Congratulations to all our fine soldiers, marines, airmen and naval personnel for achieving victory in Iraq.
Thanks also to our allies whose troops contributed so much to this goal and have helped provide long-term stability and prosperity for the people of Iraq.
The mainstream media will never admit that the United States won in Iraq.
The Obama Administration will never say it.
And the Bush Administration isn't about to give the media the opportunity to pile on, yet again.
So it's up to the American people to recognize and celebrate this victory from the grassroots up.
So, as do many other Americans, I agree that it is appropriate to celebrate today, 22 November 2008, as Victory in Iraq Day, and to recognize the sacrifices and heroism that made this victory possible.
Thanks also to Michael Yon, for putting his life on the line over several years in Iraq and being one of the only accurate sources of English-language news from Iraq.
Does this mean the war is over and our troops can withdraw?
Lingster
|
Super Administrator
|
2008-11-22 15:33:09
Maybe you haven't noticed, but Bush has been drawing down troop levels for months, now.
Buddy_Busen
|
Registered
|
2008-11-22 14:18:21
Yeah. Define "Victory"
Not that I don't want desperately for it to be true.
BB.
cpbell0033944
-
Hold on a moment...
|
Registered
|
2008-11-22 15:31:27
...if these people are unilaterally declaring victory today, what was going on back when Bush landed on the aircraft carrier and declared "Mission Accomplished"?
Lingster
|
Super Administrator
|
2008-11-22 15:34:21
That was the war against the Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein. That ended very quickly. But then the U.S. had to fight an insurgency campaign financed by Iran and Syria, among others. Now that has ended, too.
CaptMalcomReynolds
|
Registered
|
2008-11-22 20:51:22
Technically, when President Bush put up the sign "Mission Accomplished" he was speaking about the major ground combat actions in Iraq against Saddam's full time military units. When President Bush said that, he was exactly correct.
Buddy_Busen
|
Registered
|
2008-11-22 15:58:42
Implacable
khuddle
|
Registered
|
2008-11-22 16:35:40
Give it up Lingster . No one is listening to the Republican propaganda machine anymore
Lingster
|
Super Administrator
|
2008-11-22 16:59:50
So you're rooting for a U.S. defeat? And believe me - where you live you're going to be dealing with pro-America viewpoints for a good long time.
CaptMalcomReynolds
|
Registered
|
2008-11-22 20:49:27
Wow. I can't believe that victory in Iraq and supporting our troops has now become part of the "Republican propaganda machine". Wow, I seem to remember that there were a whole slew of Democrats who SCREAMED "I'm a patriot! I support the troops!" when they were called dishonest. I guess now that they've won, they no longer have to pretend anymore do they?
You're either for this country or against it. You're either for victory, or defeat. Choose your side wisely.
khuddle
|
Registered
|
2008-11-22 16:46:47
Gainesville FL is and has always been a very liberal town. I thought you said you were smart.
Lingster
|
Super Administrator
|
2008-11-22 17:06:40
When did I say I was smart? And "always"? The university might be a big influence, but you're close enough to the Redneck Riviera that you should hear some common sense now and then.
Or you could just take a ride up 75.
GRISSSE
|
Registered
|
2008-11-22 16:49:20
Did I miss something?! Did the Iraqi government finally take command in their own country? If they did, then I will be happy to jump on the VID bandwagon, but until that time, I cannot consider it a victory. I am not asking for a total withdrawl of troops or a surrender of the insurgents but a controlling presence of the Iraqi military would be nice.
Lingster
|
Super Administrator
|
2008-11-22 17:04:25
The Iraqi government took legal control of the country almost four years ago. Go read the Michael Yon dispatches. It's over.
Congratulations. You won the most useless and most unjustified war in the world after the Vietnam one.
Your president sent young guys to die for just about nothing, and you uncork a bottle of champagne. Well, it's up to you.
Luckily, Obama won. Americans remembered that they're not blockheads, and said 'stop' to all this shameful stuff.
Lingster
|
Super Administrator
|
2008-11-22 20:35:42
Even if that were true, it would have been worse to lose.
CaptMalcomReynolds
|
Registered
|
2008-11-22 20:45:54
50 Million people free from dictatorships and religious tyrants is "useless." Yep, yep. I guess under that type of reasoning, World War II was useless as well.
As for Americans electing Obama, yes, we did. However, the majority of Americans still only want the troops HOME after Iraqis are able to care for themselves. Unlike others, most of us still understand the stake.
CaptMalcomReynolds
-
re:
|
Registered
|
2008-11-22 20:46:47
GRISSSE wrote:
Did I miss something?! Did the Iraqi government finally take command in their own country? If they did, then I will be happy to jump on the VID bandwagon, but until that time, I cannot consider it a victory. I am not asking for a total withdrawl of troops or a surrender of the insurgents but a controlling presence of the Iraqi military would be nice.
Um, have Europe and Japan completely taken over THEIR own security? One could say that the reason that European militaries are so small, is because of the United States which provides for their OVERALL security.
Lingster
|
Super Administrator
|
2008-11-22 20:58:44
Good point. We're still in Japan, South Korea, Germany and the UK. Not to mention BOSNIA. Funny how to many people - especially Europeans - U.S. troops still in Bosnia a decade later equals a justified, successful campaign, whereas U.S. troops in Iraq five years later is failure. Go figure.
Lingster
|
Super Administrator
|
2008-11-22 20:59:19
(Hell, we're still in the Philippines 100 years later - because they want us there.)
Lonebeatle
|
Registered
|
2008-11-23 01:31:49
Raw, pure sarcasm dude, well done!
Lingster
|
Super Administrator
|
2008-11-23 13:08:49
That wasn't sarcasm. The Philippines gov't actually wants us there. We give the government credibility.
CaptMalcomReynolds
|
Registered
|
2008-11-23 02:09:23
astrosmurf wrote:
Si
nce the war in Iraq began, the US economy has collapsed, its foreign policy has alienated many and squandered all sympathy accrued on 9/11, thousands of soldiers have been killed, hundreds of thousands of civilians are dead, countless numbers have been wounded or become refugees. The middle east is no more stable than it was before the war, and the expenditure of trillions of dollars. Civil liberties have been curtailed, and in some cases suspended.
A strange victory.
1. The economy didn't collapse because of the Iraq war. The economy collapsed because of poor lending practices which began in the 1990's and "social engineering."
2. American foreign policy may have "alienated" many people since 911 but how many of those people truly "loved" America prior to that? There's always been a bit of European discontent with the United States which hit it's stride following the end of the Cold War. After the USSR disolved, Europe went on Spring Break. You're making a tired point. Furthermore, I could care less what Europe thinks. I'm not European and I don't care about your politics. I however, DO care about MY country.
3. Yes, thousands of soldiers have died in the last 5 years of conflict. While it's sad, the fact that the U.S. and allies have liberated TWO countries with 50 million people and only had around 5,000 casualties is, in the annals of military history, sad as it is for the loss of life and grieving families, an incredible achievement. I honor their sacrifice for the millions of yet unborn in those countries who may prosper because of them.
4. There are thousands of civilians dead. You're right. Most of those civilians were killed by terrorists operating in Iraq. From Saddam's rise to his fall, over a MILLION more were killed in the Middle East because of his actions. Let's put things into proper perspective before we hop onto our Anti-American high horse shall we?
During the Berlin Airlift, a U.S. Pilot crashed in East Germany.
He was rescued by a former German pilot and his wife at great risk to himself and his family. But the pilot knew from personal experience that Americans were an honorable people, and risked himself and his family to get the American out of East Germany where he knew he would be used, at best, as a propaganda tool by the Soviets. If he was fortunate.
He knew this about us because he had ended the war in an American POW camp.
Going into Iraq was stupid on many levels - there was no upside, there was no plan for afterwards, there was no need for it. But I could forgive all that.
What I cannot forgive is the fact that an American Pilot that crashes and is found by a former inmate at Abu Ghraib or Gitmo is in far more danger from that person, not in less danger.
And that failure is not laid at the feet of Syria, Iran, Saddam, or any other 'enemy' of the U.S. - the fault for that lies solely from the decisions made by George Bush, Dick Cheney, and their gang of criminals.
Ethics is not weakness, and no prior court for war crimes ever considered the possibility that there was a 'right' way to waterboard a prisoner.
Pug
CaptMalcomReynolds
-
re:
|
Registered
|
2008-11-23 14:16:54
Um
Pug wrote:
And that failure is not laid at the feet of Syria, Iran, Saddam, or any other 'enemy' of the U.S. - the fault for that lies solely from the decisions made by George Bush, Dick Cheney, and their gang of criminals.
Ethics is not weakness, and no prior court for war crimes ever considered the possibility that there was a 'right' way to waterboard a prisoner.
Pug
Um, does anyone remember UN Resolution 1441 which authorized force? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?
How about the 40+ other nations who went in with us and agreed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?
How about the Congress and Senate (both Republican AND Democrat) who authorized the use of force and who all had members sitting on the Armed Service and Intelligence committees? Anyone? Anyone?
How about the fact that the President can't use military force on his own for a period of longer than 90 days and that it requires the WHOLE apparatus of government to do so? Anyone? Anyone?
How about the fact that following the war, Saddam's own GENERALS said they believed that Saddam had WMD'S? Please raise your hands! One at a time Children!
Once again, you have false perceptions about how this whole thing worked.
Pug
|
Registered
|
2008-11-24 01:55:58
Well, first of all, all of those statements are very debatable.
That said - let's assume I've misremembered about the '[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Office_of_Special_Pl
ans"]Office of special Plans[/url]'. We'll ignore that the CIA estimates that said that Iraq was no threat were withheld. Let's conveniently forget that Intelligence Committee members that, even with the evidence well cooked before it got to them, were forbidden to tell their party "They don't have a case".
Because that wasn't the point I'm most furious about, which you ignored.
We committed War Crimes. We tortured people.
There is one, and only one 'unforgivable sin' listed in the Bible.
"He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters. Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. And whoever says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come." (Book of Matthew 12:30-32)
I'm sorry. I don't think when torture is described as 'breaking the spirit' it is coincidence. Our language knows blasphemy even if we forget.
President Bush led us, as a nation, to blaspheme against the Holy Spirit in the one way that was proscribed in the Bible above all others.
We were warned.
God will not forgive us this.
Pug
CaptMalcomReynolds
|
Registered
|
2008-11-23 02:15:13
astrosmurf wrote:
Si
nce the war in Iraq began, the US economy has collapsed, its foreign policy has alienated many and squandered all sympathy accrued on 9/11, thousands of soldiers have been killed, hundreds of thousands of civilians are dead, countless numbers have been wounded or become refugees. The middle east is no more stable than it was before the war, and the expenditure of trillions of dollars. Civil liberties have been curtailed, and in some cases suspended.
A strange victory.
5. Along with that point, the Middle East IS more stable since the fall of Saddam and the end of the Taliban. Saddam and Iran fought a war in the 1980's, he gassed Kurds in the 1990's. He started a Nuclear program which Israel killed in the 1980's (thank you Israel). He threatend Saudi Arabia NUMEROUS times. He invaded Kuwait. He almost did it again during the Clinton administration during Operation Desert shield. Lets not forget that in 1998 the WORLD and the UN said that he had WMD'S. Also, Saddam was paying Palestinian suicide bombers' families to kill Israelis. Oh, and he violated 14 UN resolutions regarding his weapons programs.
Afghanistan.. terrorist training camps which were used to plan 911. The Taliban regime which was blowing up Buddhist statues and repressing their people. Taliban in the tribal areas stirring up trouble in Pakistan and helping send foreign fighters to Chechnya and supplying terrorists with funds from the poppy trade.
Lol. As for Civil liberties, do yourself a favor and youtube "Celsius 41.11" and watch that. Prior to Iraq and Afghanistan, there were NO such things as Civil Liberties. You either obeyed, or you were killed. Having a night-time curfew in some places until things stabilize is something that the Iraqis GLADLY follow when it's done.
Hmmm... yeah. I guess you're right. The world would have been better off without the United States and our ALLIES in the Middle East. It was just SOOOOO stable before 911 and Iraq.
Well, that would have been an interesting clip, if it hadn't been edited to cut off Bolton's replies or had cherry picked portions. If you can post the whole video, unedited, I'm sure it would be an entirely different story.
Also, the man's last words were "We'll be beaten in Iraq." Interesting how that turned out didn't it? Also, he's kind of speaking against the interests of his own country because Britain has also played a role there. It's pretty sad that he thinks that if you ask me.
Delmo
-
2 things
|
Registered
|
2008-11-23 03:22:49
First, I think another day should be picked as 11/22 should be remembered for something that happened 45 years ago. Second, you listed the date as "22 November 2008". Did you move to the UK and forget to mention it?
cwmoss
|
Registered
|
2008-11-23 04:29:35
Thank you for your service CaptMalcomReynolds. I can only wish that my children are as dedicated servants to our common good (The United States) as you have been.
But I fear greatly that our good country has taken a wrong fork in the road.
1) We sold all our jobs to China and Mexico in the last 30 years to profit the corporate raiders under Reagan/ Clinton(whateverLing
ster). Great for the world but bad for Jack and Jill. They can't run up the hill unless they are an apprentice on Donald Trumps
cwmoss
|
Registered
|
2008-11-23 04:32:37
2) Gutting of the unions has left no retirement for our older folk and left our young ones without any good role models. Uncle Garcia once had a great job with medical, a beautiful muscular wife and retirement but now only the dealers, pimps brokers have money or you could be a cop or join the army.
3) Weather Republican or Democrat we are being sold out. Now that the jobs are all gone, the banks are eating smaller banks to make bigger banks and this will eventually take all property from people and grant it to corporations or the fed. Like that
cwmoss
|
Registered
|
2008-11-23 04:34:39
4) The economy is imaginary and Darth Douchbag is the only master. Gas goes up to $4.85 and then down to $1.95. Property climbs for 10 years then just when my wife sinks all we have in it, I mean every frigin thing it drops and in a slow agonizing manner.
So CaptMalcomReynolds I thank you for serving our country but if your hanging around the High Schools grabbing kids that in happier days would have been working on Fonzies Bike and thinking about summers at the water hole man don
CaptMalcomReynolds
|
Registered
|
2008-11-23 14:20:38
I agree with you completely. We DO have serious problems in this country that need to be worked out. I merely rail against the "It's ALL Bush's fault!" crowd who really lack total comprehension about how our economy and government work. They have an amnesia about history.
However, with that said, America is, and continues to be, a great country and for all of our troubles, we'll emerge out of the problems we're currently facing as long as people are educated, informed, and willing to Work, for this, OUR country instead of knocking it.
CaptMalcomReynolds
|
Registered
|
2008-11-24 17:13:31
Those parts of the video that I made, were a TRIBUTE to the original song and the 50's era of music.
cwmoss
|
Registered
|
2008-11-23 04:38:03
water hole man don
cwmoss
|
Registered
|
2008-11-23 04:39:17
you think you need to quite your job and recruit for the peace corps or something? I mean though I didn
cpbell0033944
-
A couple of points
|
Registered
|
2008-11-23 11:08:49
Whilst a US presence (mainly USAF - I know - two of the biggest US airbases are within 40 miles of my house) is welcome in the UK, please don't put around the idea that the poor ickle British can't look after themselves. We won the Falklands war against Argentina without US military being involved. We sorted-out Northern Ireland ourselves, too. No need for the US to hold our hands. Also, I doubt the US has its presence because of pure alruism, just as we don't have airbases in Germany because we think the Germans can't look after themselves. They are strategic bases.
CaptMalcomReynolds
|
Registered
|
2008-11-23 14:26:00
I'm not saying that. But overall, what I said is correct. The reason Europe doesn't spend half the money in military resources as the United States does is because of history and the perception that they don't have too.
Since WWII ended, the United States, whose economy and infrastructure were undamaged by the war, was thrust into it's superpower position and tasked with defending Europe from Soviet agression and expansion. When the USSR fell, as you know, we became the worlds sole hyperpower and "policeman". Sometimes this role has been one we've relished but it is also one we've been thrust into.
When there needs to be a major military action done in the world, who do people turn to? Europe or the United States? When the Balkans were aflame in Europe's backyard did Europeans lead the charge or was it the United States? It was the United States. Yes, Europe can defend itself and project SOME military power when need be, but the United States has given you guys a crutch to lean on and the ability to be selective how you spend, where you send, and how you end your conflicts.
nic2800
-
What's next
|
Registered
|
2008-11-23 13:20:24
Most of the troops will be moved to the other part of the war in Afghanistan.
The US won somethings but we're still getting killed over there.
As for our economy and unions. The fat cat investment people, oil speculators, OPEC, bankers, and people like the big 3 auto makers have killed our free market system. Now the treasury department has so much power it may force us to join the "World Currency" push.
Unions had their day but the leaders of those trusted brotherhoods got greedy. Large paychecks have driven up cost of living. Do you remember in school learning about supply and demand. The more money the more cost. We're seeing that now in our oil. Demand is way down so cost if falling.
The US victory that started this thread is small. We helped place a new government but will it stand as we leave. I think once our forces leave the new rulers will be overthrown and killed. Then all hell will break loose. Iran might just take over Iraq.
We all need to pull together and fix our world before it burns down around us.
CaptMalcomReynolds
-
re: What's next
|
Registered
|
2008-11-23 14:44:03
nic2800 wrote:
Most of the troops will be moved to the other part of the war in Afghanistan.
The US won somethings but we're still getting killed over there.
As for our economy and unions. The fat cat investment people, oil speculators, OPEC, bankers, and people like the big 3 auto makers have killed our free market system. Now the treasury department has so much power it may force us to join the "World Currency" push.
Unions had their day but the leaders of those trusted brotherhoods got greedy. Large paychecks have driven up cost of living. Do you remember in school learning about supply and demand. The more money the more cost. We're seeing that now in our oil. Demand is way down so cost if falling.
The US victory that started this thread is small. We helped place a new government but will it stand as we leave. I think once our forces leave the new rulers will be overthrown and killed. Then all hell will break loose. Iran might just take over Iraq.
We all need to pull together and fix our world before it burns down around us.
Here's a video I made on youtube. "American Pie" about the bailout. For you Messiah supporters i.e. President-elect Zero, you're not going to like it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qkTqUJRlfo
As for us leaving Iraq, we WILL need to have some presence there and a few bases. It's the only way to ensure that there is some ability to see Iraq through the next few decades. As the poster above noted, if Europe can take care of themselves, cough, then I say we move some bases out of there and put them closer to the trouble spots in the world where our military can be more quickly deployed. It's not a role I want but until the EU wakes up and starts pulling its weight, the United States is the only power policing the world. No one else is going to do it unless you all prefer China or Russia.
alex
|
Registered
|
2008-11-23 15:42:47
Funny, here I thought you guys invaded Iraq because it had weapons of mass destruction, even though there were constant UN inspections and almost all other nations didn't share Bush's opinions on the matter.
It was never about freeing the Iraq people from Saddam Hussein. Saddam maybe be a bastard dictator, but so are many others in the world.
Furthermore, the US doesn't have a good history in these things, specially since it helped establish A LOT of dictatorships during the 60's and 70's.
CaptMalcomReynolds
|
Registered
|
2008-11-23 18:30:44
Lol. There WEREN'T constant UN inspections. If there were, why would the UN adopt resolution 1441?
What planet have you been living on?
As for some of the "dictatorships" we've supported, yes, we have a few. I believe that at the same time we have in those instances, that EUROPE ALSO supported them as well. If you look at the alternatives compared to the strongmen the WEST supported, you'd be surprised what exactly was PREVENTED given the alternatives.
With that said, we've ALSO taken down numerous dictatorships and our track record has been pretty good on it.
Also, if we're going to talk about the United States and how bad we've been, lets start looking at Europe shall we? The Middle East is the way it is becaussse...anyone? Anyone? Europe! Europe fucked the Middle East following the first world war and European empires.
And the African paradise? Oh wow, Europe again! Look up the term "metropole" and how it fits into the concept of European empires. Isn't it kind of interesting, that the most problematic trouble spots in the world are due to European colonizations, empires, and policies?
detritus
|
Registered
|
2008-11-23 22:04:34
Did anyone here actually read UN Resolution 1441? Because it DIDN'T authorize force. What resolution 1441 stated was that Iraq was in material breach of its disarmament obligations to the IAEA and UNSCOM, that among other things the UN demanded full and complete access to WMD sites, and that, if Iraq continued to be in material breach, the security council would immediately convene again to decide a course of action, reminding Iraq of possible serious consequences for further misconduct.
Resolution 1441 called for the security council to reconvene and decide what to do. That's it. It included a not-so-veiled threat, but no actual authorization of force. Moreover, the meeting called for by Resolution 1441 never took place, because the vast majority of the security council was openly against actual authorization of force against Iraq. The UN never actually signed off on this particular war.
CaptMalcomReynolds
|
Registered
|
2008-11-23 23:06:21
Authority to use force against Iraq exists from the combined effect of resolutions 678, 687 and 1441. All of these resolutions were adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter which allows the use of force for the express purpose of restoring international peace and security:
1. In resolution 678 the Security Council authorized force against Iraq, to eject it from Kuwait & to restore peace and security in the area.
2. In resolution 687, which set out the ceasefire conditions after Operation Desert Storm, the Security Council imposed continuing obligations on Iraq to eliminate its weapons of mass destruction in order to restore international peace & security in the area. Resolution 687 suspended but did not terminate the authority to use force under resolution 678.
3. A material breach of resolution 687 revives the authority to use force under resolution 678.
4. In resolution 1441 the Security Council determined that Iraq was & remained in material breach of resolution 687, because it did not fully comply with its obligations to disarm under that resolution.
5. The Security Council in resolution 1441 gave Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" and warned Iraq of the "serious consequences" if it did not.
6. The Security Council also decided in resolution 1441 that, if Iraq failed at any time to comply with and cooperate fully in the implementation of resolution 1441, that would constitute a further material breach.
7. It is plain that Iraq failed to comply and therefore Iraq was at the time of resolution 1441 and continued to be in material breach.
8. Thus, the authority to use force under resolution 678 was revived and so continued prior to the invasion.
9. Resolution 1441 would in terms have provided that a further decision of the Security Council to sanction force was required if that had been intended. Thus, all that resolution 1441 required is reporting to and discussion by the Security Council of Iraq failures, but ...
CaptMalcomReynolds
|
Registered
|
2008-11-24 00:06:14
not an express further decision to authorize force."
But hey, there was no UN Resolution for Bosnia either. In fact the UN pretty much did the same thing they did with regards to Iraq. The only difference is, because it is President Bush who led the charge. Because people have "Bush derangement syndrom"...
Because many European's hate the United States and use us as the blank slate to project their angst on... and simply because it was the United States who lead the charge, we're still hammering it five years later and talking about Vietnam nearly 40 years after the fact.
Get over it people. Quit dissing on the United States.
Pug
|
Registered
|
2008-11-24 04:35:32
Well, the only difference is that, plus competent leadership, and the original complaints that led to the invasion being verifiably true, even leading to convictions in the Hague, rather than having been cherry picked from a mound of other evidence that undermined it.
Interestingly enough, in a similar vein, inasmuch as we're both homo-sapiens sharing well over 99% of our DNA, it turns out that myself and George bush are virtually identical twins, not counting the genetic and environmental factors that make me unwilling to start wars with countries that did not attack us, unwilling to lie to people to get approval for such wars, and willing to own up to responsibility for my mistakes after I make them, one could hardly tell us apart.
Pug
CaptMalcomReynolds
|
Registered
|
2008-11-24 17:18:01
Once again, while the intelligence may have been proven to be inaccurate AFTER the fact, NOBODY thought that the United States or any other countries' intelligence apparatuses were LYING when all this was going down.
EVERYONE thought he had them, was hiding them, and that he was obstructing the process. The war wasn't based on a LIE, but it DID have errors which were only discovered AFTER we were there.
If this was an ex-felon, and Law Enforcement had probable cause to search his home and the felon resists with threats violence, we wouldn't think twice about whether the Law Enforcement officers acted correctly when they entered the house with vests on and weapons drawn.
Pug
|
Registered
|
2008-11-26 05:26:41
You know, as a liberal, I just never get tired of how there were all sorts of people before the war going "This case sucks" and being told how we were unpatriotic America haters, and now that it turns out we were right all along the GOP refrain of 'Why didn't you *say* something!"
Say it again - revisionism excites me so.
Your inability to listen at the time does not constitute evidence that no one else was talking.
CaptMalcomReynolds
|
Registered
|
2008-11-27 04:41:46
Patriotism: supporter of own country: a proud supporter or defender of his or her country and its way of life.
Liberals were never called unpatriotic because they had questions about the pre-war intelligence. Not once.
However, they WERE called unpatriotic when they started saying our troops were idiots and murderers and that they were forced to serve.
They were called unpatriotic when they marched in the streets like Code Pink.
The were called unpatriotic when they spit on Military recruiters at college campuses and attacked invited speakers who disagreed with them.
They were called unpatriotic when they called people in the World Trade Center "Little Eichmanns" because of our way of life.
They are called crazies when they say our own government planned 911.
They didn't simply disagree with the war and the administration, they DEBASED our President i.e. the Moveon.org Hitler Ad and "General Betray Us" ads and taking politics beyond the water's edge.
Many were called unpatriotic when they said they would rather live in another country.
And yes, sometimes they're called unpatriotic when they leak information out in newspapers that may be VITAL to national security or military operations.
All of those things fit as the antithesis of what patriotism is defined as. Hence, the term "unpatriotic".
If you simply disagree with the war, as a liberal, you are not called unpatriotic. When you do the things above, that's when some people may level that label at you.
detritus
|
Registered
|
2008-11-24 00:14:34
You've simply copy-pasted British Attorney General Lord Goldsmith's specious argument about resolutions 660, 678, and 687. Resolution 660 demanded only the withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait, and negotiation between Iraq and Kuwait to end that conflict, and, since both 678 and 687 are based on 660, they too pertained solely to that conflict. Resolution 687 contains no terms for rescinding the cease-fire without another meeting and decision of the security council. At no point did it state that a material breach of a single part of the disarmament agreement would be grounds for the automatic resumption of hostilities. It, like 1441, provided only for another meeting of the security council to decide how the resolution was to be enforced. Both the British and United States permanent envoys to the UN at the time stated explicitly that 1441 contained no "hidden triggers" to the resumption of the use of force against Iraq. There had to be another meeting authorizing more force, even under 687. There wasn't. Therefore, the security council never authorized, implicitly or otherwise, the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
CaptMalcomReynolds
|
Registered
|
2008-11-24 01:48:02
Yes, I know I did. His points are STILL valid.
660 said that Saddam had to leave Kuwait, you are correct. The ending of the war in Kuwait, however, DID prompt resolutions 678 and 687 but these, while having emphasis on resolution 660, also added additional terms which ALSO had to be upheld which were independent of 660. 687 in particular, ALSO emphasizes that Saddam uphold up to a 1989 treaty regarding the elimination of Biological and Chemical Weapons. It also restricted Saddam from seeking ballistic missles and nuclear technology and said that of the above would be monitored by the international community. It set up the NO Fly Zone which Saddam REPEATEDLY violated.
Furthermore, since 687 noted 678's use of force clause, it reserved the right to use force if the tenements of 678 and the newly included points in the new resolution were violated.
Since these resolutions were used in a "chain" effect to bolster previous resolutions, Lord Goldsmith's ideas are correct.
fritzcat
|
Registered
|
2008-11-24 00:55:21
Good lord, the wingnuts have been reduced to celebrating made-up holidays commemorating imaginary victories in wars based on bogus premises.
I didn't realize that the Obama landslide had unhinged them this badly.
And what a ghoulish celebration at that (for those of us out here in the "reality-based community," at least):
"Hooray! Over 4,000 American lives and 3 trillion dollars wasted in pursuit of non-existent WMDs."
"Yay! One million Iraqi casualties due to an invasion they neither wanted nor requested."
"Woo-hoo! 4.7 million Iraqi refugees displaced from their homes."
"Huzzah! We gave al-Qaeda the best recruiting tool they could have ever asked for: an unnecessary U.S. invasion of a sovereign Arab nation."
"Whee! We've ensured that Iran is the dominant power in the region."
"Yee-ha! We drew much-needed troops and resources away from hunting down the people in Afghanistan who actually attacked us."
But why let the grim facts ruin a good party? After all, they'd just make childish statements like
Quote:
Even if that were true, it would have been worse to lose.
seem callous and thoughtless when compared to such a grand scale of human misery. So instead, let's just toss around neo-con talking points like so much confetti, shake our fists at the usual bogeymen (the media, liberals, ad nauseum), and dance the night away to all of our favorite hits from yester-year. "Mission Accomplished." "Bring It On." "White Flag of Surrender."
You gotta love how staying in Iraq indefinitely constitutes a "victory" while handing over control at the request of its democratically elected government constitutes "surrender." But then again, when the war is a mistake from its inception, both terms prove equally meaningless, so what the hell? Victory is whatever we want it to be.
CaptMalcomReynolds
-
re:
|
Registered
|
2008-11-24 02:10:25
fritzcat wrote:
Good
lord, the wingnuts have been reduced to celebrating made-up holidays commemorating imaginary victories in wars based on bogus premises.
Fritz, clearly you're missing the whole point of this discussion. The fact that Detritus (well played Detritus!) and I are talking about 1441 and the resolutions prior to it, should only prove to you that the war wasn't based on a "bogus premise."
It should be clear to you, and everyone involved, that the fact the UN had worked on umpteenth resolutions regarding Iraq, had, what they believed at the time, intelligence regarding Iraq's WMD's (and not just American intelligence), and the fact that 40 some allies participated in the invasion of Iraq, should only illuminate how serious nations perceived Iraq's WMD's at the time.
EVERYONE took this matter seriously, believed he was hiding WMD's and knew he had them in the past, but they differed on the MEANS of how to deal with it. Yes, the intelligence of ALL the players was a massive mess up, but even the post WMD inspection teams admitted that Saddam HAD WMD's in the past, he WAS obstructing the process in the present, and he HAD plans to reconstitute his programs following the end of sanctions. Furthermore, did you know that about 8 months ago, they removed 550 tons of "yellowcake" which they found in Iraq that he had been stockpiling.
Anyway, as I've said, what happened has happened and regardless of why, Lingster was merely trying to make a point that Iraq IS being WON, and the soldiers should be HONORED. If that's a "ghoulish" "neo-con" talking point, then you fall under Voltaire's definition of madness "To have erroneous perceptions and correctly reason from them."
CaptMalcomReynolds
|
Registered
|
2008-11-24 01:54:51
1441 States:
12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with ALL of the relevant Council RESOLUTIONS (660, 678, 687 and others) in order to secure international peace and security;
13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;
Furthermore, since the FRENCH decided unilaterally to discard all relevant uses of force which some of the previous UN resolutions allowed and upon which 1441 was based upon, it virtually cut off all needs for a second security council discussion and promised more of the same failed inspection policies and sanctions which didn't make Saddam more compliant and thus put him into violation with all of these resolutions.
Furthermore, 1441, to quote John Negroponte "this resolution does not constrain any member state from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq, or to enforce relevant UN resolutions and protect world peace and security."
My only point about this whole thing, is I'm tired that Iraq has been called "our" war. We didn't act ALONE on the road to 1441 and its aftermath.
AlexG
|
Registered
|
2008-11-24 06:35:20
Wow Boss, seems you've set a new record for blog replies with this one.
Carry on!
Lingster
|
Super Administrator
|
2008-11-24 12:05:17
And I deleted the ones I considered offensive.
Lingster
|
Super Administrator
|
2008-11-24 12:07:07
Also, even though I spit coffee through my nose when CPBell wrote that the UK fought the Falklands War without any US help, I let it slide.
The Highlander
|
Registered
|
2008-11-24 12:18:56
If this is what you call a victory, I would hate to see a defeat!
Lingster
|
Super Administrator
|
2008-11-24 12:55:35
A defeat would mean the enemy won. It might also mean that we had massive casualties subduing a nation of almost 30 million people. Neither of those things happened. It's taken longer than it should have, but organized resistance to the new, democratic Iraqi gov't is now over and U.S. and allied veterans can congratulate themselves on winning a fight with important, positive, long-term implications for the world.
Fett
|
Registered
|
2008-11-24 12:55:06
I find this whole 'debate' mind-numbing.
I wonder just how many of those who think war in Iraq was 'worth it' are able-bodied but didn't bother to do a single tour in Iraq.
And I wonder just how many of those who think the US have made a 'clusterfuck' in Iraq have actually ever been there, before or since.
CaptMalcomReynolds
|
Registered
|
2008-11-24 16:37:15
Well, I can't say I've served in the military, but as an ex-agent with the US Border Patrol, I know many of my friends who have and their general consensus is that it's worth it.
But hey, I guess since I didn't serve over THERE, that I somehow must not be allowed to have an opinion eh? And yes, I know what it's like to lose a comrade in the line of duty.
Fett
|
Registered
|
2008-11-24 18:52:58
I never said anyone wasn't allowed an opinion. I pointed out the bizarre nature of people to take so personally a situation that is so far removed from them.
And sorry about your comrade.
CaptMalcomReynolds
-
re:
|
Registered
|
2008-11-25 02:01:00
Fett wrote:
I never said anyone wasn't allowed an opinion. I pointed out the bizarre nature of people to take so personally a situation that is so far removed from them.
Is it really so far removed from them? Didn't 911 prove to use that what happens abroad had the ability to dramatically effect us at home?
Is it so far removed, that I, as a human being who enjoys a life free from a dictator and free to choose his own destiny, might wish to see those same freedoms come to everyone? Sure it may not happen overnight or be possible all at once, and sometimes battles are chosen when others aren't, but it should be considered as something that affects us all.
Is this war so far removed from us when we have such strong feelings about how it's conducted, how we view war, and our strong feelings and personal perspectives about how we view the world?
I hope the answer is no.
I can't speak for anyone else here, but this whole new world we've entered since 911 is VERY personal to me. While I might not have a direct hand in the event's, as a citizen I certainly play a role in its outcome and have to live with the outcomes repercussions, which ever way those may fall.
Congratulations to all our fine soldiers, marines, airmen and naval personnel for achieving victory in Iraq.
Thanks also to our allies whose troops contributed so much to this goal and have helped provide long-term stability and prosperity for the people of Iraq.