60 Minutes

[JB]

Re: 60 Minutes

Some of these posts are getting pretty hostile.<br /><br />Lets focus on issues, not people or labels.

 

[PW2]

Re: 60 Minutes

Yep, I will concede that this was not "all about oil" as well.<br />While I think that this would have never happened if it involved some country that did not have natural resources that we coveted, it was certainly not "all about oil"<br />It appears to be based on some naive notion that somehow, we can introduce democracy into the middle east, the surrounding countries will see the error of their ways and also go democratic.<br /><br />It is a noble, if not a simplistic, unrealistic goal.<br /><br />And it probably is about terrorism now. We destroyed the training gounds in Afghanistan, and moved them to Iraq. Along with a whole bunch of new terrorist recruiting posters and new financing for them.

 

[12Footer]

Re: 60 Minutes

Finally...Dang, PW (I like your new handle, because it's easier to type).<br />This war is about oil, but it plays an extremely minor role. This war is about precisely what GWB told the American people it was about. Nothing more or less.<br />If you had ever listened to him, you'd know what those reasons were. Why must I (or any other member of this forum) redundantly try to drill them thru your head, if you are in no way, listening or caring?<br />1.This war has all those elements for it's declaration.<br /><br />2.It has a clear strategy for defining our victory or defeat (essential in all wars, if those involved plan on victory).<br />3.A clear exit strategy must be set in stone. This has been done. but it confuses people like you who do not listen to those in command. And this is because Iraq is but one front in a global war. As much as it appears to be the "be-all/end-all", it is not. It's like the battle of Midway...One bloody front in a global battle America was once involved deeply in. You need only replace the name of the ememy, place, and strategic values to get a grasp on what is going on over there. If compared to that past war, Iraq is Italy...Or Africa, or Iwo jima .<br /><br />Another thing sets us appart from most worldly governments. We plan returning sovriegnty to the Iraqi people in one month, and protecting that infant governing body, with the bodies of our troops---quite an amazing thing to comprehend!<br />Dan Blather,60Minutes, Al Shark tounge Al Jazeeeeeeeeeeeeeeera and you,PW, never will. If y'all did, we know how that would dash your hopes against the rocks of real governing bodies.

 

[TDuck]

Re: 60 Minutes

Your plan to combat terrorism has some major flaws PW. First of all very few other countries want to be involved in the war on terror, they would rather sit back and criticize our approach. Spain would be a good example, a terror attack hits them and they fold like a cheap suit. France also take the occasional cheap shot at our policy but offers no better solutions.Contrary to you belief, the US can and will win the war on terror unilaterally if it has to. Hopefully it will not have to, but as history has proven it can. We can not wait for the rest of the world to decide they will help us, because as the UN has proven time and time again they will sit and do nothing. Iraq broke every conceivable resolution set forth by the UN, and what did they do ??? NOTHING....the UN is a joke. When someone slaps you in the face you dont run for help, you hit them back harder.

 

[fixin]

Re: 60 Minutes

Hey I got a plan-click,click,BOOM!!!!!

 

[12Footer]

Re: 60 Minutes

Originally posted by fixin:<br /> Hey I got a plan-click,click,BOOM!!!!!

Have you ever seen them in concert? They'd agree with that strategy (the band, "Salyva", that is). They're all good,hard-werkin kids who believe in thier country.<br />Kinda restores an old man's faith in his countrymen.

 

[tylerin]

Re: 60 Minutes

Did anyone catch the 60 Minutes article last night regarding the dissension among the higher brass at the pentegon with regard to the invasion of Iraq? This is comming from the some very high brass. I got me to thinking.<br />Anyway, I'm wondering what your thought are on this subject.

That was the question....right, and noone has mentioned the word Rumsfeld yet

 

[PW2]

Re: 60 Minutes

Zinni did not specify specific names, but only said that civilian leadership at the pentagon failed in planning and that heads should roll.<br /><br />He cited specifically the small troop count, the surprise at finding the level of insurrection, the inability to secure weapons caches, the inability to stop the looting that went on and secure the country, and the inability to secure the borders of Iraq (which continues to this day).<br /><br />One would assume, I suppose, that Rumsfeld, as defense secretary, would be included at the top of the list--but that is my assumption, and not specifically what Zinni said.

 

[tylerin]

Re: 60 Minutes

web page<br /> Once Rumsfeld forced Army Chief of Staff, Shinseki to resign, a man well liked amongst his peers, noone wanted to take over his position. Rumsfeld was forced to bring someone out of retirement to fill his position. These type of actions don't sit well with "Top Brass". Obviously no excuse for singing like a canary, but maybe a little payback

 

[12Footer]

Re: 60 Minutes

Originally posted by tylerin:<br />

Did anyone catch the 60 Minutes article last night regarding the dissension among the higher brass at the pentegon with regard to the invasion of Iraq? This is comming from the some very high brass. I got me to thinking.<br />Anyway, I'm wondering what your thought are on this subject.

That was the question....right, and noone has mentioned the word Rumsfeld yet

This is because of the underlying reason for airing the article out in the first place, has little or noting to do with Rummy or any other "higher brass" figure. It's purpose, (if you paid close enough attention to what was said, and then, what was purposefully left out ) was a poorly-disquised attempt at bringing-down the command struture of my country's military ,and thier assigned directives in this war.<br />In fewer words, few of us are took (or are taking) the bait!

 

[SCO]

Re: 60 Minutes

One clarification. When discussing the "all about oil" part, my objection was that Bush/admin was said to have taken us to war for the greed motive of oil, so we could have it and line our buddies pockets etc. Of course oil is a huge strategic factor of national security in more ways than one. Iran is radicalized. What if Egypt and Pakistan and Saudi go radical. Just maybe our interjecting ourselves in Iraq, and supporting Pakistan, Egypt and Saudi is the Rx to prevent radical expansion which would give them control of the middle east oil. Maybe we can't afford to fort up here in the USA and let them expand to that point. I will assert that the crusades were a result of the middle eastern expansion, and that the war we fight now is the same. It is not about our colonialism, expansionism, but containing theirs.<br />I am asking my democrat and moderate friends to consider this situation from that perspective.<br />Edit: re beating dead horse. I appreciate PW's ability to flex some on the "all about oil" position, and am not trying to continue to beat him up with it, if that's what you meant. When I read 12'rs oil comment I wanted to clarify what I was saying. Now this is beating a dead horse

 

[mellowyellow]

Re: 60 Minutes

beating a dead horse...

 

[mrbscott19]

Re: 60 Minutes

You people seem to follow your leaders so blindly, it's sickening. Anyone that thinks this war in Iraq was justified because our government said so is just plain stupid. The government is using the greatest weapon of all on all of us to do what it wants. Fear. It's how Hitler controlled Germany and it's what got us involved in Vietnam. But the thing that most people don't realize is that it's not the Bush admin to blame, it's not conservatives, it's not liberals........it's government. Both parties are just as corrupt as the other and both want the same thing.....control.

 

[samagee]

Re: 60 Minutes

So mrbscott19, are you saying that the twin towers in NY on 9/11/01 was the U.S. government trying to instil fear?<br /><br />Was the U.S. government making Sadam elude weapons inspectors in order to justify them invading? <br /><br />I am having a hard time following you on your comments. I do not have a hard time realizing that we need to remove these Muslim extremist from the gene pool.<br /><br />Just yesterday I was reading how they have just now started cracking down on these humanitarian aide organizations. Why? Because they fund the Muslim extremist with some or all of the money they take in. Isn't it ironic that the same infidels these Muslim extremist are killing, are also paying them to do it? Also, in these small countries which have no formal government yet they are teaching these extremist views.<br /><br />You see, it doesn't take the U.S. government to scare you does it. All it takes is opening up your eyes, and realizing that we have to be proactive on security matters. Which means we must support an administration dedicated to such a cause.

 

[PW2]

Re: 60 Minutes

The problem with your statement is that to one degree or another, it may well be true--still and all we are stuck with having a government of some sort. Someone needs to be in power, and power corrupts. And nothing will be perfect.<br /><br />It is why the founding fathers painstakingly devised a government as much as they possibly could to limit the power any political party or figure could have, and why the independent judicial branch is so important to limit that power. It is, of course, under attack now, and hopefully we will resist that.<br /><br />As far as my plan to fight terror being flawed, your argument has one major flaw. It is true that not many countries want to get involved with us in the war with Iraq, but you are assuming that the war with Iraq had something to do with the war on terror, and it didn't. Simply because the current administration says it is so doesn't necessarily make it so, and many from other countries understand this.<br /><br />The French, Germans, Russians, and even the Saudi and Pakistani government, among others, have aided in the fight on terrorism, and they have a vested interest in doing so. They simply did not join us in Iraq.

 

[oddjob]

Re: 60 Minutes

 

[SoulWinner]

Re: 60 Minutes

PW2,<br /><br />I must congratulate you sir. Way back when we had our argument over economics and taxes, you dodged every hard and direct bit of fact I presented in my argument for lower taxes, and disregarded all of the salient points I was trying to get you to understand regarding Macro Economics. It was so frustrating, but here you are meeting opposing views in a clear and thoughtful point by point manner, and addressing each topic rather than changing the subject when your cornered on something. This is great, that's what makes debate worth having. <br /><br />I don't agree with your view of the Bush admin or the war, but I admire the way now argue your side. Good work, keep it up brother, and be blessed!

 

[SCO]

Re: 60 Minutes

Hello Mrbscott19. Tell us where you are coming from. Who are your leaders? Are you a US citizen? Everybody has their frame of reference for their view of the world and politics. What's yours?

 

[SCO]

Re: 60 Minutes

I think there was justification for going into Iraq but to me it is almost beside the point. Possibly your definition of justification is different than mine. I see that many are caught up in the politically based minutia of what constitutes justification in this case, details of which many conveniently ignore wrt Kosovo. We had some kind of mandate /justification/ democrat world view thing working there(Kosovo) so it was ok to nation build in Serbia but not in Iraq. Lets just break it down to its elements. Consider WWII GErmany for example. It was a good strategic idea to storm Normandy and retake that land. Were doing something similar in Iraq. We are converting that land from a red to a green. You get in there and do what you need to do to win. We need to beat these people so they dont take over the entire Middle East like they did in Iran. Oil is money and power, and the last thing we need is for those zealots to get that power. How justly will the zealots treat the Iraqis and others that dont agree with their vision if they take over the middle east. How justly will they treat us? The answer lies in the ashes of the World Trade Center, and the alqeda cells around the world that were a product of our inattention. Bin Laden was pumping out recruits for years. I am not afraid of them... I am afraid of our own people that cannot for the life of them recognize a threat, and when it needs to be met.<br />I self edited this response to tone it down. Contrary to impression, I am glad we all have a place to express opinion however contrary. I want to think of us as friends hashing out the truth or best course of action. I express my opinions as I see them, but have doubts too about most of these things as the clear path is not always so clear. I imagine that those with contrary views also have their doubts .

 

[mrbscott19]

Re: 60 Minutes

What was the justification for invading Iraq? WMD? Not there. Terrorist ties? Not there. We want to free the Iraqi people! So we torture them. Great! I do agree that the world is better without Saddam. I do agree that eventually life will be better for every Iraqi because of it. But I don't understand why we're not going after the viscious Chinese or Saudi's. They have HORRIBLE human rights records. Beheadings still occur in Saudi Arabia as forms of punishment. But thats ok, because we're their friends. Thats bull****! And on the issue of WMD's. Let's see..Saddam might of had 'em, so we attacked. We KNOW North Korea has 'em, but we need to work things out diplomatically with them. Why are they different? If the US government would be a little more consistent with what they said/did, I would probably believe them a little more, but it's already leaked out that Iraq was a priority from the beginning, which doesn't sit right either. I guess my whole thing is if you're gonna try and play humanitarian, at least be consistent.<br /><br />PW2 said something I think most people don't realize, or don't want to, but it is true.<br /><br />It is true that not many countries want to get involved with us in the war with Iraq, but you are assuming that the war with Iraq had something to do with the war on terror, and it didn't. Simply because the current administration says it is so doesn't necessarily make it so, and many from other countries understand this.