Fred Stone wrote:

"chris.linthompson@gmail.com" <chris.linthompson@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1132595727.912460.138070@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Fred Stone wrote:

Jeffrey Turner <jturner@localnet.com> wrote in
news:11o3olofahvsh5d@corp.supernews.com:

Fred Stone wrote:

"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

Desertphile wrote:

McCain Stakes His Future on a Belief That the War Can and

Be Won

"War?" What "war?"

I think it's the one that we won and it was over a year or so

May. If you don't believe me ask Bush.

Maybe you could cite where he said that the war was over?

"Thank you all very much. Admiral Kelly, Captain Card, officers
and sailors of the USS Abraham Lincoln, my fellow Americans:
Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of
Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. And now
our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that
country."

President George W. Bush
USS Abraham Lincoln
At Sea Off the Coast of San Diego, California
May 1, 2003

That doesn't say that the war is over. That says that major combat
operations have ended, which was true, and we *did* prevail. And

we *are* engaged in securing and reconstructing that country.

So, the two battles of Fallujah were

(a) not major, or
(b) not combat, or
(c) not operations.

Which is correct, Fred?

(a) Major operations involve whole divisions.

Really. So those battles, which involved 4 US Marine battalions, 2 US
Army battalions, an Iraqi Commando battalion, and elements from the
Black Watch, plus support echelons, should be classed--how exactly?
Skirmishes? Isolated contacts? One-third of a major Iraqi city was
destroyed, there are tens of thousands of people who still cannot
return to their homes, and this isn't "major"?

Fred, you're barking mad.

Fred Stone wrote:

"chris.linthompson@gmail.com" <chris.linthompson@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1132595727.912460.138070@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Fred Stone wrote:

Jeffrey Turner <jturner@localnet.com> wrote in
news:11o3olofahvsh5d@corp.supernews.com:

Fred Stone wrote:

"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

I think it's the one that we won and it was over a year or so

May. If you don't believe me ask Bush.

Maybe you could cite where he said that the war was over?

"Thank you all very much. Admiral Kelly, Captain Card, officers
and sailors of the USS Abraham Lincoln, my fellow Americans:
Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of
Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. And now
our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that
country."

President George W. Bush
USS Abraham Lincoln
At Sea Off the Coast of San Diego, California
May 1, 2003

That doesn't say that the war is over. That says that major combat
operations have ended, which was true, and we *did* prevail. And

we *are* engaged in securing and reconstructing that country.

So, the two battles of Fallujah were

(a) not major, or
(b) not combat, or
(c) not operations.

Which is correct, Fred?

(a) Major operations involve whole divisions.

Fred, you're moving the goalposts as much as the creationists. You
simply cannot ever accept that you are wrong. What happens when we
need to secure a city from "insurgents" again and we do send an entire
division's worth of troops? Are you going to redefine what a "major
combat operation" is?

Or are you finally going to then admit that the
war is not over?

Fred Stone wrote:

Call it whatever you like, the fact remains that major combat
operations had ended and we did prevail. And now we are engaged in
securing and reconstructing that country.

There can't possibly be any way of interpreting Bushes speech than to
understand it as an announcement that the war had been won and was now
ended.

If he really thought at that point that a futher 2000 American
soldiers would be killed he would have thanked the military for the
job done so far and spoken about the hard work still to be done.

No,
it is clear to anybody that makes an honest appraisal of that
statement that Bush thought the rest was going to be easy. He thought
the Iraqi people would co-operate in the re-building of their state.

Not enough troops were sent in the initial phases to secure the
borders and stop the entry of insurgents. This outcome was predicted
before the war started. The politicians didn't accept the advice,
therefore they are culpable.

It was always going to be easy for the Americans to defeat the Iraqi
army. If you remember even Sadam hinted at the fact. He also openly
stated what would happen afterwards, he had a book about guerilla
tactics in his hand at one point. He was ignored.

Before the start of this war many experts were warning about the
fragmentation of the country. They were saying that Iraq only existed
as a state because of the rule of Sadam Hussein. They were predicting
that removal of the regime would result in civil war between the
Kurds, Shi-ites and Sunnis. They predicted that would result in ideal
conditions for recruitment and training of more terrorists. They were
ignored.

Much has been said about the phrase "know your enemy". When Al-Qaeda
sponsored the November attacks against the USA what outcome were they
hoping for? I strongly suggest that the response they were hoping for
was the one they got. America correctly responded by retaliating
against the Taliban government of Afghanistan. They also went too far
by attacking Iraq, which was never the "clear and present danger" that
Tony Blair assessed it to be.

The result of this attack was to turn
many more muslims against the USA. Some of these people will be
recruited as terrorists as a direct response to the attack on Iran.
Some of them may well be trained in Iraq itself, something that
wouldn't have happened under Saddam. Don't forget that Saddam himself
was a potential target of Muslim terrorists. Al-quaeda wanted America
to attack Iran because they want to create an Islamic superstate in
the Gulf.

When Iraq fragments it will go three ways.

The Kurds will
have their own state, (which, incidentally, may well de-stabilise part
of Turkey) The Sunnis will have their own state. The Shi-ites will
allign with Iran, creating a greater Iran with massive oil reserves
and great power. This state will work to destabilise the already hated
dictatorships of Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt, etc.

The American administration was suckered into attacking Iraq, now they
have to make damn sure they finish the job whatever it takes, and
whatever the wishes of the American people. The cost of failure will
be too high to contemplate. The world cannot afford the likely outcome
of a politically expedient withdrawal of troops from Iraq before the
Iraqi army is capable of supporting another dictatorship that can keep
the country together or the people of Iraq are willing to fully
support a democratic Iraqi state.

Fred Stone wrote:

Call it whatever you like, the fact remains that major combat operations
had ended and we did prevail. And now we are engaged in securing and
reconstructing that country.

There can't possibly be any way of interpreting Bushes speech than to
understand it as an announcement that the war had been won and was now
ended. If he really thought at that point that a futher 2000 American
soldiers would be killed he would have thanked the military for the job
done so far and spoken about the hard work still to be done. No, it is
clear to anybody that makes an honest appraisal of that statement that
Bush thought the rest was going to be easy. He thought the Iraqi people
would co-operate in the re-building of their state.

Not enough troops were sent in the initial phases to secure the borders
and stop the entry of insurgents. This outcome was predicted before the
war started. The politicians didn't accept the advice, therefore they
are culpable.

It was always going to be easy for the Americans to defeat the Iraqi
army. If you remember even Sadam hinted at the fact. He also openly
stated what would happen afterwards, he had a book about guerilla
tactics in his hand at one point. He was ignored.

Before the start of this war many experts were warning about the
fragmentation of the country. They were saying that Iraq only existed
as a state because of the rule of Sadam Hussein. They were predicting
that removal of the regime would result in civil war between the Kurds,
Shi-ites and Sunnis. They predicted that would result in ideal
conditions for recruitment and training of more terrorists. They were
ignored.

Much has been said about the phrase "know your enemy". When Al-Qaeda
sponsored the November attacks against the USA what outcome were they
hoping for? I strongly suggest that the response they were hoping for
was the one they got. America correctly responded by retaliating
against the Taliban government of Afghanistan. They also went too far
by attacking Iraq, which was never the "clear and present danger" that
Tony Blair assessed it to be. The result of this attack was to turn
many more muslims against the USA. Some of these people will be
recruited as terrorists as a direct response to the attack on Iran.
Some of them may well be trained in Iraq itself, something that
wouldn't have happened under Saddam. Don't forget that Saddam himself
was a potential target of Muslim terrorists. Al-quaeda wanted America
to attack Iran because they want to create an Islamic superstate in the
Gulf. When Iraq fragments it will go three ways. The Kurds will have
their own state, (which, incidentally, may well de-stabilise part of
Turkey) The Sunnis will have their own state. The Shi-ites will allign
with Iran, creating a greater Iran with massive oil reserves and great
power. This state will work to destabilise the already hated
dictatorships of Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt, etc.

The American administration was suckered into attacking Iraq, now they
have to make damn sure they finish the job whatever it takes, and
whatever the wishes of the American people. The cost of failure will be
too high to contemplate. The world cannot afford the likely outcome of
a politically expedient withdrawal of troops from Iraq before the Iraqi
army is capable of supporting another dictatorship that can keep the
country together or the people of Iraq are willing to fully support a
democratic Iraqi state.