Let it be duly noted...

[Guest BEAVERTAIL]

Those men and women are always needed. The conflict in Iraq wasn't. It has nothing to do with 9-11.

 

Obama wants to go into Pakistan.

 

From your response above, I would say Pakistan has nothing to do with 9-11 if you believe that about Iraq. Both countries harbor terrorists (Iraq not anymore). Both situations are quite similar. So do you still support Obama in going there even though you advocate the fact that Iraq was a waste of time? Or was Bush technically in the right since we KNOW Iraq harbored terrorists?

Edited January 22, 2009 by BEAVERTAIL

[fieldgeneral 10]

We already have the W in Iraq. Ever since the surge we have conquered. My friend is going in as the last Marine core to enter Iraq, he told us his superiors have said they have won and its pretty much over. Democracy is in effect there. Genocide is over.

 

And as for every analyst I have seen, they all have warned Obama of getting out too soon from mostly Afghanistan. He is the president, we are winning. We start to lose, there has only been one new factor, Obama.

 

 

What W......thousands dead and billions spent? Sure Saddam's reign of terror is over, but has been for years now. Is it the US's job to rid the world of bad men in charge? Everyone else left but us? Why wouldn't our superiors have told us we have won, it's a morale booster. Democracy is in effect and that is awesome, but we have to let it operate without our men and women standing guard for it to seem successful in that lone part. Sure there were some good things to come from Iraq, free them from Saddam and installing democracy, but was it worth all we lost and paid to get it for them? Why wasn't this a combined effort from the UN?

 

I agree, we can't leave Afghanistan too quickly, that is where we should have been to start with instead of Iraq. That should have been our concentration. I would agree with your analyst on that. Iraq is a different story. You can't say we are leaving tonight and split, but we do need to leave ASAP. He is the pres, you can't say we are winning, there isn't anything left for us to lose except more lives and money. More than one factor........don't forget the importance of congress!

[fieldgeneral 10]

Obama wants to go into Pakistan.

 

From your response above, I would say Pakistan has nothing to do with 9-11 if you believe that about Iraq. Both countries harbor terrorists (Iraq not anymore). Both situations are quite similar. So do you still support Obama in going there even though you advocate the fact that Iraq was a waste of time? Or was Bush technically in the right since we KNOW Iraq harbored terrorists?

 

The basis of going to Iraw was after these WMD that never were found....so yes a waste of time on that fact. Like I said sure, Democracy and freeing them of Saddam was great and I cheered as the statue fell, but was it all our responsibility at a time when we needed to tackle terrorism. Iraq and Terrorists that were tied to 9-11 were not 1 in the same at this point. If Our new administration knows something about Pakistan and as we all have seen recently that it is becoming a terrorist nation, then by all means do what is needed. Iraq wasn't needed......at that time.

[Guest BEAVERTAIL]

Sadam harbored terrorists. Thats the main reason why we got rid of him.

 

And if you want to blame the war on the fact of WMDs, blame most democrats and republicans, Ian Pannetta, Bill Clinton, all of Washington. Not just GWB. They all supported it at first and Clinton and Pannetta compiled reports of findings of WMDs.

[Lance 228]

the timeframe Obama mentioned is 16 months and that is within what the Bush admin signed off on...not really a big deal they kinda stole his thunder by doing that and the media didn't seem to have much to say about it after it was signed off on.

[Guest BEAVERTAIL]

His first was actually a March 2007 deadline, he actually proposed that in Congress before he ran as president. You were right, it was 16 months all along but he reworded some minor stuff throughout...

[Guest JJBrickface]

Gas is at $1.59 at the Shell and Raceway next to Shelor in C'burg. I filled up at the Shell this morning.

 

Hey if you are in Christiansburg try to give Raceway some business. The guy who owns the place has put in a lot of work and I would like to see him get his business going. So next time you are through there try to stop there.

[buzzsawBeaver 12]

The basis of going to Iraw was after these WMD that never were found....so yes a waste of time on that fact. Like I said sure, Democracy and freeing them of Saddam was great and I cheered as the statue fell, but was it all our responsibility at a time when we needed to tackle terrorism. Iraq and Terrorists that were tied to 9-11 were not 1 in the same at this point. If Our new administration knows something about Pakistan and as we all have seen recently that it is becoming a terrorist nation, then by all means do what is needed. Iraq wasn't needed......at that time.

 

It was a very wise move, and I've posted a lot of info on the reasons it was on here before. It was much more than weapons of mass destruction, it was to establish a military stronghold in the midst of of the region that historically is the root of terrorism. It's a war on terror, not any particular cell or country and the u.s. could easily find itself having to fight in any country in the middle east aside from Israel in coming years or decades. Troops will leave Iraq is mass, but the u.s. will maintain 2 or 3 of the bigger bases there for decades.

If you prefer to talk about losses and difficulties then you'd only have to witness the u.s. attempt to get some armored divisions on the ground and into iran without a staging ground, Putting armored divisions in the middle east through afghan is possible but then they are useless to the rest of the middle east because afghan is surrounded by a fortress of mountains.

Saudi wasn't going to have it, kuwait is way to small and iraq was a soft target for an invasion that didn't have any say in the matter and had many ties to terrorism.

There were weapons of mass destruction "materials" there anyhow, more than that Iraq was a training ground for terrorists and even had non working commercial airliner planes minus the wings used for training hijackers. Hijacking's been a longtime method of terrorism well before sep. 11th as many people know. Iraq was hardly innocent in the big scheme of terrorism.

Unfortunately America is so spolied these days they forget that the likes of 10,000 U.S. soliders died storming the beaches themselves on d day in woirld war 2.

People seem to overlook the fact that freedom and security come at a high cost, and they always will. Modern day America isn't going to get by without paying that debt anymore than any other previous society in history, or the America of old.

The difference is with the hi tech weapons, and more than that the ability to get wounded soliders to state of the art medical facilities in the 1st hour from basically anywhere in a combat zone, a lot less soldiers and marines are dying. 5,000 servicemen and women is a high cost because of the value of each of those lives, but a very low cost in terms of warfare.

At this rate that's been around 1,000 servicemen a year. Security does cost.

 

Unfortunately based on policies set in motion in only 2 days of this adminastration, we're likely about to learn a harsh lesson about projecting weakness as a nation. I wrote back in the early months of the Iraq war almost 5 years ago, when the complaints started from the media and the soft American left, that terrorism didn't have to defeat the U.S., something we and they knew was impossible, but that they only had to outlast the U.S., till the day came when the U.S. had a liberal adminastration that would back off taking the fight to the enemy.

There's much more to it than shifting more troops to afghan, which I would agree with, a plan that has gone back a few years and destined to coincide with the draw down of troops in Iraq. But it's weakness such as the last headline I read that are going to weaken America's efforts and undermine it's previous aggressivness completely.

 

"DUBLIN, Ireland – U.S. President Barack Obama's decision Thursday to shut secret CIA-run prisons abroad brought renewed calls for their locations to be disclosed as well a fresh denial from Poland, one of two eastern European countries most closely linked to the practice.

 

Across Europe, governments uneasy that CIA flights had been carrying terrorism suspects through their airports and air space for years said they were relieved to be heading into a new rendition-free era."

 

Nothing like pulling some of the major intelligence cards, telling everyone else what we've been doing with the central intelligence agency, how it was being done and where, all the while putting the interest of the eurpoean nation and the U.N. 1st.

This only a day after announcing intentions on closing gitmo, denouncing harsh interrogation practices and telling the muslim nation the U.S. intends to talk and listen a lot more and act less, and to be more hospititable to those having different views and oppose America.

And when we are no longer taking the fight to terrorism they'll eventually be bringing it back here.

This guys off to a banner start of putting the gloves back on in the war on terror and foreign policy.

Edited January 22, 2009 by buzzsawBeaver

[Lance 228]

Obama wants to go in to Pakistan? I'd support that...I think that's probably where Bin Laden is at if he's still around. I don't like them anyway and we are already over there stomping a mud hole in a sand pit...why not? lol

[fieldgeneral 10]

I gave GWB time to work before measuring his success, let's do the same for Obama. We can name plenty of things GWB did that wasn't good for our country and we can't say that they are in the past. Unfortunately a lot of them are and will be left for us to deal with. All hardcore repubs want to blame it on the Clinton admin, which is what I keep hearing on here. However, if it was their fault, why wasn't something done about it in between then and now?

[Guest BEAVERTAIL]

No one has been blaming the Clinton admin, but you cant base the WOI as a failure for GWB when everything that was told to him was supported by democrats and republicans and the the information was collected during the Clinton admin. I say this to prove that GWB didnt just make up WMDs in Iraq like many believe.

[fieldgeneral 10]

No one has been blaming the Clinton admin, but you cant base the WOI as a failure for GWB when everything that was told to him was supported by democrats and republicans and the the information was collected during the Clinton admin. I say this to prove that GWB didnt just make up WMDs in Iraq like many believe.

 

Why didn't we act upon it. Did we wait too long. There is plenty of blame to go around, but I really don't think GWB was a good president. I know he had a couple of bad things happen during his admin, but I don't think that he handled the best way. Neverteless, he is gone, thank GOD! We can now look forward to brighter days. Some of Repubheads lol will sit there and say well I think that it's all going to be bad! Holler at me in four years and let me know. I've had 8 years to evaluate GWB and it wasn't good.

[buzzsawBeaver 12]

Why didn't we act upon it. Did we wait too long. There is plenty of blame to go around, but I really don't think GWB was a good president. I know he had a couple of bad things happen during his admin, but I don't think that he handled the best way. Neverteless, he is gone, thank GOD! We can now look forward to brighter days. Some of Repubheads lol will sit there and say well I think that it's all going to be bad! Holler at me in four years and let me know. I've had 8 years to evaluate GWB and it wasn't good.

 

a president's 1st and foremost obligation to the nation is national security, bush took the fight to the terrorists in an aggressive manner and kept the country safe for 7 years after sep. 11th. He dealt with crisis's that few presidents have had to before. The biggest thing in my mind that really made things look bad in people's minds is the 4$ gas last year, but the fact is we were walking out of the grocery store with only a handful of bags and a large receipt to show for it and thinking where did the $ go throughout much of the '90s to.

But in the big scheme these simply haven't been the hardest of times in many ways, drive through christiansburg for example and look at their new million $ highways going between blacksburg and christiansburg and some of the new shopping centers that have gone up and the many newer places to eat, these are businesses that are sustained on providing entertainment and comforts, best buy, electronics types of places, ect., pets mart, lowes or home depot, these aren't breadlines.

The sports facilities I mentioned in a different post, even in bluefield we just put down fiueld turf at mitchell stadium, either society has their priorities way off or things simply aren't as bad as the media has told people to believe. People would be wise to start thinking for themselves and not being followers of the extremely biased media.

Watch tv, I don't see community service messages about how survive and make ends meet, I see commercials about beer and fattening foods or the last blackberry type of device, or expensive vehicles. And how much are these athletes making?

Excuse me folks but I'm simply not seeing nor did I see the gloom of death over the situation in the types of things many people complained about.

I never could reason all the celebrities that complain about how bad things, ophra is worth 60$ million $s for example, or is it actually billion? Regardless it's obvious America's been really hard on her and kept her down.

[buzzsawBeaver 12]

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."

--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

 

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

 

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."

--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

 

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."

--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

 

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

Letter to President Clinton, signed by:

-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

 

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

 

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."

-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

 

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."

Letter to President Bush, Signed by:

-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

 

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."

-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

 

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

 

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."

-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

 

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."

-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

 

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."

-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

 

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."

-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

 

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."

-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

 

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"

-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

 

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

 

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."

-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

 

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."

-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

 

 

why didn't they act on it, did they wait to long? Some of the above quotes were in relationship to "operation desert fox" clinton's short air campaign in '98 in which the U.S. bombed baghdad in an effort to do something about it and to force saddam to comply, but realistically air power can only do so much and the only viable option to stop saddam was to put troops on the ground, i.e. an invasion. As for waiting to long, while many materials were located, any weapons already developed went over the border into almost certainly syria in the weeks prior to the invasion as the european nation and the u.n. and opponents stalled the go ahead for the invasion. A big reason many people refer to it as an "illegal" or unjust invasion, because it didn't have the u.n.'s blessing, but then if the U.S. were to act only according to the U.N. which often has a different agenda, more in the interest of europe, and has historically been very weak, they'd still be waiting to invade and things would never get done.

The problem is the european nation and the u.n. have different agendas than the U.S.,, europe is basically anti gun and very passive, and forgetful about what America did for europe in world war 2, and thinks of America as an aggressive country, but they have human rights in common and enjoy benefiting from America's military might doing the bulk of the dirty work when convenient.