War in Iraq... When should the troops come home???

Skinny Fatts · #21 (**permalink**) 02-11-2007, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrankyYankee

WWII, Pearl Harbor? We were attacked, and that REQUIRES a response...

Maybe not. Didn't we attack Germany?

StormanNorman · #22 (**permalink**) 02-11-2007, 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skinny Fatts

Maybe not. Didn't we attack Germany?

Yes.....but, Germany did declare war on us first.....thanks to Hitler....letting FDR off the hook on that one.

rob · #23 (**permalink**) 02-11-2007, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deadshot

When, in 1942 did this happen?

Here's Still Dizzy's quote, which you responded to "You know Roosevelt could have said the same thing in 1942. At that time we had lost EVERY sea, and land battle. Thank God that unlike MOST Liberal/Socialists he had balls. "

1942, is the key. When in 1942 did Ike lose anything? Ike didn't get to London until June '42. It wasn't until November '42 that he was put in charge of Supreme Commander Allied Force of the North African Theater of Operations. There were NO D-Day type of invasion landings practiced for or led in 1942.

Ergo, Diz and You are both wrong. FDR made decisions from the point of victory, both USA and Allied. We had no horrific or even bad, USA military setbacks in 1942.

Dead, I didn't say that it happened in 42. I don't remember the year but it was just before D day. Also what Operation Market Garden during the war. That one cost us dearly too.

Flyhigher · #24 (**permalink**) 02-12-2007, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kix

Why? You already gave up on America and moved to Asia and you said you're glad you're not here anymore. That means it's not your war and they're not "your" troops.

Only the exact number it takes to WIN this war; not one more, despite the best efforts of some here and abroad to make it last a lot longer than it should by supporting the enemy by word and deed.

I have spent a LOT of time with a LOT of families of fallen troops and NOT one of them has had any problem understanding what their son died for. There is a lot of evil in this world. If we don't fight it, who will? Surly not those who choose to support the enemy with their words and deeds.

WMD were found in Iraq and a LOT of them. But that was NOT the only reason we went there. A dozen years of more than a dozen UN violations were the reason. WMD were only one of those.

Kix, you are so full of shit... Sorry, Pal........

Skinny Fatts · #25 (**permalink**) 02-12-2007, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StormanNorman

Yes.....but, Germany did declare war on us first.....thanks to Hitler....letting FDR off the hook on that one.

Agreed. I was being facetious earlier, trying to point out the flawed reasoning of the poster. But my point still stands. I wanted to point out you don't always just smack the one who hit you...there might be a larger plan. Germany hadn't done anything directly to us at that time, but were part of a larger enemy. The difference today is a disconnect with a war in Iraq and a war on terrorism. There might be a larger picture but we can't see it.

Deadshot · #26 (**permalink**) 02-12-2007, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rob

Dead, I didn't say that it happened in 42. I don't remember the year but it was just before D day. Also what Operation Market Garden during the war. That one cost us dearly too.

You're right those things did cost us. How does that matter in conjunction with Still Dizzy's statement and your reply?

Here they are again "Quote:
Originally Posted by Still Dizzy
You know Roosevelt could have said the same thing in 1942. At that time we had lost EVERY sea, and land battle. Thank God that unlike MOST Liberal/Socialists he had balls.

Dizzy, you are correct on this. A leader must have balls to get the job done and that leaves out the Democrats trying to get to the whitehoust.

Your statement is in Italics. Diz's statement is wrong, in 1942 FDR made decisions from the point of victory, ergo he had no more balls then the next Democrat.

The D-Day accident didn't stop the invasion, didn't even delay it, hardly a failure.

Operation Market Garden was Monty all the way. When it failed it knocked Monty back a couple of pegs, allowing Patton to step back into the spotlight.

Dem's have balls, we just don't have to show them at every chance we get.

hexum · #27 (**permalink**) 02-12-2007, 12:50 PM

[quote=Lookagain;103385]

DEMONcRATS cannot undeclare a war, DECLARED by ISLAM:-O
QUOTE]

declared by islam? all i can say is you are wrong.

StormanNorman · #28 (**permalink**) 02-12-2007, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skinny Fatts

Agreed. I was being facetious earlier, trying to point out the flawed reasoning of the poster. But my point still stands. I wanted to point out you don't always just smack the one who hit you...there might be a larger plan. Germany hadn't done anything directly to us at that time, but were part of a larger enemy. The difference today is a disconnect with a war in Iraq and a war on terrorism. There might be a larger picture but we can't see it.

Skinny,

I agree with you that we don't have to wait to be attacked to attack. But, Germany is not a good example of that since they declared war on us just after the Pearl Harbor attack. And this was really a gift to FDR....at the time, he was struggling with how to sell to the American people the "Germany first" idea....since Japan was the one who attacked us. But, Hitler's declaration let FDR off the hook.

As far as Iraq goes, this is what I think Skinny (just my opinion): The Bush Administration struck Iraq primarily for the following reasons:
- Access to the Middle East. We were wearing out our welcome in Saudi Arabia. Our basing access was becoming more and more tenuous. Basing access in Iraq would certainly solve that problem.
- To send places like Iran and N. Korea a very strong message....e.g, you could be next.
- I think they actually believed that they could help develop a Western-style democracy in Iraq.....and that this would be a beacon that would begin to transform the Middle East.
- Oil. I know that's not a real popular thing to say...but, I think its' crazy to think that it didn't play some role...at least, in the back of their minds. Iraq has a ton of oil....and it's very easily accessible.

I honestly now don't think that terrorism (Iraq/Al Qaeda connection) or WMDs really played that big of a role.....although they certainly were the primary selling points back in March 2003.

Today, the war on Iraq has certainly become a part of the fight against terrorism. It's also a battle between the US and the Iranians for influence in the Middle East.