Ambassador Murdered

[Big Sarge]

Originally Posted by tw

Mythical weapons of mass destruction: some gas (which is routinely found even in semiconductor fabs) is not a WMD. But wackos harm American soldiers by solving all problems with a military adventure. By even inventing mythical threats.

Weapons of Mass Destruction are Nuclear, Biological, or Chemical weapons capable of inflicting mass casualties. From the Associated Press: "Iraqi authorities filed genocide charges against Saddam Hussein on Tuesday, accusing the ousted ruler and six others in a 1980s crackdown that killed an estimated 100,000 Kurds in northern Iraq. In alleging Saddam sought to exterminate the Kurds, the prosecutors are for the first time accusing him of the sort of far-reaching crimes that the Bush administration has used to justify the war in Iraq."

Do you remember "Chemical Ali"? Anyway, in 2006 Rick Santorum claimed that "we have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons", citing a declassified June 6 letter to Pete Hoekstra saying that since the 2003 invasion, a total of "approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent" had been found scattered throughout the country. Also, the Iraq Government sold over 500 tons of "yellowcake", the last major remnant of Saddam Hussein's nuclear program, to Canada.

We even had US casualties due to detonation of chemical munitions. Even the New York Post reported:
There were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq after all. The massive cache of almost 400,000 Iraq war documents released by the WikiLeaks Web site revealed that small amounts of chemical weapons were found in Iraq and continued to surface for years after the 2003 US invasion, Wired magazine reported. The documents showed that US troops continued to find chemical weapons and labs for years after the invasion, including remnants of Saddam Hussein's chemical weapons arsenal -- most of which had been destroyed following the Gulf War. In August 2004, American troops were able to buy containers from locals of what they thought was liquid sulfur mustard, a blister agent, the documents revealed. The chemicals were triple-sealed and taken to a secure site. Also in 2004, troops discovered a chemical lab in a house in Fallujah during a battle with insurgents. A chemical cache was also found in the city.

[DanaC]

And the claims that they could be launched within 45 minutes? Or that theyhad restarted their nuclear programme, had been buying enriched uranium, etc etc?

The simple fact that Hussein's regime possessed some battlefield chemical weapons would never have been enough to go to war. It was only coupled with shameful lies about his intentions and capabilities along with the repeated suggestion that Iraq was connected to the 9/11 attacks that allowed that war to happen.

You and other soldiers were lied to by politicians, who saw fit to send serving men to fight and die for political expediency and outright deceit.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by Big Sarge

The Democrats were responsible for Vietnam

Yep.

[Undertoad]

The Philippines asked us to GTFO and we did.

"And when all those conflicts were over, what did we do? Did we stay and conquer? Did we say, "Okay, we defeated Germany. Now Germany belongs to us? We defeated Japan, so Japan belongs to us"? No. What did we do? We built them up. We gave them democratic systems which they have embraced totally to their soul. And did we ask for any land? No, the only land we ever asked for was enough land to bury our dead. And that is the kind of nation we are."
-Colin Powell 2002

[DanaC]

You know, alongside all my horror at what was done to the ordinary people of Iraq, and the terrible assault on Baghdad, it breaks my heart a little whenever I think about the several lads from my region who died for the lie. And who died in Afghanistan because the initial mission to go after Bin Laden took second place to the Iraq venture.

They deserved better than that. They deserved at the least some honesty. And maybe decent equipment, and not to be abandoned to market forces on their return.

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

The Philippines asked us to GTFO and we did.

"And when all those conflicts were over, what did we do? Did we stay and conquer? Did we say, "Okay, we defeated Germany. Now Germany belongs to us? We defeated Japan, so Japan belongs to us"? No. What did we do? We built them up. We gave them democratic systems which they have embraced totally to their soul. And did we ask for any land? No, the only land we ever asked for was enough land to bury our dead. And that is the kind of nation we are."
-Colin Powell 2002

This is worth repeating.

I really don't like that 'we won, why are we letting them tell us when to leave?' attitude. It sits ill on an American.

And all this fear of appearing weak on the international stage. It's ludicrous. Nobody thinks America is weak. Nobody. There isn't a country on the planet that wouldn't feel intimidated at the prospect of a war with the US. The threat doesn't need to constantly be made. The aggressive posturing some people seem to favour does not make you look stronger. Looking down from the high ground with calm demeanour does.

[tw]

Originally Posted by DanaC

And all this fear of appearing weak on the international stage. It's ludicrous.

How many bother to discuss greatest victories such as Haiti and Bosnia? Roundly successful victories because no invasion was necessary. Those inspired by emotions only discuss big expensive military crusades including Vietnam and Mission Accomplished. Both disasters. Those with least grasp of military doctrine and least respect for the American soldier want more bloody fiascos. Enemy of a military are 'big dic' thinkers.

Identify the informed who best represent servicemen. Praise to the few who actually created victories without massive deployments. Praise the few who also understood phase four planning. Amazing are so many with a military mentality who so strongly wanted disasters such as Vietnam and Misson Accomplish. Even a 'smoking gun' concept is foreign to 'big dic' thinkers.

Most servicemen killed in Iraq and Afghanistan were victims of dumb leaders in America. And their followers. They don't come dumber than George Jr and his adminstration. Citizens who failed to see impending obvious disasters are also guilty. Everyone in the Cellar learned, in advance, why those disasters would happen. And still, some gleefully approved of the resulting and unnecessary massacre of servicemen.

Why was the US building the world's largest embassy in Iraq? We intended to stay. More 'big dic' thinking complete with denial. Those who love 'big dic' concepts and lies (ie Axis of Evil) did not intend to leave. So that we can protect "our" oil. Another 'empire building' fiasco.

Big dics now say the American military is smallest since before WWI. Enemy of every American serviceman is the fool who would vote for such liars. Who say our military is too small. As if George Jr did not prove how stupid those people are. How many so stupidly did not learn from the disasters in Mission Accomplished and Afghanistan? Deja Vue Nam.

[sexobon]

Originally Posted by tw

... Most servicemen killed in Iraq and Afghanistan were victims of dumb leaders in America. ... Citizens who failed to see impending obvious disasters are also guilty. ...

[Bold mine]

[IMHO]This is why it's easy for others to attack any Americans anytime and anywhere. In a country where the general population elects its leaders, all are responsible for their government's actions making all who can vote legitimate targets. It's a good reason to vote and make it an informed vote since you'll be held accountable for the ramifications of election outcomes anyway.

In countries with dictatorships, the general population may not have that influence on their leaders; so, we've decided that other governments can be segregated from their general populations and targeted separately. We didn't win a war with Iraq, just with its government.

Post Vietnam, our active duty military was downsized by shifting the function of many support units and some combat units to be held in reserve to the Reserves and National Guard. It was towards the end of the transition that Iraq invaded Kuwait and we weren't prepared to go into Iraq to conquer just the government which takes more ground forces than simply annihilating a country from the air. George Sr. just pushed them back and stopped. Many considered it unfinished business.

The events of 9/11 unfolded and George Jr. saw an opportunity to finish daddy's work. It was also payback time for the Iraqi leader who tried to have daddy assassinated so: 1.) We were told his government had WMD; but, we already knew that. The significance was bloated and exposed as such. 2.) Then we were told his government had terrorist connections. Again, the significance was bloated and exposed as such. 3.) Finally, we were told that we were saving the Iraqi people. This, in contradiction to our existing military intervention policy requiring 3 conditions (all 3 to be met) before intervening: 1. The indigenous population has to want us there (we weren't invited). 2. They have to be willing to fight for themselves (they weren't willing enough to fight to begin a revolt against dictatorship) and 3. They have to be able to continue what we've helped them accomplish after we leave (not likely wherever there's infighting among major religious factions).

The Iraqi leader and his government were toppled for daddy and son and their posterity while their cronies reaped benefits from war. We might have stayed longer; but, the new elected government representing those people we were supposedly there to save, who didn't invite us, who weren't inclined to start their own Arab Spring, and who are still fighting among themselves wanted to make all Americans (including the military under country SOFA) subject to their laws. How rude, it's like they didn't trust Americans to conduct themselves responsibly and exercise good judgment. [/IMHO]

Well the first thing you know, Obama's in the chair
His constituency says "Prez, get us outta there."
Said "Afghanistan is where the buildup oughta be"
So we do it all again in the land of poppy seed.

Leaving unfinished business that is
Relax, leave your wallets out
Don't look back now, ya hear.

[tw]

Originally Posted by sexobon

In a country where the general population elects its leaders, all are responsible for their government's actions making all who can vote legitimate targets.

As a result, democracies typically do not attack other democracies. I cannot think of an exception.

We would have been out of Afghanistan. But Generals (ie Petraus, et al) proposed a solution that began with a surge. And ended with a complete pullout. Obama went with their plan. But Obama keep saying some Generals don't get it. They kept sneaking in plans for another 10 year occupation (warfare) in Afghanistan. Obama told them bluntly. We are leaving when the plan is done. That is when we discover if George Jr's mistake (Mission Accomplished) cost us a victory in Afghanistan.

Of course, Romney's people openly advocate more war. Playing politics rather then deal with, for example, why 5000 American soldiers (and other nation's troops) were killled uselessly. They see all solutions in increasing military budgets. A 'soundbyte' solution advocated by Fox News, Limbaugh, Tea Party, et al. Romney recites what extremists want to hear rather than what is best for America and American allies.

Many Generals still assume Americans will gladly increase military spending over 4% of GDP. Such numbers historically result in economic stagnation or destruction. Generals had unlimited funds for too long. Those generals are encouraged by 'big dic' civilians who would solve all problems with more military adventures. Would even remain in Afghanistan for another decade.

Shameful how many Americans still did not learn the lessons from the Cuban Missile Crisis. Only better educated Americans would have learned that lesson.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Big Sarge

The Democrats were responsible for Vietnam

Originally Posted by Griff

Yep.

Yabut, after the civil rights laws Johnson pushed through, all those southern democrats became republicans, so now they own it.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by sexobon

[Bold mine]

[IMHO]This is why it's easy for others to attack any Americans anytime and anywhere. In a country where the general population elects its leaders, all are responsible for their government's actions making all who can vote legitimate targets. It's a good reason to vote and make it an informed vote since you'll be held accountable for the ramifications of election outcomes anyway.

In countries with dictatorships, the general population may not have that influence on their leaders; so, we've decided that other governments can be segregated from their general populations and targeted separately. We didn't win a war with Iraq, just with its government.

Post Vietnam, our active duty military was downsized by shifting the function of many support units and some combat units to be held in reserve to the Reserves and National Guard. It was towards the end of the transition that Iraq invaded Kuwait and we weren't prepared to go into Iraq to conquer just the government which takes more ground forces than simply annihilating a country from the air. George Sr. just pushed them back and stopped. Many considered it unfinished business.

The events of 9/11 unfolded and George Jr. saw an opportunity to finish daddy's work. It was also payback time for the Iraqi leader who tried to have daddy assassinated so: 1.) We were told his government had WMD; but, we already knew that. The significance was bloated and exposed as such. 2.) Then we were told his government had terrorist connections. Again, the significance was bloated and exposed as such. 3.) Finally, we were told that we were saving the Iraqi people. This, in contradiction to our existing military intervention policy requiring 3 conditions (all 3 to be met) before intervening: 1. The indigenous population has to want us there (we weren't invited). 2. They have to be willing to fight for themselves (they weren't willing enough to fight to begin a revolt against dictatorship) and 3. They have to be able to continue what we've helped them accomplish after we leave (not likely wherever there's infighting among major religious factions).

The Iraqi leader and his government were toppled for daddy and son and their posterity while their cronies reaped benefits from war. We might have stayed longer; but, the new elected government representing those people we were supposedly there to save, who didn't invite us, who weren't inclined to start their own Arab Spring, and who are still fighting among themselves wanted to make all Americans (including the military under country SOFA) subject to their laws. How rude, it's like they didn't trust Americans to conduct themselves responsibly and exercise good judgment. [/IMHO]

Well the first thing you know, Obama's in the chair
His constituency says "Prez, get us outta there."
Said "Afghanistan is where the buildup oughta be"
So we do it all again in the land of poppy seed.

Leaving unfinished business that is
Relax, leave your wallets out
Don't look back now, ya hear.

Excellent post, sexobon. I especially like this part:

In countries with dictatorships, the general population may not have that influence on their leaders; so, we've decided that other governments can be segregated from their general populations and targeted separately. We didn't win a war with Iraq, just with its government.

[Cyber Wolf]

Originally Posted by Big Sarge

Cyber Wolf - The truth is the first US troops were sent into French Indochina by President Truman in 1950 to train the Vietnamese and support the French. At the end of Eisenhower's term, there were 796 US troops in country. You should also note that Eisenhower vetoed a plan to use tactical nukes.

Kennedy increased the US presence to 16,000 troops. Johnson was the one that turned it into a full blown war. The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution on 7 August 1964 gave Johnson the power to conduct military operations in Southeast Asia without declaring war. This resolution allowed the President unilateral power to launch a full scale war if the President deemed necessary. It has since come to light that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was fabricated by the Johnson administration in order to gain power to wage war.

The Democrats were responsible for Vietnam

Well, the French and the Vietminh were already waging decisive battles for nearly a decade before that. As you said, Eisenhower sent aid to the French, initially involving the US on a military level in the conflict. He also helped set the stage for war to happen. So, are we talking about war, as in when we started/joined in the fighting there (initially done by Eisenhower) or war, as in an official piece of paper saying we're going to fight (passed by Democratic Congress years later)?

The Gulf of Tonkin resolution was a response to the attack in the Gulf of Tonkin days earlier, where a North Vietnamese boat fired on a US destroyer. Seeing how it was a direct attack, and considering the US was already over there fighting and conducting war missions, it's not surprising the resolution was passed, more like a formality than a peace-to-war escalation. An "Oh, you done it now, son!" moment, if you will.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by Cyber Wolf

Well, the French and the Vietminh were already waging decisive battles for nearly a decade before that.

Didn't we (Truman) arm the previously ousted French after the Japanese lost Vietnam helping France control the South for the anticommunists?

[tw]

Originally Posted by Griff

Didn't we (Truman) arm the previously ousted French ...

Using above reasoning, then America was at war with the Taliban long before 11 September. Arming or providing covert assistance is unlike war.

[Griff]

I lay the War ® at Johnson's feet, but CyberWolf was digging into the roots of the conflict which was us re-arming the previous Vichy French occupiers after Japan went belly up.