View Full Version : Iraq -- Past Tense for "I Rock"?
For the purpose of this poll, I don't care whether Bush was right or wrong to attack Iraq, I just want to look forward.
I am not sure how I feel about these choices. Are you sure?
kf6rdn
06-20-2005, 01:59 AM
Mistake & BS going in, but now that we are there, I feel we need to make the place stable as possible, and get out.
K0RGR
06-20-2005, 02:18 AM
I care very much that we were deliberately mislead into this war - those responsible should be dealt with appropriately.
However, now that we're there, it would be a catastrophe for us to leave, and worse, if International support falters, we'll end up committing even more troops for a longer time to get the job done.
KF0RT
06-20-2005, 02:31 AM
Quote[/b] (kf6rdn @ June 19 2005,19:59)]Mistake & BS going in, but now that we are there, I feel we need to make the place stable as possible, and get out.
Ditto here...
73, Rob
I was sure that Saddam had nuclear material and that it would find its way into terrorst hands. I was further sure that New York, Washington, or some other strategic city would eventually have an incident. Why was I so sure? I believed the intelligence agency info.
I was supportive of Bush, whom I voted for, and I was mad at the French for not "supporting" the USA. I figured they would be reading German or Russian street signs in Paris today if it wasn't for the good ol' USA saving their rears yesterday.
I tend to get immense rushes of chest-swelling patriotism from time to time, and I let it cloud my judgement. I cannot really judge Bush as harshly as others in this forum can because I share his sins. I am pretty doggone sure that he regrets going into Iraq, probably more fervently than I do, but he is not in a position to say it was all a huge mistake.
73,
Dave/al2i
wa4brl
06-20-2005, 02:54 AM
I voted my FEELINGS. I FEEL we should simply get out now -- cut our losses. Ethically, I know we must do more than that. We eliminated one terrible situation (Saddam's reign) and replaced it with another terrible situation (guerrilla warfare against US troops, Iraqi troops, and Iraqi citizens.) Have Iraqi's lives improved or become worse? I don't know. I just believe we ought hang in there lonf enough to make things demonstrably better before slinking away from this debacle.
ve2nsm
06-20-2005, 03:04 AM
Quote[/b] (al2i @ June 19 2005,22:50)]I was supportive of Bush, whom I voted for, and I was mad at the French for not "supporting" the USA. I figured they would be reading German or Russian street signs in Paris today if it wasn't for the good ol' USA saving their rears yesterday.
Not only USA, Great Britain and Canada too.
And sometimes friends, even if they are grateful, have the duty to tell their friends that they are making a mistake, and to try to make them see things in another perspective.
Quote[/b] ]I tend to get immense rushes of chest-swelling patriotism from time to time, and I let it cloud my judgement.
73,
Dave/al2i
I am very patriotic myself, political issues that have shaken Canada have got to me more than once, but I think the french, the belgium and the germans were seeing things more clearly back then. In fact, basically the rest of the world was against that decision, even us. I thought it must have appeared strange to US citizens in some way.
w5klb
06-20-2005, 03:29 AM
Quote[/b] (K0RGR @ June 19 2005,19:18)]I care very much that we were deliberately mislead into this war - those responsible should be dealt with appropriately.
When you find how you were "mislead", write "The Powers that Be", and tell them. They seem to be at a loss trying prove we were "mislead". Maybe you could "enlighten" them and us on some new "evidence" that you may have. I am sure that they would just love hear from you. Until then... well... just make sure you pulverize that ambient air temperature equine into a fine dust. #
Quote[/b] ]However, now that we're there, it would be a catastrophe for us to leave, and worse, if International support falters, we'll end up committing even more troops for a longer time to get the job done.
Hold it right there. First you all claim that we never had the ANY international support and that "The Coalition of the Willing" didn't constitute "international support". Hmmm... do I hear "waffeling" sounds comming from the the party of donkeys? Naaww, say it isn't so.
But we do agree that "...it would be a catastrophe for us to leave...". The mission in Iraq needs to be compleated. I have heard from some of the Vets comming back from over there, it's getting better. It's too bad that that our liberal press hasn't quite gotten a clue on this yet. To be frank, I doubt they ever will.
k4kyv
06-20-2005, 03:51 AM
This is not the first time in recent history that an administration in power provided the American public a bogus pretext for going to war. Last time, Democrats were responsible for the deception.
The Gulf of Tonkin Incident was presented to the American public as two purported attacks by North Vietnamese gunboats without provocation against two American destroyers (the USS Maddox and the USS Turner Joy) in August of 1964 in the Gulf of Tonkin. The Pentagon Papers, which were revealed by Daniel Ellsberg later revealed that the Johnson administration of the United States had virtually fabricated the attacks, as dissident researchers subsequently showed. The US-supported South Vietnamese regime had been attacking oil processing facilities in North Vietnam, with planning and support from the CIA, for the very purpose of providing a pretext to initiate the Vietnam War.
It's looking more and more like the Downing Street memos are turning out to be the Iraq war "Pentagon Papers".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Resolution
ai4ep
06-20-2005, 03:55 AM
You folks actually mean to believe that the 20 - 50 folks who post an opinion here are going to change the way the USA is over in RIAQ ?
Who are you kidding ?
Go ahead, waste YOUR valuable time making a post here that will just be a waste of your time, and nothing more. It wont help pull out the troops, it wont make the fighting decrease, it wont help one bit at all...
If we dont fight them in IRAQ, they will come to the USA and start destroying more of the USA, one explosion at a time.
It wont hit home till some of your relatives are killed....then it WILL matter.
Quote[/b] (ai4ep @ June 19 2005,20:55)]If we dont fight them in IRAQ, they will come to the USA and start destroying more of the USA, one explosion at a time.
ep:
I wish for the USA to be safe and prosperous. I hope things work out. I will be super happy if my currently gloomy outlook is dead wrong.
73,
Dave/al2i
W2ILP
06-20-2005, 05:40 AM
Hmmm...
More of you guys voted for "Get out now" than I would have expected.
I guess you want to quiit everything because in another QRZ thread there were more votes for not continuing to support the U.N. than for continuing to pay our due to it.
We can not avoid our responsibilities to the world because the world has grown small due to modern communication and transportation.
What to now do about Iraq is hard to deside. Many will agree that we should have not attacked Iraq in the first place...BUT now that we are there, when can we leave? I would say...get out now before things get even worse there...Just as many had clammored for getting out of VietNam.
Having captured Saddam Hussain and broken up his regeim is a victory that we can claim. We need not stay in Iraq any longer than to continue to support our oil field connections. We need not support any Iraqui political party. I would say...Let them kill each other without our help....
But I realize that I do not know all the facts involved with the "democratization" of Iraq and exactly how it is progressing...What is scarey is I dunno if anybody does for sure. I feel that the use of American forces is not justified in supporting an unstable Iraq any longer...BUT my feelings are not based on facts...all I see is that there are still Iraquis and some Americans being killed in Iraq evetry week. We don't need to stay there just to save face. We won..so maybe it is time to leave now.
Bob w2ilp (Iraquis Lingering Politics?)
w5klb
06-20-2005, 06:22 AM
Quote[/b] (W2ILP @ June 19 2005,22:40)]Hmmm...
More of you guys voted for "Get out now" than I would have expected.
I guess you want to quiit everything because in another QRZ thread there were more votes for not continuing to support the U.N. than for continuing to pay our due to it.
We can not avoid our responsibilities to the world because the world has grown small due to modern communication and transportation.
What to now do about Iraq is hard to deside. #Many will agree that we should have not attacked Iraq in the first place...BUT now that we are there, when can we leave? #I would say...get out now before things get even worse there...Just as many had clammored for getting out of VietNam.
Having captured Saddam Hussain and broken up his regeim is a victory that we can claim. #We need not stay in Iraq any longer than to continue to support our oil field connections. #We need not support any Iraqui political party. #I would say...Let them kill each other without our help....
But I realize that I do not know all the facts involved with the "democratization" of Iraq and exactly how it is progressing...What is scarey is I dunno if anybody does for sure. #I feel that the use of American forces is not justified in supporting an unstable Iraq any longer...BUT my feelings are not based on facts...all I see is that there are still Iraquis and some Americans being killed in Iraq evetry week. # We don't need to stay there just to save face. #We won..so maybe it is time to leave now.
Bob w2ilp (Iraquis Lingering Politics?)
ILP,
What you are seeing is the liberal bias on the "boob tube". People like See BS, and the Communist News Network, love to put out only the small percentage of killings that are going on over there. They only report the good VERY RARELY. It's because most of their audiance is of a liberal slant and most liberals dislike The President and anything he is connected to including Iraq.
No one, I repeat NO ONE, has been able to conclusively say WITH EVIDENCE, that this Administration is only there in Iraq for the oil. We might not have all the facts, but I yet to see ANYONE convince me that we are only there for the oil. Until such time, I will remain ever supportive of the Iraqi war.
Some would rather say that we should leave immediatly and that as long as it doesn't happen on our soil, that we shouldn't care. We have tried "isolationism" before and it didn't work then, and with us being part of a global society, what makes you think it would work now? Things that happen in other parts of the world can and have effected us DIRECTLY. It's a bad idea to "bury our head in the sand" and hope it goes away. We have to confront these things head on or they WILL return to bite us in the sitter later on when we could really be vulnerable. Such is the case of Iraq. No matter what reason we are there, I am certainly glad the we have taken out an evil dictator and his hinchmen. "Bootlicker's" power would have grown to the point that we were going to have to do something anyway. It was better we take him out now than to wait when he could REALLY threaten his neighbors and US.
KE7DFP
06-20-2005, 06:26 AM
The enemies strategy is clear. They know they have no chance at a military victory over us. They're only hope of winning lies in mobilizing international and domestic sympathy for their cause. They have studied our recent history of conflicts, Vietnam, especially . They understand it was not the N. Vietnamese army, but the American people, who "won " the war for them. They are savvy enough to understand militarily, hanging in there is enough, the real war is fought in the realm of propaganda. One minute of good television is worth a battalion. One sympathetic news station, is worth divisions. That's why it is so important we stick together. They will use tactics that leave us only those options we consider immoral, and they will use our freedoms and rights against us. Let's let the military do what they do, and keep the politics out of it. I'm so proud of our Soldiers! What a generation !
Quote[/b] (KE7DFP @ June 19 2005,23:26)]They have studied our recent history of conflicts, Vietnam, especially . They understand it was not the N. Vietnamese army, but the American people, who "won " the war for them.
The American people sacrificed the lives of 58,000 in Vietnam. That wasn't enough?
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
Quote[/b] (al2i @ June 19 2005,23:41)]Quote[/b] (KE7DFP @ June 19 2005,23:26)]They have studied our recent history of conflicts, Vietnam, especially . They understand it was not the N. Vietnamese army, but the American people, who "won " the war for them.
The American people sacrificed the lives of 58,000 in Vietnam. That wasn't enough?
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
Actually I have no desire to argue about it OM, I don't want to try and "beat" you in an argument. On some level, you are correct. With sufficient effort, we could have either "won" the war or at least stayed in Vietnam indefinitely.
What do you feel we should have done in Vietnam? I am not trying to put you on the spot, I would like to hear other ideas.
73,
Dave/al2i
W2ILP
06-20-2005, 07:34 AM
w5klb...
I dunno if we are in Iraq for the oil alone. I can believe that we are there for other political reasons as well as the Iraqui oil itself. Certainly we want all Muslim nations to realize our power, to disarm and to give us favorable oil as well as other trade advantages in the middle east...as well as to live in peace with our "friend", Israel.
BUT it does not matter so much why we are there if we could convince the Iraquis and the gullable Americans that we are there to liberate Iraq and to make Iraq a Utopian model of a modern democracy...Which even if not BS is IMHO impossible. You don't have to be either a Liberal or an Anti-Liberal to understand that by now. You just have to listen to what the experts on Iraq affairs and history are saying.
w2ilp (Iraq Lacks Peace)
w0aew
06-20-2005, 12:42 PM
Quote[/b] (al2i @ June 19 2005,19:50)]I was sure that Saddam had nuclear material and that it would find its way into terrorst hands. I was further sure that New York, Washington, or some other strategic city would eventually have an incident. Why was I so sure? I believed the intelligence agency info.
According to the Downing street memos (of which more are coming to light), Bush's decision to attack Iraq was made well in advance of any intelligence. In fact, the intelligence seems to have been groomed to support the decision already made.
The whole fiasco does seem to be patterned after the Gulf of Tonkin fabrications that led to the escalation of US involvement in Vietnam.
With 9/11 Bush had his Pearl Harbor if he could only bend the intelligence enough to support the attack against Saddam. Why? I don't know. I guess it was easier to look like you were fighting terrorism if you did something conventional like invading a country rather than chasing muslim extremists around the mountains of Afghanistan.
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif
While I strongly feel that this country had to respond to the attacks on 9/11, I do not feel that this war was an appropriate response. It has proven extremely costly in lives and money. If it was for oil, it failed. Oil prices are very high. The problem is that, as many lives as have been lost, the cost will go up. I understand the good intentions that people have wanting the war to stop, but this gives the enemy ammunition to keep going. It shows them that they are succeeding and will give them an agenda. Placing a specific date may be even more dangerous to our troops. As much as I agree with these sentiments, I feel that now that we have committed, we must take this to it's eventual end. More support for the troops in the form of equipment would go a long ways instead of proclaiming victories that are unrealistic.
Quote[/b] (W2ILP @ June 19 2005,22:40)]Hmmm...
More of you guys voted for "Get out now" than I would have expected.
That surprised me too. I am the sole voter (so far) who is too stupid to know what we should do!
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif
73,
Dave/al2i
W8EFA
06-21-2005, 02:04 AM
I voted to get out because now I think it is the best strategy. LAst week their was a major story that a ranking U.S. General said we were losing the war against the insurgency and he diddn't believe it could be won. He stated for every Insurgent killed his 2 brothers and his uncle joined.
We can not install a Democracy by force we have found out once again. The Iraqui people need to do it. I think if we got out, then the insurgents can battle it out with the Iraqui people. If the Iraqui people want to be free they will prevail. By us, the "target", leaving things may get better.
K0RGR
06-21-2005, 11:15 PM
Quote[/b] (w5klb @ June 19 2005,20:29)]Quote[/b] (K0RGR @ June 19 2005,19:18)]I care very much that we were deliberately mislead into this war - those responsible should be dealt with appropriately.
When you find how you were "mislead", write "The Powers that Be", and tell them. They seem to be at a loss trying prove we were "mislead". Maybe you could "enlighten" them and us on some new "evidence" that you may have. I am sure that they would just love hear from you. Until then... well... just make sure you pulverize that ambient air temperature equine into a fine dust.
Quote[/b] ]However, now that we're there, it would be a catastrophe for us to leave, and worse, if International support falters, we'll end up committing even more troops for a longer time to get the job done.
Hold it right there. First you all claim that we never had the ANY international support and that "The Coalition of the Willing" didn't constitute "international support". Hmmm... do I hear "waffeling" sounds comming from the the party of donkeys? Naaww, say it isn't so.
But we do agree that "...it would be a catastrophe for us to leave...". The mission in Iraq needs to be compleated. I have heard from some of the Vets comming back from over there, it's getting better. It's too bad that that our liberal press hasn't quite gotten a clue on this yet. To be frank, I doubt they ever will.
Either you have not actually read the Downing Street Memo and the other 7 documents recently disclosed by the British newspapers, or for some incredible reason, you have chosen not to take them at face value.
There is no longer any valid debate. We were misled into this war. The Downing Street Memo is to this war what the Pentagon Papers were to Vietnam. There were no WMD. Saddam was not a serious threat to anybody. There was no legal justification for invasion. The intelligence was "fixed".
The ends do not justify the means. If International Law was broken, as the memo seems to make clear, then those responsible should be brought to justice. Breaking International Law in that regard is also a violation of American Law.
But, that does not change the situation our brave troops are in, nor the condition of the people of Iraq. As Colin Powell told the President before he invaded Iraq "You broke it, you bought it".
The Democratic Party has never called for a pullout from Iraq. The Democratic Party is not calling for a timetable now - in fact that's a small group that's composed of people from both parties, some liberals some conservatives. I'm opposed to timetables, too.
KC0QOR
06-22-2005, 01:27 PM
Quote[/b] (ai4ep @ June 19 2005,22:55)]You folks actually mean to believe that the 20 - 50 folks who post an opinion here are going to change the way the USA is over in RIAQ ?
Who are you kidding ?
Go ahead, waste YOUR valuable time making a post here that will just be a waste of your time, and nothing more. It wont help pull out the troops, it wont make the fighting decrease, it wont help one bit at all...
If we dont fight them in IRAQ, they will come to the USA and start destroying more of the USA, one explosion at a time.
It wont hit home till some of your relatives are killed....then it WILL matter.
You are afraid of the terrorists. Just they way Bush and Cheney and Rummy want you to be. Fear is how they control you. I am not afraid of any terrorist. Even if my family were killed in a terrorist attack I would not support a "war on terror" because such a war cannot be won with conventional military action.
w5klb
06-22-2005, 04:15 PM
Quote[/b] (K0RGR @ June 21 2005,16:15)]
Either you have not actually read the Downing Street Memo and the other 7 documents recently disclosed by the British newspapers, or for some incredible reason, you have chosen not to take them at face value.
The British news papers?. You mean the "quality" bird cage liners like The Guardian right? Is this what you consider "unbiased" source? Yeah, I would use them to train puppies on but they're too expensive for that.<chuckle> But you keep reading those... um... "unbiased" BRITISH news sources.
Quote[/b] ]There is no longer any valid debate. We were misled into this war. The Downing Street Memo is to this war what the Pentagon Papers were to Vietnam. There were no WMD. Saddam was not a serious threat to anybody. There was no legal justification for invasion. The intelligence was "fixed".
You have yet to prove to me anything, except you know how to type on a keyboard. Once again, if you think President Bush has somehow decieved us, then take your "evidence" to your Congressional Representive or Senator and see what they think. Post their response here. I would ENJOY seeing the response. But you won't do that will ya? Nope, you all don't want be embarrased by such nonsense.
Quote[/b] ]The ends do not justify the means. If International Law was broken, as the memo seems to make clear, then those responsible should be brought to justice. Breaking International Law in that regard is also a violation of American Law.
First, we have violated no "International Law". If you feel that The President has broken American Law, than that needs to be addressed. Take my advice, and present your "expertise" on this matter to "The Powers That Be". Let's see if you can get a special prosecuter appointed and get the Impeachment Proceedings started. Let us know how it's going. I think it would hilarious.<chuckle>
Quote[/b] ]But, that does not change the situation our brave troops are in, nor the condition of the people of Iraq. As Colin Powell told the President before he invaded Iraq "You broke it, you bought it".
Did you quote General Powel from your... um... "unbiased" British news source that you won't post so we can look at it? Nope, I don't think you will do that because it's , to use WX7B's term, "bravo sierra".
Quote[/b] ]The Democratic Party has never called for a pullout from Iraq. The Democratic Party is not calling for a timetable now - in fact that's a small group that's composed of people from both parties, some liberals some conservatives. I'm opposed to timetables, too.
This is the only thing you posted that has validity. I agree (please don't faint http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif) that there is a group of people from BOTH sides that want a "time table" but how do you put a "timetable" on something like this? I don't want to see our troops be placed in harms way any more than you. If I thought that I could bring them back TODAY, and have a "freestanding" Iraq, I would. But this isn't up to me. I have to put this in my Heavenly Fathers hands and let Him take care of it.