[TidesHoss32]

Even though WMD may not have been discovered, has anyone not listened to anything that matman had to say? He is probably the only one on here that was actually there, other than obviously congressman. I know we have all seen footage on TV of what Huessein did to his own people, and they did in fact have weapons that they were not supposed to have.

Huessein made a game out of the UN inspector visits. He purposely wanted to leave a cloud of suspicion to the world. His intent was to leave everyone thinking, "Well does he have them, or does he not". Plain and simple, this is how he got his kicks playing "cat and mouse". His game was to just see how far he could push the UN into enforcing the set post Persian Gulf War policies before they would push back. If he wanted the world to know that there were no WMD there, then UN inspectors would have been let in to do do the inspections when they were scheduled and would have been given free access to all places they wanted to visit, instead of being denied access to certain areas. Have you all forgotten how he shot at the UN aircraft trying to enforce the UN mandated "No Fly Zones"? It wasn't like he was not warned time and time and time again, to comply with all mandated restrictions and given fair warning of the consequences.

Remember how he sold oil to buy weaponry, mocking the UN allowance to sell oil for the purpose of buying food for his people?

Are most of you people forgetting any of this? And Wildcat, I know your gonna get your little feelings hurt once again, but yes, your not old enough to remember any of it. [Thank God for google though, huh, where one can become an instant expert.] It just seems that everyone else that should be able to remember all this stuff has suddenly forgotten the reasons that we had. Heck, just throw the WMD factor out of it, we still had validity. I remember Bush, at the time as having the highest approval ratings in history. Ya'll forget about that too?

It's not so much the fact that we went in, because I think there was very just cause to go in. I think there was a good basis for that even though WMD were never discovered. It would take a very foolish person to not realize that left unchecked, Huessein with all his oil wealth would have untimately ended up with nuclear weaponry, and would have terrorized and held the middle east hostage. He surely would have backmailed the entire free world. He had to be taken out and neutralized. He certainly would have had no conscience in exterminating millions and millions of lives.

I dont like the fact that we are still there with seemingly little getting accomplished, and the fact that untold billions are still being spent either. But something had to be done. Unfortunate that it is a complicated and deadly process where it seems there is no visable early solution to. It's messy, ugly, deadly and expensive, but what would have ultimately happened if nothing had ever been done? I thought the whole Idea was to rid the Iraqi people of the cruel oppressive dictator that ruled hand and fist over them and to give them the opportunity to elect their own leaders. Was that not accomplished?

One has to first realize that fighting and dieing is a way of life to these people. It has been since the beginning of time, and when time ends it will remain unchanged. Their culture offers beliefs that there are rewards and glory for dieing for the sake of Allah. There is a faction of Iraqi people that will fight and die just the sake of dieing fighting the hated US. They dont even have to have a cause other than that. It's like a deadly football game to some. The US vs. the Shiites (or whomever it is) in this week's rival game of the week. THEY ENJOY IT!!! How do you fight that mentality? How do you restore stability to people that dont want stability?

We were spending billions and billions before just trying to enforce UN regulations, and we're are still spending billions and billions. What is different? It's a quagmire , no matter what you do.

:Thumbs: Excellent most Mr K!

[CatDawg]

The last line you asked what is the difference I would say that needs to be asked of the families that have suffered since we did go back in. He was contained with the UN regulations and the no fly zones. We waste millions everyday so I don't think it is about money. We have troops keeping areas contained all over this world. Why split your forces and resources to open another front when you haven't finished the main mission of getting Bin Laden. I would still like to know why Iraq was more dangerous than North Korea. North Korea is further along with nuclear capabilities, they continue to do missle test, they've shipped arms against UN regulations, while Iraq was contained, UN inspectors on the ground, No fly zones, The President was in power by name only. If Iraq was a deserved target then we should have been hitting North Korea as well. What is the difference between the two that would justify letting them continue to do as they want but not Iraq?

[Mr.Kimball]

The gas attack on the Kurds in Northern Iraq happened in the last 80's and is yet another reason why the job should have been finished the first time but not a justification for the 2nd. Yes he was straight forward with the UN Inspectors, however, Scott Ritter U.S. Marine and HEAD UN Weapons Inspector spoke of how they did finally gain access to all interested sites and that he had NO WMD's. I hated Ritter and backed Bush but time has proven Ritter correct and myself and Bush wrong.

I cant disagree with that CatDawg, I though the Saddam should have been taken out at that time too. I was not favorable of that not being done at that time and I am still not. However one would have thought that even someone as defiante and unpredictable as Sadaam Hussein would have seen the awesome power of what the United States could unleash and would have changed policy and been more reverant and be compliant with the UN sanctions and mandates. Guess not , huh? BUT, what you are failing to remember is that that was a decision made by Bush #1. Are you failing to remember that after #1 that we went through 8 years of another administration that had no kahunas, period to do anything at all ? Saddam absolutley mocked and toyed with the Clinton Administration. You CANNOT blame anything that Bush #2 did based on what Bush #1 failed to do. There was a 10 year span between action and non action separated by a completely different administration. Right?

[Mr.Kimball]

The last line you asked what is the difference I would say that needs to be asked of the families that have suffered since we did go back in. He was contained with the UN regulations and the no fly zones. We waste millions everyday so I don't think it is about money. We have troops keeping areas contained all over this world. Why split your forces and resources to open another front when you haven't finished the main mission of getting Bin Laden. I would still like to know why Iraq was more dangerous than North Korea. North Korea is further along with nuclear capabilities, they continue to do missle test, they've shipped arms against UN regulations, while Iraq was contained, UN inspectors on the ground, No fly zones, The President was in power by name only. If Iraq was a deserved target then we should have been hitting North Korea as well. What is the difference between the two that would justify letting them continue to do as they want but not Iraq?

All logical questions and answers.

As for as the families, I know you have to have sympathy, but what about those families of soldiers who happen to lose their lives in such things just as training missions? I'm sure those may have bitterness as well. What you have to remember is that we currently dont have a military draft in the United States. We are a complete volunteer armed force. Everyone that signs up for duty is well aware of what being in the United States military encompasses and what the potential liabilites are. It's not a country club they are joining, it's a job whose description entails that there is a possibility that you may die, doing whatever it takes to keep this country free from all enemies foreign and domestic. It is known right up front that one will be required to go to any and all places to perform the afore described duties. I think think that your question may have already been answered by one member that has already posted on this thread. I think matman made his feelings fairly obvious. Perhaps if I am out of line, matman will certainly correct me. Anyways, he is the type of guy that is the true expert on this subject , definately not you or I either one to begin with. Heck, I even welcome DW into the discussion,even as radical as what he is. I would like to hear what congressman thinks. The fact is, I respect all of those who have gone and /or, served/serving our country.

I'll tell you what the difference is between Iraq and Korea, and why the stategy is completely different , and why more caution is emphasized with just two simple words. RED CHINA.


I really welcome matman, DW, and congressman to enter this discussion and give their thoughts and ideas. As I said, guys like them are the true experts.

[CatDawg]

I cant disagree with that CatDawg, I though the Saddam should have been taken out at that time too. I was not favorable of that not being done at that time and I am still not. However one would have thought that even someone as defiante and unpredictable as Sadaam Hussein would have seen the awesome power of what the United States could unleash and would have changed policy and been more reverant and be compliant with the UN sanctions and mandates. Guess not , huh? BUT, what you are failing to remember is that that was a decision made by Bush #1. Are you failing to remember that after #1 that we went through 8 years of another administration that had no kahunas, period to do anything at all ? Saddam absolutley mocked and toyed with the Clinton Administration. You CANNOT blame anything that Bush #2 did based on what Bush #1 failed to do. There was a 10 year span between action and non action separated by a completely different administration. Right?

I agree I think it should have been done during Bush 1 and I agree that Clinton let them toy with the UN and US. However, I still don't think we had justification to go back when we did. When you are dealing with situations like this I just don't see how you can pause and then decide to pickup later when basically nothing had changed. I know we gave the impression that things had changed but I think most of us can agree that they hadn't. Besides we could have kept him in check long enough to give all resources to finding Osama, then turned our attention more to him.

[CatDawg]

All logical questions and answers.

As for as the families, I know you have to have sympathy, but what about those families of soldiers who happen to lose their lives in such things just as training missions? I'm sure those may have bitterness as well. What you have to remember is that we currently dont have a military draft in the United States. We are a complete volunteer armed force. Everyone that signs up for duty is well aware of what being in the United States military encompasses and what the potential liabilites are. It's not a country club they are joining, it's a job whose description entails that there is a possibility that you may die, doing whatever it takes to keep this country free from all enemies foreign and domestic. It is known right up front that one will be required to go to any and all places to perform the afore described duties. I think think that your question may have already been answered by one member that has already posted on this thread. I think matman made his feelings fairly obvious. Perhaps if I am out of line, matman will certainly correct me. Anyways, he is the type of guy that is the true expert on this subject , definately not you or I either one to begin with. Heck, I even welcome DW into the discussion,even as radical as what he is. I would like to hear what congressman thinks. The fact is, I respect all of those who have gone and /or, served/serving our country.

I'll tell you what the difference is between Iraq and Korea, and why the stategy is completely different , and why more caution is emphasized with just two simple words. RED CHINA.


I really welcome matman, DW, and congressman to enter this discussion and give their thoughts and ideas. As I said, guys like them are the true experts.

I agree it doesn't matter if you lose your loved one in a training exercise or actual combat you still lose them. However, we've lost more due to the combat. Additionally, look at all the others that have been lost in Iraq due to the combat situation. I totally respect those that have served and protected. They do know what they are getting into but they also expect to be lead in the right direction.

I totally agree that we have stopped short of anything with North Korea because of China. However, if we were justified in Iraq then we have certainly been justified with North Korea as well. You have to be careful especially when dealing with China but we should have at least taken a harder hand with North Korea.

So do you think it was because the US fears China and their military power or is it due to the money supply that they continue to give us and that we will never be able to repay if they call our loan?

[Mr.Kimball]

I agree I think it should have been done during Bush 1 and I agree that Clinton let them toy with the UN and US. However, I still don't think we had justification to go back when we did. When you are dealing with situations like this I just don't see how you can pause and then decide to pickup later when basically nothing had changed. I know we gave the impression that things had changed but I think most of us can agree that they hadn't. Besides we could have kept him in check long enough to give all resources to finding Osama, then turned our attention more to him.

I think that things did change, and they changed in a major way from the Bush#1 period to the Bush#2 period. Yeah, I understand to a degree with your thoughts saying that Saddam was being somewhat contained, but a whole new set of obstacles came into the picture that has not even been touched upon yet. If you remember, in the early post 9-11 days the big emphasis was on eradicating state sponsored terriorist training camps for groups such as Al-Qaeda. If nothing else the main thing that Saddam and the rest of the Arab world learned that in a conventional war, that they were no match for US military firepower. If you remember Iraq was thought of to have had one of the best equipted and well trained armies in the world. It took the Persian Gulf War to really disprove Saddam's theory on that. With his military capabilities in shambles, Saddam and the rest of the whole Arab world then realized that a nonconventional terrorist offensive stategy was the only possible way destroy the US and it's allies. Maybe not so much with military tactics but by attacking the moral fiber and the financial stucture, and crumbling them from within. Thus the terrorist training era greatly accelerated and Saddam was a major sponsor of those activities. This is the part that during the Clinton Administration, flourished globaly. It was during the Bush #2 years (post 9-11) that the huge emphasis was to attempt to eradicate those traing facilities in the hot spots around the world. I'm sure those activities may have existed in places during Bush#1, but not to the degree that is was post Persian Gulf War and during the Clinton terms. So, I think you can tack that on as one of the variables as well as the others that have been mentioned that substaniates going into Iraq. This is why it was a totaly different situation and why I feel there was justifications in doing what we did. I understand your voice on the Iraq occupation vs. the Bin Laden hunt, but you can surely understand that there are/were issues in both areas that had/have to be dealt with simultaneously.

[thecavemaster]

I think that things did change in a major way though. If you remember, in the early post 9-11 days the big emphasis was eradicating state sponsored terriorist training camps for groups such as Al-Qaeda. If nothing else the main thing that Saddam and the rest of the Arab world learned that in a conventional war, that they were no match for US military firepower. If you remember Iraq was thought to have had one of the best equipped and well trained armies in the world. It took the Persian Gulf War to really disprove Saddam's theory on that. With his military capabilities in shambles, Saddam and the rest of the whole Arab world then realized that a nonconventional terrorist offensive stategy was the only possible way destroy the US and it's allies. Maybe not so much with military tactics but by attacking the moral and the financial stucture, and crumbling them from within. Thus the terrorist training era really accelerated. This is the part that during the Clinton Administration, flourished globaly. It was during the Bush #2 years (post 9-11) that the huge emphasis was to attempt to eradicate them in the hot spots around the world. I'm sure those activities may have existed in places during Bush#1, but not to the degree that is was post Persian War and during the Clinton terms. So, I think you can tack that on as one of the variables as well as the others that have been mentioned into going into Iraq. This is why it was a totaly different situation and why I feel there was justifications in doing what we did. I understand your voice on the Iraq occupation vs. the Bin Laden hunt, but you can surely understand that there are/were issues in both areas that had/have to be dealt with simultaneously.

The 9/11 terrorists and planners chose: World Trade Center (symbol of US commerce), Pentagon (symbol of US military power/planning), and, apparently, were going for the White House (symbol of government/executive power). It was a symbolic attack, as I understand the ramblings and rantings and reasonings of bin Laden, designed to inflict damage domestically, yes, but also to lure the US into the Middle East in prolonged military struggle. Also, if Iraq was part of the "equation" for reasons other than offered, why was that not made available to Congress, to the people?

[Mr.Kimball]

The 9/11 terrorists and planners chose: World Trade Center (symbol of US commerce), Pentagon (symbol of US military power/planning), and, apparently, were going for the White House (symbol of government/executive power). It was a symbolic attack, as I understand the ramblings and rantings and reasonings of bin Laden, designed to inflict damage domestically, yes, but also to lure the US into the Middle East in prolonged military struggle. Also, if Iraq was part of the "equation" for reasons other than offered, why was that not made available to Congress, to the people?

I thought that it was well known and a part of the case that had been built. I remember knowing at the time that that was in part the rationale for the invasion.

[thecavemaster]

I thought that it was well known and a part of the case that had been built. I remember knowing at the time that that was in part the rationale for the invasion.

It was not my understanding at the time that Iraq was a "hot spot" for terrorist activity, as Saddam was A Bath'ist and not real cordial with Sunni elements. That rationale might have been offered. Now, the Taliban is another matter: they were pretty "buddy, buddy" with Osama bin Laden. Frankly, I don't think Bush II is dumb or an "idiot." I do think he got locked into a worldview (et al. Cheney and Rumsfeld) that played a little fast and loose with intelligence to get to a place of idealogical conquest.

[Mr.Kimball]

I agree it doesn't matter if you lose your loved one in a training exercise or actual combat you still lose them. However, we've lost more due to the combat. Additionally, look at all the others that have been lost in Iraq due to the combat situation. I totally respect those that have served and protected. They do know what they are getting into but they also expect to be lead in the right direction.

I totally agree that we have stopped short of anything with North Korea because of China. However, if we were justified in Iraq then we have certainly been justified with North Korea as well. You have to be careful especially when dealing with China but we should have at least taken a harder hand with North Korea.

So do you think it was because the US fears China and their military power or is it due to the money supply that they continue to give us and that we will never be able to repay if they call our loan?

Unfortunately and sadly that is a part of all military activities.

I dont think that we are done in an attempt to deal with Noth Korea. I just dont think that anybody really knows exactly how to deal with the situattion completely.

I think it's both. Can you remember the time when it seemed everything we bought had a "Made in Japan" label attached to it? The fear then was that economically "Japan would one day defeat us without firing a shot" because of the trade imbalance and the fact that they had invested heavily in US real estate and financial institutions. Although that obviously never materialized in quite that manner, I think one must be somewhat weary that we have somewhat the same but different situation with China presently. Trade wise, many of the things we that we bought from Japan has now been stamped and replaced with "Made in China" labels. Even though electronics are still bought in mass quanities from Japan they are also coming in from Korea,India, and China as well. It used to be, with what I'll refer to as trinkets, all came with a Japan stamp. I now cant remember the last time I have seen anything on those type items that does not say China on it. China, as you mentioned, has not only loaned us money, but they are investing heavily into the same areas that Japan once did as well. The big difference is with China we are dealing with a Communist regime as opposed to the friendly Japanese stucture that we helped to install. Japan's military force (although US friendly) would never be able to match the nuclear armed, billion man force of the Red Army. I really dont know if our's could either. So, in those thoughts, Japan never ever posed the threat that China does. We never really had to fear a military threat from Japan, because we could still basicly control that factor added to the fact that they are greatly inferior. However , this is a completely different animal and is a situation, greatly because of the general overall instability and vulnerability of the US economy, that this could very well be a financial empire that could very well bring the US to their knees. Then, you could throw Chinese military capabilities into the equation. Botton line, and to answer your question, I would think that the situation that we are currently in financially has to weigh very heavily into how we negotiate and deal with Communist China on many issues. Very particularly North Korea. From what I understand, China does not condone the activities of North Korea, but I dont think they are about to let the United States come into North Korea and pose a close proximity challenge to US dominance in the area. I think they'll take care of the North Korea problem on their own, if it comes down to that.

[CatDawg]

I think that things did change, and they changed in a major way from the Bush#1 period to the Bush#2 period. Yeah, I understand to a degree with your thoughts saying that Saddam was being somewhat contained, but a whole new set of obstacles came into the picture that has not even been touched upon yet. If you remember, in the early post 9-11 days the big emphasis was on eradicating state sponsored terriorist training camps for groups such as Al-Qaeda. If nothing else the main thing that Saddam and the rest of the Arab world learned that in a conventional war, that they were no match for US military firepower. If you remember Iraq was thought of to have had one of the best equipted and well trained armies in the world. It took the Persian Gulf War to really disprove Saddam's theory on that. With his military capabilities in shambles, Saddam and the rest of the whole Arab world then realized that a nonconventional terrorist offensive stategy was the only possible way destroy the US and it's allies. Maybe not so much with military tactics but by attacking the moral fiber and the financial stucture, and crumbling them from within. Thus the terrorist training era greatly accelerated and Saddam was a major sponsor of those activities. This is the part that during the Clinton Administration, flourished globaly. It was during the Bush #2 years (post 9-11) that the huge emphasis was to attempt to eradicate those traing facilities in the hot spots around the world. I'm sure those activities may have existed in places during Bush#1, but not to the degree that is was post Persian Gulf War and during the Clinton terms. So, I think you can tack that on as one of the variables as well as the others that have been mentioned that substaniates going into Iraq. This is why it was a totaly different situation and why I feel there was justifications in doing what we did. I understand your voice on the Iraq occupation vs. the Bin Laden hunt, but you can surely understand that there are/were issues in both areas that had/have to be dealt with simultaneously.

I agree with most of this, however, what about the other areas that sponsor and train? Somalia is a prime example that country has been allowed to continue to do whatever and they are certainly a terrorist country and yet we do nothing. Yemen is another example of allowing terrorist to train and do as they will.

[CatDawg]

The 9/11 terrorists and planners chose: World Trade Center (symbol of US commerce), Pentagon (symbol of US military power/planning), and, apparently, were going for the White House (symbol of government/executive power). It was a symbolic attack, as I understand the ramblings and rantings and reasonings of bin Laden, designed to inflict damage domestically, yes, but also to lure the US into the Middle East in prolonged military struggle. Also, if Iraq was part of the "equation" for reasons other than offered, why was that not made available to Congress, to the people?

:Thumbs:

[CatDawg]

It was not my understanding at the time that Iraq was a "hot spot" for terrorist activity, as Saddam was A Bath'ist and not real cordial with Sunni elements. That rationale might have been offered. Now, the Taliban is another matter: they were pretty "buddy, buddy" with Osama bin Laden. Frankly, I don't think Bush II is dumb or an "idiot." I do think he got locked into a worldview (et al. Cheney and Rumsfeld) that played a little fast and loose with intelligence to get to a place of idealogical conquest.

I agree, Cheney and Rumsfeld pulled the majority of the strings.

[CatDawg]

Unfortunately and sadly that is a part of all military activities.

I dont think that we are done in an attempt to deal with Noth Korea. I just dont think that anybody really knows exactly how to deal with the situattion completely.

I think it's both. Can you remember the time when it seemed everything we bought had a "Made in Japan" label attached to it? The fear then was that economically "Japan would one day defeat us without firing a shot" because of the trade imbalance and the fact that they had invested heavily in US real estate and financial institutions. Although that obviously never materialized in quite that manner, I think one must be somewhat weary that we have somewhat the same but different situation with China presently. Trade wise, many of the things we that we bought from Japan has now been stamped and replaced with "Made in China" labels. Even though electronics are still bought in mass quanities from Japan they are also coming in from Korea,India, and China as well. It used to be, with what I'll refer to as trinkets, all came with a Japan stamp. I now cant remember the last time I have seen anything on those type items that does not say China on it. China, as you mentioned, has not only loaned us money, but they are investing heavily into the same areas that Japan once did as well. The big difference is with China we are dealing with a Communist regime as opposed to the friendly Japanese stucture that we helped to install. Japan's military force (although US friendly) would never be able to match the nuclear armed, billion man force of the Red Army. I really dont know if our's could either. So, in those thoughts, Japan never ever posed the threat that China does. We never really had to fear a military threat from Japan, because we could still basicly control that factor added to the fact that they are greatly inferior. However , this is a completely different animal and is a situation, greatly because of the general overall instability and vulnerability of the US economy, that this could very well be a financial empire that could very well bring the US to their knees. Then, you could throw Chinese military capabilities into the equation. Botton line, and to answer your question, I would think that the situation that we are currently in financially has to weigh very heavily into how we negotiate and deal with Communist China on many issues. Very particularly North Korea. From what I understand, China does not condone the activities of North Korea, but I dont think they are about to let the United States come into North Korea and pose a close proximity challenge to US dominance in the area. I think they'll take care of the North Korea problem on their own, if it comes down to that.

I agree and they know that no matter how big North Korea gets they won't be a threat to China, however, if the US got a larger stronghold on the Korean Pennisula that would be a totally different story. We must not forget that Taiwan plays a large part in all this as well.

[Mr.Kimball]

It was not my understanding at the time that Iraq was a "hot spot" for terrorist activity, as Saddam was A Bath'ist and not real cordial with Sunni elements. That rationale might have been offered. Now, the Taliban is another matter: they were pretty "buddy, buddy" with Osama bin Laden. Frankly, I don't think Bush II is dumb or an "idiot." I do think he got locked into a worldview (et al. Cheney and Rumsfeld) that played a little fast and loose with intelligence to get to a place of idealogical conquest.

I think that intelligence reports indicated that it was. After the fact intervention, I think, proved that correct.

[Mr.Kimball]

I agree with most of this, however, what about the other areas that sponsor and train? Somalia is a prime example that country has been allowed to continue to do whatever and they are certainly a terrorist country and yet we do nothing. Yemen is another example of allowing terrorist to train and do as they will.

Your right, but dont you think that the American people would balk and be outraged on taking on another partner in crime before we get something concreted in at the other two locations first? Or should I say, if we ever.

[CatDawg]

Exactly I think they would freak, and that is why we should have kept our attention on one target at a time then move on. You can still have counter intelligent forces do their thing in these locations but I don't think we should have opened up another front before finishing the first. This isn't on the scale of Hitler and WWII but look at his mistakes he could have had all of Europe and actually the US probably wouldn't have entered the European conflict but he kept expanding his front and making himself thinner and thinner.

[Mr.Kimball]

Exactly I think they would freak, and that is why we should have kept our attention on one target at a time then move on. You can still have counter intelligent forces do their thing in these locations but I don't think we should have opened up another front before finishing the first. This isn't on the scale of Hitler and WWII but look at his mistakes he could have had all of Europe and actually the US probably wouldn't have entered the European conflict but he kept expanding his front and making himself thinner and thinner.

Valid points.

[dbcooper]

I agree with most of this, however, what about the other areas that sponsor and train? Somalia is a prime example that country has been allowed to continue to do whatever and they are certainly a terrorist country and yet we do nothing. Yemen is another example of allowing terrorist to train and do as they will.

Somalia, though, is simply more of a feudal territory than a federated state right now. Who are you going to hold accountable? Warlord #1 or Warlord #2 or Warlord #334?

[dbcooper]

Exactly I think they would freak, and that is why we should have kept our attention on one target at a time then move on. You can still have counter intelligent forces do their thing in these locations but I don't think we should have opened up another front before finishing the first. This isn't on the scale of Hitler and WWII but look at his mistakes he could have had all of Europe and actually the US probably wouldn't have entered the European conflict but he kept expanding his front and making himself thinner and thinner.

Hitler would've eventually been countered no matter what. The U.S. simply would not have permitted total domination of Europe by him.

I agree that starting Barbarossa when he did cost him a potential victory over Britain, but with Churchill in leadership rather than Neville, Sea Lion would've been a a bloody marsh fight and the U.S. would've intervened quicker than waiting to land in North Africa in '42.

Besides, the error people make in equating Hussein with Hitler is that with Hitler you had a preceding veneer of cooperative diplomacy and treaties leading up to '39. With Hussein it was simply aggression from the outset.

At first it was aggression that served our purposes (against Iran, deemed a bigger threat in the first half of the 80s) and then it was aggression that legitimately threatened our interests as well as those of the western world.

It does not matter one scintilla that there were no WMDs in Iraq. Not one. The invasion was justifiable on the premise of multi-level acts of aggression against the U.S., against the Gulf States, violations of multiple UN Resolutions which required forcible response and, really, common sense.

How much sense did it make to sit and wait on a provably aggressive, unstable man sit in the midst of the world's most sensitive fuel reserve resource with the potential to disrupt it all, really?

He was a fascist, a murdering pig, a thug and the world is better off rid of him.

[CatDawg]

Somalia, though, is simply more of a feudal territory than a federated state right now. Who are you going to hold accountable? Warlord #1 or Warlord #2 or Warlord #334?

Somalia is almost a lost cause. If you were to invade you might as well plan on staying there or you would be leaving it in the same exact way. Wait a second we already did that didn't we? That country has no chance of having any type of government no matter how much we would like to install one of our choice, they just have nothing to chose from or offer.

[CatDawg]

Hitler would've eventually been countered no matter what. The U.S. simply would not have permitted total domination of Europe by him.

I agree that starting Barbarossa when he did cost him a potential victory over Britain, but with Churchill in leadership rather than Neville, Sea Lion would've been a a bloody marsh fight and the U.S. would've intervened quicker than waiting to land in North Africa in '42.

Besides, the error people make in equating Hussein with Hitler is that with Hitler you had a preceding veneer of cooperative diplomacy and treaties leading up to '39. With Hussein it was simply aggression from the outset.

At first it was aggression that served our purposes (against Iran, deemed a bigger threat in the first half of the 80s) and then it was aggression that legitimately threatened our interests as well as those of the western world.

It does not matter one scintilla that there were no WMDs in Iraq. Not one. The invasion was justifiable on the premise of multi-level acts of aggression against the U.S., against the Gulf States, violations of multiple UN Resolutions which required forcible response and, really, common sense.

How much sense did it make to sit and wait on a provably aggressive, unstable man sit in the midst of the world's most sensitive fuel reserve resource with the potential to disrupt it all, really?

He was a fascist, a murdering pig, a thug and the world is better off rid of him.

I agree that he needed removed, however, I feel that should have taken place under Bush#1. If he was going to be a target again that is fine but we should have not opened up the second front until we had achieved our objective and I think it was getting Osama. However, it appears the only true objective was to just remove the Taliban. I agree, that Saddam was still throwing a few punches every now and then but he didn't not have the ability to knock anyone out any longer and he was contained in his own cage.

[dbcooper]

From a moral standpoint it ought to have happened under George H.W. Bush, but he legally did all that was permissible. His mandate was not for regime change, either by the U.N. or by his coalition of allies.
And in Afghanistan, it is my reasoned conclusion that getting Bin Laden was never priority 1. It was emotionally, but politically and militarily the objective was to remove the Taliban and neutralize Afghanistan as a base of international terrorist activity, which has been mostly achieved. The disruption by the Taliban and Al Qaeda has been relatively confined to the Af-Pak theatre and will remain so as long as we have the political will to sustain that fight.
In other words, with guilt-plagued leftists in charge, not too long.

[CatDawg]

Hitler would've eventually been countered no matter what. The U.S. simply would not have permitted total domination of Europe by him.

I agree that starting Barbarossa when he did cost him a potential victory over Britain, but with Churchill in leadership rather than Neville, Sea Lion would've been a a bloody marsh fight and the U.S. would've intervened quicker than waiting to land in North Africa in '42.

Besides, the error people make in equating Hussein with Hitler is that with Hitler you had a preceding veneer of cooperative diplomacy and treaties leading up to '39. With Hussein it was simply aggression from the outset.

At first it was aggression that served our purposes (against Iran, deemed a bigger threat in the first half of the 80s) and then it was aggression that legitimately threatened our interests as well as those of the western world.

It does not matter one scintilla that there were no WMDs in Iraq. Not one. The invasion was justifiable on the premise of multi-level acts of aggression against the U.S., against the Gulf States, violations of multiple UN Resolutions which required forcible response and, really, common sense.

How much sense did it make to sit and wait on a provably aggressive, unstable man sit in the midst of the world's most sensitive fuel reserve resource with the potential to disrupt it all, really?

He was a fascist, a murdering pig, a thug and the world is better off rid of him.

However, Sea Lion was abandoned in the fall of '40 so that he could put more forces on the Eastern Front with the Red Army. Hitler being bogged down after the defeat in Kursk realized that the chance of victory on the Eastern Front were basicaly lost. Therefore, his only chance was to convince Stalin that the powers of the US, Britain and the Soviet Union in which Hitler had caused to join forces, would ultimately fall apart. He hoped that once Stalin realized that he would not be able to depend on the US and Britain to help against Germany that he would settle with returning to the lines as they were in June of '41. During this time Hitler seeing his faith in the East began to pour more and more resources into the build up of the Atlantic Wall. Hitler felt that if he could push the Allies back into the Sea that this would be the end to any problems from the US and Britain since both Churchill and Roosevelt would pay every prices for the failure. At that time he could then start putting forces back towards the east. What I find funny was the fact that Hitler had criticized Kaiser for his failures of having two fronts in WWI and yet he had opened up three fronts in the East, West and Mediterranean. He had spread himself so thin that he would not be able to defend it. Had he not declared war on the US, especially if it had been at another time instead of when he was having to fight the counteroffensive of the Red Army things may have been different. Does the US get involved in the European theatre even without him declaring on the US? Had they stopped Overlord would Hitler have been right that the US would have been defeated in Europe? This where he would have certainly been wrong and would have resulted in more lives lost due to the fact that the US would have more than likely dropped at least one Atomic bomb on Germany.

I just had to throw some info back. I knew you liked Civil War history but didn't realize you enjoyed WWII as well.

To help keep this on the topic. My point from all this is that we to were put in a position of being to thin especially without draft. If you look at the horrible incident tonight and the other numerous murders committed by Ft. Hood troops in the past few years it does make you wonder how thin we've been since the troops from Ft. Hood have been through a greater amount of deployment for these two fronts than other troops.

We must remember right or wrong on the political side of things that the troops deserve our support and thanks.

[CatDawg]

From a moral standpoint it ought to have happened under George H.W. Bush, but he legally did all that was permissible. His mandate was not for regime change, either by the U.N. or by his coalition of allies.
And in Afghanistan, it is my reasoned conclusion that getting Bin Laden was never priority 1. It was emotionally, but politically and militarily the objective was to remove the Taliban and neutralize Afghanistan as a base of international terrorist activity, which has been mostly achieved. The disruption by the Taliban and Al Qaeda has been relatively confined to the Af-Pak theatre and will remain so as long as we have the political will to sustain that fight.
In other words, with guilt-plagued leftists in charge, not too long.

I actually don't think we've accomplished very much at all in Afghanistan instead we've just moved the problem into the mountains and into Pakistan. The funny part is that we created the problems in Afghanistan and Iraq ourselves by providing arms and funding for our then friends that later became our enemies. Well, they were always our enemies just not as much as others at the time.

[dbcooper]

However, Sea Lion was abandoned in the fall of '40 so that he could put more forces on the Eastern Front with the Red Army. Hitler being bogged down after the defeat in Kursk realized that the chance of victory on the Eastern Front were basicaly lost. Therefore, his only chance was to convince Stalin that the powers of the US, Britain and the Soviet Union in which Hitler had caused to join forces, would ultimately fall apart. He hoped that once Stalin realized that he would not be able to depend on the US and Britain to help against Germany that he would settle with returning to the lines as they were in June of '41. During this time Hitler seeing his faith in the East began to pour more and more resources into the build up of the Atlantic Wall. Hitler felt that if he could push the Allies back into the Sea that this would be the end to any problems from the US and Britain since both Churchill and Roosevelt would pay every prices for the failure. At that time he could then start putting forces back towards the east. What I find funny was the fact that Hitler had criticized Kaiser for his failures of having two fronts in WWI and yet he had opened up three fronts in the East, West and Mediterranean. He had spread himself so thin that he would not be able to defend it. Had he not declared war on the US, especially if it had been at another time instead of when he was having to fight the counteroffensive of the Red Army things may have been different. Does the US get involved in the European theatre even without him declaring on the US? Had they stopped Overlord would Hitler have been right that the US would have been defeated in Europe? This where he would have certainly been wrong and would have resulted in more lives lost due to the fact that the US would have more than likely dropped at least one Atomic bomb on Germany.

I just had to throw some info back. I knew you liked Civil War history but didn't realize you enjoyed WWII as well.

To help keep this on the topic. My point from all this is that we to were put in a position of being to thin especially without draft. If you look at the horrible incident tonight and the other numerous murders committed by Ft. Hood troops in the past few years it does make you wonder how thin we've been since the troops from Ft. Hood have been through a greater amount of deployment for these two fronts than other troops.

We must remember right or wrong on the political side of things that the troops deserve our support and thanks.

My Dad fought in Europe in WWII, so I've made it a point to learn as much as possible about it.

[CatDawg]

We need to put a trip to Normandy together. Always wanted to go and actually have talked my bunch into it finally.

[Joe Friday]

BUSH CLOSES THE GAP

Perhaps the greatest measure of Obama's declining support is that just 50% of voters now say they prefer having him as President to George W. Bush, with 44% saying they'd rather have his predecessor. Given the horrendous approval ratings Bush showed during his final term that's somewhat of a surprise and an indication that voters are increasingly placing the blame on Obama for the country's difficulties instead of giving him space because of the tough situation he inherited. The closeness in the Obama/Bush numbers also has implications for the 2010 elections. Using the Bush card may not be particularly effective for Democrats anymore, which is good news generally for Republicans and especially ones like Rob Portman who are running for office and have close ties to the former President. (Posted by Ben Smith, December 9, 2009, POLITICO.)

Hmmm, looks like the favorable history review of G. Walker Bush (just for you Cavemaster) is coming to fruition!

[nky]

BUSH CLOSES THE GAP

Perhaps the greatest measure of Obama's declining support is that just 50% of voters now say they prefer having him as President to George W. Bush, with 44% saying they'd rather have his predecessor. Given the horrendous approval ratings Bush showed during his final term that's somewhat of a surprise and an indication that voters are increasingly placing the blame on Obama for the country's difficulties instead of giving him space because of the tough situation he inherited. The closeness in the Obama/Bush numbers also has implications for the 2010 elections. Using the Bush card may not be particularly effective for Democrats anymore, which is good news generally for Republicans and especially ones like Rob Portman who are running for office and have close ties to the former President. (Posted by Ben Smith, December 9, 2009, POLITICO.)

Hmmm, looks like the favorable history review of G. Walker Bush (just for you Cavemaster) is coming to fruition!

History will be kind to G.W.Bush