A little bit of History - Page 2
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 13 of 13

Thread: A little bit of History

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Northeast Alabama
    Posts
    3,366
    Quote Originally Posted by XD40scinNC View Post
    No. And neither do you because he never said that. He said major combat operations in Iraq had ended, which was true at the time. He was speaking of the deposing of Saddam Hussein and the liberation of Iraq. He said so in that speech, which liberals, and apparently you, conveniently ignored.
    And the Mission Accomplished banner on the bridge of the carrier...
    Exactly. The banner was correct and you, along with many liberals, conveniently ignored that because it didn't fit your preconceived notions. As is all too common with liberals, it's far more convenient to distort the truth or lie rather than being proved wrong. Quite frankly I was a bit surprised to see you doing that too. I didn't know you were a liberal.
    .
    ...., and that statement while stating;
    Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.
    Right again. Major combat operations HAD ended and we HAD prevailed in the fight to depose Saddam Hussein.
    .
    I'd love to congratulate you on finally getting things right, but I know you're just attempting more distortions of the truth. Bush didn't write the banner, nor did his staff. The administration did create the banner, but it was at the Navy's request, and the Navy chose the wording to represent the successful completion of the USS Abraham Lincoln's deployment. Even Bush said the wording was poorly written for the occasion of his speech because it could be so easily misconstrued. But again the liberal media refused to report those facts, or chose to report them after the fact and in a far less obvious manner. I'm curious why you choose to be such a malleable and submissive tool of the liberals and the mainstream media, especially here. This isn't Daily Kos or Huffington Post, so you must know someone here will obviously use the truth nullify your argument. I don't understand why someone would willingly subject themselves to that.
    .
    On a totally unrelated topic, has anyone else here using Internet Explorer had the BB post icons go AWOL when trying to post a reply? No bold, no links, no color codes etc. That is unless you know the code tags by heart. The buttons just aren't there. I've still got them in Firefox though, so this is browser specific.
    Posterity: you will never know how much it has cost my generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it.--- John Quincy Adams
    Condensed Guide To Ohio Concealed Carry Laws

  2.   
  3. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Northeast Alabama
    Posts
    3,366
    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    I have come to change my mind about my then-support for going into Iraq, but I don't use propaganda and revisionist history to explain my reasons for the change in thinking. You shouldn't either....
    Well said, and exactly right. I remember posting about this on another forum when the invasion was initiated. I said keeping the peace would be far more difficult than winning the war would be. It struck me that no one else was thinking about that. I can't say with any certainty that I would have opposed the invasion had I known what I know now. It's too easy to be an armchair quarterback using hindsight. I would undoubtedly question whether a full scale invasion would be necessary rather than a limited effort to rid ourselves with Saddam. But as is always the case using hindsight, I can't in any way be sure that such a strategy would have produced more desirable result. Saddam would almost certainly have been replaced by one of his cronies. While his successor might have been willing to obey the UN sanctions and allow the inspections to resume, those inspections hadn't been all that reliable in my opinion, so I'm not sure that their continuance would have been all that effective in making the region more safe. Though many liberals continue to claim otherwise, there has never been any doubt that Iraq had WMD. They has used them on their own citizens more than once, and had also used them against Iran in their conflict. There were thousands of Iraqis employed in WMD research and production activities at one time. Saddam's regime went to great lengths to hide and protect the most qualified of those people for future WMD development, and I see no reason that a subsequent regime headed by one of his cronies would have continued such efforts. The invasion had far reaching consequences than most people anticipated or realized at the time, so it's easy to paint it as a bad decision if one wanted to make that argument. So the real question is what else could we have done. It's obvious that Saddam would have remained a threat, and likely an increasing threat at that, so simply ignoring him wasn't a good choice. But it's really impossible to say with any certainty what leaving him in power would have done, nor what the results would have been had we chosen to pursue an alternative strategy. That's why I can't just say the invasion was a mistake. Doing anything else could have been worse. There's just no way to know for sure. I think dwelling on this point is useless. We can't undo the past and it serves no good purpose to repeatedly debate the wisdom of something we can't change.
    Posterity: you will never know how much it has cost my generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it.--- John Quincy Adams
    Condensed Guide To Ohio Concealed Carry Laws

  4. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhino View Post
    Right again. Major combat operations HAD ended and we HAD prevailed in the fight to depose Saddam Hussein.
    And the troops sat around and watched Iraq descend into chaos because the so called "commander" in chief, didn't have a fricking clue what to do next. Now we had two countries without leadership, Iraq and the US.
    “Religion is an insult to human dignity. Without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things.
    But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” ― Steven Weinberg

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast