What do we win?

OIL...OIL...OIL (we would not be there if not for oil...you can bet we are taking as much as quickly as we can).

 

I think we want it just stable enough that we can finish our 14 bases and the world's largest embassy complex, and maintain control of the oil.

 

All this time I thought we had won - wasn't Mission Accomplished in May 2003. That's George for you - how soon we forget.

 

The point isn't winning. The point is staying the course, a whole different thing. Oops, sorry, the point was never stay the course, George. Oh yeah didn't it have something to do with weapons of mass destruction? No, that's not it. It's that tyrant, Saddam Houssein. He's in jail? Oh. What was the question?

 

There is no victory; there is no finish...it is, indeed all about (what else) exploitation of natural resources. In this case, oil.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alnilam @ Oct 25 2006, 02:10 PM) [snapback]338249[/snapback]</div>

OK I'll bite and try to fulfill your request.

Victory isn't going to be anything like WWII because there is no seat of power from which a total surrender can come. Terrorism or should I simply say hate well never be truly and fully conquered. So in a way Victory (with whatever definition you care to define it with) and to whatever extent possible in the circumstances has already been achieved IMHO. Withdrawal of American forces is your actual question and that will take place when we have gotten Iraq to a point that they should be able to fend for themselves. Anything less would be a travesty. After three and one half years that had better be fairly soon. It’s like the old adage about fish and fishing we need to quit giving them fish and let them start fishing on their own. I suspect it won’t be a pretty sight for awhile but neither was Eastern Europe after the wall fell. Should we have not aided those in their quest for freedom? Giving people their freedom was, is and always will be a noble effort. The people we give it to have to respond in kind and put up a noble effort to keep it.

Wildkow

Does the Democratic Party still stand by this? . . .

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of liberty. This much we pledge--and more.

If you do then wouldn’t you also have to agree with this part also?

We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution. Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans, born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage, and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of these human rights to which this nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world.

and if so then you must also believe in this. . .

United, there is little we cannot do in a host of cooperative ventures. Divided, there is little we can do, for we dare not meet a powerful challenge at odds and split asunder.

 

Oil Oil Oil Oi Vay

Everytime we go near the Mid-East some oidyart says its so we can take all the oil. Well they said it during GWI and it wasn't true. Then they said it during Afghanistan and it wasn't true (do they have oil there? LOL!) and now its GWII and it won't be true this time either.

Wildkow

p.s. yep I said oidyart. pffffft . . :huh: :blink:

 

If we were to win, we would win control of one of the world's major reserves of oil. I do not believe we will win, however.

I also do not believe we will stamp out terrorism or bring stability to Iraq.

The "mission accomplished" statement was made when W thought that we had won, and would (after some reconstruction by Halliburton at enormous profit for Halliburton) very soon be pumping oil. The problem was that we hadn't won yet. W did not realize this at the time because he is a moron.

 

Funny, the only one that gave you a real answer was wildkow... the rest, spitting anti-Bush bile... Hmmm, that says a lot...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Oct 26 2006, 08:57 AM) [snapback]338547[/snapback]</div>

Exactly.

I do believe the "Mission Accomplished" banner was on a returning aircraft carrier and was simply a statement to the crewmembers their job was done and mission accomplished.

What we will win is a democratic ally in the most volatile region of the world. We went in rather quickly on bad information, but it was also too late to catch Saddam with his pants down. We have found Al-Samoud missiles, nuclear material that was quietly moved out, plans for the Al-Abid missile and other items. We gave Saddam too long a warning and he exported or destroyed almost everything. We know he's had chemical weapons because we gave them to him and he used them during the Iran-Iraq war and on the Kurds.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(AndrewGS @ Oct 26 2006, 10:36 AM) [snapback]338564[/snapback]</div>

Which is why the White House initially denied they had anything to do with it, that the crew had it printed up on their own. Only later did it come out that yes, in fact, the White House was involved in having it made and displayed. So actually it was a statement to the cameras, to the American people. Of course, we knew that already.

As far as having an ally in the Middle East, we already have friends for life in Kuwait.

I don't fault Bush for invading Iraq, because Saddam had been lying about and hiding his weapons programs for years. It's just a shame that Bush didn't build a real coalition like Bush 41 did, it's a shame he didn't have better intelligence before going in, it's a shame he's stuck with Rumsfeld who's made some very bad decisions, it's a shame he slashed Iraqi Army/Police vetting & training with a focus on quantity instead of quality ...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(PA @ Oct, 11:36 AM) [snapback]338641[/snapback]</div>

He did; he ignored it.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Oct 26 2006, 09:55 AM) [snapback]338653[/snapback]</div>

"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, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. 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. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." "There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. 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. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Oct 26 2006, 07:45 AM) [snapback]338495[/snapback]</div>

That is what also makes them soo dangerous. If they were to detonate a nuclear device in the USA - where do we strike back? [my personal view is that we need to define Mecca and/or Medina as payback sites now in advance for lots of reasons]. So victory in this war will be tough to define since our culture has always up to this conflict be able to define it in the standard form of capitulation by our known and well defined enemy(s).

My concept is that victory will have multiple definitions based on the arena of the conflict in question - it goes beyond Iraq obviously and includes iran, noko, hezbollah,etc, etc. Victory in Iran will be defined to some extent as the establishment of a free society there where people will be able to enjoy the same rights and liberties common to all democracies - there will be respect for life, religious differences, a free press, a fair judiciary, equal rights for women, respect for their national borders, self-determination, etc.

Hand in hand with this will be the need to educate our public as to the nature of this conflict. To re-establidh for some the importance of spreading democracy and fighting fear societies. Our major downside is from within - and our enemies know that - and there are too many willing "idiots" knowingly or not aiding them.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Oct 26 2006, 01:55 PM) [snapback]338703[/snapback]</div>

Facts can be painful.

And for Dems to say what they said - they must have had overwhelming evidence. Now they all are blowing like the wind - further and further left into oblivion. I stand by what I posted before - if the Dems do not win big or in the least get control of one House - the writing is on the wall. Are we betting now that they start litigating this election one or two days post election?? And how many times are we going to here about voters being blocked access to the polls?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(PA @ Oct 26 2006, 11:36 AM) [snapback]338641[/snapback]</div>

I think it's safe to say that GWB has never been considered a particularly sharp tool.

...oh, you're talking about intellingence...like spying and stuff. Isn't it funny that GWB uses "the Google" to look at his ranch, where "he'd rather be..."

I think reading even the most brief executive summaries may exceed the stamina of his lips.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Oct, 01:11 PM) [snapback]338717[/snapback]</div>

HOW THE HELL WOULD YOU KNOW?</span> You wouldn't recognize a <span style="color:#CC0000">fact if it picked you up and shook you.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Oct 26 2006, 02:34 PM) [snapback]338737[/snapback]</div>

Clever - are you speaking metaphorically?

Are you denying the quotes from above? How do you explain what Hillary, Kerry, Kennedy said?? Or were they just willing idiots. Or were they just dupped becuase they are not smart enought to sift through the intelligence they were presented - or did they too ignore the intelligence reports :lol: What did Kerry say - he voted for the war before he voted against it - and did he vote for the body armor or not? The truth is that the Dems are a fraction of what they used to be - I am sure FDR, Truman, Kennedy are rolling in their graves.

You know why Obama is big with the media and the Dems - a guy with not even two years experience in the Senate - because the political landscape for the Dems is so barren - you have shrubs like hillary, algore, personal injury laywer edwards, etc, etc - there is NO presidential timber there.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Oct 26 2006, 02:12 PM) [snapback]338719[/snapback]</div>

Funny thing is and the fact is he won two national elections beating the best the Dems had to offer - what does that say about the Dems and their future. Imagine if the Repubs ever put forth a candidate that can actually think on his feet, speak in public and pronounce nuclear :lol: Run Hillary Run - please.

Will the Clintons ever go away or for that matter Carter?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Oct, 01:55 PM) [snapback]338752[/snapback]</div>

My beef is not with Kow (ha ha). I'm sure he can back up his statement above, unlike you who just makes things up.