PDA

View Full Version : "Cakewalk"


Daishiman
03-29-2003, 02:03 PM
"Cakewalk"
Bush administration officials and their hawkish supporters now say they never promised an easy war -- but the record shows otherwise.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

March 28, 2003 |

Richard Perle, recently resigned chairman of the Defense Policy Board, in a PBS interview July 11, 2002:


"Saddam is much weaker than we think he is. He's weaker militarily. We know he's got about a third of what he had in 1991."

"But it's a house of cards. He rules by fear because he knows there is no underlying support. Support for Saddam, including within his military organization, will collapse at the first whiff of gunpowder. "
Ken Adelman, former U.N. ambassador, in an Op-Ed for the Washington Post, Feb. 13, 2002:



"I believe demolishing Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk. Let me give simple, responsible reasons: (1) It was a cakewalk last time; (2) they've become much weaker; (3) we've become much stronger; and (4) now we're playing for keeps.
Vice President Dick Cheney, on NBC's "Meet the Press" March 16:


"The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but that they want to get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that."
"My guess is even significant elements of the Republican Guard are likely as well to want to avoid conflict with the U.S. forces and are likely to step aside."

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, in an interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN March 23:


"The course of this war is clear. The outcome is clear. The regime of Saddam Hussein is gone. It's over. It will not be there in a relatively reasonably predictable period of time."
"And the people in Iraq need to know that: that it will not be long before they will be liberated."

Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, in a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars March 11:


"Over and over, we hear reports of Iraqis here in the United States who manage to communicate with their friends and families in Iraq, and what they are hearing is amazing. Their friends and relatives want to know what is taking the Americans so long. When are you coming?"
"In a meeting last week at the White House, one of these Iraqi-Americans said, 'A war with Saddam Hussein would be a war for Iraq, not against Iraq.'"

"The Iraqi people understand what this crisis is about. Like the people of France in the 1940s, they view us as their hoped-for liberator. They know that America will not come as a conqueror. Our plan -- as President Bush has said -- is to 'remain as long as necessary and not a day more.'"

Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in a breakfast meeting March 4, 2003:


"What you'd like to do is have it be a short, short conflict. The best way to do that is have such a shock on the system, the Iraqi regime would have to assume early on the end is inevitable."
Christopher Hitchens, Vanity Fair writer, in a debate Jan. 28, 2003:


"This will be no war -- there will be a fairly brief and ruthless military intervention.
"The president will give an order. will be rapid, accurate and dazzling ... It will be greeted by the majority of the Iraqi people as an emancipation. And I say, bring it on."

shade
03-29-2003, 05:34 PM
Richard Perle, recently resigned chairman of the Defense Policy Board, in a PBS interview July 11, 2002
We destroyed most of the regular army at the end of 1991... so his statement is accurate. Also note that he resigned. You know, Germany didnt have much of an army in the late 40's either. Tends to happen after you lose a war.

Ken Adelman, former U.N. ambassador, in an Op-Ed for the Washington Post, Feb. 13, 2002:
Since when are UN ambassadar's reliable military experts?

"The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but that they want to get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that."
So far this statement is correct... what is your point?

"The course of this war is clear. The outcome is clear. The regime of Saddam Hussein is gone. It's over. It will not be there in a relatively reasonably predictable period of time."
Again... completely correct... please post things that support your argument instead of degrade it.

"Over and over, we hear reports of Iraqis here in the United States who manage to communicate with their friends and families in Iraq, and what they are hearing is amazing. Their friends and relatives want to know what is taking the Americans so long. When are you coming?"
Also completely correct... my uncle is from Iran and has friends and family in Iran and eastern Iraq... I have personal confirmation of this statement. The only reason some civilians are resisting is because they are A: In the Baath party. or B: The Fedahi'im Saddam will kill a man's family if the man is capable of defending Saddam's regime and does not. Dont try to disagree with this... because you are wrong if you do.

"What you'd like to do is have it be a short, short conflict. The best way to do that is have such a shock on the system, the Iraqi regime would have to assume early on the end is inevitable."
Again, for the love of god, show a statement that helps your argument. We are one week in to this. As far as wars go, finishing this inside 6 months WOULD be a very fast victory. Get out of your command and conquer real time strategy gaming mode of thought and enter the real world.

Christopher Hitchens, Vanity Fair writer, in a debate Jan. 28, 2003:
Who the hell is this?

Go find a quote from someone like Rumsfeld saying "Well easily win this war in a week and lose no more than 5 people and no civilians would die." Until then... umm... go away please.

Daishiman
03-29-2003, 06:20 PM
Your statement about people wanting an invasion is simply not credible. Not cinsistent with what people would think if they're being bombed.

Interviews by credible sources outside the US say consistently that people hate Hussein, but hate invaders worse. And that's logical.

Have you read the comments of the citizens in Iraq when the US tried to give them some sort of aid? They were critiquinng them, saying "We haven't had electricity in 3 days. Do you bring electricity with you?" And other things.

US aid trucks had to leave Basra because the populance attempted to attack them continuously.

Unregistered
03-29-2003, 06:23 PM
How dare you contradict the Reich Propaganda Minister!!!!

shade
03-30-2003, 12:14 AM
Yeah, and i guess we left the fucking red carpet home so they cant walk to the trucks on sand.

I wish a country like the USA could have liberated us from england and our only complaints would be a lack of fucking electricity and 50-250 (depending on your sources) civilian casulties.

Bergs
03-30-2003, 12:48 AM
um yeah. Those aid trucks were attacked alright, by people desperatly attempting to get at the food, water, and medical supplies inside. Bad Americans, bringing such essential aid in when people are suffering so much, why wouldnt you want them out.

shade
03-30-2003, 12:50 AM
No shit Bergs.

As this war procedes so well, the left gets angry and grasps for anything they can.

Bergs
03-30-2003, 01:01 AM
no shit its no shit shade

These guys ignorant even the plainest facts have to be spelt out

Saddam = B-A-D

America = G-O-O-D

Riki, Dashi = S-T-U-P-I-D

Dozzi
03-30-2003, 12:24 PM
Ignorant in that sentece was used as a Verb... and as far as I know ignorant is not a verb. And Shade is rather right, the left, or liberal media is full of shit. They take things and blow it out of proportion. They can take protests of about 10 people and make it look like 1000. Liberals are also known to be, "the less smart" half of the spectrum.

A liberal in Washington Park said, during a protest, that there had to be at least one million people protesting in the park that day. Shows how liberals can really blow things out of proportion.

A. The max limit for washington park is about 10000, and that's if each person had about one inch between them and the people on either side of them. Eight million people live in manhattan, stacked on top of each other in skyscrapers. Manhattan is a shit load bigger than Washington Park.

B. Even if one million people could fit in Washington Park, organizing that many people for a formal protest is damn near impossible.

shade
03-30-2003, 01:38 PM
No... Daishi isnt stupid. Riki is. Daishi is one of those smart people that while makes good posts with what seem to be good facts... just that they are wrong, implied, not the whole truth, or conspiracy theories.

If only he joined the Light Side, he would be an excellent poster =).

shade
03-30-2003, 01:42 PM
There was an anti war protest on my campus. In total, there were maybe 130 people. 30-40 of which were pro war people like myself looking for a good debate. Unfortunately the anti war people could only resort to yelling at us. The only few people that actually would speak like a civilized human were... incorrect. One didnt even know that stalin killed his own political dissidents much the same way that Saddam does... the protest was called "books not bombs" yet they had skipped class to do it. I then told that protestor he should probably not be skipping his history classes.

Anyway, the school newspaper said that 400 students were there strongly protesting the war. LOL.

Nocturnal
03-30-2003, 09:49 PM
keep in mind that the media blows things out of proportion in both directions. They may be harping on the civilian casualties to make the republicans look bad however a few months ago they were busting a nut trying to convince everyone that every wmd and weapon ever used by Bin laden were sold by Mr. Hussein himself.

The media exists to serve itself, more ratings = more money. They don't get people to watch by saying yup everything is going as planned so don't worry. They need to stir up concern to keep us glued to our 24hr news stations.

shade
03-31-2003, 12:28 AM
every wmd and weapon ever used by Bin laden were sold by Mr. Hussein himself.
Bin Laden hasnt managed to use WMD yet. Just car bombs and airplanes. The media was talking about Saddam's willingness to provide to terrorists, and their willingness to use. Its just logistically hard to transport bio/chem weapons to the US which is why so far we have been able to not have another 9/11 <yet>.