Iraq is winning.

Unfortunately...as long as we pussy foot around their "holy" mosques that they themselves are using in an "unholy" fashion...then we will NEVER win!! Where would we have gotten in WW2 if we resorted to such a politically correct way of waging war?

The difference between that we're not in a world war and fighting a different kind of war this time.

Originally posted by taibunsuu
Shouldn't you save charges of anti-Americanism for those who fight against America

As I use the term anti-American, it applies to those who can never bring themselves to find anything good to say about America. If push came to shove these individuals might fight to save their own behinds, but that is not my idea of patriotism. America's worst enemies are native-born.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Bush did not pursue Saddam after his Army was run out of Kuwait because the UN Resolution did not allow it. Everyone is always whining because the US doesn't dance to the UN's tune, but in this particular instance, the US did just that and no one remembers.

Can it be that no one here is actually old enough to remember? Is it selective memory? Or is it just more liberal lies?

the existance of a UN resolution which was in accordance with US actions at that time doesnt mean that the US acted *because* of that resolution. why not get the facts from the horses mouth? the reason we didn't invade iraq was because:

To occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab world against us and make a broken tyrant into a latter-day hero ... assigning young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning them to fight in what would be an un-winnable urban guerilla war. It could only plunge that part of the world into even greater instability.

-George Bush, Sr. A World Transformed, 1998.

"liberal lies"? i'd like to hear some actually. would make a great change from the garden-variety, everyday conservative lies pushed down our throats and getting thousands killed.

-koji K.

Originally posted by Indy
No I'm just a smart person and can see through a load of crap. I for one thought we should have gone into Baghdad to get him in the first place. I thought we were fools for not doing it. And when you set people up like we did the freedom fighters and so blatantly allow them to get exterminated that in my opinion is a war crime. Certainly a crime against humanity.

Saddam HAD WDM. Hell.. we gave them to him. We are just as guilty as he is when it came to the use of the gas. If I supply a hitman with the weapon to pull off the hit I am just as guilty as he is. I don't get to wash my hands of it because i wasn't the one that pulled the trigger. But I'll be nice and not blame us for him gassing his own people. In all honesty there is a chance we didn't see it coming. BUT setting up the freedom fighters like that is an unspeakable crime.

Its funny how people who can think for themselves and don't resort to violence to solve every problem are either called liberals or anti-American. So by that I can assume that people who resort to violence and lie to wage war are called American and conservative.

I agree 100%! George Bush Sr. was fully justified in the Persian Gulf War. He would have been justified to take Saddam out in my opinion. We certainly did the Iraqi people an injustice by telling them to rise up, and that we would support them, when we in fact did not.

But hey, when have we cared about the Iraqi people? Did we care about the Iraqi people when we gave weapons to Iraq to attack Iran? Did we care about the Iraqi people when we bombed civillian infrastructure, including water, food, and oil resources? Did we care about the Iraqi people during the "shock and awe" campaign? Did we care about the Iraqi people during the early days of the ground war where thousands of civillians were killed? Did we care about... ok, I'll shut up.

Originally posted by JabbaOnTheDais
Bush is anti-American. Don't play his game.

Bush is pro-American. Kerry is anti-American. Don't play games with me.

Originally posted by Jalengrma
Unfortunately...as long as we pussy foot around their "holy" mosques that they themselves are using in an "unholy" fashion...then we will NEVER win!! Where would we have gotten in WW2 if we resorted to such a politically correct way of waging war?

Exactly this is new type of war compared to WWII. WE use smart bombs and kill leaders. People parralel this and teh germany occupation but these are two completely differnt senarios. If you would have gone and used Total War like we have done in all major conflicts up to this point i guarentee you we wouldnt have this prob

A war is a war and the basics should be the same. When you start fighting a war by political correctness then...you have lost the war. There is nothing as bad as trying to make your military fight a war with one arm tied behind their back and that is what we are doing with all this business about the mosques. The insurgents know very well that this country is so bound up with PC that they know how far they can push us and they are too!

Originally posted by JabbaOnTheDais

Did we care about the Iraqi people during the "shock and awe" campaign? Did we care about the Iraqi people during the early days of the ground war where thousands of civillians were killed? Did we care about... ok, I'll shut up.

Yes we did thats why they still have a city and there water was workin as soon as we got there. Yea alil difficulty but hell we could have seiged them or leveled any of these cities in instance. We do care tahts why only soem buildings were demolished. Go watch coverage of "SHOCK AND AWE" u see percise locations were teh bombs are droppin. Yeah i few misses but the world aint perfect.

I disagree. The true patriot is the one that defends his homeland. Everyone else is just a professional soldier. And the real enemy of America is our current government. Anyone that so blatantly attacks our constitution is an enemy. You certainly wouldn't call them an ally.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

Originally posted by taibunsuu
Shouldn't you save charges of anti-Americanism for those who fight against America

As I use the term anti-American, it applies to those who can never bring themselves to find anything good to say about America. If push came to shove these individuals might fight to save their own behinds, but that is not my idea of patriotism. America's worst enemies are native-born.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

Originally posted by JabbaOnTheDais
Bush is anti-American. Don't play his game.

Bush is pro-American. Kerry is anti-American. Don't play games with me.

How do you figure that? Lets just look at the facts, shall we?

George Bush:
- Deserter from National Guard
- Against Constitutional Freedoms (patriot act is 1 example)
- Appointed John Ashcroft to the Justice Department (who thinks its a good thing when 1 in 75 US citizens are in jail - from his own words)
- Has his campaign workers run negative ads against John Kerry (the false ads by the Swift Boat for Truth)
- Uses political pressure or threats to force Bob Dole and John McCain to back down from their beliefs and lie about John Kerry

John Kerry:
- Fought honorable in Vietnam, earning several Purple Hearts
- Peacfully protested a war viewed as unjust by millions of Americans
- For Consitutional Freedoms (against the patriot act)

I'm starting to see some striking things... Are you?

[edit on 23-8-2004 by JabbaOnTheDais]

Originally posted by koji_K

To occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab world against us and make a broken tyrant into a latter-day hero ... assigning young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning them to fight in what would be an un-winnable urban guerilla war. It could only plunge that part of the world into even greater instability.

-George Bush, Sr. A World Transformed, 1998.

In other words, no resolution which included an occupation of Iraq could have gotten UN approval. As for that securely entrenched dictator, he is now in custody and his sons are dead. A new sovereign democratic Iraqi government has taken power and the US continues to quash opposition against it. This effort will succeed, no thanks to those like yourself.

[edit on 04/8/23 by GradyPhilpott]

I'd say its getting better over there.

We are no learning what we thought all along, that its not all Iraqis killing our troops its people from other counties to like Iran.

Less troops are dying now because were shifting power to the Iraqis, plus were getting more armored vehicles over there and bulletproof vests. By spring of 2005 all forces over there will have a desert camoflage vest.

Like someone said, things get worse before they get better, the worse has allready come and gone, it is getting safer there, and day by day there getting a better infastructure. The only thing I see that they need to improve on is having more and better patrols near the pipelines.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

Originally posted by koji_K

To occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab world against us and make a broken tyrant into a latter-day hero ... assigning young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning them to fight in what would be an un-winnable urban guerilla war. It could only plunge that part of the world into even greater instability.

-George Bush, Sr. A World Transformed, 1998.

In other words, no resolution which included an occupation of Iraq could have gotten UN approval. As for that securely entrenched dictator, he is now in custody and his sons are dead. A new sovereign democratic Iraqi government has taken power and the US continues to quash opposition against it. This effort will succeed, no thanks to those like yourself.

[edit on 04/8/23 by GradyPhilpott]

Bush, Sr. said it plain and simple.. we didnt invade iraq because the costs would be too high. and yes, while we've captured saddam, at what cost? 17,000 dead Iraqi civilians and over 1,000 US troops. and like Bush Sr. said, the region has been thrown into greater instability. i'd hardly call the new iraqi government "sovereign". and despite what Bush, Jr. says, the war in iraq hasn't been won yet.

when Iraq is a true, free, stable reconstructed country like Japan or South Korea as a result of US efforts, then we can assess if the price payed in "blood and treasure" was worth it. but it's far from that, and not clear if iraq ever will be anything more than a chaotic, troubled, occupied US puppet.

-koji K.

George Bush:
- Deserter from National Guard
Please prove. Yes his records are out but i see no thig of desertin
- Against Constitutional Freedoms (patriot act is 1 example)
Well i agree with you here.
- Appointed John Ashcroft to the Justice Department (who thinks its a good thing when 1 in 75 US citizens are in jail - from his own words)
How is this anti-american. People break the law they are punished. Yes maybe some people are in there unfairly but again how is this unamerican.
- Has his campaign workers run negative ads against John Kerry (the false ads by the Swift Boat for Truth)
A slight connection that has yet to be disproven. Maybe not generally accepted by many liberal but still not confirmed as a lie.
- Uses political pressure or threats to force Bob Dole and John McCain to back down from their beliefs and lie about John Kerry
Can you please provide a source. And also im sure kerry has done soem underhanded things in his Political carreer.

John Kerry:
- Fought honorable in Vietnam, earning several Purple Hearts
Maybe because of self inflicted wounds or erronious reports
- Peacfully protested a war viewed as unjust by millions of Americans
And bashed many soldiers of the war by callin them baby killers. Thew medels over the white house fence but werent even his.
- For Consitutional Freedoms (against the patriot act)
Umm actually he voted for it check it out

I also see amny things
S.1510

Grady.. if the current Iraqi government tomorrow told us to leave would we? NO. The Iraqi government is NOT sovereign and it won't be for a long time. As long as we are there people will be trying to force us out. The battle won't end until we pull out. If you plan on waiting until the fighting stops you can wait until social security runs out because that is how long it will take.

I keep finding myself defending John Kerry, and democratic ideals. I am not pro John Kerry. I am anti-Bush, as are many Americans. I do think John Kerry is a great man, but I am not blinded to believe he is perfect. I'm sure if we all saw the truth about Bush AND Kerry, nobody would vote.

I hate to quote "the lesser of two evils". In theory, we should have better choices, but we don't.

[edit on 23-8-2004 by JabbaOnTheDais]

Originally posted by Jalengrma
A war is a war and the basics should be the same. When you start fighting a war by political correctness then...you have lost the war. There is nothing as bad as trying to make your military fight a war with one arm tied behind their back and that is what we are doing with all this business about the mosques. The insurgents know very well that this country is so bound up with PC that they know how far they can push us and they are too!

When you invade a foreign country in which the population resists you have two options, commit mass murder to the point of no resistance or try to win the hearts and minds. Obviously, the United States is going to take the latter. If we simply kill everything that moves we risk a lot more internationally than we do by trying to be 'PC' as you put it. This is the information age and if the world is presented with pictures of US soldiers killing everything that moves we would lose strategic allies and trading partners. It's not like US Generals are all products of some liberal university driving around with rainbow stickers on their humvees and throwing Care Bears at enemies.

They are a soveriegn free nation that has teh right (even tho they are too afraid to use it) to kick us out. And we would abide by it. Then thats were it would become illegal.

And im not pro bush eaither i jsut think by choosing Kerry we will ahve an even worse 4 yr. then with bush. I agree with alot Bush does to some degree but im not a brainwashed bsuh supporter jsut cause. I wish we had a good 3rd party canidate that could actually run and not jsut for show. Or another republican canidate to challange Bush

[edit on 8^23^04 by Quicksilver]

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

Bush is pro-American. Kerry is anti-American. Don't play games with me.

Grady, chill. You are no longer on a battlefield. Simplification is no longer required. Both Kerry and Bush represent mainly big business, not the people. There is no polarization the way you describe it. I know you have beef with his undeserved Purple Hearts and stuff, but I don't think that's relevant.

What is relevant is that there was never exit strategy in Iraq, and your brothers keep dying and losing limbs. What is relevant that bringing democracy to the people in Iraq has a huge cost here in the US both in terms of money and our own democracy. That Bush was against "nation building" using the US military when he was campaigning in 2000, and now he's doing this on Biblical scale. That the US can hardly engage Iran because the military, I quote "is stretched to the breaking point".

If GWB is mortgaging my kids education (which he is) to pay $100B annual bill for "Iraqi freedom", I say screw the Iraqis and their freedom. Did I make myself clear, Grady?

Get this guy out of the office already, and bring somebody in, with Purple hearts or not... You can't do worse than Bush.