You realize what Bush is doing... right?

[Zwhaler]

In his speach tonight he said he will send more troops over to Iraq. Yay. Now we can win that war on terror right? Wrong. Bush (or whoever thought out this plan... most likely not Bush himself) is quite smart. What sending more troops to Iraq ensures is that by the time Bush leaves office, the US troops will still be in Iraq fighting the war. With that many more soldiers in Iraq, it will be nearly impossible to get them out before Bush leaves office. Notice how he doesn't know when he's gonna bring em' home?

After he leaves office, a new president will come in. If the new president is a republican, he will most likely stay in Iraq and try to win the war. After a few more years in Iraq, the body count will be so high, and the results will be so low, that the president would be a fool not to withdrawl all troops from Iraq. Effectively, this makes the new president look like a bad president, and he will be taking all of the blame for the lousy outcome of the war... and none of the blame will go to Bush.

If the new president is democrat, he will likely say "we need to get out of there now, it has been several years and neither the US or Iraq has benefited from this war" and will withdrawl the troops. This will make him look like (as some republicans say) a "cut n' run liberal. Notice... none of the blame will go to Bush, just to the newly elected president.

So, either way, in the end Bush will look like a hero and the new guy will look like a wimp or an idiot. Bush has screwed up big time, he knows it, the world knows, and now he is going to cover up his mess by shifting the blame to someone else. Just you watch.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Bush doesnt know what he's doing so how can anyone else know what he's doing?

[zimv20]

What sending more troops to Iraq ensures is that by the time Bush leaves office, the US troops will still be in Iraq fighting the war.
i think credit goes to josh over at TPM calling what bush is doing: punting.

he's punting to the next president, fully realizing it will probably be a dem. i believe the GOP is looking ahead to 2012.

the other thing bush is doing is putting the dems in congress in a position where they have to cut off funding to stop this thing. then bush, the GOP, and all the fighting keyboardists can go on for years about how the liberals don't support the troops.

nothing that bush is doing is policy or strategic, it's all politics.

[Zwhaler]

I forgot to add, if a new democratic president comes in and takes the troops out of Iraq, the republican bush supporters will claim that Bush set America up for success, and that we could have won the war, but that damn cut n run liberal had to take those perfectly ready to fight troops out of Iraq. I can see it now...

[Dont Hurt Me]

Listening to Bush you would think Iraq did 911, and Osama & Saddam are the same guy and the attack was carried out from Iraq. Fact is 911 has 0 to do with Iraq. Nothing. We shouldnt even be in Iraq except for the Israeli Lobby and a bunch of Oil Barons..... and our Hero in charge. Meanwhile on the otherside of the planet a guy named Osama has become a farmer growing poppys.

[obeygiant]

Listening to Bush you would think Iraq did 911, and Osama & Saddam are the same guy and the attack was carried out from Iraq.

really? where did you gleen that from the speech?

[Zwhaler]

Listening to Bush you would think Iraq did 911, and Osama & Saddam are the same guy and the attack was carried out from Iraq.

That's exactly what he wants us to think. If Saddam and Iraq were not conected to terrorism and 911, what other reason would we have to be there? It's spelled O I L

[Dont Hurt Me]

really? where did you gleen that from the speech?
Im not saying this speach but past ones he has spun 911 into Iraq and with that he said some interesting things on Iran. he said they knew of Irans involvement in Iraq. Thats not good coming from George, he could just bomb the crap out of Irans Nuclear facilities. They have done as good of job on Iraqs borders as they have on our Mexican border?

[obeygiant]

That's exactly what he wants us to think. If Saddam and Iraq were not conected to terrorism and 911, what other reason would we have to be there?

Iraq being connected to terrorism before 9-11 is a moot point now. The fact remains that there are terrorists there now.

[Zwhaler]

Iraq being connected to terrorism before 9-11 is a moot point now. The fact remains that there are terrorists there now.

That is true. But here's the thing. The war in Iraq won't do any good, because the terrorists that are already in Iraq, live in Iraq. It's not like they are going to stop fighting and move away. We are the ones who do not belong in there, not the natives. And they will die before they leave, so pretty much this war is an ensured bloodbath

[Dont Hurt Me]

Iraq being connected to terrorism before 9-11 is a moot point now. The fact remains that there are terrorists there now.Millions now thanks to our little war, half Sunni half Shiia and they all look the same and we are putting our troops inbetween? meanwhile WMDs are being made in Iran and George has screwed up on Iraq so bad he has little clout for anything on Iran.

[Zwhaler]

The reason terrorists are there now is because we created a power vacuum and they moved in to fill it. We are the reason that they are there. Bush was told by his generals to send 400,000-500,000 troops in to do the job right. He sent in 140,000. No wonder it didn't work out.

[leekohler]

really? where did you gleen that from the speech?

You've got to be kidding. Don't even try to pretend that Bush didn't try to link 9/11 and Iraq.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/19/60minutes/main607356.shtml

[Zwhaler]

Say "I" if you think that if Iraq had no oil we would be there today.

*crickets*

That's what I thought.

[Dont Hurt Me]

The reason terrorists are there now is because we created a power vacuum and they moved in to fill it. We are the reason that they are there. Bush was told by his generals to send 400,000-500,000 troops in to do the job right. He sent in 140,000. No wonder it didn't work out.There is more at play here, 1st you have two Islamic societys who have killed each other for a thousand years. Both are taught revenge,hate and eye for a eye. Terrific. Removing Saddam was genius if you want Iran running the Mid East.

[leekohler]

Of course, once again, when it gets too hot in the kitchen, obeygiant leaves.

[phungy]

I like how Bush stutters and looks clueless while giving speeches.

[Zwhaler]

Of course, once again, when it gets too hot in the kitchen, obeygiant leaves.

:D

[Zwhaler]

I like how Bush stutters and looks clueless while giving speeches.

He looks like that all the time. But don't "misunderestimate" what i'm trying to say...

[leekohler]

:D

Oh- and don't you just love his avatar? Give us a break. :rolleyes:

[phungy]

He looks like that all the time. But don't "misunderestimate" what i'm trying to say...

Have you seen the video of Bush being asked the question about "tribal sovereignty"?

LOL...:D

[Thomas Veil]

What sending more troops to Iraq ensures is that by the time Bush leaves office, the US troops will still be in Iraq fighting the war. With that many more soldiers in Iraq, it will be nearly impossible to get them out before Bush leaves office.Joe Biden said much the same thing last week:

Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said yesterday that he believes top officials in the Bush administration have privately concluded they have lost Iraq and are simply trying to postpone disaster so the next president will "be the guy landing helicopters inside the Green Zone, taking people off the roof," in a chaotic withdrawal reminiscent of Vietnam.

"I have reached the tentative conclusion that a significant portion of this administration, maybe even including the vice president, believes Iraq is lost," Biden said. "They have no answer to deal with how badly they have screwed it up. I am not being facetious now. Therefore, the best thing to do is keep it from totally collapsing on your watch and hand it off to the next guy -- literally, not figuratively."Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/04/AR2007010401525.html?nav=rss_world)

Can't say as I disagree with that assessment.

[SMM]

Iraq being connected to terrorism before 9-11 is a moot point now. The fact remains that there are terrorists there now.

No, it is not a moot point. We gave the Islamic Jihad a battlefield they never had before. This was one of the many fundamental political land-mines I foresaw. This could not have worked out better for them. We walked into a trap and I damn embarrassed to be led by the idiots who did not see it coming.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Bush doesnt seem to understand that by bombing the crap out of Iraq he has given all Iraqi's a reason to hate Americans. He also doesnt talk much on Iraq's biggest problem and its called Islam. Unless your going to redo that religion you might as well leave.

[Zwhaler]

Unless your going to redo that religion you might as well leave.

And because threre is no way in hell that that is going to happen, we might as well leave. But don't forget about the oil... were stayin there till its all gone.

[Zwhaler]

Have you seen the video of Bush being asked the question about "tribal sovereignty"?

LOL...:D

The man... is just... an idiot. I get so angry when I watch movies like An Inconvient Truth and see such an inteligent man like Al Gore stand up and talk about global warming, and then I think about how we have this blithering moron in office. I can't believe that we voted him in twice!

The republicans have had six years of doing whatever the hell they want.

You know the Healthy Trees Bill? That allowed companys to cut down nearly all the trees they wanted, and removed limitations on what size of trees they could cut down.

The Clean Air Act? Allowed Bush's oil buddies to pump craploads of toxic fumes into the air. What are the american peoeple thinking??!?

Now with the new Senate and House that is democratic (its about time) there is going to be some serious change, and I hope that Bush is scared right now, because he sure ought to be.

[mrkramer]

really? where did you gleen that from the speech?

I didn't watch the speech too closely, but it may have been from the part where Bush mentioned 9/11 during his speech about Iraq.

[leekohler]

Guys- WTF? I would have thought this forum would be going crazy. Have we really become that complacent? Write your congressmen NOW. I have already. This stupidity has to stop before my relatives get sent back to that hellhole. I'm begging at this point. Please write your congressmen! Do NOT let this happen. We do have the power in our own hands, don't give it up.

[MACDRIVE]

It's too bad that all the oil couldn't be in a nice friendly country like Norway or Sweden. :D

[toontra]

Guys- WTF? I would have thought this forum would be going crazy. Have we really become that complacent? Write your congressmen NOW. I have already. This stupidity has to stop before my relatives get sent back to that hellhole. I'm begging at this point. Please write your congressmen! Do NOT let this happen. We do have the power in our own hands, don't give it up.

Coming from a UK perspective, I would also be deeply saddened if the Dems allow this to go through with only some political gesturing in objection. OK, this is ALL politics, and politics of the very worst, most cynical type, but at some stage the good of Iraq and the lives of civilians and troops have to be given priority, surely.

If the Dems don't stop (or severely curtail) this policy they will be culpable in my eyes.

[BoyBach]

What do you do when you're in a hole?

It seems that if you are President Bush you invest in a bigger shovel.

Bush: "Dig for victory."

:(

[mactastic]

Iraq being connected to terrorism before 9-11 is a moot point now. The fact remains that there are terrorists there now.
No, it's not a moot point because the people who were wrong about that along with everything else need to prove why we should listen to them now.

If someone gave me bad advice, and then wanted to offer more advice, I'd be pretty skeptical. I'd need to see some kind of evidence that they now understand why they were wrong before, and I certainly wouldn't allow them to say "my previous bad advice and analysis is a moot point".

So far you (and Bush for that matter) don't seem to be able to offer any reason why this greatest-hits remix of previous plans for victory will be any more successful than prior attempts. It's as if you still don't understand how fundamentally wrong you were, and still are, about the outcome of US actions.

We've surged before. We've trained Iraqi troops before. We've put political pressure on Maliki. We've demanded that Sadr be neutralized. We've dumped billions upon billions into reconstruction. We've tried to clear and hold Baghdad. Everything that you and Bush are advocating has been tried, and has failed abjectly, before.

And yet you want us to believe that these same actions, shuffled around a little, will produce a different outcome this time.

[Thomas Veil]

lee -- I know this makes you crazy, but it's a new Congress, and people are waiting to see what they do about this. Also, people know this is doomed to failure.

You have more personal investment in this than most of us, but it might be better to cajole people from a calmed-down perspective rather than from the point of white-hot anger.

(Says the guy who wants to behead the rich. :D )

We're with ya. Just go have a few drinks to settle you down, okay? :)

[aquajet]

No, it's not a moot point because the people who were wrong about that along with everything else need to prove why we should listen to them now.

Exactly. I'm listening to Condi on CNN right now and her words sound utterly empty to me. As far as I'm concerned, I doubt this Administration's credibility will ever be restored.

[leekohler]

lee -- I know this makes you crazy, but it's a new Congress, and people are waiting to see what they do about this. Also, people know this is doomed to failure.

You have more personal investment in this than most of us, but it might be better to cajole people from a calmed-down perspective rather than from the point of white-hot anger.

(Says the guy who wants to behead the rich. :D )

We're with ya. Just go have a few drinks to settle you down, okay? :)

I had too many last night. :) Lesson learned: Don't drink when Bush gives a speech. :)

[Queso]

Iraq being connected to terrorism before 9-11 is a moot point now. The fact remains that there are terrorists there now.
In the main those aren't terrorists, they're resistance fighters. In case you haven't noticed we happen to be occupying their country. Or the remains of it, to be more accurate :rolleyes:

So more US troops = more "terrorists". Doesn't sound much like a plan to me. Not unless your agenda is designed to channel government funding into bullets anyway.

[Swarmlord]

That's exactly what he wants us to think. If Saddam and Iraq were not conected to terrorism and 911, what other reason would we have to be there? It's spelled O I L

Good grief! Is that the limit of your imagination? I can't believe how many people are clueless as to the nature and extent of the enemy. I find it intriguing that those of us that have lived and worked in the Middle East have a completely different view of the situation than those that armchair quarterback everything from the safety of a free country.
Coincidence? I think not.

[BoyBach]

No, it's not a moot point because the people who were wrong about that along with everything else need to prove why we should listen to them now.

If someone gave me bad advice, and then wanted to offer more advice, I'd be pretty skeptical. I'd need to see some kind of evidence that they now understand why they were wrong before, and I certainly wouldn't allow them to say "my previous bad advice and analysis is a moot point".

So far you (and Bush for that matter) don't seem to be able to offer any reason why this greatest-hits remix of previous plans for victory will be any more successful than prior attempts. It's as if you still don't understand how fundamentally wrong you were, and still are, about the outcome of US actions.

We've surged before. We've trained Iraqi troops before. We've put political pressure on Maliki. We've demanded that Sadr be neutralized. We've dumped billions upon billions into reconstruction. We've tried to clear and hold Baghdad. Everything that you and Bush are advocating has been tried, and has failed abjectly, before.

And yet you want us to believe that these same actions, shuffled around a little, will produce a different outcome this time.


Exactly. You'd think that lessons would have been learned.

But this is the same President who once said:

"There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me - you can't get fooled again."

[Thomas Veil]

Lesson learned: Don't drink when Bush gives a speech. :)Au contraire, Pierre. After a Bush speech, you need a drink. :p

Guess you're just not one of those happy-type drunks. :)

[atszyman]

... and none of the blame will go to Bush.

If the new president is democrat, he will likely say "we need to get out of there now, it has been several years and neither the US or Iraq has benefited from this war" and will withdrawl the troops. This will make him look like (as some republicans say) a "cut n' run liberal. Notice... none of the blame will go to Bush, just to the newly elected president.

So, either way, in the end Bush will look like a hero and the new guy will look like a wimp or an idiot. Bush has screwed up big time, he knows it, the world knows, and now he is going to cover up his mess by shifting the blame to someone else. Just you watch.

link (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=2934551#post2934551)

I've had this theory since early October. Bush is dragging the GOP down so fast that they would have to pull a miracle (or the Dems would have to run UBL) to win in 2008. Set up the next two years so we don't lose too much more ground and then let the next guy handle it.

Of course they might even be expecting McCain to win, and since he's typically been a thorn in the NeoCon's sides setting him up for a one term run might be part of their strategy.

[aquajet]

In the main those aren't terrorists, they're resistance fighters...

That is interesting, isn't it? You know, how the neocons like to label anybody who is fighting against the US in Iraq a "terrorist". Just another example of their black-and-white thinking.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Exactly. I'm listening to Condi on CNN right now and her words sound utterly empty to me. As far as I'm concerned, I doubt this Administration's credibility will ever be restored.I saw her and it looked like she was just going through the motions, Thats what I got out of it.
Bush had a chance to get Iraq on its feet and it should have been done the day after, not 4 years later. He could have united this country instead they had no idea what to do after the bombs had stopped falling. They had no plan on winning the peace, or hearts of the people and with no plan here we are.
Iraq isnt a military solution, Its a political one and I like the Biden plan, 1 loose federation sharing the oil and 3 seperate states. Put a end to it, Give em all their own state and a share in the Oil.

[IJ Reilly]

Good grief! Is that the limit of your imagination?

Good grief! Is that the limit to your explanation?

Are you arguing that everyone who has "lived and worked in the Middle East" (including, I presume, all native Middle Easterners) have the same views on such issues? If not, then what are you arguing?

[Queso]

Good grief! Is that the limit of your imagination? I can't believe how many people are clueless as to the nature and extent of the enemy.
One in the White House sadly.

[Swarmlord]

Good grief! Is that the limit to your explanation?

Are you arguing that everyone who has "lived and worked in the Middle East" (including, I presume, all native Middle Easterners) have the same views on such issues? If not, then what are you arguing?

I just find it amusing to see 1,300 years of strife perpetrated by Middle Easterners on each other and then eventually the rest of the world boiled down to "It's Bush's fault" or "it's all about oil". That place has been screwed up and been a threat to the Western world long before the discovery or oil or the invention of the internal combustion engine.

If the natives concerned themselves with making their little idea of paradise a reality in their own little sandbox instead of working to impose in on our part of the world by force, then I could care less.

[aquajet]

If not, then what are you arguing?

I took it as saying, at least in part, "if you've never been there, then you're opinion doesn't count because you don't know what you're talking about."

[atszyman]

I just find it amusing to see 1,300 years of strife perpetrated by Middle Easterners on each other and then eventually the rest of the world boiled down to "It's Bush's fault" or "it's all about oil". That place has been screwed up and been a threat to the Western world long before the discovery or oil or the invention of the internal combustion engine.

If the natives concerned themselves with making their little idea of paradise a reality in their own little sandbox instead of working to impose in on our part of the world by force, then I could care less.

Strife in the Middle East is not all Bush's fault but he did a lot to make things worse and almost nothing to improve it. The perceived threat to the West has everything to do with Oil.

If there were no oil in the Middle East we'd most likely treat them the same way we handle almost every coup/rights abuse in Africa. We'd probably end up saying "that's horrible" maybe send a token number of troops to help out for awhile and then ignore it. If it weren't for the oil our interest in the Middle East would be negligible and our interference there would be less. Not to mention that without the oil most Middle Eastern countries would not have the means to be any threat to the west.

[Queso]

If the natives concerned themselves with making their little idea of paradise a reality in their own little sandbox instead of working to impose in on our part of the world by force, then I could care less.
Oh this is just too much :D

What part of the world are we discussing here again?

[IJ Reilly]

I just find it amusing to see 1,300 years of strife perpetrated by Middle Easterners on each other and then eventually the rest of the world boiled down to "It's Bush's fault" or "it's all about oil". That place has been screwed up and been a threat to the Western world long before the discovery or oil or the invention of the internal combustion engine.

If the natives concerned themselves with making their little idea of paradise a reality in their own little sandbox instead of working to impose in on our part of the world by force, then I could care less.

Yes, how very amusing.

Pick a place on the globe that hasn't experienced strife for the better part of the past 1,300 years. Good luck finding one.

I'm certainly no fan of reductive reasoning, but I don't see where you've added much to this discussion or our understanding of the issues.

[Dont Hurt Me]

I wonder what 400 billion if spent on a real a Energy Policy would give the U.S? Perhaps Oil independence. If we were creating our own Energy we couldnt care a less what was going on in the MidEast.

[Swarmlord]

I wonder what 400 billion if spent on a real a Energy Policy would give the U.S? Perhaps Oil independence. If we were creating our own Energy we couldnt care a less what was going on in the MidEast.

Actually, that was my whole point. Even if a single drop of oil wasn't involved here we have a vested interest in what the terrorists are doing in that area.

[toontra]

Actually, that was my whole point. Even if a single drop of oil wasn't involved here we have a vested interest in what the terrorists are doing in that area.

There weren't any WMD in Iraq, OK. They weren't a threat to the US or UK. What are you talking about?

[it5five]

Actually, that was my whole point. Even if a single drop of oil wasn't involved here we have a vested interest in what the terrorists are doing in that area.

You call them terrorists, I call them resistance fighters.

There weren't any "terrorists" in Iraq until we came.

[dornoforpyros]

I find myself wondering "is the american public really dumb enough to fall for this stunt?" then I find myself remembering that it took them 2+ years to realize that they were lied to about the war in Iraq.

[zimv20]

I find myself wondering "is the american public really dumb enough to fall for this stunt?"
no (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070111/ap_on_re_us/iraq_ap_poll):

Fully 70 percent of Americans oppose sending more troops

[lord patton]

The clearest signal of what's about to happen isn't the surge of troops, it's this line from last night's address:


"Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We'll interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq."

And then there's this today:

Rice warns Iran against aggression after US arrests Iranian consular staff (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070111/pl_afp/iraqusiranunrestrice_070111174349)

[zimv20]

The clearest signal of what's about to happen isn't the surge of troops, it's this line from last night's address:


"Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops.
yep, that line stood out for me as well. my reaction: "oh, this is how he plans to save his presidency. or leave the M.E. sufficiently ****ed for the next guy."

[dpaanlka]

I haven't heard anybody say what we should do now instead of the usual Bush stuff. I agree with many points in here, but it sounds like a lot of one-ended complaining. So what should we do besides just leave Iraq as-is?

[toontra]

I haven't heard anybody say what we should do now instead of the usual Bush stuff. I agree with many points in here, but it sounds like a lot of one-ended complaining. So what should we do besides just leave Iraq as-is?

A couple of points here:

There have been suggested alternatives - see DHM's post 42 for example.

Secondly, even if there were no alternatives, why escalate a failing policy (and certainly risk more lives)?

[dpaanlka]

There have been suggested alternatives - see DHM's post 42 for example.

So why aren't they doing that? There must be some reason.

Secondly, even if there were no alternatives, why escalate a failing policy (and certainly risk more lives)?

Leaving Iraq in civil war can't be right. There has to be something we can do.

[toontra]

Leaving Iraq in civil war can't be right. There has to be something we can do.

I hear your pain. It's shared by everyone here, I'm sure.

The fact is, Bush created this disastrous scenario all on his own (well, with the other neo-cons). It's not as if the situation already existed and he is trying to remedy things - it is of his making. Does this inspire you with confidence in his capability to resolve it?

He also appears to have ignored almost all of the partisan advice on how to proceed, which has overwhelmingly advised a reduction of US troop numbers.

The Iraqi citizens don't want US troops occupying their country - hardly surprising! The Iraqi prime minister whom Bush has made the key figure in this "new" policy doesn't want the job. This is piling disaster upon disaster.

[Queso]

I haven't heard anybody say what we should do now instead of the usual Bush stuff. I agree with many points in here, but it sounds like a lot of one-ended complaining. So what should we do besides just leave Iraq as-is?
1) Close Guantanamo so that other Arab and Muslim Governments will talk to us.
2) Keep Bush well out of the way of any negotiations. Don't even let him comment on them.
3) Admit that Iraq is dead and that the only way forward is for several smaller countries.
4) Arrange with neighbouring Muslim/Arab countries to take over peacekeeping duties in each country.
5) Phase out American and British deployments as the foreign troops arrive.
6) Pay massive war reparations for all the damage our countries have done.
7) Keep our imperialist faces out of the Middle East in future.

[lord patton]

Also, consider this from Bush's address:

"We will expand intelligence-sharing and deploy Patriot air defense systems to reassure our friends and allies"

And for good measure, notice that the US is diverting the carrier USS Stennis to the gulf.

Now, do you think an aircraft carrier is intended for Al Qaeda operating in the Anbar province, or do you think it's intended to deter Iran from making any moves on the Straight of Hormuz? Or to take offensive action?

And how much you want to bet that a good measure of the Patriots are going to Israel? A little defense for the blowback, Mr. Olmert?

It will take a few weeks to a month to get the carrier and the Patriots deployed. When they do, things with Iran are going to get "hot".

Oil is down lately. Anyone know any good energy mutual funds?

Edit: I see Iran has its own thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=268714)

[skunk]

Late to the party, I'm afraid.

I see that both obeygiant and swarmlord are still utterly clueless or wilfully mischaracterising the Iraq fiasco. No surprise there.

Just to recapitulate for their benefit: before the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq by US and British troops, there were NO terrorists there, there was NO threat to US or UK forces, NO threat to US or UK assets. Saddam Hussein had NO connection to Osama Bin Laden, and NO significant weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq in the five years since the invasion.

Even so, on the basis of unreliable, cherry-picked intelligence which was KNOWN to be false, the US attempted first to assassinate the head of state of a sovereign nation BEFORE the stated deadline for his compliance with their unreasonable demands, then unleashed an unprovoked first strike with a massive aerial and ground assault, bombing the capital city from 50,000 feet and destroying the civil infrastructure of the entire country. Estimated CIVILIAN DEATHS resulting from the war and ongoing occupation amount to anywhere between 350,000 and 950,000. The Geneva Conventions have been flouted again and again, innocent prisoners have been abused, tortured and executed. Oil supplies, electricity generation and water supplies are still considerably worse than under Saddam Hussein. BILLIONS of dollars paid by the US taxpayer supposedly for reconstruction have been siphoned off in the most egregious display of mass corruption ever seen.

In view of the above, ordinary Iraqis have, not surprisingly, taken up arms, as would the inhabitants of any country so misused. Bush and Blair have unleashed the dogs of war, now Bush wants to send another 20,000 young US men and women into harm's way to try to contain the chaos he himself has caused, all for the sake of his overweening pride, arrogance and greed, and in defence of a totally discredited political dogma based on nothing but gross ignorance and bigotry.

There is NO EXCUSE for supporting this.

[mactastic]

So the "new plan" is Stay the Course plus 21,500?

That's it? That's what took weeks and weeks to come up with?

And anyone saying that there are no other alternatives out there isn't paying attention or is lying. Murtha, for one, has been advocating for phased redeployment for well over a year now -- yet every righty out there comes to the conversation with the line "the Democrats have no plan for Iraq".

Besides, can anyone tell me what the plan to uns**t the bed is?

[Dont Hurt Me]

Split the country up and lets go, Iraq isnt worth 1 more American life and we shouldnt even be there in the first place. Skunk makes some valid points. Iraq/Islam isnt ready for Democracy.
Seems no one wants 1 Iraq so why should we?
Create 3 states, Shia land,Sunni Land, Kurdistan and lets go close down Irans Nuclear facilities.

[Sdashiki]

Shia land,Sunni Land, Kurdistan and lets go close down Irans Nuclear facilities.

its like Diznee Land in the Desert!

[mactastic]

Bush is really betting this whole thing on Maliki actually doing what he says this time. But wasn't it less than two months ago that the Hadley memo was leaked, claiming Maliki was either lying, clueless, or incompetent?

But today we're to believe that he's a straight shooter who knows what needs to be done, and has the balls to do it.

Just for comparison, Maliki taking on Sadr would be the political equivalent of Bush taking on James Dobson. Likely?

[Dont Hurt Me]

its like Diznee Land in the Desert!LOL, and everyone gets free E tickets, or Oil that is.

[zimv20]

Just for comparison, Maliki taking on Sadr would be the political equivalent of Bush taking on James Dobson. Likely?
actually, i think it's more like bush taking on cheney...

[savanahrose]

Exactly. I'm listening to Condi on CNN right now and her words sound utterly empty to me. As far as I'm concerned, I doubt this Administration's credibility will ever be restored.

I think that Condi doesn't know crap. I know that she does not know how to be diplomatic with her mouth. I just don't like her. I miss Colin Powell being in the administration. He was smart he got out.

[MACDRIVE]

I wonder what 400 billion if spent on a real a Energy Policy would give the U.S? Perhaps Oil independence. If we were creating our own Energy we couldnt care a less what was going on in the MidEast.

That's an excellent point; and I've thought about it many times too. I would love for the U.S. to invent a new source of energy that is way more appealing to the world than oil; and then watch the MidEast bastards go broke. ;)

[michaelsaxon]

Im not saying this speach but past ones he has spun 911 into Iraq

Link?

[geese]

Just to recapitulate for their benefit: before the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq by US and British troops, there were NO terrorists there, there was NO threat to US or UK forces, NO threat to US or UK assets. Saddam Hussein had NO connection to Osama Bin Laden, and NO significant weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq in the five years since the invasion.

<snip>

There is NO EXCUSE for supporting this.

Its always worth pointing out that Saddam Hussain had always saw Al-Quaida as a threat to his power base, and so would never support them in any way. This was never a secret, so anyone implying a link between Saddam and Bin Laden is foolish or lying.

Its darkly entertaining seeing neocons advocating military action against Iran, like the US have not got enough on its plate in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Its always worth pointing out that Saddam Hussain had always saw Al-Quaida as a threat to his power base, and so would never support them in any way. This was never a secret, so anyone implying a link between Saddam and Bin Laden is foolish or lying.

Its darkly entertaining seeing neocons advocating military action against Iran, like the US have not got enough on its plate in Iraq and Afghanistan.And yet Cheney & Bush were insisting on this link of Al-Queda and Iraq, insisting on his WMD program, and even outed a CIA agent for the tales they were spinning to get us into Iraq.

[mactastic]

actually, i think it's more like bush taking on cheney...
Cheney doesn't command an army of the faithful, nor does he provide a base of support upon which Bush's government is propped up.

Sadr is a religious leader. Cheney is not.

[Swarmlord]

There weren't any WMD in Iraq, OK. They weren't a threat to the US or UK. What are you talking about?

You're kidding, right? I guess if you just watch the news, you'd have no way to believe otherwise. I've always considered canisters of nerve and mustard gas WMDs, but you can call them what you want. We found some and others were used on the Kurds. Indesputable facts. That Sadaam either hid or shuttled his stockpiles while we ***** footed around doesn't mean that they didn't exist.

Sadaam was one of the biggest brokers of weapons in the Middle East and had every variety of terrorist training, recruiting or vacationing in Iraq and yes, they are threats to the everyone in the civilized world.

Frankly, the fact that Sadaam shot a single ground to air missile at our plans enforcing the no fly zone warranted an attack in my opinion. We gave him 10 years of mulligans before administering a little slap down.

[leekohler]

You're kidding, right? I guess if you just watch the news, you'd have no way to believe otherwise. I've always considered canisters of nerve and mustard gas WMDs, but you can call them what you want. We found some and others were used on the Kurds. Indesputable facts. That Sadaam either hid or shuttled his stockpiles while we ***** footed around doesn't mean that they didn't exist.

Sadaam was one of the biggest brokers of weapons in the Middle East and had every variety of terrorist training, recruiting or vacationing in Iraq and yes, they are threats to the everyone in the civilized world.


Links please. And I want statistics on all of the weapons brokers and terrorist trainers in the ME.

[michaelsaxon]

Just to recapitulate for their benefit: before the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq by US and British troops, there were NO terrorists there, there was NO threat to US or UK forces, NO threat to US or UK assets. Saddam Hussein had NO connection to Osama Bin Laden, and NO significant weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq in the five years since the invasion.

Even so, on the basis of unreliable, cherry-picked intelligence which was KNOWN to be false, the US attempted first to assassinate the head of state of a sovereign nation BEFORE the stated deadline for his compliance with their unreasonable demands, then unleashed an unprovoked first strike with a massive aerial and ground assault, bombing the capital city from 50,000 feet and destroying the civil infrastructure of the entire country. Estimated CIVILIAN DEATHS resulting from the war and ongoing occupation amount to anywhere between 350,000 and 950,000. The Geneva Conventions have been flouted again and again, innocent prisoners have been abused, tortured and executed. Oil supplies, electricity generation and water supplies are still considerably worse than under Saddam Hussein. BILLIONS of dollars paid by the US taxpayer supposedly for reconstruction have been siphoned off in the most egregious display of mass corruption ever seen.


Oh no! Skunk again.

Can you provide some links to reliable news sources for these contentions. Its clearly hyperbolic and one-sided. How can you say there was no threat to US forces when we were repeatedly fired at while patrolling the no-fly zones. Now you might say that that wasn't sufficient threat for a war, but it was certainly not a complete lack of a threat. Do you agree or disagree that Saddam himself was a threat to the security of the region? No terrorists in Iraq prior to the invasion? Never mind those payments to the families of suicide bombers. Never mind these guys: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3070394/ or him: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/abuabbas_04-16-03.html, to name a few. Now, a balanced post might have said, "Saddam was contained and posed little threat the US. Then again, that was likely because of sanctions that hurt the Iraqi people and the continuous patrolling of the no-fly zones."

You begged out of my last thread, but I'm interested in hearing what conditions make a military intervention legally justified, since this one was illegal in your estimate. Please be specific.

What about the demands of the UNSC was unreasonable? Are you talking about the last resolution or the more than a dozen before that? Perhaps you are talking about the cease-fire resolution of the first Gulf War.

Can you show me convincing evidence that Bush knew the intelligence about Iraq was faulty. You characterize this assault as essentially massive and indiscriminate. Can you provide evidence of that? I'm curious if you've seen Grozney in Chechnya. That was indiscriminate. What does a discriminate strike look like? Does one errant bomb make a strike indiscriminate? Does attacking any facility that has dual-use for both military and civilians?

You say this assault destroyed the infrastructure of the country. Isn't it fairer to say that it was caused primarily by years of sanctions and mismanagement by a leader who had little regard for his own people?

Where do you get those civilian death tolls? The discredited Lancet report? Are you counting civilians killed by terrorists and insurgents? What moral responsibility do they have for civilian deaths? Are we responsible for all of them by virtue of our invasion?

Given that there have been hundreds of thousands of troops in and out of the country, can you show the rampant disregard of the Geneva Conventions? Every violation is serious and should be investigated, but I would argue that our soldiers have been remarkably well-behaved, especially by historical standards. This is made especially difficult given the behavior of our enemies, fighting in cities, and the difficulties of counter-insurgency.

A completely one-sided account of things that lacks at even a hint of balance. Again, maybe Iraq was a bad idea-- things certainly aren't going well now-- but this sort of hyperbole undermines your case. Not to mention what it says about a lot of great soldiers who have fought honorably in a difficult war.

[BoyBach]

You're kidding, right? I guess if you just watch the news, you'd have no way to believe otherwise. I've always considered canisters of nerve and mustard gas WMDs, but you can call them what you want. We found some and others were used on the Kurds. Indesputable facts. That Sadaam either hid or shuttled his stockpiles while we ***** footed around doesn't mean that they didn't exist.


When and/or where were these WMD's found in Iraq? I must have not been watching the news that day.

Sadaam was one of the biggest brokers of weapons in the Middle East and had every variety of terrorist training, recruiting or vacationing in Iraq and yes, they are threats to the everyone in the civilized world.


Again, when was Iraq and Saddam Hussein the biggest brokers on weapons in the Middle East? I would hazard a guess that the contracts to supply Israel and Saudi Arabia with western arms dwarfs any that Iraq may have had.

[mactastic]

Links please. And I want statistics on all of the weapons brokers and terrorist trainers in the ME.
Good luck getting an answer to that request... :rolleyes:

[leekohler]

Oh no! Skunk again.

Can you provide some links to reliable news sources for these contentions. Its clearly hyperbolic and one-sided. How can you say there was no threat to US forces when we were repeatedly fired at while patrolling the no-fly zones. Now you might say that that wasn't sufficient threat for a war, but it was certainly not a complete lack of a threat. Do you agree or disagree that Saddam himself was a threat to the security of the region? No terrorists in Iraq prior to the invasion? Never mind those payments to the families of suicide bombers. Never mind these guys: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3070394/ or him: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/abuabbas_04-16-03.html, to name a few. Now, a balanced post might have said, "Saddam was contained and posed little threat the US. Then again, that was likely because of sanctions that hurt the Iraqi people and the continuous patrolling of the no-fly zones."

You begged out of my last thread, but I'm interested in hearing what conditions make a military intervention legally justified, since this one was illegal in your estimate. Please be specific.

What about the demands of the UNSC was unreasonable? Are you talking about the last resolution or the more than a dozen before that? Perhaps you are talking about the cease-fire resolution of the first Gulf War.

Can you show me convincing evidence that Bush knew the intelligence about Iraq was faulty. You characterize this assault as essentially massive and indiscriminate. Can you provide evidence of that? I'm curious if you've seen Grozney in Chechnya. That was indiscriminate. What does a discriminate strike look like? Does one errant bomb make a strike indiscriminate? Does attacking any facility that has dual-use for both military and civilians?

You say this assault destroyed the infrastructure of the country. Isn't it fairer to say that it was caused primarily by years of sanctions and mismanagement by a leader who had little regard for his own people?

Where do you get those civilian death tolls? The discredited Lancet report? Are you counting civilians killed by terrorists and insurgents? What moral responsibility do they have for civilian deaths? Are we responsible for all of them by virtue of our invasion?

Given that there have been hundreds of thousands of troops in and out of the country, can you show the rampant disregard of the Geneva Conventions? Every violation is serious and should be investigated, but I would argue that our soldiers have been remarkably well-behaved, especially by historical standards. This is made especially difficult given the behavior of our enemies, fighting in cities, and the difficulties of counter-insurgency.

A completely one-sided account of things that lacks at even a hint of balance. Again, maybe Iraq was a bad idea-- things certainly aren't going well now-- but this sort of hyperbole undermines your case. Not to mention what it says about a lot of great soldiers who have fought honorably in a difficult war.

OMG! Have we found an actual conservative who can present arguements in an intelligent manner? :) I'm shocked. (sorry if you're not conservative)

[mactastic]

When and/or where were these WMD's found in Iraq? I must have not been watching the news that day.
Righties like to claim that the handful of leftover weapons found from before the sanctions went into place constitute proof of the weapons "to the north, south, east, and west somewhat" that we knew were there.

Like most of their claims, it's designed to take a tiny little truthlet and conflate it with Saddam having massive amounts of these weapons on a 45 minute leash.

Again, when was Iraq and Saddam Hussein the biggest brokers on weapons in the Middle East?Not since Rumsfeld shook his hand back in the '80's would be my guess. But of course righties prefer not to talk about that for obvious reasons...

[BoyBach]

Righties like to claim that the handful of leftover weapons found from before the sanctions went into place constitute proof of the weapons "to the north, south, east, and west somewhat" that we knew were there.

Like most of their claims, it's designed to take a tiny little truthlet and conflate it with Saddam having massive amounts of these weapons on a 45 minute leash.

...

Not since Rumsfeld shook his hand back in the '80's would be my guess. But of course righties prefer not to talk about that for obvious reasons...


:D

[Dont Hurt Me]

The war on terror never was really in Iraq until we created it there, meanwhile Iran is really building WMDs and that should be the focus. They do have a Nuclear weapons program and the world isnt doing much and this state sponsors more terror then anyone else. The sad part is the people of Iran have little say to the theology that runs the country. The people are almost pro-west and its govt is Islam based.:eek: Get ready for WW3. A lot of oil is at stake and I doubt Russia & China are just going to watch.

[Zwhaler]

Listen. Back in the day when USA had a bunch of bombs, other countrys needed to build the same amount of bombs to keep up incase there was a "nuculer" war. And over the years, the US presidents slowly lowered that amount, and the other countrys did as well. Bush stroms into office and says screw you to the rest of the world and starts building bombs as fast as he can, and other countrys begged him not to, because if the US does, then they do. So now the whole world is armed to the teeth thanks to Bushs unbelievebably moronic perception on how the world works.

[aquajet]

<snip>

IIRC, I believe the terminology that the Administration used in the lead up to the war was "stockpiles of WMD". I mean, if you want to argue over what's considered WMD, well then whatever. Don't forget that these so-called weapons of mass destruction amounted to basically a few rusty old canisters back from the 1980s which apparently are unusable at this point. Do you really want to go to war over this, killing what could be (worst case estimates) up to a million people or more by the time this mess is over? For the love of humanity, I certainly hope this isn't the case.

[skunk]

Oh no! Skunk again.Hi.

How can you say there was no threat to US forces when we were repeatedly fired at while patrolling the no-fly zones. Now you might say that that wasn't sufficient threat for a war, but it was certainly not a complete lack of a threat.Were they actually fired on? All I heard was that their radar occasionally managed to lock on. Considering that our planes were flying over their sovereign territory for twelve years, that's hardly surprising.
Do you agree or disagree that Saddam himself was a threat to the security of the region?That was not the question. The US has been a threat to the stability of the region for fifty years. Remember Mossadegh?
No terrorists in Iraq prior to the invasion? Never mind those payments to the families of suicide bombers. Never mind these guys: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3070394/ or him: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/abuabbas_04-16-03.html, to name a few.Questionable information about a group based in an area outside Saddam's control, and a retired terrorist. Making payments to the families of resistance fighters in occupied Palestine? I don't think that constitutes much of a threat to the US, do you?
You begged out of my last thread, but I'm interested in hearing what conditions make a military intervention legally justified, since this one was illegal in your estimate. Please be specific.I would say that Kofi Annan was probably in a good position to judge that: he said it was illegal. Military intervention is generally illegal under the UN Charter except in self-defence. Otherwise the UNSC as a whole must specifically authorise it at the time. Which they did not.

What about the demands of the UNSC was unreasonable? Are you talking about the last resolution or the more than a dozen before that? Perhaps you are talking about the cease-fire resolution of the first Gulf War.No, I was referring to the demands from G Bush and A Blair for proof that WMD did not exist. And to the fact that they tried to kill Saddam before their deadline had expired.

Can you show me convincing evidence that Bush knew the intelligence about Iraq was faulty.The CIA itself had warned that "Curveball" was providing unreliable, skewed information, and the "mobile weapons labs" which Colin Powell spoke of at the UN were two artillery balloon trucks supplied by a BRITISH firm.
You characterize this assault as essentially massive and indiscriminate. Can you provide evidence of that? I'm curious if you've seen Grozney in Chechnya. That was indiscriminate. What does a discriminate strike look like? Does one errant bomb make a strike indiscriminate? Does attacking any facility that has dual-use for both military and civilians?You CANNOT carry out a "discriminating" attack from 50,000 feet with a B52 over a populated area. Obviously.

You say this assault destroyed the infrastructure of the country. Isn't it fairer to say that it was caused primarily by years of sanctions and mismanagement by a leader who had little regard for his own people?Despite the years of sanctions, SH had managed to keep the infrastructure more or less functioning. The consensus is that it is less functional now than before the invasion. It is the responsibility of an occupying power to maintain infrastructure, essential services and civil order, all of which the US has conspicuously failed to do.

Where do you get those civilian death tolls? The discredited Lancet report? Are you counting civilians killed by terrorists and insurgents? What moral responsibility do they have for civilian deaths? Are we responsible for all of them by virtue of our invasion?Indeed I am saying that. We both caused the initial death toll through bombing and shooting, and allowed the civil disorder to ramp it up by failure to control the aftermath, and failed to mitigate it by destroying essential services.

Given that there have been hundreds of thousands of troops in and out of the country, can you show the rampant disregard of the Geneva Conventions? Every violation is serious and should be investigated, but I would argue that our soldiers have been remarkably well-behaved, especially by historical standards. This is made especially difficult given the behavior of our enemies, fighting in cities, and the difficulties of counter-insurgency.Abu Ghraib, Najaf and Fallujah are the most obvious examples.

[zimv20]

Cheney doesn't command an army of the faithful, nor does he provide a base of support upon which Bush's government is propped up.

Sadr is a religious leader. Cheney is not.
it was more of a comment on who actually run the respective countries, nothing to do with armies or religion.

[zimv20]

AP (http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/articles/2007/01/11/news/latest_news/05951fb9f92321ad862572600060f7fa.txt)


Hagel: Bush speech worst blunder since Vietnam

OMAHA, Neb. (AP) -- U.S. Sen. Chuck Hagel offered Thursday what might have been the harshest criticism to date of President Bush's plan to commit more troops to Iraq, calling the president's Wednesday night speech "the most dangerous foreign policy blunder carried out since Vietnam."

Hagel's comment drew applause in a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing in which members questioned Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice over the plan to commit 21,500 additional U.S. troops to Iraq.

The commotion prompted Committee Chairman, Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., to call for order.

The remarks by Hagel, a Republican, followed his scathing rebuke Wednesday night of the Iraq plan. He called it a "dangerously wrongheaded strategy that will drive America deeper into an unwinnable swamp at great cost."

let us recall that senator hagel is both a republican and a veteran of the vietnam war.

[skunk]

You realize what Bush is doing... right?Absolutely nothing!

[zimv20]

from dkos (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/1/11/19636/9035)


Hagel: I think this speech, given last night by this President, represents the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam, if it's carried out.

Rice: I think that I don't see it and the President doesn't see it as an escalation. What he sees...

Hagel: Putting 22,000 new troops, more troops in, is not an escalation? Would you call it a decrease? And billions of dollars more?

Rice: I would call it, Senator, an augmentation that allows the Iraqis to deal with this very serious problem that they have in Baghdad.



Biden: If it's not open-ended, does that mean you're prepared, if they fail, to pull out? To terminate? What is the accountability mechanism?

Rice: Senator, I think it's best to leave the President's words as the President's words.

"augmentation". good one.

[mactastic]

The issue now is, what is Plan B? Suppose for a second that this surge doesn't work the way Bush wants it to. What will Bush do to punish Maliki's government if they fail to deliver? Will he bring in more troops? He's told us that leaving isn't an option.

And why is Bush only sending 20,500 troops? Because that's all there is to be had. It's the most the military can provide without some serious drawdowns in places like South Korea - and now Afghanistan apparently.

So what are Bush's options if the 'surge' fails?

[zimv20]

The issue now is, what is Plan B?
silly mac. didn't you know that: (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/11/AR2007011100437_3.html)

"It's bad policy to speculate on what you'll do if a plan fails when you're trying to make a plan work," Rice replied.
why must you worry about such things when the adults are in charge?

[MACDRIVE]

It's time to forget about saving the Iraqi people and start trucking the oil out of there. After all, that's the reason we went over there in the first place.

http://photos.imageevent.com/halleyrus/trucks/114oldstyletruck/tanker2.jpg

[hulugu]

You're kidding, right? I guess if you just watch the news, you'd have no way to believe otherwise. I've always considered canisters of nerve and mustard gas WMDs, but you can call them what you want. We found some and others were used on the Kurds. Indesputable facts. That Sadaam either hid or shuttled his stockpiles while we ***** footed around doesn't mean that they didn't exist.

Sadaam was one of the biggest brokers of weapons in the Middle East and had every variety of terrorist training, recruiting or vacationing in Iraq and yes, they are threats to the everyone in the civilized world.

Frankly, the fact that Sadaam shot a single ground to air missile at our plans enforcing the no fly zone warranted an attack in my opinion. We gave him 10 years of mulligans before administering a little slap down.

I wouldn't consider invading the country, tearing apart much of the infrastructure and killing thousands of civilians a 'little slap down.' Furthermore, we'll never know exactly what Saddam had with regard to WMDs because of the botched invasion. But, we can make a few guesses:

1. Saddam was armed to the teeth and was able to shuttle everything off to Jordan and Syria (or Iran) before the US invaded, without leaving much evidence of such activities and doing so even as we cut a swath through his armies.
2. Saddam was armed to the teeth in 1991, but between the US invasion and subsequent UN embargos, was never able to ressurrect his program especially under the purview of Hans Blinx and the other UN inspectors as well as numerous US teams both official and clandestine. And, yet a few rounds of mustard gas rotting in the desert remained, although the rounds were effectively worthless.

Now, we can argue about the invasion over and over again, but I think the whole WMD argument has been basically put to bed. A few rounds of mustard gas, while dangerous as hell, were not the threat the administration made it out to be. Furthermore, the rounds certaintly did not constitute the kind of threat we were led to believe existed by various functionaries spouting off the "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud" line at every opportunity.

Lastly, the history of the Middle East is complex and difficult owing to the region's location and to the results of the various empires that have risen and fallen in the last 1300 years. You need to start reading the histories.

[michaelsaxon]

OMG! Have we found an actual conservative who can present arguements in an intelligent manner? :) I'm shocked. (sorry if you're not conservative)

I don't even know what a conservative is these days. Back in the day, it was liberals who were interventionist. Now, it is conservatives (or is it neo-conservatives). Then we have the other conservatives, who are realists, like Baker, the sorts of people who made the deals that led to this dysfunctional Middle East. They are now the darlings of the liberals.

The world is on its ear and I'm just looking for truth, if there is any to be had.

Skunk: your post was long on assertions, but short on links. I don't know where to begin. I think I see your pattern. Spin some stuff and then let everyone else go find the links to try to refute you. If you are interested in educating me, you'll provide some links from respected, unbiased sources. Otherwise, you are just engaging in confirmation bias.

[Music_Producer]

Skunk, I am not quite sure why you're even wasting time replying to michaelsaxon. Let some people live in their fantasy world.

[pseudobrit]

I just find it amusing to see 1,300 years of strife perpetrated by Middle Easterners on each other and then eventually the rest of the world boiled down to "It's Bush's fault" or "it's all about oil". That place has been screwed up and been a threat to the Western world long before the discovery or oil or the invention of the internal combustion engine.

You could say the same thing about Europe. Most European nations tried to wipe out at least one of their neighbours no less than twice in the past 90 years.

AP (http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/articles/2007/01/11/news/latest_news/05951fb9f92321ad862572600060f7fa.txt)

let us recall that senator hagel is both a republican and a veteran of the vietnam war.

I would contend the worst blunder since Vietnam is not this troop "increase" but the original scheme to invade Iraq in 2003.

This is almost a nondecision.

Since the invasion, troop levels have fluctuated somewhere between 100,000 and 160,000 as the ebb and flow of troops are rotated in and out. His announced additions are a very timid figure, and show just how weakened Bush has left our armed forces.

What will 153,000 troops be able to accomplish today that 160,000 in October 2005 could not ?

[pseudobrit]

ISkunk: your post was long on assertions, but short on links. I don't know where to begin.

You could go back over the past four years of threads in this forum if you want links. This stuff has been discussed and referenced numerous times over many years.

The only thing new is you.

[skunk]

You could go back over the past four years of threads in this forum if you want links. This stuff has been discussed and referenced numerous times over many years.

The only thing new is you."iSkunk" sounds like a good username. I might adopt it.

As pseudobrit says, michaelsaxon, this stuff has been discussed here since 2001/2 with all necessary links and references, some of which are no longer around, but most of which you can find in the relevant threads.

Here are a few starters:
Mossadegh and Kermit Roosevelt:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax

No-Fly Zones:The Iraqi no-fly zones (NFZs) were proclaimed by the United States, United Kingdom and France after the Gulf War of 1991 to protect humanitarian operations in northern Iraq and Shiite Muslims in the south. Iraqi aircraft were forbidden from flying inside the zones. The policy was enforced by US, UK and French aircraft patrols until France withdrew in 1998. While the enforcing powers had cited United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 as authorising the operations, the resolution contains no such authorisation.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_no-fly_zones

Kofi Annan:
The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter.
He said the decision to take action in Iraq should have been made by the Security Council, not unilaterally.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm

Ansar al-Islam:
Ansar al-Islam was formed in December 2001 as a merger of Jund al-Islam (Soldiers of Islam), led by Abu Abdallah al-Shafi'i, and a splinter group from the Islamic Movement in Kurdistan led by Mullah Krekar. Krekar became the leader of the merged Ansar al-Islam, which opposed an agreement made between IMK and the dominant Kurdish group in the area, Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK).
Ansar al-Islam fortified a number of villages along the Iranian border, with Iranian artillery support. The local villagers were subjected to harsh sharia laws; musical instruments were destroyed and singing forbidden. The only school for girls in the area was destroyed, and all pictures of women removed from merchandise labels. Sufi shrines were desecrated and members of the Kakkai (a non-Moslem Kurdish religious group) were forced to convert to Islam or flee.
Ansar al-Islam quickly initiated a number of attacks on the peshmerga (armed forces) of the PUK, on one occasion massacring 53 prisoners and beheading them. Several assassination attempts on leading PUK-politicians were also made with carbombs and snipers.
Ansar al-Islam comprised about 300 armed men, many of these veterans from the Afghan war, and a proportion being neither Kurd nor Arab. Ansar al-Islam is alleged to be connected to the al-Qaeda, and provided an entry point for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other Afghan veterans to enter Iraq.
According to the United States, they had established facilities for the production of poisons, including ricin. The US also claimed that Ansar al-Islam had links with Saddam Hussein, thus claiming a link between Hussein and al-Qaeda. Mullah Krekar denied this claim, and declared his hostility to Saddam[1] The Ansar al-Islam did, however, never engage Baathist forces.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansar_al-Islam

I think you can manage the rest of your homework on your own.

[BoyBach]

"It's bad policy to speculate on what you'll do if a plan fails when you're trying to make a plan work," Rice replied.

why must you worry about such things when the adults are in charge?


If that is true, and not just political posturing, then it's utterly disgraceful. But then I suspect it is just more of the Bush Administration "acting tough" in it's War on Terror. I hope.

[mactastic]

Madame Secretary, that's quite possibly the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

[srf4real]

:) Y'all Bush bashers are just like the democratic party in office right now... all saying how stupid Bush is but no better ideas.:confused:

[skunk]

:) Y'all Bush bashers are just like the democratic party in office right now... all saying how stupid Bush is but no better ideas.:confused:The Democratic party is not in office right now, so I fail to see the comparison.
Demanding a "better idea" at this stage is like asking for directions in the middle of a road accident.

[it5five]

:) Y'all Bush bashers are just like the democratic party in office right now... all saying how stupid Bush is but no better ideas.:confused:

Democrats have offered better ideas.

Joe Biden's plan: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1908748

The rest of the Democrat's suggestions for Iraq: Iraq Study Group (http://www.usip.org/isg/)

The Democrats want the suggestions in the Iraq Study Group carried out. Bush isn't doing it. He read the report, didn't care, and decided to send more troops.

EDIT: And yes, skunk is right in what he said above. Republicans always ask for a strategy that can "do better" or "make us win". It isn't going to happen. We're not going to win. The only way things can get better is if american troops stop dying. But when somebody offers up a plan of withdrawl, you just call names, and go back to you "Democrats have no plans" mantra.

[Swarmlord]

Links please. And I want statistics on all of the weapons brokers and terrorist trainers in the ME.

Do your own Lexus/Nexus search. The articles were published as were the photos of both the gassing of the Kurds and the shells our troops found. The press tried to minimalize it because they were supposedly a couple months over their expiration dates.

Again, WMDs weren't even necessary to justify attacking Iraq anyway. The refusal to comply with UN resolutions, the attacks on the Kurds, the missiles fired at our planes enforcing no fly zones after the removal of Iraq from Kuwait, etc. were all sufficient.

I have yet to meet a Kuwaiti or a Saudi that thought that removing Sadaam from Kuwait or removing him as a threat was a bad thing. Count up those populations as you see fit. No wait, I guess that Osama bin Laden is technically a Saudi as are the Wahabists that wander the desert, so there's a few that agree with you.

[hulugu]

Do your own Lexus/Nexus search. The articles were published as were the photos of both the gassing of the Kurds and the shells our troops found. The press tried to minimalize it because they were supposedly a couple months over their expiration dates.
The rounds (and I find the links soon) were worthless and this opinion comes from the analysts themselves, not the press. No one is arguing about the Kurds, however, Saddam was a SOB.

Again, WMDs weren't even necessary to justify attacking Iraq anyway. The refusal to comply with UN resolutions, the attacks on the Kurds, the missiles fired at our planes enforcing no fly zones after the removal of Iraq from Kuwait, etc. were all sufficient.

Were they? Then why the WMD angle in the first place? Why did the administration spend so much time and energy trying to prove that Saddam was a real and immediate threat.

I have yet to meet a Kuwaiti or a Saudi that thought that removing Sadaam from Kuwait or removing him as a threat was a bad thing. Count up those populations as you see fit. No wait, I guess that Osama bin Laden is technically a Saudi as are the Wahabists that wander the desert, so there's a few that agree with you.

What's your point? People didn't like Saddam. Of course, the Kuwaitis and Saudis didn't like him. Neither did Iraqi ex patriots living in Michigan. But, was that the mission? And, how can this operate in the future, we always invade the countries of leaders we don't like? What about North Korea and Iran? Does the US have the right to invade sovereign nations at a whim? Or should those nations constitute a real and immediate threat?

[cleanup]

Again, WMDs weren't even necessary to justify attacking Iraq anyway. The refusal to comply with UN resolutions, the attacks on the Kurds, the missiles fired at our planes enforcing no fly zones after the removal of Iraq from Kuwait, etc. were all sufficient.

Never mind Bush's proposed reasons for invading Iraq. The simple fact that he was likely to (and did) botch the entire thing is reason enough to not do it in the first place.

As for the Kurds and Kuwait, that was all years ago. Why invade Iraq now? Why didn't Clinton do it beforehand? Bush is just there to attempt to finish what his dad had started in the '80s, and the threat of "terrorism" and WMDs was an adequate excuse to convince the American public.

Not only that, but most Iraqi civilians agree that conditions were far better on Saddam's rule than now, and with the country in the state that it's in, who can disagree with that?

[IJ Reilly]

Mideast shaking its head

Bush sees a regional solution in his plan for Iraq. But Arab states say the problem is the U.S.

CAIRO — In ordering more American troops into Iraq, President Bush said he was sending a message of hope to millions of Arabs and Afghans trapped in violence. But to many on the ground in the Mideast, the speech spoke volumes of a gaping disconnect between high-flown U.S. promises and a deadly, turbulent reality.

After long years of war and political disillusionment, Bush would have been hard-pressed to come up with any message that would please the Arab world. Analysts say public opinion of the United States has sunk to an unprecedented low, with no end in sight to the bloodletting in Iraq or the Palestinian territories.

Many here, long mired in bloodshed and sinking deeper into sectarian tensions, hold America squarely to blame for both.

Rather than sowing political progress, they say, the U.S. presence in Iraq has poisoned the mood so thoroughly that secular and moderate activists now stay silent for fear of being tarred as American agents.

"What the United States did for the region is destruction for the forces who believe in democracy, rule of law and human rights," said Raji Sourani, director of the Palestinian Center for Human Rights in Gaza City. "We are the real victims."

The Bush administration has repeatedly portrayed the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq as a boost, albeit a painful one, for Arab democracy and human rights. Victory in Baghdad will bring a brighter era to the entire region, U.S. officials have promised.

But after waves of outrage over torture in the Abu Ghraib prison, the spectacle of Saddam Hussein's trial and execution, and sectarian slaughter in the streets of Baghdad, few people here seem able to articulate what, exactly, the United States is even trying to accomplish.

"The U.S. should pull out its troops from Iraq because innocent people are dying every day, including U.S. soldiers," said Karim Salhab, a 25-year-old accountant in Beirut. "I don't think it's fair for the families of these soldiers that their kids die for nothing."

Conventional wisdom here holds that, because the U.S. invasion pitched Iraq into civil war, only an American withdrawal can set the shattered nation back on the road toward stability.

Bush "mismanaged and brutalized Iraq too long to even hope for stability while the troops stay," said Mohammed Sayed Said, an analyst at the Al Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies in Cairo. "The reservoir of violence and bitterness and agonies is so huge that hoping for stability in the immediate future is self-deception at best."

If the United States really wanted to boost stability, many Arabs say, the Bush administration would aggressively seek a cure for the regional sore spot of Israeli-Palestinian violence.

Bush's announcement comes at a particularly sensitive moment. The region is still reeling with indignation over the inflammatory images that emerged of Hussein's execution, in which the toppled Sunni Arab Iraqi president was forced to endure the sectarian taunts of Shiite Muslim guards while in the hangman's noose.

Besides rubbing raw nerves by degrading a onetime Sunni leader on the dawn of a sacred Muslim holiday, Hussein's hanging also fed popular fears that the war in Iraq left the country in the hands of Shiites — shifting the power balance in a way that threatens many Sunnis.

Sunni governments such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan are longtime allies of the United States, while Shiite-ruled Iran has long been America's nemesis. But the rise of Shiite political power in post-Hussein Iraq, along with the growing regional influence of Iran, has left many Sunnis feeling insecure.

Foremost among the causes of bloodshed in Iraq, according to an editorial Thursday in the pan-Arab Al Quds al Arabi newspaper, "is the U.S. occupation's bias in favor of one sect at the expense of the other, and its humiliation of the members of the latter in a manner that reveals a strong desire for revenge."

Some Sunnis in the region have fretted quietly about the possibility of a U.S. withdrawal. They fear that Iraq's minority Sunni population, already under attack by Shiite militias, would face even harsher retribution from Shiites after the departure of U.S. troops.

But on Thursday, those voices were all but silent.

Meanwhile, neighboring Iran warned against boosting the number of American troops in Iraq.

"The increase in the number of American military forces can escalate insecurity and tension in Iraq and work against solving that country's problems," Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammed Ali Hosseini told reporters in Tehran. "America is trying to accuse and blame other countries for interference in Iraq to cover its policymaking mistakes in that country."

Bush, in announcing his plans to beef up the number of American troops in Iraq, spoke of "millions of ordinary people … sick of the violence" in Afghanistan, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories. They are all looking to Iraq, he said.

"They want to know: Will America withdraw and yield the future of that country to extremists?" he said.

But many Palestinians said Bush had it backward. Only by making peace between Palestinians and Israelis, they said, would stability come to the region as a whole.

"If there is peace here, there will be peace in Iraq," said Badar Salem, a 26-year-old office worker shopping in the West Bank city of Ramallah. "If Bush solves the Palestinian question first, then he will put an end to extremists, mainly the Islamic extremists, because they will not use the Palestinian question as a pretext for their activities everywhere."

Those sentiments echo the report issued in Washington last month by the Iraq Study Group, which linked stability in Iraq to progress in settling the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Preoccupied with the conflict with Israel and internecine fighting, many Palestinians described the war in Iraq as a bleak, remote reality. As to Bush's suggestion that their fate hinged somehow on that of the Iraqi government, many Palestinians scoffed.

"Bush should work on solving the Palestinian question peacefully first," said Muhannad Abdul Hanid, a Palestinian newspaper columnist in the West Bank city of Ramallah.

In Afghanistan, people were too focused on "survival and getting through the winter" to pay much heed to Bush's plans for Iraq, said George Varughese, the acting representative in Afghanistan for the Asia Foundation.

"What happens in Iraq is just not something that's front and center for them," he said.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-neighbors12jan12,0,6744781.story

[Queso]

I have yet to meet a Kuwaiti or a Saudi that thought that removing Sadaam from Kuwait or removing him as a threat was a bad thing. Count up those populations as you see fit. No wait, I guess that Osama bin Laden is technically a Saudi as are the Wahabists that wander the desert, so there's a few that agree with you.
So from what you're saying, if the Belgians and the French think Tony Bliar should be removed from office, they (or you) are entitled to launch air raids on London, destroy all UK power stations, bridges and major roads, disband the British army and all police constabularies, and impose a government to rule the remains.

Yeah, I know it won't happen. Unlike Iraq, we have WMDs. Funny how everyone wants them, isn't it...

[michaelsaxon]

So from what you're saying, if the Belgians and the French think Tony Bliar should be removed from office, they (or you) are entitled to launch air raids on London, destroy all UK power stations, bridges and major roads, disband the British army and all police constabularies, and impose a government to rule the remains.

Yeah, I know it won't happen. Unlike Iraq, we have WMDs. Funny how everyone wants them, isn't it...

For an analogical argument to be effective, the degree of analogy must be high. This is obviously not the case here. Blair is the head of a democratic state. Hussein was not. Blair is the head of a human rights abiding country. Hussein was not. Blair doesn't have a catalog of UN security council violations attributed to him. Hussein did. Blair came to power democratically. Hussein came to power by killing and torturing his opponents. The list could obviously go on and on...

[cleanup]

Hussein came to power by killing and torturing his opponents.

Hussein came to power after pushing his dying cousin, Ahmad Hassan al-Bakr, aside, who gained control in a bloodless coup in 1968.

[skunk]

I have yet to meet a Kuwaiti or a Saudi that thought that removing Sadaam from Kuwait or removing him as a threat was a bad thing.How can you claim to be so familiar with middle eastern opinion on the one hand, and yet so incredibly clueless about what has actually happened there on the other?

[IJ Reilly]

I also wonder if that article I posted wasn't too long or complex.

[toontra]

How can you claim to be so familiar with middle eastern opinion on the one hand, and yet so incredibly clueless about what has actually happened there on the other?

I was wondering the same thing. Swarmlord would have us believe that because he has "spent some time in the Middle East" he has a clearer insight that any of the rest of us into the psyche of it's people. Yet his analysis appears to run contrary to the people from those countries who actually speak for themselves.

Let's never forget that the "intelligence" used to justify the invasion was largely based on Iraqi ex-patriots, and probably others who had "spent some time" in the area. Anyone remember Ahmed Chalabi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Chalabi)?

[Queso]

For an analogical argument to be effective, the degree of analogy must be high. This is obviously not the case here. Blair is the head of a democratic state. Hussein was not. Blair is the head of a human rights abiding country. Hussein was not. Blair doesn't have a catalog of UN security council violations attributed to him. Hussein did. Blair came to power democratically. Hussein came to power by killing and torturing his opponents. The list could obviously go on and on...
I'm sorry, but going back to the original participants in the story, I missed the bit where the King of Saudi Arabia and the Emir of Kuwait were democratically elected heads of democratic states.

And as for their human rights records....

Best break out those air-to-surface missiles eh?

[skunk]

I also wonder if that article I posted wasn't too long or complex.Perhaps you could post it again in the form of sound bites?

[IJ Reilly]

Perhaps you could post it again in the form of sound bites?

There you go, tempting me again.

[Swarmlord]

How can you claim to be so familiar with middle eastern opinion on the one hand, and yet so incredibly clueless about what has actually happened there on the other?

I can only depend on my personal observations and the years that I've spent there with the natives, not the informed news outlets that you apparently depend on.

[Swarmlord]

I was wondering the same thing. Swarmlord would have us believe that because he has "spent some time in the Middle East" he has a clearer insight that any of the rest of us into the psyche of it's people. Yet his analysis appears to run contrary to the people from those countries who actually speak for themselves.

Let's never forget that the "intelligence" used to justify the invasion was largely based on Iraqi ex-patriots, and probably others who had "spent some time" in the area. Anyone remember Ahmed Chalabi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Chalabi)?

Maybe if you had the opinions of native people from all strata of the population instead of these sound bites you get on the news you'd feel differently. Why are the stupid jihadists and other whackjobs that you feel represent the heart and soul of the Middle East so much more credible than the people that I've lived and worked with? Believe me, sitting in a coffee shop or college campus with a couple students of arabic descent and living and working with them in their own country are two different things.

Once we get rid of that ulcer currently running Sadr City and blockade the supplies from Iran, the Iraqi government will eventually do just fine.

[skunk]

I can only depend on my personal observations and the years that I've spent there with the natives, not the informed news outlets that you apparently depend on.I suppose it depends on whom you are observing.
Incidentally, I was born in Bahrain and spent ten years living in the Middle East, not that it makes any difference to the validity of my opinions.

[zimv20]

I can only depend on my personal observations and the years that I've spent there with the natives, not the informed news outlets that you apparently depend on.
you spend a lot of time telling us that you know something we don't, and that we're dumb for not knowing it, but i can't recall you ever telling us exactly what it is you know.

so spill it.

[obeygiant]

I was wondering the same thing. Swarmlord would have us believe that because he has "spent some time in the Middle East" he has a clearer insight that any of the rest of us into the psyche of it's people.

Personal experience and feeling the ground under your feet counts far more than what some slanted article or some other biased news organization might say. Living among the Egyptians for the few short months that I did gave me insight into those people far more than reading something off the internet.

[skunk]

Personal experience and feeling the ground under your feet counts far more than what some slanted article or some other biased news organization might say. Living among the Egyptians for the few short months that I did gave me insight into those people far more than reading something off the internet.You'd have thought so, wouldn't you?

[obeygiant]

Once we get rid of that ulcer currently running Sadr City and blockade the supplies from Iran, the Iraqi government will eventually do just fine.

The problem is that Al-Sadr and his militia provided the necessary votes to bring Maliki into power. So they are stuck.

[IJ Reilly]

And there you have it in a nutshell: Any news which doesn't support your already-formed opinion must be biased, and beyond so stating, is unworthy of any response.

Yes, I feel some obligatory eye-rolling coming on....















:rolleyes:

[skunk]

Yes, I feel some obligatory eye-rolling coming on....You really should see somebody about that.

[IJ Reilly]

You really should see somebody about that.

Well I've tried, but I always seem to stumble over something along the way.

[hcuar]

That's exactly what he wants us to think. If Saddam and Iraq were not conected to terrorism and 911, what other reason would we have to be there? It's spelled O I L

No... it's called violation of the terms of surrender from gulf war 1. Saddam refused to allow inspections as requested. A new resolution was passed requiring him to respond by a certain date, he said no.

Seems that people are forgetting how this all started... even Bush.

[michaelsaxon]

Funny how you weave Mossadeq in with Bush's policy. I happen to have studied Iranian history in some detail and I think it is shameful how the Russians, British, and Americans have treated the Iranians, but it is this very realism that liberals are now flocking to. Recall that these decisions were made in the context of World War II and then the Cold War.

When the Neo-Conservatives attempt to break from this cynical worldview of power and self-interest, they are vilified. They may be naive, or their policy may have just been implemented poorly, but the thought that our foreign policy should be guided by values sounds an awful lot like you'd have heard any liberal talk in the 70's and 80's, when we were engaged in nasty realist foreign policy all over the globe.

So, are you saying the the no-fly zones were immoral and illegal? Should we have instead left the Kurds and Shiites to Saddam's army? It was bad enough that we abandoned them at the end of the first Gulf War (ah, realism at work again).

I'm still waiting to hear about those 50,000 foot B-52 carpet bombings and the mass violations of Geneva Conventions. You say we can't be discriminate at that altitude, but have you noticed our shift to precision guided munitions? How many of those did the Russians use in their attack on Grozney? Note how your posts have become more tempered and less hyperbolic. At first, there were "no terrorists" in Iraq. Now they were just "outside of Saddam's control" or simply "retired."

To suggest that Saddam maintained Iraq's infrastructure is simply wrong. He routinely used electricity as a weapon, drained the wetlands of the Marsh Arabs, and allowed his oil infrastructure, power grid, water treatment facilities, etc., degrade. The infant mortality rate in Iraq went through the roof after the first Gulf War. I guess we should have simply "contained" him and left those conditions in place. The only exceptions, of course, were those facilities that served his Baathist allies.

As far as deaths, the Lancet report has been widely discredited. To suggest that we are completely responsible for the deaths of Iraqis killed by sectarian gangs, terrorists, etc., I think is a rather strange sort of moral exclusiveness. Never mind the person actually doing the killing, but instead blame the person who is unable to stop it. And then, if we increase our troop strength and economic support to try to stop it, condemn that also.

Again, there have been a bundle of mistakes in the run up and execution of this war, but a little balance might help to make sense of it. Otherwise, why don't we all make up our minds, evidence be damned.

I do appreciate the conversation, however. Its always good to hear other perspectives.

[toontra]

To suggest that we are completely responsible for the deaths of Iraqis killed by sectarian gangs, terrorists, etc., I think is a rather strange sort of moral exclusiveness. Never mind the person actually doing the killing, but instead blame the person who is unable to stop it. And then, if we increase our troop strength and economic support to try to stop it, condemn that also.

I'm sure you would agree that though the US troops aren't responsible for all these deaths directly (mind you I'm sure they are directly responsible for many tens of thousands, smart bombs or not), it is the US invasion which has created the scenario in which the deaths have taken place. So in a real sense, yes, the US is directly responsible.

[Swarmlord]

No... it's called violation of the terms of surrender from gulf war 1. Saddam refused to allow inspections as requested. A new resolution was passed requiring him to respond by a certain date, he said no.

Seems that people are forgetting how this all started... even Bush.

Don't confuse them with facts like that. As an "elite" nation we're supposed to overlook things like that. The question isn't why we invaded Iraq, but why we waited so damned long.

[Swarmlord]

And there you have it in a nutshell: Any news which doesn't support your already-formed opinion must be biased, and beyond so stating, is unworthy of any response.

Yes, I feel some obligatory eye-rolling coming on....


:rolleyes:




We talking about the same news organizations that produced "documents" in Microsoft Word and tried to pass them off as IBM Selectric generated letters from 20 years ago? Yeah, right.

[skunk]

Funny how you weave Mossadeq in with Bush's policy.I most certainly did no such thing. I pointed out that being a threat to the security of the region was not exclusive to Saddam Hussein, nor was it sufficient reason to invade his country.

So, are you saying the the no-fly zones were immoral and illegal? Should we have instead left the Kurds and Shiites to Saddam's army? It was bad enough that we abandoned them at the end of the first Gulf War (ah, realism at work again).The no-fly zones were probably illegal, and certainly useless in protecting the Shiites since they applied only to fixed-wing aircraft.

I'm still waiting to hear about those 50,000 foot B-52 carpet bombings and the mass violations of Geneva Conventions. You say we can't be discriminate at that altitude, but have you noticed our shift to precision guided munitions? How many of those did the Russians use in their attack on Grozney?This is nothing to do with Grozny. Nor did I talk of "carpet bombings". I believe those were mostly reserved for GW I and Afghanistan.
Note how your posts have become more tempered and less hyperbolic. At first, there were "no terrorists" in Iraq. Now they were just "outside of Saddam's control" or simply "retired."So, if there were terrorists in Grozny, that would justify bombing Moscow, would it? Nope, sorry, still does not compute.

To suggest that Saddam maintained Iraq's infrastructure is simply wrong. He routinely used electricity as a weapon, drained the wetlands of the Marsh Arabs, and allowed his oil infrastructure, power grid, water treatment facilities, etc., degrade. The infant mortality rate in Iraq went through the roof after the first Gulf War.Completely unrelated to the UN sanctions, of course.
I guess we should have simply "contained" him and left those conditions in place.The fact remains that "those conditions" were by general agreement better than they are now.

As far as deaths, the Lancet report has been widely discredited. To suggest that we are completely responsible for the deaths of Iraqis killed by sectarian gangs, terrorists, etc., I think is a rather strange sort of moral exclusiveness. Never mind the person actually doing the killing, but instead blame the person who is unable to stop it. And then, if we increase our troop strength and economic support to try to stop it, condemn that also.As General Shinseki and others tried to argue, before being sacked for voicing their professional opinion, the force numbers used were reduced for political advantage to the minimum required for a blitzkrieg-style attack on Baghdad, when, in order to maintain stability under occupation in line with the requirements of the Geneva Conventions, the forces should have been three times the size.

[michaelsaxon]

mind you I'm sure they are directly responsible for many tens of thousands, smart bombs or not

Evidence? Many tens of thousands? An incredibly offensive thing to say given the care that I know our soldiers take in preventing civilian deaths.

As far as moral responsibility, if you go down the road you are going, you open up Pandora's box. If you go to the grocery store and accidentally hit a kid on the way, are you morally responsible for his death? No doubt, he'd still be alive if you just stayed home. Would we have been responsible for the deaths of the kids that were dying under the Hussein regime if we had not intervened, given that we could but failed to? Do you see the difficulties with this sort of moral reasoning?

Despite the difficulties, yes, we have a great deal of moral responsibility for Iraq given our invasion-- a fact that I think precludes us from just washing our hands of it and leaving them to do the killing in earnest. Then again, that seems to be what many people here want us to do.

I, for one, think we shouldn't give up on the Iraqi people quite yet. Counter-insurgencies are historically time-consuming. The world record for a successful counter-insurgency was probably Britain in Malaya, and that took twelve years. Also, many historians even question whether it was successful or whether it was prosecuted correctly or morally.

Difficult days, to be sure.

[Thomas Veil]

No... it's called violation of the terms of surrender from gulf war 1. Saddam refused to allow inspections as requested. A new resolution was passed requiring him to respond by a certain date, he said no.Well, then I'm glad we invaded and made things better.

We talking about the same news organizations that produced "documents" in Microsoft Word and tried to pass them off as IBM Selectric generated letters from 20 years ago? Yeah, right.Oh come now, you're talking about one incident in one organization with an otherwise decent record. You can't generalize about most or all of the media from that.

[Queso]

Some of the posters above appear to be under the impression that the presence of US/UK troops in Iraq is helping. They do need foreign forces there until the country stabilises, but we have lost the authority to be the ones whose troops can perform that role. Our presence is actually making the insurgency worse since we are the invading occupier.

Either we hand the task over to others as soon as possible or another million Iraqi civilians die before we are sent running to the hills.

And those, Gentlemen, are the only choices we have.

[toontra]

Evidence? Many tens of thousands? An incredibly offensive thing to say given the care that I know our soldiers take in preventing civilian deaths.

I've no exact (or even close) figures on how many Iraqis have been killed by US troop action, but let's face it, neither do you. I'll take a stab at 20 - 30,000. I'd be pleased to hear any evidence to the contrary.

As far as moral responsibility, if you go down the road you are going, you open up Pandora's box.

Opening Pandora's Box is precisely what the US have done. And yes, to me they bear the moral responsibilty for the vast majority of the death toll, to date and going into the future.

[IJ Reilly]

We talking about the same news organizations that produced "documents" in Microsoft Word and tried to pass them off as IBM Selectric generated letters from 20 years ago? Yeah, right.

Actually no, but nice try, avoidance being the name of the game apparently.

[MACDRIVE]

Why are you guys spending so much time arguing over the past? I believe it is futile at this point.

The bottom line is:

Bush envisioned a friendly atmosphere in the MidEast for the U.S. to pump oil out of. In doing so, first he wanted to set up a model democratic MidEast country - Iraq.

Well, the Iranians and the Syrians are having none of that. As far as they're concerned, it's not 'gonna' happen because they want to be the cheif regional power and therefore have control of the oil.

So where does that leave Bush? Well, he has two choices:

1 - Develope an alternative energy source so we that we're not dependent on the MidEast for their oil.

2 - Confront Iran and Syria.

You and I both know that Bush has no interest in developing a replacement for Black Gold. So where does that leave us?

Bush is going to find some excuse to attack Iran and Syria, but it won't be because they're preventing us from getting the oil from Iraq, (which is the real reason) it will be because they are helping to kill U.S. troops and present a threat to our security with their up in comming nuclear weapons.

So you guys can go on arguing over whether the Iraq war was justified, or whether Bush's 21,500 troop increase is going to save the war; when in fact, the war is going to widen exponentially and the draft is going to be a reality.

[skunk]

An incredibly offensive thing to say given the care that I know our soldiers take in preventing civilian deaths.Tell that to the residents of Fallujah and Haditha.

As far as moral responsibility, if you go down the road you are going, you open up Pandora's box.The whole point is that your President has indeed opened up Pandora's box. Do you see the difficulties with this sort of reasoning?

Despite the difficulties, yes, we have a great deal of moral responsibility for Iraq given our invasion-- a fact that I think precludes us from just washing our hands of it and leaving them to do the killing in earnest. Then again, that seems to be what many people here want us to do.You appear to be unaware that your presence is not helping.

I, for one, think we shouldn't give up on the Iraqi people quite yet.Which puts you at odds with the vast majority of Iraqis. Funny, that.

[BoyBach]

Evidence?


Presenting evidence that would placate you is impossible since: "We don't do body counts." - Gen. Tommy Franks.

[zimv20]

Bush envisioned a friendly atmosphere in the MidEast for the U.S. to pump oil out of. In doing so, first he wanted to set up a model democratic MidEast country - Iraq.

Well, the Iranians and the Syrians are having none of that.
errrr... why isn't the iraqis who are having none of it? my friend ockham would like to know.

[skunk]

errrr... why isn't the iraqis who are having none of it? my friend ockham would like to know.I have a spare razor.

[IJ Reilly]

I have a spare razor.

Put it down slowly, and walk away!

[mactastic]

Ok, so if you've never lived in Cupertino your opinion about Macs is uninformed and irrelevant, no? If you've never had an abortion you have no right to an opinion on the matter? If you've never been involved in a protest, how dare you criticize those who do? If you've never been to San Francisco, shut up about it's supposed values, right?

This is too funny. In one thread we have a conservative all up in arms because a Democrat supposedly said (even though she didn't) that unless you have a child in the military you can't criticize the war, and in this thread we have a conservative who takes the opposite tack: that unless you have lived in the ME your opinion is worthless and biased and uninformed.

[IJ Reilly]

We're unlikely to see straight answers to any of the above. The thread's been dragged way OT anyway.

Maybe this thread is beyond saving, but the question on the floor was supposed to be whether the current plan for Iraq is more of a military or political strategy. I go with political. Just as the Iraq invasion was planned on a domestic political timeline (which is one of the reasons it went so badly), the current "plan" is designed to do little more than kick the can down the road a ways, leaving the really tough issues for the next administration to grapple with. Additional troop deployments can at best succeed in tamping down the unrest, and are unlikely to address the underlying problems in Iraq.

We got a hint of this many months ago, when the president (inadvertently?) said in a press conference that completing the U.S. military commitment would be up to future presidents. This was before he was prepared to admit that any of this was his fault. All that's really changed now is that Bush has tied a ribbon on top of his gift to the next administration.

[Dont Hurt Me]

And like Vietnam no one has the balls to say lets go, so the war hero's like Bush & Cheney who never served send it down the road, then the next guy does the same because its not politically correct to "Quit" Iraq. Might look weak:rolleyes:

[BoyBach]

...so the war hero's like Bush...who never served...


What do you mean?

Bush kept the Texas skies safe during the Vietnam War, and unless there was a media cover-up, I believe that he was successful ("Mission Accomplished") since the Viet Cong never had 'air superiority' over Texas.

;)

[Dont Hurt Me]

What do you mean?

Bush kept the Texas skies safe during the Vietnam War, and unless there was a media cover-up, I believe that he was successful ("Mission Accomplished") since the Viet Cong never had 'air superiority' over Texas.

;)In that day the National Guard wasnt used as regular Army like George has it now. So perhaps your right. Who cares he never finished his service, the paperwork is still missing and allways will be is my guess.

[zimv20]

Bush kept the Texas skies safe during the Vietnam War
"fighting the enemy here so i don't have to fight them over there"

[BoyBach]

"fighting the enemy here so i don't have to fight them over there"


And we all thought that Bush was a stupid coward. :rolleyes: :p

[srf4real]

:(
Demanding a "better idea" at this stage is like asking for directions in the middle of a road accident.
:D That's brilliant! (It would be nice if there was a way to stabilize Iraq tho.)

[michaelsaxon]

I'm done. There's no sense in arguing this. Nothing is being accomplished.

[skunk]

For once, I agree with you.

[zimv20]

this (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/03/AR2006100301577_pf.html) is from october:


British Find No Evidence Of Arms Traffic From Iran

Troops in Southeast Iraq Test U.S. Claim of Aid for Militias

ON THE IRAQ-IRAN BORDER -- Since late August, British commandos in the deserts of far southeastern Iraq have been testing one of the most serious charges leveled by the United States against Iran: that Iran is secretly supplying weapons, parts, funding and training for attacks on U.S.-led forces in Iraq.

A few hundred British troops living out of nothing more than their cut-down Land Rovers and light armored vehicles have taken to the desert in the start of what British officers said would be months of patrols aimed at finding the illicit weapons trafficking from Iran, or any sign of it.

There's just one thing.

"I suspect there's nothing out there," the commander, Lt. Col. David Labouchere, said last month, speaking at an overnight camp near the border. "And I intend to prove it."

Other senior British military leaders spoke as explicitly in interviews over the previous two months. Britain, whose forces have had responsibility for security in southeastern Iraq since the war began, has found nothing to support the Americans' contention that Iran is providing weapons and training in Iraq, several senior military officials said.

"I have not myself seen any evidence -- and I don't think any evidence exists -- of government-supported or instigated" armed support on Iran's part in Iraq, British Defense Secretary Des Browne said in an interview in Baghdad in late August.

"It's a question of intelligence versus evidence," Labouchere's commander, Brig. James Everard of Britain's 20th Armored Brigade, said last month at his base in the southern region's capital, Basra. "One hears word of mouth, but one has to see it with one's own eyes. These are serious consequences, aren't they?"

They are. Allegations that Iran or its agents are providing military support for Iraqi Shiite Muslim militias and other armed groups is one of the most contentious issues raising tensions between Washington and Tehran. Most gravely, U.S. generals and diplomats accuse Iran of providing infrared triggers for special explosives that are capable of piercing heavy armor.

Evidence of Iranian armed intervention in Iraq is "irrefutable," one U.S. commander in Iraq, Brig. Gen. Michael Barbero, told Pentagon reporters in August. The lead U.S. military spokesman in Iraq renews the allegation almost weekly in Baghdad.

(more)

don't suppose it's worthwhile asking the bush administration for evidence to support bush's claim in his most recent speech...

[skunk]

They'd rather rely on a Curveball than on the evidence of their own senses. "Humint" never was your strong suit, was it?

[pseudobrit]

And there you have it in a nutshell: Any news which doesn't support your already-formed opinion must be biased, and beyond so stating, is unworthy of any response.

Are you talking about the posters' "arguing from unassailable wisdom" or the Bush administration's march to war?

[mactastic]

don't suppose it's worthwhile asking the bush administration for evidence to support bush's claim in his most recent speech...
Nah, it's much easier to claim your proof is too secret to discuss, and demand that your target prove a negative. Which, of course, is impossible.

[pseudobrit]

Nah, it's much easier to claim your proof is too secret to discuss, and demand that your target prove a negative. Which, of course, is impossible.

"You know, you don't understand what I've seen and where I've been. If only you had, you'd realise I'm totally right and stop arguing right now." -Tom Cruise

[Cassie]

Bush is a frackin dumb-a, and everyone knows it.

I remember when the war first started, there was a poll on CNN. It asked how long you think the war would go on. 2-4 weeks, 3-6 months, 1 year. My mom said 2-4 weeks, I said 1 year. :rolleyes:

I totally agree with you Zwhaler, its a hit and run kind of thing.

I rooted for bush in 2000 (I was 7) but I rooted for Kerry in '04. Were we really so blind? I don't believe America knew what we were getting in to then. But now that we are, we're like "Oops, should've kicked that idiot out of office, huh?"

If they had elections every one, or even two, years, I can guarentee Bush would be gone.

[Thomas Veil]

this (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/03/AR2006100301577_pf.html) is from october:


don't suppose it's worthwhile asking the bush administration for evidence to support bush's claim in his most recent speech...Oh for joy. History repeats itself. We're about to undertake another b***s*** incursion based on trumped-up evidence.

Only silver lining to this is that if Bush goes through with it, it'll make it easier for the Dems to cut off funding and/or impeach the sonofabitch.

[michaelsaxon]

Here's the perspective of a four-tour British officer that I thought was interesting:

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/MilitaryOperations/DispatchesFromBaghdadASoldiersViewOnIraq.htm

And for those who don't think that the Iranians are providing arms / expertise in Iraq, you are deluded. The Quds have thoroughly infiltrated the country. Why wouldn't they?

Yes, I know... I tried to stay away from this post, but just couldn't...

[Queso]

Here's the perspective of a four-tour British officer that I thought was interesting:

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/MilitaryOperations/DispatchesFromBaghdadASoldiersViewOnIraq.htm

And for those who don't think that the Iranians are providing arms / expertise in Iraq, you are deluded. The Quds have thoroughly infiltrated the country. Why wouldn't they?

Yes, I know... I tried to stay away from this post, but just couldn't...
There are a number of items in that article that are typical of the Bliar Government's spin. For instance, what was the membership of the Fallujuah Business Assoc. before the US devastation? Prior to the invasion by the US/UK, who controlled Fallujah? The various parties met in Baghdad to discuss security etc., but can they actually do anything other than talk?

Anything published on a UK Government website is suspect as a source as far as I'm concerned. It's equivalent to reading Condi's blog for opinions on Iran.

[solvs]

As I've said before, it's not that we trust Iran or want to lose in Iraq. We just don't trust this administration to deal with them. They've done nothing to gain our trust, and everything to lose it. I don't know what Iran is doing, or how to win in Iraq (if we even can at this point), but I certainly don't believe in the same people who cried wolf last time while the real wolf (Bin Laden) is still out there.

Fool me once, shame on me, fool me twice... can't fool me again.

[michaelsaxon]

Anything published on a UK Government website is suspect as a source as far as I'm concerned. It's equivalent to reading Condi's blog for opinions on Iran.

UK government website or not, I think it is a good idea to listen to what a military officer who has spent so much time in Iraq has to say. I try to take a look at all viewpoints when I can.

[Dont Hurt Me]

As I've said before, it's not that we trust Iran or want to lose in Iraq. We just don't trust this administration to deal with them. They've done nothing to gain our trust, and everything to lose it. I don't know what Iran is doing, or how to win in Iraq (if we even can at this point), but I certainly don't believe in the same people who cried wolf last time while the real wolf (Bin Laden) is still out there.

Fool me once, shame on me, fool me twice... can't fool me again.Its Fool me once shame on you, Fool me Twice shame on me. We dont want to be made fools of again by a bunch of liars.

[IJ Reilly]

Its Fool me once shame on you, Fool me Twice shame on me. We dont want to be made fools of again by a bunch of liars.

I think he's referring to a classic Bushism:

"There's an old saying in Tennessee—I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee—that says, fool me once, shame on—shame on you. Fool me—you can't get fooled again."
—Nashville, TN., Sept. 17, 2002

[Queso]

UK government website or not, I think it is a good idea to listen to what a military officer who has spent so much time in Iraq has to say. I try to take a look at all viewpoints when I can.
Bliar is very good with selective facts. This guy gets published because he agrees with the Government line. How many people do you think they had to interview to get one account they could use?

[michaelsaxon]

Bliar is very good with selective facts. This guy gets published because he agrees with the Government line. How many people do you think they had to interview to get one account they could use?

Honestly, this just shows me that you aren't capable of any viewpoint but your own at this point. Seriously, who should I believe? A person who has spent four tours in Iraq, has had tea with the leaders, and who, in his own article, makes clear the difficulties that lie ahead or, instead, somebody who, instead of argument, calls PM Blair "Bliar" and poo poos the general's account?

I mean, half of the arguments on here are nothing but classic ad hominem. I'm sick of bumper sticker slogans substituting for reasoned argument about this war and the course ahead.

OK, let's try this guy, from the Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/12/AR2007011201950.html

This seems to me to be a very fair assessment. Any thoughts?

I really wonder how many people here even really want the US, UK, Iraq, etc., to succeed at this point. I mean that sincerely and I'm not trying to be unnecessarily confrontational. What possible good can come to all of us if this whole thing explodes? The collective "I told you so" smugness about the decision to invade in the first place will be fully satisfied?

This surge seems like about the last shot we have to get this right. I would have liked to see it accompanied with far more economic stimulus, but there is some of that in there too. If it fails, I guess we'll have no choice but some sort of partition as a hedge against full-on civil war.

[IJ Reilly]

I mean, half of the arguments on here are nothing but classic ad hominem. I'm sick of bumper sticker slogans substituting for reasoned argument about this war and the course ahead.

Well then, stick to the other half, is my suggestion. You'll encounter a fair amount of everything on this board, but you will certainly find plenty of willingness to discuss issues seriously and in depth. The accusation that the arguments here are full of "bumper sticker" logic is itself something of an ad hominem.

[Queso]

This surge seems like about the last shot we have to get this right. I would have liked to see it accompanied with far more economic stimulus, but there is some of that in there too. If it fails, I guess we'll have no choice but some sort of partition as a hedge against full-on civil war.
The opportunity for a last shot to get it right is long gone, and I have to wonder why you believe civil war is a step down for the current situation in Iraq. A country can only descend into civil war from a position of unity.

As for my dislike for Bliar, it goes far beyond this single issue. The man is 100% pure politics with no real substance about him. He also possesses a sycophantic personality and upon reaching a position of power immediately looked for someone more powerful to suck up to. The sooner he goes, the better.

You also seem to believe I take pleasure in the fact that Iraq became such a mess. I get no pleasure out of this whatsoever. Call my sarcasm a coping mechanism if anything.

[skunk]

Honestly, this just shows me that you aren't capable of any viewpoint but your own at this point. Seriously, who should I believe? A person who has spent four tours in Iraq, has had tea with the leaders, and who, in his own article, makes clear the difficulties that lie ahead?Why on earth should one believe the UK representative in Baghdad, a general who probably rarely gets out of the Green Zone except to take tea with the "leaders", travelling in armoured convoys to previously-secured areas well out of the line of fire? None of these guys is going to tell the truth - even if they know what it is. If they did, they'd be out of a job in minutes. These people are chosen to do the job because of their willingness to spin the facts and toe the line in the first place. Hell, if they were chosen for their competence and honesty the place wouldn't be in such a bloody mess, would it? They are paid to talk bollocks to save the skins of their political masters.

I really wonder how many people here even really want the US, UK, Iraq, etc., to succeed at this point. I mean that sincerely and I'm not trying to be unnecessarily confrontational. What possible good can come to all of us if this whole thing explodes? The collective "I told you so" smugness about the decision to invade in the first place will be fully satisfied?You're absolutely right, michaelsaxon. I do not want the politicians who had the damned arrogance and effrontery to embark on this appalling excercise in deceit and mass-murder in our names to succeed. If they do, it will encourage other similar adventures, more instability, more death and destruction, more corruption. It's a damned shame the soldiers and civilians are caught in the middle, but I do not want these bastards to get away with it. Any "moral high ground" won fifty years ago by the sacrifice of countless millions of brave souls has been squandered by a gang of neo-imperialist, neo-conservative armchair warriors trying to create a world in their own image in honour of the god in their mirror.

[michaelsaxon]

Skunk-- You have no idea what modern-day generals do. They don't simply sit in the Green Zone. They patrol with their soldiers, move from area to area, visit FOBs, etc. Those armored convoys you speak of can easily be decimated by the very same IEDs that are killing soldiers each day. Glad to see that you have, with a few keystrokes, characterized an entire group of generals-- men and women who have served their nations for most of their lives, many bloodied doing so-- as incompetent and sycophantic. That is a disgusting characterization. Are you privy to their private conversations with political leaders? Would you instead have our military officers pursue their own agendas, independent of the political leadership? Once we go that way, we are one step away from banana republics.

Also, doesn't murder require intentionality? Are you suggesting that we're intentionally killing Iraqi civilians (I can't imagine you're talking about insurgents, Al Qaeda, etc., cause that would turn the whole notion of justifiable killing in war on its ear)? Riddle me this: if this policy is indeed murderous, does that mean that the soldiers who are executing it are murderers? Isn't using the word "murder" just another instance of your unnecessary hyperbole?

Back to deceit. Doesn't it also require intentionality? I mean, if I tell you that I'm going to meet you for lunch and, on the way, am in a car accident and don't show, does that mean I'm a liar? Have you shown yet that Bush knew that his justification for war was not sound when he made the case? I'm really interested in seeing this.

I think I see what you are after. On one end of the spectrum, you have success in Iraq, which you can't stand the thought of, because it might encourage future leaders to consider military interventions. On the other end is abject failure, which will surely set back those nasty interventionist foreign policies. Never mind that failure in Iraq will certainly embolden Al Qaeda, Iran, North Korea, and some of the most dangerous nations in the world. Never mind that it will destabilize the region, encouraging an arms race between the Arabs and the Persians. Never mind that the Iraqis will face a bloodbath. Never mind that the Kurds will face the specter of Turkish intervention in their experiment in democracy. As long as those neo-cons and their dangerous notions of American Exceptionalism are put down! America and the UK will be properly humbled and we can get back to the proper business of realpolitick.

Let me ask you one other question and please be honest. In your estimate, who is more dangerous to the world community: the US or North Korea? The US or Iran? I'm serious.

dynamicv-- if Blair is such a consummate politician, why would he take a position that is so obviously unpopular? Also, to suggest that what is going on right now in Iraq is even close to the mayhem that a civil war will precipitate I think is naive.

Thanks for the civil and interesting conversation!

[skunk]

Skunk-- You have no idea what modern-day generals do. They don't simply sit in the Green Zone. They patrol with their soldiers, move from area to area, visit FOBs, etc.Oh, come off it! If you think for a minute that the senior UK general in Iraq is going to be put in harm's way for one minute, you are deluding yourself. Can you name one general, US or UK, who has been "bloodied" in this conflict?

Are you suggesting that we're intentionally killing Iraqi civilians (I can't imagine you're talking about insurgents, Al Qaeda, etc., cause that would turn the whole notion of justifiable killing in war on its ear)? Riddle me this: if this policy is indeed murderous, does that mean that the soldiers who are executing it are murderers? Isn't using the word "murder" just another instance of your unnecessary hyperbole?Isn't using the words "collateral damage" or indeed "justifiable killing in war" merely window-dressing, especially if the war is entered into unnecessarily and on false pretences? Raining high explosive on Baghdad, white phosphorus on Fallujah, cluster munitions on Basra, these are murderous acts. The soldiers should never be put in such a position or given such orders in an unnecessary war.

Have you shown yet that Bush knew that his justification for war was not sound when he made the case? I'm really interested in seeing this.Everything I have heard about the lead-up to this fiasco leads me to believe that the case for war was deceitfully made.

On one end of the spectrum, you have success in Iraq, which you can't stand the thought of, because it might encourage future leaders to consider military interventions. On the other end is abject failure, which will surely set back those nasty interventionist foreign policies.There is a proper case to be made for military intervention, in exceptional circumstances. Such a case was not made. The argument was waged dishonestly, the evidence was trumped up. The case for legitimate intervention in future has thereby been seriously damaged. This has nothing to do with Al Qaeda, Iran or North Korea, except that it has reduced US ability to respond to any such real threats as may occur.
Let me ask you one other question and please be honest. In your estimate, who is more dangerous to the world community: the US or North Korea? The US or Iran? I'm serious.North Korea cannot even feed itself, and Iran has no nuclear capability. Neither presents an immediate threat.

[Dont Hurt Me]

I know one thing and that is a lot of our top generals retired when George Jr took over and made his plan for Iraq. Its also been posted that Mr Arrogance doesnt even consult with his Dad on things??? That alone is just mind blowing considering his father decided against a Iraq takeover, was the top CIA guy and VP and President and his son doesnt even want to tap that knowlege? So here we are in Iraq trying to Force a democracy on top of Islam who have been fighting a thousand year war that continues to this day.


Plus lets be honest the Iraqi's & our President along with Cheney said they were training all these thousands and thousands of Iraqi's so they could defend their country. It was more Spin & Lies now we know this. Then we could talk about the thousands of arms that they cant account for in Iraq?? Missing U.S. arms that are in the hands of the enemy? Bunkers full of arms that were never confiscated? Plus Bush has secured Iraqs borders as well as he has America's meaning not at all? Then to say to our soldiers where going to send you back into the middle of this is insane.
To want to stay the course and ignore this administrations handling of this war is absurd,insane and is costing us Billions. Vietnam went the same way,blunders after blunders by politicians not in the fight. They also didnt want to leave until the American people forced the politicians to let go. Take those billions and build a real energy policy and we can skip the mideast and let them continue their 1,000 yr Jihad:rolleyes:

[michaelsaxon]

Skunk--

Quit cherry picking and answer the questions fully. Generals routinely go out-- yes, including ones from the UK-- but you failed to address at all my full point. The fact that none of them have yet to be wounded is really remarkable, but still points to their numbers versus the numbers of soldiers in total. General Patreus routinely patrolled on foot with both Americans and Iraqis, and he's now in charge of our entire operation. You also conveniently sidelined the entire issue of your charges that they are patsies and what their responsibilities are as public servants versus political figures.

Nobody "rained" anything on urban areas, so quit being excessive. If we've "rained" HE in Baghdad, then we might as well pack up all of our wars, because its hard to imagine being any more discriminate, especially given the propensity of those we are fighting to occupy cities. Militaries have used WP for decades-- its use alone says nothing. Seriously, can you point to one credible link that shows this widespread murderous behavior? I've asked several times now. Pretty please.

"Everything I have heard?" Well, how about pointing to some facts. Everything you hear feeds your evident biases, it appears.

This has nothing to do with Iran or Al Qaeda? Are you kidding me? Not one credible analyst in the world would agree with you. This has everything to do with them, especially now.

You aren't entitled to your own set of facts in this argument, Skunk. You are skilled in rhetoric, but rhetoric as you know is a whole different animal than argument.

[leekohler]

Do your own Lexus/Nexus search.

If you don't like the rules of these forums, then don't bother posting. Otherwise, I'll simply continue to view you as I always have: a neocon who thinks that everything he says is right and can't back it up. Because if you say it, it must be true. :rolleyes:

[MACDRIVE]

michaelsaxon -- You've been putting skunk through the ringer. He's not use to having to write so much. You've got his dandruff all up in a frenzy. Perhaps you should lay off of him for awhile. ;)

[pseudobrit]

Seriously, can you point to one credible link that shows this widespread murderous behavior? I've asked several times now. Pretty please.

Go back and read four years of threads in this forum, newb. This stuff has been discussed to death (no pun intended) here and it's more than a little obnoxious when you walk in and start screaming at someone to start going over the basic facts at the ground level as soon as you hit the door.

[obeygiant]

Go back and read four years of threads in this forum, newb. This stuff has been discussed to death (no pun intended) here and it's more than a little obnoxious when you walk in and start screaming at someone to start going over the basic facts at the ground level as soon as you hit the door.

I read his post and none of it would i characterize as "obnoxious" or "screaming". He raised valid points and didnt resort to blatent name calling like I do. :D

BTW, its no0b not newb. :) ;)

[michaelsaxon]

Go back and read four years of threads in this forum, newb. This stuff has been discussed to death (no pun intended) here and it's more than a little obnoxious when you walk in and start screaming at someone to start going over the basic facts at the ground level as soon as you hit the door.

Ah, newb. I'm humbled. Good one.

Based on the quality of some of the "facts" I've seen in this thread, I'm sure four years worth of confirmation bias will only make me even more disappointed. I really have enjoyed the conversation. Skunk's obviously a smart fellow and I thought he might have something substantive to add to my understanding of the situation.

Also, I thought THIS WAS SCREAMING in internet lingo? I felt that I was being downright civil.

But, regardless, I'll lay off Skunk. He obviously has quite a following in these parts. I came here to get good Mac information and allowed myself to get pulled into this quagmire (+100 forum points for use of the word "quagmire"). I think I'll leave the fevered swamps and go back to looking at the other forums again for awhile.

[pseudobrit]

But, regardless, I'll lay off Skunk. He obviously has quite a following in these parts.

Yeah yeah yeah. :rolleyes:

[MACDRIVE]

But, regardless, I'll lay off Skunk. He obviously has quite a following in these parts.

Yeah, I'm a big fan of his, but I'm keeping my testicles away from him. :o

[skunk]

You also conveniently sidelined the entire issue of your charges that they are patsies and what their responsibilities are as public servants versus political figures.I am not applying a judgment to all generals. I am simply stating what should be fairly obvious, that the top UK military representative in Baghdad will have been appointed for his political skills and willingness to support the position of his appointers as much as - if not more than - his war-fighting prowess.

Nobody "rained" anything on urban areas, so quit being excessive. If we've "rained" HE in Baghdad, then we might as well pack up all of our wars, because its hard to imagine being any more discriminate, especially given the propensity of those we are fighting to occupy cities. Militaries have used WP for decades-- its use alone says nothing. Seriously, can you point to one credible link that shows this widespread murderous behavior? I've asked several times now. Pretty please.Sure, those we are fighting have a propensity to occupy cities: they do in general live in them, after all. As for WP rain, did you miss this?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4440664.stm
US used white phosphorus in Iraq

US troops used white phosphorus as a weapon in last year's offensive in the Iraqi city of Falluja, the US has said.
"It was used as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants," spokesman Lt Col Barry Venable told the BBC - though not against civilians, he said.

The US had earlier said the substance - which can cause burning of the flesh - had been used only for illumination.

BBC defence correspondent Paul Wood says having to retract its denial is a public relations disaster for the US.

Col Venable denied that white phosphorous constituted a banned chemical weapon.

Washington is not a signatory to an international treaty restricting the use of the substance against civilians.

The US state department had earlier said white phosphorus had been used in Falluja very sparingly, for illumination purposes.

Col Venable said that statement was based on "poor information".
66249
66250
Cluster munitions:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/consequences/2003/0407irregular.htm
Baghdad bombing
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/22/iraq/main545267.shtml
"Everything I have heard?" Well, how about pointing to some facts. Everything you hear feeds your evident biases, it appears.An example:
In late January 2003, as Secretary of State Colin Powell prepared to argue the Bush administration's case against Iraq at the United Nations, veteran CIA officer Tyler Drumheller sat down with a classified draft of Powell's speech to look for errors. He found a whopper: a claim about mobile biological labs built by Iraq for germ warfare.

Drumheller instantly recognized the source, an Iraqi defector suspected of being mentally unstable and a liar. The CIA officer took his pen, he recounted in an interview, and crossed out the whole paragraph.

A few days later, the lines were back in the speech. Powell stood before the U.N. Security Council on Feb. 5 and said: "We have first-hand descriptions of biological weapons factories on wheels and on rails."

The sentence took Drumheller completely by surprise.

"We thought we had taken care of the problem," said the man who was the CIA's European operations chief before retiring last year, "but I turn on the television and there it was, again."
As for Blair's contribution:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_Dossier
This has nothing to do with Iran or Al Qaeda? Are you kidding me? Not one credible analyst in the world would agree with you. This has everything to do with them, especially now.I suppose it depends on whom you regard as being credible, doesn't it?

I do appreciate that your arguments are conducted in a civil fashion - as are mine, I hope. However, I am unwilling to accept the accounts of those with a vested interest as being the unvarnished truth, whereas you seem rather more willing to give them credence. We may have to agree to differ.

[Queso]

dynamicv-- if Blair is such a consummate politician, why would he take a position that is so obviously unpopular? Also, to suggest that what is going on right now in Iraq is even close to the mayhem that a civil war will precipitate I think is naive.
Thanks for the patronising reply. Bliar took this step because his "boss" told him to. You obviously don't know much of his history if you think he is meant to be #1 in any organisation. He spent his junior years in Parliament running from one senior politician to another, always eager to please. He then fixated on Gordon Brown, who many regarded as Bliar's mentor. But, due to the unfortunate death of John Smith, Bliar was suddenly thrown into the spotlight as the leader of the party. At first he could sit back and let Peter Mandelson and Alistair Campbell run the show for him, but after getting elected he quickly looked around for someone else to take direction from. His fixation with Clinton was at least understandable since their politics are similar. His fixation with Bush, which came pre-9/11, is anything but.

Iraq is currently in a state of anarchy however you look at it. The central government can talk but do nothing else. Baghdad and most of the other towns go from being under the control of local militias one day, US forces the next, then back to the militias. Sectarian violence is only contained by each group keeping mostly to their own areas, yet still flares up frequently. I find it quite astonishing that you honestly think the same people whose appalling errors of judgement put both Iraq and our own countries into this mess will suddenly have the answers to fix the results. The American and British forces cannot be part of the solution and it's about time the politicians, in both the government and the military, admitted this rather than worrying about their own reputations.

And believe me, a politician's own reputation is always the first thing they worry about. The rest of it is secondary.

[toontra]

I think dynamicv's assessment is close to the truth. His sycophancy is matched only by his reliance on spin. Let's not forget that New Labour was, in essence, a media manipulation organisation, rather than a traditional political party based on ideology. They spent much of the mid 90's studying Clinton's Dem. party's techniques of initiating news rather than reacting to it.

This spoon-feeding of the media was so successful that by 2002 Blair thought he could get away with just about anything (including an unpopular war) provided the story was spun in the right way, which explains the dodgy dossier and the 45 minute claim in Parliament.

As to why he made the decision to take part in an unpopular war, I think the combination of his essentially sycophantic nature, mixed with a large dose of Messianic ego (fueled by his own self-perceived political success and a hint of Christian crusading) made him think his place in history would be sealed if he could pull it off against the odds.

[Peterkro]

Iraq is currently in a state of anarchy however you look at it.

I'm being a bit nitpicky here dynamicv but I think it's important, anarchy is a word that the authoritarians have tried to change the meaning of,it doesn't mean chaos or general mayhem it means without a leader now Iraq is sorely lacking a lot of things but leaders is not one of them.A very good start to peace would be to get rid of them, tribal elders to Bush.It frightens those that set themselves up as our betters that we may be able to do a lot better without them so they concentrate on the perceived differences between them,are Democrats better than Republicans,etc etc,the truth is they are all interested in only one thing personal power and I believe they are the problem and definitely have an interest in prolonging the pain being suffered by ordinary people in Iraq.OK rant over that aside I generally agree with what your saying.:)

[Queso]

I'm being a bit nitpicky here dynamicv but I think it's important, anarchy is a word that the authoritarians have tried to change the meaning of,it doesn't mean chaos or general mayhem it means without a leader now Iraq is sorely lacking a lot of things but leaders is not one of them.A very good start to peace would be to get rid of them, tribal elders to Bush.It frightens those that set themselves up as our betters that we may be able to do a lot better without them so they concentrate on the perceived differences between them,are Democrats better than Republicans,etc etc,the truth is they are all interested in only one thing personal power and I believe they are the problem and definitely have an interest in prolonging the pain being suffered by ordinary people in Iraq.OK rant over that aside I generally agree with what your saying.:)
OK, I take the misuse of the word Anarchy back, since as you say it's true meaning does not apply to Iraq. I was trying to get over that there are so many small groups vying for power amongst themselves that the supposed central authority has no actual control. Iraq has become a more extreme example of pre-Taliban Afghanistan, where the official government really only had control over the capital and the rest was controlled by warlords and religious groups. In Iraq's case the elected authority don't even have that much power, and are effectively a government in exile within their own borders.

[zimv20]

Iraq is sorely lacking a lot of things but leaders is not one of them.
imo, what iraq is lacking is a strong central gov't. and there, in fact, is how bush succeeded in giving the iraqis freedom. they are now free of a strong central gov't, free to fight to choose their own destiny.

it won't be the gap-buying, starbucks-sipping, consumer democracy bush had in mind, but they are free now.

vive le revolution!

[solvs]

Honestly, this just shows me that you aren't capable of any viewpoint but your own at this point. Seriously, who should I believe? A person who has spent four tours in Iraq
Just going to stop you there. Everything we've read by the people who have actually been there, soldiers and generals, as well as Iraqis themselves, thinks this is a bad idea. Pretty much everybody thinks this is a bad idea. If you'd like some links, we can provide them for you. But yes, it has pretty much been long since established as fact and we've discussed it to death.

Sorry if you've missed it, I'm sure we can find some good stuff for you if you need proof.

I really wonder how many people here even really want the US, UK, Iraq, etc., to succeed at this point. I mean that sincerely and I'm not trying to be unnecessarily confrontational. What possible good can come to all of us if this whole thing explodes? The collective "I told you so" smugness about the decision to invade in the first place will be fully satisfied?
There is some "I told you so", but mainly because we've told you so. Everything we've been talking about for years is finally being realized by the rest of America and slowly by the MSM. But no, we don't want to lose. No one wants us to lose. Problem is, we've already lost, and we're sick of watching us continue to lose. We just want to point out that the people who have been screwing things up this whole time are still wrong and really should listen to the people it turns out have been right. Including some generals who've been there. The administration is not listening, and it's frustrating.

And yes, it is a little confrontational and rude to accuse us of wanting to lose. No one wants to get more troops and more innocent Iraqis killed. No one. That's kinda why we're pointing this stuff out, because that's exactly what's going to happen.

Do you want to get more people killed (I'm assuming no, just proving a point)?

Quit cherry picking
Pot, meet kettle. Colin Powell, General Shoemaker, General Shinseki, General Abizaid, Oliver North... all against the troop surge. Sure, every once in awhile you'll get someone who supports the current strategies. Everybody else is against it. Mostly because they know it won't work. I don't know if the guy you posted about has ulterior motives or not, but I think I trust them more. ;)

I have a friend who's been there, and he and all his buddies in the service will tell you it's a mess, if that helps you any.

This has nothing to do with Iran or Al Qaeda? Are you kidding me?
Al Qaeda's in Afghanistan and Pakistan. I'm sure there are some "terrorists" and foreign fighters in Iraq, but the real terrorists (you know, the ones who actually attacked us) are still out there and we're too busy mucking around in Iraq, most of our resources devoted to it, to deal with them. Not to mention how lowered our standing is in the world. Even if we could deal with Iran (and NK, and Afghanistan, and Pakistan), which we can't, we have a bit of the "boy who cried wolf syndrome" going on, so no one believes us when we scream "threat".

Plus, Al Queda and Iran had nothing to do with Iraq when we went in, but thanks to the same people who want to deal with them at this point with these failed strategies, well... they are there now.

You aren't entitled to your own set of facts in this argument, Skunk. You are skilled in rhetoric, but rhetoric as you know is a whole different animal than argument.
There's some rhetoric going on, but it isn't coming from skunk. Again, not trying to be rude, but we've been over this so many times it's getting tiresome. As I've said, if you'd like specifics, we can dig some up for you.

You can start with this quick Google search I did: Generals against surge (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=generals+against+surge&btnG=Search). Or if you think Google is too liberal (believe it or not, some have claimed it is), here's Yahoo!s (http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=generals+against+surge&fr=yfp-t-501&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8). Really just look anywhere, it all says the same thing (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070115/wl_mideast_afp/usiraqpoliticsbush_070115193607).

[mactastic]

But of course! If you don't happen to agree with the President, or conservatives in general, you can rest assured that it won't be long before you are accused of "supporting the terrorists" or "wanting America to lose" or "cowardice" or "treason" or "being unpatriot" or "not supporting the troops".

That's been going on since the topic of Bush invading Iraq came up, and it's shameful. But where could conservatives have come up with that tactic? Oh yeah, Goebbels. :rolleyes:

[AP_piano295]

Skunk--

Quit cherry picking and answer the questions fully. Generals routinely go out-- yes, including ones from the UK-- but you failed to address at all my full point. The fact that none of them have yet to be wounded is really remarkable, but still points to their numbers versus the numbers of soldiers in total. General Patreus routinely patrolled on foot with both Americans and Iraqis, and he's now in charge of our entire operation. You also conveniently sidelined the entire issue of your charges that they are patsies and what their responsibilities are as public servants versus political figures.

Nobody "rained" anything on urban areas, so quit being excessive. If we've "rained" HE in Baghdad, then we might as well pack up all of our wars, because its hard to imagine being any more discriminate, especially given the propensity of those we are fighting to occupy cities. Militaries have used WP for decades-- its use alone says nothing. Seriously, can you point to one credible link that shows this widespread murderous behavior? I've asked several times now. Pretty please.

"Everything I have heard?" Well, how about pointing to some facts. Everything you hear feeds your evident biases, it appears.

This has nothing to do with Iran or Al Qaeda? Are you kidding me? Not one credible analyst in the world would agree with you. This has everything to do with them, especially now.

You aren't entitled to your own set of facts in this argument, Skunk. You are skilled in rhetoric, but rhetoric as you know is a whole different animal than argument.

Any Chance you would be nice enough to find a story about our gallant front line generals? Or is saying it just so much easier?

Skunk doesnt need to have herd anything to question the motives of this war, I seem to recall the original claim was the imminent use of WMD's (even though we had inspectors in the country with free rein to look for the weapons who were finding nothing) Then we were looking for Saddam which would stabalize the country (turned out he was in a hole with no outside world contact), now it's the creation of a Democracy. You dont need official documents to question the motives behind this war.

I belive some of our soldiers are on trial for going on rampages and murdering civillians, after a road side bomb took out a Humvee and killed a soldier. (and oddly enough this isnt just one case) is that murderous enough for you or would you prefer the term executions?

Might I ask where your facts are coming from because even fox news is having trouble spinning this stuff in a positive light.

This war HAD nothing to do with Iran or Alqueda untill we created it, and I'm still not sure how much Alqueda has to do with it. If someone had dropped a bomb on my house and killed my entire family while I was at work then going out and fighting those people hardly seems like an act of terrorism (I dare say it's what you would do and the claim that "it's all for democracy wouldnt make it seem much better")

As for your claim that Iraq is going to turn out well in the end I fail to see where you get the evidence, this war isnt even about us anymore. We've stirred up a civil war and regardless of what we do there's no longer a "winner" in this war.

[skunk]

Any Chance you would be nice enough to find a story about our gallant front line generals? Or is saying it just so much easyier?I think it's a "post and run" exercise. Now he's run out of soundbites to quote, he probably doesn't have anything left to say.

[Dont Hurt Me]

We have to be fair to some of the generals because by Law Bush is the boss, its not like they can just say to George your plans are all screwed up! so what we end up with is the better generals having been fired and retired and Bush is left with what I call the brownnose class. This means if McCain moves a inch out of the way they will be right there looking for a cheek. Its proven fact we have been lied to, truth has been twisted ,distorted and even made up for this one. Osama couldnt be happier with how Bush has created a situation that has recruited thousands & thousands of Jihadist and given Iran at the same time everything they could ask for. "Rightys" never mention this .

400 Billion could give this nation a hell of an energy policy, Instead were fighting a stupid war over black gold. Stupid is as stupid does. So were now working towards 5 yrs in this war.

[solvs]

We have to be fair to some of the generals because by Law Bush is the boss, its not like they can just say to George your plans are all screwed up!

Actually, that kind of is what's happening. Bush said Gen. Casey (not sure if I spelled that right) was one of the people who pushed the idea for a surge, but I was watching Olbermann and they said he's actually saying the exact opposite. Add him to the list I made above. I don't really think anybody is behind this, other than Cheney, McCain, and Lieberman.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/01/16/active-duty-officers-to-protest-bushs-escalation/

[AP_piano295]

Actually, that kind of is what's happening. Bush said Gen. Casey (not sure if I spelled that right) was one of the people who pushed the idea for a surge, but I was watching Olbermann and they said he's actually saying the exact opposite. Add him to the list I made above. I don't really think anybody is behind this, other than Cheney, McCain, and Lieberman.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/01/16/active-duty-officers-to-protest-bushs-escalation/

This term surge bugs me...I thought it was called an escalation but maybe i'm just old fashioned.

[michaelsaxon]

I think it's a "post and run" exercise. Now he's run out of soundbites to quote, he probably doesn't have anything left to say.

Don't be an ass, skunk. I think I've demonstrated well enough that I can think on my own absent sound bites and I've tried to be as thoughtful as possible in exploring a difficult problem.

I'm not going to waste any more time on this thread trying to argue a position that you or many of your supporters have no intention of taking seriously. So, you've goaded me out this last time with your insult to my intelligence, but you won't do it again. Perhaps you can cast a critical eye on our exchange and see if I have a point. I suspect that you are fully set in your position and can gain nothing from what I might provide.

[solvs]

This term surge bugs me...I thought it was called an escalation but maybe i'm just old fashioned.

Well, they did try to change the terminology, but we all know what's happening, so it doesn't really matter what you call it. ;)

[Zwhaler]

And now Bush is ignoring the large amount of congressional opposition to the troop surge... nothing can stop him now! (damn unfortunately) We need to impeach him FAST.

[MACDRIVE]

We need to impeach him FAST.

Why? So he doesn't go and blow up Iran? :p

[Zwhaler]

Well, pretty much everything he has done has been a disaster, or a set up for a disaster. So all we can do now is wait it out, and like I said, hope someone impeaches him. All he has done is gotten rich. He invested in companys like haliburton, and then started a war so that the companys he invested (and his buddies invested in) needed to make tanks and guns and such and the stock shot up.

When he entered office, the Bush family was worth around 600 million dollars. Now it has doubled. Gee, conflict of interest here? Well, he sure hasn't won the lottery literally... but figurativly, he won the super lotto plus.

[zimv20]

When he entered office, the Bush family was worth around 600 million dollars. Now it has doubled.
link, please.