Well, since we stupidly gutted the existing Iraqi Army and started over, it’s set us back, for one.
I don’t know what you want to hear. I agree that we shouldn’t really be there any longer than we need to, I don’t want a “blank check” any more than you do.
I have set the reasons for getting involved aside, and instead choose to focus on the fact that we are there, and as such, need to have (which I’m sure we do) a set of parameters that the Iraqi govt/military/police need to meet before we can drawdown to all but a token force for training purposes, otherwise we risk the morass getting even deeper and the entire country utterly imploding, and then the American lives lost will have truly been in vain.
I don’t like this war, I want us to leave, they want us to leave, but we can’t just up and leave with the situation as it is. Whether or not “the surge is working” or not or whatever, we need to forcefully set a matrix of parameters for the Iraqis to meet, and when they do, we shove off.
No, it merely links the two in the exactly the same way that the current administration repeatedly linked Saddam and al Qaeda, by sticking the two together in an ambiguous sentence.
It’s a not-lie.
McCain doesn’t carry it off as well as Bush and Cheney, because he sometimes screws up and states an actual untruth.
Regardless, America deserves better than this sort of disingenuous jackasserry from a potential president.
No, but there needs to be mutual agreeance on what conditions should be met before we do so we don’t have to go back at greater cost of lives in the future.
Your cite does not show any evidence of operational support of Al Qaeda by Iran. See section 2 p. 61 and section 7 pp. 240-241. There was evidence of two training events, and Iran eased travel of members by not stamping Saudi passports. Iran was interested in strengthening ties following the Cole attack, “but was rebuffed because Bin Ladin did not want to alienate his supporters in Saudi Arabia.” page 240 paragraph 3.
No, it’s not. It’s scare-mongering. We were attacked on our own soil twoorthree* times by al Qaeda before September 11. It became clear at least 66 years ago that people can suddenly launch an attack on us. The only new thing about September 11 was the success al Qaeda had, both in terms of the American loss of life and their surge in strength after this administration botched the invasion and subsequent occupation.
*-I suppose it can be argued that the USS Cole wasn’t, technically, our soil, but if it isn’t, it might as well be.
No, nobody had ever attacked us here in our homeland before.
Embassies and ships at port don’t count.
OK, the original “blind sheik” attack counts, but was DISCOUNTED by too many because dude was, well, blind and all.
You’ve already acknowledged why Cheney’s statement was clearly and entirely constructed of bullshit; he made it in reference to Iraq, when, and this may in fact be news to you, Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks of September 11th, and had no capacity to attack us on our homeland. This may also be news to you, but that Complete and Utter Douchebag Cheney has repeatedly linked 9/11 and Iraq. He’s a sociopathic bullshitter, counting on gullible people like yourself to support him.
Not true. Don’t forget the 9,000 or so Japanese balloon bombings: “On May 5, 1945, a balloon bomb which had drifted over the Pacific killed five children and a woman.”
The US mainland was also attacked conventionally on numerous occasions. This one is my favorite: "The United States mainland was first shelled by the Axis on February 23, 1942 when the Japanese submarine I-17 attacked the Ellwood oil production facilities at Goleta, near Santa Barbara, California. Although only the pumphouse and catwalk were damaged, I-17 captain Nishino Kozo radioed Tokyo that he had left Santa Barbara in flames. "
“In the late 1930s, Kozo Nishino was commander of a Japanese tanker taking on crude oil at the Ellwood oil field. On the way up the path from the beach to a formal ceremony welcoming him and his crew, Nishino slipped and fell into a prickly-pear cactus. Workers on a nearby oil rig broke into guffaws at the sight of the proud commander having cactus spines plucked from his posterior. Then and there, the humiliated Nishino swore to get even.”
This makes me wonder if the Japanese in WWII might not be an appropriate analogy to us as far as having our war run by people who look down on the “reality-based community”. I think we may well be making or have made several of the same mistakes, and likely for similar reasons.
I don’t know that I believe there is such a thing as a “reality-based community” because it seems we’re all shown what we want to see. To me these wars are being carried off by competing business entities that have a disincentive to ever let it stop. To me the Iraq War is exactly what its architects wanted. That may not be your reality and it may not be the reality of our war planners, who in contrast to Nishino Kozo look at war in a pinstriped actuarial fashion.
My point is the enemies we’re making are a lot angrier than an embarrassed Japanese submarine captain. The longer we possess Iraq the more susceptible we and our European partners will be to random revenge attacks. The hell of it is, the sooner these revenge attacks occur, the sooner we can establish greater control over the Mid East. Since there are only so many times you can smack a hornet’s nest like a piñata, something could be on the way.
As for our mistakes? History will probably be way too kind.
So that little thing which was overblown into “A date which will live in infamy” doesn’t count, eh? :dubious:
My evil right-wing brother in law keeps saying how much worse the 9-11 attacks were than Pearl Harbor and therefore, more people should support the war on Iraq. Stupidity on both counts.
Guys, you’re raking me over the coals for the wrong reason. I meant that there has never been such an attack of that magnitude on our continental soil that was “outside” of a war attack.
9/11 was certainly unique in that regard.
