Interesting diplomacy works now.......

Pacomc79

but not in the case of Iraq.

Hmm. So North Korea Lobs an albiet pathetically sad missle in the direction of Hawaii and the Pacific Fleet and diplomacy is the best option, but we have to invade Iraq and depose the dictator there, leaving troops there indefinately, rebuild the entire country and etc. etc. etc. But an actual physical attack on the US and oh, ho hum "I view it as an opportunity for diplomacy."

It's just kind of interesting to me.


Maybe we could have just shown a little strength in the region and avoided all out war....I dunno. That's just me I guess.

FredFlintstone

Pacomc79 wrote:

but not in the case of Iraq.

Hmm. So North Korea Lobs an albiet pathetically sad missle in the direction of Hawaii and the Pacific Fleet and diplomacy is the best option, but we have to invade Iraq and depose the dictator there, leaving troops there indefinately, rebuild the entire country and etc. etc. etc. But an actual physical attack on the US and oh, ho hum "I view it as an opportunity for diplomacy."

It's just kind of interesting to me.


Maybe we could have just shown a little strength in the region and avoided all out war....I dunno. That's just me I guess.

You mean a war with an enemy that could actually respond militarily? Not going to happen. The Iraq invasion was never about Iraq being a "threat" to begin with.

WE ARE SPENDING OVER 5 BILLION A WEEK IN IRAQ. Thanks Cheney and Rummy

JasonVaritek

Pacomc79 wrote:

but not in the case of Iraq.

Hmm. So North Korea Lobs an albiet pathetically sad missle in the direction of Hawaii and the Pacific Fleet and diplomacy is the best option, but we have to invade Iraq and depose the dictator there, leaving troops there indefinately, rebuild the entire country and etc. etc. etc. But an actual physical attack on the US and oh, ho hum "I view it as an opportunity for diplomacy."

It's just kind of interesting to me.


Maybe we could have just shown a little strength in the region and avoided all out war....I dunno. That's just me I guess.

I think you are on the right track. This administration flip flops so much it is disturbing. How about the military unit which their purpose was to find Bin Laden? They took them off of the hunt this week. I thought Bin Laden was wanted dead or alive? Flip Flop.......Flip Flop

Abuskedti

He told Larry King he'd rather be right than popular. That sounds nice, but where does he find what is right?

JasonVaritek

Abuskedti wrote:

He told Larry King he'd rather be right than popular. That sounds nice, but where does he find what is right?

The Lord told him.

rebornFixer

Pacomc79 wrote:

but not in the case of Iraq.

Hmm. So North Korea Lobs an albiet pathetically sad missle in the direction of Hawaii and the Pacific Fleet and diplomacy is the best option, but we have to invade Iraq and depose the dictator there, leaving troops there indefinately, rebuild the entire country and etc. etc. etc. But an actual physical attack on the US and oh, ho hum "I view it as an opportunity for diplomacy."

It's just kind of interesting to me.


Maybe we could have just shown a little strength in the region and avoided all out war....I dunno. That's just me I guess.

It kinda depends on how you define diplomacy, I guess, but many diplomatic things were tried before the Iraqi invasion started. There was actually a pretty long lead-up ... Remember all the attempts to get UN inspectors "better access"? Eventually this became outright threats to Saddam, who could have stepped down to avoid an invasion.
Does this mean Iraq should have been invaded? No, I don't think so. But I don't think people can say that other avenues were not tried. The UN was involved for years.

rebornFixer

JasonVaritek wrote:

I think you are on the right track. This administration flip flops so much it is disturbing. How about the military unit which their purpose was to find Bin Laden? They took them off of the hunt this week. I thought Bin Laden was wanted dead or alive? Flip Flop.......Flip Flop

They disbanded a specific unit, perhaps because said unit was ineffective. That doesn't mean the hunt for Bin Laden is over. It is possible that they are changing tactics ... It is also possible that they really don't care about Bin laden, of course, but I don't think you can assume that based on a specific unit being called off the hunt.

polaris

reborncareerist wrote:

It kinda depends on how you define diplomacy, I guess, but many diplomatic things were tried before the Iraqi invasion started. There was actually a pretty long lead-up ... Remember all the attempts to get UN inspectors "better access"? Eventually this became outright threats to Saddam, who could have stepped down to avoid an invasion.
Does this mean Iraq should have been invaded? No, I don't think so. But I don't think people can say that other avenues were not tried. The UN was involved for years.

remember also there are no WMD's ... the war in Iraq was unilateral - no one in the UN was calling for it ... you can't say that other avenues were tried and it didn't work because at the end of the day - there were no WMD's so, the fact is they did work ...

day by day - more people will come to the conclusion this war was manufactured ... has nothing to do with the war on terror nor homeland security ...

JasonVaritek

reborncareerist wrote:

They disbanded a specific unit, perhaps because said unit was ineffective. That doesn't mean the hunt for Bin Laden is over. It is possible that they are changing tactics ... It is also possible that they really don't care about Bin laden, of course, but I don't think you can assume that based on a specific unit being called off the hunt.

Ok. Maybe it is tactics. All I know is they took their eyes off of the people that really could harm us and invaded a country that was not even close to being a threat.

FiveB247x

Hey Varitek, what's with you batting like .240 this season?

JasonVaritek

FiveB247x wrote:

Hey Varitek, what's with you batting like .240 this season?

Horrible. Maybe I can turn it around in the 2nd half.

rebornFixer

polaris wrote:

remember also there are no WMD's ... the war in Iraq was unilateral - no one in the UN was calling for it ... you can't say that other avenues were tried and it didn't work because at the end of the day - there were no WMD's so, the fact is they did work ...

day by day - more people will come to the conclusion this war was manufactured ... has nothing to do with the war on terror nor homeland security ...

You have no proof that WMD were not present in pre-war Iraq, any more than Bush has proof that they were. That was the whole logic behind using inspectors, who never did get full access to Iraqi facilities.

JasonVaritek

reborncareerist wrote:

You have no proof that WMD were not present in pre-war Iraq, any more than Bush has proof that they were. That was the whole logic behind using inspectors, who never did get full access to Iraqi facilities.

There were no WMD's in Iraq. Even Bush himself had said so. In fact everyone other than Rick Santorum has said there were no WMD's in Iraq and no immenent threat.

JasonVaritek

I am glad I put this to rest. There were no WMD's in Iraq. Also, the original topic this thread was started for is a legitimate thought. This Administrations foreign policy is a mess and we will feel the repercussions for years to come.

Abuskedti

reborncareerist wrote:

You have no proof that WMD were not present in pre-war Iraq, any more than Bush has proof that they were. That was the whole logic behind using inspectors, who never did get full access to Iraqi facilities.

it just silly to say there is no proof they were not present.

JasonVaritek

Abuskedti wrote:

it just silly to say there is no proof they were not present.

Rick Santorum silly!