Obama: surge worked. 9/4/08

Originally posted by iamcamouflage
reply to post by mhc_70

 

How did I mis-represent the article in context to a reason for the Iraq war?

Was it not developed by Saddam while in control of Iraq?

Yes but this was yellow cake that was safe guarded by the UN and under their control. It was known by all and was not considered a threat. You misrepresented the article by implying that this was the WMD that we went to war over. Not true. This yellow cake was not a threat, it was under the control of the UN.

Fact is Saddam had developed and used WMDs' many, many times before and was not co-operating with the inspectors.

Scott Ritter and Hans Blix will tell you differently but what would they know. They were never able to finish their inspections because the US decided not to let them finish their work.

Hans Blix

[edit on 7-9-2008 by iamcamouflage]

Try this again...

My point was that with Saddam left in power he would always be a threat, to everybody, including his own people, no?

Iraq is moving towards a democratic society and we need more of those in the ME, no?

Have we not liberated a majority of the iraqi citizens from violent tyranny?

Originally posted by Anjin
I will give Obama credit for the interview. I thought he did pretty well and am looking forward to the tougher questions that O'Riley hinted at during the rest of the interview to be aired next week.

After watching that it just makes me wonder why he avoided Fox news for so long. There is a HUGE audience out there that he has ignored. I think it's too late for him to get many of the Fox viewers votes but I applaud him for stepping up and doing the interview anyway.

I still wont be voting for him in November but he did earn some respect in my opinion.

I disagree about this thing called respect.
I find it interesting why he finally decided to agree to tha long awaited interview with Bill on the same night McCain gave his speech at the RNC.
His true character has finally been exposed.

He is on the defensive.
Why was he trying to deflect viewers away from McCain if he isn't concerned?

reply to post by iamcamouflage

Scott Ritter and Hans Blix will tell you differently but what would they know. They were never able to finish their inspections because the US decided not to let them finish their work.

There is a lot of your post that I want to respond to, but I want to address this real quick. I like how you say, "because bush wouldn't let them". When the fact is Saddam wouldn't let them. The inspections were a complete failure by 1998, when Butler said, "We cannot verify the state of the WMD program". This is because wouldn't allow the inspections for about a decade.

So when you say "because of Bush", you're pretty much full of it.

I would like to ask Hans Blix why does he still need more time after 11 years of inspections?

reply to post by southern_Guardian

Originally posted by southern_Guardian
Tell me, why are we in Iraq again? I dont want to hear about the surge, I want to hear about why the hell we're in Iraq.

Well then start a separate thread on it. Don't derail this thread, which is about Obama's wavering statements on the surge's success.

reply to post by jsobecky


Right jsobecky, so you cannot tell us here why we are in Iraq, you cannot admit that the WMD excuse turned out to be pure BS. This thread is about the surge, which is part of the Iraq war, so before we go arguing the surges success, lets look at the war as whole.

Why are we there jsobeck?

None of you here can seem to answer me this question. I just find it amazing.

Did you know that we pay them not to violently attack US forces?

We pay the Awakening Movement 30 million dollars a month no to attack our forces.


The Awakening Movement


Interesting huh?

reply to post by southern_Guardian


We could give you that answer like we have countless times to you and people like you. I cant tell you why, but for some reason you refuse to listen. So, its a waste of breathe to even try.

Simply, if you don't know why we are there, than you don't pay very good attention.

reply to post by Massgirl


Often the cost of damage control is twice the original plans budget and wars are notorious for this.

Originally posted by Dronetek
reply to post by iamcamouflage

 

Scott Ritter and Hans Blix will tell you differently but what would they know. They were never able to finish their inspections because the US decided not to let them finish their work.

There is a lot of your post that I want to respond to, but I want to address this real quick. I like how you say, "because bush wouldn't let them". When the fact is Saddam wouldn't let them. The inspections were a complete failure by 1998, when Butler said, "We cannot verify the state of the WMD program". This is because wouldn't allow the inspections for about a decade.

So when you say "because of Bush", you're pretty much full of it.

Where exactly in my post did I mention Bush? Can you highlight where I said "because of Bush"?
Two lines



[edit on 7-9-2008 by iamcamouflage]

reply to post by Dronetek


Thats the thing, NONE of you here have given an answer as to why we're there, so Ill give you another chance Don, why are we in Iraq? Whats the point don?

How the hell can this surge be a success if you dont know why we're there in the first place? What is Iraq doing for us huh Don?

We're spending over $200million of tax payer money a day and those who back it up cant say why we're there. Its just amazing, I mean the economy is in such a mess and meanwhile Bush and his cronies, including his followers, cant seem to come up with an excuse as to why we are occupying the the nation with the worlds second largest oil reserves.

Why are we there Don?

Originally posted by southern_Guardian
reply to post by Dronetek

 

Thats the thing, NONE of you here have given an answer as to why we're there, so Ill give you another chance Don, why are we in Iraq? Whats the point don?

How the hell can this surge be a success if you dont know why we're there in the first place? What is Iraq doing for us huh Don?

We're spending over $200million of tax payer money a day and those who back it up cant say why we're there. Its just amazing, I mean the economy is in such a mess and meanwhile Bush and his cronies, including his followers, cant seem to come up with an excuse as to why we are occupying the the nation with the worlds second largest oil reserves.

Why are we there Don?

Hey genius, I've got an answer for you. Same answer that it has been all these 8 years. We went to topple Saddam's regime, capture Saddam and install a new Iraqi govt that can stand on its own two feet.

We have done 2 out of the 3 and he third is almost complete. Right now the U.S. and Iraqi govt are discussing a timetable for U.S. withdrawal.

But you could have easily found this for yourself on a Google search. You're just in the Decision 2008 forum to counter every single right-oriented post that you think you can weigh in on, even when it's clear you know diddly/squat, and to mindlessly agree with left wing posts.

reply to post by sos37


What a load of BS sos. Why do these reasons keep on changing huh? The original reason was the WMD threat and that was the ONLY reason in the first place as to why to invade. And you know what, the UN found NOTHING, yet the invasion went ahead. Then there was an attempt to tie the nation to terrorism and 9/11 now its a regime change, what a sack of BS.

There were plenty of nations with the exact same regime as those of Saddams, including Cuba, but iraq was singled out, a nation with the worlds second largest oil reserves. Regime change was never the excuse to start with sos.

The surge is not working because the war is a LIE. Its a shame ignorance still dominates this nation, this is why these clowns manage to get elected.

And the timetabe? The further shows how hypocritical Bush and his GOP buddies are. Now all of a sudden theres a time table.

Just unbelievable, to think 4years down the track after Bushes second win we would have learned by now.

[edit on 8-9-2008 by southern_Guardian]

reply to post by iamcamouflage


LOL, you edited the line I'm talking about. It originally did said "Because of Bush", now it says "because the US decided not to let them finish their work", which is JUST as wrong.

reply to post by southern_Guardian

Why do these reasons keep on changing huh?

You guys always say that, yet the reasons haven't changed for 8 years.

The original reason was the WMD threat and that was the ONLY reason in the first place as to why to invade.

NO, it wasn't! What the hell is this blatant rewriting of history? I was in the USAF at the time of the 2003 buildup and I watched EVERY loving minute of the coverage. I can assure you that the reasons have ALWAYS been:

-Ignored 14 resolutions that ended original war.
-WMD
-Terrorist links
-slaughters his own people with WMD

the UN found NOTHING

After a decade of failed inspections that culminated in 1998, look it up! You really need to read up and gets your facts straight. Your knowledge of the war seems totally based on left wing spin of the war and not the actual facts.

Then there was an attempt to tie the nation to terrorism and 9/11 now its a regime change, what a sack of BS.

No, there was he continued warning that Saddam had links to many terrorists organizations. Something Al Gore started in 1992.

The surge is not working because the war is a LIE. Its a shame ignorance still dominates this nation, this is why these clowns manage to get elected.

And the timetabe? The further shows how hypocritical Bush and his GOP buddies are. Now all of a sudden theres a time table.

No, there is not a time table. If the war is a lie, than how can you support Joe Biden? A man that beat the drums to ware with Iraq BEFORE Bush was even elected!



Again, you need to learn a thing or two before you try and debate Iraq. You just come off as ignorant of most the facts. How old are you anyway? How could you forget the constant threat of war with Iraq through the 90s?






[edit on 8-9-2008 by Dronetek]

reply to post by Dronetek


That is a lie, my post never said because of bush, it doesnt even say that in the text you quoted. Maybe you saw that but that is a lie. And you changed my words to fit your argument.

If you didnt notice that post was never edited. If it was it would show at the bottom that I changed it. So now what is the reason you changed my words to fit your argument? You hurt your own credibility when you change peoples words for your own purpose and then you accuse me of changing my post.

reply to post by iamcamouflage


This is getting off topic, but you did edit that post and it does say "US" now instead of Bush. It doesn't matter though because saying its the US's fault, is just as wrong!

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Scott Ritter and Hans Blix will tell you differently but what would they know. They were never able to finish their inspections because the US decided not to let them finish their work.

Hans Blix

[edit on 7-9-2008 by iamcamouflage]

[edit on 8-9-2008 by Dronetek]

Originally posted by southern_Guardian
reply to post by sos37

 

There were plenty of nations with the exact same regime as those of Saddams, including Cuba, but iraq was singled out, a nation with the worlds second largest oil reserves. Regime change was never the excuse to start with sos.

Castro may have done some bad things, but he doesn't have a history developing and dropping chemical bombs on his own people.

What other nations are you are you refferring to?

Originally posted by southern_Guardian
The surge is not working because the war is a LIE. Its a shame ignorance still dominates this nation, this is why these clowns manage to get elected.

Translation: The surge didn't work because no WMDs' were found. The average person in this nation is ignorant because they attribute the success of the surge to the dramatic drop in violence and the increase in Iraqi security.

Do you even know what the "Surge" is?

Originally posted by southern_Guardian
And the timetabe? The further shows how hypocritical Bush and his GOP buddies are. Now all of a sudden theres a time table.

Just unbelievable, to think 4years down the track after Bushes second win we would have learned by now.

Because all of a sudden Iraqs leaders felt they were ready to start discussing it, it has always been more Iraqs decision than the left wing of America.

There is a speach Obama gave in the primaries where he promised to slow down defense research by cutting funding. He basically wants to decimate the millitary and scientific research that goes along with it. McCain didn't even start whipping out this material on him. Expect it in the debates. He promised so much stuff through the primaries that is anti millitary that he is going to look weak in a time of war. This plays directly into McCain's hand. With Russia sabre rattling all over the world, in Georgia, Iran, Syria, Venezuela, and the arctic over energy claims, being weak on the millitary is not going to fly.
The old George Soros thinktank talking points do not apply anymore. WMD's, 911 connection, Gitmo, all that stuff that detracts from the mission on the ground. The US is in fact victorious by millitary and monetary means in Iraq. Alqueda was sent packing and the rebelious shiite militias were millitarily backed into a corner then bought into submission.
The new world focus will be on confronting Russian expanding globalism. The middle east looneys will take a backseat once again.

Correction...


The Surge has suceeded in reducing violence.


It has not succeeded in reducing poltical tensions or getting the Iraqi Gov to take responsibility.

If it worked, we could leave today and be done with it.

Originally posted by Quazga
Correction...


The Surge has suceeded in reducing violence.

Are you saying that was not the goal of the surge....

It has not succeeded in reducing poltical tensions or getting the Iraqi Gov to take responsibility.

...that this was?

If it worked, we could leave today and be done with it.

We turned security in Anbar over to Iraqi security forces couple weeks ago.



[edit on 8-9-2008 by mhc_70]