Bush: Decisions Have Made Iraq More Unstable

[retiredman]

name such a country

Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Israel

I do not believe we have mutual defense treaties with any of those countries. Please provide links to the text of such treaties that state that any attack on those countries is tantamount to an attack on the US.

Mathematically challenged? Hmmm..... I don't know the actual percentage nor do I really care, nor is it relevant to the fact that he tied up a lot of military assets for 13 years. If my quick guess was incorrect, so be it. I'll try to get over it.

Here's a kernel of advice: don't guess and try to pass it off as fact.

Posing a threat to ANY oil=producing nation that keeps this country functioning day-to-day IS a threat to our national interest.

so now it is about oil?

"he fact is, he not only possessed chemical weapons, but used them more than once. He was nailed AFTER (you know, with all the UN sanctions and agreements to ceasefire in place) the First Gulf War with a bio lab.

He was attempting to build a nuclear facility when the Israeli's cut that plan short."

all old news. He was doing none of those things in the spring of '03 when this president lied to us and told us that there was no doubt that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's and scared us with talk of mushroom clouds over American cities. The much clearer and more present danger to America remains fundamentalist Islamic fanatics. and we have put THAT threat on the back burner while we flush life and limb and treasure down the shitter in Iraq



Yes, he did keep the fundies at bay, and he kept the region out of balance, being the joker sitting right in the center of the deck. and you think that keeping fundies at bay was a bad thing? YOu think that Iranian hegemony going unchecked is a good thing? You think that sunnis and shiites slaughtering each other is an even better thing?

Putting words in my mouth? I don't recall saying anything of the sort.

Please explain how keeping Islmaic extremists (our enemies...the ones who attacked us) at bay, keeps the region out of balance... how keeping Iran in check keeps the region out of balance... how keeping sunnis and shiites from killing one another keeps the region out of balance


And for ostriches like you, there never will be, no matter how long the list is.

There is good reason to use our military force to protect America..... and I served 25 years in the Navy willingly, enthusiastically acting as a part of the muscular arm of American foreign policy. I have supported many of our country's military excursions over the years...just not this one

[Gunny]

name such a country

Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Israel

I do not believe we have mutual defense treaties with any of those countries. Please provide links to the text of such treaties that state that any attack on those countries is tantamount to an attack on the US.

No actual mutual defense treaties exist with those Nations. And since you are proving yourself quite the literalist (i.e Saddam having WMDs), I guess that's good enough for you.

This also negates the fact that we have bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. I'm sure they exist just to give our troops a cultural experience.

Or that Kissinger signed a memorandum with Foreign Minister Yigal Allon that states: "The United States Government will view with particular gravity threats to Israel's security or sovereignty by a world power."

Just like with Saddam and the WMDs, quit trying to play literalist word games. If you're the 25 year navy vet you claim to be, you know what the deal is so quit trying to blow smoke up my ass.


Mathematically challenged? Hmmm..... I don't know the actual percentage nor do I really care, nor is it relevant to the fact that he tied up a lot of military assets for 13 years. If my quick guess was incorrect, so be it. I'll try to get over it.

Here's a kernel of advice: don't guess and try to pass it off as fact.

Don't worry about me. If the actual number was all that relevant to the discussion I would have looked it up. Trying to make a stand on irrelevancies appears to suit you thus far.

Posing a threat to ANY oil=producing nation that keeps this country functioning day-to-day IS a threat to our national interest.

so now it is about oil?

And now you want to play stupid. We have another reason for giving a shit about a sandbox in the Middle of nowhere besides who controls the commodity that keeps this Nation functioning. GMAFB.

"he fact is, he not only possessed chemical weapons, but used them more than once. He was nailed AFTER (you know, with all the UN sanctions and agreements to ceasefire in place) the First Gulf War with a bio lab.

He was attempting to build a nuclear facility when the Israeli's cut that plan short."

all old news. He was doing none of those things in the spring of '03 when this president lied to us and told us that there was no doubt that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's and scared us with talk of mushroom clouds over American cities. The much clearer and more present danger to America remains fundamentalist Islamic fanatics. and we have put THAT threat on the back burner while we flush life and limb and treasure down the shitter in Iraq

I see. Ignore historical fact to suit your argument. Sheer genius on your part. "It isn't happening to me right now in my yard so it's not a problem." That it?

I agree that Islamic fundamnetalists present the greater danger.


Yes, he did keep the fundies at bay, and he kept the region out of balance, being the joker sitting right in the center of the deck. and you think that keeping fundies at bay was a bad thing? YOu think that Iranian hegemony going unchecked is a good thing? You think that sunnis and shiites slaughtering each other is an even better thing?

Putting words in my mouth? I don't recall saying anything of the sort.

Please explain how keeping Islmaic extremists (our enemies...the ones who attacked us) at bay, keeps the region out of balance... how keeping Iran in check keeps the region out of balance... how keeping sunnis and shiites from killing one another keeps the region out of balance

Now you want to argue about me agreeing with you?


And for ostriches like you, there never will be, no matter how long the list is.

There is good reason to use our military force to protect America..... and I served 25 years in the Navy willingly, enthusiastically acting as a part of the muscular arm of American foreign policy. I have supported many of our country's military excursions over the years...just not this one

How nice.

[retiredman]

YOU said that we had treaties with neighbors of Saddam that stated that "An attack on any of they countries is considered an attack on the US"

And when pressed on the veracity of that claim you then tap danced and back pedaled and said "No actual mutual defense treaties exist with those Nations."

and then you claimed that a quarter of our military budget was taken up in keeping Saddam in check and when challenged about the veracity of THAT claim you say, [i]"I don't know the actual percentage nor do I really care, nor is it relevant to the fact that he tied up a lot of military assets for 13 years. If my quick guess was incorrect, so be it. I'll try to get over it. Don't worry about me. If the actual number was all that relevant to the discussion I would have looked it up. Trying to make a stand on irrelevancies appears to suit you thus far."

Now if the real number were anything approaching 25%, that would in fact be quite relevant and would help you make you case. What if the real number were more like 3%.... now THAT is an "irrelevancy". I am suggesting that you play fast and loose with all sorts of things and then, when confronted with your bullshit, you claim that expecting you to be honest and debate issues with fact instead of smoke blowing bullshit - that the truth is somehow "irrelevant". You, sir are a bullshit artist. Perhaps you were a gunny in the corps... but I find it hard to believe that someone with as little regard for the truth as you exhibit could have advanced that far in the Marine Corps that I served alongside

I see. Ignore historical fact to suit your argument. Sheer genius on your part. "It isn't happening to me right now in my yard so it's not a problem." That it?

That has never been my argument. I suggest that after 9/11, the identity of our most dangerous enemy was made clear to us - and it wasn't Saddam and his secular baathist regime in Iraq which, besides being rather prick-like to his OWN people, was accomplishing some VERY real and valuable things for us. If you do in fact "agree that Islamic fundamnetalists present the greater danger." then you should share my concern that we have focused the greater amount of our men, money and material on something that was not the greater danger.

and when I said, "to use our military force to protect America..... and I served 25 years in the Navy willingly, enthusiastically acting as a part of the muscular arm of American foreign policy. I have supported many of our country's military excursions over the years...just not this one."


you flippantly replied, "How nice."

Was that some backhanded statement of agreement with me, or are you just a blowhard gadfly without the requisite balls or grace to pull it off?

[Gunny]

YOU said that we had treaties with neighbors of Saddam that stated that "An attack on any of they countries is considered an attack on the US"

And when pressed on the veracity of that claim you then tap danced and back pedaled and said "No actual mutual defense treaties exist with those Nations."

No tap-dancing nor back-pedalling. What I stated is pretty clear. We're allied with the countries I listed, and we have used force to remove an occupier ffrom one, were invited to set up shop in another for the purpose of military defense, and we jumped through hoops to provide Israel with Patriot missiles during the First Gulf War.

You're playing semantics. Actual in-writing treaties don't exist but it's quite obvious the agreements do.

and then you claimed that a quarter of our military budget was taken up in keeping Saddam in check and when challenged about the veracity of THAT claim you say, [i]"I don't know the actual percentage nor do I really care, nor is it relevant to the fact that he tied up a lot of military assets for 13 years. If my quick guess was incorrect, so be it. I'll try to get over it. Don't worry about me. If the actual number was all that relevant to the discussion I would have looked it up. Trying to make a stand on irrelevancies appears to suit you thus far."

I didn't claim a quarter of our military budget was taken up by anything. Learn to read, squid.

Now if the real number were anything approaching 25%, that would in fact be quite relevant and would help you make you case. What if the real number were more like 3%.... now THAT is an "irrelevancy". I am suggesting that you play fast and loose with all sorts of things and then, when confronted with your bullshit, you claim that expecting you to be honest and debate issues with fact instead of smoke blowing bullshit - that the truth is somehow "irrelevant". You, sir are a bullshit artist. Perhaps you were a gunny in the corps... but I find it hard to believe that someone with as little regard for the truth as you exhibit could have advanced that far in the Marine Corps that I served alongside

The only thing I'm guilty of is not anticipating a dirtbag like you wanting to play stupid little games of literalism instead of discussing an issue. If you're all you claimed to be, then obviously you got waste more than your fair shair of time in the Gulf, as did I. There isn't just a two-man outpost stationed in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Baharain.

The MEUs I deployed with were roughly manned by 2500 Marines (sorry, no exact, to the man strength report) and at least that many of you dumbass squids to drive and clean a LHD and two LPDs. Not to mention the guided missile cruiser we picked up prior to entering the Gulf.

That isn't taking into account the Army, Air Force and Navy personnel doing one-and-two year stints in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Baharain.

If you don't think that cost a shitload of money and tied up manpower and materiel, then you just ain't thinking. And if you want an exact number, feel free to go find one.


I see. Ignore historical fact to suit your argument. Sheer genius on your part. "It isn't happening to me right now in my yard so it's not a problem." That it?

That has never been my argument. I suggest that after 9/11, the identity of our most dangerous enemy was made clear to us - and it wasn't Saddam and his secular baathist regime in Iraq which, besides being rather prick-like to his OWN people, was accomplishing some VERY real and valuable things for us. If you do in fact "agree that Islamic fundamnetalists present the greater danger." then you should share my concern that we have focused the greater amount of our men, money and material on something that was not the greater danger.

I agree, and have not stated otherwise.

and when I said, "to use our military force to protect America..... and I served 25 years in the Navy willingly, enthusiastically acting as a part of the muscular arm of American foreign policy. I have supported many of our country's military excursions over the years...just not this one."


you flippantly replied, "How nice."

Was that some backhanded statement of agreement with me, or are you just a blowhard gadfly without the requisite balls or grace to pull it off?

I was thinking "how nice" it is that you arrogantly presume to pick and choose the wars you support and don't. Hardly what I would expect from someone claiming to have served 25 years in the military.

In case you missed it, I happen to agree with much of your assessment as far as invading Iraq goes. I disagree that there was no justification. I would not have invaded because we could see as far back as 1991 that it was going to create this internal, factional warfare and give Iran an excuse to start meddling.

Which is not relevant to the fact that we are there and if the politicians don't pull their heads out of their asses REAL QUICK nothing positive is going to come of it. We can't go back and "un-invade." Done deal. We have to deal with "now."

If they increase in manpower and alleged change in tactics is going to make a positive impact, then it's worth trying.

[retiredman]

I am not a literalist by any means.... I just don't enjoy people flip flopping and bullshitting and then acting all indignant when they get caught at it.

You first said:

"The US is bound by treaties to several countries in the ME that Saddam WAS an immediate threat to. An attack on any of they countries is considered an attack on the US itself."

THEN, when cornered, you flip it around to say:

"You're playing semantics. Actual in-writing treaties don't exist but it's quite obvious the agreements do."

words have meanings. If you use words, you ought to abide by the rules of language and you ought to expect people who read your words to assign some commonly agreed upon meanings to them. YOU are the one who claimed that we were "bound" by "treaties" and then followed that up with the wording found in mutual defense treaties... and it was bullshit. Why can't you be a man and just admit you messed up?

THEN you say:

"I didn't claim a quarter of our military budget was taken up by anything. Learn to read squid."

Actually, I read pretty well. I distinctly remember reading this sentence from you a bit earlier:

"Then there's the fact he was tying up at least a quarter of our military and its financing for over a decade with no end in sight."

the way I learned to read, those sentences are, in fact, contradictory. Where did YOU learn to read and what connotations, pray tell, do you draw from those two sentences that would make them something OTHER THAN contradictory?

Finally, you toss our this cute little insult:

"I was thinking "how nice" it is that you arrogantly presume to pick and choose the wars you support and don't. Hardly what I would expect from someone claiming to have served 25 years in the military."

Were you under the misconception that once someone has served a career in the US Military that they get some sort of lobotomy when they retire and, from that day forth, are incapable of forming opinions about America's fopreign policy? That is really not the case. Someone who has served a long and successful career in the military is eminently qualified to form and voice opinions about the ways that the civilian suits choose to use the uniformed services. While on active duty, I was duty and honor bound to hold my tongue in public regarding any legal decisions made by my chain of command, and I did so. I am now retired and am perfectly capable of standing up and stating my opinions about the misuse of our uniformed military services by this administration. I have significant experience on the ground in the middle east and I feel it is my civic duty to speak my truth and let my reasoned objections be heard. You should feel free to do likewise.... if they told you in your departure briefing from the Corps that you were forbidden from doing so, they were lying to you. You seem to agree with me that we have much bigger threats confronting us, yet you blindly continue to support this president and his misguided Iraq initiative, which necessarily precludes us from appropriately addressing those more dangerous issues. That seems unsupportable to me.

[Gunny]

I am not a literalist by any means.... I just don't enjoy people flip flopping and bullshitting and then acting all indignant when they get caught at it.

You first said:

"The US is bound by treaties to several countries in the ME that Saddam WAS an immediate threat to. An attack on any of they countries is considered an attack on the US itself."

THEN, when cornered, you flip it around to say:

"You're playing semantics. Actual in-writing treaties don't exist but it's quite obvious the agreements do."

words have meanings. If you use words, you ought to abide by the rules of language and you ought to expect people who read your words to assign some commonly agreed upon meanings to them. YOU are the one who claimed that we were "bound" by "treaties" and then followed that up with the wording found in mutual defense treaties... and it was bullshit. Why can't you be a man and just admit you messed up?

THEN you say:

"I didn't claim a quarter of our military budget was taken up by anything. Learn to read squid."

Actually, I read pretty well. I distinctly remember reading this sentence from you a bit earlier:

"Then there's the fact he was tying up at least a quarter of our military and its financing for over a decade with no end in sight."

the way I learned to read, those sentences are, in fact, contradictory. Where did YOU learn to read and what connotations, pray tell, do you draw from those two sentences that would make them something OTHER THAN contradictory?

Finally, you toss our this cute little insult:

"I was thinking "how nice" it is that you arrogantly presume to pick and choose the wars you support and don't. Hardly what I would expect from someone claiming to have served 25 years in the military."

Were you under the misconception that once someone has served a career in the US Military that they get some sort of lobotomy when they retire and, from that day forth, are incapable of forming opinions about America's fopreign policy? That is really not the case. Someone who has served a long and successful career in the military is eminently qualified to form and voice opinions about the ways that the civilian suits choose to use the uniformed services. While on active duty, I was duty and honor bound to hold my tongue in public regarding any legal decisions made by my chain of command, and I did so. I am now retired and am perfectly capable of standing up and stating my opinions about the misuse of our uniformed military services by this administration. I have significant experience on the ground in the middle east and I feel it is my civic duty to speak my truth and let my reasoned objections be heard. You should feel free to do likewise.... if they told you in your departure briefing from the Corps that you were forbidden from doing so, they were lying to you. You seem to agree with me that we have much bigger threats confronting us, yet you blindly continue to support this president and his misguided Iraq initiative, which necessarily precludes us from appropriately addressing those more dangerous issues. That seems unsupportable to me.

Sure words have meanings. So feel free to replace "treaties" with "agreements" if it makes you feel better. The meaning of each is the same.

And where did you learn to cherrypick words to suit your agenda? My statement concerning the military and its financing does not equate to your saying I stated that a quarter of the military budget was spent on Iraq, unless you purposefully misread the statement or are just to dumb to understand it.

I've gone out of my way as far as I'm going in order to accomodate your literalism, clarify every irrelevant little detail you have attempted to deflect with.

Since you want to play literalist, I did not address your opinion, nor your entitlement to it. I addressed your comment that you do not support this war.

Disagreeing with the reasons for a war and vocally not supporting the US while it is engaged in a war are two different things. A person with twenty-plus years in the military would KNOW that such statements add to the undermining of the morale of those who are actually fighting the war; therfore, undermining the effort itself.

A military person would have moved on by now from "I don't agree with this" to "how do we get the job done?" and is professional enough to put personal opinion aside and assess the situation from a professional standpoint.

I didn't agree with a whole lot of shit I had to do in the military. I did it anyway. And it has nothing to do with blindly following anyone-or-thing and a whole lot to do with the fact as long as the order was not unlawful, I carried it out to the best of my ability no matter how distasteful and/or what my personal opinion on the matter was.

[retiredman]

actually...as someone who served on active duty during Vietnam, I know full well that the content of political discussion amongst civilians at home had absolutely no impact on me or on the morale of the ship's crews in which I served. I guess they train sailors how to worry about their jobs and not get all worried about the political process... I should check with my classmates who've made flag rank in the Corps to suggest that they train you guys better.

I also followed many orders while on active duty that I found distasteful and counterproductive, but I, too, always saluted and left the captain's cabin with the attitude that is was MY decision and not his. And I know that every officer on active duty in Iraq today may have personal reservations about the wisdom of the mission - all the way to George Casey who, I am sure, has questioned the validity of the surge behind closed doors with Gates AND Bush - but if you choose to stay on active duty, you choose to play by those rules. If you examine the criticism leveled by RETIRED flag officers concerning Iraq, you will find that I am not the lone ranger. I would love to see you tell Maj. Gen. Charles Swannack Jr., who commanded the 82nd Airborne Division, and Maj. Gen. John Batiste, who led the First Infantry Division that their criticism was undermining the morale of active duty troops.... or do you reserve such disrespectful tripe for retired naval officers on internet message boards?

And I have moved on to discussions of alternatives.... I think that redeploying to the borders where they can interdict arms shipments and leave the urban fighting to the Iraqis makes a great deal of sense. I have been having a discussion about what else we could be doing beyond "staying the course" for quite some time. I happen to disagree with the surge, only because it puts OUR boots on the ground in Baghdad and Anbar instead of forcing Iraqis to police their own mess.

As long as we keep coddling the Iraqis and not expecting them to perform, they won't. As long as we continue to sit back and let OUR troops die, the Iraqi soldiers will certainly sit back as well.

[TheSage]

Gunny, he's punked you up one side and down the other. You most certainly did say a quarter of our budget is going there. And you were just plain wrong about the treaties. Can you be honest for once?

[retiredman]

"Then there's the fact he was tying up at least a quarter of our military and its financing for over a decade with no end in sight"

Please Gunny.... explain to me how that sentence does not mean that Saddam was tying up over 25% of our military and its budget for over a decade.

[Gaffer]

"Then there's the fact he was tying up at least a quarter of our military and its financing for over a decade with no end in sight"

Please Gunny.... explain to me how that sentence does not mean that Saddam was tying up over 25% of our military and its budget for over a decade.

As you know perfectly well, Gunny was referring to the no fly zone enforcement and Kuwait. The navy and airforce had ongoing patrols over the north and south protecting the kurds and shea, and a large contingent of army and marine forces in Kuwait to protect it from further attacks. For 12 years the iraqi's fired at the aircraft patroling the no fly zone. To me that was enough in itself to invade.

All of that required funding. A lot of funding. And a lot of personel rotating in and out. Not to mention the equipment that went in and out with them. Gunny was emphasizing the extreme costs and manpower used over that 12 year period.

[TheSage]

As you know perfectly well, Gunny was referring to the no fly zone enforcement and Kuwait. The navy and airforce had ongoing patrols over the north and south protecting the kurds and shea, and a large contingent of army and marine forces in Kuwait to protect it from further attacks. For 12 years the iraqi's fired at the aircraft patroling the no fly zone. To me that was enough in itself to invade.

All of that required funding. A lot of funding. And a lot of personel rotating in and out. Not to mention the equipment that went in and out with them. Gunny was emphasizing the extreme costs and manpower used over that 12 year period.

Yes. Overemphasizing with wrong statistics.

[retiredman]

As you know perfectly well, Gunny was referring to the no fly zone enforcement and Kuwait. The navy and airforce had ongoing patrols over the north and south protecting the kurds and shea, and a large contingent of army and marine forces in Kuwait to protect it from further attacks. For 12 years the iraqi's fired at the aircraft patroling the no fly zone. To me that was enough in itself to invade.

All of that required funding. A lot of funding. And a lot of personel rotating in and out. Not to mention the equipment that went in and out with them. Gunny was emphasizing the extreme costs and manpower used over that 12 year period.

no...Gunny was bullshitting about the costs and manpower...now you wanna join him in the tapdance?

He clearly and unambigously stated that Saddam had tied up over 25% of our military. Now...do you wanna disagree with that statement or do you wanna keep his "package" warm?

[Gaffer]

no...Gunny was bullshitting about the costs and manpower...now you wanna join him in the tapdance?

He clearly and unambigously stated that Saddam had tied up over 25% of our military. Now...do you wanna disagree with that statement or do you wanna keep his "package" warm?

I can't prove or disprove his statement. But then again how many carrier groups were in the gulf and med sea in those 12 years? Air Force bases surrounding the area being ustilized to support the no fly mission? That includes all personell on the bases. How many brigades were in Kuwait? Just based on the region I would say Gunnys estimate is likely pretty close when everything is factored in. 25% of the forces weren't hovering around iraq but they were involved in the mission and protecting Kuwait and anyone else saddam might want to mess with.

He was not a stablizing factor over there. He was a wildcard and unpredictable.

[Gunny]

actually...as someone who served on active duty during Vietnam, I know full well that the content of political discussion amongst civilians at home had absolutely no impact on me or on the morale of the ship's crews in which I served. I guess they train sailors how to worry about their jobs and not get all worried about the political process... I should check with my classmates who've made flag rank in the Corps to suggest that they train you guys better.

Really? WTF would YOU know about troops on the ground? I'd have guessed it was because your head was then where it is now ... up your ass.

I also followed many orders while on active duty that I found distasteful and counterproductive, but I, too, always saluted and left the captain's cabin with the attitude that is was MY decision and not his. And I know that every officer on active duty in Iraq today may have personal reservations about the wisdom of the mission - all the way to George Casey who, I am sure, has questioned the validity of the surge behind closed doors with Gates AND Bush - but if you choose to stay on active duty, you choose to play by those rules. If you examine the criticism leveled by RETIRED flag officers concerning Iraq, you will find that I am not the lone ranger. I would love to see you tell Maj. Gen. Charles Swannack Jr., who commanded the 82nd Airborne Division, and Maj. Gen. John Batiste, who led the First Infantry Division that their criticism was undermining the morale of active duty troops.... or do you reserve such disrespectful tripe for retired naval officers on internet message boards?

If the general officers you mentioned state publicy they do not support the war, I'll be more than happy to tell them they're undermining the morale of the troops, to their faces. If, however, it is that they don't support the way the war is being conducted, that would be an entirely different matter.

One can only hope YOU can figure out the difference.

And I have moved on to discussions of alternatives.... I think that redeploying to the borders where they can interdict arms shipments and leave the urban fighting to the Iraqis makes a great deal of sense. I have been having a discussion about what else we could be doing beyond "staying the course" for quite some time. I happen to disagree with the surge, only because it puts OUR boots on the ground in Baghdad and Anbar instead of forcing Iraqis to police their own mess.

As long as we keep coddling the Iraqis and not expecting them to perform, they won't. As long as we continue to sit back and let OUR troops die, the Iraqi soldiers will certainly sit back as well.

I agree the Iraqis themselves should take more responsibility and action for what's going on.

[Gunny]

Gunny, he's punked you up one side and down the other. You most certainly did say a quarter of our budget is going there. And you were just plain wrong about the treaties. Can you be honest for once?

You want in? Taking potshots from the rear because I don't believe any of youor knucklehead conspiracy theories?

I did not state a quarter of our budget was going anywhere, and if you want to call me wrong on the treaties because you want to play semantics, knock yourself out. I believe I have already clarified myself. Re-read it as many times as it takes.

Nothing dishonest about it.

I've tried REAL hard to get along with you, RWA, in light of your recent "condition." But go fuck yourself, huh? You wouldn't know reality or the truth if it slapped you in the face.