Interesting diplomacy works now.......

Pacomc79Pacomc79 Posts: 9,404
edited July 2006 in A Moving Train
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.
My Girlfriend said to me..."How many guitars do you need?" and I replied...."How many pairs of shoes do you need?" She got really quiet.
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • 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
    "Sean Hannity knows there is no greater threat to America today than Bill Clinton 15 years ago"- Stephen Colbert
  • 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
    Casper, WY 06/16/95
    Park City, UT 06/21/98
    Mountain View, CA 06/01/03
    San Diego, CA 07/07/06
    San Francisco, CA 07/15/06
  • AbuskedtiAbuskedti Posts: 1,917
    He told Larry King he'd rather be right than popular. That sounds nice, but where does he find what is right?
  • 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.
    Casper, WY 06/16/95
    Park City, UT 06/21/98
    Mountain View, CA 06/01/03
    San Diego, CA 07/07/06
    San Francisco, CA 07/15/06
  • rebornFixerrebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    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.
  • rebornFixerrebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    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.
  • polarispolaris Posts: 3,527
    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 ...
  • 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.
    Casper, WY 06/16/95
    Park City, UT 06/21/98
    Mountain View, CA 06/01/03
    San Diego, CA 07/07/06
    San Francisco, CA 07/15/06
  • FiveB247xFiveB247x Posts: 2,330
    Hey Varitek, what's with you batting like .240 this season?
    CONservative governMENt

    Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
  • FiveB247x wrote:
    Hey Varitek, what's with you batting like .240 this season?

    Horrible. Maybe I can turn it around in the 2nd half.
    Casper, WY 06/16/95
    Park City, UT 06/21/98
    Mountain View, CA 06/01/03
    San Diego, CA 07/07/06
    San Francisco, CA 07/15/06
  • rebornFixerrebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    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.
  • 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.
    Casper, WY 06/16/95
    Park City, UT 06/21/98
    Mountain View, CA 06/01/03
    San Diego, CA 07/07/06
    San Francisco, CA 07/15/06
  • 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.
    Casper, WY 06/16/95
    Park City, UT 06/21/98
    Mountain View, CA 06/01/03
    San Diego, CA 07/07/06
    San Francisco, CA 07/15/06
  • AbuskedtiAbuskedti Posts: 1,917
    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.
  • Abuskedti wrote:
    it just silly to say there is no proof they were not present.

    Rick Santorum silly!
    Casper, WY 06/16/95
    Park City, UT 06/21/98
    Mountain View, CA 06/01/03
    San Diego, CA 07/07/06
    San Francisco, CA 07/15/06
Sign In or Register to comment.