<a href='http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=544&e=1&u=/ap/20030710/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq' target='_blank'>http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...o_pr_wh/us_iraq</a>

General Tommy Franks says it could take another four years in Iraq to finish the job. Guess this wasnt just an In and Out job after all...

Yeah bigolhawg...cause right off...

In Vietnam... the head of the opposition was in power the whole time. The US could've wiped em out, but LBJ didn't do a damn thing about it, never had the cajones to go in there massively and end the deal.

In Iraq...the head of the opposition is no longer in power. The US in 3 weeks overthrew Hussein. The problem is instability inside the country in finding one prominent leader to set up a new gov't. Unlike Afghanistan, where Hamid Karzai stepped up and became a leader for his country, no one in Iraq is willing to do that.

bigolhawg...go back and read your US History again. You are so far on the left of the political spectrum that you're jumping to really radical conclusions

WPS

calling_the_hogs Wrote:Yeah bigolhawg...cause right off...

In Vietnam... the head of the opposition was in power the whole time. The US could've wiped em out, but LBJ didn't do a damn thing about it, never had the cajones to go in there massively and end the deal.

In Iraq...the head of the opposition is no longer in power. The US in 3 weeks overthrew Hussein. The problem is instability inside the country in finding one prominent leader to set up a new gov't. Unlike Afghanistan, where Hamid Karzai stepped up and became a leader for his country, no one in Iraq is willing to do that.

bigolhawg...go back and read your US History again. You are so far on the left of the political spectrum that you're jumping to really radical conclusions

WPS

You are just as radical as I am, so dont even go down that road.

General Tommy Franks just stood up and said that its going to take up to four years to get the opposition stamped out in Iraq. This war started out as an expedition to show up, easily win, and end the threat of WMD's that existed at the time.

Its obviously going to be awhile before this thing is stamped out, and there never were any WMD's.

Will it be the same level of participation as Vietnam? No. But spending four more years in that nation is a whole lot more Vietnam than it is Grenada.

bigolhawg Wrote:WPS

You are just as radical as I am, so dont even go down that road.

[/quote]
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

If I was as radical to the right as you were to the left, I'd be voting for Buchanan. And personally, I'd vote for Hillary Clinton before I'd vote for Pat Buchanan. Any questions?

WPS

You havent ever posted anything that wasnt far right, so its hard for me to believe that you arent far right.

Quote:In Vietnam... the head of the opposition was in power the whole time. The US could've wiped em out, but LBJ didn't do a damn thing about it, never had the cajones to go in there massively and end the deal.

Nixon's "secret plan" sure worked. :snore:

Franks has no more clue as to how long this will take than anyone else. If it takes four years to make sure nobody else goes into Sadhams torture chambers, Uday does not snatch any more women off the streets and rapes them, etc. it is fine by me. Or would you rather see them leave and everything revert to the way it was ballhog? BTW, show me where the administration predicted how long it would take. :rolleyes:

You are just like George Stepinawholelotofshitanopolis. He had Rumsfield on his right bashing celebration on Sunday. He kept asking Rummy how long things would take. Rumsfield told him nobody knew. Georgie kept asking him the same question. Rumsfield finally told Georgie boy he did not listen, NOBODY KNOWS THE TIME LINES! I almost pissed in my pants I was laughing so hard. Georgie did not know what to do........

Quote:More than 70 American soldiers have died since Bush declared major combat

you are comparing this to Nam?

It is so absolutely ridiculous to think that you can just leave after something like this. There are many chores @ hand and I promise you IF we were to pull out now freakin' Dem's would make this into a reason to bash Bush. They would be screaming that we didn't make things safe enough for the population.

It is inconceivable that people cannot see the big picture here. If we leave then Saddam will be right back in power. If we leave now we would've never sought out and destroyed dangerous WMD that are hidden, festering with poisons and contaminants. So they have not found them yet you want to just stop looking? If we did that then Dem's would scream 10 years down the road when they are found and have contaminated the people living near them.

What say you about all those innocent people that were murdered, raped and abused by Saddam? We should've just let the country alone? Good God, I have lost the ability to even try and understand Democrats anymore......

lilredridinghood Wrote:

Quote:More than 70 American soldiers have died since Bush declared major combat

you are comparing this to Nam?

It is so absolutely ridiculous to think that you can just leave after something like this. There are many chores @ hand and I promise you IF we were to pull out now freakin' Dem's would make this into a reason to bash Bush. They would be screaming that we didn't make things safe enough for the population.

It is inconceivable that people cannot see the big picture here. If we leave then Saddam will be right back in power. If we leave now we would've never sought out and destroyed dangerous WMD that are hidden, festering with poisons and contaminants. So they have not found them yet you want to just stop looking? If we did that then Dem's would scream 10 years down the road when they are found and have contaminated the people living near them.

What say you about all those innocent people that were murdered, raped and abused by Saddam? We should've just let the country alone? Good God, I have lost the ability to even try and understand Democrats anymore......

Once again, strange how the Republicans suddenly become bleeding hearts who care about the downtrodden when the reasons they have given for going to war run out.

Saying this is the new Vietnam was hyperbole. But the fact that the man who just led the attack is saying it could take four years, this obviously wasnt what the right wanted. I'd rather see the nation put even more men in there and get this thing over with than have this thing fester on, like so many other recent military moves.

First off, you didn't need to quote my entire post ~ you could've simply responded.

Secondly, I never said our reasons were "run out". I think it is ignorant to think that just because we have not found them yet, they don't exsist. :rolleyes:
I mean obviously we are still trying to secure the area to some degree. So, you think they have had ample time to search every available inch of land for hiding places?

Quote:I'd rather see the nation put even more men in there and get this thing over with than have this thing fester on, like so many other recent military moves.

Well I would too, but apparently that is not the best course of action right now. We are a lot more likely to win the growing support of the the Iraqi people by not showing this presence. One of their main concerns is that we will become an occupying force and that was not the point.

Lastly, to negate my point by trying to call me names like "oh so now you are a bleeding heart...." WHATEVER. You did not answer or acknowledge my question. What about those people? We should just leave them now?

The "those poor people" argument will NOT work. While I am happy with the leadership role Bush has taken in getting aid to Africa to combat AIDS and poverty, when he mentioned this in the State of the Union speech, Republicans were annoyed.

What about those people? Well, I just hope they dont end up like the people in Afghanistan. America set up a puppet government, and now that the military objectives are largely completed, have put them on the backburner. The public image of not being an occupying force is hard to keep up when you just occupied the whole nation. I think the looting and the vigilante justice in the streets right after the occupation showed how Iraq viewed the US much more than the tearing down of that statue.

Do I think there are WMD's in Iraq? No. rickheel and I have a bet going about that from a few months ago. You asked me have they had ample time, I say that it doesnt matter how long they search, they wont find anything.

bigolhawg Wrote:The "those poor people" argument will NOT work. While I am happy with the leadership role Bush has taken in getting aid to Africa to combat AIDS and poverty, when he mentioned this in the State of the Union speech, Republicans were annoyed.

What about those people? Well, I just hope they dont end up like the people in Afghanistan. America set up a puppet government, and now that the military objectives are largely completed, have put them on the backburner. The public image of not being an occupying force is hard to keep up when you just occupied the whole nation. I think the looting and the vigilante justice in the streets right after the occupation showed how Iraq viewed the US much more than the tearing down of that statue.

Do I think there are WMD's in Iraq? No. rickheel and I have a bet going about that from a few months ago. You asked me have they had ample time, I say that it doesnt matter how long they search, they wont find anything.

Its not like the liberals or leftists have cared about the poor and down-trodden either. Even comparing this to Vietnam is a joke. Vietnam was a long drawn out war instead of a US butt-whooping like Gulf II. Vietnam was fought be a joke leader (LBJ) while Gulf II is run by some of the smartest military minds in the world. We accomplished our objectives in less than 5 weeks while in Vietnam we didn't finish the war till the cease-fire. There are major differences between Vietnam and Gulf II. Just because things have slowed down doesn't mean that we've hit the so-called media "quagmire". There are always bumps in the road which can't be avoided, yet the media expects everything to go smoothly and jump on small things like little resistance groups and say stupid stuff like, "Is this another Vietnam?"

As far as WMD there is no question that they exist. Want proof? Ask Iran, the Kurds, the french, the Germans, and the UN. Saddam has used them in the past and has bragged about his capabilities before. So how can you say there's not WMDs in Iraq?

Well said T-Monay

Also... I don't consider throwing $$$ at poor people for doing nothing, like the Dems have done for so many years...is "helping them". How old is the adage about giving a man a fish and teaching a man to fish?

Iraq's a little different from Afghanistan. First of all, look at populations. Kabul is the largest city in Afghanistan and doesn't have a million people in it. Baghdad's got 5 million. Lot more people to control here. Secondly, Hamid Karzai stepped up to become a leader. No one in Iraq is willing yet to assume a leadership role, making things tougher and timelines impossible to create.

Third, the looting in the streets when tanks rolled into Baghdad has nothing to do with how Iraq viewed the US. They were impoverished people trying to get things to live better, which is what most people in their case probably would do after just being freed from decades of a brutal regime. How about the thousands who danced on Saddam's fallen statue, or said or held up signs thanking Bush.

Dems pray that they never find WMDs. The day they do, it'll be a major victory for Bush and the coalition.

WPS

calling_the_hogs Wrote:Iraq's a little different from Afghanistan. First of all, look at populations. Kabul is the largest city in Afghanistan and doesn't have a million people in it. Baghdad's got 5 million. Lot more people to control here. Secondly, Hamid Karzai stepped up to become a leader. No one in Iraq is willing yet to assume a leadership role, making things tougher and timelines impossible to create.

Just imagine the US trying to hold Iran after toppling its regime.


Oh Shiit!!! :laugh:


KC

bigolhawg, you claim that the US created a puppet government in Afghanistan. You're probably are right considering the US replaced the leader that was there first with a US-supported leader and don't argue this idea. But my question to you is, "Are the Afghani people better off under this US-supported leader or the Taliban?" If you say the Taliban, then you definitely are one of the leftist/liberals I talked about earlier that don't give a ****** about human rights. If not, then the next question is, "How is this puppet-government a bad thing?"

bigolhawg Wrote:<a href='http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=544&e=1&u=/ap/20030710/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq' target='_blank'>http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...o_pr_wh/us_iraq</a>

General Tommy Franks says it could take another four years in Iraq to finish the job. Guess this wasnt just an In and Out job after all...

"Iraq ISNT the new Vietnam?"


Sure it is. That 58K+ is surely to be surpassed by one soldier a day being killed in Iraq. We just have to be there 58+ thousand days. Damn, you are lost. Have you ever SERVED in the military? I have. 8 long ****** years and frankly, all you arm-chair Generals piss me off. Get into the trenches some time and stop your bitching. You, and ALL other Democrats, are reaching........................................to freaking Pluto.