Weapons Were Already Gone...
- Thread starter Larry Gude
- Start date
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Spoiled...
...one of the many arguments to oust Saddam was that he may have even been losing control, a situation ripe for opportunists of all motivations; terror, cash etc in a country so full of weapons of all manner.
It seems rather obvious that, whatever the facts turn out to be, weapons depots like A qaqaa and the uncertainty surrounding them was one of the many things we were and are trying to take control of.
Now, if the facts turn out to be that this site was suppossed to come under out control at a point in time where we could have exerted said control and we did not, then you have an argument there.
Right now, we don't know.
One thing that constantly gets over looked that Bush actually screwed up was that the 4th ID, the rock and roll hi tech division, was suppossed to invade from the North, from Turkey, while 3ID and the Marines attacked on two other lines of advance from the South.
Bush should not have allowed Turkey to wimp out on us and if he simply could not get them to cooperate, the invasion should have been called off or postponed.
If the 4th had been able to attack from Turkey on time, they would have secured Fallujah and the Sunni Triangle and the North of Baghdad, as planned, while the 3rd and the Marines and Brits and everyone else did their thing coming North and this would have made a HUGE difference in preventing the chaos that followed as things turned out, including, likely, any weapons cache snafus like the one we're talking about.
As it was, the 4th had to be moved to Kuwait first and ended up replacing the 3rd, not joining in a joint attack.
Winning was never the question, how we won was and this is the great overlooked Bush failure.
...one of the many arguments to oust Saddam was that he may have even been losing control, a situation ripe for opportunists of all motivations; terror, cash etc in a country so full of weapons of all manner.
It seems rather obvious that, whatever the facts turn out to be, weapons depots like A qaqaa and the uncertainty surrounding them was one of the many things we were and are trying to take control of.
Now, if the facts turn out to be that this site was suppossed to come under out control at a point in time where we could have exerted said control and we did not, then you have an argument there.
Right now, we don't know.
One thing that constantly gets over looked that Bush actually screwed up was that the 4th ID, the rock and roll hi tech division, was suppossed to invade from the North, from Turkey, while 3ID and the Marines attacked on two other lines of advance from the South.
Bush should not have allowed Turkey to wimp out on us and if he simply could not get them to cooperate, the invasion should have been called off or postponed.
If the 4th had been able to attack from Turkey on time, they would have secured Fallujah and the Sunni Triangle and the North of Baghdad, as planned, while the 3rd and the Marines and Brits and everyone else did their thing coming North and this would have made a HUGE difference in preventing the chaos that followed as things turned out, including, likely, any weapons cache snafus like the one we're talking about.
As it was, the 4th had to be moved to Kuwait first and ended up replacing the 3rd, not joining in a joint attack.
Winning was never the question, how we won was and this is the great overlooked Bush failure.
The lesson learn in Vietnam was not to let politicians run the war; let the generals do it which is exactly what President Bush did. He let the generals run the war. The failure of Turkey to allow our troops to invade from the north has led to the instability in that region.Spoiled said:
The stabilization of any country or area after a war is a tedious and deadly task. Have you read any history of the aftermath of WWII? The pacification of Germany and Japan took four years to get the best of it and even then there were incidents. War is hell; the peace can be worse.
Please post of something you know. Maybe you could get by with your
over in Chit Chat.
Spoiled
Active Member
you are telling me we had an exit strategy in vietnam?2ndAmendment said:The lesson learn in Vietnam was not to let politicians run the war; let the generals do it which is exactly what President Bush did. He let the generals run the war. The failure of Turkey to allow our troops to invade from the north has led to the instability in that region.
The stabilization of any country or area after a war is a tedious and deadly task. Have you read any history of the aftermath of WWII? The pacification of Germany and Japan took four years to get the best of it and even then there were incidents. War is hell; the peace can be worse.
Please post of something you know. Maybe you could get by with your
and in iraq?
I'm telling you that idiots like you that were in the Congress at the time insisted on running the war in Vietnam from Washington and that was not from the Pentagon. We did not win in Vietnam because the pansy Democrats in Congress were listening to the likes of Kerry saying we were committing war crimes in theater. The Congress was having to approve every air strike and every artillery barrage. By the time a target was called in, relayed to Washington, debated, and if the target was approved, the aircraft had long since run low on fuel and had to return to base or the target (convoy of trucks or troop movement) had left the area and crossed into Cambodia which was off limits. You cannot have an exit strategy unless you first win the war. An exit without winning is called retreat.Spoiled said:
We have an exit strategy for Iraq. Pacifists like you and Kerry must let the conflict and pacification process run to its conclusion. We will lose more troops, but if we do not win in Iraq completely, the future of the United States is very bleak.
ylexot
Super Genius
Actually, we do have an exit plan in Iraq, but it is pretty vague and there is no set timeline. That's the way it should be. So what's the plan? Help the Iraqi people set up a democratic government and their own security. Then we leave.
BTW - What's Kerry's plan? Oh yeah, same thing.
BTW - What's Kerry's plan? Oh yeah, same thing.
willie
Well-Known Member
Today's Post. I wonder why this wasn't front page with big headlines.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9244-2004Oct29.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9244-2004Oct29.html
Penn
Dancing Up A Storm
No, I must have missed that one, but it has a bit of truth to it. It wouldn't be the first time Kerry has briefly described "his plan" - (gees, I'm hearing Al Gore in my ears) - that he currently touts as new, is already in place under the Bush administrationylexot said: