Why are we in Iraq?

We are in Iraq to get those weapons of mass destruction that posed a clear and eminent threat to the United States. Remember how we didn't want the smoking gun to be in the form of a MUSHROOM CLOUD?

Regards,
BiR (in Beautiful Nashville, TN)

 

Most definately has nothing to with this.

From the article...

And of course Condi Rice actually using the term "New Middle East" these days is purely coincidence also.

SOURCE

 

does it mention Haliburton?

i don't seem to be able to find any reference to it.

 

Heard a Moslem bad guy on TV refer to the west as "the crusader nations." They are still fighting the Crusades.

 

Bill

They started the Crusades. And the radicals still want to fight it over and over.

 

We are in Iraq, because a group of muslims misled us. They misled us with the intent of starting a war with the USA on muslim soil. They started the war so that they could call for 'jihad' world wide.

They are doing so now. And the extremists will call for the war until they see Jesus return (His return is part of their prophecies too).

But, in short, we allowed ourselves to be misled.

 

You may have been misled.....GW has not been mislead.

His wicked plans for perpetual war have not changed since the day it started.

 

"Then I ran out of answers and all I could say was 'I don't know anymore.'"

Sure she knows. She just doesn't like the way it sounds when she says it. She may even disagree...but she knows.

 

US shouldn't have started the war with Iraq, not because Iraq was OK, but because US had to spare the power and money for Iran which was already emerging as much bigger problem.

What US has done so far, has paved a highway for Iran to reach Lebanon and Israel thru Shiite Iraq, Shiite Syria, Shiite Hezbolah to the mountain of Israel as Ezekiel prophesied in Ezekiel 38:8, 39:2

 

Oh, by the way, the troops Rumsfeld said were coming home? Their tours have been extended. He might need to send some more over, too.

Oh, and more money. Lots more money.

Surprised?

 

There was nothing wrong with GW's concept. Destroy al-Queda in Afghanistan, establish a military presence there. Dump Sadam, establish a military base there. Both bases to be cushions against Syria and Iran while democracy flourished in Iraq and Lebanon, and the so-called "Palestinians" lived peacefully alongside the Israelies. The plan seemed to be working. Lebanon got its democracy under way, we were welcomed, initially, in Iraq, Jordan and Egypt opened up to voting, parliaments, citizens in Syria and Iran demonstrated for civil rights outside of the religious leaders, Saudi Arabia agreed to soften its hard line against the west in its school text books, homicide bombers stopped crossing into Israel, "Palestianian" prisoners were released, it was all being accomplished without alienating the whole of Islam around the world (Colin Powell calling it a "great religion"), North Korea was being challenged by 6 nations in the region, not just by the USA ~~ all very heady stuff for the Bush administration.

What Bush did not forsee was prolonged combat in Iraq, the short-term experiments with democracy in Syria, Iran, and Egypt, the true nature of Islam, the pornography deviant in North Korea, the return of Russia to the Soviet model, internally, and the world seeing the USA as the aggressor, not peace maker. One week before the G8 summit in Russia, Iran ordered Hezbollah to create a diversion with Israel, distracting the summit leaders from Iran and nuclear weapons. The USA/UN demanded that Iran submit to certain regulations by June, or be placed under sanctions. June became July, and now July has become August, with Iran thumbing its nose, while North Korea provides Russian-designed weapons of war, including nuclear.

Now, Israel is defending itself against the Iranian-ordered and Syrian-supplied Hezboullah, a counter-attack by the axis of evil, against the so-called "road map" and democracy-building efforts of the Bush administration. Israel is called the aggressor.

One need not blame Bush for what is happening. The plan was a noble one. It failed, for the above-cited reasons, not because it wasn't a good plan. In the age-old twists and turns of the Middle East, the best laid plans can falter and fail. In the final analysis, one must measure the events there against the backdrop of history and Biblical prophecy.

 

Because Saddam's Iraq was one of the nations that was in the way of the Bush administration's MEFTA plans.

 

SOURCE

So how do you guys like having your reactions anticipated, managed and constrained by a foreign power so far?

I asked Merriam Webster what the words anticipate manage and constrain means...

anticipate
One entry found for anticipate.
Main Entry: an·tic·i·pate
Pronunciation: an-'ti-s&-"pAt
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): -pat·ed; -pat·ing
Etymology: Latin anticipatus, past participle of anticipare, from ante- + -cipare (from capere to take) -- more at HEAVE
transitive verb
1 : to give advance thought, discussion, or treatment to
2 : to meet (an obligation) before a due date
3 : to foresee and deal with in advance : FORESTALL
4 : to use or expend in advance of actual possession
5 : to act before (another) often so as to check or counter
6 : to look forward to as certain : EXPECT
intransitive verb : to speak or write in knowledge or expectation of later matter
synonym see FORESEE, PREVENT

manage
Main Entry: 1man·age
Pronunciation: 'ma-nij
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): man·aged; man·ag·ing
Etymology: Italian maneggiare, from mano hand, from Latin manus
transitive verb
1 : to handle or direct with a degree of skill: as a : to make and keep compliant <can't manage their child> b : to treat with care : HUSBAND <managed his resources carefully> c : to exercise executive, administrative, and supervisory direction of <manage a business> <manage a bond issue> <manage a baseball team>
2 : to work upon or try to alter for a purpose <manage the press> <manage stress>
3 : to succeed in accomplishing : CONTRIVE <managed to escape from prison>
4 : to direct the professional career of <an agency that manages entertainers>
intransitive verb
1 a : to direct or carry on business or affairs; also : to direct a baseball team b : to admit of being carried on
2 : to achieve one's purpose
synonym see CONDUCT

constrain
One entry found for constrain.
Main Entry: con·strain
Pronunciation: k&n-'strAn
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French constraindre, from Latin constringere to constrict, constrain, from com- + stringere to draw tight -- more at STRAIN
1 a : to force by imposed stricture, restriction, or limitation b : to restrict the motion of (a mechanical body) to a particular mode
2 : COMPRESS; also : to clasp tightly
3 : to secure by or as if by bonds : CONFINE; broadly : LIMIT
4 : to force or produce in an unnatural or strained manner <a constrained smile>
5 : to hold back by or as if by force <constraining my mind not to wander from the task -- Charles Dickens>
synonym see FORCE
- con·strained·ly /-'strA-n&d-lE, -'strAnd-lE/ adverb

Interesting, no?

Here's another interesting word... manipulate.

manipulate
One entry found for manipulate.
Main Entry: ma·nip·u·late
Pronunciation: m&-'ni-py&-"lAt
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -lat·ed; -lat·ing
Etymology: back-formation from manipulation, from French, from manipuler to handle an apparatus in chemistry, ultimately from Latin manipulus
1 : to treat or operate with or as if with the hands or by mechanical means especially in a skillful manner
2 a : to manage or utilize skillfully b : to control or play upon by artful, unfair, or insidious means especially to one's own advantage
3 : to change by artful or unfair means so as to serve one's purpose : DOCTOR



I ask again, how do you guys like your reactions being anticipated, managed, constrained and/or manipulated by a foreign power so far? Have you learned to love it yet?

 

If so, it was willful negligence, because the Pentagon told him it was going to happen. Gen. Shinseki warned him of that very specifically. And Rumsfeld publicly ridiculed him by saying he couldn't see how pacifying Iraq was going to take more troops than defeating Saddam.

Rummy had no experience in such things, of course. He was one of the chickenhawk flock. And he was wrong with a vengence. And it killed a lot of our people when he messed up.

In short, you're arguing that Bush didn't know what was going on. True enough. But he's supposed to be competent.

He's running the show. He gets the credit, and the blame for what happens. As Truman observed, the buck stops there.

It was a half-baked attempt to make the neocon ideology come true. And like most things done for ideological reasons, it was a disaster, the true cost of which is still to be seen.

Let's see... "We'll beat Saddam, and destroy all order in Iraq, and then the Iraqis will set aside their ethinic hatreds, and love us, and form a democracy."

Good plan? Sounds like a compromise between Arnold Schwartzenegger and Shirley McClain.

 

Not at all - saw it coming when clinton failed to deliver bin laden.

 

4 years ago kim had not given the iranians the technology that they needed to move forward. Maybe S Korea could contain the nuclear antagonist on their peninsula? Then Iran would not be a problem?

 

AMEN To that:thumbs:

 

There was nothing wrong with this concept???

You're kidding, right?