http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/15/060615234809.1bdsjdt9.html

Does this mean that the administration feels that an intergral part of avoiding terrorist attacks is the maintaince of constant war in the Middle East?
Does "winning" in Iraq mean we are then more at risk at home?

Speaking of winning.. It is interesting that Republicans cant even come up with criteria for winning, besides not leaving.
I suppose victory in Iraq is like obscenity in the 1950s, "I can't describe it, but Ill know it when I see it" So far our grand strategy for exiting Iraq seems to be not leaving...

weird world we live in.

"The fact is, we've taken the battle to the enemy. That's been the key to the safety and security of the American people these last few years, and we need to continue to do it," he said.

It means we need to be proactive, not reactive.
But you think this means we need to constantly have a state of "War" to keep our shores safe.
I take it to mean we need to draw the terrorists out and fight them anywhere other than the U.S.
But then again, you would probably like car bombs going off in your neighborhood. I mean it's just a "political statement", after all.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/iraq/cst-nws-war16.html
The Senate vote was 93-6 to shelve the proposal, which would have allowed "only forces that are critical to completing the mission of standing up Iraqi security forces" to remain in 2007.

93-6 .....

What was your question again?

All the same I had before.
When can they leave?

Whats the goal?

How do we know when we've "won", whats the definition of victory in Iraq?

Why are we there again?


2,500 americans have died, what is it they have sacrificed their lives for? I think its a fair question. What are the Americans who die in the coming days/months/years (hopefully not, but how do we know). If there is no clear-cut definite goal, then there will be no victory.
A jihad by koranic definition is not an offensive action. A Jihad by its strict and true definition is a defense of Islam by invaders. My feeling is that our presence in Iraq has moved the Islamic world closer to radicalization than it was before.
The feeling is one of being in a hole and digging your way out.

Your "feelings" are wrong. The Islamic world has been radicalized well before the Offensive action in Iraq.
Or have you forgotten September 11?
Now before you go jumping on the "But Iraq had nothing to do with the September 11th attacks!!!!!" trail, consider this:
Radical Islam is based on the precident that if you aren't a follower of Muhammad, you are an Infidel, to be removed from the face of the planet by any means necessary.
This article has a few eye opening statements you might want to consider.

http://www.sullivan-county.com/immigration/rob_imm.htm

While the traditional interpertation of Jihad is "The Struggle", today's radical Islamic thinking takes "The Struggle" and turns it into "The Fight".

Remember, the best Defense is a good Offense.

What Cheney is saying in the article is "Better over there, than here in our own backyard."

When are the troops coming home? When "The Fight" turns back into "The Struggle" I'd imagine.

The premise of law in the US is "innocent until proven guilty." It's a nice luxury to have, isn't it? Proactive war is a subversion of that premise. Don't you think all humans deserve the luxury of innocence until proven guilty?

Proactive war is a subversion of that premise

Proactive war(or strikes) is not a subversion, since "usually" there is enough solid evidence to truly believe there is a threat. If someone came at you with a gun pointed and said "I'm going to kill you" would you wait and be killed or attack/defend yourself first?

Please explain to me which country/leader came at us with "gun drawn stating they were going to kill us?"

He was answering your question about proactive war. On the start of the Iraq war their was enough (false it maybe) evidence to attack Iraq. Now some years later of course thats not true. I guess one could apply the meaning to someone coming at you with an unloaded gun. Kind of like suicide by cop, or more so suicide by bush.

The "coming at you with a loaded gun" analogy doesnt really hold up.

Cmon, does anyone REALLY still believe that our primary motivation for going into Iraq was WMDs? That was our justification, not our motivation. WMDs are all over the world in the hands of people just as bad as Saddam. Hell, Id argue that the biggest threat to nuclear proliferation in the world, AQ Khan is a free man in Pakistan.

Id argue that we really arent THAT concerned (at least enough to start a war over) about nations getting Nuclear Weapons. The deterence factor of the Nukes transforms it into a purely defensive weapon. Shit, the only thing that keep the US from going to war with the Soviet Union WAS nukes. Other than that, the 1950s would have been spent fighting WWIII.
We wanted Iraq under our control for a variety of other reasons, but we just arent honest enough to admit them to ourselves. If Iraq didnt have one drop of oil, we never would have invaded.
A strong, secular, democratic, oil rich nation in the heart of the middle east that is an ally to the US would have been an incredible boost to the stabilization of the region and a killing blow to the Iranian/Saudi/AQ influence that dominates the ME.
Its. just. not. going. to. happen.

The Iranians arent going to let a democratic Iraq emerge any more than we would allow a communist Mexico or Canada. And the Iraqi people are by and large far too segregated and distrustful of one another to ever make this work.
Its really a Catch 22.
As long as US troops remain as an occupying force in Iraq (and you can say whatever you want, but thats what we are, an occupying force) then a steady stream of radical arabs and persians will flood into Iraq to participate in Jihad. But we cant leave because once we DO leave and the Iraqis no longer have an outside enemy (either the US or foreign jihadists) they are going to tear each other to pieces and we will see a full scale civil war 6 months after we leave and everyone fucking knows it. The Iranians want nothing more than a Sunni uprising. Offering to help us in Iraq? Wtf?
The fact that we are considering letting the Vampire in the front door shows just how desperate we are to get out of this hot mess.

Cmon, does anyone REALLY still believe that our primary motivation for going into Iraq was WMDs? That was our justification, not our motivation. WMDs are all over the world in the hands of people just as bad as Saddam. Hell, Id argue that the biggest threat to nuclear proliferation in the world, AQ Khan is a free man in Pakistan



I wasn't talking about Iraq, I was talking in general terms and more so in response to what Phil said that being proactive violates our general rights we believe in. The resolution was not solely based on Iraq and Afganistan it was also to continue to be proactive against terrorism/terrorists.

Now as for Iraq yes WMD's may not have been a good or valid reason, but getting rid of Saddam alone was. Come on do you really think the UN would of got up off thier ass and done something about Iraq, they were knee deep in the oil and money from it to want to do anything. Iraq continued to violate UN resolutions and sanctions and the UN kept giving them more and more leeway. And who was doing most of the patrol to keep the UN sanctions? We were. US ships/planes/troops were the ones sitting off thier coasts, we were the one getting shot at all the time and Saddam kept getting away with it. We had enough, ya our reason may have not been the correct one but take off your blinders we did something right.

We may have not gone the correct path to do it for "World opinion" but we got it done and for the most part Iraq civillians believe in what we did too. Do not believe what the news tells ya every day. When you sit in Iraq and see civilians running up to you to hug you and thank you while holding a picture of George Bush you even feel better of what we did. When our soldiers are sitting in the streets handing out candy or signing autographs and insurgents are aiming at the kids and civilians along with the soldiers then something is wrong and we are trying to right that by getting rid of that factor, along with rebuilding Iraq.

Now as for Iraq yes WMD's may not have been a good or valid reason, but getting rid of Saddam alone was

How many American lives would be it worth to take out Kim Jong Il? He is just as bad. Why are the Iraqis more deserving of help than North Koreans, if we are talking about doing good for goods own sake?
And Honestly... If Saddam had not invaded Kuwait in 1990, He would right now be one of our prime partners in the Middle East in the WOT. Any serious look at the facts tells us this to be true.
http://www.hrw.org/reports/1989/WR89/Iraq.htm
With the warming of relations, the United States began providing Iraq billions of dollars in credits to purchase agricultural and industrial products. The war with Iran caused Iraq to borrow on a massive scale, which in turn caused Iraq's credit rating to drop. U.S. and other Western banks, concerned over Iraq's mounting foreign debt and increasingly uncertain whether the government in Baghdad would be able to withstand Iran's onslaught, became reluctant to loan to Iraq. In l983, the U.S. government stepped in to ease Iraq's burden by providing credits through the United States Commodity Credit Corporation ("CCC") credit-guarantee program, for the purchase of U.S. agricultural products. Through l988, Iraq acquired more than $2.8 billion in U.S. agricultural products under the CCC credit-guarantee program. In l989, the year following the Reagan administration's public rebuke of Iraq for using chemical weapons against its Kurdish population, the Bush administration doubled the CCC program for Iraq, raising credits to a level exceeding one billion dollars in 1989. In addition to credit guarantees, the CCC program has also included some interest-free loans and some direct sales at prices subsidized by the U.S. government, according to U.S. Department of Agriculture officials.

See, when we need him in 1988 and he gasses the Kurds, its a finger waving... in 2003 it becomes a Casus Belli.
In the closing months of 1989, the State Department began an effort to show greater concern over the human rights situation in Iraq. In September, Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs Richard Schifter met in Washington with the legal advisor to the Iraqi Foreign Ministry for a discussion of human rights. While information available to Middle East Watch suggests that the outcome of this meeting was far from satisfactory, it has been billed by State Department officials as a "broadening" of the U.S. "human rights dialogue" with Iraq. At the end of November, Schifter met with Iraq's ambassador to the United Nations for further talks on human rights issues. But in a major address on U.S. policy in the Middle East delivered on October 27, 1989, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs John Kelly ignored entirely the matter of Iraq's human rights violations. He stated simply: "Iraq is an important state with great potential. We want to deepen and broaden our relationship."

Despite Iraq's record of arbitrary detention, murder and torture, the Reagan administration did not press for action against Iraq at the l988 session of the United Nations Human Rights Commission. Even more surprising, at the Commission's l989 session the Bush administration stood back and let others take the initiative in trying to call Iraq to account for its use of chemical weapons against its Kurdish population and for its other serious abuses. The U.S. did not join in sponsoring the strongly worded resolution put forward by twelve other Western states, which called for the appointment of a special rapporteur to "make a thorough study of the human rights situation in Iraq." The resolution was submitted by Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, West Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Sweden and the United Kingdom. Greece, Ireland, Italy and Spain later joined as sponsors. Of the sponsors, Belgium, Canada, West Germany, Portugal, Sweden, the United Kingdom, Italy and Spain were actual members of the Human Rights Commission. The other sponsors acted in their observer capacity. Commission rules permit observers to sponsor resolutions but not to vote on them.


Sorry... just not buying "we only wanted to do good!" routine.

insurgents are aiming at the kids and civilians along with the soldiers then something is wrong and we are trying to right that by getting rid of that factor, along with rebuilding Iraq.

Rebuilding Iraq I can understand, since we are at large part responsible for it needing to be rebuilt. I am sure getting the power grid and infrastructure on a 24/7 operating standard will have a major impact on our relations with many of the people there.

Getting rid of "that factor" is not going to happen, tho'. As long as American troops (Christians/infidels) are on the ground in these countries of the middle east there will be an insurgency. There will be an insurgency and/or Islamic terrorists as long as there are those who embrace the extremist ideology; and, as long as there is evidence of America and Great Britain and the European Union and any other country meddling in their affairs or disrespecting their religious beliefs or taking the side of the Jew over the Moslem, there will be cause for them to continue attacking us.

We beat Hitler, but the nazi movement has not vanished; the North beat the South but there are still places in this country where the thinking has not changed (that all men were created equal) and prejudice is the rule of thumb. It is impossible to eliminate schools of thought, even when they are really bad ones. Can anyone prove that those same children accepting the candy from soldiers are not being taught at home about the jihad and what it means having infidels occupying Holy Lands?

One of the biggest mistakes made in prosecuting this war was the brushing aside of the religious differences, and the impact they would have.

How many American lives would be it worth to take out Kim Jong Il? He is just as bad.

MAD... We can't take out Kim Jong Il.

If Iraq didnt have one drop of oil, we never would have invaded.

Just think if none of those middle eastern countries had oil. Beyond the crusades, no one would have given a fuck about them. Then where would they be?

Although it should have been obvious all along to everyone, that was about as pretty fucking spot on a statement this board has ever seen.
/cheers

Just think if none of those middle eastern countries had oil. Beyond the crusades, no one would have given a fuck about them. Then where would they be?

Given the history of learning and geographic location... without Oil, the irony is, people in the middle east would most likely be pretty well off without oil.
Remove colonial influence, remove Petro Politics..

yea... "the black curse" it has been called for good reason.

You are also forgetting that North Korea has China right next door. Iraq has no superpower with a quarter of the world's population, waiting for the wrong move to happen.
You think China would sit passively by, while the U.S. took Kim Jong Il out? How would that make them look? There would be a response, and the U.S. would be hard pressed to answer.

And there will be an insurgency, regardless of if infidels are in the Middle East. The focus will change from trying to oust us, to trying to bring us in on the side of the insurgency.
Would you turn down the help of a superpower like the U.S.?

China is allot of things but dumb is not one of them. They are growing so fast right now (and allot of it is due to how much we buy from them) I don't think they would be so quick to jump on the wagon with N.Korea.

I was trying to say that the situations are very different, in regards to location, and neighbors.
To say that we should take out Kim, because we took out Saddam, ignores the fact that we have more allies in Asia, while we don't have as many in the Middle East.
Diplomacy should be used, but after many years of Saddam flat out ignoring the terms of the cease-fire agreement that he signed to end the Gulf War, it was time for him to go Bye Bye.

He was an horrible person, murderer, etc., Sixee, no doubt. But if getting him out is all we have gained after 40k lives lost...the question remains, was it worth it?

Approaching two million, including between 150,000 and 340,000 Iraqis and between 450,000 and 730,000 Iranians (http://www.moreorless.au.com/heroes/mossadegh.html) killed during the Iran-Iraq War. An estimated 1,000 Kuwaiti nationals killed following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. No conclusive figures for the number of Iraqis killed during the Gulf War, with estimates varying from as few as 1,500 to as many as 200,000. Over 100,000 Kurds killed or "disappeared". No reliable figures for the number of Iraqi dissidents and Shia Muslims killed during Hussein's reign, though estimates put the figure between 60,000 and 150,000. (Mass graves discovered following the US occupation of Iraq in 2003 suggest that the total combined figure for Kurds, Shias and dissidents killed could be as high as 300,000). Approximately 500,000 Iraqi children dead because of international trade sanctions introduced following the Gulf War.

http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/hussein.html

So in my book, even if you use the worst case scenario of 100,000 Iraqis killed, and 2500 soldiers killed, Saddam out of power, is far better than Saddam in power.

Okay, now compare it to the lives lost had he continued in power...watched ever so carefully by the US and UN (as worthless as they are). Considering he had almost no army left, no WMDs, and was watched like a hawk.....how much potential for trouble was he? Could we have brought him down by using Shiite insurgents, doing something similar to Afganistan?

I don't see a lot of potential especially if we aided groups that opposed him...though we missed a prime opportunity with the first Bush invasion. It's all conjecture of course, no one can be proved right or wrong about the number of deaths Hussiem would be guilty of had we not invaded. ...and don't sell short the monetary and prestige cost to the US. In the end you just have to ask yourself, is anyone US or Iraqi better off because of this action. I say no...but we are all entilted to our opinion.

and 2500 soldiers killed

umm..we already eclipsed that tally, 2700+ at last count, plus about 18k of wounded. http://icasualties.org/oif/

...and we could be at 100,000 total dead depending on who you believe, but those claiming that clearly have there own agenda.

I like how wars funded by the US and sanctions imposed by the US are counted as "Why Saddam is bad" while being listed in support of the exact same sort of ill-advised foreign policy today, in much the same way that the same policy of disaster capitalism and CIA subversion that was bad under Clinton is A-OK when Bush does it, or vice versa, depending on which rabid twit you ask.

Do you people not see that allowing yourselves to be polarized into party lines has entirely undermined your ability to act as citizens of a democratic nation and given rise to a modern plutocracy that only has to periodically incite you over gun control, saving the whales and gay marriage in order to pull off a wholesale theft of your money and polity to do whatever they want?

The Iraq war was not a bad idea because it was Bush's policy. It was bad policy period. And I am glad to see more people are waking up to the idea that we're not leaving Iraq, which has been obvious to anyone who understands our base-colonies for years. You don't build state-of-the-art, multi-billion dollar outposts in oil rich countries to hand them over to the native darkies.

You are also forgetting that North Korea has China right next door. Iraq has no superpower with a quarter of the world's population, waiting for the wrong move to happen.
You think China would sit passively by, while the U.S. took Kim Jong Il out? How would that make them look? There would be a response, and the U.S. would be hard pressed to answer.

Can someone please tell me how we would be able to take over North Korea?

Again... Mutually Assured Destruction... In this case it doesn't even have to involve us as the recipient (Although the media has been saying their imminent missile test will use hardware with the range, but who listens to the news). Look at a map of the region sometime and think about what the fuck would happen if we invaded a country like North Korea. Hell, someone explain how you invade a country with nuclear weapons?

Iran. North Korea. Iraq. Axis of Evil.

Iraq? Check
North Korea? We reallllly want to, but the lil bastards got their hands on some nukes!
Iran? And we wonder why the hell they keep pursuing their nuclear ambitions?

I actually had a professor argue that he thinks nuclear proliferation is a good thing. I can see the merits in that, but I can't imagine that one won't eventually slip through the cracks. I've seen Terminator 2, fuck that!

450,000 and 730,000 Iranians (http://www.moreorless.au.com/heroes/mossadegh.html) killed during the Iran-Iraq War
Hmmm.

Approximately 500,000 Iraqi children dead because of international trade sanctions introduced following the Gulf War

So, check me if my math is wrong but... that's, worst case scenario.... 1,230,000 Iraqi and Iranian death's arguably attributial to US supported and backed endeavors in the region.
And people are shocked by the fact we are not welcomed as thier benevolant and loving grandfather figure.
What the hell lets add in the figures from Desert storm. if only the low Iraqi dead estimate my number grows to 1,245,000.
Add in the high estimate it's 1,430,000. fuck me thats alot of dead people!
So take the 2 million Sixee's plagaris...errr i mean factual re-posting started
with and Sadaam can be credited with 570,000 death's.
and still these morons cant see we are there to be thier saviors.

*hell i read that all wrong and missed some numbers, but it's late and past my bedtime already so i'll leave it ya'll to fill in the gaps*

'Just think if none of those middle eastern countries had oil. Beyond the crusades, no one would have given a fuck about them. Then where would they be?'


- Well that's not really true. France and Britain carved the Mid East up for strategic reasons.