See if this boils your blood

[Bustem' Down]

'Course not. Neither was Hitler. Shoulda left his azz alone.

I'm amused by the critics who think we should have taken Saddam out the last time, but think we should have left him ALONE *this* time. The same ones think we should have dealt with Osama *before* he attacked us, but are against us doing the same thing to Saddam.

I think that this time we were just a bit too rash in our decision. Last time we didn't go all the way because there was no plan or way to get out. I think we're proving that this time. Maybe there should have been a bit more planning and less heated words at the UN and this would have gone over a little smoother. Not that I'm saying it would have been perfect, it just seemed that we did our job, got in there and then said "OK great what next?". The what next should have already been clearly and difinitativly defined.

 

[Ken King]

I think that this time we were just a bit too rash in our decision. Last time we didn't go all the way because there was no plan or way to get out. I think we're proving that this time. Maybe there should have been a bit more planning and less heated words at the UN and this would have gone over a little smoother. Not that I'm saying it would have been perfect, it just seemed that we did our job, got in there and then said "OK great what next?". The what next should have already been clearly and difinitativly defined.

Like the plans that clearly and definitively defined our complete withdrawal from Europe and Asia after WWII or the plans that were implemented after that little deal we had with Korea that got us out of there. Yeah, why didn’t someone just think of that or, better yet, maybe someone should peer into that big crystal ball that shows the future so we know exactly what we should be doing now? Man, you must be extremely brilliant like no other the world has seen before and I am overwhelmingly astonished that you are the first one to suggest this simple concept. Way to go, I am truly impressed.

 

[Ken King]

I think it has been soundly proven that Iraq was not a threat to this country at the time of invasion. But they do have a lot of oil.

I realize that you will never believe this no matter what the facts really are. I further understand that you will remain indifferent to Iraq’s hostile actions against other nations and to its own people, or to the fact that our Congress has declared, not once but twice, that they were a threat to our safety and security as well as to that of the rest of the world.

For some reason you refuse to see the truth and prefer the darkness of being blind, so be it. I guess ignorance truly is bliss. However many others, like myself, are grateful that there aren’t too many that share your view, that those like you are not in positions to decide our fate and that today we have leaders that are acting in our defense prior to finding it necessary, once again, to respond after an attack has been inflicted upon us. Sitting back and waiting for something to happen only allows for it to happen and that is something that we have painfully learned we can no longer afford to do.

 

[ylexot]

Last time we didn't go all the way because there was no plan or way to get out.

I thought it was because the UN would not let us...

 

[Ken King]

I thought it was because the UN would not let us...

Come on ylexot, you know it's not fair to use facts.

 

[SamSpade]

I thought it was because the UN would not let us...

Well, that, and the fact that every Arab country in the region was against it, including the ones we were BASED in (like Riyadh, Saudi Arabia). TENS of thousands of Egyptians would have left. We would have lost the sanction of the UN AND the support of our coalition.

See, there's the hypocrisy. We "screwed up" last time - and we were under the UN. We didn't go under the UN *THIS* time, but somehow, it's wrong.

Anyone care to list famous UN actions that were screw ups?

 

[2ndAmendment]

Well, that, and the fact that every Arab country in the region was against it, including the ones we were BASED in (like Riyadh, Saudi Arabia). TENS of thousands of Egyptians would have left. We would have lost the sanction of the UN AND the support of our coalition.

See, there's the hypocrisy. We "screwed up" last time - and we were under the UN. We didn't go under the UN *THIS* time, but somehow, it's wrong.

Anyone care to list famous UN actions that were screw ups?

All of them.

 

[2ndAmendment]

All of them.

Gray karma with this "your a fascist right wing idiot why dont you move back to the mother land russia???"

What a moron. Wanting the United States to be independent of an organization that has expressed more than once its disdain for the United States is not fascist nor was mother Russia. Wanting to preserve the lifestyle of you, me , and everyone else in the United States is called patriotism. Also a point of reference or history for you. The most recent prominent fascists were Italian under Mussolini. Mother Russia was imperialistic under the Czars. History apparently isn't your strong suit, but then again, looking at your comment, neither are spelling, capitalization, punctuation, or grammar.

 

[SmallTown]

History apparently isn't your strong suit, but then again, looking at your comment, neither are spelling, capitalization, punctuation, or grammar.

 

[somdcrab]

 

[Bustem' Down]

Like the plans that clearly and definitively defined our complete withdrawal from Europe and Asia after WWII or the plans that were implemented after that little deal we had with Korea that got us out of there. Yeah, why didn’t someone just think of that or, better yet, maybe someone should peer into that big crystal ball that shows the future so we know exactly what we should be doing now? Man, you must be extremely brilliant like no other the world has seen before and I am overwhelmingly astonished that you are the first one to suggest this simple concept. Way to go, I am truly impressed.

Beautiful sarcasm. I'm not saying I know, otherwise I'd run for office. Korea was screwed up too thanks to the UN. WWII was done right, but that was a different situation. I can say from experience that there was no clear goal handed down. The soldiers don't really know what the endgame is and that's a mistake.

 

[2ndAmendment]

The soldiers don't really know what the endgame is and that's a mistake.

It is not the soldiers responsibility or job to know or understand the endgame. It may be the generals and admirals but not the grunts. Military does not and would not work that way.

 

[Bustem' Down]

It is not the soldiers responsibility or job to know or understand the endgame. It may be the generals and admirals but not the grunts. Military does not and would not work that way.

But they have to know what they are fighting for, and we don't. One day we're told WMD, the next Democracy, and we'll throw a little terrorism in there for good measure. We need a clearly defined goal, even if it is a political ruse I don't care. But to keep shifting the reason puts doubt in the mind of the common soldier or sailor who's real concern is getting the job done so they can go home. I was content when I was over there shooting missles at the beginning because I knew what the purpose was, it had an ending. That ending may be far in the future, but there was an ending. When the goal keeps shifting, we have nothing to look forward too.

 

[willie]

But they have to know what they are fighting for, and we don't. One day we're told WMD, the next Democracy, and we'll throw a little terrorism in there for good measure. We need a clearly defined goal, even if it is a political ruse I don't care. But to keep shifting the reason puts doubt in the mind of the common soldier or sailor who's real concern is getting the job done so they can go home. I was content when I was over there shooting missles at the beginning because I knew what the purpose was, it had an ending. That ending may be far in the future, but there was an ending. When the goal keeps shifting, we have nothing to look forward too.

It has been crystal clear to me from the beginning. What goal has been shifting? If you think WMD's were not a factor then you were not paying attention to Iraq's history. You think democracy is a bad thing? quote:and we'll throw a little terrorism in there for good measure. .....you think those homicide bombers wouldn't be over here if they had the means?

 

[Railroad]

But they have to know what they are fighting for, and we don't. One day we're told WMD, the next Democracy, and we'll throw a little terrorism in there for good measure. We need a clearly defined goal, even if it is a political ruse I don't care. But to keep shifting the reason puts doubt in the mind of the common soldier or sailor who's real concern is getting the job done so they can go home. I was content when I was over there shooting missles at the beginning because I knew what the purpose was, it had an ending. That ending may be far in the future, but there was an ending. When the goal keeps shifting, we have nothing to look forward too.

Once again, for those of you that don't read all the posts:

 

[Railroad]

But they have to know what they are fighting for, and we don't. One day we're told WMD, the next Democracy, and we'll throw a little terrorism in there for good measure. We need a clearly defined goal, even if it is a political ruse I don't care. But to keep shifting the reason puts doubt in the mind of the common soldier or sailor who's real concern is getting the job done so they can go home. I was content when I was over there shooting missles at the beginning because I knew what the purpose was, it had an ending. That ending may be far in the future, but there was an ending. When the goal keeps shifting, we have nothing to look forward too.

Once again, for those of you that don't read all the posts:

But I think you missed the point of our work over there. Iraq was (is) just a battle in the war on terrorism that we have been waging since September 12th, 2001. The Iraqi government, along with several other members of the network, harbored, aided, and abetted terrorists.

The war on terrorism includes a very hostile approach to countries that shelter or support terrorists. The mid-east terrorists have stated that their aim is to attack America and her friends - all the non-Muslim infidels of the west, with America at the top of the list.

Until September 11th of 2001, most of us considered the terrorist threat to be a very minor one, and we ignored it to a large extent. Once 3,000+ people paid with their lives for us not paying attention to terrorists, we reacted in a very strong way and declared the war on terrorism, which continues to this day and will continue for some time to come.

 

[2ndAmendment]

But they have to know what they are fighting for, and we don't. One day we're told WMD, the next Democracy, and we'll throw a little terrorism in there for good measure. We need a clearly defined goal, even if it is a political ruse I don't care. But to keep shifting the reason puts doubt in the mind of the common soldier or sailor who's real concern is getting the job done so they can go home. I was content when I was over there shooting missles at the beginning because I knew what the purpose was, it had an ending. That ending may be far in the future, but there was an ending. When the goal keeps shifting, we have nothing to look forward too.

The point is if the endgame is political in nature, it will constantly shift. If the endgame is military in nature, it will change on circumstance and results. The Republican Guard was going to be a big deal which turned out to be nothing. The endgame is not something that is firm. It is nebulous at best. For the command to say to the grunt, the end goal is "< insert something >" and then circumstances change to make that goal overcome by events, something of a higher priority comes up, the goal turns out to be much of nothing, and the grunt is left with a sense of wondering. It is best that the endgame not even be talked about. The term "endgame" is a political "football" used by politicians trying to denigrate the opposition (not the enemy) and the military. The endgame for the grunt is and should be, "we are here until we are told we can go home.", nothing more and nothing less. For the guy in the trenches to expect anything else is just pointless. The problem with war today is the press. The press has a very liberal (read anti-war anti conservative values) bias. They are generally against the military. If we had had the press of today during WWII, in my opinion, we would have lost and we would all speak German or Japanese now.

 

[Ken King]

But they have to know what they are fighting for, and we don't. One day we're told WMD, the next Democracy, and we'll throw a little terrorism in there for good measure. We need a clearly defined goal, even if it is a political ruse I don't care. But to keep shifting the reason puts doubt in the mind of the common soldier or sailor who's real concern is getting the job done so they can go home. I was content when I was over there shooting missles at the beginning because I knew what the purpose was, it had an ending. That ending may be far in the future, but there was an ending. When the goal keeps shifting, we have nothing to look forward too.

They do know what they are fighting for. Most of them have probably read the IWR which is PL107-243, have you? It explains it rather nicely why we are there.

 

[Larry Gude]

Oh sure...

Most of them have probably read the IWR which is PL107-243, have you?

..read the actual resolution that congress voted FOR. What next?

 

[Bustem' Down]

They do know what they are fighting for. Most of them have probably read the IWR which is PL107-243, have you? It explains it rather nicely why we are there.

Officers maybe.

"Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a
United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq
unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear,
biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver
and develop them, and to end its support for international
terrorism"

No weapons and how many terroists have we caught there? That whole thing means nothing. I could write up a bunch of things about France, but does it mean anything? I'm glad that the Iraqi people have democracy. If they said from the get go that was the reason fine, but it wasn't. the admiral told us one thing in March of 2003 and then later the goal changed to support the political climate. We're not tools.