Truthing Obamafuscations: Part 4 of a Continuing Series Through November — ABC News Puts The 16 Month Iraq Withdrawal Under The Microscope
Posted by WLS:
Last week Obama suffered a little dustup with the press and the leftwingnutroots over the suggestion that after visiting Iraq and consulting with the combat commanders, he might find cause to “refine” his position on the pace of troop withdrawals that he has pledged both on the stump and in writing on his campaign website:
Bringing Our Troops Home
Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.
As reported by politico.com, in a hastily called second news conference last Thursday Obama repeated this pledge after he said his comments earlier in the day on the subject were being misinterpreted:
“When I go to Iraq and I have a chance to talk to some of the commanders on the ground, I’m sure I’ll have more information and will continue to refine my policies,” he said, according to CBS News. “I have been consistent, throughout this process, that I believe the war in Iraq was a mistake.”
Obama later said at a second news conference he still intends to stick to the timeline.
At the second meeting with reporters, Obama said: “We’re going to try this again. Apparently I wasn’t clear enough this morning on my position with respect to the war in Iraq. … I have said throughout this campaign that … I would bring our troops home at a pace of one to two brigades per month and at that pace we would have our combat troops out in 16 months. That position has not changed. I have not equivocated on that position. I am not searching for maneuvering room with respect to that position.
But, Martha Raddatz of ABC News, about as anti-Iraq War as they come in the press contingent covering the war from the beginning, had a pretty devastating piece on Good Morning America earlier today, and it is bound to be repeated later today and through the weekend on various news programs. Raddatz has several senior military leaders in Iraq, including Major General Hammond, Commander of US Forces Baghdad, and Lt. General Austin, Commander US Forces Iraq, saying that a withdrawal plan such as the one advocated by Obama is dangerous and not feasible — though none reference Obama’s plan specifically.
General Hammond states that it would be very dangerous to have any form of “time-based” withdrawal plan, rather than a “conditions-based” withdrawal plan. General Austin says he’s focused on helping the Iraqi government achieve “sustainable security.”
But, more significantly, Raddatz says that off-camera, the officers she spoke with said it would be logistically impossible to remove 1-2 combat brigades per month as Obama has pledged he would do since his campaign began.
Why? Because rotating combat brigades in and out of Iraq — a rotation that happens by just removing the troops themselves but leaving their equipment behind to be used by their replacements — is completely different from actually removing a combat brigade and all their equipment from a warzone.
One of two things about this issue is true:
1) Obama is fully aware that his plan is not logistically feasible but has no compunction about continuing to make disingenuous campaign pledges that have no basis in reality — hence his initial efforts to hedge his position last week, which will bloom in full after his first visit to Iraq which will cause him to “refine” his plan; or
2) Obama is a sitting US Senator, with assignments on both the Foreign Relations and Veterans’ Affairs Committees, who has cast votes on troop deployments and funding of operations, but has NO CLUE about the amount of men and material that constitute a single combat brigade, nor about the logistical difficulties in moving that amount of men and material out of a warzone taking into consideration the existing airlift and shipping capabilities of the US military — yet thinks he’s qualified to be Commander in Chief.
I’m not sure which would be more venal.
Money Quote:
Raddatz: “So, could the military manage the pace that Barack Obama has suggested? Several commanders we talked to off-camera said “No way.”
We certainly moved them into Iraq a lot faster than that. In fact, it only took a few weeks to move 60,000 troops in — see this article:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/030116-iraq01.htm
Granted, they’ve had time to get embedded pretty deeply into the country by now, so there’s some take-down involved. But still — 16 months is impossible? How on earth did we ever invade Iraq in the first place, if that’s the case?
Phil (6d9f2f) — 7/11/2008 @ 2:14 pmd’oh
Homer (99f9a9) — 7/11/2008 @ 2:16 pmMendoucheous as always, huh Phil?
JD (5f0e11) — 7/11/2008 @ 2:31 pmIowahawk recently printed a report from the Obama campaign that cleared up his Iraq position pretty well:
http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2008/07/a-clarification.html
Sean P (e57269) — 7/11/2008 @ 2:33 pmWLS – In the end, the Left and the media will not care that Baracky is lying to them, because he has the correct feelings, and he is one of them. They will put up with his naievete and general obamafuscation so long as they gain power.
JD (5f0e11) — 7/11/2008 @ 2:33 pmIts a little different moving men and supplies from multiple secure US bases to multiple secure US ports designed for that purpose, and transport them to one particular secure location for later deployment — Kuwait in 2003).
It quite a different operation to withdraw those men and equipment from multiple locations inside a warzone where security must be provided for, have them travel overland for hundreds of miles, all during which security must be provided for, and then have them loaded and transported away from one port facility.
WLS (68fd1f) — 7/11/2008 @ 2:36 pmWhy is he lying about listening to the Generals. He vowed to act in spite of their wishes in the Philly debate, even expounding on that talking about the importance of civilian control.
JD (5f0e11) — 7/11/2008 @ 2:37 pmFirst General Clark’s attack on McCain, now this. Jesse’s not going to have an opportunity to cut off Obama’s nuts–Hillary’s going to beat him to it. And I don’t think she’s really gotten started yet….
Joel (c01e7c) — 7/11/2008 @ 2:50 pmIf Phil had read the story, he would know that there are maintenance issues that require washing and servicing vehicles before loading them to ship home. Also, we did have a logistic problem which is why we invaded with a small force. I doubt he’s interested in these details, though.
ABC is doing a pretty good job of staying on Obama’s campaign. Jake Tapper, in particular.
Mike K (b9ce3e) — 7/11/2008 @ 3:11 pmTapper’s one of the few MSM reporters who never bought into Obama’s rope – a – dope schtick. This guy is worse than John Kerry II – first he was against it, before he was for it. Does anyone in these press conferences have the cojones to stand up and ask him if he has any idea what he’s talking about at that given moment?
Dmac (416471) — 7/11/2008 @ 3:20 pmDon’t worry about the surrender and pull out of Iraq. The democrats are suffering BDS to such degree they will repeat the disaster that occured in South Vietnam when they surrendered there. Five (5) millions deaths means nothing to them and neither does the fact we will lose hundreds of troops during the retreat. It didn’t happen in Vietnam because the war was not only won, there were no combat troops left in the country, so no retreat.
Scrapiron (d671ab) — 7/11/2008 @ 3:54 pmIf Phil had read the story, he would know that there are maintenance issues that require washing and servicing vehicles before loading them to ship home
I read the story and watched the video. The video did not adequately explain why it would take so long to move things.
The main focus of the video’s interviews was on the armed forces’ preference for withdrawal based on security goals rather than just an arbitrary timeline. That I get.
The idea that our armed forces aren’t mobile enough to move out of Iraq in 16 months, however, I find really hard to believe. In addition, that’s something the reporter is saying by herself — I never heard an armed forces representative say it.
Sure she says they say that “off camera.” But if we had an emergency somewhere else, I bet they could move a brigade or two a month over to the new emergency. That sounds like bureaucracy talking, to me.
Phil (6d9f2f) — 7/11/2008 @ 3:58 pm“So much for it being a ‘quagmire'”, he said wryly.
Drumwaster, Esq. (5ccf59) — 7/11/2008 @ 4:07 pmPhil,
Here’s a thought experiment on what it would take to move a brigade out of Iraq.
DRJ (cfa65f) — 7/11/2008 @ 4:16 pm“The video did not adequately explain why it would take so long to move things.”
Translation – “I’m not interested in reading or watching anything to disturb my worldview, and that includes independent analysis and military sources.”
Dmac (416471) — 7/11/2008 @ 4:21 pmIf the media were looking for a “gotcha” question (not likely)it seems this would be a good one – “Senator Obama, you have stated that you would remove one or two brigade combat teams from Iraq each month. What is the approximate size of average Brigade Combat Team in Iraq?” I think the answer would be more interesting than the typical “what’s the price of milk/eggs/gas” question that reporters like to ask.
Kelly T (8ef5b9) — 7/11/2008 @ 4:23 pmOne of two things about this issue is true:
1) Obama is fully aware that his plan is not logistically feasible …
2) Obama … has NO CLUE about the … logistical difficulties …
Can I vote for BOTH choices?
aunursa (1b5bad) — 7/11/2008 @ 4:26 pmPhil continues to demonstrate his incompetence and ignorance of history both recent and farther in the past. Because of the limited amount of lift into theater, of the troops we did send to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the 101st airmobile division lacked enough truck transport to move more than 1/3 of its combat elements at a time through most of the operation.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/11/2008 @ 4:47 pmI think we could do it, as long as we have an “operational pause”.
Phil, it’s a lot easier to get into trouble than it is to get out.
At least if you want to be smart/safe about it…
TomB (ce6566) — 7/11/2008 @ 5:00 pmIt doesn’t matter. If Obama wins, the left will stop complaining about the war so it won’t matter how long it takes to retreat.
MamaAJ (788539) — 7/11/2008 @ 5:23 pmObama may have to add his position on Iraq to his already long list of regrets.
DRJ (cfa65f) — 7/11/2008 @ 5:43 pmInteresting link, DRJ. I wonder if Obama regrets regretting so often?
Paul (ae2fbe) — 7/11/2008 @ 5:48 pmGeorge Bush is like a man that set fire to a house where thousands were killed but he now portrays himself as a hero for the slightest gains in putting out that fire.
Tell me what did Iraq have to do with 9/11. Nothing!
What was the relationship between Al Quida and Iraq? Nothing.
Now that we are engaged in some crazy attempt to build a democracy in Iraq what guarantees do you have that that democracy will vote to side with their Muslim brothers in Iraq rather than the Infidel invaders. None.
You bullshit us into believing that somehow you care about the Muslims suffering under the US supported regime in Iraq and then its very clear that the biggest negative you can throw against Obama is that he might be a Muslim!! If you are so interested in democracy why do you support Saudi Arabia? Who do you think you are kidding? Aside from yourselves?
The US is going bankrupt, your standard of living is going down, and the world looks on you asking how any people can be so dumb? Why could you not have taken that 3 trillion dollars you railroaded the American people into spending and used it to gain energy independence with a new technology like fusion power?
Your country is overrun with foreigners, your dollar is in decline, terrorism is on the march, your stuck in a no win situation in Iraq, your energy supply is held hostage by foreign governments, your manufacturing base is gone,your dollar the hostage of China, your Constitution is being shredded.
Stop blaming Democrats for what happened during Republican rule or had no guts to fight the GOP attack machine. You cant blame Democrats as they were out of power and you cant blame Republicans as they are only doing the bidding of their constituents the very richest and most powerful.
Blame yourselves for letting them get away with lies and bullshit disguised as Moral values which has only robbed you of your rightful place in the economy and has sent your sons and daughters to die for lies.
This war was based on a lie by people who know full well that smear and fear will win the day.
George Bush has presided over the worst and most negligent and criminal administration in history. But you cant see this because if you did you might have to admit that all this crap about God being on you side is wrong and god forbid gays might get married. Forty years ago it was blacks today its gays you hate.
You say you care about the soldiers. I am a Vietnam era vet and I can tell you that if you really cared about soldiers and not thought of them as pawns then you would not send them on a fools mission and would not have used them except as last resort. If you dont understand that was exactly what happened then stop reading this as your are totally uninformed and/ or willfully blind as well. And when vets dissented from this criminality , if you really honored them. you would listen with respect but the way John Kerry and Max Cleland were treated, make it clear that vets are just doormats on the path of your sickening agenda of hate and lies and smear.
Bush /Cheney is a war criminal, a liar and a fascist. He and his hateful crew are poster children for the dumbing down of America.
Disgusted.
My father was a combat war vet wounded over Germany and left 90 % disabled. Do you know how many of your ilk who have never served in combat have called him disloyal?
Screw Bush/Cheney..they ought to be imprisoned for the damage they have done to this country/
VietnamEraMan (45dea8) — 7/11/2008 @ 6:32 pmVietnamEraMan:
Clinton + Somalia = Fool’s mission.
DRJ (cfa65f) — 7/11/2008 @ 6:40 pmVEM, remember that it is supposed to be two pills every eight hours, not eight pills every two hours.
“Your” this, “your” that. MY Constitution is just fine thanks for asking, MY economy is still growing (although a little slower than I would have liked, it is still positive growth), even the Brits are agreeing that WE are winning in Iraq, and WE have long since shifted from a Manufacturing economy to a Service economy (meaning “it’s a feature, not a bug”). Things may be quite different in your dimension, but reality is not going to let you ignore it for long. (Why, just wait until the same Dems who are grousing about 5.5% unemployment will be praising Obama for his paltry 15%…
Try joining the rest of us in the 21st century instead of gnashing what’s left of your teeth over the failure of two Democratic Presidents four decades ago.
Drumwaster, Esq. (5ccf59) — 7/11/2008 @ 6:40 pmVietnam “era” vet? Where did you desert to- Canada? “Your” country? Your liberal talking points you mean. How cynical when your party won’t give the American people any relief on energy prices because they think it will help them win the election if people are suffering. Right- everything is fault of evil, stupid/brilliant Bush/Cheney and dem Congress is faultless. Hahaha.
madmax333 (602429) — 7/11/2008 @ 6:45 pmAnother clueless troll spews his venom. I’m too lazy to take your various canards apart, but I’m sure the mnny conservatives here with esquire after their names will show you for the ignorant cretin you really are. Methinks you actually may well be a refugee from moron.org, codepinko, Kos kids or DU. Try seeing a shrink for that severe BDS.
VietnamEraMan, just why is it that you felt the need to post that long comment so full of utter falsehoods?
Fusion power? Sheesh, you are FantasyEraMan.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/11/2008 @ 6:46 pmVietnamEraMan – The Iraq vets I talk to disagree with your assessment of the war. Would you spit on them and call them pawns?
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 7/11/2008 @ 7:16 pm“Fusion power? Sheesh, you are FantasyEraMan.”
Hey, if Christopher Lloyd can do it…
Taltos (4dc0e8) — 7/11/2008 @ 7:51 pmWhatever position you choose to take on this issue, the fact remains that:
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 7/11/2008 @ 8:09 pm(a) Iraq was a mistake. A huge costly one at that.
(b) The war in Iraq has only served to increase and enhance Iran’s influence in the region. Now the Iranian President can visit Iraq for the first time in recent history and stand on Iraqi soil and tell the US that they should leave Iraq. That the Iraqis dont want them around. And no Iraqi official challenged him on that.
(c) Even the Iraqi govenment are tired of the US presence in Iraq. Now they want to talk about a possible timetable for US withdrawal.
(d) There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq as alleged. This was the primary justification for the invasion.
(e) Saddam Hussein never had any ties with Al Qeada. Even though he had his own terrorist network capable of doing harm. But enough reason for an all out war that has caused trillions of US dollars, four to five thousand US deaths, over 20,000 wounded and hundred thousand Iraqi deaths and wounded.
(f) Staying in Iraq distracts from focusing efforts on areas like Afghanistan where the real threat is growing daily.
Yes, I agree, we should not be as careless going out as we were going in, like someone has said. The fact remains that it was wrong and should be stopped. When you discover you are on the wrong way to where you think you want to go, common sense says you should stop, turn and and get back to where you began to miss it and from there find your way. It takes humility to know you are wrong, accept you are wrong and begin to do something about doing the right thing.
“Whatever position you choose to take on this issue, my opinion remains that:”
Fixed that for you lovey. What you stated were largely opinions, not facts.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 7/11/2008 @ 8:13 pmlove2008, it is amusing how many of your “facts”, aren’t. You do need to learn the difference between fact, myth and opinion. Most of yours are in the latter two categories.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/11/2008 @ 8:17 pm#31 and #32
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 7/11/2008 @ 8:32 pmOne question for you SPQR and Daley. Do you in all honesty believe that going to Iraq was worth it? would you do exactly the same thing? And while you are at it, tell me this. In the absence of WMD in iraq, what other secret thing do you know makes this a worthy cause? Is there something they are not telling us? You have refered to my points as mere opinions. Granted. Please enlighten me on what the facts really are.
love2008, I think it was worthwhile to bring the 12 year long conflict with Iraq to an end and to prevent Iraq from becoming a sanctuary and funding base to terrorism. Your comments (e) and (f) above are not true. Hussein did have connections to Al Queda, some of which were evident before the invasion and some of which were evident after. Such as this memo regarding supporting Al Queda terrorism in Saudi Arabia. The operation in Iraq has not distracted us from Afghanistan. The actual problems we’ve had in Afghanistan are, amusingly enough, from using the approach so praised so often by Bush opponents – that of a broader coalition force. NATO has let us down in Afghanistan.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/11/2008 @ 8:39 pmAfghanistan presents a much more difficult war-fighting environment than did Iraq. There is a general lack of infrastructure such as roads and bridges.
The enemy is adept at retreating to and fighting from locations above 10,000 feet — few US military elements are really prepared to fight in such conditions, and operations in such locations deprive the US of its armor and mobility advantages. While the US infranty soldier may be better equipped and better trained, when you’re fighting in mountainous terrain about 10,000 feet, one Muj with an AK is nearly as effective as one Ranger with an M-16. And as long as that Muj knows he can withdraw to places of sanctuary, putting the hammer down on him is more and more difficult. I’ve learned this very principle from several young Marines recently over the July 4 weekend, having just returned from their tours in Afghanistan.
WLS (68fd1f) — 7/11/2008 @ 8:46 pmDefine WMD. And it was never “all about the WMDs“.
Try researching the seventeen UNSC Resolutions that Iraq was routinely violating.
Try researching the fact that the first Gulf War was ended by a conditional cease-fire, and Saddam had failed to live up to a single one of the conditions required of him. Not one.
Once we get those things researched, then we can talk about whether it was “worth it”.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/11/2008 @ 8:49 pmExactly the same thing? No. Hindsight teaches you a lot of things you wish you’d known when they would have been useful.
But then, the fact that Iraq is where it is now having been what it was just 5 years ago is a minor miracle, brought to you by your US Armed Forces.
There was no blueprint. There was no precedent. And even with some plans that weren’t what they might have been, the outcome as it stands today is damned good.
Pablo (99243e) — 7/11/2008 @ 8:50 pmDrumwaster: Its simpler than that: Try reading the Authorization to Use Military Force passed by Congress:
http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf
WLS (68fd1f) — 7/11/2008 @ 8:54 pm#34
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 7/11/2008 @ 8:59 pmThe actual problems we’ve had in Afghanistan are, amusingly enough, from using the approach so praised so often by Bush opponents – that of a broader coalition force. NATO has let us down in Afghanistan.
SPQR just think, having all those troops in Iraq, sent instead to Afghanistan, fighting the real enemies. Dont you think we would be more successful by now? By now OBL would have been either captured or killed. Terrorism as we know it today would have suffered such a mortal blow that what would have been left would have been a toothless, useless caricature. Just imagine that. Instead of leaving such an important war to NATO, think of what would have happened if the US and all its allies faced that region with the same ferocity it did with Iraq. Just think of it.
love2008, you don’t understand Afghanistan. We’d be unable to support that many troops in Afghanistan. It does not have the infrastructure, the roads, the airports, the ports to feed, fuel and re-ammo that size force. If OBL escaped Tora Bora, he did so because we could not move large numbers of troops in that terrain.
Its always been a silly criticism.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/11/2008 @ 9:01 pmOh, and love2008, this comment of yours: “Terrorism as we know it today would have suffered such a mortal blow that what would have been left would have been a toothless, useless caricature.” is just silly too.
We deal terrorism significant blows by destroying its financial infrastructure ( the Bush administration’s greatest accomplishment – ignored by so many of the ignorant ), destroying its bases which we’ve done in Afghanistan and elsewhere in scores of countries, and destroying its manpower which we’ve done in scores of countries not least of all in Iraq where Al Queda leadership have admitted to failure.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/11/2008 @ 9:04 pmI find it interesting that lovey is using “NATO” as something distinctly different than “the US and all its allies”.
Apparently we should be willing to go to war if any of the NATO nations are invaded or attacked, but not the other way around…
And focusing on OBL is like focusing WW2 on Japanese Admiral Yamamoto. Just because we shot his plane down does not mean the war in the Pacific ended.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/11/2008 @ 9:09 pmSo the whole idea of going to Iraq was to “rescue the Iraqis from Saddam Hussein’s oppressive rule and bring democracy to the Iraqis” And not about the WMDs huh? At which cost my brethren? Is Iraq the only totalitarian regime existing today? What about North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Saudi arabia? To name a few. If you are going to embark on a mission of world democratisation, why stop at Iraq? Why not invade Iran and North Korea? Oh yes, that is exactly what John McCain is going to finish up. I see.
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 7/11/2008 @ 9:23 pmRemember when the left supported the liberation of down-trodden peoples?
Neither do I.
Bel Aire (cc1676) — 7/11/2008 @ 9:42 pmIs the fire department only allowed to fight a fire if it can fight all fires that exist in the world simultaneously? Are police officers forced to ignore a major criminal because they can’t arrest every criminal at the same time?
But it’s nice of you to argue that “those people” don’t deserve to be freed unless every evil regime on the planet can be freed first.
It’s called “Operation Iraqi Freedom”, not “Operation Let’s Go Kick Saddam’s Ass And Find Some WMDs”.
(Speaking of which, still waiting for that definition of WMDs.)
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/11/2008 @ 9:42 pmlove2008, moving the goalposts is a silly rhetorical device. As is claiming that if we don’t solve all problems, we can’t address one.
The Iraq operation addressed multiple goals, it ended the dozen years of conflict we’d had with Iraq and the problems that generated, it resolved the question of Iraq’s failure to finish disclosing and dismantling its WMD programs – real or bluff, it introduced a functioning representative democratic government to a region that had had no arab representative democratic governments before, and it presented the opportunity to confront al queda with the unfettered, massed effect of the US military on ground that favored us.
North Korea, as you have not evidently been paying attention, is being neutralized as it is currently destroying its nuclear program in a verifiable way. Do read the news. Venezuela is being confronted chiefly in Columbia where its proxies, the narco-terrorists FARC, are being rolled up. Again, do read the news.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/11/2008 @ 9:52 pmlove2008 try getting your talking points from someplace other than barackobama.com. He and you are both clueless about the reality of fighting terrorism. Sticking your head in the sand or up obama’s ass won’t make terrorism vanish. I know many of you liberals think we should not give terrorists attention as it serves them as a recruitment tool and the more we kill, the more are recruited. Besides, your BDS forces you to do and say anything that discredits this administration. How many times must it be pointed out that oodles of liberals were for removing Saddam long before GW Bush ever ran for President. What were the reasons for making all those UN resolutions if there were to be no consequences?
madmax333 (28cf4c) — 7/12/2008 @ 1:41 amYou’d have us to the old lib two step of withdrawing forces precipitously and letting innocents be slaughtered in the way we abandoned Vietnam. All your bozos libs have to do is cut off funding for the military to make your wet dreams come true. Face it- deep inside you hate America first and want her knocked down a few pegs. It’s all about the international community and what the Euroc*nts think is right. Obama cares only about the naked pursuit of power and getting elected. Of course he does manage to feather his own nest quite well, but what has he excelled in, other than knocking Hillary off, speechifying by reading off teleprompters and having you kool-aid drinkers faint in delight from the blood that rushes from your head to your genitals?
Try reading Imperial Grunts. Might give you an inklingh about American military power around the world and what we have accomplished despite the intransigience and negativity of oft traitorous neomarxist/lib bullshitters.
lovie – This was not one of your better efforts.
JD Esq. (5f0e11) — 7/12/2008 @ 6:02 am#46
love2008 (1b037c) — 7/12/2008 @ 3:07 pmNorth Korea, as you have not evidently been paying attention, is being neutralized as it is currently destroying its nuclear program in a verifiable way. Do read the news. Venezuela is being confronted chiefly in Columbia where its proxies, the narco-terrorists FARC, are being rolled up. Again, do read the news.
I am glad you brought up that point SPQR. North Korea is being neutralised not by sending 4000 american soldiers to die and many more wounded, it’s being achieved through thorough and effective diplomacy. No one is saying that Saddam was not a potential threat to freedom at that time. Just as Kim Jong-il is. But he is being neutralised in a more effective way. So also Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. War should be reserved as a last resort only when diplomacy fails and there is a threat of impending attacks or some very severe circumstances as 9/11. I also believe war should be declared as a proactive measure to stop an impending threat. I dont see how, on hindsight Iraq constitutes that to America.
What I find rather strange and disappointing is how some people on this thread just come unglued and freak out when someone makes a contrary view to theirs. Its silly and childish to think that because someone disagrees with you, he or she is a liberal, traitor, Obamafreak etc. Some of us need to grow up.
love2008, a lot of people need to grow up. Not least those who think hindsight is some superhero power of these.
By the way, North Korea was initially neutralized not with 4,000 soldiers, but with more than 33,000 soldiers dead. And while we could not complete the destruction of North Korea’s virulent government in the ’50’s because of their backing by China and the Soviet Union, nor can we today because the North Korean’s effectively hold the city of Seoul hostage with chemical weapons capable artillery and rockets in range and have for decades.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/12/2008 @ 4:14 pm“Its silly and childish to think that because someone disagrees with you, he or she is a liberal, traitor, Obamafreak etc. Some of us need to grow up.”
lovey – I don’t disagree with you thoughts, but as a starting point, you have to be able to separate fact from opinion, which you did not do on this thread.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 7/12/2008 @ 4:24 pm