Support Our Troops: Bring Them Home

[k]

Well then you should have worded your question a little more clearly. You asked what was read by the PNAC...
You didn't ask me what I read by the PNAC.


I did read the manifesto and other publications from the web site. It doesn't say the things that you are purporting it to say.

We never supported Iraq with chemical weapons by the way.

What do I 'purport' the pnac says?

What was interesting about the manifesto? What publications were read? I have to be honest, I don't believe they were read, just based off of earlier experiences.

All the links provided proved the US supplied/supported Iraq w/ chemical weapons. It's common knowledge.

 

[k]

They are black and white when there were no other options to get him out of power. We asked him nicely to leave prior to the invastion. What else could we do? Increase the severity of the sanctions? Assasination attempts? You tell me.

Sadman could have been removed from power without the massive invasion. Pure logistics explains that. Look at the size of Iraq. His military strength, or lack thereof. The fact that the country had been bombed for twelve years.

We asked him 'nicely' to leave? Is that what Rumsfeld was saying when he was shaking his hand?

 

[jamesrwright3]

What do I 'purport' the pnac says?

What was interesting about the manifesto? What publications were read? I have to be honest, I don't believe they were read, just based off of earlier experiences.

All the links provided proved the US supplied/supported Iraq w/ chemical weapons. It's common knowledge.

I read the manifesto a few years back. I didn't find anything interesting about the manifesto that I haven't read in National Review or the National Interest.

And it's not common knowledge because it's not true. We supplied him with dual use materials which could be used for things other than building chemical weapons. We never directly supplied him with chemical weapons. You are incorrect when you say that.

 

[k]

I read the manifesto a few years back. I didn't find anything interesting about the manifesto that I haven't read in National Review or the National Interest.

And it's not common knowledge because it's not true. We supplied him with dual use materials which could be used for things other than building chemical weapons. We never directly supplied him with chemical weapons. You are incorrect when you say that.

Ummm...wanting our military to be a "globally dominant force" is not interesting?

Someone else pointed out the absurdity of claiming innocence on the part of the use upon the support/supplying through sales, front companies, etc.

It's common knowledge to many millions of people.

 

[jamesrwright3]

Sadman could have been removed from power without the massive invasion. Pure logistics explains that. Look at the size of Iraq. His military strength, or lack thereof. The fact that the country had been bombed for twelve years.

We asked him 'nicely' to leave? Is that what Rumsfeld was saying when he was shaking his hand?

Tell me how he could have been removed and give me a plausaible scenario. To say he could have been removed without an invasion is ludicrous. We didn't know where he was at 99% of the time. And even if he was taken out, you still would have had one or more of his sons or one of his generals who would have taken over the reigns and continued the Baathist policies. The only way to take out the regime was to invade, pure and simple.

We did ask him nicely to leave before we started hostilities. He could have gone to Syria and lived it up with his fellow Baathists in the lap of luxury with the billions he had in oil for food money.

 

[k]

Tell me how he could have been removed and give me a plausaible scenario. To say he could have been removed without an invasion is ludicrous. We didn't know where he was at 99% of the time. And even if he was taken out, you still would have had one or more of his sons or one of his generals who would have taken over the reigns and continued the Baathist policies. The only way to take out the regime was to invade, pure and simple.

We did ask him nicely to leave before we started hostilities. He could have gone to Syria and lived it up with his fellow Baathists in the lap of luxury with the billions he had in oil for food money.

Why in the world would I expend energy on giving a 'senario' when hard evidence from several sources have been ignored? Not trying to be antagonistic, but just being realistic. If evidence is ignored, so will anything else.

N. Korea has been MUCH worse to its citizens, why didn't we go there? After all, the argument presented is that Sadman was the worse of the two evils and "could" have wmd. We know N. Korea is MUCH MUCH worse to its citizens and the DO have wmd.

 

[jamesrwright3]

Ummm...wanting our military to be a "globally dominant force" is not interesting?

Someone else pointed out the absurdity of claiming innocence on the part of the use upon the support/supplying through sales, front companies, etc.

It's common knowledge to those who have done the extensive research and have no motive other than seeking truth.

No, being a globally dominant force is not interesting. We have been the globally dominant force since 1990 and we will continue to be the globally dominant force into the near future at least. I would rather see a globally dominant US than a globally dominant communist China.

Not absurd, just how it happend. and I have done extensive research.

 

[k]

No, being a globally dominant force is not interesting. We have been the globally dominant force since 1990 and we will continue to be the globally dominant force into the near future at least. I would rather see a globally dominant US than a globally dominant communist China.

Not absurd, just how it happend. and I have done extensive research.

The first statement reveals the manifesto was not read because they do not say we are a "globally dominant force."

That's an odd claim on the "extensive research" since not ONE SINGLE link has been provided to support anything stated. Who has been posting evidence?

 

[k]

Hey, that old cool song by Sting just came on..."Every move you make I'll be watching you."

 

[jamesrwright3]

Why in the world would I expend energy on giving a 'senario' when hard evidence from several sources have been ignored? Not trying to be antagonistic, but just being realistic. If evidence is ignored, so will anything else.

N. Korea has been MUCH worse to its citizens, why didn't we go there? After all, the argument presented is that Sadman was the worse of the two evils and "could" have wmd. We know N. Korea is MUCH MUCH worse to its citizens and the DO have wmd.

No, you said Saddam shouldn't be in power, but said it would be easy to take out the regime without an invasion. What evidence have you provided that it would be easy to do that? I just want a plausible scenario.

And obviously you haven't done your research on the North Korean crisis. The cost to humanity if there was another war on the Korean peninsula would be catratrophic. It would be the Tsunami*10 WITHOUT a nuclear weapon being used.., and that is not including the economic costs.

 

[k]

No, you said Saddam shouldn't be in power, but said it would be easy to take out the regime without an invasion. What evidence have you provided that it would be easy to do that? I just want a plausible scenario.

And obviously you haven't done your research on the North Korean crisis. The cost to humanity if there was another war on the Korean peninsula would be catratrophic. It would be the Tsunami*10 WITHOUT a nuclear weapon being used.., and that is not including the economic costs.

How did the US remove leaders from other countries?

Could some evidence be posted for the claim made on N. Korea?

 

[jamesrwright3]

The first statement reveals the manifesto was not read because they do not say we are a "globally dominant force."

That's an odd claim on the "extensive research" since not ONE SINGLE link has been provided to support anything stated. Who has been posting evidence?

I did read the manifesto, not recently.
Are you saying that we do not have the most dominant military in the world by far? Who has a superior military..Canada?

Posting articles from lefiist web sites is not evidence, and the articles you have provided actually did not prove your case.

 

[k]

I did read the manifesto, not recently.
Are you saying that we do not have the most dominant military in the world by far? Who has a superior military..Canada?

Posting articles from lefiist web sites is not evidence, and the articles you have provided actually did not prove your case.

I don't know if the US has the most dominant military. China has us beat, by far on troop numbers, but we have more nukes.

Some of the sites were leftist, but there was a solid mix of cnn, washington post(a right wing pulication), and other sources.

There is absolutely no article that could be posted that would lead some people to admittance.

 

[k]

I did read the manifesto, not recently.
Are you saying that we do not have the most dominant military in the world by far? Who has a superior military..Canada?

Posting articles from lefiist web sites is not evidence, and the articles you have provided actually did not prove your case.

Could you name at least 7 members of the pnac, without looking it up?

 

[jamesrwright3]

I don't know if the US has the most dominant military. China has us beat, by far on troop numbers, but we have more nukes.

Some of the sites were leftist, but there was a solid mix of cnn, washington post(a right wing pulication), and other sources.

There is absolutely no article that could be posted that would lead some people to admittance.

You have to be kidding me. We do have the most dominant military. It is not a numbers game anymore. It is all about technology and efficiency. There is no doubt that we could run circles around the Chinese in a conflict.

 

[jamesrwright3]

How did the US remove leaders from other countries?

Could some evidence be posted for the claim made on N. Korea?

I had better sites before, but I lost them when I had to reformat my hard drive. There is also a book, Crisis on The Korean Peninsula, which is a good read..

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0827/p07s01-woap.html

Any military plan must face the reality that Seoul, home to over 10 million South Koreans, lies within range of North Korean artillery guns. For that reason, a counterattack by the well-armed North could be devastating. Gen. Gary Luck, a former commander of US forces in Korea, estimated another Korean War would result in 1 million casualties - 52,000 of those American.

A preemptive strike might not get all of the North's nukes. The nation's nuclear program is scattered across the country (see map), and may include covert facilities in hard-to-hit caves. Success in targeting could also scatter radioactive material to neighboring populations.

And there was no way we could have removed the regime without invading Iraq. It is simply impossible.

 

[k]

S?
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0827/p07s01-woap.html


And there was no way we could have removed the regime without invading Iraq. It is simply impossible.

Okay, how did the US replace regimes in other countries w/o invading?

The article does not support the "catastrophic" claim made. The estimated casualties are less than what the US is responsible for in Iraq alone.

 

[jamesrwright3]

Okay, how did the US replace regimes in other countries w/o invading?

The article does not support the "catastrophic" claim made. The estimated casualties are less than what the US is responsible for in Iraq alone.

Upwards 52,000 Americans dead would not be catastrophic? 1 million total dead would not be catastophic? Destruction of the South Korean economy, one of the rising stars in Asia, would not be catastophic? A possible nuclear attack would not be catastrophic? Your arguments are simply untenable and illogical.

And I would like you to name on plausible scenario on how we could have deposed the ENTIRE regime without invading and dismantling the ENTIRE Baathist infrastructure.

 

[k]

. 52,000 Americans dead would not be catastrophic? 1 million dead citizens would not be catastophic? Destruction of the South Korean economy, one of the rising stars in Asia, would not be catastophic? A possible nuclear attack would not be catastrophic? Your arguments are simply untenable and illogical.

And I would like you to name on plausible scenario on how we could have deposed the ENTIRE regime without invading and dismantling the ENTIRE Baathist infrastructure.

no-considering the US watched more than 600,000 Rhwondans get slaughtered.
no- " " " is resonsible for more civilian deaths in Iraq
no- that is wholly overrated and not a solid result
So, the US only invades countries that definitely does not have nukes. That much is clear.

The US has replaced dictators in several other countries w/o invading them. That is undeniable.

 

[jamesrwright3]

no-considering the US watched more than 600,000 Rhwondans get slaughtered.
no- " " " is resonsible for more civilian deaths in Iraq
no- that is wholly overrated and not a solid result
So, the US only invades countries that definitely does not have nukes. That much is clear.

The US has replaced dictators in several other countries w/o invading them. That is undeniable.

The WHOLE WORLD watch the Rwandans get slaughtered. But you are changing the subject.

So you are saying that since we didn't save the Rwandans, we should invade North Korea and create a huminatarian and economic disaster as well as risk 52,000 American lives? So because we didn't save the lives of some, more should be killed. That sounds like a great idea. Lets get right on it. You are reaching here, and it is apparent to everyone.

We didn't directly kill more citizens in Iraq than would be killed in a North Korean invasion.

And yes, lets invade countries with nukes so we can get a head start on Armageddon..

...and just because we deposed other dictators in other nations doesn't mean we could have done the same thing in Iraq. It still wouldn't have dismantled the entire Baathist infrastucture, and we would have been back to square one in no time.