Fred Thompson, President?

[Razor]

Originally Posted by JMI

Just an opinion, Sir, but the damage done by our insistence on invading Iraq could also have long lasting effects to our global posture.

You mean our insistence on fighting those bent on destroying our culture and freedoms in their own lands versus in ours?

[jwt5]

Originally Posted by Razor

You mean our insistence on fighting those bent on destroying our culture and freedoms in their own lands versus in ours?

Unfortunately, the way things seem, those of us who realize this, are in the minority.

[Shar]

Originally Posted by Razor

You mean our insistence on fighting those bent on destroying our culture and freedoms in their own lands versus in ours?

When explaining this concept to my 6 year old (he was asking why dad was going off again) he totally got it. He's totally onboard with the whole - "take the fight to them" thing. Why is this such a hard one for others to grasp?

[echoes]

Originally Posted by jwt5

Unfortunately, the way things seem, those of us who realize this, are in the minority.

Sadly, this very well may be true in some parts of Our Country.

But, to those fighting in this War:
Please know that there is a huge majority here in the mid-western United States that supports Your efforts!
We get it...and Thank You All for keeping us safe from oppression.

No matter who is CIC, we 'round here will always support Our Troops.

Holly

[JMI]

Originally Posted by Razor

You mean our insistence on fighting those bent on destroying our culture and freedoms in their own lands versus in ours?

I never said I disagreed with fighting them over there. I said - in reference to our posture in the world - invading Iraq was not our best move at the time, nor our only one. We rushed. I am not even sure that is even debatable anymore. It just isn't.

[Razor]

You're right, waiting over a year for ineffective UN intervention to never take place was far too little time; hell, 12 years if you want to go back to GW1. So, that point "isn't even debatable anymore" according to who, you?

I think its hard to argue that the US isn't considered a world leader, whether you gauge that through power, influcence, economics, or what have you. Leadership means that you don't often do things to get others to like you, you do them because their the right thing to do, regardless of whether its popular.

[GratefulCitizen]

Prior to all the UN legal/not legal war nonsense, wasn't Iraq in violation of the cease-fire agreement made during the Gulf War?

Weren't our aircraft engaged by their ground-to-air defenses repeatedly?

After 9/11, the political will existed to address some problems in the world which probably should have been addressed 22 years earlier.
Saddam was on the short list.

Politicians do what politicians do.

If Bill Clinton had taken similar action for similar reasons during his tenure, the media would still be extolling him as the greatest CIC ever.

I'll pass on the kool-aid.

[Peregrino]

Not a big fan of Koolaid myself. (How many people today understand the reference? )

[jwt5]

Originally Posted by Peregrino

Not a big fan of Koolaid myself. (How many people today understand the reference? )

I've had to explain it a few times, mostly to people only about 2 or 3 years younger

Originally Posted by Peregrino

Not a big fan of Koolaid myself. (How many people today understand the reference? )

Well, everyone with first hand experience is dead...

Originally Posted by GratefulCitizen

Prior to all the UN legal/not legal war nonsense, wasn't Iraq in violation of the cease-fire agreement made during the Gulf War?

Weren't our aircraft engaged by their ground-to-air defenses repeatedly?

After 9/11, the political will existed to address some problems in the world which probably should have been addressed 22 years earlier.
Saddam was on the short list.

Politicians do what politicians do.

If Bill Clinton had taken similar action for similar reasons during his tenure, the media would still be extolling him as the greatest CIC ever.

I'll pass on the kool-aid.

Funny thing is that Clinton is the one that signed the bill passed by Congress calling for the removal of Saddam Hussein. Just never followed-up on it.

[JMI]

Originally Posted by Razor

You're right, waiting over a year for ineffective UN intervention to never take place was far too little time; hell, 12 years if you want to go back to GW1. So, that point "isn't even debatable anymore" according to who, you?

Waiting another year, after waiting 12, would have meant what? What is the absolute worst that could have happened? What did we allow to fester? An idiot dictator that could not a) feed his people, b) that did not have the army to threaten Israel or the US, and c) was playing keep away with weapons he never had. We did not need to go into Iraq. We WANTED to. That was a piss poor decision that was obviously not well thought out. We went through that idiot's army like shit through a goose. The fastest run over that much ground in fooking history. The man was a moron. Yet we never thought what to do next. Why? Because we rushed through this decision with political capital in hand, and an enraged (yet uninformed) electorate fired up and raring to go. We never had a plan after his ouster. Maybe if we were not in such a hurry we would have avoided so many deaths.

I think its hard to argue that the US isn't considered a world leader, whether you gauge that through power, influcence, economics, or what have you. Leadership means that you don't often do things to get others to like you, you do them because their the right thing to do, regardless of whether its popular

Leadership means you do not act on impulse. You use patience, think through all potential actions, and gather support and intelligence. You can be the richest, most powerful, conniving, influencial SOB in the land. But some cunning Special Forces Team will cut you down in a second. I don't care how rich and powerful you think we are, our brain drain in government says otherwise.

It is quite sad that not even on this board can a discussion take place about our shortcomings in leadership. I am not second guessing for the sake of bashing. I am second guessing because now, after almost 5 years, it would have been nice if our leaders thought of something, any-fooking-thing, after the invasion. They had no plan after chopping off the head because they rushed the decision. Basic Ranger Handbook shit.

Prior to all the UN legal/not legal war nonsense, wasn't Iraq in violation of the cease-fire agreement made during the Gulf War?

Weren't our aircraft engaged by their ground-to-air defenses repeatedly?

After 9/11, the political will existed to address some problems in the world which probably should have been addressed 22 years earlier.
Saddam was on the short list.

They were in violation for 10 years. 9/11 made him more in violation? Saddam was on the short list? Jesus H, don't ya think Bin Laden made a shorter list? Ayman al-Zawahiri? I do not buy into the theory that fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan was the best strategy. Why, because more jihadists fled to Iraq from Afghanistan? Shit, while we're making progress in Iraq, we're losing ground in Afghanistan.

The political will that "existed" was misunderstood, misinterpreted, misused and misspent, IMO. I could think of a lot of ways we could have spent that captial. I sure as shit would not have wasted the Global Capital and Good Will as quickly as we did. That was a fooking colossal mistake. No getting that moment back.

[GratefulCitizen]

Originally Posted by JMI

I could think of a lot of ways we could have spent that capital.

This seems to be your main point.

I'm listening.

[warrottjr]

Originally Posted by JMI

The political will that "existed" was misunderstood, misinterpreted, misused and misspent, IMO.

IMHO, the decision to invade Iraq was brilliant. Coming right after Afganistan, it put the world on notice that state sponsored terroism would not be left unchecked. Looking at Lybia's capitulation and North Korea's recent exit from list of states sponsoring terrorism, progress seems to be made.

[Roguish Lawyer]

Originally Posted by warrottjr

IMHO, the decision to invade Iraq was brilliant. Coming right after Afganistan, it put the world on notice that state sponsored terroism would not be left unchecked. Looking at Lybia's capitulation and North Korea's recent exit from list of states sponsoring terrorism, progress seems to be made.

Lybia?