Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 28 of 28
  1. #21  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Well, either they made it up as a part of a vast left wing conspiracy of the liberal left wing drive by media elite.

    Or, they got it from a senior white house aide. lol
    Maybe they got it from the same place Dan Rather got his memo. Or, maybe they got it from Reuters.
  2.    #22  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    Maybe they got it from the same place Dan Rather got his memo. Or, maybe they got it from Reuters.
    Of course the liberal left wing conspiracy. Yawn.
  3. #23  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Of course the liberal left wing conspiracy. Yawn.
  4.    #24  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    G-funk: He wasnt defending himself...he was clarifiying his statement.

    I like your definition of cut and run...but that begs the question of what 'finishing the job' means? If it becomes a civil war (Im not convinced its as close as the MSM states) then I don't see the need to purposely loose lives if we cant succeed.
    "The administration hasn't made its definition of full-blown civil war explicit. But in March, when Iraq's former prime minister Ayad Allawi said the country was already fighting a civil war, Bush disagreed, noting the existence of Iraq's nonsectarian Army and government. If the country did someday meet the definition of civil war and the U.S. pulled out, military officials warn, the consequences would be disastrous. "All the neighboring powers would be drawn in," said one senior military official who has examined the scenarios and is not authorized to speak on the record. "It would become a regional war."
  5. #25  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    "The administration hasn't made its definition of full-blown civil war explicit. But in March, when Iraq's former prime minister Ayad Allawi said the country was already fighting a civil war, Bush disagreed, noting the existence of Iraq's nonsectarian Army and government. If the country did someday meet the definition of civil war and the U.S. pulled out, military officials warn, the consequences would be disastrous. "All the neighboring powers would be drawn in," said one senior military official who has examined the scenarios and is not authorized to speak on the record. "It would become a regional war."
    Whats more disastrous? The different groups killing each other or the different groups killing each other and our troops stuck in the middle getting shot at from all directions? And if you think the amount of civilians being killed is high now...you ain't seen nothing if the civil war breaks out and our troops are called upon to bunker down in the middle of it (IMHO).
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  6.    #26  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    Whats more disastrous? The different groups killing each other or the different groups killing each other and our troops stuck in the middle getting shot at from all directions? And if you think the amount of civilians being killed is high now...you ain't seen nothing if the civil war breaks out and our troops are called upon to bunker down in the middle of it (IMHO).
    I wouldn't want to be in the middle. Btw, that sounds similar to:
    Quote Originally Posted by **** Cheney 1992
    "I would guess if we had gone in there, I would still have forces in Baghdad today. We'd be running the country. We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home.

    And the final point that I think needs to be made is this question of casualties. I don't think you could have done all of that without significant additional U.S. casualties. And while everybody was tremendously impressed with the low cost of the (1991) conflict, for the 146 Americans who were killed in action and for their families, it wasn't a cheap war.

    And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam worth? And the answer is not very damned many. So I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the president made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq.

    All of a sudden you've got a battle you're fighting in a major built-up city, a lot of civilians are around, significant limitations on our ability to use our most effective technologies and techniques,

    Once we had rounded him up and gotten rid of his government, then the question is what do you put in its place? You know, you then have accepted the responsibility for governing Iraq."
    Quote Originally Posted by **** Cheney 1991
    I think that the proposition of going to Baghdad is also fallacious. I think if we we're going to remove Saddam Hussein we would have had to go all the way to Baghdad, we would have to commit a lot of force because I do not believe he would wait in the Presidential Palace for us to arrive. I think we'd have had to hunt him down. And once we'd done that and we'd gotten rid of Saddam Hussein and his government, then we'd have had to put another government in its place. What kind of government? Should it be a Sunni government or Shi'i government or a Kurdish government or Ba'athist regime? Or maybe we want to bring in some of the Islamic fundamentalists? How long would we have had to stay in Baghdad to keep that government in place? What would happen to the government once U.S. forces withdrew? How many casualties should the United States accept in that effort to try to create clarity and stability in a situation that is inherently unstable? I think it is vitally important for a President to know when to use military force. I think it is also very important for him to know when not to commit U.S. military force. And it's my view that the President got it right both times, that it would have been a mistake for us to get bogged down in the quagmire inside Iraq.
  7. #27  
    Blaze...what else was Cheney going to say? He had to support the Presidents decision. Plus, just so we keep in context...those quotes are 14 and 15 years old. If someone wants to make the argument that Sadaam was the same then as he was when we removed him...be my guess. I think that would be a a stretch.
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  8. #28  
    Originally Posted by **** Cheney 1992
    "I would guess if we had gone in there, I would still have forces in Baghdad today. We'd be running the country. We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home.

    And the final point that I think needs to be made is this question of casualties. I don't think you could have done all of that without significant additional U.S. casualties. And while everybody was tremendously impressed with the low cost of the (1991) conflict, for the 146 Americans who were killed in action and for their families, it wasn't a cheap war.

    And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam worth? And the answer is not very damned many. So I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the president made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq.

    All of a sudden you've got a battle you're fighting in a major built-up city, a lot of civilians are around, significant limitations on our ability to use our most effective technologies and techniques,

    Once we had rounded him up and gotten rid of his government, then the question is what do you put in its place? You know, you then have accepted the responsibility for governing Iraq."
    Originally Posted by **** Cheney 1991
    I think that the proposition of going to Baghdad is also fallacious. I think if we we're going to remove Saddam Hussein we would have had to go all the way to Baghdad, we would have to commit a lot of force because I do not believe he would wait in the Presidential Palace for us to arrive. I think we'd have had to hunt him down. And once we'd done that and we'd gotten rid of Saddam Hussein and his government, then we'd have had to put another government in its place. What kind of government? Should it be a Sunni government or Shi'i government or a Kurdish government or Ba'athist regime? Or maybe we want to bring in some of the Islamic fundamentalists? How long would we have had to stay in Baghdad to keep that government in place? What would happen to the government once U.S. forces withdrew? How many casualties should the United States accept in that effort to try to create clarity and stability in a situation that is inherently unstable? I think it is vitally important for a President to know when to use military force. I think it is also very important for him to know when not to commit U.S. military force. And it's my view that the President got it right both times, that it would have been a mistake for us to get bogged down in the quagmire inside Iraq.
    actually these are terribly appros quotes by one of the lead advocates for doing precisely the opposite of what he himself had argued.

    Truth, intelligence, and wisdom has always had less currency with this crowd than raw phoney bluster. Their faux "bring it on, make my day" pose made with other people's lives. Judged on a scale of pure incompetence, has there ever been a group who have less ably lead this country ???
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions