What I would like to say about the conflicts involving 9/11 and Iraq.

TheMiracleDT

1. After 9/11, we sent troops into Afghanistan to find Osama. We violated international law in order to move troops across Pakistan, whose president in an honest man who does his best for his situation, and is a member of the UN. The conflict was malmanaged and many lives were lost. The ultimate objective was not achieved. As a result, many insurgencies gained support against the US to destroy our culture and way of life.

2. The UN refused to support us in conflict against Iraq. Because the Bush Administration refused to make a sound decision, we entered a war for which we were unprepared and ill-equiped. As Donald Rumpsfeld said when faced with the grievance of a general who said that the troops and vehicles were unarmored, "...you enter a war with an army you have, not the army you wish you had." Many troops were killed in the conflict as well as many innocent citizens of Iraq for whom we were apperently fighting.

3. After several years of involvement, our military presence in Iraq remains strong despite our promises. Iraqi commercials now advertise areas of the broken nation with a low US troop presence listed as a positive. But what really matters? The majority of Americans do not currently want for us to have a presence in Iraq. The majority of Iraqis do not want for us to have a presence in Iraq. The Iraqi prime minister does not want for us to have a presence in Iraq. So why are we in Iraq? Because they were "an eminent threat", apperently. But in response to a question regarding how Iraq was linked to 9/11, Bush responded, "it's not". So it was the WMDs? Well there's an obvious hole in that theory. Are we just trying to fix the problem while were poking around for what exactly contributed to the "eminence" of the alleged "threat"?

I understand that Saddam was a terrible person who killed his own citizens. But if Bush sent us into a war that we were not prepared to fight because his administration was too busy humiliating us by having the White House Press Secretary announce the serving of "freedom toast" and "freedom fries" so that the UN and world as a whole would reject us, leading to the death of our soldiers because we can't equip them properly, what does that make of Bush? A hero of the free and representaive of liberty? I am not ashamed to say that he is not and never was my president.

Sorry for any typos, I'm too tired to read over it.

hazmats

---

Sorry for any typos, I'm too tired to read over it.

---

me too...... (the is the only thing in your post i read)

Shortest paragraph FTW!

Galoot

"1. After 9/11, we sent troops into Afghanistan to find Osama"

And remove the Taliban... done.

"We violated international law in order to move troops across Pakistan,"

Wrong. We received basing rights from Pakistan.

" The conflict was mismanaged and many lives were lost"

Malmanaged? You mean mismanaged? Who's in power?

Don't think I need to go any further because as you can see your premise is flawed.

outfctrl

---

Originally posted by TheMiracleDT 
I am not ashamed to say that he is not and never was my president.

---

sly220

---

Originally posted by Galoot

"1. After 9/11, we sent troops into Afghanistan to find Osama"

And remove the Taliban... done.

Nope not done yet. still have Taliban to get and Osama Still on the loose

" The conflict was mismanaged and many lives were lost"

Malmanaged? You mean mismanaged? Who's in power?

Very much so mismanaged. Most of our troops on convoy’s didnt have the proper equipment to go into to battle. They were missing Armor for the vehicles. We didnt have the proper PPE "personal protective Equipment". Still using Flaqs form the 70s so most of us didnt have those nice new intercepter vests. The flaqs were made to stop shrapnel not bullets. Interceptor vest = stop bullets. But our government was too cheap to buy new stuff for the troops. For the gas masks most of us had them but the canisters were broken so they were useless. Things the government will not tell civilians. Yea Support the tropps great job.

Who is in power great question.. I think we are.

Don't think I need to go any further because as you can see your premise is flawed.

And you were missing some facts as well  

But since were there we might as well stay right im sure it will get better. There is no other option

 

---

olddaddy

---

Originally posted by TheMiracleDT
1. After 9/11, we sent troops into Afghanistan to find Osama. We violated international law in order to move troops across Pakistan, whose president in an honest man who does his best for his situation, and is a member of the UN. The conflict was malmanaged and many lives were lost. The ultimate objective was not achieved. As a result, many insurgencies gained support against the US to destroy our culture and way of life.

No, the problem was, after 9/11 we relied on a motley collection of back stabbing tribesman known as the "Northern Alliance" to get Osama. We would have been much better off using them as a diversion as we staged the 82nd and 101st through Saudi Arabia to drop onto his patio and serve him breakfast one morning. That, and we would have to have had our politicians keep there big mouths shut about the 9/11 perpetrators long enough to actually bag them.

2. The UN refused to support us in conflict against Iraq. Because the Bush Administration refused to make a sound decision, we entered a war for which we were unprepared and ill-equiped. As Donald Rumpsfeld said when faced with the grievance of a general who said that the troops and vehicles were unarmored, "...you enter a war with an army you have, not the army you wish you had." Many troops were killed in the conflict as well as many innocent citizens of Iraq for whom we were apperently fighting.

Regardless of the UN, we were very well prepared and equipped for the war, as usual our military kicked ass. It was the peace our politicians had no clue about. When you create a power vacuum you must move very quickly to fill it before the shock and awe wears off, and everyone and their brother begins to think of ways to obtain power. Rumsfeld, Rice, and company were complete clueless dolts, and the present mess just makes that fact sparkle.

3. After several years of involvement, our military presence in Iraq remains strong despite our promises. Iraqi commercials now advertise areas of the broken nation with a low US troop presence listed as a positive. But what really matters? The majority of Americans do not currently want for us to have a presence in Iraq. The majority of Iraqis do not want for us to have a presence in Iraq. The Iraqi prime minister does not want for us to have a presence in Iraq. So why are we in Iraq? Because they were "an eminent threat", apperently. But in response to a question regarding how Iraq was linked to 9/11, Bush responded, "it's not". So it was the WMDs? Well there's an obvious hole in that theory. Are we just trying to fix the problem while were poking around for what exactly contributed to the "eminence" of the alleged "threat"?

We are in Iraq because Saddam posed a threat to Israel, and supported the families of suicide bomber attacks against Israel. This was the payoff for Jewish money and support in the 2000 year elections. There was no reason to expand the war against fundamentalist Islam to include political insurgencies worldwide, and in fact, it wasn't. We still do not go after the Basques, the IRA, or any other non-islamic terrorist groups. We do go after Hamas, Hizbollah, and the PLO. With the exception of the Hizbollah attack against the marine barracks in Lebanon almost 25 years ago, none of these political insurgent organizations have ever attacked the US, and none of them have ever attacked targets on US soil.

I understand that Saddam was a terrible person who killed his own citizens. But if Bush sent us into a war that we were not prepared to fight because his administration was too busy humiliating us by having the White House Press Secretary announce the serving of "freedom toast" and "freedom fries" so that the UN and world as a whole would reject us, leading to the death of our soldiers because we can't equip them properly, what does that make of Bush? A hero of the free and representaive of liberty? I am not ashamed to say that he is not and never was my president.

Saddam was a terribler person who used poison gas against the Iranians in the 1980s with the US tacit approval. He was our man, our terrible person, just like Somoza, Noriega, Duvalier, Diem, and countless others. Before he invaded Saudi Arabia he met with the US ambassador, a political appointee with the brains of an inanimate object, and asked what the US position would be if he invaded Saudi Arabia. Our brain scientist of a political appointee, who had never had a creative thought in her life, responded that we have no position. Saddam took that as a green light, he didn't realize she was a brainless twit, and should have rephrased her reply. Thus, we got a war.... 

Sorry for any typos, I'm too tired to read over it.

---

Galoot

"And remove the Taliban... done." "Nope not done yet. still have Taliban to get and Osama Still on the loose"

Removed yes eradicated no. But I didn't say eradicated just to be clear.

 1. After 9/11, we sent troops into Afghanistan to find Osama.(And remove the Taliban... done) We violated international law in order to move troops across Pakistan,(here again it is not accurate because we had paki's okey dokey for bases) whose president in an honest man who does his best for his situation, and is a member of the UN. The conflict was malmanaged and many lives were lost. The ultimate objective was not achieved.(Part of it in fact was) As a result, many insurgencies gained support against the US to destroy our culture and way of life.

This is what I responded to and as I had pointed out his premise was in fact flawed.

 

Now as far as the rest of it goes yes it sucks. Funding, procurement and bureaucracy.

And I'm affraid that this will always be the case as it always has been in the past.