Breitbart.tv

He’s comparing apples to oranges here.

He also sounds like he has the intellect of a mid level community college political science professor that is touting some mushy party line.

In many respects operation Iraqi freedom has been conducted just as masterfully as the first gulf war in 1991. The differences between the two efforts are numerous and complex; in operation Iraqi freedom there are many phases to achieving our ultimate goal of establishing a representative democratic republic whereas in the first gulf war our mission was pretty simple and basic.

Barack “so as I say, not as I do” Obama does not know what he is talking about. He is spewing the Sorros, MoveOn line. He is the Manchurian candidate controlled by Sorros. He will bend over backwards for the terrorists. Why doesn’t someone ask him about Rober Malley? This was his advisors that just resigned after it became known his meetings with Hamas. What was said or promised by Obama to this group? Why does Hamas want Obama as the next Pres.? These are facts, but no one is asking Obama about this. Obama’s associates, many, are questionable and go directly to his judgement. They are also telling about his true opinion of America. How can someone have so many friends that hate America? Birds of a feather flock together.

Tubby: I agree with your assessment that the difficulties we face in Iraq vs. the first Gulf War are due to the more complex mission the military has been tasked with. In fact, I would wager few (including Barack Obama) would argue otherwise.

The problem is that the “ultimate goal of establishing a representative democratic republic” in Iraq, was not the premise the invasion was sold on, and is increasingly looking like a goal that lacks a military solution. If Americans had known what we know today about no-existant WMDs and the cost of fighting for democracy, would we have ever invaded? No, of course not.

This is precisely what Obama is speaking about, that the president must set a clear mission that can be successfully executed by our military. And the mission shouldn’t change goals when previous intelligence is proven wrong, it should end.

The success in the Gulf War and our difficulties in Iraq are due to one primary difference; the leadership that set, or reset, the missions’ goals.

Obama understands this and that’s why I want him in charge of our foreign policy.

I bet the dead Kurds don’t agree with him.

The depth of his ignorance knows no bounds. This Obama was interesting at first now he is becoming frightening. The more we know about him (and the folks in his background) the I see him as shallow, ego maniac. It seems both he and his wife harbor very strong Racists views. But of course we are told by the ELITES that is not possible “blacks have no power!”.

Don’t worry, any other questionable alliances obama has will come out during the general phase of the election, if not the mainstream media then certainly the talk radio and blogs. The harder that the MSM tries to suppress it the more likely it will explode. October surprise?

It is odd that H.W Bush was a wise and very intelligent person while the son turned out to be an imbecil. But GWs father was not home much of the time so apparently nothing rubbed off. H.W. new what it would take to secure Kuwait and gathered the forces, international support, and war plane to achieve that goal. The performance of the incompetent GW is obviously in stark contrast.

The Iraq disaster is more complex. Instead of liberators coming to the aid of Kuwait to remove invaders, America is the invader in this case. Occupations never go well and this one is/will not either.

Obama will bring the mess to and end by doing what is needed. That will take a fairly brilliant person which Obama obviously is. The alternative McCain speaks for himself:

http://tinyurl.com/3ylqqu

John McCain on Leadership
“Increasing U.S. troop levels will expose more brave Americans to danger and increase the number of American casualties. When Congress authorized this war, we committed America to a mission that entails the greatest sacrifice a country can make, one that falls disproportionately on those Americans who love their country so much that they volunteer to risk their lives to accomplish that mission. And when we authorized this war, we accepted the responsibility to make sure those men and women could prevail. Extending combat tours and accelerating the deployment of additional troops is a terrible sacrifice to impose on the best patriots among us, and they will understandably be disappointed when they are given that order. Then they will shoulder their weapons and do everything they can to protect our country’s vital interests in Iraq.”

Spoken like a true idiot that does not understand how impossible it is to force your will on another country on the other side of the Earth without great sacrifice. Of course, there was never any reason for this war to have ever happened. H.W. Bush would have never made that mistake in the first place.

Tulok said, “The problem is that the “ultimate goal of establishing a representative democratic republic” in Iraq, was not the premise the invasion was sold on”

Tulok, yes it was. What do you think the words “operation Iraqi freedom” mean?

Read any numerous pre-”invasion” Geo. Bush speech and laced all throughout those speeches is the notion and idea that the ultimate solution for peace and stability in Iraq and the broader middle east is more freedom, liberty and minority rights via representative government.

Your premise that our effots in Iraq were only based on looking for WMD is a strawman argument and is an old tired party line from the left which seems to suffer from selective memory syndrome.

Tubby: You’re telling me that the Iraq invasion was premised on the objective of freeing the Iraqi people? That that’s why Americans capitulated to Bush’s plans and we sent hundreds of thousands of soldiers to fight in the middle-east?

I don’t recall Colin Powell going to the United nations to make the case that Iraqi’s individual rights were being violated. And neither do you because that was never the basis for the war. Iraqi Freedom was always a secondary goal, a happy side-effect of neutralizing the threat Saddam was meant to pose.

You accuse me of selective memory? Well here’s a worse label for the actions of Iraq War apologists: pure historical revisionism.

Tulok,
The war was premised on many goals. Not just one. The press latched on to the wmd ideas because that was Powell and Rumsfield method of selling it to the UN. If a war is needed you present your case with the most compelling reasons.

Intelligence is not the end-all-get-all that determines how you conduct war. As we have seen intelligence is conflicting.

Once a war is started you do not stop if one factor turns out to be false. You continue on and achieve the goals.

Bush did warn everyone early on that this would take years, possibly generations.

Tulok, well, we obviously come from two different camps when it comes to how we perceive what our ultimate and long term objectives are in Iraq.

Thanks for answering my question. I don’t agree with your assessment of the meaning of the words operation Iraqi freedom however.

As for your question; it’s true, it would have been a hard sell to the American people to try and convince them to invade Iraq for the sole purpose of establihing a democracy there. I’m pretty sure there would have been a less than enthusiastic respones from the USA public.

Would we have been better off not going to Iraq in the first place? If we don’t seek to liberate and emancipate the middle east from it’s self and it’s ruthless history and a harsh version of Islamic theology then we can only expect that harshness and ruthlessness to eventually make it’s way to our shores at some future date. A global war on terrorism is just that…global in scope, and Iraq played a role in the anti western anti liberty nexus that if left to fester would have lashed out at us at some future date. We made the correct choice to invade Iraq and for all the sacrifice we have made we have actually not been as bloodied as the MSM would have you believe. I am in a state that lost 30,000 men in four years in the civil war. To date my state has lost 97 KIA in over five years. So, lets let the soldiers win this fight and let the Iraqi people have a chance at human freedom so they can one day be our allies in the struggle agiants militant Islam.

Also, if anyone here thinks that Obama is going to suddenly pull out troops you really are living in a dream world.

The war grants him incredible global leverage. To suddenly leave is political suicide.

He may pull one or two divisions out buit substitute them with 9 brigades. Its the same amount of troops but its a bettert sound bite to say “I sent three divisons home” or ” I only sent in a few brigades.”

Tulok said, “Tubby: You’re telling me that the Iraq invasion was premised on the objective of freeing the Iraqi people? That that’s why Americans capitulated to Bush’s plans and we sent hundreds of thousands of soldiers to fight in the middle-east?

Fisrt off, no one “capitulated to Bush’s plan”, the Dems in the congress had the same intelligence documents that Bush had and they could request thousands of pages of such documents in order to make an informed vote on the floor of congress. Besides, regime change in Iraq had been the long term goal of the USA ever since 1997 under Pres. Clintons watch.

You said, “Iraqi Freedom was always a secondary goal, a happy side-effect of neutralizing the threat Saddam was meant to pose.” The “happy side effect” as you call it was the main reason we went to Iraq and the best means of acheiving a long lasting a stable peace in that region. A free and democratic Iraq was not just going to happen by some sort lucky break because their were no WMD’s found.

Over the last five years great sacrifice has been made to bring the basic principles of representative government to Iraq, not because it was an after thought or a means to simply prolong some sort of wild adventure but because the ideals of human liberty and freedom will in the long run foster peace and prosperity.

Thats been the goal and mission from the get go…again I ask, what do you think the words “OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM” means?

Sean, Tubby, while I concede that bringing democracy to Iraq was a very, very secondary or tertiary goal, there’s no way I can agree with you that it was ever a major objective that the war was premised on.

I mentioned the U.N address earlier but for further proof that neutralizing a presumed threat from Saddam was the ultimate rational for the invasion, I offer this speech straight from the President’s mouth.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html

Five paragraphs focusing on Iraqi civil rights vs. ~fifty focusing on WMDs and the threat Iraq posed to America.

And I’ll answer your question if you answer one of mine.

“Thats been the goal and mission from the get go…again I ask, what do you think the words “OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM” means?”

I chalk the name up to nothing more than putting a magnanimous face on an operation whose primary goal was to protect America from a perceived threat. Not that there would be anything wrong with that, had the threat actually existed.

Now for my question.

Do you think the American people and our representatives would have supported the war solely on the basis of bringing democracy to Iraq?

Would you at least admit that the US would be better off having never gone at all?

Post a Comment