I'm really wondering. Why did Bush say the war is not over yet? What else do they need to do? Don't wanna start a flame-war so flamers, take your posts somewhere else.
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Once we attacked Iraq we commited ouraelves to the long run. Whether we were just or not doing it or that the American Public was hoodwinked by Bush and his Neocons Handlers now is irrelevant. We have to go the distance or face even more horrors than we did on 9/11
Originally posted by: miguel
To make sure that Iraq doesn't descend into a Somalia, to make sure Democracy takes root in the Middle East.
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Once we attacked Iraq we commited ouraelves to the long run. Whether we were just or not doing it or that the American Public was hoodwinked by Bush and his Neocons Handlers now is irrelevant. We have to go the distance or face even more horrors than we did on 9/11
Pure BS coming from the Closeted Liberal.
No one was hoodwinked. Eleven years and countless (16 Article VII) resolutions later and Hussein had to be dealt with. Unfortunately, his paymasters in Russia and the West were appalled and terrified at seeing one of their customers being attacked and opposed it very much (at the cost of undermining the United Nations). But the United States, itself appalled by 9/11 and concerned about what other unstable regimes might do next, decided to uphold the UN Charter and invade a country that undermined international security. We got rid of him. But the hard part is securing the peace and staying long enough so that a democratic regime can replace the dictatorial one. This will take a huge investment from the US and the rest of the international community. If you want precedent, look at Europe and the defeat of Nazi Germany and Fascist Japan. We didn't leave within the year, decade, or generation. This rebuilding effort will take time.
Originally posted by: ndee
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Once we attacked Iraq we commited ouraelves to the long run. Whether we were just or not doing it or that the American Public was hoodwinked by Bush and his Neocons Handlers now is irrelevant. We have to go the distance or face even more horrors than we did on 9/11
Pure BS coming from the Closeted Liberal.
No one was hoodwinked. Eleven years and countless (16 Article VII) resolutions later and Hussein had to be dealt with. Unfortunately, his paymasters in Russia and the West were appalled and terrified at seeing one of their customers being attacked and opposed it very much (at the cost of undermining the United Nations). But the United States, itself appalled by 9/11 and concerned about what other unstable regimes might do next, decided to uphold the UN Charter and invade a country that undermined international security. We got rid of him. But the hard part is securing the peace and staying long enough so that a democratic regime can replace the dictatorial one. This will take a huge investment from the US and the rest of the international community. If you want precedent, look at Europe and the defeat of Nazi Germany and Fascist Japan. We didn't leave within the year, decade, or generation. This rebuilding effort will take time.
What I don't get, the US supported Hussein in the war against Iran. Til he attacked Kuwait, then the US started the Gulfwar IIRC. How was Hussein a customer to the west and Russia?
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Once we attacked Iraq we commited ouraelves to the long run. Whether we were just or not doing it or that the American Public was hoodwinked by Bush and his Neocons Handlers now is irrelevant. We have to go the distance or face even more horrors than we did on 9/11
Pure BS coming from the Closeted Liberal.
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: miguel
To make sure that Iraq doesn't descend into a Somalia, to make sure Democracy takes root in the Middle East.
Democracy, eh? Watchoo gonna do when they vote themselves a Supreme Leader Mullah and declare Sharia to be the law of the land? Smack 'em with a stick?
Originally posted by: miguel
Originally posted by: ndee
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Once we attacked Iraq we commited ouraelves to the long run. Whether we were just or not doing it or that the American Public was hoodwinked by Bush and his Neocons Handlers now is irrelevant. We have to go the distance or face even more horrors than we did on 9/11
Pure BS coming from the Closeted Liberal.
No one was hoodwinked. Eleven years and countless (16 Article VII) resolutions later and Hussein had to be dealt with. Unfortunately, his paymasters in Russia and the West were appalled and terrified at seeing one of their customers being attacked and opposed it very much (at the cost of undermining the United Nations). But the United States, itself appalled by 9/11 and concerned about what other unstable regimes might do next, decided to uphold the UN Charter and invade a country that undermined international security. We got rid of him. But the hard part is securing the peace and staying long enough so that a democratic regime can replace the dictatorial one. This will take a huge investment from the US and the rest of the international community. If you want precedent, look at Europe and the defeat of Nazi Germany and Fascist Japan. We didn't leave within the year, decade, or generation. This rebuilding effort will take time.
What I don't get, the US supported Hussein in the war against Iran. Til he attacked Kuwait, then the US started the Gulfwar IIRC. How was Hussein a customer to the west and Russia?
He was the lesser of two evils when Iran went fundamentalist.
Originally posted by: miguel
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: miguel
To make sure that Iraq doesn't descend into a Somalia, to make sure Democracy takes root in the Middle East.
Democracy, eh? Watchoo gonna do when they vote themselves a Supreme Leader Mullah and declare Sharia to be the law of the land? Smack 'em with a stick?
Speculation. I could speculate the other way too. What if they became a true democracy and it starts a chain reaction in the Muslim world to finally bring them out of the dark ages?
Originally posted by: ndee
Originally posted by: miguel
Originally posted by: ndee
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Once we attacked Iraq we commited ouraelves to the long run. Whether we were just or not doing it or that the American Public was hoodwinked by Bush and his Neocons Handlers now is irrelevant. We have to go the distance or face even more horrors than we did on 9/11
Pure BS coming from the Closeted Liberal.
No one was hoodwinked. Eleven years and countless (16 Article VII) resolutions later and Hussein had to be dealt with. Unfortunately, his paymasters in Russia and the West were appalled and terrified at seeing one of their customers being attacked and opposed it very much (at the cost of undermining the United Nations). But the United States, itself appalled by 9/11 and concerned about what other unstable regimes might do next, decided to uphold the UN Charter and invade a country that undermined international security. We got rid of him. But the hard part is securing the peace and staying long enough so that a democratic regime can replace the dictatorial one. This will take a huge investment from the US and the rest of the international community. If you want precedent, look at Europe and the defeat of Nazi Germany and Fascist Japan. We didn't leave within the year, decade, or generation. This rebuilding effort will take time.
What I don't get, the US supported Hussein in the war against Iran. Til he attacked Kuwait, then the US started the Gulfwar IIRC. How was Hussein a customer to the west and Russia?
He was the lesser of two evils when Iran went fundamentalist.
why didn't they let them cancel out themselves? I may sound like a liberal whatever but why did they make it their problem? Like... why couldn't they just let them alone and fight?
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: miguel
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: miguel
To make sure that Iraq doesn't descend into a Somalia, to make sure Democracy takes root in the Middle East.
Democracy, eh? Watchoo gonna do when they vote themselves a Supreme Leader Mullah and declare Sharia to be the law of the land? Smack 'em with a stick?
Speculation. I could speculate the other way too. What if they became a true democracy and it starts a chain reaction in the Muslim world to finally bring them out of the dark ages?
Sure, but which is more likely to happen if you left the Iraqis to their own devices? I'm sure we'll put some provision in their constitution that disallows any kind of theocracy, so I guess the point is really moot.
Originally posted by: ndee
Originally posted by: miguel
Originally posted by: ndee
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Once we attacked Iraq we commited ouraelves to the long run. Whether we were just or not doing it or that the American Public was hoodwinked by Bush and his Neocons Handlers now is irrelevant. We have to go the distance or face even more horrors than we did on 9/11
Pure BS coming from the Closeted Liberal.
No one was hoodwinked. Eleven years and countless (16 Article VII) resolutions later and Hussein had to be dealt with. Unfortunately, his paymasters in Russia and the West were appalled and terrified at seeing one of their customers being attacked and opposed it very much (at the cost of undermining the United Nations). But the United States, itself appalled by 9/11 and concerned about what other unstable regimes might do next, decided to uphold the UN Charter and invade a country that undermined international security. We got rid of him. But the hard part is securing the peace and staying long enough so that a democratic regime can replace the dictatorial one. This will take a huge investment from the US and the rest of the international community. If you want precedent, look at Europe and the defeat of Nazi Germany and Fascist Japan. We didn't leave within the year, decade, or generation. This rebuilding effort will take time.
What I don't get, the US supported Hussein in the war against Iran. Til he attacked Kuwait, then the US started the Gulfwar IIRC. How was Hussein a customer to the west and Russia?
He was the lesser of two evils when Iran went fundamentalist.
why didn't they let them cancel out themselves? I may sound like a liberal whatever but why did they make it their problem? Like... why couldn't they just let them alone and fight?
Originally posted by: miguel
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: miguel
To make sure that Iraq doesn't descend into a Somalia, to make sure Democracy takes root in the Middle East.
Democracy, eh? Watchoo gonna do when they vote themselves a Supreme Leader Mullah and declare Sharia to be the law of the land? Smack 'em with a stick?
Speculation. I could speculate the other way too. What if they became a true democracy and it starts a chain reaction in the Muslim world to finally bring them out of the dark ages?
Originally posted by: jpeyton
We're still in Iraq because there is a lot of goddamn profit to be made for American companies there. That's the bottom line.
Originally posted by: nick1985
Originally posted by: jpeyton
We're still in Iraq because there is a lot of goddamn profit to be made for American companies there. That's the bottom line.
or maybe could it be that if we left the country would return to COMPLETE chaos and the terrorists could take control of the country?
your an idiot.
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: nick1985
Originally posted by: jpeyton
We're still in Iraq because there is a lot of goddamn profit to be made for American companies there. That's the bottom line.
or maybe could it be that if we left the country would return to COMPLETE chaos and the terrorists could take control of the country?
your an idiot.
Yes I'm sure that if Halliburton was bidding on non-profit contracts, and if Iraq did not have oil reserves, we'd be there just to free the Iraqi people from the goodness of our hearts. Yup, keep dreaming.
Originally posted by: nick1985
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: nick1985
Originally posted by: jpeyton
We're still in Iraq because there is a lot of goddamn profit to be made for American companies there. That's the bottom line.
or maybe could it be that if we left the country would return to COMPLETE chaos and the terrorists could take control of the country?
your an idiot.
Yes I'm sure that if Halliburton was bidding on non-profit contracts, and if Iraq did not have oil reserves, we'd be there just to free the Iraqi people from the goodness of our hearts. Yup, keep dreaming.
im so sick of the whole "were there for oil" conspiricy. if we left, the country would go completely to shambles, which would make the administration, and america look bad. we will stay the course to make sure this doesnt happen. is it that hard to get through your thick liberal skull?
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Once we attacked Iraq we commited ouraelves to the long run. Whether we were just or not doing it or that the American Public was hoodwinked by Bush and his Neocons Handlers now is irrelevant. We have to go the distance or face even more horrors than we did on 9/11
Pure BS coming from the Closeted Liberal.
No one was hoodwinked. Eleven years and countless (16 Article VII) resolutions later and Hussein had to be dealt with. Unfortunately, his paymasters in Russia and the West were appalled and terrified at seeing one of their customers being attacked and opposed it very much (at the cost of undermining the United Nations). But the United States, itself appalled by 9/11 and concerned about what other unstable regimes might do next, decided to uphold the UN Charter and invade a country that undermined international security. We got rid of him. But the hard part is securing the peace and staying long enough so that a democratic regime can replace the dictatorial one. This will take a huge investment from the US and the rest of the international community. If you want precedent, look at Europe and the defeat of Nazi Germany and Fascist Japan. We didn't leave within the year, decade, or generation. This rebuilding effort will take time.
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: nick1985
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: nick1985
Originally posted by: jpeyton
We're still in Iraq because there is a lot of goddamn profit to be made for American companies there. That's the bottom line.
or maybe could it be that if we left the country would return to COMPLETE chaos and the terrorists could take control of the country?
your an idiot.
Yes I'm sure that if Halliburton was bidding on non-profit contracts, and if Iraq did not have oil reserves, we'd be there just to free the Iraqi people from the goodness of our hearts. Yup, keep dreaming.
im so sick of the whole "were there for oil" conspiricy. if we left, the country would go completely to shambles, which would make the administration, and america look bad. we will stay the course to make sure this doesnt happen. is it that hard to get through your thick liberal skull?
I agree, politics is the reason we're there now. Politics, profit, and oil were the reason for entering in the first place. Sorry for the confusion.
kthxbye