Why is The United States Still in Iraq?

GTech's satellite surveillance clearly shows this.

Saddam wanted to save the WMD for the next war!

 

You have to be realistic here. There are only 2 plans on the table; neither are too palatable at the moment.

You have Bush's plan, essentialy stay the course and finish the job.

The democrat plan, essentially, leave and say screw it. Or its stay the course, depending on who you talk to or what channel they are on.

These are the only 2 options that will ever be presented. Putting more troops in (what I and others think should happen) isn't too politically viable. So that's off.

I will never defend this war on the basis it was well-planned. I will defend it as the right thing to do (WMD or not) in the long run.

I think it was a mistake to rush to baghdad and take out saddam quickly. I think it was silly to go in there with so few soldiers and not secure the borders.

But. It is what it is. Given the 2 options, I'd prefer the president's plan, which actually has a chance of getting a freely elected government over there, splitting the middle east. The side effect will be that we will probably get long term bases on either side of Iran (Afghanistan and Iraq) which will put a pinch in their long term goals.

 

I wish!

No, actually a UN reported mentioned it. I've posted it here before.

 

I kinda recall the democratic plan being set a time table to get out. A likely 1 year to 18 month plan.

I kinda recall that Bush said we could never give the terrorists a planned time table as to when we would be out or they would use that to their advantage.

Now suddenly, Bush did exactly those two things.

That is really interesting.

 

We should just follow the WMD around the Middle East, taking out every country in the process.

Minus Saudi Arabia of course!

BTW- i wasn't aware that the "Dem's" wanted to GET THE F. OUT of IRAQ ASAP!

 

It depends on who is speaking on what channel. Murtha is known to say it a lot more than others. Lamont, others as well want is out of there now. The "nutroots" (as people call them) want it too. There is a defund the Iraq War bill in the house all the time, that will surely get more votes after November (if the dems take control).

If you are not aware of the democrat position; I'm not too surprised. Dems have played a smart game this cycle. Simply make people vote against Bush, not for anything they want to do.

Adding Noppid;s comment:

As I said to Rob's comment. This is the point I make on this forum a lot. A LOT. Some posters here believe that the democrat plan is to leave immediately. Other's believe that democrat plan is a timetable. Two groups of people, voting for the same set of candidates, are expecting 2 different results. How does this make any sense?

 

I somewhat agree with Lorien. I agree in the sense that we need to move on from the wmd discussion. That is now the past. I agree with the administration and people of responsability. We didn't find them.

maybe crazy saddam convinced himself he still had them he did convince everyone else.

Lorien: You ought to convince the buds on here and elsewhere that bring it up that ...they are not relevant. What was found was not what we thought we were after.

Now where I disagree. I think it is a bit about strategy and consequences.

Why didn't Bush 1 go into Iraq? I don't know.

Maybe it was about consequences. Maybe he looked into the long term consequences on the situation and decided it was going to cost too much in men and money.

I don't know.

Cut and run is bs political talk. For months now the administration has been leaking about drawing down troops. The size and scope of the conflict there has prevented it. So the administration keeps talking on two sides...leaking about drawing down troops and throwing out political talk about "cut and run".

Frankly, I'm worried that Bush is breaking the military, specifically the ground forces.

There is no responsable way over the last few years that significantly more ground troops weren't requested or sent in to put down the shiite and sunni militias and to fight the jihadists that hate americans.

I think we are getting a bunch of bull crap about numbers of forces on the ground.

Frankly I don't think we have the ground forces to quell the fighting there...and the administration can't admit it.

 

Anyone that believes we can pack our bags and leave is a moron. From a voting point of view and a political office holding point of view.

I think that one is a made up so called fact like cut and run is.

Please, no one is that naieve.

 

Have I put forth this theory on here before?

Let's say you are the general in Saddam's army. You no longer have the capacity to make WMD. Knowing Saddam's history, do YOU want to be the guy who says, "Saddam, dude, we cannot make WMD". I'm not so sure I'd want to meet my headless end that way. So, it would not take much work to falsify paperwork, fool Saddam into thinking he actually had WMD (what's he gonna do, look for em?) and instead stockpile precursors (which have been found in Iraq - ie way too much fertilizer, pesticides, etc). Its a little weird, but others have thought of that too. Funny, but in a sense, plausible. Therefore you have every hint that Iraq still produces WMD (from scientists, to military people, etc) but in fact, they do not.

Bush loved his coalition. It would have shredded had he gone further. He was and is a big believer in working with the UN, etal. He went as far as the resolutions let him, not a step further. Unfortunately, the Iraqi people (Kurds especially) paid the price for that.

 

I don't get your point. Do you deny that its part of some candidate's platform? Or do you think the republicans have made it up as a talking point?

 

In other words, he had and still has a piss poor plan.

 

I'm talking about the 91 Bush. I think you are confused.

 

You mean we didn't find huge stockpiles that liberals expected to be neatly lined up in rows with a huge red "X marks the spot," or

we found WMD, but these didn't count?

 

I don't think those are the only two options. There is a lot of ground in between "stay the course" and "cut and run", but serious solutions to complex problems don't always lend themselves to cute little talking point terms that can be used as sound bites.

There is a reason the administration is softening its "stay the course" stance. I think that they expect the Iraq Study Group to come back with something that is less than "stay the course".

So to me, the administration's softening terminology may actually be a good sign. It's indicative that they are ready to accept what the Iraq Study Group tells them and to act on their recommendations.

Here's a plan by Joe Biden and Leslie Gelb that is neither stay the course or cut and run:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/23/AR2006082301419.html

I believe I heard either Hamilton or Baker of the Iraq Study Group mention that plan, so they are aware of it. They have emphasized time and time again that they will be looking at every option on the table, and it will not be done in a partisan manner. I have faith in them and I expect a report that will be neither cut and run or stay the course and will probably get little media attention(after the first few days anyway) since it can't be reduced to such.

 

Oh you mean Dad, the one that did leave too soon? I know the one you mean, his son is desparetly trying not to have the same legacy, right?

What a great family we let run this country. I hope we learn from our mistakes and don't let Jeb get any further in politics.

 

I think you know that it is not about that. If you seriously think it is, then there is little point in having an intelligent discussion.

 

I'm pretty sure there's nothing W. can do to have as good of a perceived legacy as H.W.

 

They found the remains of 12 year old (used to be wmd) sarin gas which was degraded long ago. Still waiting for a source that claims mustard gas is officially considered "WMD" and not just another chemical weapon

You sure do have a hard time with words

 

I provided a source that not only said what was found were classified as wmd, but that they could be reused to cause great effect. You were disappointed that wmd were found, so you dismissed it. Isn't that your problem? I supposed you could pretend it was molten steel. Then there would be no question

 

no, bush 1 didn't go further because his advisors told him that if they took out saddam there would be vacuum and choas, just like there IS

maybe we should just intall a military dicator who is freindly to the US to run the country

maybe its better then a extremist muslim one isn't it, thats what the country is on its way to, Sadr is pretty much the most influential individual over there isn't he?