DescentBB

Zuruck wrote:First, how do you "win" this unconventional war?

By removing terrorist breeding grounds and support networks from the world... by removing the oppressive governments that force-feed propaganda about how America is the "great Satan" to their children in order to cover for the weaknesses of their own governments... by generally giving normal people in the middle east the ability to live normal lives.

Ferno wrote:because we needed to take out a crazyman who had WMD's!

Ferny, no one can catagorically say that Saddam had no WMD's. All we can say for sure is we never found any.

Lothar wrote:

Zuruck wrote:First, how do you "win" this unconventional war?

By removing terrorist breeding grounds and support networks from the world... by removing the oppressive governments that force-feed propaganda about how America is the "great Satan" to their children in order to cover for the weaknesses of their own governments... by generally giving normal people in the middle east the ability to live normal lives.

By showing extremist govt.'s that allowing terrorist to freely operate in their country will lead to the govt. being removed. 9/11 no longer allows us the luxury of letting the U.N. to try and broker peace plans when our security is the one at stake. To a great degree the message is being heard. Libya got off the nuke plan. Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia are now working towards more democracy within their countries. Syria has pulled it's troops out of Lebanon. Pakistan has been arresting terrorists. While Iran seems to be the remaining bad boy on the block, we do have her surrounded...and Blackfive has a plan.

Lothar wrote: By removing terrorist breeding grounds and support networks from the world... by removing the oppressive governments that force-feed propaganda about how America is the "great Satan" to their children in order to cover for the weaknesses of their own governments... by generally giving normal people in the middle east the ability to live normal lives.

I agree.

Lothar, you keep writing about your "CERTAIN OBJECTIVES." We need Bush to define those objectives. Obviously it's a good idea to leave when the war is finished, but as Zuruck said, what constitutes a finished war? If you keep talking about "CERTAIN OBJEVTIVES," name some of them, so we can get some idea of when the f*ck we're getting out of there. If Bush just keeps saying that we'll withdraw when the time is right or when "CERTAIN OBJECTIVES" are met, he can keep saying that these "CERTAIN OBJECTIVES" haven't been met yet. Time to give us something tangible.

Money! wrote:Lothar, you keep writing about your "CERTAIN OBJECTIVES." We need Bush to define those objectives. Obviously it's a good idea to leave when the war is finished, but as Zuruck said, what constitutes a finished war? If you keep talking about "CERTAIN OBJEVTIVES," name some of them, so we can get some idea of when the f*ck we're getting out of there. If Bush just keeps saying that we'll withdraw when the time is right or when "CERTAIN OBJECTIVES" are met, he can keep saying that these "CERTAIN OBJECTIVES" haven't been met yet. Time to give us something tangible.

Lothar wrote:Speaking of my fake Bush speech... here's something real, and along the same lines. (Read the whole executive summary.)

Bush's strategy for victory in Iraq wrote:Our Victory Strategy Is (and Must Be) Conditions Based
o With resolve, victory will be achieved, although not by a date certain.
. + No war has ever been won on a timetable and neither will this one.
o But lack of a timetable does not mean our posture in Iraq (both military and civilian) will remain static over time. As conditions change, our posture will change.
. + We expect, but cannot guarantee, that our force posture will change over the next year, as the political process advances and Iraqi security forces grow and gain experience.
. + While our military presence may become less visible, it will remain lethal and decisive, able to confront the enemy wherever it may organize.
. + Our mission in Iraq is to win the war. Our troops will return home when that mission is complete.

See the link?

woodchip wrote:

Ferno wrote:because we needed to take out a crazyman who had WMD's!

Ferny, no one can catagorically say that Saddam had no WMD's. All we can say for sure is we never found any.

so you're still hanging onto the belief that he had them?

what's next, they were trucked to Syria?

cmon, you and I both know there were no WMDs, and the arguments supporting it are weak at best.


I said it before and i'll say it again: there is absolutely no proof that AQ and Hussein are linked.

Straight from Rumsfeld himself: "I have seen the answer to that question migrate in the intelligence community over a period of a year in the most amazing way. Second, there are differences in the intelligence community as to what the relationship was," Rumsfeld said.

"To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two,"

Ferno wrote:there is absolutely no proof that AQ and Hussein are linked.

Since when is this the "war on AQ"? I thought it was the "war on terror"...

it was first the 'war on AQ'. then it turned into the war on terror.

the supposed link between AQ and Iraq was one of the big reasons that you went in. remember?


Certain objectives? when the iraqis ask the US to leave.

Which they have done. Bush said that he would comply

Ferno wrote:it was first the 'war on AQ'. then it turned into the war on terror.

It has always been the war on terror... since long before Bush was in office. It just so happened that we started taking the war seriously when AQ decided to attack NY, so they were the first target.

the supposed link between AQ and Iraq was one of the big reasons that you went in.

Wouldn't that be the link between TERROR and Iraq? I remember there being mention of AQ contacts with Iraqi officials (which, by the way, are not under dispute) but those were just a part of the general link between Saddam's government and various terrorist organizations.

when the iraqis ask the US to leave.

Which they have done. Bush said that he would comply

Uh... it doesn't say anywhere that they're asking the US to leave right away. Only that they want them to leave "according to a timetable... through putting in place an immediate program to rebuild the armed forces." That program is in place, and the armed forces are being rebuilt. The only thing that's missing is a timetable, and I think we've established that a timetable is a stupid idea.

... and the article you linked agreed:

Sunni leaders have been pressing the Shi'ite-majority government to agree to a timetable for the withdrawal of all foreign troops.

The statement recognized that goal, but did not set a specific time. This reflected the government's stance that Iraqi security forces must be built up first.

Sounds like exactly what I've been saying all thread.

well the timetable can't be 'forever'. that would be rediculous.

Ferno wrote:well the timetable can't be 'forever'. that would be rediculous.

Why not? We're still in Germany, Japan, Korea and Bosnia.