Like the Command Master Chief said in the movie "Navy Seals:....."Seek life elsewhere"!

Bakerstreet

Saddam paying 10K to Palestinians, violating UN resolutions or being evil has NOTHING to do with being a danger to the United States. In fact Iran & North Korea were far greater dangers then Iraq.

Island Dog

Cheney said Saddam was connected to 9/11 even AFTER that was shown to be untrue. If Cheney said it Bush approved of it even though the actual words did not come out of Bush's mouth. It is not a Denocrat lie it was part of the BS to get congress to approve going to war.

There is no way Congress would have approved going to war to give Iraq the right to Vote. The war was sold on a non existant danger that Saddam posed to this country. It was all BS pure and simple.

"Saddam paying 10K to Palestinians, violating UN resolutions or being evil has NOTHING to do with being a danger to the United States. In fact Iran & North Korea were far greater dangers then Iraq."

Again, diversionary. You're basing your moral judgement on the assumption another nation has to be a threat to the mainland US in order to be a valid target for war. As I said Hussein had engaged our forces time and time again. If you look at the history of US military action in the last 100 years, you'll find that we were rarely directly threatened. Your values aren't universal or objective "truth".

You try and pretend the Hussein didn't support terrorism, that he wasn't a threat, that the war in Iraq was somehow an oddity, but you have to use very precise definitions to make your point. In reality, we've fought wars with much, much less provocation than Iraq. You know that, too, you simply need to validate your hate and don't mind stretching the truth to do it.

Before we go to war there needs to be a direct danger to our country. Going to war because the leader is Evil or to allow a democratic form of government is NOT a reason to go to war. There are a lot of countries that do not have our system or that have dictators. The lodgic Bush used would mean we would be at war all over the world. Bush got Congress to allow this war on the completely false basis that Iraq was a danger to our security. That was not true even if Saddam had WMD. Iran and North Korea were far greater dangers then Iraq in 2003. They have many of the weapons that Bush said Saddam had. They have governments that hate us and have far more powerfil military forces than Iraq.

Bush screwed up by attacking Iraq!

Oh Col. (PS why do you call yourself that?? )

Just in case you ever hear someone say we do not have a stategy for winning in Iraq, you can ask them to read this.

Victory in Iraq is Defined in Stages

* Short term , Iraq is making steady progress in fighting terrorists, meeting political milestones, building democratic institutions, and standing up security forces.
* Medium term , Iraq is in the lead defeating terrorists and providing its own security, with a fully constitutional government in place, and on its way to achieving its economic potential.
* Longer term , Iraq is peaceful, united, stable, and secure, well integrated into the international community, and a full partner in the global war on terrorism.


Strategy for Victory is Clear

* We will help the Iraqi people build a new Iraq with a constitutional, representative government that respects civil rights and has security forces sufficient to maintain domestic order and keep Iraq from becoming a safe haven for terrorists. To achieve this end, we must pursue an integrated strategy along three broad tracks , which together incorporate the efforts of the Iraqi government, the Coalition, cooperative countries in the region, the international community, and the United Nations.

* The Political Track involves working to forge a broadly supported national compact for democratic governance by helping the Iraqi government:

o Isolate enemy elements from those who can be won over to the political process by countering false propaganda and demonstrating to all Iraqis that they have a stake in a democratic Iraq ;

o Engage those outside the political process and invite in those willing to turn away from violence through ever-expanding avenues of participation; and

o Build stable, pluralistic, and effective national institutions that can protect the interests of all Iraqis, and facilitate Iraq 's full integration into the international community.

The Security Track involves carrying out a campaign to defeat the terrorists and neutralize the insurgency, developing Iraqi security forces, and helping the Iraqi government:

o Clear areas of enemy control by remaining on the offensive, killing and capturing enemy fighters and denying them safe-haven;

o Hold areas freed from enemy influence by ensuring that they remain under the control of the Iraqi government with an adequate Iraqi security force presence; and

o Build Iraqi Security Forces and the capacity of local institutions to deliver services, advance the rule of law, and nurture civil society.

The Economic Track involves setting the foundation for a sound and self-sustaining economy by helping the Iraqi government:

o Restore Iraq 's infrastructure to meet increasing demand and the needs of a growing economy;

o Reform Iraq 's economy, which in the past has been shaped by war, dictatorship, and sanctions, so that it can be self-sustaining in the future; and

o Build the capacity of Iraqi institutions to maintain infrastructure, rejoin the international economic community, and improve the general welfare of all Iraqis.

Our Victory Strategy Is (and Must Be) Conditions Based

* With resolve, victory will be achieved, although not by a date certain.

o No war has ever been won on a timetable and neither will this one.

* But lack of a timetable does not mean our posture in Iraq (both military and civilian) will remain static over time. As conditions change, our posture will change.

o We expect, but cannot guarantee, that our force posture will change over the next year, as the political process advances and Iraqi security forces grow and gain experience.

o While our military presence may become less visible, it will remain lethal and decisive, able to confront the enemy wherever it may organize.

o Our mission in Iraq is to win the war. Our troops will return home when that mission is complete.


Oh and in case you are interested in where this came from.. LOL of all silly places our Presidents Office.

" Before we go to war there needs to be a direct danger to our country. Going to war because the leader is Evil or to allow a democratic form of government is NOT a reason to go to war.

According to you, maybe, but there is no such rule. As a matter of fact most of the wars in the last 100 years haven't met that criterea, and a great many in the entire history of the US haven't.

So, while you may feel your perspective is superior, it's just your own subjective values on the subject, which are no more or less correct than anyone elses. You can say you differ with Bush, but all this bleating about Bush breaking some imposed rule is silly.

Hussein fired on our aircraft. That was plenty enough to start a number of wars in previous history, and I listed several other excuses on top of that. If you want to say all those other wars were illegitimate, too, fine, but don't cherry pick just because you don't like Bush.

Before we go to war there needs to be a direct danger to our country. Going to war because the leader is Evil or to allow a democratic form of government is NOT a reason to go to war

What a TOTAL CROCK!!!! Was Germany a direct danger to the US? Nope, don't think so. Japan was. So there goes your so called theory right out the window. And in case you forgot Saddam was firing on our aircraft. And in doing so made himself a "direct danger" to the US.

And btw....GW got congress to do "nothing"! They did it themselves when presented with our own and everyone elses intelligence reports.

Iraq was a piss ant. Germany had created a major security problem in the world and was working with Japan that attacked us. Iraq was NOTHING like that. No matter what you all say, if we knew in 2003 what we know today the Congress would NEVER have given Bush permission to go to war.

This was was an error no matter how it turns out. we have created more terrorists that are willing to attack us by invading Iraq. We still have NOT cought the person responsible for 9/11. WHY?

Bush was wrong to invade Iraq. Bush conducted the war in a way that allowed the terrorists to operate in Iraq. Bush diverted our attention and military from the country responsible for 9/11.

Iraq was a piss ant.

But he was still a piss ant willing to kill Americans on a daily bases. Or do you not consider American servicemen enforcing International treaties not American citizens?

You are crying for those servicemen's lives on the line today, while not willing to do anything about the servicemen's lives that Saddam was trying to snuff out daily before.

While your so fast about screaming you have no proof that Saddam had WMD, where is your proof that Saddam did not have WMD. Remember Saddam had over ten years to produce a detailed list of the destruction of all the documented WMD that he provided earlier in 1991 at the end of the first war. He failed to account for over half the documented material to the weapon inspectors. You always love to site the weapons inspectors stating that they had not found physical WMD, but choose to ignore the part of their report saying they had no proof of the disposal of know WMD.

Bush was wrong to invade Iraq. Bush conducted the war in a way that allowed the terrorists to operate in Iraq.

You are also willing to ignore that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was in Iraq receiving Free Medical treatment from wound received in Afghanistan and safe haven from us when we invaded.

In fact Iran & North Korea were far greater dangers then Iraq.

So based on this comment I can start a new article that C.O.L. wants to go to war against Iran and North Korea and be factually correct just like most of the pulp fiction that the C.O.L. has written, no?


AGAIN people, stop feeding the j.u. troll. Let him die from a lack of attention....

No, you can admit that Bush was wrong to attack a country that was no danger and got over 2,100 Americans killed for no good reason.The reason the terrorists are killing Americans is because Bush sent thin to Iraq.

AGAIN people, stop feeding the j.u. troll. Let him die from a lack of attention....

Why dont you then?

Col, liberals and democrats told me Saddam had WMD's, and was a direct threat to the U.S. So according to your standards they are liars. Why are you such a hypocrite?

I say again col. Bush never said Iraq was behind Sept. 11. End of story. They reason terrorists are killing American soldiers are because of people like you and democrats like Howard Dean. Why don't you go fight for them col?

" Iraq was a piss ant. Germany had created a major security problem in the world and was working with Japan that attacked us. Iraq was NOTHING like that. No matter what you all say, if we knew in 2003 what we know today the Congress would NEVER have given Bush permission to go to war. "

No, Germany was no threat to us at all, and wouldn't have been for years. Most likely they would have taken Europe and then ground thenselves to a nub fighting resistance and the Soviets. We baited the Japanese before we were attacked. FDR needed a way into the war, took a stand, and waited to be provoked. I don't think he knew Pearl Harbor was coming, but I think he knew for sure that SOMETHING was.

ANyway, that is one war out of several in the last 100 years. ALL the other wars weren't much different than the war with Iraq. I doubt you'll want to talk about that, though, because you need for Iraq to be especially different. The problem is just calling it so doesn't make it so.

You know as much about war in the last 100+ years as I do, you are just willing to subvert the truth to make Bush a villain.

Cheney said and is still saying that Saddam was linked to 9/11. Cheney would not have said that if Bush did not support that. The entire BS about the danger from Saddam was a fiction. There was a lot of Intel in 2002 and 2003 that said Saddam did not have WMD The CIA, Dept of Energy and DIA. Bush only used the Intel that supported what he wanted to do which was remove Saddam. Why else would the removal of Saddam be a topic at his first cabinet meeting. It did not matter to Bush what the facts were or the Intel. This entire Iraq threat was a story that Bush used to do what he wanted. Now he can not fix what he broke.