Comments


  • Hictoria

    THAT'S OLD NEWS

    I don't know what your problem is but it was well know that 9,000 Special Forces would be left there because on August 25,2010 this article was written........ "More than 20,000 American soldiers in Iraq have been assigned to "advise and assist brigades" and will continue patrols and training exercises with Iraqis. Fewer than 5,000 are special forces teaming up with Iraqi troops on counterterror raids and other high-risk missions.
    The rest of the 50,000 -- about half of the U.S. force in Iraq -- are high-ranking officers and headquarters staff, who mostly will be planning military strategy through the final withdrawal.

    Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10237/...

    It seems like you are the only one left in the dark.

    Scroll down in this blog to Sept.1,2010 @ 9:00Pm a post submitted by jhnsn283 to an article written by Ron Paul

    “It is deceitful to imply we will avoid hostilities with this new policy. We still have to contend with:

    * the 50,000 troops carrying weapons remain in Iraq
    * the 100,000 contractors that remain with more expected to go to Iraq
    * the 9,000 special ops personnel trained in assassinations that remain in Iraq
    * a huge embassy, bigger than the Vatican, that will remain
    * Dozens of military bases that will stay
    * Al Qaeda organizations that did not exist before the war
    * Muqtada al Sadr, a strong nationalist who has gained much political power
    * The fact that Iran benefits tremendously with the Shiites now in power in Iraq and is a close ally of al Sadr

    http://www.businesswire.com/news/home...

    I think it is fair to say the leaving of the Special Forces was by design and not part of any plot to deceive...Did you get another chain email?

    5,000 or 9,000 Spec Ops would be left.

    Let the issue die.

    September 8, 2010 at 1:48 p.m.

  • Since liberals can read... read this then. Not only combat troops, Special forces still there.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/...

    September 8, 2010 at 12:44 p.m.

  • Not many people would think that they are replacing troops. You can think of it as reassignment.
    When I heard that they were leaving 50,000 there, no where in my mind did I think that there would be replacements if they didn't have enough train/support and assist people. Why would they bring in new troops when those already there know the region, the people, and are much better prepared for how things work over there?
    Everyone that volunteers know what they are signing up for and they know that things might no turn out the way they think it should. That is the life of a soldier and one they freely chose.

    September 3, 2010 at 4:12 p.m.

  • I don't see the conspiracy.

    In the presidential campaign three years ago, Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama said they would leave residual forces after initial combat forces are pulled out... It was after that the Bush administration decided on the Status of Forces Agreement..... We pulled out troops out of the city of Baghdad, a long time ago to get ready for the exit.... I have known for a long time that 50,000 would be left behind and I stated in this blog that the slogan " Iraqi Freedom" could be replaced at any time. I really don't know why anyone is surprised by all this.... It's highly likely that those troops will rotate out to Afghanistan until we make another assessment in December of this year.

    September 3, 2010 at 3:58 p.m.

  • Actually, I do know. I know someone that served 3 tours in that hell hole. And if it were not for him being injured at present. He would still be there. Then more than likely he would of been sent to Afghanistan. I understand there is danger by not leaving some there. However, it is not right to change someones title to justify them having to spend more time there.....

    September 3, 2010 at 3:42 p.m.

  • Hictoria

    You should know that all treaties are conditioned; amendments will be made and those 50,000 were left to continue training the Iraqi forces and protecting the embassy... It doesn't take that many troops but we still have interest there. Their presence is not going to waste because Iraq still does not have a functioning government and is pretty unstable. Their presence there is for security not for everyday combat missions; although they may engage in some.

    If you read that document; the Prime minister of Iraq with the permission of parliament can throw us out tomorrow or can make a request for an extension of our presence.

    Liberals can read.

    September 3, 2010 at 3:37 p.m.

  • No, I have never served in the military. You, nor I, know how long any of those troops that remained behind, served.
    I agree with you. We should have absolutely no troops anywhere over there, but like you said, I don't know military, so I leave those decisions to the experts.
    Personally, I feel like taking the combat troops and equipment out and leaving any troops behind is kind of dangerous for those left behind.

    September 3, 2010 at 3:25 p.m.

  • According to Mike's link it clearly states that all "combat" troops should be out of there. My point is exactly what the letter says. The "combat" troops are not out by the time line they should of been. All they did was change their title and left them there. They are doing the same missions and so on. For anyone to justify simply changing a title to fool the rest of the "not informed at all" is sad. It reminds me of the movie Casino. Just change your title to restraunt manager so he can still run things...

    @born - "It's kind of silly to take out all heavy combat brigades and then send different "advise and assist" brigades to replace those that are already over there, when those soldiers are trained to do both jobs."

    First of all, you apparently have never served in the military. Those combat troops have families just like you do. They have did their time and deserve to come home. Some of those men and women have served multiple tours and deserve a break. However, in your eyes you think NAHHHH just leave them there they can do both jobs...

    Liberals always wanting something for nothing.

    September 3, 2010 at 3:12 p.m.

  • Sorry about that but it still works for me.

    I think it is too long for the comment section.

    Some posters don't care about their integrity..... I'm nobody special but I'd try to be extra careful about that but I have slipped and posted one article without vetting because I just knew my source was credible..Wrong and I came back and apologized and learned a good lesson.

    I remember when the editor used to correct us, would not allow a large cut and paste, and certainly insisted we gave credit to the source, and he would come on and quiz us on a material we posted. It kept us on our toes and it led to civil discussions..IMO

    September 3, 2010 at 2:10 p.m.

  • Corrected Mike's link: http://bit.ly/9YSYft

    September 3, 2010 at 1:59 p.m.

  • " How anyone can pass along information sent to them by strangers is beyond me. At the very least, one should research it before passing it along, or posting it anywhere."

    This is why Glenn Beck et.al make such a splash - there are people out there who want to be told exactly what to think and how to feel about an issue.

    September 3, 2010 at 1:58 p.m.

  • Mike,

    That link doesn't work

    In following up your comment about chain emails, they are all suspect by nature anyway. How anyone can pass along information sent to them by strangers is beyond me. At the very least, one should research it before passing it along, or posting it anywhere.

    September 3, 2010 at 1:53 p.m.

  • For the uninformed:

    Operation Iraqi freedom was never about president Obama: This was in accordance with a Status of Forces Agreement signed by President George W Bush and Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki
    On November 27, 2008, the Iraqi Parliament ratified a Status of Forces Agreement with the United States, establishing that U.S. combat forces will withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. forces will be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011,

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.%E2%...

    That letter is also on gd.critter.blogspot & democratsforsale.blogspot...[should have open some eyes but hate clouds the vision]

    I have been on this blog for over four and ½ years and every chain e-mail has been posted by right wing conservatives..... They're either the most missed informed group of people or their intention is to spread lies hoping others will not notice.... We all have computers and we know how to use Google.

    September 3, 2010 at 1:43 p.m.

  • This comment was removed by the user.

    September 3, 2010 at 1:35 p.m.

  • I was referring to the "sneaky liberal" comment, which slants it politically. President Obama never said that all troops were coming out and if some brigades were changed in name, that is perfectly within the boundaries of plans. It's kind of silly to take out all heavy combat brigades and then send different "advise and assist" brigades to replace those that are already over there, when those soldiers are trained to do both jobs.

    September 3, 2010 at 1:19 p.m.

  • News on the changes from early August:

    http://www.army.mil/-news/2010/08/05/...

    September 3, 2010 at 12:47 p.m.

  • I took out the part about the picture. As I said below, it was sent to me.

    September 3, 2010 at 12:30 p.m.

  • Now, here is the whole letter.

    Sent from Iraq...

    Hey, everybody! I just wanted to send a quick update and give y'all the REAL story on what's going on over here with the troop withdrawal. The picture is of my crew and I on a break during a mission. The guy to the far left is my gunner (Burks) and the guy in the middle is my driver (Mizell). They go with me on every mission and are great guys. The reason I'm sending this out is because I have had a few people ask if I left Iraq early because all of the combat troops are out of Iraq and I wanted to let everyone know the real deal. It's kind of ridiculous how the news is saying that the last of the "combat" troops are out of Iraq because of Pres Obama. He says that it was his campaign promise. Take our Brigade for example. We were originally called a HBCT (Heavy Brigade Combat Team). Well, since Obama said he would pull all of the "combat" troops out by Aug, all they did before we left was change our name from a HBCT to a AAB (Advise and Assist Brigade). We have the same personnel/equipment layout as before and are doing the same missions. The ONLY difference is that they changed our name from a HBCT to an AAB and that's how he is getting away with saying that he has pulled all of the "combat" troops out. It is really ridiculous what he's doing and he has ticked a lot of people off. And it's funny how the media is buying all of it, too. So no the last combat troops are not out of Iraq. We are still here. There are other Brigades just like ours that are doing the same missions that are still over here. Sorry for going on about it but we are just sitting over here watching it and are like "You've got to be kidding me!" So anyway now you know the REAL story, so that's why I'm not coming back early. You have to watch those liberals, they're sneaky! Anyways I hope everyone is doing well and I'll see you soon!

    May they stay safe....

    .
    and this was a reply

    Just so we all know this was sent by the father of a fallen trooper from that squad..... God bless them all

    http://www.resistnet.com/group/watchd...

    September 3, 2010 at 12:21 p.m.

  • Hicktoria,

    You didn't post a link to where you got that from. Are you trying to make us think that you wrote it?

    September 3, 2010 at 12:14 p.m.

  • This was sent to me. Thought I would share here.

    September 3, 2010 at 11:38 a.m.

  • An update and give Yall the REAL story on what's going on over here with the troop withdrawal. The reason I'm sending this out is because I have had a few people ask if I left Iraq early because all of the combat troops are out of Iraq and I wanted to let everyone know the real deal. It's kind of ridiculous how the news is saying that the last of the "combat" troops are out of Iraq because of Pres Osama ( I mean Obama ). He says that it was his campaign promise. Take our Brigade for example. We were originally called a HBCT ( Heavy Brigade Combat Team). Well since Obama said he would pull all of the "combat" troops out by Aug all they did before we left was change our name from a HBCT to a AAB ( Advise and Assist Brigade ). We have the same personnel/equipment layout as before and are doing the same missions. The ONLY difference is that they changed our name from a HBCT to an AAB and that's how he is getting away with saying that he has pulled all of the "combat" troops out. It is really ridiculous what he's doing and he has ticked alot of people off. And it's funny how the media is buying all of it to. So no the last combat troops are not out of Iraq we are still here. There are other Brigades just like ours that are doing the same missions that are still over here. Sorry for going on about it but we are just sitting over here watching it and are like "You've got to be kidding me!" So anyway now you know the REAL story so that's why I'm not coming back early.

    Travis

    September 3, 2010 at 11:37 a.m.

  • Wow, rollinstone, did that hit the nail on the head or what!

    September 3, 2010 at 5:05 a.m.

  • A quote from Tony Blair's book, I thought was interesting.

    "On stimulus, Keynesianism and re-regulation, Mr. Blair is also astute: "Ultimately the recovery will be led not by governments but by industry, business, and the creativity, ingenuity and enterprise of people.

    If the measures you take in responding to the crisis diminish their incentives, curb their entrepreneurship, make them feel unsure about the climate in which they are working, the recovery becomes uncertain.""

    September 2, 2010 at 9:51 p.m.

  • Time for a quote from Ben Hur:

    Sextus: You can break a man's skull. You can arrest him. You can throw him into a dungeon. But how do you fight an idea?

    Messala: Sextus, you ask how to fight an idea. Well, I'll tell you how... with another idea!

    September 2, 2010 at 9:33 p.m.

  • The only wars that are winnable are the ones that are against a certain country, like Japan, Germany, etc.
    We couldn't win against North Vietnam, because we were fighting communism. Fresh troops and supplies were coming into N. Vietnam from China and other communist countries.
    We cannot win against extremist Islamic factions because it is not a certain country. They come from everywhere and cannot be distinguished from our Allies and there is no way we know for sure just who our allies are.
    We are sitting ducks over there and trying to fight an invisible enemy wearing blindfolds.
    Vietnam all over again and it is going to end the same way. They can wait us out, doing the most damage they can while we keep losing men, machinery, and billions of dollars. They are beating us by allowing us to beat ourselves.

    September 2, 2010 at 9:29 p.m.

  • "because we if would've stayed in Afghanistan when we had al-Qaeda on the run, a lot of interpreters on hand, our Allies, and cooperation with the Northern Alliance to set up their country for a more permanent deterrent of al-Qaeda types. After the detour to Iraq, we lost many of our Allies and eventually the Taliban regrouped."

    I thought you said the Afghan war was unwinnable? Which is it?

    September 2, 2010 at 7:49 p.m.

  • Holein1...I disagree about it being our responsibility to change the governments of soverign nations. We didn't start doing that until Bush II and then only once with Saddam. We didn't change the leadership in the Soviet Union, North Korea, China, Lybia, Cuba, Argentina, or Uganda. It's really not a good idea -- somebody else might decide to try it HERE.

    Born2Bme is absolutely right. We need to secure OUR borders and take note of those who enter. We need to find a way to track them and to be sure they leave when their visa is up. We need to deploy an anti-missile system THAT WORKS here in the US, not in Europe. If the Europeans want one, I'm all for sharing the technology with our friends, but they would have to foot the bill. We need to develope ways to inspect the cargo containers coming into the ports of entry in such a way that dangerous contraband is detected, but that doesn't hold up the containers so long that commerce is adversely impacted. We need to deploy troops along the southern border -- if this requires changing possee comitatus laws, change them. The State Department must be more careful about those to whom they issue entry visas. Nobody in another country has a RIGHT to enter the United States. It's our home and we need to be more careful about those we INVITE in.

    It is not acceptable that Mexican drug gangs are controling portions of Arizona and all the federal government can think to do is sue the state.

    I'm not suggesting that we disengage from the world, but we do need to take care of our country first and work with the other major powers. The hell holes can be ignored IF we have a workable border defense.

    September 2, 2010 at 7 p.m.

  • Mike...The "war on terror" is just a term for the war in Afghanistan. I've been hearing the term for years now, I figured you had, too. Perhaps it's been used because it's easier to spell than "Afghanistan." But, I rather suspect you knew what I meant when I used the term. I apologize for not being more precise.

    September 2, 2010 at 6:25 p.m.

  • A 60 Minutes Interview with an FBI agent who interogated Saddam:

    "(CBS) In fact, Piro says Saddam intended to produce weapons of mass destruction again, some day. "The folks that he needed to reconstitute his program are still there," Piro says.

    "And that was his intention?" Pelley asks.

    "Yes," Piro says.

    "What weapons of mass destruction did he intend to pursue again once he had the opportunity?" Pelley asks.

    "He wanted to pursue all of WMD. So he wanted to reconstitute his entire WMD program," says Piro.

    "Chemical, biological, even nuclear," Pelley asks.

    "Yes," Piro says."

    September 2, 2010 at 6:08 p.m.

  • Sorry that's you're

    September 2, 2010 at 3:57 p.m.

  • Itisi
    As usual your reading comprehension is lacking.... Your late for the party and you're taking my words completely out a context.... Subject was provocation for the Iraq war.

    Rolling stone said "the mushroom cloud was not and is not a laughing matter. Saddam wanted nuclear weapons that's why he tried to build a nuclear reactor to get plutonium."

    My response was "This blog is not about Iran, North Korea or nuclear weapons for that matter.... We don't invade countries because we think a mad dictator might want to acquire nuclear weapons...We don't get 4,400 killed because we THINK...That's why other presidents would have relied on solid evidence but if your mind is already made up...Invade.

    Nothing to do with Vietnam or any future wars.

    No one said that the Iraq war was the only war but it was a subject of this blog. That is the distinction. But I suspect you really don't care because you just wanted to put some words on your screen and >>>>>Post comment

    September 2, 2010 at 3:51 p.m.

  • “We don’t get 4,400 killed because we THINK.” It appears there is a total lack of memory with a few. What about the 58,000 thousand GI’s on the WALL in DC? Which President is the blame for that War or is it another War that is gone and for gotten? Gentlemen some act is if this is the only War that this country has ever fought.

    If we continue to be a Super Power in this world it will not be our last War. If you don’t believe this you might as well throw your history books in the trash, because you haven’t learned a damn thing.

    September 2, 2010 at 3:39 p.m.

  • October 7,2004

    WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Saddam Hussein did not possess stockpiles of illicit weapons at the time of the U.S. invasion in March 2003 and had not begun any program to produce them, a CIA report concludes.

    In fact, the long-awaited report, authored by Charles Duelfer, who advises the director of central intelligence on Iraqi weapons, says Iraq's WMD program was essentially destroyed in 1991 and Saddam ended Iraq's nuclear program after the 1991 Gulf War.
    The Iraq Survey Group report, released Wednesday, is 1,200 to 1,500 pages long.

    http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/1...

    There is also an entry in the 9/11 Commission Report.

    Believe what you want....That's all I can do....On to something else.

    September 2, 2010 at 3:10 p.m.

  • Seven plus years after the fact and you are just now searching for the truth?

    The facts out there can be called "Bush basing" if you wish but they remain documented facts .The Iraq war has been hashed to death and they aren't too many people out there who doesn't think it was a dismal failure without provocation..... A snippet here and a snippet there from Wikipedia seven years after the fact does not take you back to the players involved, circumstances at the time, the meeting at Camp David and the arguments between General Franks and those that supported Colin Powell. The CIA interviewed Saddam's scientists and they said WMD was no longer available but that information was dismissed. That information was available when the senators voted to give Bush permission to go to war but only six senators took the trouble the read it.

    All those chemicals your named did not warrant an invasion because we if would've stayed in Afghanistan when we had al-Qaeda on the run, a lot of interpreters on hand, our Allies, and cooperation with the Northern Alliance to set up their country for a more permanent deterrent of al-Qaeda types. After the detour to Iraq, we lost many of our Allies and eventually the Taliban regrouped.

    There is still the testimony from Powell,Richard Clarke,O'Neill and others.

    September 2, 2010 at 3:04 p.m.

  • This is from Wikipedia. In addition it said the resolve for the sanctions was weakening prior to the invasion and it was a factor in the decision to go to war. Mike you make it sound thru hindsight that everything was black and white when it wasn’t. After 911 there was the usual government and media “never again” frenzy.

    I’m not trying to defend Bush I just want the stinking truth and not the same ole Bush bashing:

    "In an interim report on October 3, 2003, Kay reported that the group had "not yet found stocks of weapons", but had discovered "dozens of WMD-related program activities" including:

    Clandestine laboratories "suitable for continuing CBW [chemical and biological warfare] research.

    A prison laboratory complex "possibly used in human testing of BW agents.

    A vial of live C. botulinum Okra B bacteria kept in one scientist's home.

    Small parts and twelve year old documents "that would have been useful in resuming uranium enrichment.

    Partially declared UAVs and undeclared fuel for Scud missiles with ranges beyond the 150 km U.N. limits.

    Plans and advanced design work for new long-range missiles with ranges up to at least 1000 km.

    Attempts to acquire long range missile technology from North Korea.

    And document destruction in headquarters buildings in Baghdad.

    None of the WMD programs involved active production; they instead appeared to be targeted at retaining the expertise needed to resume work once sanctions were dropped. Iraqi personnel involved with much of this work indicated they had orders to conceal it from U.N. weapons inspectors."

    September 2, 2010 at 2:42 p.m.

  • I'll have to buy his book, Mike, to find out the real details but here's a quote from an article about it:

    "While lashing out at his successor, Gordon Brown, he praises his wartime ally George W. Bush as intelligent and principled, although he reveals that others in the Bush administration had a hankering for invading Middle Eastern countries beyond Iraq.

    In a chilling insight into the mood of the Bush White House, Blair says vice-president Dick Cheney "would have worked through the whole lot, Iraq, Syria, Iran, dealing with all their surrogates in the course of it -- Hezbollah, Hamas, etc.

    "In other words, he thought the world had to be made anew and that after September 11, it had to be done by force and with urgency.

    "He was for hard, hard power. No ifs, no buts, no maybes. We're coming after you so change or be changed."

    Blair thought Cheney "had one central insight which was at least worth taking seriously" -- the view that the West's enemies were linked by a common ideology -- but he disagreed with Cheney's view that the battle could be won "by a hard-power strategy alone".

    http://bit.ly/cZUah5

    September 2, 2010 at 1:49 p.m.

  • Interesting KyleC, I did not know that about Syria.

    The Downing Street Memo revealed a lot and it were used for the Senate Intelligence Committee Report and the 9/11 Commission Report but Congress never took action.

    This is so info it contained.here is now in the public record a large body of evidence that vividly illustrates:

    * Bush’s long-standing intent to invade Iraq
    * Bush’s willingness to provoke Saddam (in a variety of ways) into providing a pretext for war
    * The fact that the war effectively began with an air campaign nearly a year before the March 2003 invasion and months before Congressional approval for the use of force
    * The administration’s widespread effort to crush dissent and manipulate information that would counter its justification for war
    * The lack of planning for the war’s aftermath and a fundamental lack of understanding of the Iraqi society

    http://downingstreetmemo.com/downing

    I was surprised that Tony Blair still stands by his decision to join us to invade Iraq but is sadden because of all the deaths. I think Tony Blair was a good man.

    September 2, 2010 at 1:42 p.m.

  • The Bush doctrine was a policy that called for preventive war to depose a foreign regime even if the threat was not immediate.. Peter Susskind wrote a book called" The 1% Doctrine" (good book)the title comes from a story within the book in which Vice President Dick Cheney describes the Bush administration's doctrine on dealing with terrorism:[3]“ If there's a 1% chance that Pakistani scientists are helping al-Qaeda build or develop a nuclear weapon, we have to treat it as a certainty in terms of our response. It's not about our analysis ... It's about our response.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_One_...

    I have called neoconservatives like Kristol,Cheney,Rumsfeld,Wolfowitz,Abrams,Libby,Bolton,Pearle and Feith who persuaded the president go to war, warmongers.... Many are pushing for war against Iran.

    Iran will always be able to have a civilian nuclear reactor.

    The die-hard apologists can't seem to separate al Qaeda from Iraq.... When we invaded Iraq; al-Qaeda followed us..... A permanent sanction on Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11... Separate issue until the invasion.

    September 2, 2010 at 1:30 p.m.

  • I was reading somewhere about Tony Blair's new "tell all" autobiography that has just been released - I believe Blair talks about Dick Cheney wanting to come in to Middle East hard - there were apparent talks about widening the invasion to Syria...

    September 2, 2010 at 1:18 p.m.

  • So Bush was just a war monger that's why Iraq was invaded? Would the end of sanctions kept Saddam in a box? I thought Iran was working on it's nuclear program before the Iraq invasion, I thought the CIA report said the invasion temporarily stopped their work on this project? Clinton did a lot of bombing in Iraq not to consider them a threat?

    September 2, 2010 at 12:45 p.m.

  • This blog is not about Iran, North Korea or nuclear weapons for that matter.... We don't invade countries because we think a mad dictator might want to acquire nuclear weapons...We don't get 4,400 killed because we THINK...That's why other presidents would have relied on solid evidence but if your mind is already made up...Invade.

    The Bill Clinton administration did not consider Iraqi a threat because their intelligence told them that the missiles fired at Iraq in retaliation for the threat on George H.W. Bush knocked out a lot of the equipment he needed for his nuclear ambitions. We did not have CIA presence inside Iraq prior to the invasion because the Clinton administration did not consider them and threat. Colin Powell said " Saddam was in a box , where he can be contained."..... Saddam Hussein did not know he didn't have weapons of mass destruction because his generals 'were afraid to tell him.... It was only after the invasion of Iraq that Iran increased its nuclear ambitions because Iraq was no longer a threat and the United States was bogged down in Afghanistan and Iraq. We lost that deterrent.

    The mushroom cloud was not a laughing matter because it was part of the propaganda and lies in the lead up to the war.... As of 9/11 Commission reported, they should a paid more attention to the August 6 ,memo" bin Laden determine to attack the US."
    Remember Condoleezza Rice's infamous "mushroom cloud" comment? And Secretary of State Colin Powell in January 2003, when the rich and powerful met in Davos, Switzerland, and he said, "Why is Iraq still trying to procure uranium and the special equipment needed to transform it into material for nuclear weapons?" Mr. Powell ought to have known the report on "special equipment"' - the aluminum tubes - was false. And the uranium story was four years old.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/15/opi...

    September 2, 2010 at 11:13 a.m.

  • "You should remember the talk about " mushroom clouds"," yellow cake from Africa.""

    The "yellow cake" was a joke, but the mushroom cloud was not and is not a laughing matter. Saddam wanted nuclear weapons that's why he tried to build a nuclear reactor to get plutonium.

    Now we have Iran building nuclear weapons. There nuclear reactor they are starting up will also produce plutonium. Plutonium is much easier to enrich to weapons grade, but the bomb is more difficult to construct.

    The North Koreans will help with that. Then what? Bombs for Venezuela, Syria, Lebanon, the Palestinians? Where does this end?

    September 2, 2010 at 10:40 a.m.

  • Thanks jhnsn283

    A lot of good info and one of the few times I have agreed with congressman Ron Paul.

    September 2, 2010 at 10:02 a.m.

  • born2Bme
    You hit the nail right on the head because there's only a few ways Afghanistan is winnable.

    1. They must have a responsible government that the people can relate to.
    2. Right now they protect territories not their country.
    3. We would have to dedicate 100,000 troops, over $1 trillion and about 15 to 20 years of commitment.
    4. I still believe the words of Tom Ricks " we can only win the war in the Middle East by switching to alternative fuels."... I'm paraphrasing but as you say we cannot change a 1000 year old culture.

    September 2, 2010 at 9:39 a.m.

  • I agree with waywardwinds and born2bme posts but I'm not sure what the waywardwind meant by not winning the "war on terror.".... Terror is a tactic.

    I know I should've gone with my first draft with all the references to the 9/11 Commission Report, the Senate Intelligence Report Phase I & II but I will try to go with memory... Don't make find my references.

    holein1

    You can discard the testimony of Richard Clark, Colin Powell, and treasury secretary Paul O'Neill when they said that Bush/Cheney wanted to attack Iraq from their first day in office but it ties right into the propaganda, right before the invasion. You should remember the talk about " mushroom clouds"," yellow cake from Africa,", harboring Al Qaeda, and the Judith Miller report in the New York Times and on and on....Colin Powell is still upset today over his testimony to the U.N. About Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. All the evidence came from a tortured detainee.

    The reasonable Dick Cheney did not dismantle the Saddam Hussein regime after the first Gulf War because he said " 1992, as the United States Secretary of Defense during the war, Dick Cheney said:" And the final point that I think needs to be made is this question of casualties. I don't think you could have done all of that without significant additional U.S. casualties, and while everybody was tremendously impressed with the low cost of the (1991) conflict"....EXACTLY what happened!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War

    We still had time to redeem ourselves of the previous mistake of Afghanistan but we ignored that country for five years and allowed the Taliban to regroup.... These are the words of General Petreaus.

    As for the policeman of the world, have you noticed we haven't taken any steps to rid the butchers of Dafur.

    As far as the "rules of engagement," it might have played a small factor but we are guests in those two countries, too many deaths by mistaken identity, will only multiply our enemy, according to General Patreaus.

    September 2, 2010 at 9:28 a.m.

  • Holein1, for the record this article from Wikipedia tells why Bin Laden turned on the US during the Gulf War:

    Following the Soviet Union's withdrawal from Afghanistan in February 1989, Osama bin Laden returned to Saudi Arabia in 1990 as a hero of jihad, who along with his Arab legion, "had brought down the mighty superpower" of the Soviet Union.[49] The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait on August 2, 1990 had put the kingdom and its ruling House of Saud at risk.

    The world's most valuable oil fields were within easy striking distance of Iraqi forces in Kuwait, and Saddam's call to pan-Arab/Islamism could potentially rally internal dissent. Bin Laden met with King Fahd, and Sultan, Minister of Defence of Saudi Arabia, telling them not to depend on non-Muslim troops, and offered to help defend Saudi Arabia with his mujahideen fighters.

    Bin Laden's offer was rebuffed, and after the American offer to help repel Iraq from Kuwait was accepted, involving deploying U.S. troops in Saudi territory,[50] he publicly denounced Saudi Arabia's dependence on the U.S. military, as he believed the presence of foreign troops in the "land of the two mosques" (Mecca and Medina) profaned sacred soil. Bin Laden's criticism of the Saudi monarchy led that government to attempt to silence him.

    Shortly after Saudi Arabia permitted U.S. troops on Saudi soil, bin Laden turned his attention to attacks on the west. On November 8, 1990, the FBI raided the New Jersey home of El Sayyid Nosair, an associate of al Qaeda operative Ali Mohamed, discovering a great deal of evidence of terrorist plots, including plans to blow up New York City skyscrapers, marking the earliest uncovering of al Qaeda plans for such activities outside of Muslim countries.

    September 2, 2010 at 8:22 a.m.

  • We are not going to win this war. It cannot be won in the conventional way. We either decide to stay there forever to keep things peaceful, and bankrupt our Country, or leave them to their own devices and concentrate on taking care of our own Country and the people here. We need to build up our own protection HERE! We need to secure out borders and worry about what is entering our Country HERE!
    This war was poorly thought out, a whole lot of money disappeared, too many innocent people died, and we cannot change a people's mindset, no matter how hard we try.
    Lets just cut our losses and protect and rebuild our homeland.

    September 1, 2010 at 10:54 p.m.

  • www & r-stone, I think both of you make some valid points.

    I do disagree with some, though.

    www-Unfortunately the responsibility falls on all the free countries of world to rid it of dictators and tyrannical maniacs like Saddam. The US typically steps up as the leader because we call ourselves the Leader of the Free. Do you think that Saddam was the only leader of a sovereign nation we had anything to do with leaving office or the planet?

    Bin Laden declared his jihad on the West after we helped him defeat the Soviets in Afghanistan. We royally screwed up on that. We pumped billions in to rid the Afghans of Soviets, but didn't do squat to help the country after they left. We failed them the first time and it's back to bite us in the ass.

    Part of the reason we are still in Afghanistan and Iraq after we defeated their governments is to not repeat what we did in Afghanistan the first time.

    We are having a hard time defeating the insurgents because of the tactics we are using. The rules of engagement we are using is making it impossible to win.

    September 1, 2010 at 9:04 p.m.

  • No other way to say my peace on this issue other than how it's already been said....

    http://www.businesswire.com/news/home...

    RP2012

    September 1, 2010 at 8:58 p.m.

  • How did we get here? A brief and maybe inaccurate history.

    In the beginning Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait which started the first Gulf War whereupon Saddam got his a$$ kicked. But we didn’t finish the job and we left that slob in power.

    This defeat along with some bad advice from Bush-1 started an insurgency in Iraq that Saddam put down with brutal force. Because his means were so inhumane and ruthless the UN (US) established a Northern and a Southern no fly zone to give the insurgent populations a little protection.

    In addition sanctions were imposed on Saddam to force him to get rid of his weapons of mass destruction. It appears that Saddam complied with this mandate, but the sanctions and the no fly zone continued.

    After the first Gulf War Bin Laden “declared war” on the US and its allies. During this time his merry band were getting better organized and busy with recruiting and training.

    In 1993 there was the World Trade Center bombing followed by various bombing and cruise missile attacks in Iraq. About this time Saddam started the ruse that the sanctions were starving the Iraqi children, which played well in the Mideast.

    In 1998 Clinton signed an order calling for regime change in Iraq. This was followed by Al Qaeda attacks in Africa, the Kolbar Towers, the USS Cole, and then 911. Right after 911 the US had the Anthrax Letter attacks.

    After the Taliban were routed, there was concern about the end of sanctions in Iraq and the end of the no fly zones. Then what? Would Saddam reconstitute his military machine along with weapons of mass destruction? Would he giveWMD to terrorists?

    Blair and Bush (B&B) were keen on regime change and at the time there was wide spread support for this on both the left and the right. B&B were convinced that force would be required all they needed was to gin up a reason. It appears they were confident of three things.

    1. It would be a swift and sure victory – a rout in fact.
    2. The Iraqis would welcome us with open arms.
    3. And a minimum of “nation building” would be required.

    To gain political support for the use of force they both focused on Saddam’s MWD. Bush added a possible connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam. They took all this “intelligence” to Congress, Parliament and the UN – and the rest is history.

    Of course the Second Gulf War spawned more terror attacks in Spain and London for sending troops to Iraq – and so it goes.

    September 1, 2010 at 6:43 p.m.

  • joseexist..."Our job was a much needed action. The oust of saddam and the distruction of his war machine had to be done."

    I'm sorry...when did it become the responsibility of the United States to decide to change the leader of a soverign nation by force of arms? It's been pretty well determined that there were in fact NO weapons of mass destruction within Iraq (which was the official reason to fight), and, even if there were, it was not our right to try to take them away in a pre-emptive war. Yeah, Saddam was a bad guy, but the world's full of bad guys. Are we going to decide to change some more we don't like? North Korea, perhaps? It should have been the responsibility of the people of Iraq to change the government either by peaceful means or by killing Saddam -- NOT ours. The "freedom" of the people of Iraq is NOT our responsibility.

    Iraq wasn't behind the 9-11 attack. If we were going to go to war with the nation that most closely supported the terrorists who attacked us, it should have been Saudi Arabia. But we get too much oil from them, so Iraq was "it" by default.

    This "war on terror", just like the war in Vietnam cannot be won. It's a tar baby that has held us hostage for longer than we were tied down in southeast Asia. Fortunately, there have been far fewer casualties, but still we've lost too many in a fight we can't win. There seems to be no direction, no strategy and no way out. I would have hoped that after the disaster in Vietnam, we would have learned a thing or two, but I guess those lessons don't transfer from one generation to another.

    September 1, 2010 at 5:39 p.m.

  • I think if he would've taken credit for a "win" he would have surprised and disappointed his supporters at the same time.... I totally agree.

    September 1, 2010 at 3:13 p.m.

  • Mike, if Obama had tried to take credit for a "win", I might have had a problem with it. He said the most positive thing he could have said, and probably the least offensive.

    September 1, 2010 at 3:03 p.m.

  • jbj

    You made some very good points but I don't think the soldiers in Iraq died in vain; no matter what historians decide. They followed orders to the best of their ability.

    I have already knowledge that people came away with varying opinions of last night's speech. I think the speech was predictable because the president has been against the Iraq war since the very beginning.... Don't you think it would be hypocritical for him go further than he did last night? Just a thought.

    You're absolutely right, less than 1/2 of 1% (that's including families) of Americans actually went through struggle of those who served multiple tours in Iraq.... I share your concerns.

    September 1, 2010 at 1:27 p.m.

  • The War should never have started. Those who got us in this war should be tied for treason.

    September 1, 2010 at 1:19 p.m.

  • Thanks for pointing that out KyleC, there were over a million Iraqis that were displaced and never returned and over 100,000 Iraqis were killed.

    September 1, 2010 at 1:15 p.m.

  • Thanks joeseexist...Good points

    September 1, 2010 at 1:13 p.m.

  • joseexist, I agree with you on one point, the things we did had needed to be done, I just was not ready for us to do them. I hope history shows it was the right thing to do.

    September 1, 2010 at 12:26 p.m.

  • Lest we also forget the countless thousands of Iraqi men, women and children who lost their lives in a conflict not of their choosing.

    War is hell.

    September 1, 2010 at 12:19 p.m.

  • I was against this war. It is heartbreaking for those who lost loved ones, and even more so to think someone's son or daughter, mom or dad, spouse, sibling, best friend, etc. may have given their life in a war that history will have to decide if it was worth it.

    I don't think George W. Bush deserves all the credit or blame, and although Obama was polite in his speech, I did not consider his comments to be "very generous". Bush did feel as described, Obama acknowledged it. But I agree that no one won.

    My concern and my respect go to those who are still there and their families. This is not over.

    September 1, 2010 at 12:15 p.m.

  • The people of Iraq have a long way to go. Our job was a much needed action. The oust of saddam and the distruction of his war machine had to be done. Iraq now needs a new leader who will serve them instead of one who will serve only himself as hussien did.

    It is a daunting precipice they now step off the edge of and it is a point in their countries history that will produce problems to solve. We have given the democracy but what they eventually do with it is in their own hands.

    Our 4400 will never be forgotten for their sacrifices. They will always be in our hearts and alongside us in spirit as we forge ahead into whatever new battles we must wage.

    We will never forget.
    Excellent post!

    September 1, 2010 at 11:59 a.m.

  • Like your all your other recent comments ,lately; you don't make any sense.

    September 1, 2010 at 11:30 a.m.

  • I guess that is par for the course...wonder where he will go on vacation now...

    September 1, 2010 at 11:26 a.m.