Re: [OT] Iraq



"LX-i" <lxi0007@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:VLydnRiEfowsIWzbnZ2dnUVZ_saknZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
SkippyPB wrote:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 02:16:16 GMT, "William M. Klein"
<wmklein@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Just posting to get this thread with a new subject. I assume (could be
wrong) that SkippyPB doesn't know for who LX-i works. (Names withheld
to protect the guilty - but I won't say whom I think is guilty).

Yes I know he works for the USAF. He cries that half (it is over
half) of Americans are against the war while his "brothers in arms"
are still there. Well, I am a Vietnam vet and the first thing I did
when I got out was protest that mistake.

And some of us thing that the protesting was the mistake in Vietnam.

And I'm not crying - I think it's despicable, bordering on treasonous, but
I'm not crying. Angry would be the term.

And as I look around at who
is opposed to this mistake, I see more and more Vietnam vets and more
and more Iraq vets as well. If Mr. USAF REALLY cared for his
"brothers in arms", he'd be there yelling for them to come home as
well. But then the fact he is still in the military may prevent that.
I know it did when I was in.

Bringing them home before the job is done would waste the sacrifice that
has already been made. Then, ten, twenty years from now, we'd have to go
*back* there to try to "fix" it the third time. What happened when we
pulled out of Vietnam? What happened when we pulled out of Iraq the first
time? Neither of those results were desirable, or reflected well on
America. If we fail this time, our credibility is through.

But, that's what the Democrat leadership has aligned themselves with. The
socialists in that party have always hated our success, our freedom, and
our capitalistic society. The fact that it has thrived while other
socialist experiments have failed just drives them absolutely crazy,
because socialism is so "fair". I really don't understand why they cling
to such a discredited philosophy, but they do.

And no, none of my views are being prevented due to my current employment.
If anything, they're probably being mellowed by it. Turning that desert
into a sea of glass would have been a lot quicker and resulted in a lot
smaller loss of American life. Plus, it would be over by now.

The war on terror was never in Iraq and the "stuff" they allegedly
moved to Syria (that has never been proven) was old anyway.

Oh - so old weapons don't work? Who was it here that was talking about
RPG's? I'm sure the families of our troops killed by them would love to
know they're just old anyway.

And with
no fly zones being enforced on the north and south of Iraq, what was
Saddam going to do?

Admit he had them, disarm, and keep his country. Instead, he hid things,
refused to let inspectors in large areas, and defied 12 UN resolutions
over the course of 11 years. His choice - you can't blame the police for
giving you a ticket when you were the one speeding.

The war on terror was and still is in Afghanistan
and Pakistan. But because GWB had a different agenda, that war is
still flourishing, the Talaban and Al Queda have grown stronger, the
culprits behind 9/11 still roam free and are able to spread their
propaganda and Al Queda has a training ground they never had before in
Iraq and a rallying cry for militant muslims.

Iraq is now a magnet for al-Qaeda. We keep hearing how Iraq had nothing
to do with al-Qaeda, but what's this group that keeps killing folks called
al-Qaeda in Iraq? Sure, maybe GWB had a personal interest in toppling the
guy who threatened his dad, but Saddam certainly gave him enough excuses.
And some of the hijackers *did* train at camps in Iraq.

Was invading Iraq a mistake? Even Bush's own administration now says
it was badly planned, badly executed and had no exit strategy and no
forward goals other than toppling Saddam.

Just because you weren't sure how something would end doesn't mean it's a
mistake to start it. But, this is another one of those "depends on how
you take it" statements. *I* think it was badly planned and badly
executed, but my views probably aren't what most people think of when they
hear that. We were too soft, too surgical, and too concerned with what
people would "think." We should have gone in, kicked as much *** as
possible to get the thing over with quick, *then* come back home.

It think the question
answers itself.

Not really... There are many means to the same end.


I read these exchanges between Skippy, Howard, and yourself, with interest,
Daniel.

I have great respect for all three of you and can see how the current US
Foreign Policy is divisive and debatable.

I honestly don't know whether the invasion of Iraq was a "mistake", but I
do know I wouldn't want to see innocent people nuked and America deserves
credit for NOT doing that.

Cynics might argue that "turning the desert sand to glass" would have
destroyed the oil extraction facilities, but I'd like to think it was simple
humanity that triumphed.

I can't take sides in this argument because I'm really not well enough
informed on the issues.

However, I will go on record as disagreeing with one statement you made,
Daniel.

I don't see American (or NZ or any other...) lives as more important than
any other lives. We are all valuable, or we're not.

Certainly I'd cry more for my countrymen, but unless we start to realize
that we make it together or not at all, I don't see much hope for us.

The idea that you can resolve anything by going in quickly, kicking butts,
and getting out, is not one that should be on the table if a genuine
solution is being sought.

And that is just as true in everyday life as it is in the formulation of
foreign policy.

Pete. (who lives in a very small nation that CAN'T use *** kicking as a
solution, even if it wanted to :-))
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."


.

Quantcast