I posted the following (related) excerpt from an article a few weeks ago:
Originally Posted by bigtex
Yes, and I rebutted that article right after you posted it. What makes you think that I'm going to see things differently now if I rebutted it the last time? This is why I associate you, and others on your side of the argument, with a parrot that keeps asking Polly if she wants a cracker. What is it that they say about doing the same thing and expecting different results? Now, watch me rebut it AGAIN.
(REPEAT POINT)
"The argument for going to war in Iraq was clearly made. Over and over again, Saddam Hussein was said to be a turn-of-the-millennium Hitler, a madman bent on destroying America with his stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. Of course, that turned out to be false, but at the time, the justification was no mystery."
"The word "weapons" shows up 1,107 times in the Congressional Record during the period when the House and Senate were voting to grant President George W. Bush the authority to use force against Iraq. The more specific "weapons of mass [destruction or murder]" comes up 368 times."
"The word "freedom" shows up 118 times in the Congressional Record during the authorization votes, but it's generally in reference to securing freedom for America, and only occasionally for Iraqis. The word "liberate" shows up 12 times. And that's mostly in reference to Kuwait."
In fact, Condi took it a step further when she made the following claim:
"The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."
Please note: Condi referenced a "mushroom cloud," not "freedom."
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/10/wbr....html?_s=PM:US
Originally Posted by bigtex
Here's the argument that you added to this:
"See the trend here? HENCE: Weapons of Mass Destruction!"
-bigtext
First:
How many times does the word "Independence" show up in the Declaration of Independence?
Using your own logic, the American Revolution "couldn't" have been about our securing our independence from the crown.
Second, what you said to follow that argument up, and my response:
"If there was
another reason used more to invade Iraq during the spring of 2003 than WMD's, please let me know. Otherwise do us all a favor and STFU!"
-- bigtex (Emphasis mine)
What part of your OWN argument do you NOT understand? The thrust of your argument was that WMD was the ONLY reason for us going into Iraq, te wit:
"WMD's are brought up only because it was
THE reason used by the Bush Administration to invade Iraq during the weeks and months leading up to the ill fated and ill advised spring of 2003 invasion of Iraq."
-- bigtex (Empahsis mine)
Both statements imply that WMD was the ONLY reason for us going into Iraq. You further challenged the opposition to provide evidence that there was another reason. I helped him do that by linking to George Bush's own speeches. Your better came in and provided an official document.
Regardless of how many times WMD is mentioned in the documents and speeches that you reference, that doesn't dismiss the fact that you were WRONG by arguing that WMD was the ONLY reason for us going into Iraq.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/oct/07/usa.iraq
"This nation, in world war and in cold war, has never permitted the brutal and lawless to set history's course. Now, as before, we will secure our nation, protect our freedom and help OTHERS to find FREEDOM of their own." -- George Bush, 2002 (Emphasis mine)
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/text-of-...un-12-09-2002/
"Our common security is challenged by regional conflicts -- ethnic and religious strife that is ancient but not inevitable. In the Middle East, there can be no peace for either side without FREEDOM for both sides." -- George Bush, 2002 (Emphasis mine)
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/...sh.transcript/
"The United States with other countries will work to advance liberty and peace in that region. Our goal will not be achieved overnight, but it can come over time. The power and appeal of humanliberty is felt in every life and every land, and the greatest power of freedom is to overcome hatred and violence, and turn the creative gifts of men and women to the pursuits of peace. That is the future we choose." -- George Bush, 2003 (Emphasis mine)
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/05/01/bush.transcript/
"...the images of celebrating Iraqis we have also seen the ageless appeal of human freedom. Decades of lies and intimidation could not make the Iraqi people love their oppressors or desire their own enslavement.
"Men and women in every culture need liberty like they need food and water and air. Everywhere that freedom arrives, humanity rejoices and everywhere that freedom stirs, let tyrants fear." -- George Bush, May 1, 2003
"And we will stand with the new leaders of Iraq as they establish a government of, by and for the Iraqi people.
"The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done and then we will leave and we will leave behind a free Iraq.
"The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11th, 2001 and still goes on." -- George Bush, May 1, 2003
So bigtex, were you wrong when you insisted that WMD was the ONLY reason for us going into Iraq? YES [ ] NO [ ]
Copy and paste that question, and answer options, to your reply. Put an "X" in the reply that represents your honest opinion. Don't add any further information to your reply.
Also, WMD were found in Iraq. Many of the IEDs used against the troops were laced with Sarin, Mustard, and Blister agents. In fact, prior to my going on R & R leave during my Iraq deployment, a couple of Iraqi security members in our AO suffered blister laced IED attacks.
Again, Sarin, blister, and mustard agents ARE weapons of mass destruction, and they were used against our forces post invasion. Many containers of these chemical agents were found in Iraq and dealt with by the US forces post invasion.
Anybody, Republican or Democrat, that states that there were "no" WMD in Iraq is simply wrong. Nowhere in this thread that I mentioned that the Republicans were right 100% of the time.
Your implication that I insinuated a single reason to going into Iraq was also in error, because my argument has been consistent that WMD, freedom, and other reasons were used for going into Iraq. I've made that argument since late 2003.
bigtex: My argument all along has been (and still remains)
Your argument all along has been, and still remains, WRONG. My replies to your arguments are consistent to similar arguments spewed in the past.
bigtex: that there would have been justification for an invasion
You do realize that there was a cease fire agreement, right? A cease fire agreement isn't a declaration of peace, or an end of war. In this case, it was putting war on hold pending Iraq's meeting certain conditions.
Among these conditions was that Saddam Hussein had to come clean with his weapons programs, any chemical, biological, and nuclear weapon or weapon components.
His failure to meet those conditions were enough for us to go to war with them. We had the option to go to war with Iraq the moment they had their first violation. But we didn't. We gave diplomacy a chance... twice. Diplomacy didn't work.
Remember, a cease fire isn't an end of war. A cease-fire puts a war on hold.
bigtex: had there been conclusive evidence indicating that Iraq had the capability to manufacture nuclear weapons at the time.
First, this wasn't a specific requirement in Iraq's nuclear program. The aim of the cease fire agreement, and the UN resolution, was in all components of weapons mass destruction in Iraq. This included, chemical, biological, and nuclear related material.
You are zeroing in on the "nuclear" aspect of it. You are zeroing in on the nuclear stockpile question. The actual resolutions zeroed in on the entire program.
Almost immediately, the Iraqis were caught red-handed with WMD program related items after the Iraqi government claimed that they didn't have it. The first incident would've been justification for invading Iraq.
The reality is we had a legal justification to resuming combat operations in Iraq the moment they violated the terms of the agreement.
bigtex: And quite frankly,
Given the lack of credibility, and the factual sufficiency of your comments, you're being "frank," only suggests that you're being frank about shooting BS at us as if they were machine gun ran rounds.
bigtex: that is the specific reason the UN Inspectors were in place during the months leading up to the ill fated and ill advised, spring of 2003 invasion of Iraq. The Weapons Inspectors were there specifically to determine whether Iraq had nuclear capability at the time. There was no other reason for them to be in place during the weeks and months leading up to the spring of 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Wrong, these inspectors were not there to only look for nuclear weapons. They received a broad mission the required them to search for evidence of either program or weapons. They were looking for chemical, biological, and nuclear related materials or activity.
One of the first steps that the Iraqis had to take was to provide an inventory and accounting of their WMD programs. The Iraqis did provide an inventory, but it had a lot of holes in it. There were too many inconsistencies.
In 2003, the inspectors discover 12 chemical warheads. Although 11 were empty, chemical agents were used against the troops post invasion. Contrary to what you claim, the UN called for an accounting of chemical, biological, and nuclear material, not just nuclear.
Again, the UN resolution on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction was far more than just what you claim.
Also, weapons of mass destruction consists of chemical, biological, and nuclear materials. Chemical agents have been used against the troops post invasion. Saying that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction is like saying that the sun does not produce its own light.
The Iraq war was not ill fated or ill advised. It was well advised, the Iraq war was the logical next step in the war terror. The United States military succeeded in Iraq, so it was not ill fated either.
Your arguing with my side of the argument; however, is both ill-fated and ill advised for you.
bigtex: I said at the time (in another forum), let's give the Inspectors time to complete their mission. Hans Blix even put a specific time period on how long it would take (weapons inspectors) to complete their task. That being approximately 6 months.
Now THAT would've been ill fated and ill advised. If you look at the timeline of the inspection, both in the 1990s and last decade, you'd see a pattern of deception coming from Iraq under Saddam. From the beginning of the inspections in the 1990s, the Iraqis had been caught red-handed with something that they claimed they didn't have.
It didn't matter if that "something" was a chemical, biological, or nuclear agent, or if that "something" was a missile that they weren't supposed to have. The Iraqis were deceptive and consistently worked against the inspectors.
According to Stanislav Lunev, a Russian defector, the Russian Special Forces were in Iraq assisting Saddam Hussein move his weapons of mass destruction. The Russian Special Forces were helping Iraq deceive the weapons inspectors with regards to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.
He knew, because he was one of those forces. He wasn't Special Forces, but he was in a unit that was considered an auxiliary to the Special Forces. He detailed his account of how he trained the Iraqis to create a casing to look like a normal rock in order to hold the weapons of mass destruction.
In the late 1990s, Saddam Hussein complained about the spies that were in the weapons inspection teams. That wasn't a BS claim. Every major power had spies in that inspection team. The Russian spies in the inspection team worked with the Russian Special Forces helping the Iraqis move their WMD around so that they could help the Iraqis stay one step ahead of the weapons inspection teams.
This pattern repeated itself last decade, before the Iraq war.
Whenever I hear a dummy tell me that inspection team should've had more time, I end up hearing this, "We should've let the Russians fool us a lot longer."
The Iraqis played this game with the inspection teams from 1991 to 1998. They resumed playing these games in 2002. Historical trend showes that they would've continued playing these games with the inspectors had they been given more time.
Given the asymmetrical realities that I talked about earlier in this thread, we had to go in. Thanks to those Russian special forces, Hans Blix would've have found shit regardless of how long they would've been allowed to keep looking.
It was blatantly obvious, and the weeks leading to the invasion, that Hans Blix was trying to delay the inevitable despite the lack of cooperation he was getting. He even pleaded with the Iraqis to quit playing games... on the account of the buildup of military forces near their borders and in the Persian Gulf.
bigtex: If the Inspectors were to find nuclear capability, a targeted invasion would have been justified (something along the lines of GHW Bush's invasion during the early 90's).
Actually, if they were to find a nuclear capability, that only would've indicated the tip of an iceberg. A targeted invasion would've been pointless. You suggested an invasion similar to that which didn't destroy Saddam Hussein's capability. After the invasion, Saddam Hussein played games with the UN inspectors.
Historic trends show that giving the inspectors more time to inspect would've been giving them a chance to waste more time. It also shows that a limited invasion would not have solved the problem. The invasion that we actually did actually solved the problem with Iraq and WMD. The last time I checked, the current Iraq government isn't engaged in a weapons of mass destruction program.
bigtex: Instead the U.N. Inspectors were removed from Iraq, the invasion occurred and the rest is sordid history.
Which is what should've happened. It was blatantly obvious that the Iraqis were playing the same games prior to the Iraqi invasion that they played in the 1990s. If we would've taken your suggestions, which is consistent with the arguments that the liberals were advancing, we'd still be hearing reports from the inspectors in Iraq getting led around by the nose.
This isn't sordid. Invading Iraq was a right course of action for the reasons stated prior to the Iraq invasion. These are the reasons I've argued on this thread and on other threads over the past 10 years. It was up to the current administration to capitalize on our successes. The Obama administration failed to do so, more on that later.
bigtex: Despite your repeated efforts to portray the spring of 2003 invasion as something noble,
It's "repeated" because there's a repeated effort by ignorant people, people susceptible to propaganda, people that are useful idiots to the enemy, to denigrate the Iraq invasion as something other than noble.
Unlike you, I have boots on the ground experience with regards to the Iraq War. I've seen firsthand the efforts that we've put into there. We won the Iraq war with a straight cut victory. Your dear leader is in the process of losing it.
bigtex: it turned into the worst US foreign policy blunder since the Vietnam War.
WRONG. Invading Iraq was one of the smartest things this country could do. It was "brilliant." If you look at the map the Middle East, you see a checkerboard pattern of countries in different states of democracy. If you look at Iraq and Afghanistan, you'll see a country in between those two... a key "steal" if they end up coming to our side. If your dear leader would only do what's required for Iraq and Afghanistan, that'd happen.
Ever since last decade, I've argued that our interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan were going to create a ripple effect. People were going to talk to each other. People would eventually want what the Iraqis and Afghanis were getting under US occupation.
Like you, people insisted that I was "wrong," quotation marks used strongly. Well, the first state of that ripple effect happened in the form of the Arab spring.
It was up to Pres. Obama and his administration to capitalize on that. Instead of capitalizing on that movement, the White House consistently took the wrong side. He almost failed to act in time to assist the Libyan rebels against Qaddafi. He sided against the Egyptian people in the form of his support for the Muslim brotherhood... they ended up grabbing their democracy despite Obama's fluttering on this one. President Obama failed to take initiative in Syria by quickly finding moderate rebels and making them stronger than the other rebels.
And get this, as with Benghazi, Pres. Obama received warning signs that the terrorists were to flood into Iraq. The leader of Iraq tried to get Obama to provide military assistance months before it happened. He saw the writing on the wall, Obama didn't.
Just as Pres. Obama failed the diplomatic corps in Benghazi, he failed our allies in Iraq. President Bush made a brilliant move to invade Iraq. The US military won it with a straight cut victory. Pres. Obama, and people like you, did for this war what your anti Vietnam War counterparts did right after the Vietnam War ended for the US in 1973: pull defeat out of the jaws of victory.
The blame should go on President Obama.
bigtex: Even Glen Beck now agrees the spring of 2003 invasion proved to be a mistake.
Our invasion of Iraq in 2003 was not a "mistake," quotation marks used strongly. Electing Pres. Obama to the White House WAS the mistake. His policies resulted in these mistakes which resulted in loss of our gains in Iraq, as well as the gains the US made on the world stage prior to his arival.
Glenn Beck lost all credibility with me when he raised the white flag and failed to see that.
Like I said before:
The vast majority of the Iraqis wanted to be free. I saw that from information feeds that I got from units there, I got that from first hand observations when I was there. The Iraqis showed their appreciation for having the chance to enjoy their freedoms.
Even in many areas under ISIS control, strict Islamic law isn't being implemented... the people want to continue being free from that. Also, many Iraqis have answered the Iraqi government's call to take up arms and to be ready to fight ISIS.
They did this, because they WANT freedom.
Glenn Beck doesn't know his asshole from a hole on the ground with that statement, because he's here and isn't privy to what's going on over there... outside of second hand information.
The liberals were wrong about the Iraq War, and they're STILL wrong about it. I'm taking that argument with me to the grave.
The blame should be pinned on Washington DC's failure to capitalize on the successes that the military gained over there. Again, as was stated earlier in this thread, had this administration been willing to keep forces there to provide training and support, the Iraqi military would've been able to repel borders today.
Obama failed to get an agreement that the Iraqis were willing to agree to... we're seeing the results before our eyes.
Again, see my example above. Glenn Beck is wrong. His abandoning the facts in the face of the situation getting tougher... in order for us to "come together" with the liberals who've always been wrong about Iraq... is a piss poor strategy to take.
I'll be willing to "come together" with the liberals on Iraq the moment they pull their heads out of their asses and remove their horse-blinders. The moment they do this, they'd stop spewing their anti Iraq War drivel.
bigtex: The invasion itself ultimately cost us 4500+ American lives and approximately $1 trillion taxpayer dollars.
(REPEAT POINT)
First, you don't speak for those that have fallen. The vast majority of those that have fallen in combat in Iraq believe in the very concept that I'm advancing on this thread. The vast majority of those that died in Iraq had an understanding of what was going on disagreed with what you argued on this thread.
Since I identify with most of them, it's safe to say that they wouldn't appreciate you using their deaths in an argument against the war that the vast majority of them believed in. I most certainly would not have appreciated my family members, my friends, or anybody else using my "death," had I gotten killed over there, in an argument against that war.
Here's an example. This Soldier voices frustration at those who opposed Iraq war, and who were trying to act that opposition out by defunding the Iraq war. What this guy said is representative of how the vast majority of us Iraq War Veterans feel, and he expressed the frustration that we had with those that opposed the war:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wh1dWrf-k_E:
bigtex: and approximately $1 trillion taxpayer dollars.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/dapfner.asp
"For his policies, Bush risks the fall of the dollar, huge amounts of additional national debt, and a massive and persistent burden on the American economy, because unlike almost all of Europe, Bush realizes what is at stake -- literally everything." (Dopfner, 2004)
Again, we're locked in mortal combat with an enemy that wants to eliminate our way of living and to force us to live under the banner of Islam. Only one option is going to happen... either we prevail in the long run, or they prevail in the long run.
If you had a clue about what you were talking about, you'd know that there's a difference between what we're trying to achieve, and what the radical Muslims are trying to achieve. You'd also know that there's a glaring difference between what the US military is trying to achieve, and what the radical are trying to achieve.
A European gets it but you don't, this is a struggle were one or the other side accomplishes its objective. If we lose, that $1 trillion would be chump change compared to what our descendants would be paying in both money and suffering.
bigtex: Iraq turned into one of, if not the, leading reason that the Democratic nominee won the next two Presidential elections.
Just as you are clueless about the Iraq war, about asymmetrical warfare, and about global current events, you seem to be clueless about US current events.
Prior to the stock market crash, John McCain was making progress. He was getting to the point to where he would've passed Obama up. However, the stock market crash and economic events related to it guaranteed that the Democrats would win.
This hinged heavily on a largely emotional and uninformed electorate that is easily susceptible to propaganda. Here's an example, these people were very "knowledgeable" about the things that the mainstream media wanted them to know:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mm1KOBMg1Y8
This is consistent with other videos testing democrat voter knowledge... these people are mightily ignorant and clueless... but hey, they knew the stupid shit! :mrgreen: One trend that I saw with that and other videos, as well as your posts and those on your side of the argument, is the gullibility trend. I wouldn't be surprised if you people were to believe a provider if she were to tell you that her poo was actually chocolate. :roll:
The Democrats weren't the only one celebrating Obama's victories. Our enemies were also celebrating. Our enemies, and our adversaries, rightfully see the Democrats as being incompetent when it comes to waging a war and when it comes to foreign policy.
President Obama's colossal failure at foreign policy, and addressing geostrategic issues, proved to be a boon to both our adversaries and to our enemies.
Both the Chinese and Russians have gotten bolder with there actions against their neighbors because they rightly know that president Obama is indecisive.
Cheering the collective action of a group of people that cannot think, who are very susceptible to propaganda, isn't something to cheer. Remember, Adolf Hitler won his election utilizing the same principle, fooling a lot of people to vote for him.
What you're praising is a result of a propaganda effort that started in the 1930s. This is a propaganda effort started by the Soviets. This propaganda effort called for influencing schools, Hollywood, political parties, and other institutions with opinion leaders.
The aim of that propaganda? To destroy the United States from within by waging war against the very philosophy that made it great in the first place. The election results of 2006, 2008, and 2012 are positive impact indicators for those who want the United States to move closer to communism.
Cheering Democrat victories in 2008 and 2012 is essentially cheering the United States move to communism. It's also cheering the media's success in making gullible people vote for the media's choice for president.
bigtex: You can hide your eyes in the sand if you like.
The problem isn't with me, it's with you. You have your head shoved so far up your ass that you need a glass belly button to see. It doesn't help that you have horse blinders on too. If you pulled your head out of your ass, and removed your large horse blinders, you'd see that I'm not the one with my eyes "in the sand," quotation marks used strongly.
It's blatantly obvious that I'm the only one, between the two of us, that has combat deployed to Iraq. Your arguments against the Iraq war are based on ignorance, and they're arrogance based emotion. Had you gone to Iraq, as a combat deployed soldier, you wouldn't be spewing drivel and rubbish like you are doing on this thread.
bigtex: But the fact remains:
What fact? You've spewed nothing but BS.
bigtex: The spring of 2003 invasion of Iraq was a HUGE mistake.
(REPEAT POINT)
Wrong, Bush contributed to US military and the coalition's winning the war in Iraq. The most idiotic statements I've heard are statements saying that we lost Iraq war, that there were no WMD, that there was a civil war there, that Iraq was a mistake, and so on.
The people that opposed the Iraq war did so based on misinformation, and based on lack of understanding of the geostrategic situation. These people have no understanding of the enemy that we're dealing with. Under asymmetrical warfare, going into Iraq made perfect sense. It was up to the politicians in Washington DC, specifically the current administration, to continue to build on what we started over there.
We won Iraq war with a straight cut victory. It was on the American people to select the right people to political office to nurture what we handed to them. Remember the Democrat victory in the presidential elections of 2008 and 2012? Yup, that contributed to the mess that we're seeing in Iraq today.
bigtex: Quit trying to put lipstick on a pig (Darth Cheney), you will never make ol' "Dick" attractive.
(Inductive Fallacy)
First, my independently coming to a similar conclusion that Cheney came to ins't me putting lipstick on him or his argument. It's simply me coming up with a very similar conclusion based on the facts.
Your statement is as idiotic as saying that I am putting lipstick on you because I also agree that one plus one equals two.
Second, if you have issues with me constantly advancing my arguments on this thread, then realize that I'm responding to the ignorance being spewed on this thread. You, and the others that I'm arguing with here, are extremely ignorant and clueless about what's going on in the world and in the United States.
I'm showing neutral readers of this thread how clueless your side of the argument is. People on my side of the argument are engaging in a personal counter propaganda campaign here and on other threads on the internet.
bigtex: Excellent description of your post. Indeed, it was a powerful way to summarize your very own words! I could not have said it better myself!
A critical thinker interpreted that statement as his accurately describing your posts. You've done nothing but spew BS on this thread, and so have the people that are arguing on your side of the argument.
bigtex: LLIdiot is still trying to put lipstick on the (Darth Cheney) pig.
Again, providing your side of the argument with the facts that your propagandists held back from you doesn't constitute putting lipstick on Mr. Cheney. It's simply them independently coming up with similar conclusions based on looking at similar facts.
bigtex: Despite 12 years of trying, he has yet to make ol' "Dick" (or the ill fated and ill advised, spring of 2003 invasion of Iraq) attractive. Keep up the futile work, LLIdiot!
Not "trying" but succeeding in countering your propaganda every step of the way. He's not expecting you to change your mind... that doesn't matter. What matters is that we consistently destroy your misinformation with the facts so that a third person... not interested in taking a stake in either of our arguments... would see that your side of the argument is full of BS.
Again, the invasion of Iraq was the right move at the right time. It was the logical next step in the war on terror. We had to go in given the asymmetrical threats that we faced from Saddam and his antics.
His destroying your arguments isn't "futile," because you lose credibility every time one of our counter rebuttals destroys your rebuttals.
I'm seeing this statement for what it is... you trying to tell the opposition to quit destroying your argument in a way that even causes you to doubt your own arguments. You're making a futile effort to get him to let your BS stand. Not happening.
bigtex: It should be noted that the Patriarch of the Idiot Klan, errrr Clan
You do realize that the KKK had its beginnings in the hands of disgruntled Democrats, do you? Their first job was to bother northerners (Federal troops and contractors), Republicans, and blacks, who were mostly republican after the Civil War.
I had to mention this on the account of the ignorant assumption that the "Klan" was a Republican thing... it wasn't/isn't. Your associating us with the Klan reflects your colossal lack of understanding of US history.
bigtex: has a very long history of being totally incapable of admitting mistakes. It seems to run rampant in the entire Idiot Family.
Considering your consistent failure to answer the simple, straightforward, questions that I've asked you on this thread, you don't have a leg to stand on telling people that they can't admit to their mistakes.
My question calls your own argument into question, and you know that the correct answer to that question destroys your argument. That'd require you to admit to your mistakes. But, given your inability to admit to your mistakes, you avoid my question in a futile effort to get me to forget asking it so that you wouldn't have to deal with it.
Sorry, as long as you reply to me, or respond to any argument that I'm supporting, I'm going to keep asking you my questions.
Since you brought the issue up, please tell us of your vast amount of "military experience."
Please Note: There is no need to share Cub and Boy Scout adventures!
Originally Posted by bigtex
I've given you information based on my first hand experiences from my combat deployment to Iraq. You attempt to dismiss those experiences, as they counter the argument that you're trying to make here.
Why should they share their military experiences with you when you've shown that you have absolutely no respect, or care, for other people's military experiences... especially if they have everything to do with the argument, and if they go against your arguments?
You like to say, "Airborne" as if you were a jump qualified veteran. Given your arguments on this thread, your admitting to be a veteran actually makes you look worse. You simply lack the analytical thinking abilities of most veterans, and you spew too much BS.
But, let's give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you did jump out of airplanes. This'd lead to another question. You've jumped out of airplanes, but you're afraid to answer simple, straightforward questions?
I agree somewhat! I believe that Cheney and Rummy both felt that the elder and smarter Bush held them back during the early 90's and this was their final opportunity to complete the Mission they hoped to Accomplish 10-12 years earlier.
Originally Posted by bigtex
Wrong. The conditions on the ground were different in the early 1990s than they were early 21st Century. Back then, we weren't dealing with an asymmetrical threat that was leading all of our threats. There was no need to invade all of Iraq in 1991. The only required action then was to push the Iraqis out of Kuwait, and to get the Iraqis under a UN resolution that required foreign oversight.
After asymmetrical warfare was used against us in a way that took thousands of lives in one day, people woke up to the asymmetrical warfare reality that we faced.
It's like what I said earlier in this thread... under asymmetrical warfare, allowing Iraq to play games with the UN with regards to its WMD programs is like standing in a room full of easily flammable liquids with someone playing with matches... we HAD to go in.
Second, the "Mission Accomplished" sign was applicable to the Navy ship's mission, not to the overall military mission. The ship's specific mission was to serve as a platform for naval air fire power. Given the mission on the ground, they had to stay on station longer than what they would've done had the Iraq War not take place. When the ship finally accomplished that mission, they proudly displayed that banner... it was intended only for the ship, not for the entire military.
Neither Rumsfeld nor Cheney were itching to invade Iraq constantly since the 1990s.
I further believe that Cheney and Rummy convinced Bush the Dumber that the spring of 2003 invasion was necessary and the Shrub bought into it, hook, line and sinker.
Originally Posted by bigtex
Wrong. Right after the 9/11 attacks, someone recommended that Iraq get invaded. President Bush rejected that option, and chose to invade Afghanistan first. If what you said were true, we would've invaded Iraq first. That didn't happen.
Iraq was given a chance to avoid getting invaded, Saddam blew it. The asymmetrical realities that we faced dictated that we had to go into Iraq militarily.
Also, if you're looking for a dummy that sat in the White House, look no further than the dummy that's president now.
Unfortunately, so did many members (both Democratic and Republican) of the US Congress.
Originally Posted by bigtex
After the terrorist attacks of 9/11, both side of the political isle woke up to a more serious threat than conventional. This was the asymmetrical threat that allowed weak and small organizations to give a strong country a "sucker punch." Both sides saw reality, and acted based on that reality.
Unfortunately, your side of the political isle slumped back into a stupor and went back on your "I hate Bush" feeding frenzies... doing exactly what our enemies wanted all of us to do... oppose the Iraq War.
Based on what you've stated here, on the arguments you've made in the past, you've essentially admitted to being a useful idiot to our enemies.
In any event, Shrubya ("The Decider" In Chief) had the final say
Originally Posted by bigtex
And he decided to invade Afghanistan first, as opposed to going to Iraq first as someone had suggested to him.
Let us all hope there will never be a worse foreign policy decision made in the future, by an American President.
Originally Posted by bigtex
The worst foreign policy decisions made, by a US president, were made since 2009. Dragging ass with Benghazi? Obama's policy. Dragging ass with arming the right groups early in Syria? Obama's policy. Refusing to take action in late 2013 when it was becoming clear that the terrorists were going to flood into Iraq? Obama's policy. Fast and Furious? Obama's policy.
Historically, Democrats have proven to be incompetent when it came to foreign policy from John F. Kennedy and afterwards.
The Declaration was a different age and a different time.
Originally Posted by bigtex
It doesn't matter. You're advancing an argument, erroneously, that since weapons was mentioned a certain amount of time, that the justification for war with Iraq was ONLY because of WMD. By logical extension, if other reasons weren't mentioned, that these other reasons "weren't" really reasons.
To counter that, you had your face shoved into your own inductive fallacy with the point that "Independence" doesn't show up in the text of the Declaration of Independence. Using your own line of argument, this'd mean that the American Revolution "wasn't" about independence at all.
It is hard to ignore those simple facts, ain't it?
Originally Posted by bigtex
It comes easy for you, partly because you ignore my questions consistently.
We finally found something we can agree on.
"All the Way" back at ya!
Originally Posted by bigtex
You missed out on the sarcasm, didn't you? He had "Airborne" in quotes. Assuming that you're jump qualified, are you insinuating that you have no issues jumping from airplanes, but are afraid to answer my simple questions? This is just one example, of which there are many, where you show that it's very easy for you to ignore the facts.
"Our common security is challenged by regional conflicts -- ethnic and religious strife that is ancient but not inevitable. In the Middle East, there can be no peace for either side without FREEDOM for both sides." -- George Bush, 2002 (Emphasis mine)
I'm going to keep asking you this question for as long as you insist on replying to me or as long as you insist on replying to something I argued:
So bigtex, were you wrong when you insisted that WMD was the ONLY reason for us going into Iraq? YES [ ] NO [ ]
Copy and paste that question, and answer options, to your reply. Put an "X" in the reply that represents your honest opinion. Don't add any further information to your reply.
Originally Posted by WTF
" -herfacechair
