UALPHLCS
Topic Author
Posts: 3233
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2001 5:50 am

I Was For It Before I Was Against It.

Fri Jan 19, 2007 2:34 am

In a very Kerryesque flip-flop Congressman Silvestre Reyes the Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence was FOR a troop build up on December the 5th of 20,000 to 30,000 troops. NOW that the President has proposed it suddenly it becomes unthinkable.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/inbeltway.htm

Is it any wonder that some people see Democrat Politicians as cynical politicos who are callously using the Military for their own political gain?
A little less Hooah, and a little more Dooah.
 
aloges
Posts: 14842
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 3:38 am

RE: I Was For It Before I Was Against It.

Fri Jan 19, 2007 2:44 am

Quoting UALPHLCS (Thread starter):
Is it any wonder that some people see Democrat Politicians as cynical politicos who are callously using the Military for their own political gain?

In other words, just like the GOP?

Seriously, these "blame it all on the Democrats" threads are getting old, and fast.
Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.
 
WellHung
Posts: 3299
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2004 8:50 pm

RE: I Was For It Before I Was Against It.

Fri Jan 19, 2007 2:51 am

Lemme tell you about flip-flops... I guess the mission was accomplished before it wasn't.




[Edited 2007-01-18 18:52:25]
 
andessmf
Posts: 5689
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 8:53 am

RE: I Was For It Before I Was Against It.

Fri Jan 19, 2007 2:54 am

Quoting Aloges (Reply 1):
Seriously, these "blame it all on the Democrats" threads are getting old, and fast.

Now you know how some of us felt about the "blame it all on the Republicans" thread that are still happening.  biggrin 
 
aloges
Posts: 14842
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 3:38 am

RE: I Was For It Before I Was Against It.

Fri Jan 19, 2007 3:01 am

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 3):
Now you know how some of us felt about the "blame it all on the Republicans" thread that are still happening.

The point being that they held near absolute power for six years, started a highly debatable war, alienated various traditional allies, got into the hottest of waters over both suspected and proven human rights violations, made enemies in the Middle East faster than you can say "boom", I have less of a problem with those than with threads about the Dems who've had the chance to put up a show in Congress for about two weeks.

That said, the general assumption should always be that top-level politics are FUBAR anyway.  Wink
Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.
 
UALPHLCS
Topic Author
Posts: 3233
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2001 5:50 am

RE: I Was For It Before I Was Against It.

Fri Jan 19, 2007 3:14 am

Quoting WellHung (Reply 2):
I guess the mission was accomplished before it wasn't

So I guess your saying the that World War II isn't over yet either since the US still has troops in Germany and Japan. Or that the US Civil War didn't end until the 1870's, since the Army occupied the South during Reconstruction.

There is a distinction between the end of offensive operations, and the occupation and reconstruction.

Quoting Aloges (Reply 4):

I didn't blame anything on Democrats. I think its becoming quite obvious to any thinking person that no matter what "solution" the President came up with it wouldn't be right according to Democrats in Congress.

Clearly, the ONLY solution the Democrats want is for all of us to get in the way-back machine and reset the clock to 2003.
A little less Hooah, and a little more Dooah.
 
dtwclipper
Posts: 6668
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2003 3:17 am

RE: I Was For It Before I Was Against It.

Fri Jan 19, 2007 3:20 am

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 5):
for all of us to get in the way-back machine and reset the clock to 2003.

Best idea I've heard yet, but rather then "the way-back machine" let's test out the atavachron!




Next suggestion.

Why don't you guys just start an official "Liberal Dems are the Evilist thing on the planet" thread, that would save a lot of band width!
Compare New York Air, the Airline that works for your Business
 
aloges
Posts: 14842
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 3:38 am

RE: I Was For It Before I Was Against It.

Fri Jan 19, 2007 3:25 am

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 5):
Clearly, the ONLY solution the Democrats want is for all of us to get in the way-back machine and reset the clock to 2003.

Oh please leave the time machine threads to ASL users!

The first thing that most people would like is George Bush officially admitting he was wrong for invading Iraq. Second, a plan would be good; any plan better than "send troops there, and if that doesn't work, send MORE troops there" would do for the moment. Third, there needs to be some cooperation with other powers in the region. I don't like the fact that peace in Iraq will need negotiations with Syria and Iran, but that's how it is and the Bush admin should work from there and finally kiss all of that pipe dream that told them that all of the Middle East wants democracy goodbye. This is a time for unglamorous pragmatism, which will get everyone a lot further if employed properly.
Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.
 
andessmf
Posts: 5689
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 8:53 am

RE: I Was For It Before I Was Against It.

Fri Jan 19, 2007 3:26 am

Quoting Aloges (Reply 4):
That said, the general assumption should always be that top-level politics are FUBAR anyway.

And if we do that, then they will actually fulfill all our expectations.
 
UALPHLCS
Topic Author
Posts: 3233
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2001 5:50 am

RE: I Was For It Before I Was Against It.

Fri Jan 19, 2007 3:44 am

Quoting Aloges (Reply 7):
and finally kiss all of that pipe dream that told them that all of the Middle East wants democracy goodbye. This is a time for unglamorous pragmatism, which will get everyone a lot further if employed properly.

Wow! Sounds like Munich 1938 to me.
A little less Hooah, and a little more Dooah.
 
aloges
Posts: 14842
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 3:38 am

RE: I Was For It Before I Was Against It.

Fri Jan 19, 2007 3:54 am

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 9):
Wow! Sounds like Munich 1938 to me.

Wow, too! Talk about someone not knowing his history.
Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.
 
searpqx
Posts: 4173
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2000 10:36 am

RE: I Was For It Before I Was Against It.

Fri Jan 19, 2007 4:30 am

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 5):
So I guess your saying the that World War II isn't over yet either since the US still has troops in Germany and Japan. Or that the US Civil War didn't end until the 1870's, since the Army occupied the South during Reconstruction.

There is a distinction between the end of offensive operations, and the occupation and reconstruction.

And the obvious distinction you're missing (or avoiding) is that in your examples, US troops were involved in limited, if any, active fighting after the surrenders and in no case was a massive influx of troops sent three years after the fact to attempt to gain control of the capitol city and quell a raging insurgency.
"The two most common elements in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity"
 
ABQ747
Posts: 646
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2006 8:22 am

RE: I Was For It Before I Was Against It.

Fri Jan 19, 2007 4:32 am

Quoting WellHung (Reply 2):
Lemme tell you about flip-flops... I guess the mission was accomplished before it wasn't.

I guess you don't know the true story behind the mission accomplished banner. Of course not, the liberal media won't tell you the truth.
The reason New Mexico is so windy is because Texas sucks and Arizona blows.
 
andessmf
Posts: 5689
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 8:53 am

RE: I Was For It Before I Was Against It.

Fri Jan 19, 2007 4:35 am

Quoting Searpqx (Reply 11):

OTOH, at this stage in the game after WWII, the US was in complete control of both countries, no elections had occurred, and most of the countries previous leaders were either dead or in jail. At the same time, the Marshall Plan was fully in effect, and we had no country (except the USSR) who even had any power to oppose us then.
 
aloges
Posts: 14842
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 3:38 am

RE: I Was For It Before I Was Against It.

Fri Jan 19, 2007 4:37 am

Quoting ABQ747 (Reply 12):
Of course not, the liberal media won't tell you the truth.

So what is "de trooth" according to the "proper and unbiased" media? A Fox News link would be appreciated for its entertainment value!

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 13):
OTOH, at this stage in the game after WWII, the US was in complete control of both countries, no elections had occurred, and most of the countries previous leaders were either dead or in jail. At the same time, the Marshall Plan was fully in effect, and we had no country (except the USSR) who even had any power to oppose us then.

Well, the "preparations" for that werejust a little bit different, weren't they?  Wink

[Edited 2007-01-18 20:51:59]
Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.
 
NoUFO
Posts: 7397
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 7:40 am

RE: I Was For It Before I Was Against It.

Fri Jan 19, 2007 4:47 am

Quoting WellHung (Reply 2):
Lemme tell you about flip-flops... I guess the mission was accomplished before it wasn't.

I know it's actually sad and not funny at all, but this response made my day. Big grin
I support the right to arm bears
 
bushpilot
Posts: 1674
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 4:37 am

RE: I Was For It Before I Was Against It.

Fri Jan 19, 2007 4:51 am

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 5):
Clearly, the ONLY solution the Democrats want is for all of us to get in the way-back machine and reset the clock to 2003

Novel idea, I am sure there are some democrats who will disagree with the President regardless. In the two party system we find ourselves trapped in, one must work as the opposition, the same thing happened when Clinton was President. I think clearly what the Democrats want, and wanted from the start, is a war, reconstruction, and democracy building that was done right the first time, where people are accountable for thier decisions.
I am willing to go along with the Bush troop surge if it will work. It should have been done from the start. But if we listened to the Bush administration, in 2002, by now, we would be in largely an administrative role helping the Iraqis, we would have found vast stockpiles of WMDs, it would have cost 100billion dollars, oil would be in the $25 a barrel range, and Iran would be shivering at the thought of having us on either side of them.
 
ABQ747
Posts: 646
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2006 8:22 am

RE: I Was For It Before I Was Against It.

Fri Jan 19, 2007 4:54 am

Quoting Aloges (Reply 14):
So what is "de trooth" according to the "proper and unbiased" media? A Fox News link would be appreciated for its entertainment value!

No, it's not a link from FOX. It is directly from a member of the military.

Quote:
Point of correction as I have firsthand knowledge of this. The "Mission Accomplished" sign was for the Aircraft Carrier itself. They were returning from deployment and sitting off the coast of San Diego offloading their Air Wing.

The sign was to denote that THEY (the Aircraft Carrier) accomplished it's mission. Please don't try and tell me that is not the case. One of my VERY good friends was the Leading Enlisted in charge of the Navigation Department. His guys and gals hung that sign.

As soon as all of this broke, I spoke with him at length about it.
The reason New Mexico is so windy is because Texas sucks and Arizona blows.
 
bushpilot
Posts: 1674
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 4:37 am

RE: I Was For It Before I Was Against It.

Fri Jan 19, 2007 5:00 am

Quoting ABQ747 (Reply 17):
Quote:
Point of correction as I have firsthand knowledge of this. The "Mission Accomplished" sign was for the Aircraft Carrier itself. They were returning from deployment and sitting off the coast of San Diego offloading their Air Wing.

This may be all fine and dandy, but that sign would not have been hung up if the President was not making a speech aboard that carrier as a media stunt.
 
WellHung
Posts: 3299
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2004 8:50 pm

RE: I Was For It Before I Was Against It.

Fri Jan 19, 2007 5:02 am

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 5):
So I guess your saying the that World War II isn't over yet either since the US still has troops in Germany and Japan. Or that the US Civil War didn't end until the 1870's, since the Army occupied the South during Reconstruction.

There is a distinction between the end of offensive operations, and the occupation and reconstruction.

 rotfl 

Quoting ABQ747 (Reply 12):
I guess you don't know the true story behind the mission accomplished banner. Of course not, the liberal media won't tell you the truth.

 rotfl 

Quoting ABQ747 (Reply 17):

No, it's not a link from FOX. It is directly from a member of the military.

Quote:
Point of correction as I have firsthand knowledge of this. The "Mission Accomplished" sign was for the Aircraft Carrier itself. They were returning from deployment and sitting off the coast of San Diego offloading their Air Wing.

The sign was to denote that THEY (the Aircraft Carrier) accomplished it's mission. Please don't try and tell me that is not the case. One of my VERY good friends was the Leading Enlisted in charge of the Navigation Department. His guys and gals hung that sign.

As soon as all of this broke, I spoke with him at length about it.

 rotfl  A chain email! Did Bill Gates give you $1000 for forwarding that one?  rotfl  rotfl  rotfl 
 
aloges
Posts: 14842
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 3:38 am

RE: I Was For It Before I Was Against It.

Fri Jan 19, 2007 5:03 am

Quoting ABQ747 (Reply 17):
No, it's not a link from FOX. It is directly from a member of the military.

A link would have been nice, but I'm not contesting the accuracy of the quote.

BUT: The entire carrier was abused for a GWB photo op, including the "Mission Accomplished" sign. Just as much as it was likely valid for the specific mission the crew had indeed accomplished, it served as a massive in-your-face placard of triumph on worldwide TV for the Bush admininstration; one that later bit them in the behind nonetheless. They could easily have taken it down for the photo op if that weren't the case.
Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.
 
ABQ747
Posts: 646
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2006 8:22 am

RE: I Was For It Before I Was Against It.

Fri Jan 19, 2007 5:03 am

Quoting Bushpilot (Reply 18):
This may be all fine and dandy, but that sign would not have been hung up if the President was not making a speech aboard that carrier as a media stunt.

That still does not get past what the real purpose of that sign was.
The reason New Mexico is so windy is because Texas sucks and Arizona blows.
 
andessmf
Posts: 5689
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 8:53 am

RE: I Was For It Before I Was Against It.

Fri Jan 19, 2007 5:05 am

Quoting Aloges (Reply 14):
Well, the "preparations" for that werejust a little bit different, weren't they?

Yes, but then the question becomes how different would Iraq be if the US had used the same template that was used with Japan and Germany.
 
aloges
Posts: 14842
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 3:38 am

RE: I Was For It Before I Was Against It.

Fri Jan 19, 2007 5:06 am

Quoting ABQ747 (Reply 21):
That still does not get past what the real purpose of that sign was.

That was to provide a nice backdrop for George Bush's speech, mainly.

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 22):
Yes, but then the question becomes how different would Iraq be if the US had used the same template that was used with Japan and Germany.

Certainly. They would have needed to adapt that strategy to the country, obviously, but it might have gone a different way than what they did try. Basically, you'll get a desastrous result if you try to reform a country from top to bottom. If you let a civilian administration grow and then return the country to its own citizens, you'll be more likely to succeed.

[Edited 2007-01-18 21:10:05]
Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.
 
ABQ747
Posts: 646
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2006 8:22 am

RE: I Was For It Before I Was Against It.

Fri Jan 19, 2007 5:07 am

Quoting Aloges (Reply 20):
BUT: The entire carrier was abused for a GWB photo op, including the "Mission Accomplished" sign. Just as much as it was likely valid for the specific mission the crew had indeed accomplished, it served as a massive in-your-face placard of triumph on worldwide TV for the Bush admininstration; one that later bit them in the behind nonetheless. They could easily have taken it down for the photo op if that weren't the case.

So it's Bush's fault that he wanted to publicly congratulate them? The only ones who abused this were the media. They cover up the real meaning of that sign and create a false story to trash Bush. Not good.
The reason New Mexico is so windy is because Texas sucks and Arizona blows.
 
UALPHLCS
Topic Author
Posts: 3233
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2001 5:50 am

RE: I Was For It Before I Was Against It.

Fri Jan 19, 2007 5:09 am

Quoting Aloges (Reply 10):
Talk about someone not knowing his history.

Unglamous pragmatism is what gave us appeasement, and the bold statement of "Peace in our time."

I do know my history.

Quoting Bushpilot (Reply 16):

I'm not saying Iraq isn't a mess and that mistakes weren't made. Clearly, the President stuck with a policy that was not working too long. Lincoln, changed strategy and commanders over and over until he found the combination that worked. I agree that this ought to have been done. But now all that is for historians to hash out. The thing the Administration is doing that is correct, that the Democrats are failing to do is look to the future. Democrats keep talking about hearings on the way we went to war, they keep talking about WMDs. But they are NOT seeing the situation as it is and saying what ought to be done.

All we here is vague rhetoric like "phased redeployment" redeployment to where? Kuwait? Wouldn't that be cut and run? But Democrats aren't for that so they call it redeployment.
A little less Hooah, and a little more Dooah.
 
ABQ747
Posts: 646
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2006 8:22 am

RE: I Was For It Before I Was Against It.

Fri Jan 19, 2007 5:10 am

Quoting Aloges (Reply 23):
That was to provide a nice backdrop for George Bush's speech, mainly.

Once again, that does not change the purpose of that sign.
The reason New Mexico is so windy is because Texas sucks and Arizona blows.
 
bushpilot
Posts: 1674
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 4:37 am

RE: I Was For It Before I Was Against It.

Fri Jan 19, 2007 5:10 am

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 22):
Yes, but then the question becomes how different would Iraq be if the US had used the same template that was used with Japan and Germany.

Its not quite right to compare as the circumstances of that war were entirely different, but some of it remains the same. The template of having the locals do most of the work reconstructing the country would have been wise from the start instead of bringing in overpaid Americans to do the same work an Iraqi can for much cheaper at the same time giving the Iraqi a job instead of having them kill Americans and thier fellow neighbors.
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 11860
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: I Was For It Before I Was Against It.

Fri Jan 19, 2007 5:13 am

Quoting ABQ747 (Reply 26):
Once again, that does not change the purpose of that sign.

Things get misconstrued and blown out of proportion.

Look at Kerry supposedly calling the soldiers in Iraq idiots. Clearly not what he meant to say. But there it was, plastered all over the media.

~Vik
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
 
ABQ747
Posts: 646
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2006 8:22 am

RE: I Was For It Before I Was Against It.

Fri Jan 19, 2007 5:17 am

Quoting WellHung (Reply 19):
A chain email! Did Bill Gates give you $1000 for forwarding that one?

It was not a chain e-mail. It was posted on another forum where political debates are frequently held. Even the Bush hating liberals could not respond to that one.
The reason New Mexico is so windy is because Texas sucks and Arizona blows.
 
aloges
Posts: 14842
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 3:38 am

RE: I Was For It Before I Was Against It.

Fri Jan 19, 2007 5:18 am

Quoting ABQ747 (Reply 24):
So it's Bush's fault that he wanted to publicly congratulate them?

No, it's Bush's fault that he wanted to land on an aircraft carrier, walk around in a flight suit and come off like the best buddy the soldiers ever had. It's also his fault that his PR team made a massive story out of it.

Quoting ABQ747 (Reply 24):
The only ones who abused this were the media.

Uh-huh. So are you telling me that Bush had planned for this to be a private encounter between him and the crew? But the media somehow managed to sneak a couple dozen cameras and whatnot aboard and to transmit hours and hours worth of "feel good" material to its HQs? Wouldn't it be sort of embarrassing for the US Navy if they didn't manage to stop any of that going on?

Quoting ABQ747 (Reply 24):
They cover up the real meaning of that sign and create a false story to trash Bush. Not good.

Oh, the poor man! Pray tell, do you actually believe what you're saying?

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 25):
Unglamous pragmatism is what gave us appeasement, and the bold statement of "Peace in our time."

Don't you think the world moved on a bit since 1938? The reconstruction of my home country during the late 40s and 50s was based on pragmatism, just as much as the Cuban missile crisis was solved pragmatically. On the other side, we have good old Ghaddafi who ended his WMD programmes because he needed trade (oversimplifying) and the Chinese who have abandoned some core principles of hardline communism to allow for economic growth... and you're telling me the Bush admin would be building the next Hitler if they did away with some of their hardcore ideologies?!
Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.
 
UALPHLCS
Topic Author
Posts: 3233
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2001 5:50 am

RE: I Was For It Before I Was Against It.

Fri Jan 19, 2007 5:29 am

Quoting Aloges (Reply 30):
Don't you think the world moved on a bit since 1938?

Sure the world has moved on some. But some people haven't. Chamberlain's attitude is still very prevalent. The policy of appeasement has always been prevalent in time of war.

Quoting Aloges (Reply 30):
On the other side, we have good old Ghaddafi who ended his WMD programmes because he needed trade (oversimplifying)

Very oversimplified considering that a major part of reason for his cooperation was fear that the US could do to him what the US just did to Saddam.

Quoting Aloges (Reply 30):
you're telling me the Bush admin would be building the next Hitler if they did away with some of their hardcore ideologies?!

No I'm telling you that the policy of appeasement is what your negotiated pragmatism is leading. Appeasement only delays the inevitable.

We have to fight these terrorists somewhere. I prefer it to be in Iraq than in New York.
A little less Hooah, and a little more Dooah.
 
NoUFO
Posts: 7397
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 7:40 am

RE: I Was For It Before I Was Against It.

Fri Jan 19, 2007 5:35 am

Quoting ABQ747 (Reply 26):
Once again, that does not change the purpose of that sign.

The true purpose of Bush's appearance on the carrier was to announce that major combat operations in Iraq have ended.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030501-15.html
The meaning of the sign is to be seen against this background. At least, this interpretation is valid, since it was certainly desired: They knew exactly what they were doing and how the rest of the world would interpret that sign.

Saying otherwise is an attempt to spin it like the liberal media allegedly did.
I support the right to arm bears
 
bushpilot
Posts: 1674
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 4:37 am

RE: I Was For It Before I Was Against It.

Fri Jan 19, 2007 5:35 am

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 25):
But now all that is for historians to hash out.

Not just yet, it is currently going on. It is for the players right now to hash out.

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 25):
But they are NOT seeing the situation as it is and saying what ought to be done.

That is the job of the executive branch. What the leg. does is provide oversight, through checks and balances. The legislative branch has despite it not being thier job, been outspoken about the progress made so far and it has been unacceptable to this point.
 
UALPHLCS
Topic Author
Posts: 3233
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2001 5:50 am

RE: I Was For It Before I Was Against It.

Fri Jan 19, 2007 5:42 am

Quoting Bushpilot (Reply 33):
That is the job of the executive branch. What the leg. does is provide oversight, through checks and balances. The legislative branch has despite it not being thier job, been outspoken about the progress made so far and it has been unacceptable to this point

What then is the meaning of the debate in Congress over the troop build-up?

I agree with your assertion. It is NOT the job of Congress to run the war. Tell that to Ted Kennedy when he tried to pull funding. Tell that to Hillary Clinton who is running around today running for President.
A little less Hooah, and a little more Dooah.
 
bushpilot
Posts: 1674
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 4:37 am

RE: I Was For It Before I Was Against It.

Fri Jan 19, 2007 5:50 am

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 34):
It is NOT the job of Congress to run the war.

It is the job of congress to provide oversight of the executive branch, control the budget, and I would hope to question why important things are not going to plan as advertised.

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 34):
Tell that to Ted Kennedy when he tried to pull funding. Tell that to Hillary Clinton who is running around today running for President.

Ted Kennedy wont pull funding. You, me, the President and hopefully Ted himself knows this wont happen. It is politics as usual. The same as Bush saying he wanted a constitutional amendment banning gay marraige. They can say it to reach out to thier base but it wont ever happen and they know it, we all know it.
 
ABQ747
Posts: 646
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2006 8:22 am

RE: I Was For It Before I Was Against It.

Fri Jan 19, 2007 7:39 am

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 32):
Saying otherwise is an attempt to spin it like the liberal media allegedly did.

President Bush still never said that the mission in Iraq is accomplished. If he specified something, then the media should specify it also.
The reason New Mexico is so windy is because Texas sucks and Arizona blows.
 
S12PPL
Posts: 3603
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 5:26 am

RE: I Was For It Before I Was Against It.

Fri Jan 19, 2007 7:50 am

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 5):
There is a distinction between the end of offensive operations, and the occupation and reconstruction.

You can spin anything you want to make it sound like it's really true.
Next Flights: 12/31 AS804 PDX-MCO 2/3 AS19 MCO-SEA QX2545 SEA-PDX
 
andessmf
Posts: 5689
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 8:53 am

RE: I Was For It Before I Was Against It.

Fri Jan 19, 2007 7:55 am

Quoting S12PPL (Reply 37):

You can spin anything you want to make it sound like it's really true.

Using your logic, neither WWII nor the Korean War are over, as the US still has troops based there, therefore the 'occupation' has not ended.
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 8558
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

RE: I Was For It Before I Was Against It.

Fri Jan 19, 2007 7:58 am

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 31):

We have to fight these terrorists somewhere. I prefer it to be in Iraq than in New York.

It's simply stupefying that anyone with both eyes open can believe this is either accurate or realistic. Regardless of the outcome in Iraq, they are still coming. Do you get that? The choice of where they are fought is not one we get to make. Do you get that as well??

It's nothing but arrogance to believe otherwise. That's all you're left with when reducing one of the most complex sociopolitical situations of the last century to the infantile simplicity of 'either here or over there'.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
aloges
Posts: 14842
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 3:38 am

RE: I Was For It Before I Was Against It.

Fri Jan 19, 2007 7:59 am

Quoting ABQ747 (Reply 36):
President Bush still never said that the mission in Iraq is accomplished. If he specified something, then the media should specify it also.

Don't need the media for that:

Quoting President Bush on June 5th, 2003:
I am happy to see you, an so are the long-suffering people of Iraq. America sent you on a mission to remove a grave threat and to liberate an oppressed people, and that mission has been accomplished. (Applause.)

Just about a month after that carrier landing that, according to you, was a private party interrupted by the naughty liberal media, with the purpose of smearing the PotUS... perfect, isn't it?
Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.
 
andessmf
Posts: 5689
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 8:53 am

RE: I Was For It Before I Was Against It.

Fri Jan 19, 2007 8:07 am

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 39):
Regardless of the outcome in Iraq, they are still coming

So does that mean that we don' try?

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 39):
The choice of where they are fought is not one we get to make.

Sounds nice, except that we already made the choice and are fighting them in other places, besides the US.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 39):
Do you get that?
 
bushpilot
Posts: 1674
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 4:37 am

RE: I Was For It Before I Was Against It.

Fri Jan 19, 2007 8:13 am

AndesSMF, I kinda pick on you during my post, it is nothing personal and I do value your opinion. This is merely for arguments sake.

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 38):
Using your logic, neither WWII nor the Korean War are over, as the US still has troops based there, therefore the 'occupation' has not ended.

Now that is BS AndesSMF and I think you know it. We are talking about very different situations. When offensive operations were over in those wars, whether it come from surrender or ceasefire, the war was over! By your theory the Spanish-American war isnt over either because we have a base at Gitmo. In Japan on VJ-Day +1, the killing stopped.
The war is still raging in Iraq.

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 41):
So does that mean that we don' try?

The only thing we are actually accomplishing is making the terrorist recruitment job much easier.

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 41):
Sounds nice, except that we already made the choice and are fighting them in other places, besides the US.

Do you think the sole reason we havent had an attack here on US soil is that they are all busy trying to kill our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan? We have a national government who is more interested in keeping Canadian college students from attending concerts in the states by making them have a passport than keeping thousands of illegal immigrants coming from the south. I am fine and dandy with having the labor market dictate thier need, but it is the drug smugglers and potential terrorists that are my concern.
 
NoUFO
Posts: 7397
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 7:40 am

RE: I Was For It Before I Was Against It.

Fri Jan 19, 2007 8:26 am

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 38):
Using your logic, neither WWII nor the Korean War are over, as the US still has troops based there, therefore the 'occupation' has not ended.

And why exactly are they still there? Maybe you should learn to differentiate a bit.

Quoting ABQ747 (Reply 36):
President Bush still never said that the mission in Iraq is accomplished. If he specified something, then the media should specify it also.

President Bush's speech was published as a whole and in its original wording. And this had - purposedly - lead to the impression that the mission in Iraq - with the exception of reconstruction work and turning the country into a democracy - was accomplished.
President Bush and Dr. Rice celebrated more than the return of one aircraft carrier.
I support the right to arm bears
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 8558
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

RE: I Was For It Before I Was Against It.

Fri Jan 19, 2007 8:27 am

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 41):
So does that mean that we don' try?

Oh we certainly try something, but not in Iraq. But who has the guts to do what's really necessary? Too many political liabilities in Washington for that! It's 2001 + 6 and we still have rampant miscommunication inside the Department of Homeland Stupidity, negligent to non-existent border and port security, and absolutely no ability to cut off the funding sources of terror by engaging the Saudis and Iran point-blank. Of course this would require complete restructuring of US energy markets and infrastructure, but apparently the Herculean effort of WWII is beyond the capacity, much less willingness, of today's federal government and private sector.

Putting hundreds of thousands of US troops in harm's way, spending untold billions, creating a new religious political problem where a strong-arm dictator had suppressed it successfully before and inspiring an accelerated wave of radical Islamists to yet another rallying cause??  banghead 
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
andessmf
Posts: 5689
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 8:53 am

RE: I Was For It Before I Was Against It.

Fri Jan 19, 2007 8:31 am

Quoting Bushpilot (Reply 42):
When offensive operations were over in those wars, whether it come from surrender or ceasefire, the war was over!

The original mission was accomplished, but the reconstruction required was just beginning, and that process took a very long time.

When WWII was over, it was MAJOR combat that was done. There was still cleanup to do, both in physical terms and mopping up operations from the losing side.

The point I am trying to make is that Iraq war opponents make it seem as if what is happening there in unusual. It is not. The US was far crueler to the losers than what happened in Iraq. If we apply the same rules to Iraq than were applied during WWII, we would look like angels now.

Quoting Bushpilot (Reply 42):
The war is still raging in Iraq.

There is no government fighting against us in Iraq. What you have is an insurgency.

Quoting Bushpilot (Reply 42):
Do you think the sole reason we havent had an attack here on US soil is that they are all busy trying to kill our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Isn't that part of the job of the military?

Quoting Bushpilot (Reply 42):
We have a national government who is more interested in keeping Canadian college students from attending concerts in the states by making them have a passport than keeping thousands of illegal immigrants coming from the south. I am fine and dandy with having the labor market dictate thier need, but it is the drug smugglers and potential terrorists that are my concern.

That is not relevant to the thread.
 
NoUFO
Posts: 7397
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 7:40 am

RE: I Was For It Before I Was Against It.

Fri Jan 19, 2007 8:59 am

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 45):
The original mission was accomplished, but the reconstruction required was just beginning, and that process took a very long time.

And didn't cause 34,000 civilian deads within only one year.

Are you saying that it would have been great had Japan and Germany shown as little trouble as Iraq (with comparatively little bomb damage) does - or is it more the other way around?

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 45):
The point I am trying to make is ...

But you are not making any point, I'm sorry. In fact, I have difficulties figuring what your gibberish (sorry) is about - apart from grasping for straws.

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 45):
The US was far crueler to the losers than what happened in Iraq. If we apply the same rules to Iraq than were applied during WWII, we would look like angels now.

Apart from the fact that this is debateable (anything compareable to Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib did not exist, to the contrary they tried to stop illtreatment of prisoners in some French camps), this is not the issue here.

You can not deny the fact that the USA and other countries involved in the Iraq war by far underestimated the the number and vigorousity of the insurgents. Nor did they have Iran and Syria on their radar. Against this background, the "mission accomplished" sign and Bush's show was a cynic episode similar to the "bring them on" speech.
I support the right to arm bears
 
RJdxer
Posts: 3523
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 1:14 am

RE: I Was For It Before I Was Against It.

Fri Jan 19, 2007 9:06 am

Quoting Bushpilot (Reply 35):
It is the job of congress to provide oversight of the executive branch

Can you point that out in the Constitution for me? I'm having trouble finding it. It is plainly stated that the House of Representatives is in charge of the Treasury i.e. budget. And they are well within their rights as American citizens to question why a policy is not going as advertised, but I have yet to find the article that states that Congress has oversight of the Executive Branch. That would suggest that there is a check without a balance since the Executive Branch doesn't seem to have any oversight of Congress save the veto.

Quoting Bushpilot (Reply 35):
Ted Kennedy wont pull funding.

He would in a minute if he could. He's at the end of his career and has nothing to lose. What stops him are those that still need to dig a little longer at the gold and mink lined public trough.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 39):
The choice of where they are fought is not one we get to make.

Hmmm, remind when the last attack by Muslim extremists on this continent was?

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 39):
It's nothing but arrogance to believe otherwise

It's nothing but intellectual arrogance to think that we can't.

Quoting Aloges (Reply 40):
Quoting President Bush on June 5th, 2003:
I am happy to see you, an so are the long-suffering people of Iraq. America sent you on a mission to remove a grave threat and to liberate an oppressed people, and that mission has been accomplished.

The "grave threat" would be Saddam Husein and his government. By June 5th 2003, that mission had been "accomplished".

UALPHLCS, AndesSMF, ABQ747, why do you even bother? Even if President Bush were to come out tomorrow on national television and say "I was wrong, we never should have invaded, we had no right, etc etc etc, beg forgiveness from the soldiers families and the world in general, that would not suffice for
the likes of Algoes, Bushpilot, NoUfo, Wellhung, Aaron747and toss in Aerowesty, Falcon 84, and a few others that have not even had a chance to post here. The only thing that would make them happy is Bush's immediate impeachment, conviction and removal from office followed as quickly as possible by Vice President Cheney so Speaker Pelosi could be sworn in and we could go back to the good old days. You know the good old days when we just let the terrorists have their way. They are the types that are willing to let a few thousand people get blown up by terrorists every year rather than fight them where we find them. To them that's just the cost of doing business. As long as the French, Germans, and Russians can complete those back door deals with dictators like Hussein then what he did to his own citizens was none of their business and they don't like it when anybody else rocks the boat. Might as well just get used to it. I mean here we are almost 4 years after the President wowed the troops by coming in for a carrier landing and they still resent him for doing it. Of course the press didn't have to cover that, but they did, and now they have to beat him up for it every chance they get since not only did the troops love it, the public thought it was pretty neat as well. So just give it a rest, you won't change any minds, the next election is less than two years away and then if the Democrats win we'll of course get the same sob story we got in '92, that they are being handed a broken country that they have to somehow figure out how to fix.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, and a road that goes forever. I'm going to Texas!
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 8558
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

RE: I Was For It Before I Was Against It.

Fri Jan 19, 2007 9:11 am

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 47):
The only thing that would make them happy is Bush's immediate impeachment, conviction and removal from office followed as quickly as possible by Vice President Cheney so Speaker Pelosi could be sworn in and we could go back to the good old days.

That would be an absolute disaster for the image and reputation of the United States - even moreso than what's happened already.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 47):
You know the good old days when we just let the terrorists have their way. They are the types that are willing to let a few thousand people get blown up by terrorists every year rather than fight them where we find them.

This comment qualifies you as an out and out demagogue and nothing more. Did you even read post 44? here, just for you:

It's 2001 + 6 and we still have rampant miscommunication inside the Department of Homeland Stupidity, negligent to non-existent border and port security, and absolutely no ability to cut off the funding sources of terror by engaging the Saudis and Iran point-blank. Of course this would require complete restructuring of US energy markets and infrastructure, but apparently the Herculean effort of WWII is beyond the capacity, much less willingness, of today's federal government and private sector.

IR 101: hit them where you've got the power to most.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
andessmf
Posts: 5689
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 8:53 am

RE: I Was For It Before I Was Against It.

Fri Jan 19, 2007 9:18 am

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 46):
Nor did they have Iran and Syria on their radar.

In other posts, I have already expressed my opinion that the biggest problems facing Iraq is that Syria and Iran have gotten involved and the US did nothing about till very recently.

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 46):
Apart from the fact that this is debateable (anything compareable to Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib did not exist, to the contrary they tried to stop illtreatment of prisoners in some French camps), this is not the issue here.

Dresden, anyone?

"Disarmed Enemy Forces was a designation for soldiers who surrendered to an adversary after hostilites ended. It was most referenced by Dwight D. Eisenhower's redesignation of POW's in post World War II occupied Germany. The purpose of the designation is to circumvent the 1929 Geneva Convention, Relative to the treatment of prisoners of war. The prisoners were redesignated as POWs in March 1946. The wording of the 1949 Third Geneva Convention was intentionally altered from that of the 1929 convention so that soldiers who "fall into the power" of the enemy are now protected as well as those taken prisoner in the course of fighting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disarmed_Enemy_Forces
Eisenhower biographer Stephen Ambrose also disagrees with Bacque on several key points. Nevertheless, he says, "we as Americans can't duck the fact that terrible things happened. And they happened at the end of a war we fought for decency and freedom, and they are not excusable."
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,958673,00.html

I still stand by my position. If the Democrats had invaded Iraq, I would have supported them as well. But then the GOP would have complained about the same things the Democrats are complaining about now.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 44):
and absolutely no ability to cut off the funding sources of terror by engaging the Saudis and Iran point-blank

 checkmark 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests