recoil in horror and try to stop me? Does that about sum it up?

Wow. Not even Ari Fleisher was brash enough to float that baloney. He stuck to the official line, that Bumpintheroadistan and Podunkslovakia were significant and valuable allies.

Now would you care to address the question of what kind of plan you want to see? or are you just going to sit there whining and trying to deny we have a coalition and a plan?

CkG

Yep, I am going to continue to deny we had we had a substantive coalition and a substantive plan because you've shown me nothing but empty rhetoric to support your claims.

 

[DealMonkey]

Didn't we have to pay-off the majority of our coalition members to the tune of Billions of US dollars? Everyone has their price, I guess.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
No - it happens to be you who is not addressing and acknowledging things.

Of course.

The PLAN WAS/IS - to turn Iraq over to the Iraqi people. The timetable has changed - the plan reworked, but like I said before - things such as these are dynamic and should be amended along the way to deal with changes and challenges that arise. Just because you don't accept that there is a plan doesn't mean that there isn't one. I guess we'll just keep following the "no plan" we have in Iraq

plan: noun - A scheme, program, or method worked out beforehand for the accomplishment of an objective

No matter how much you want to quibble over what "is" is, "turning Iraq over to the Iraqi people" is NOT a PLAN. It is at best, an objective, at worst a deception. A plan consists of the details that get us to an objective. A plan is NOT just some vague platitude.

Can you produce any evidence this "plan" existed or not? I will take further evasions and irrelevant redefinitions of the word "plan" as a tacit admission you cannot.

Now again - 2-3 countries that I spoke about are Germany, France, and Russia if you had half a clue. Notice I didn't say "only" 2-3 - I said "because the UN isn't involved or the fact that 2-3 countries are conspicuously absent". The sayers of nay like to constantly whine about how those 3 weren't involved or didn't "support" it. But keep trying to paint this as "Unilateral"

It was FAR from unilateral and you know it.

It was effectively unilateral; your refusal to acknowledge this simple truth demonstrates how irrational some Bush apologists can be. It was the U.S. and Great Britain, with Australia providing a little supplemental support. Every other "willing" country provided token support AT MOST. Many provided nothing at all.


The facts are clear: The so-called "coaltion of the willing" represent less than 20% of the world's population (including the U.S.), and even then the people of the "willing" countries largely opposed the war. Excluding the U.S. and Britain, the "willing" represent about 20% of the world GDP. Only Britain and Australia offered more than a couple hundred troops. Many of the "willing" countries offered no support whatsoever beyond allowing their names to be listed. At least a couple of "willing" countries denied supporting the invasion at all.

Many of the "willing" are there because we either paid them directly, or threatened to withhold aid. Eight countries are there because they want into NATO; Bush said the U.S. would veto the memberships of any country that did not join the "willing". Outside of politics, that's usually called extortion.

More noteworthy is all of the major countries who are NOT on the list: Russia, France, Germany, China, India, Canada, Mexico, Belgium, Austria, Greece, South Africa along with most of the rest of Africa, Brazil along with most of Central and South America, and Saudi Arabia along with most of the Middle Eastern countries who did support the 1991 action. Turkey is listed as "willing" (after we offered billions of dollars), but their support was inconsistent to say the least. The "willing" does NOT include 11 of the 15 UN Security Council members.

No matter how much Bush tries to spin it, this was a US/UK invasion with an assortment of minor hangers-on offering their names in return for political favor. Pretending otherwise just damages your credibility. It would be better to acknowledge it for what it was and move on to other issues.

It was effectively unilateral, whether you can accept it or not.

Those that weren't involved CHOSE to not be involved - they weren't kept out. They could have joined the coalition - but they, like the UN, didn't feel like backing up their words with action. Their choice - their problem. If they want to help - then I'm sure we'd be welcome it - but so far they have resisted helping.

More lunacy from Reverso World. You are claiming that something isn't unilateral if one offers to let others participate, regardless of whether they actually do? Do I have that right? So if I decide to beat up someone, it's not a unilateral action as long as I invite my neighbors to help? Even when they recoil in horror and try to stop me? Does that about sum it up?

Wow. Not even Ari Fleisher was brash enough to float that baloney. He stuck to the official line, that Bumpintheroadistan and Podunkslovakia were significant and valuable allies.

Now would you care to address the question of what kind of plan you want to see? or are you just going to sit there whining and trying to deny we have a coalition and a plan?

CkG

Yep, I am going to continue to deny we had we had a substantive coalition and a substantive plan because you've shown me nothing but empty rhetoric to support your claims.

Figures - Dismiss and deny

You can try to spin it however you wish but the FACTS are that we have a coalition and it is NO WHERE NEAR UNILATERAL. Bleat on all you wish about who is or isn't a part of it - but it was THEIR CHOICE to take part or not. Some chose to join - others didn't - but it was/is by no means - "unilateral". "Effectively" doesn't cut it Bow - the accusation has been "unilateral" -which is clearly NOT true. If you wish to say that we should have had more help - fine, but that isn't our fault - those countries CHOSE not to help - they CHOSE(as did the UN) to not back up their words. But anyway - maybe you'll answer this: How many more countries or which other countries would it have taken for you to not consider it "Unilateral"? If France was onboard would that have made it a "coalition" instead of "Unilateral"? How about Germany? Russia?

Now to the question of a "plan"
If there was "no plan" would this have been accomplished?
*Local elections(LGP=Local Governance Program) which gives people representation
*Iraqi governing council
*Timetable to turn over authority to council
*Rebuilding of Iraqi Oil infrastructure
*REbuilding of Business infrastructure and trade routes
*New Iraqi currency
*public health spending increased 26 times the level of spending under Saddam
*Almost 1800 schools rehabilitated
*240 hospitals and more than 1,200 primary health clinics in operation
*Iraqi Ministry of Health now has 100,000 healthcare professionals and staff

But yeah - these few things out of the mountain of progress don't mean a thing - they just happened one day - no plan at all

Just because YOU don't think there is a plan - it doesn't mean there isn't one(or many). You can rant and whine all you want about Bush not giving you a day by day break down of how the plan was to be implemented but it doesn't mean that there wasn't a plan. As the evidence I pointed out above shows - we most certainly did and do have a plan for rebuilding Iraq and allowing for it to be governed by their own people.

So until you admit that the War wasn't "Unilateral" and that the evidence shows that there is a plan - I'll just chalk up your denial and accusations to partisan rhetoric. Now if you wish to admit those two obvious things then maybe we can address some of the finer points, but it is worthless to do so until you accept and admit them.

BTW - we're still waiting to hear the "Bowfinger plan"

CkG

 

[Moonbeam]

Wasn't Outer Slabobia part of the coalition of the bribed and extorted.