New Iraq report: 15 of 18 benchmarks satisfactory - Page 5

AmericanDreamer · #41 (**permalink**) 07-18-2008, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by foundit66

Try wracking up a HUGE debt, and then paying off only the interest...
Let me know how healthy that is for your economic situation...

Exactly what I said. If you can show me a war that has done it differently then there is room to argue against the status quo.

Quote:

Originally Posted by foundit66

People talk about a "trade deficit" and how bad that is, but here we have a situation where we just pour TRILLIONS of dollars overseas, with NO product to show for it...

We have achieved progress in the region and our interest are being solidified. The Iraqi people are free from Saddam's evil rule, and the benchmarks are being met. Many would consider those facts to be the "product" of what we have invested over there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by foundit66

But people don't seem that concerned over it...
Perhaps if it were a Democrat who was responsible for it, then you'd see Republican outcry?

Don't forget that the Democrats are just as responsible as the Republicans for this war. To put it all on Bush and his administration is complete denial.

foundit66 · #42 (**permalink**) 07-18-2008, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stinger

You mean the outdated polls cnredd debunked?

1) You are a liar for claiming I never gave these.
And acting like you now recognize them only compounds your lie.

2) cnredd never "debunked" them.
He complained they weren't more current. I showed polls as current as we could get, and they said the same thing.
People don't poll the MILITARY every five seconds like they do the American public. There is no indication AT ALL that attitudes have changed, and plenty of evidence it hasn't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stinger

I merely responded to you trying to say I wasn't a REAL military family I didn't need to comment on them. So do you have any up to date polls? Post surge?

Another lie.
I never claimed you weren't a "real" military family.
I talked about how YOUR ISOLATED experiences do not speak for ALL military families, which is what you were trying to do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stinger

Which has nothing to do with what I stated. How about this, the war is being paid for by tax dollars, it's the descritionary spending that is causing the deficits. Why don't we end that?

Wow. Talk about playing word games...
Under Clinton, we had a "balanced" budget.
What has changed since then.

Bush tax cuts (focusing primarily on the rich) and a NEW cost of a war.
Claiming it's the "discretionary" spending which causes the deficit is ridiculous. It's like buying a new car, and then insisting that it's the public utility bills which are putting you in debt.

Furthermore, what I said had EVERYTHING to do with what you stated.
Your comment showed you couldn't see a "difference".
I pointed to the GLARING difference.

foundit66 · #43 (**permalink**) 07-18-2008, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AmericanDreamer

Exactly what I said. If you can show me a war that has done it differently then there is room to argue against the status quo.

In the past, AT THE SAME TIME America was undertaking the debt Americans were buckling down to aggressively address the debt DURING the war.
THAT is what is being done differently here.

Mikeyy has a thread where he talks about us being at war, yet in our American daily lives we live them like there is NO war going on.
That is distinctly unique to this war, unlike the ones we have previously fought.
There is NO sacrifice being asked of the American people by the Bush administration, cause they KNOW that if they were to ask for sacrifice, the backlash would be definitive.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AmericanDreamer

We have achieved progress in the region and our interest are being solidified. The Iraqi people are free from Saddam's evil rule, and the benchmarks are being met. Many would consider those facts to be the "product" of what we have invested over there.

"Invested"?
The Iraqi government representatives are talking like THEY defeated the terrorists by themselves. They are talking about how they never invited us, and any talk of repayment for our expenses is ridiculous.

We were never being threatened by Saddam. No WMDs. No al Qaeda connections.
What we have "achieved" was not worth the cost.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AmericanDreamer

Don't forget that the Democrats are just as responsible as the Republicans for this war. To put it all on Bush and his administration is complete denial.

It has been repeatedly pointed out how the Bush Administration has manipulated the focus of the "evidence" which brought us to war.
To try and ignore that is foolhardy, especially when it has been shown that there are CURRENTLY similar efforts regarding Iran.

"just as responsible"? HA!
Was it Democrats who went to the UN claiming Saddam had WMDs?
Was it Democrats who went on national TV claiming Saddam had WMDs and ties to al Qaeda?
The Republicans (Bush Administration) PICKED UP THE CAUSE, and then pushed the issue. They manipulated the focus of the evidence to ignore the contradictory evidence. And then when their shell game worked, THAT is when the "responsibility" of the Democrats came into play.
If the Democrats (and American people in general) had the TRUTH about Iraq from the start, this would have been an entirely different ball-game...

Royal Assassin3 · #44 (**permalink**) 07-20-2008, 12:23 PM

Hi everybody, here's my first post for you.

Quote:

"Invested"?
The Iraqi government representatives are talking like THEY defeated the terrorists by themselves. They are talking about how they never invited us, and any talk of repayment for our expenses is ridiculous.

They didn't beat terrorists by themselves any more than we beat Nazi Germany by our selves in WW2. As for repaying of expenses, no one is asking them to do that. We want them to become a thriving democracy and so quite the opposite we've been forgiving debts and lobbying other countries to do the same.

Quote:

We were never being threatened by Saddam. No WMDs. No al Qaeda connections.
What we have "achieved" was not worth the cost.

Too bad those are all Michael Moore style lies. Meaning, that while technically true, they are irrelevent or off point.

1. "We were never being threatened by Saddam" - He may not have issued an open threat to us, but that wasn't the issue. The issue was whether he WAS a threat, and that you can be without saying anything. Like a guy walking around a market place with a bomb vest on.

If you look at the wording of every major speach leading up to the war you will see that is the type of threat we declared Saddam to be. We don't say he "threatened us". We called him "a threat".

What made him a threat? The fact that he was thought to have hidden WMDs and the fact that he was a known sponsor of terrorism (more on that later). Those combined made him a VERY big threat.

2. "No WMDs" - While true that we didn't find the QUANTITIES we were expecting, we did find SOME WMDs. More importantly we found a number of dual use facilities, and a lot of scientists who talked about how they had been told to halt their work during inspections but be ready to resume production after they stopped.

The threat of WMDs was REAL, and its a good thing we cut if off before it resulted in a major catastrophe.

3. "No Al-Queda connections" - Again this is a diversion from the real issue. Al-Queda is not the only terror group in the world. Saddam had open relationships with numerous terror groups. He even declared a $25,000 reward to families of those who committed suicide bombings, and you can’t get more involved than that.

Those terror connections more than anything made him a critical threat. Both to us, Europe, and other friends in the region.

It has been repeatedly pointed out how the Bush Administration has manipulated the focus of the "evidence" which brought us to war.
To try and ignore that is foolhardy, especially when it has been shown that there are CURRENTLY similar efforts regarding Iran.

Quote:

"just as responsible"? HA!
Was it Democrats who went to the UN claiming Saddam had WMDs?
Was it Democrats who went on national TV claiming Saddam had WMDs and ties to al Qaeda?
The Republicans (Bush Administration) PICKED UP THE CAUSE, and then pushed the issue. They manipulated the focus of the evidence to ignore the contradictory evidence. And then when their shell game worked, THAT is when the "responsibility" of the Democrats came into play.
If the Democrats (and American people in general) had the TRUTH about Iraq from the start, this would have been an entirely different ball-game...

It was the democrats who saw the exact same evidence and came to the exact same conclusions. There was no manipulation. There was no shell game.

The problem is that the dems do whatever is politically expedient at the time. Leading up to the war they wanted to look strong on defense, then when things went bad they saw a political opportunity in exploiting the anti-war crowd, then when the war started turning good again (now) they start discussing “talking with the generals”.

They were for the war, before they were against it, before they were for it again.

My biggest problem is that thanks to the republicans holding the course, we will be successful in leaving a peaceful and democratic Iraq, right in time for a democrat president to come along and claim credit both for the good times ahead and the withdrawal which is now looking possible AND prudent.

Imagine the crap hole Iraq would be if we had withdrawn at the end of 2006 when the dems were declaring the war lost.

cnredd · #45 (**permalink**) 07-20-2008, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Royal Assassin3

Hi everybody, here's my first post for you.

They didn't beat terrorists by themselves any more than we beat Nazi Germany by our selves in WW2. As for repaying of expenses, no one is asking them to do that. We want them to become a thriving democracy and so quite the opposite we've been forgiving debts and lobbying other countries to do the same.

Too bad those are all Michael Moore style lies. Meaning, that while technically true, they are irrelevent or off point.

1. "We were never being threatened by Saddam" - He may not have issued an open threat to us, but that wasn't the issue. The issue was whether he WAS a threat, and that you can be without saying anything. Like a guy walking around a market place with a bomb vest on.

If you look at the wording of every major speach leading up to the war you will see that is the type of threat we declared Saddam to be. We don't say he "threatened us". We called him "a threat".

What made him a threat? The fact that he was thought to have hidden WMDs and the fact that he was a known sponsor of terrorism (more on that later). Those combined made him a VERY big threat.

2. "No WMDs" - While true that we didn't find the QUANTITIES we were expecting, we did find SOME WMDs. More importantly we found a number of dual use facilities, and a lot of scientists who talked about how they had been told to halt their work during inspections but be ready to resume production after they stopped.

The threat of WMDs was REAL, and its a good thing we cut if off before it resulted in a major catastrophe.

3. "No Al-Queda connections" - Again this is a diversion from the real issue. Al-Queda is not the only terror group in the world. Saddam had open relationships with numerous terror groups. He even declared a $25,000 reward to families of those who committed suicide bombings, and you can’t get more involved than that.

Those terror connections more than anything made him a critical threat. Both to us, Europe, and other friends in the region.

It has been repeatedly pointed out how the Bush Administration has manipulated the focus of the "evidence" which brought us to war.
To try and ignore that is foolhardy, especially when it has been shown that there are CURRENTLY similar efforts regarding Iran.

It was the democrats who saw the exact same evidence and came to the exact same conclusions. There was no manipulation. There was no shell game.

The problem is that the dems do whatever is politically expedient at the time. Leading up to the war they wanted to look strong on defense, then when things went bad they saw a political opportunity in exploiting the anti-war crowd, then when the war started turning good again (now) they start discussing “talking with the generals”.

They were for the war, before they were against it, before they were for it again.

My biggest problem is that thanks to the republicans holding the course, we will be successful in leaving a peaceful and democratic Iraq, right in time for a democrat president to come along and claim credit both for the good times ahead and the withdrawal which is now looking possible AND prudent.

Imagine the crap hole Iraq would be if we had withdrawn at the end of 2006 when the dems were declaring the war lost.

Mikeyy · #46 (**permalink**) 07-20-2008, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cnredd

Oh Boy here we go again.

It seems that we are all going to remember things the way we want to. Or whichever way our politics run.

Here is what I know for sure. We were attacked from Afghanistan. That is where the roaches live. When the light comes on they run in to Pakistan. Our diversion to Iraq was not based on any new evidence. Evidence was developed to go in to Iraq. Bush was quoted as being interested in connecting Saddam to the 9-11 attacks from the get go. It has been reported by Woodward and Paul O'Niell that Bush was very forceful about his want to attach anything they could to Saddam. Pakistan has AQ Kahn. Here is the guy who is the father of nuclear threats to our country. And he is honored by our Pakistan friends. We took our eye off the ball because we fear Pakistan. We thought we would walk through Iraq and look all tough. Guess it didn't work out according to plan. In the process we pushed our allies away by being arrogant. The POTUS turned world wide support for revenge over 9-11. And instead of using that support to finish the Taliban he flipped everyone the bird and went on the diversion he wanted to do the whole time.
If Iraq turns out good in the end its because many people died. And because the American people became fed up with the POTUS and his gang of retards. He was forced to change by the public's disgust with his leadership. Or lack there of. So finally he puts a guy in charge that is competent. Its about time. How many died while he kept promising we had turned another corner. If Patreaus does well its because they got rid of a bunch of yes men first. Bush will never get a thumbs up from me on Iraq. Patreaus deserves one for pulling Bush's ass out of the fire.

Spencer Collins · #47 (**permalink**) 07-20-2008, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikeyy

If Iraq turns out good in the end its because many people died. And because the American people became fed up with the POTUS and his gang of retards. He was forced to change by the public's disgust with his leadership. Or lack there of. So finally he puts a guy in charge that is competent. Its about time. How many died while he kept promising we had turned another corner. If Patreaus does well its because they got rid of a bunch of yes men first. Bush will never get a thumbs up from me on Iraq. Patreaus deserves one for pulling Bush's ass out of the fire.

That's pretty much the same way I feel. Public opinion in response to disastrous mistakes in the beginning of the war "forced" the BA to make changes.Most of us were supportive and remain supportive when it comes to the war in Afghanistan.

cnredd · #48 (**permalink**) 07-20-2008, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikeyy

Oh Boy here we go again.

It seems that we are all going to remember things the way we want to. Or whichever way our politics run.

The truth is also a possiblity...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikeyy

Here is what I know for sure. We were attacked from Afghanistan. That is where the roaches live.

And roaches only live in Afghanistan?!?...

I guess that "No-Fly Zone" and those UN reolutions were all a trick to distract us...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikeyy

When the light comes on they run in to Pakistan. Our diversion to Iraq was not based on any new evidence.

I'llwait for the next sentence to comment...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikeyy

Evidence was developed to go in to Iraq.

I noticed the contradiction of the last two sentences...

First, no new evidence (which, of course, is why we have a long list of Democrats during the Clinton Admin saying the very same things about WMD and the Saddam threat...

And then in the very next sentence, you tell us the evidence was DEVELOPED to go to Iraq...If that were true, then there'd be NO Democrats commentary on the threat or WMDs beforehand...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikeyy

Bush was quoted as being interested in connecting Saddam to the 9-11 attacks from the get go.

Because Afghanistan was a surprise attack...

If you saw an attack, wouldn't you immediately believe the ones who did this were the ones you've had on lockdown for over a decade?...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikeyy

It has been reported by Woodward and Paul O'Niell that Bush was very forceful about his want to attach anything they could to Saddam.

Condi Rice's statement on CBS's Early Show on Nov. 28, 2003:

Quote:

Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11. It’s not that Saddam Hussein was somehow himself and his regime involved in 9/11, but, if you think about what caused 9/11, it is the rise of ideologies of hatred that lead people to drive airplanes into buildings in New York. This is a great terrorist, international terrorist network that is determined to defeat freedom. It has perverted Islam from a peaceful religion into one in which they call on it for violence. And they're all linked. And Iraq is a central front because, if and when, and we will, we change the nature of Iraq to a place that is peaceful and democratic and prosperous in the heart of the Middle East, you will begin to change the Middle East....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikeyy

Pakistan has AQ Kahn. Here is the guy who is the father of nuclear threats to our country. And he is honored by our Pakistan friends. We took our eye off the ball because we fear Pakistan.

I don't believe otherwise...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikeyy

We thought we would walk through Iraq and look all tough. Guess it didn't work out according to plan. In the process we pushed our allies away by being arrogant.

Blame America...Blame America...

You could also say "Our allies pushed US away because of their weakness.", but that wouldn't fit your commentary...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikeyy

The POTUS turned world wide support for revenge over 9-11. And instead of using that support to finish the Taliban he flipped everyone the bird and went on the diversion he wanted to do the whole time.

Thank God I'll never have to prove you wrong...

Butler Report...

Quote:

Annex B - 24 September 2002

If we take this course and refuse to implement the will of the international community, Saddam will carry on, his efforts will intensify, his confidence will grow and, at some point in the future not too distant, the threat will turn into a reality. The threat therefore is not imagined. The history of Saddam and weapons of mass destruction is not American of British propaganda. The history and the present threat are real.

So the only way I could possibly proven right is for Bush to let Saddam stick around until the sanctions were lifted (and they were about to be) and Saddam could actually attack and kill thousands more than 911...

But Bush made sure that didn't happen...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikeyy

If Iraq turns out good in the end its because many people died.

Unlike beforehand, where it was a bastion of peace and love...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikeyy

And because the American people became fed up with the POTUS and his gang of retards.

let's not forget the personal attacks!...gotta have 'em!...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikeyy

He was forced to change by the public's disgust with his leadership. Or lack there of. So finally he puts a guy in charge that is competent. Its about time.

Yes...No president before Bush ever changed a secretary...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikeyy

How many died while he kept promising we had turned another corner.

"The same amount as if he said something else" is my guess...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikeyy

If Patreaus does well its because they got rid of a bunch of yes men first. Bush will never get a thumbs up from me on Iraq. Patreaus deserves one for pulling Bush's ass out of the fire.

Of course!!...

Now go read up on Abraham Lincoln's involvement in the hiring and firing of generals every 3 weeks...

spankster714 · #49 (**permalink**) 07-20-2008, 11:43 PM

Hi sweetie- i want one too!--

Spencer Collins · #50 (**permalink**) 07-21-2008, 01:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spankster714

Hi sweetie- i want one too!--

And your wish is just a few more posts away..

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

LinkBacks (?) LinkBack to this Thread: http://www.politicalwrinkles.com/war-terror/3789-new-iraq-report-15-18-benchmarks-satisfactory.html
Posted By	For	Type	Date
Political Wrinkles	This thread	Refback	07-03-2008 10:57 AM

The Following User Says Thank You to AmericanDreamer For This Useful Post:
saltwn

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Royal Assassin3 For This Useful Post:
cnredd, faithful_servant

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Mikeyy For This Useful Post:
dga, mlurp, Spencer Collins

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Spencer Collins For This Useful Post:
dga, Mikeyy, mlurp