What Has Gone Right In Iraq

[Typhoon1244]

Wow, you are obviously very well informed...by the news media!

Well, let's see..."the news media" are our only major source of news. (Hence the name.) How are you getting your information? Does W. consult you on a regular basis? Or do you subsist on White House press releases? (They would never lie, right?)

Originally posted by Dubya
...nothing you can say will matter to people (liberal dems) who refuse to look objectively at the entire picture...

Equally true of (conservative reps). If you're a staunch supporter of either party, you've automatically blinded yourself to how things really are.

They have to attack Bush....so they would have attacked him no matter what his policy....PERIOD.

Exactly. This is why I can no longer support the Democrats. The only way they can establish an identity is to say the opposite of everything the Republicans say...and not everything the GOP says is bad. (Just most of it.)

...are we, as a sovereign republic...better off with Bush running our foreign policy, or Kerry?

That my friends is what we insiders call...a no brainer.

You're correct, the answer is obvious: Bush is a terrible President, and Kerry will be no better.

Clinton ruined our country's domestic credibility. Bush II ruined our international credibility. One more inept President, and we're through. Until we get someone in the White House who's more interested in serving the nation than getting re-/elected, we're in a sorry shape.

 

[Dubya]

There is the problem...

,,,Typhoon...you desire international credibility....I desire to remain a citizen of a sovereign nation that dictates it's own security responses and not follow the advice of nations that are so OBVIOUSLY interested in their OWN agenda.

We have to have our own agenda....I really don't give a flyin' frogs fat arse what the international "community" thinks. That "community" is a farce. They are just as engrossed in their own desires as you believe we are.

If it means continued survival as the worlds only superpower.....I suggest we continue to promote ourselves and our democratic policy. Call me selfish.


W

 

[Q200_FO]

Saddam had 12 years to cooperate and allow inspections. The war is on his head.

Yeah, and it's coming out of our pockets.

 

[Typhoon1244]

Re: There is the problem...

Originally posted by Dubya
Typhoon...you desire international credibility....I desire to remain a citizen of a sovereign nation that dictates it's own security responses and not follow the advice of nations that are so OBVIOUSLY interested in their OWN agenda.

We could have both...if we had a competent President. George Bush is no Ronald Reagan. I may not like R.W.R.'s fiscal policies, but he and his administration did a nice job of keeping the rest of the world happy while simultaneously making it very clear that we weren't going to take any crap.

That "community" is a farce. They are just as engrossed in their own desires as you believe we are.

I agree that it's a farce, but where do you get "they are just as engrossed in their own desires as you believe we are?" You don't believe Americans are as engrossed in their desires?

Anyway, it doesn't matter: whoever exercises the larger, more powerful military wins.

 

[Gulfstream 200]

Cowards??

yup, you bet, don't sign me up to die for GWB's personal agenda.

Get the F out of IRAQ - NOW.

the place is full of animals - always will be. Its a losing battle to keep trying to convince the public we will make any difference there. - and not one more US soldier should die there.

Every single service person that was sent to Iraq should have gone to Afghan to find Bin Laden. THAT was justified.

 

[Dubya]

Of course...

....American's are ....but I was referring more specifically to the governments and their desires...not the people.

How did Reagan keep the rest of the world happy?? Are you serious? Do you remember his effigy being dragged around and the American flag burned? Reagan didn't make the world happy....he made the world safer...and people eventually realized what his stance and policy meant to stability in the world. Ten years from now...as the Middle East stumbles towards democracy...people will see Bush's policy as the beginning of some stabilty...be it forced or otherwise. It won't be painless...just as the Cold War was not painless...there are going to be successes and failures...but the bottom line is that the Middle East would never have the chance to be stable with Iraq and Afganistan ...not to mention the capitulating Libya...left as they were.....bastions of terrorism and hatred...human rights dungeons. But that isn't important to the Dems suddenly.

W

 

[Dubya]

Yeah....

....get the F out of Iraq....pull back...raise the drawbridge...and allow the sores to fester until we are attacked again...great idea.

W

 

[TonyC]

C'mon, even Flightinfo conservatives don't see a connection between Saddam and bin Laden.

Watch carefully. Here's the connection. We are engaged in a war against ... TERRORISM. There's your connection.

Am I sorry we got Saddam? No. Do I think we should have been taking care of other matters first? Yes!

It's quite a large task to scour every inch of the entire country, digging under every pile of sand as we go, to uncover every possible hiding place for WMDs. (Remember the pictures of the fighter jet we found literally buried under the sand?) If we never find a single WMD, that will not prove that they did not exist. And yet, somehow I believe that if we indeed DO run across WMDs in the future, someone will accuse Bush of planting them to make him look good going into the election. The search for WMDs is really a no-win situation, and yet it doesn't worry me. Convince me that Iraq is worse off today than it was last year, and I'll join you in condemning the Commander-in Chief.

 

[apdsm]

Well, let's see..."the news media" are our only major source of news. (Hence the name.) How are you getting your information? Does W. consult you on a regular basis? Or do you subsist on White House press releases? (They would never lie, right?)

I did not claim to have better information than you. My point was that statements such as, "putting Bin Laden on the back burner" are based on lack of media attention. If the media is not reporting on it, then it must not be happening! You think our troops are sitting on the rears doing nothing over there? Iraq is a much bigger story. It appears that you take it as fact that the US has put Bin Laden on the back burner merely because the media has not been reporting on it. If you have real facts, I would love to see it!

It also appears that Pakistan is kicking some major butt on Al Queda now. Gee, do you think they just decided to do that just because? We heard nothing of any diplomacy persuading Pakistan to tighten the screws so I guess that was not happening either...since it was not a big story in the news media.

 

[Typhoon1244]

Watch carefully. Here's the connection. We are engaged in a war against...TERRORISM. There's your connection.

Well, if the White House has irrefutable proof of a Saddam-al Qaeda link, they've sure done a lousy job of getting the word out.

I noticed you didn't answer the charge.

I was an avionics technician on UH-1's and UH-60's in the U.S. Army. Not exactly a snake-eating killing machine, but I was ready to do what my country asked of me.

There are, believe it or not, a lot of current and former service members who believe Iraq was the wrong war at the wrong time. Jarhead's one. I'm another. Does that make us cowards?

I just think that's awful strong language for someone who's never served a day in the military to throw around.