USMCgrunt0331
07-02-05, 10:33 AM
Our Mission in Iraq
Thursday, June 30, 2005
By Neil Cavuto
You know, at a time it seems every media outlet is focusing on what's going wrong in Iraq, leave it to one very smart viewer of this show, to remind us all of what's going right.
You know, at a time it seems every media outlet is focusing on what's going wrong in Iraq, leave it to one very smart viewer of this show, to remind us all of what's going right.
Plain and simple, this from Michael Logue in Vicksburg, Mississippi:
"We went to depose terror... We did.
"We went to install democracy... We did.
"We went to install a government... We did.
"We went to restore a key nation... We have.
"We are stopping future 9/11s... We have.
"And the battle has been in Basrah (search), not Boston.
"So what is wrong with our Iraq policy?"
Well said, Michael. I have nothing to add.
Watch Neil Cavuto weekdays at 4 p.m. ET on "Your World with Cavuto" and send your comments to cavuto@foxnews.com
"We went to depose terror... We did.
Yes we did in Afghanistan. Iraq was supposedly about WMDs. There was no connection between Saddam and Al Qaida.
"We went to install democracy... We did.
If it's done, then let's go home. Mission accomplished.
"We went to install a government... We did.
Then let's go home. Let the Iraqi government take care of their own problems, because that's what a government is supposed to do.
"We went to restore a key nation... We have.
Then let's go home and have our victory parade. No more American men and women should die doing what Iraqi men and women should be doing for themselves.
"We are stopping future 9/11s... We have.
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. The only reason jihadist flocked to Iraq was because of our military presence there. The CIA has stated that the Iraq War has made Iraq a training ground for terrorists. Donald Rumsfeld even stated in a memo that he didn't know if the war was just creating more terrorists.
"And the battle has been in Basrah (search), not Boston.
Why does he think that terrorists can't plan operations in America as well as Iraq? Sounds like wishful thinking to me.
"So what is wrong with our Iraq policy?"
We went into a country that was no threat to the US or it's neighbors. Saddam was pinned down by the no fly zones, and was barely holding it together. Now we have helped to make it a training ground for terrorists.
As far as the war itself is going, a general on the ground there has said we are fighting the insurgency to a stalemate. We should be winning. Meanwhile we have conflicting assessments from the Bush administration. Dick Cheney says the insurgency is in their "last throes" while Rumsfeld says the insurgency could last 12 years or so. Well which is it? Can they get on the same ****ing page?
Joseph P Carey
07-02-05, 10:04 PM
As I am a curious man, and I often ask the know it alls how they would do things differently given a different set of circumstances.
Given that we were already in Afghanistan, Why not Iraq?
1) The Iraqi Government had never paid much attention to the truce they signed after the Gulf War; 2) they never returned the Kuwaiti prisoners; 3) they never returned our pilot; 4) they never stopped shooting at our aircraft in the No Fly Zone; and, 5) for ten years they never made a full disclosure of any of the requested information required in the truce with regards to WMD (there was a veiled attempt in the eleventh hour, but it was too little too late.
Now, add this to your recognition power: 1) we had troops on the ground in Afghanistan; 2) They were in a land locked Country; 3) their fields of operation were in the South East section of the country of Afghanistan; 4) their backs were to the Iranians and the Iraqis; and, 5) if attacked from the two countries mentioned, it would have been a great coup for the Muslim Extremists, because of the unlikely hood of the troops being supplied by the air, or reinforced from the air.
Immediately, you say Iran and Iraq are enemies and never would have cooperated in such an action, but you seem to forget that they did just that when Iraq invaded Kuwait.
Iran did not interfere with the Iranian attack into the oil rich kingdom of Kuwait, a Shiite populated state I might add, after a deal was made that gave back land to the Iranians that was taken in the Iran Iraq War. It should also be noted that during the Gulf War, Iraq sent its war planes to Iran to safeguard them from the American air strikes. It is not really so great a jump into the remote to assume that the Iranians would have again cooperated against a common foe in the Americans to gain one victory of American Forces.
Now, you say what good did it do for us to take Iraq if Iran was a probably participant against the US Forces in Afghanistan? Well, the answer is simple. All roads in the Middle East lead through Baghdad. That is to include countries like Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia, as well as Libya, Morocco and other countries of the North African area, I might add, the same people that we are now fighting in Iraq, but instead would have been fighting in Afghanistan, had we not taken Iraq, and our force would have had very little chance to defend themselves there. And, Iran was now caught between two different American Armies
Now, let me add just one more thing! France was organizing a resolution to lift the UN Embargo against Iraqi Oil, and the benefit of such a resolution would have been a resupply of the Iraqi Army, and a refitting of the Iraqi armament program in Weapons of Mass Destruction, not to mention that another attack on both Saudi Arabia and Kuwait would have been the out come, and we would have had to fight our way in from the sea, which would have cost a great many lives.
Now, what do you say? I am glad you were a Lance Corporal, because you never would have made it as a general.
As far as the fighting to a stalemate, we are not there to win Iraq's battle for freedom, only to initiate it. The Iraqis will have to win their own battles when they are ready.
There is no quagmire in Iraq as Senator Kennedy says. The war is going the way it should be going. It just takes time.
I suppose that you are one of the people that would have gave up the war against the Germans when they struck with such force in the Bulge, or maybe even have given up the ghost when the Japanese fought so hard over the low Island of Okinawa. It seems that just before the crash of an opponent in any war, there was always a one last stand drive for a possible win, and I might add, had the Congress of the USA not abandoned its ally in South Vietnam, because of the push that North Vietnam put on, and Had the Congress of the USA not cut off the legs of the President while he was in negotiations with the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong, there still would have been a South Vietnam today, and all of those lives would not have been lost in a lost cause to protect 45 Million people. The Russians were willing to cut the North Vietnamese loose had they taken another severe loss of military material and personnel.