Re: [OT] Iraq

On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 18:18:18 -0600, LX-i <lxi0007@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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 the job is done. The stated goal was to bring down Saddam and
bring democracy to Iraq. Both have happened. It is as clear as the
nose on most peoples' faces that a military solution in Iraq is not
now possible. Not today, not tomorrow, not 50 years from now which is
how long we'll be there if current policies prevail. There must be a
political solution and that can't be driven by the US. Only Iraq's
leaders can drive that car.

You ask what happened in Vietnam? Yes, there was some massive
bloodshed among the Vietnamese in the south and the north. Had we
never interfered in their affairs, that would never have happened. And
what was the stated goal of our involvement in Vietnam? It was to
prevent southeast Asia from turning communist. The domino theory, as
it was known then, stated that if Vietnam fell, Laos, Cambodia and,
more importantly, Thailand would fall as well and Chinese Communists
would have a foothold on all of Southeast Asia. As we know now, it
didn't happen. Nothing even close to that happened.

You say, "if we fail this time" like we are actually winning
something. Sorry, we've already lost.

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.


Socialists in the Democratic Party? Where do you get this stuff and
how do you know they've always "hated" whose success and other stuff?
Just what are you talking about?

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.


Well I'm glad the military has relaxed some of its restrictions on
what you can and cannot say and to whom. But to even talk about
dropping a nuke on anything is just a sad, sad thing and indicative of
the post cold war mind set. That's really not where society needs to
go.

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.


Plese. RPG's where not what GWB was going after. They were probably
left over from the ones we sold to Saddam back in the 80's 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.


And two months before we invaded Iraq the UN inspectors were combing
over the palaces and other buildings and places they didn't have
access to before. Sure Saddam played "chicken" with the UN but he was
giving in. It didn't get to be played out as the inspectors had to
flee the country else they be bombed into oblivion like so much of
Iraq was.

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.


The Al Qaeda that is currently in Iraq was formed there after the US
invaded and none of the hijackers trained in Iraq. Read the 9/11
commissions report.

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.

Yes, we could have left Iraq alone, left the no fly zones in place and
put 50,000 troops not 15,000 in Afghanistan. We might have actually
made a difference, we might have actually quashed the Taliban and Al
Qaeda. But instead the Taliban are starting to gain strength and Al
Qaeda is still producing propaganda, still training, still doing most
of the things they've been doing since 9/11.

Regards,
////
(o o)
-oOO--(_)--OOo-

"I knew I was an unwanted baby when I saw that my bath toys were a toaster
and a radio."
-- Joan Rivers
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Remove nospam to email me.

Steve
.