Obama's STILL wrong about the war

[BeAChooser]

For starting something he couldn't finish.

Bush is finishing it. And you can't stand it.

If Bush hadn't screwed everything up, the war wouldn't be unpopular with the American people

Oh come on. democrats have been trying to make this an unpopular war from the beginning. And the man you apparently want to put in the WhiteHouse was one of those leading that effort. Don't you even know Obama's record on the issue?

Bush should have won the war a long time ago.

Good thing you (and Obama) weren't around at the time of the Revolutionary War. You've have insisted Washington should have won the war a long time before he did. You'd have called for his dismissal (because after all the early part of the war was nothing but screwups). In fact, I think the odds are you and Obama would have given up that cold dreary night in December when things looked so bleak. Right before Washington's tiny, ill equipped, disheartened army (imagine, only 3000 people in a country of 3 million were fighting for our freedom that night) crossed the Delaware, won a significant battle, and the tide turned.

By the way, I think we would have won in Iraq a long time ago ... if al-Qaeda hadn't decided to make it their central front in the war on terror. Why do I suspect that you and Obama actually think there is no war on terror? Could it be Obama's call to return things to the pre-9/11 approach to terror and send in the clowns (I mean lawyers)?

 

[BeAChooser]

Al Qaeda in Iraq was always a sideshow

False. Al-Qaeda put most of its effort against us into Iraq. They openly declared (in documents and letters our soldiers captured) that destabilizing and winning the war in Iraq was VERY important to them ... in fact, central to their objectives. Here you democrats go trying to change history again.

and wasn't a factor in Iraq till it was able to get in there under cover of the confusion due to the war.

False. al-Qaeda was in Iraq before we invaded. It was one of the places they went when we invaded Afghanistan. As I pointed out, they even planned a mass casualty attack in Jordan from Baghdad before we invaded. A fact you folks are STILL in denial about, despite televised confessions by the dozen terrorists they caught trying to carry out that plot ... terrorists who had the vehicles, explosives and chemicals that were to be used in the attack with them at the time they were caught.

And we know from captured documents that Saddam's regime knew this wing of al-Qaeda was present in Iraq (even Baghdad) prior to the invasion because we found documents ordering the release of a member of that group (even though the arresting officer said the man was guilty of crimes). The documents indicated he was ordered released by the top rank of Iraq's government because he would attack Americans.

You folks still don't get it. Saddam was sympathetic to terrorists. The documents and his actions prove that. He was actively helping terrorists and had been helping them for a long time. And he was starting to help al-Qaeda. You folks simply don't get it. And it shows. Especially now that you've hitched your wagon to a Presidential candidate who can't even acknowledge that the war in Iraq against al-Qaeda and the militants is going well and now is not the time to cut and run. Pathetic.

 

[Puppycow]

Talk about WANTING to be in denial.

All you have to do is talk to the troops to find out what a change has occurred in Iraq.

But your side (and that includes Obama) won't do that.

BECAUSE YOU WANT US TO LOSE and you have from the beginning of the war.

Questioning people's patriotism is low-class. BTW, I'm a veteran. I want what's best for the country. There's plenty of patriotic military veterans who oppose this war.

 

[Upchurch]

False. al-Qaeda was in Iraq before we invaded. It was one of the places they went when we invaded Afghanistan. As I pointed out, they even planned a mass casualty attack in Jordan from Baghdad before we invaded. A fact you folks are STILL in denial about, despite televised confessions by the dozen terrorists they caught trying to carry out that plot ... terrorists who had the vehicles, explosives and chemicals that were to be used in the attack with them at the time they were caught.

And we know from captured documents that Saddam's regime knew this wing of al-Qaeda was present in Iraq (even Baghdad) prior to the invasion because we found documents ordering the release of a member of that group (even though the arresting officer said the man was guilty of crimes). The documents indicated he was ordered released by the top rank of Iraq's government because he would attack Americans.

You folks still don't get it. Saddam was sympathetic to terrorists. The documents and his actions prove that. He was actively helping terrorists and had been helping them for a long time. And he was starting to help al-Qaeda. You folks simply don't get it. And it shows. Especially now that you've hitched your wagon to a Presidential candidate who can't even acknowledge that the war in Iraq against al-Qaeda and the militants is going well and now is not the time to cut and run. Pathetic.

Well, that tells me everything I needed to know about where this thread was going.

 

[quarky]

I miss the draft.

War sucks.

 

[President Bush]

Right before Washington's tiny, ill equipped, disheartened army (imagine, only 3000 people in a country of 3 million were fighting for our freedom that night) crossed the Delaware, won a significant battle, and the tide turned.

More than two decades later, it is hard to imagine the Revolutionary War coming out any other way

 

[GreyICE]

Well, that tells me everything I needed to know about where this thread was going.

Lies, damned lies, and statistics. The usual suspects.

 

[Random]

Good thing you (and Obama) weren't around at the time of the Revolutionary War. You've have insisted Washington should have won the war a long time before he did. You'd have called for his dismissal (because after all the early part of the war was nothing but screwups). In fact, I think the odds are you and Obama would have given up that cold dreary night in December when things looked so bleak. Right before Washington's tiny, ill equipped, disheartened army (imagine, only 3000 people in a country of 3 million were fighting for our freedom that night) crossed the Delaware, won a significant battle, and the tide turned.

You do realize that this time around we are the British, right?

 

[joobz]

This is exactly how WWI and especially WWII were fought --- do you consider those wars failures? There still exist Neo-Nazis with their teachings and ideologies. Should we have fought those wars any differently? I'm sure there were many who took US involvement as a means for hating us ... France comes to mind. () OK, I really meant the enemy. But the point is, you'll NEVER completely rid the field of those whose ideologies are based on fear and hatred ... the best you'll ever do is limit their potential to do harm. And the further you push that limit, the better.

I do not understand your comment in relationship to UW's post. Al-Qaeda wasn't an issue in Iraq until the war. For your analogy to work, Nazi's would have to have entered Germany AFTER our entering into the conflict.

Now, I admit I'm somewhat ignorant of the details in WWII. Is there an analagous faction in WWII to AL-qaeda that used the wartime confusion to gain footholds in Europe?

 

[Upchurch]

Now, I admit I'm somewhat ignorant of the details in WWII. Is there an analagous faction in WWII to AL-qaeda that used the wartime confusion to gain footholds in Europe?

Depending on how loosely you define "analogous", but the US had a much stronger presence in Europe during and following WWII. (Probably not what you had in mind, but still...)

 

[Undesired Walrus]

This is exactly how WWI and especially WWII were fought --- do you consider those wars failures? There still exist Neo-Nazis with their teachings and ideologies. Should we have fought those wars any differently?

A good example. It is true there wasn't really much of a 'hearts and minds' attitude in converting Fascists to democracy, and it managed to eradicate fascism from holding political power in Europe and Japan.

Yet I'm sure it would have been quite a different war if Hitler was allowed to retain his position and the Nazi Youth camps had stayed open.

Bush and co consistently grumble about 'appeasment'. Yet they are appeasing a bath of hatred in a country that gave birth to Bin Ladenism and 15 of the 19. Let's not forget it is one of the worlds leading contributors of aid. But where does this aid go to? It goes towards spreading Wahhabism, with no regard for the existence of the particular countries other religions. One example out of many is when my friend's mother (Who was a catholic) was in the country and had her cross ripped off from around her neck by an angry fundie. A UN report calculated that from 1991 to 2001 Saudi Arabia transferred over 500 Million dollars to al-Qaeda via Islamic charities. Amd Let's not forget, Saudi Arabia's annual spending budget abroad on religous causes is 2-3 Billion.

The Soviet Unions annual Propaganda budget was 1 Billion.

Take a look -for example- at what their very own ministry of education use in middle school:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saudi/etc/textbooks.html

I seriously doubt WW2 would have ended after a war and victory against Japan, whilst Nazi Germany was allowed to flourish.

 

[Just thinking]

I do not understand your comment in relationship to UW's post.

A good example.

UW's post seemed to emphasize using a different tactic than what was being used against terrorism. Now, it may very well be true that trying to win the hearts and minds of those who are being brainwashed to hate us is a good idea, but we should still (IMHO) let the enemy know that we can and will hit them hard when the opportunity presents itself. If all we did in the Pacific was fight the war of propaganda, I doubt the war would have ended with an unconditional surrender. The same holds true for going into Berlin in Europe. The bottom line being, we need to do both --- with as much effort and success as possible. And we should be realistic in that neither will yield a 100% success every time, nor should we expect success to follow a perfect time table --- too many things change over time, including the enemy. (Look how long it took Germany to get back together.)

 

[Just thinking]

Bush and co consistently grumble about 'appeasment'. Yet they are appeasing a bath of hatred in a country that gave birth to Bin Ladenism and 15 of the 19. Let's not forget it is one of the worlds leading contributors of aid. But where does this aid go to? It goes towards spreading Wahhabism, with no regard for the existence of the particular countries other religions. One example out of many is when my friend's mother (Who was a catholic) was in the country and had her cross ripped off from around her neck by an angry fundie. A UN report calculated that from 1991 to 2001 Saudi Arabia transferred over 500 Million dollars to al-Qaeda via Islamic charities. Amd Let's not forget, Saudi Arabia's annual spending budget abroad on religous causes is 2-3 Billion.

If you think I'm somehow happy about the situation between the US and Saudi Arabia, let me put those feelings to rest. IT SUCKS. And you're right, it is appeasement --- but presently we're in a bind, as is much of the world. We can try to get out of this mess, as I hope we will, but it's not going to be easy and it's going to take time. Unfortunately, though, even a full success won't stop money flowing into Saudi Arabia as other countries become more developed. Will those causing the uprisings then shift to other countries and ignore the US? I somehow doubt it, as this hatred of theirs runs much deeper than mere dollars and "sense".

 

[BeAChooser]

Strange to say the least.

What would be strange is thinking that by voting for Obama the problem of Wahhabism and the various other terrorist factories will be solved.

Also, I'm curious. Are you trying to suggest that we should have invaded Saudi Arabia after 9/11 ... or invade it now?

 

[BeAChooser]

We kick Al-Qaida out of their “final Iraqi stronghold” every few months.

I would challenge you to supply a statement by the military or government that we kicked al-Qaeda out of their "final Iraqi stronghold" before now.

 

[BeAChooser]

You mean Saddam did have WMD's? Iraq did have ties to Al-Qaeda? Iraq was somehow an imminent threat to the US that required immediate action despite the fact that were were already militarily engaged elsewhere? Please, do elaborate!

Yes, yes and yes ... and if I have to elaborate it's only because you haven't been listening.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Oh come on. democrats have been trying to make this an unpopular war from the beginning. And the man you apparently want to put in the WhiteHouse was one of those leading that effort. Don't you even know Obama's record on the issue?

Particularly when they gained a majority in the house. Correct me if my recollection is wrong here, but didn't the democratic congress try to cut funding for the war?

another bit of irony is that when all of this started the democrats, more accurately 'some of the more prominent ones' originally sided with the republicans on Iraq... In the end I think detracting our attention from Afghanistan and heading for Iraq was a bad move on foreign policy but I'm not for simply 'leaving' either considering the progress... I'm not politically savvy so that's as far as I am justified to comment on this though

 

[BeAChooser]

Questioning people's patriotism is low-class.

I don't think any thinking person can look at the position of the democrat leadership of late and not conclude they want us to lose the war because that will be bad for republicans come the election in November. If it hurts to hear that said out loud, too bad.

There's plenty of patriotic military veterans who oppose this war.

It's one thing to have opposed our going into Iraq originally. I have no problem with that and wouldn't for one minute call someone unpatriotic for holding that view. But like it or not, we are now in Iraq. And we can either fix the problem or run and make it worse. To want us to lose now, when victory is clearly in sight, because that will be advantageous politically this fall, can only be characterized as unpatriotic. If it hurts to hear that ... so be it.

 

[Skeptic Guy]

So your and Obama's grand strategy is to give up when you are finally winning? That makes a lot of sense.

We are winning now because we didn't give up ... like Obama said we should do in early 2007, and then again right before the surge.



No, it's going to be a wonderful victory. One that will mean freedom and prosperity for the Iraqi people for the first time in generations. One that spells eventual defeat for al-Qaeda and islamofanatic dictatorships throughout the middle east.

(...)

Bolding mine. The first wasn't a problem before the war, the second is only now becoming a real possibility in Iraq, thanks to the US invasion.

 

[BeAChooser]

You do realize that this time around we are the British, right?

A statement like that only proves you are VERY confused.