You Democrats...

[1bad65]

But they didn't start them.

They voted to start them. Bush did not act unilaterally.

At the time, the bad intel was all for Saddam being involved. We know better now.

So what's Obama's excuse for still being there?

Since you an expert on Iraq, and I am not, I have a question for you. If Iraq was not involved in terrorism, why do we keep killing and capturing so many high-ranking Al-Quaida guys over there?

[SanHeChuan]

Since you an expert on Iraq, and I am not, I have a question for you. If Iraq was not involved in terrorism, why do we keep killing and capturing so many high-ranking Al-Quaida guys over there?

Because they come there looking for us, and to recruit.

Isn't that one of the maxiums of why we are there. Better to fight them in the middle east than in america.

[Drake]

But they didn't start them.



At the time, the bad intel was all for Saddam being involved. We know better now.



You sound like you know it all... How many deployments have you been on in Iraq? I've just returned from my second tour there. Dems want out because they know we don't need to be there. Pubs want us to stay because of the money to be made. Biden's concern is not because he wants to colonize (like the Pubs do) but because at the time he made those statements, Iraq wasn't ready to protect itself yet. With all the non-serving whiners *****ing about pulling out, all while not being even remotely aware of the real situation, he made a statement regarding the propensity of the enemy to move into the vacuum we'd create by withdrawing too soon.

The fact that you have a Coulter quote in your sig block tells me a lengthy conversation with you about the truth behind both parties' flaws is pointless. Neither party is honest, neither party is pursuing ideals solely for idealism's sake. They both have agendas, and neither agenda is necessarily in the best interest of the Nation.

But believe the crap they feed you on Faux News. They're telling you 100% truthful, unbiased news, fer shure...

Welcome back. I heard from my unit which recently redeployed that the mission is basically "Advise and Assist" now. A far cry from how it was in 2005.

[Drake]

They voted to start them. Bush did not act unilaterally.



So what's Obama's excuse for still being there?

Since you an expert on Iraq, and I am not, I have a question for you. If Iraq was not involved in terrorism, why do we keep killing and capturing so many high-ranking Al-Quaida guys over there?

He just got back from there, so he would be the best SME we have right now on this forum. Iraq wasn't involved in terrorism, and in fact, had ideological differences with Al Qaeda, as Saddam was more into self promotion and worship, where Al Qaeda felt that their lives were centered around Allah, and not a single person.

[Drake]

Because they come there looking for us, and to recruit.

There was, for a long time, a large influx of foreign fighters into Iraq. They weren't there before. we also enabled JAM to raise all sorts of holy hell by killing the guy who held their leash.

[Matt Stone]

Don't try and play that card.

And all the posts by Drake illustrate why our deployment experience trumps your Fox News viewing by a long shot.

You just don't know, but you keep talking anyway...

Last time I checked, it was Obama that set the deadlines to force the Iraqis into taking responsibility for their own security, getting US troops out before Obama will have been in office for 2 years... Bush & Co. wanted to prolong our presence for the next century, if I recall correctly. Then Cheney wanted to try and criticize Obama for "not doing what it takes" to end the war!!! The same war that Bush & Cheney sat on for nearly 8 years, doing nothing at their level to bring and end to things...

So, consider the card played and the hand won.

[mawali]

Since you an expert on Iraq, and I am not, I have a question for you. If Iraq was not involved in terrorism, why do we keep killing and capturing so many high-ranking Al-Quaida guys over there?

I am not an expert but when I looked at 9/11 there were no Iraqis involved! They were Saudi. The Bush/Cheney cabal was looking to invade Iraq 2-3 years before the actual invasion so the military industrial complex could take shape as KBR, Halliburton, etc. i.e. what we know now as the private contractor organizational managemental complex.
Iraq allowed for the training of foreign fighters to come together and launch a coordinated training environment to test and watch US strategy.

[Drake]

I am not an expert but when I looked at 9/11 there were no Iraqis involved! They were Saudi. The Bush/Cheney cabal was looking to invade Iraq 2-3 years before the actual invasion so the military industrial complex could take shape as KBR, Halliburton, etc. i.e. what we know now as the private contractor organizational managemental complex.
Iraq allowed for the training of foreign fighters to come together and launch a coordinated training environment to test and watch US strategy.

That's misleading. We've had plans to invade Iraq since Desert Storm, and many say we should've simply invaded right after DS, as we didn't really solve the problem after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.

[1bad65]

You just don't know, but you keep talking anyway...

I know quite a bit actually. I know that since 9/11 and the actions we took, no more successful Al Quada attacks on our soil took place. And I know it was BOTH political Parties that voted to go into Iraq.

While I'm no 'on the ground' expert, and you may be, you cannot place this war on Bush's shoulders alone.

[Drake]

I know quite a bit actually. I know that since 9/11 and the actions we took, no more successful Al Quada attacks on our soil took place. And I know it was BOTH political Parties that voted to go into Iraq.

While I'm no 'on the ground' expert, and you may be, you cannot place this war on Bush's shoulders alone.

The mission in Iraq has absolutely no relevance to the increased yet foiled terror attacks on the US. That doesn't even begin to make sense. I'd attribute our security here more to alert and aware citizens than I would our operations against JAM.

[SanHeChuan]

While I'm no 'on the ground' expert, and you may be, you cannot place this war on Bush's shoulders alone.

Nobody is saying that. Nobody but Jane is saying that.

(nevermind this post I just wanted to use that line.)

[1bad65]

The mission in Iraq has absolutely no relevance to the increased yet foiled terror attacks on the US. That doesn't even begin to make sense. I'd attribute our security here more to alert and aware citizens than I would our operations against JAM.

You have to admit killing and capturing these high-ranking Al-Quaida guys are maing the country safer. While they may not have been there before, they are now and our trained military is doing their job. I'd rather our military, the best in the world, are the ones fighting these animals rather than a bunch of unarmed civilians.

[1bad65]

Nobody is saying that. Nobody but Jane is saying that.

You must have missed these posts.

9/11 was the pretext the GOP used to start two wars and rape American freedom. They must never be forgiven for it and we must never forget.

Who started it?

The GOP. That is something I understand really clearly.

[Drake]

You have to admit killing and capturing these high-ranking Al-Quaida guys are maing the country safer. While they may not have been there before, they are now and our trained military is doing their job. I'd rather our military, the best in the world, are the ones fighting these animals rather than a bunch of unarmed civilians.

Actually, no it hasn't. There is no shortage of qualified and able replacements for those leaders we kill/capture. I'd say that's likely why fmr Pres Bush changed the mission from capturing Bin Laden, relaizing that capturing/killing leaders is not an effective COIN strategy. We refer to the organization as a hydra, because you cut off one head, and seven more pop up to replace it.

You need to study COIN, because you are falling for the same fallacy that caused us problems early on. You CANNOT kill/capture your way to victory here, because this isn't a conventional battlefield.

[1bad65]

Thanks Drake.

I do still say that the fact Al-Quaida has not launched a successful attack on our soil since 9/11, does say we are doing some stuff right.