Posted on 08/14/2007 4:22:38 PM PDT by humint
Man... you must have a big crystal ball to talk like that. Go ahead... Look deeply into your big ball and tell me the future. But give me somthing that isn;t obvious. Any blithering idiot could tell me they know for certain someone in the the Middle East is going to die a violent death. They're probably going to die gruesomely near the worlds primary source of fossil energy. But your credibility is rock solid right? All the answers you can muster will make the world a better place, right?... So how do you suggest we deal with the inevitable? Would you send men in to stop the fighting? Would you send men in to start the fighting? Would you send men in to secure American interests? Would you send men in to secure global interests? Or is this just about who gets to send the men in? Is this Dick Cheney's war? If it is just his, we have no responsibility for the future... which would mean you have no ball, wouldn't it? If you don't have a crystal ball, you should probably tie your idea of "credibility" to tangible metrics. what course would have demonstratively saved more lives and national treasure? Alternatively, what's the worse case scenario? Rest assured KDD, we're not experiencing the worst case scenario. Hope we never have to...
That is not what Americans or British or all coalition partners are bleeding and dying for.”
_________________________
And bleeding, and dying, and bleeding, and dying, and bleeding, and dying......
Enough is enough! Quit playing games and loose the dogs of war.
I'm going a bit off-topic here, but I just couldn't pass up the opportunity to say thank you for being one of the rare posters on this board who uses the word "loose" properly... /grin
Iraq had a Sunni regime. Ben Laden is Sunni. Saudi Arabis duplicity in this war is owing to its fanatical attempt not to allow a Shiite government in Iraq, even if it were independent of Iran. Saudi money has fed the insurgency; it has fed Al Kayda. We may be sure that in times past that it did everything possible to shore up the Saddam government. You want a direct, institutional link between Ben Laden and Saddam. That was not necessary. Emotion is as much a part of war as any rational planning, and Al Kayda and Saddam shared the same emotion.
To what end? If this is a simple debate to guess how much more we could have gotten out of Saddam had we tried, I'd prefer we didn't. Saddam was a war starting dictator, not our mule. To be fair, we tried to work with Saddam. Alas, he was never willing to accept offers to comply. In all honesty, he never deserved such offers in the first place. What did he do in response? In typical dictator style, he lectured Americans on how the Middle East works. In typical American style, Saddam finally met the fate he waited more than a decade to receive. BTW, I enjoy what if analysis. Usually the time for those musings comes before or after our wars are won or lost. Right now, it is our time to lecture the Middle East on how the world works.
We must learn to reawaken and keep ourselves awake, not by mechanical aids, but by an infinite expectation of the dawn, which does not forsake us in our soundest sleep. I know of no more encouraging fact than the unquestionable ability of man to elevate his life by a conscious endeavor. It is something to be able to paint a particular picture, or to carve a statue, and so to make a few objects beautiful; but it is far more glorious to carve and paint the very atmosphere and medium through which we look, which morally we can do. To affect the quality of the day, that is the highest of arts. Every man is tasked to make his life, even in its details, worthy of the contemplation of his most elevated and critical hour. If we refused, or rather used up, such paltry information as we get, the oracles would distinctly inform us how this might be done. ------- Thoreau
We should have done a Carthage to that place and seized the oil fields.
Before we go any futher...Iraq in fact had a secular Baathist regime.
"U.S. officials and others" have their own credibility "issues"
Your snarkiness is unfounded. There are eyewitness affadavits by Iraqi officers who were at Salman Pak and who participated in the training programs. They explicitly describe the trainees there as consisting of both Iraqi military personnel and "foreigners". Some even go into the detail of specifying that the Iraqis didn't like the "foreigners" and stayed away from them as much as possible, especially the "al Qaida" (yes, one officer specifically named them). These reports were discussed on this board several years ago.
Now, I don't really care what you believe, as you have no more claim to either possess or judge credibility than anyone else here. I found the testimony of those officers credible. The other posters here are more than capable of making their own assessments, and in the fullness of time, we will know.
I agree.
And then taken out Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia...mostly from the air.
Stopping to make sure the enemies trains will run on time after we have destroyed them costs us time and American lives.
Americans will never accept this "nation building" BS.
Yeah, and with good reason. This is the freakin' 21st Century. If there are "nations" of people still out there that are still struggling with disease, dictators, corruption and barbarism that will make most people's skin crawl, then they probably can't be helped.
Correction: Iraq had a military dictator who was Sunni. He was NOT a secularist like Attaturk. He was a bush-league Nasser who depended almost totally on support from Sunni elements in society. Arab nationalism has long since been dead. He would have been overthrown in 1991 except for the demands of the Saudis that he be left in power. Without their covert support he would not have dared to defy the demands of the West that he live up to the term of his surrender.
The Iranians have been doing quite a bit more in terms of terrorist training than Salman Pak. Why has our President let them off scott free? And yes US officials do have a credibility issue. From silly nonsensical PR pieces (which thankfully Gen. Praetus has denounced) to mishandling the Pat Tillman case, there needs to be some housecleaning done and calling them out for it isn’t wrong.
prematurely pull out.
*snicker*
sorry
Of course the scale of Iran's activities dwarfs Saddam's, but that does not justifying denying the latter's existence. I want to know the facts, follow wherever they lead and let the chips fall where they may. Far too many people in these discussions, however, seem compelled to squeeze and twist their facts to fit a pre-conceived conclusion, and simply ignore those that don't fit.
Why has our President let them (Iran) off scott free?
Sadly, there are no good answers to this question. The only plausible explanations which meet the test of Occam's Razor do not provide comfort about the character and intentions of our leadership nor bode well for the future of our country...
That would be all well and good had we discovered intractable evidence of WMD in Iraq. If he had none as he said, then how could he comply with demands that he give them up? I hated to see Blix be right. The only reason I believe it was an honest intelligence mistake is because if I had been President...I'd have planted the evidence.
I fear the methods will cost us the goal.
So my attitude is not a positive one.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.