Rumsfeld bids farewell to Pentagon

[Roger Baltrey]

Dogs,

You are giving him credit for the Iraq war? This thing is a military debacle of the highest order. We had no intention of being bogged down there 4 years later. We also have limited our options on Iran and North Korea and earned hatred around the world. Afganistan looked great but it is in some trouble now too. Had he stopped there his legacy would be much different.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

I think school is still out on that issue Roger.

I don't see the limitation in NK or Iran as I don't see solutions involving troops vs countering nuclear threats.

I think the war tactics for both Afgan and Iraq were astounding--the peace keeping in aftermath were most certainly underestimated.

There is absolutely nothing you can do to stop suicide bombers.

--as same is going on in every country Muslims exist today on smaller scale and all are helpless to stop it.

 

[StevieD]

I think school is still out on that issue Roger.

I don't see the limitation in NK or Iran as I don't see solutions involving troops vs countering nuclear threats.

I think the war tactics for both Afgan and Iraq were astounding--the peace keeping in aftermath were most certainly underestimated.

There is absolutely nothing you can do to stop suicide bombers.

--as same is going on in every country Muslims exist today on smaller scale and all are helpless to stop it.

We beat Iraq, a country that had no means to defend itself and was no threat to us. And we still have not settled Afgan. Did we drop a billion dollars worth of bombs on them. Yes. But that is about all.

 

[Chadman]

We could have, and should have finished the Taliban in Afghanistan, Dogs. We didn't. We pulled out troops and machinery to go to Iraq for whatever reason anyone cares to submit. The Taliban are extremely resurgent and in many areas are in apparent control in Afghanistan, so, apparently, we messed up there as badly as we messed up in Iraq.

It's up to the individual whether the work we did in Iraq was worth the expense in $$, lives, and political capital we lost in the efforts. To me, in no way has it been worth it nor should we have done it. I agree completely with a complete effort in Afghanistan to hold the terrorists responsible for killing our people accountable. Bin Laden still speaks to the world, ridiculing our people and our efforts. How does that make our country look to others, do you think? You might even say our efforts to move the majority of our efforts away from the real threat as a form of aiding the enemy.

I'm also wondering if those citizens being terrorized in Iraq and Afghanistan now - let alone the ones already killed by the terrorinsurgentwhatevers - really feel like they are freed from a hostile environment?

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

"We beat Iraq, a country that had no means to defend itself and was no threat to us."

Really-- than what the fck you worried about Iran for-- as they were scared to death of Saddam--because Iraq had no way to defend itself--correct?

and the no threat is taken right out of Clinton mindset--they are never a threat till they bust your ass and even if they fail once it won't happen again.

Riddle me this--you have to enemies that hate you--Who would you consider more of a threat--a man with no country-no military-no airforce-no nuclear ability no biological weapons or a man that had access to all.

Since we saw what a person with intent and few means can do--would you think it might be prudent that one give a person with the means and disreagard for numerous resolutions our attention.


Chad I certainly would not say Taliban is remotely in control of Afgan.

Pretty tough question on being freed from hostile emvironment especially Iraq. For biggest geopraphical parts of Iraq I'd say yes but most of population is around Baghdad which violence is more than pre Saddam but that is intent of of the terrorists or whatevers. I have to think from those that risk their lifes to vote that majority are for democracy but tough to stick neck out now when it could be chopped by either side depending on stance. Very tough situation for the good guys and very lucrative position for bad guys--easy to stir the pot pitting one against the other -simply by placing a few bombs and blame in stragetic areas.

 

[StevieD]

DOGS,

From your Neocon Hero himself.

SEPTEMBER 16, 2001 * CHENEY ACKNOWLEDGES IRAQ IS CONTAINED: Vice President
Dick Cheney said that "Saddam Hussein is bottled up" * a confirmation of the
intelligence he had received. [Source: Meet the Press, 9/16/2001]

 

[Chadman]

I didn't say the Taliban were in control of Afghanistan, Wayne, I said parts of it, and the last report I saw was that those parts are becoming more prevalent. However, if you look at what the leader of the country does at this point, openly speaking out against some of the things we are doing, and refusing to acknowledge his disregard of taking more action against them - admittedly from a position of fear for his own life, for starters - I can't think that we can ultimately trust him to look out for our best interests and be a trustworthy partner. I think it's undeniable we could have done a lot more and possibly eradicated the Taliban had the administration remained dedicated and focused to the cause - one that EVERYONE agreed was a just one.

A question for you, maybe you have answered it before, I don't remember. Do you really think what we have done in Iraq has been worth it? Have we gained more as a country than we have lost, for our own country? Not for the people of Iraq, or whomever, but for our own people? I think this is kind of the heart of the matter at this point.

Even the administration has changed the discourse from winning in Iraq to moving forward in Iraq, whatever the heck that means. I just have never understood what winning meant to begin with, and now it seems clear we at least don't know how to do it, nor really will do it.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Yes I thik it has been worth it Chad--for several reasons --Do you want pre war or now--I'll elaborate on the latter Despite some saying we have lost credibilty as result of this war I see just the contrary.
A statement was made to terrorist or rouge regimes that would no longer sit back and do nothing as Muslims hit our embassies-ships U.S. businesses ect world wide.
I think we can agree -in any country where Muslims exists there is chaos them angainst who ever or what ever other religion.
The U.N. was helpless then as it is now on enforcing any of their sanctions or rsolutions--we had choice to let it go on or make a stand.
The result has been several countries give it up with out shot fired and several other key players in middle east come on board as allies.
Despite hype of press what allies are we not closer with today then before. France maybe Spain but wouldn't say France has ever be close ally with anyone.
As as far as our enemy's before--do you think they are more cautious or less cautious?
I don't know if it was coincidence or what--but in speech where we said on issue of terrorism --"either your with us or against us" some awfully big players in middle east have been stepping up to the plate.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Stevie Nice 5 word half quote report on my Neocon buddy--you been hitting the liberal blogs again--Could you give us some full quotes from your gay state reps--either "your" child molester or druken coward buddies will do.

 

[StevieD]

Dog's, I wouldn't expect you to stay on subject and answer with anything except Kentucky BS. You said it was Clintonian thing. I just showed you what Cheney said. Besides aren't you the fool that keeps showing the Clinton clip that Saddam must be stopped. Does everyone in Kentucky talk out of both sides of their mouths at once? Our enemies will know when we are leaving! LOL! What a crooked line that is. Why don't they just wait for us to leave and then attack?:shrug: Oh and you never answered my question from another thread. Who is the enemy that you expect to surrender?