Taliban No. 2 guy in custody

[Boreas]

[QUOTE=finnbow;20094]

Originally Posted by merrylander

Ah, c'mon. Don't you remember that the "Mission" was "Accomplished" years ago.

Ah, but what was the mission?

John

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

The withdrawal of troops started before Bush left office.

Pete

Bush drew the troop strength down to just below "Pre-Surge" levels or around 132,000. In other words, he increased it before he reduceded it. We're now at about 99,000 and falling.

John

[finnbow]

[QUOTE=Boreas;20102]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Ah, but what was the mission?

John

Playing dress-up on a real Navy ship.

[piece-itpete]

Say what you will...

Or are you saying Obama won Iraq?

Pete

[merrylander]

In truth, though he was an odd sort of Republican, I do believe Teddy Roosevelt wins the honor. To suggest that Iraq was "won" is stretching the definiition more than a little. The month after we leave that place will blow up into civil war.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by merrylander

In truth, though he was an odd sort of Republican, I do believe Teddy Roosevelt wins the honor. To suggest that Iraq was "won" is stretching the definiition more than a little. The month after we leave that place will blow up into civil war.

TR was a military hero in the Spanish-American War but that was before he became President. There was no war during his presidency. In fact, he won the Nobel Peace Prize for negotiating an end to the Russo-Japanese War. He did, however, project American military power worldwide through things like the Great White Fleet.

John

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

Say what you will...

Or are you saying Obama won Iraq?

Pete

Nobody "won" it yet. I can't seem to remember seeing the Instrument of Surrender being signed by anyone at anytime. Bush's 2003 photo-op on the USS Lincoln doesn't count.

[Charles]

I thought the whole point of the Iraq war was to station troops in the Middle East as to allow us to influence the region for the forseeable future.

The last time I looked, we still have troops in the Philippines, Cuba, Germany, Japan, Korea...and the Balkans...just to name a few.

It stinks, but the United States does have interests abroad. Our universal interests.

Just a thought,

Chas

[d-ray657]

A reader participation poll on the Fox site showed some interesting results. Granted, this was not a scientific poll, so I can't draw any precise conclusions about Fox followers. The poll asked readers to choose among five options on what the U.S. should with the arrested Taliban leader. The option to interrogate him within the confines of U.S. Law finished third behind, never should have taken him alive in second place. The overwhelming leader was "Interrogate to get information by any means necessary.

Any means necessary - 60%
Never should have taken him alive - 16%
Interrogate in compliance with U.S. law - 13%

Regards,

D-Ray

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by Charles

I thought the whole point of the Iraq war was to station troops in the Middle East as to allow us to influence the region for the forseeable future.

I think that was definitely part of why Bush & Cheney wanted to go in and why they were planning it from day one if not earlier. It was their desire to "influence" the Middle East through the use of military force. The goal was the US, as the last superpower, would control Iraqi oil, the second or third largest proven reserves in the world, behind Saudi Arabia and perhaps Venezuela.

The trouble, Chas, and something you seem to be forgetting is that's not what they told us. First it was Saddam had something to do with 9/11. When everyone except Fox viewers figured out that was BS they switched to Saddam's mythical stockpiles of WMD and nuclear program. When that got exposed for the lie it was they changed their story again, saying we were there to bring the Iraqis the blessings of freedom and democracy. It has been one lie after the other.

John