|
|
Post by bolverk on May 21, 2008 17:42:18 GMT -5
Iraqvet2003: " How are they unrelated Mink? We're fighting terrorists in both places." Well, Bush did help create in corralling the terrorists into Iraq. Sure the whole Middle East is filled with them. They hide like roaches, but by leaving Afghanistan at the most important time, he lost the opportunity to catch 9/11's Bin Laden....the reason we were in the region in the first place. sigh Can you tell me exactly what date we left Afghanistan? |
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on May 21, 2008 17:44:03 GMT -5
You are mistaken to believe that Sadaam was related to terrorism. It has been proven time and time again that he was NOT. He ruled his own country with an iron fist but was not a terrorist threat. Using your logic we should have invaded Saudi Arabia where the 9/11 hijackers were from. Fact is, Bin Laden and his terrorist network are still based in the Afghan hills and over the Pakistani boarder. We don't have the troops to properly go after them because they're tied up in a quagmire (Iraq). Actually, that is not exactly true. We can not go into Pakistan, as per our agreement with their government when they entered the war on terror. |
|
|
|
Post by mrroqout on May 21, 2008 19:08:11 GMT -5
Oops sorry I was off a bit.
As of TODAY there are THIRTY THREE THOUSAND soldiers on the ground in AFGHANISTAN..
Doing nothing and looking for no one according to Saunterelle..
|
|
|
|
Post by harpman1 on May 21, 2008 19:11:59 GMT -5
Amazing. Al Queda was in every country in the world EXCEPT Iraq.
I'm believing that all day long.
Took our eye off the ball & still managed to have killed tens of thousands of Jihadi butchers in Iraq.
We should do that more often!
Remember, folks: liberals only support wars that have already been fought, & they LOVE any we have been forced by cowards to lose.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mink on May 22, 2008 0:20:40 GMT -5
Iraqvet2003: " How are they unrelated Mink? We're fighting terrorists in both places." Well, Bush did help create in corralling the terrorists into Iraq. Sure the whole Middle East is filled with them. They hide like roaches, but by leaving Afghanistan at the most important time, he lost the opportunity to catch 9/11's Bin Laden....the reason we were in the region in the first place. sigh Can you tell me exactly what date we left Afghanistan? No, I'd have to look that up, but that's not the point. We all know Bush didn't totally abandon Afghanistan, but he left right when they claimed we had BL cornered. They outsourced "the" job to warlords and suddenly created Shock-n-Awe in Iraq. By splitting our limited volunteer military, we now have bigger problems than resolving 9/11. |
|
|
|
Post by iraqvet2003 on May 22, 2008 7:53:48 GMT -5
Bolverk-
First, thanks for your remarks. Like I said, just doing my job.
As for the "left Afghanistan" remark. I misspoke, we never left. We shifted our focus in 2003. Then, due to the emerging situation, we diverted even more manpower and equipment.
At the time, this wasn't a terrible idea. The situation in Afghanistan was less hostile than Iraq. However, our depleted presence over in Afghanistan allowed the Taliban to recover some lost ground and gave AQ more time to build numbers in Pakistan.
Hindsight being 20/20, that may have been a bad call. However, you have to make decisions with the information at hand. You can't conjure up the future. At the time, Iraq was in complete disarray and Afghanistan was a little more put together. With finite manpower and resources, we had to divert to face the most pressing threat.
Now, Iraq is more secure and Afghanistan is slipping. Luckily the Marines have boots on the ground and the situation will be "well in hand" soon.
I know, I know my blind faith in the Corps is annoying. Can't help it. I'm a Corporal (soon to be Sergeant) of Marines. What else can I do?
|
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on May 22, 2008 11:29:08 GMT -5
Congratulations on soon becoming a Sergeant Iraqvet! I have nothing but the greatest respect and gratitude for you and your fellow soldiers who risk their lives for our protection.
My frustration is with our leaders who have obviously made some serious mistakes and, in my opinion, lied to us.
When our focus shifted from Afghanistan to Iraq we took our eye off the ball. And why did we go into Iraq in the first place? The UN weapon inspectors were doing their job and we had most of the world behind us. The inspectors had found no evidence of WMD production and we yanked them out of there to rush to war. It didn't make any sense. Now we are paying the price for our blunder.
It is past time to exit Iraq swiftly and safely and focus on Afghanistan/Pakistan. Iraq is a quagmire, draining our resources, tying up our manpower, and distracting us from real threats.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrroqout on May 22, 2008 11:53:24 GMT -5
The inspectors had found nothing because they were being denied access to MANY places. Places that in the ORIGINAL GULF WAR cease fire agreement, were made to be accessable.
Saddam denying entry to his most sensitive areas, Saddam peviously gassing innocent people, Saddam breaking 16 + UN Resolutions...NONE Of that seemed the LEAST BIT suspicious to you?
Breaking the 16+ Resolutions ALONE was enough to go back into Iraq. By HIS breaking the UN resolutions he effectively ended the ORIGINAL cease fire agreement, and therefore declared war.
And none of this seriously would make you at least a bit worried/suspicious of a man known to fund terror?
|
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on May 22, 2008 12:39:37 GMT -5
mink says, "By splitting our limited volunteer military, we now have bigger problems than resolving 9/11."
during WWII our military was strung out all over the globe! from burma to okinawa, from europe to north africa and all points in between. you liberals and your little talking points that you pick up from the PD editorial page just don't hold water.
how did you guys ever pass history class in high school?
|
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on May 22, 2008 12:57:42 GMT -5
The biggest mistake that Bush made, IMO, was the 9 months or so of saber rattleing before going in. That gave SH plenty of time to move and or hide the stuff. Once the decision was made, out ambassador to the UN should have gone before that body and said "In 48 hours we will be sending in troops to enforce all the UN resolutions against Iraq, in all particulars. "
And then done it.
Yes, SH did let in the inspectors not long before we went in - after stonewalling for a decade.
Saunterelle wrote: "My frustration is with our leaders who have obviously made some serious mistakes and, in my opinion, lied to us. " Yep. Clinton did lie to us, and did make mistakes. Bush then kept up that same stance.
|
|
|
|
Post by iraqvet2003 on May 22, 2008 14:12:06 GMT -5
The more and more I think about it, I've come up with this possible reasoning.
1. President Clinton stated in a speech to congress in 1998 (I think) that it is the policy of the US to depose Saddam Hussein. I believe JGaffney posted this speech in the old forum.
2. In 2002, Saddam continually denied UN Weapons Inspectors from certain areas. Not exactly an admission of guilt but it looks pretty damn suspicious. Along with those 16+ violations, and his constant saber-rattling towards Israel, Saddam had place himself in our line of sight.
3. Remember those early years after 9/11? We weren't going to take no shit from nobody. Further, we weren't going even to entertain the thought of allowing an openly antagonistic regime to exist in that region.
I believe it is these factors and probably a few more, that led us into the invasion.
As far as invading faster than we did... It takes some time to get our gear to us. Further, we had to get it all off the ships and take it out to the field a couple of times to make sure it was combat ready.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mink on May 25, 2008 1:17:13 GMT -5
mink says, "By splitting our limited volunteer military, we now have bigger problems than resolving 9/11." during WWII our military was strung out all over the globe! from burma to okinawa, from europe to north africa and all points in between. you liberals and your little talking points that you pick up from the PD editorial page just don't hold water. how did you guys ever pass history class in high school? It doesn't take a history lesson to do the math here. |
|
