Post by: The Rabbi on September 04, 2007, 05:32:54 PM
But what if that's wrong?
What if the surge strategy actually works and the country is stabilized? Will the same people who have been yammering that it was a mistake recant? Or will they say the ends didnt justify the means? Or will they claim that we just cut and run because there is still sectarian violence (which there is all over the world anyway)?
Just a thought seeing the reports of Bush's visit.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 04, 2007, 06:18:29 PM
The short answer is that the anti-warriors need never recant, only to feign surprise that things are doing slightly better after the obvious quagmire was entered.
Post by: Tallpine on September 04, 2007, 06:19:42 PM
Post by: RadioFreeSeaLab on September 04, 2007, 07:35:08 PM
Post by: Paddy on September 04, 2007, 07:39:47 PM
Post by: LadySmith on September 04, 2007, 09:52:32 PM
Post by: Jamisjockey on September 05, 2007, 03:15:56 AM
Post by: HankB on September 05, 2007, 03:19:28 AM
)
Post by: Manedwolf on September 05, 2007, 04:09:40 AM
The Sunni and Shi'a hate each other. The Kurds are hated by both and would like to be left alone. Some of the marsh arabs in the south would like to be left alone, too.
Now, if we let it be Kurdistan, (the Kurds like us), and Sunni and Shi'a states to the south, perhaps it might settle down. Then they'll just fight over the oil rights.
We could even have a big, stable regional base in Kurdistan, and the Kurds wouldn't try to blow it up.
Post by: K Frame on September 05, 2007, 04:20:05 AM
The Iraq war IS lost.
Why?
Because the pundits and Democrats tell us so.
Don't you know better than to question your moral and intellectual betters?
Post by: Bogie on September 05, 2007, 04:34:15 AM
Iraq was a good first step, and it's getting better.
Post by: El Tejon on September 05, 2007, 05:01:57 AM
Post by: longeyes on September 05, 2007, 06:30:04 AM
The nation is dissolving from the inside out, being eaten up from the inside out...and we're concerned about "stabilizing" Iraq as what will eventually be an "Islamic Republic" (oxymoron?). O brother. How about stabilizing our own borders or the transformation of the American economy into a plantation society or the complete dissolution of responsible representative government?
The Iraq problem is Bush's psyche writ large: Iraq is an addiction. Whatever he's working out there is a huge and ugly distraction. If he wants to deal with Islamofascism I can show him on a map where the problem originates, assuming he doesn't know and can't read where the checks are coming from. Meanwhile, he's revealed that he cries a lot....when we should be crying over the utter lack of leadership. What a charade, what a disgrace.
Post by: wooderson on September 05, 2007, 06:37:19 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on September 05, 2007, 06:37:34 AM
Post by: The Rabbi on September 05, 2007, 06:43:13 AM
The nation is dissolving from the inside out, being eaten up from the inside out...a
I am soo glad I live in a different country from you. Maybe you should just go kill yourself if things are really that bad. Maybe move in with Alec Baldwin. Perhaps a sight-seeing trip to N.Korea. Then you can see what real totalitarianism looks like. Perhaps a trip over the Chinese border so you can see what border control looks like (hint: it doesn't work there either).
Post by: El Tejon on September 05, 2007, 06:52:25 AM
Post by: The Rabbi on September 05, 2007, 07:38:27 AM
No way! Alec's guesthouse is mine, I don't want to live in the main house and share a bathroom with Alec Baldwin!
I'm sorry I have to share breathing-space with him...
Post by: Phantom Warrior on September 05, 2007, 07:48:51 AM
Quote from: ManedWolf
I honestly think it can't be stabilized as-is because Iraq was never a self-declared country, it was created by outside forces and held as such by an iron fist. It wants to be three separate countries.
The Sunni and Shi'a hate each other. The Kurds are hated by both and would like to be left alone. Some of the marsh arabs in the south would like to be left alone, too.
Now, if we let it be Kurdistan, (the Kurds like us), and Sunni and Shi'a states to the south, perhaps it might settle down. Then they'll just fight over the oil rights.
The Sunni and Shi'a hate each other. The Kurds are hated by both and would like to be left alone. Some of the marsh arabs in the south would like to be left alone, too.
Now, if we let it be Kurdistan, (the Kurds like us), and Sunni and Shi'a states to the south, perhaps it might settle down. Then they'll just fight over the oil rights.
This post is going to make me very unpopular with the conservative/Bush supporting crowd in this thread. Which is ironic because I am myself an archconservative and a Bush supporter on most issues...except the war.
There is a distinct tendency by conservatives to react to any conversation about Iraq by blindly launching off into a tirade about how "we could just win this war if those cut and run Demorats would just get out of the way and support our troops and if you don't stand behind them you can stand in front of them and if the MSM would just report the truth you'd see how good Iraq really is."
Liberals are every bit as guilty, they just go off in the "Bush is an evil tyrant and he lied to get us into this war and where are the WMDs and Bush stole the election" direction.
Before I came here I was guilty of the same blind conservative tirades I just described. As with many things, somewhere closer to the center lies the truth. The "war in Iraq", with the goal of a united Iraq is probably not feasible. I quoted ManedWolf's post because it very accurately sums up the reality in Iraq. Notice the part I highlighted. That is the majority of the problem in Iraq today. Not al-Qaeda, not foreign fighters, not even Iran. It is that the Shia and the Sunni hate each other. They don't want to work together, they don't want to govern together, they don't want to live together.
An outstanding comparison I read recently was between Iraq and Yugoslavia. Tito kept Yugoslavia together by force and ruling with an iron hand. When he died, all the Serbians and Croatians and Bosnians and other ethnic groups suddenly had freedom...the freedom to kill each other. Trying to get them to live together just didn't work. But separating them into ethnically homogeneous countries has allowed them to live peacefully with people like them.
Iraq will probably end up requiring something similar. Splitting the Kurds off into Kurdistan would take care of them. They are already most of the way to to being an independent country anyway. It's my understanding that we are holding them back to keep from pissing off Turkey right now. Western Iraq would become Sunni-stan. If you pay attention to all the trumpeted security and pacification of the al-Anbar province, that's the real reason for it. Al-Anbar is mostly Sunni. They cooperated with coalition forces because they are tired of being blown up by al-Qaeda. It doesn't mean they like Shia though. Southern Iraq would become Shia-stan.
EDIT: ManedWolf's map came up while I was composing this lengthy post. It perfectly illustrates what I'm talking about.
There are two problems with this proposed plan. One being ethnically heterogeneous areas like Baghdad. Note all the striped areas in the map The other being the fact that most of the oil would be in Kurdistan and Shia-stan. Some kind of oil revenue sharing would have to be created between the three countries to keep the Sunnis happy.
All the Alec Baldwin jokes and the snide comments about the Democrats and the MSM aside, the reality of it is that Iraq is not a military problem. We could put a Bradley on every corner in Baghdad and it still wouldn't resolve the fundamental antipathy between the Sunnis and the Shia. We are spending 12 billion dollars and 100+ American soldiers lives each MONTH to try and unite people that don't want to live together. And this whole discussion is completely ignoring issues like corruption or how completely ate up the Iraq government is, particularly the Iraqi Security Forces.
We need to get our soldiers out of the job of try to fix this country. Will there be a bloodbath when we leave? Probably. Would there be a bloodbath anyway if we stay here longer? Probably. My favorite metaphor for Iraq is a spoiled, rebellious, criminal adult child. You care and you want to fix the problem, but at some point you have to let them sink or swim on their own. We are keeping the Shia and the Sunni apart enough that they can keep fighting. If we step back they will either finally get tired of killing each other or enough refugees will have moved around that groups will be separated enough that Iraq can have a chance at peace. Until then, we are just trying to fix a political/social/religious problem with military force. And it won't work.
Post by: The Rabbi on September 05, 2007, 08:11:07 AM
A Kurdistan is the last thing Turkey, an important ally in the region, wants. A divided and weak Iraq would be inviting to Iran, possibly leading to an annexation.
It isn't that the division plan doesn't have merit, I think it does. But it is a lot harder than snapping fingers.
Post by: longeyes on September 05, 2007, 08:44:45 AM
Quote
I am soo glad I live in a different country from you. Maybe you should just go kill yourself if things are really that bad. Maybe move in with Alec Baldwin. Perhaps a sight-seeing trip to N.Korea. Then you can see what real totalitarianism looks like. Perhaps a trip over the Chinese border so you can see what border control looks like (hint: it doesn't work there either).
Well, you live in Tennessee, don't you? Maybe that qualifies, I don't know.
Look, I hold no brief with Alec Baldwin, Sean Penn, et al. I'm saying two things: Bush's STRATEGY in Iraq for dealing with the very, very real and nasty problem of global Islamofascism is extremely questionable. Worse, it seems to willfully ignore the actual political realities of the sources of problem. The willful ignorance appears to derive from economic complicity with the very forces that we pretend to be fighting. Unfortunately, some very brave Americans are paying for the price, in blood, for the political hypocrisy.
As for the rest, if you don't see that America, though a GREAT NATION, is going through a dark night of soul because it is self-conflicted and self-divided and self-lacerating and has abandoned a lot of its core principles, then you are right, we not only live in different countries we will, in the days to come, end up living literally in different countries because where all of this is heading is secession, expulsion, or both. I see it even if you clearly do not.
Post by: K Frame on September 05, 2007, 09:25:55 AM
Oh please.
You're not old enough to remember the late 1960s and 1970s, are you...
You think the United States is "dissolving from within"?
I guarantee you that had you lived through the late 1960s and 1970s (I remember the 1970s, starting around 1972) and still have nighmares about this country from 1976 to 1981) you'd have absolutely NO illusions that we're somehow dissolving from within.
Post by: The Rabbi on September 05, 2007, 09:36:17 AM
I remember the mid to late '70s all too well.
The US had gotten its butt kicked by a bunch of tire-wearing pajama-clad commies. The Russians were expanding influence all over the place. Inflation was in the double digits. Unemployment was getting that way. We had a Constitutional crisis with Nixon and an unelected weak president with Ford. Every major industry in the U.S. was losing share to the Japanese, who were buying up everything in sight. ANd if they weren't, the Arabs were.
Jimmy Carter got elected. Disco came on the scene. Qiana shirts were in. And Tony Orlando & Dawn were musical stars.
It doesn't get worse than that.
By those standards, these are glory days.
Post by: El Tejon on September 05, 2007, 09:48:16 AM
Post by: Paddy on September 05, 2007, 10:36:04 AM
Maybe annihilation of the Dems and any other anti-Iraq-war types='Win in Iraq'?
Post by: K Frame on September 05, 2007, 11:27:14 AM
I suspect that even if the situation in Iraq turned completely around and peace and cooperation were established the Dems would still be screaming about how it's such a huge failure.
No, I'm not happy about the situation in Iraq. No, I'm not happy about the fact that there was an invasion in the first place, and I spoke against it quite frequently before it actually happened.
But what the Dems and their buddies are proposing isn't any more of a solution than what's happening right now. In fact, it's a far WORSE 'solution.'
Post by: The Rabbi on September 05, 2007, 11:48:31 AM
The responses in this thread highlight the problem-nobody knows, let alone is able to articulate what 'Win in Iraq' means. The only consensus is that the Dems are the enemy and will ultimately be responsible for any 'failure' (whatever that means) in Iraq.
Maybe annihilation of the Dems and any other anti-Iraq-war types='Win in Iraq'?
Maybe annihilation of the Dems and any other anti-Iraq-war types='Win in Iraq'?
Every time this topic has come up people have given extension descriptions of what "win" means. You just aren't paying attention or you keep repeating the same mantra, hoping no one will notice.
As for annhilating the Dems, there's always hope....
Post by: De Selby on September 05, 2007, 11:59:16 AM
The problem is that the only realistic scenario for this is under the aegis of an Iranian backed fundamentalist political system, much like the one that is currently in power (at least inside some of its own buildings in Baghdad.)
That's the big problem with this war as I see it: either option is bad. If it fails, the Iran-supporting fanatics will not be able to do much, but the country will be a dangerous war-zone and hotbed for terrorists. If it succeeds, then we will have parties like "The Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council" and "Islamic Daw'a" (both with more ties to Iran than the US) ruling Iraq, which is exactly the opposite of what the battle was supposed to achieve.
So the result is that a win is not really much of a win.
Post by: longeyes on September 05, 2007, 01:27:05 PM
Don't get me wrong? I don't see the problem as insoluble, I just think the resolution of it will be wrenching.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 05, 2007, 01:37:48 PM
Post by: Paddy on September 05, 2007, 01:55:53 PM
Quote
I think the America of sixty years ago would never have succumbed to the now-common defeatist attitude about this current war.
The America of 60 years ago would not have entered into this war. That said, it is imperative we maintain the strength and firm resolve to bring this to some conclusion other than defeat. It is unfortunate-no, it is unacceptable that Bush allowed SecDef Rumsfeld to botch this campaign for four years. That is time, money, and lives needlessly spent. The new SecDef is on the right track, but time is limited. Bush will leave office January 20, 2009, and there must be some resolution by then.
Post by: thebaldguy on September 05, 2007, 01:58:33 PM
If we won, it would be just like the all the politicans said years ago; cheap oil, stability, end of violence, end of terrorism, etc. It would be perfect.
I'm sorry, but I just don't see it happening. Good fantasy, though.
Post by: stevelyn on September 05, 2007, 02:20:03 PM
Iraq is not a political football. And anybody who uses it that way needs to be tarred and feathered and then given a public birching in the town square.
Well then, you can start by tarring and feathering the jackass(es) that ordered the invasion. Because it wasn't done in response to a clear and imminent threat.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on September 05, 2007, 02:36:50 PM
Because it wasn't done in response to a clear and imminent threat.
Ha!!
Post by: The Rabbi on September 05, 2007, 03:26:50 PM
Because it wasn't done in response to a clear and imminent threat.
Ha!!Double ha.
If you are only ready to go to war when the enemy has been massed and awaiting orders for attack, then you've already lost.
Post by: wooderson on September 05, 2007, 03:44:13 PM
Post by: Paddy on September 05, 2007, 03:53:51 PM
Quote
Yeah, that Saddam, any day he was going to gear up and come a-knockin'. I know that we were all living in a constant state of fear in 2002 that the Iraqi Army was poised to strike a blow against, um... uh... er...
Quote
Well then, you can start by tarring and feathering the jackass(es) that ordered the invasion. Because it wasn't done in response to a clear and imminent threat.
Wow, wooderson and stevelyn. You're smarter than all these Democrats. I'm impressed!
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.
"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp
Post by: wooderson on September 05, 2007, 04:46:07 PM
Quote
You're smarter than all these Democrats.
The Democratic leadership has been particularly craven in their treatment of the war, yes - afraid to say an unkind word when they thought it suited them politically, unwilling to take a stand to end the charade because they aren't sure it suits them well enough (better to have an ongoing fiasco through 2008).So what's your point?
(in the Democrats' defense, loathe as I am to say anything, the first set of quotes are prior to the air and missile attacks that are generally believed to have ended even the pipe dream of Saddam gaining WMD capabilities. That's what makes both parties dishonesty in the leadup to the debacle in Iraq so shameful.)
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 05, 2007, 07:59:29 PM
Quote
I think the America of sixty years ago would never have succumbed to the now-common defeatist attitude about this current war.
The America of 60 years ago would not have entered into this war.
Why not? Forty years ago, we were in 'Nam. Fifty years ago, we were in Korea. Sixty years ago, we were just finishing up a world-wide conflict. WWI before that. The Philippines. Spanish-American War. And so on and so forth.
Chronology is approximate.
Post by: Ezekiel on September 05, 2007, 10:46:02 PM
So the result is that a win is not really much of a win.
Don't we have Presidential advisors that are supposed to spell this stuff out BEFORE we step in it?
Oh, wait, I forgot: an idiot at the wheel and Darth Cheney pulling the strings...
(sigh)
Post by: Bogie on September 06, 2007, 05:03:59 AM
If we hadn't invaded the middle east: Deniable state sponsored terrorists would have continued to train. We probably would have had another major attack on US soil.
We will eventually. These people are nuts.
If we bug out, they won't see it as negotiation or compromise. They'll see it as a sign of weakness. And they'll launch something else. They don't need the technology to build a cruise missile. They steal 'em, and provide their own meatware guidance systems.
With the next major attack, all the nice folks are gonna break out their flag lapel pins again, and they're gonna be asking why Bush didn't nuke the place.
Post by: Ezekiel on September 06, 2007, 07:25:30 AM
Admittedly, a very valid point, as it IS difficult to prove a negative. (i.e., because of Action A [invasion], there have been no instances of Action B [terrorist attack]...)
But I don't see Evil Genius.
Post by: The Rabbi on September 06, 2007, 07:29:41 AM
Bogie:
But I don't see Evil Genius.
But I don't see Evil Genius.
So he must be a fool.
But this fool was able to persuade Congress and any number of allies to vote for and support the war. Interesting.
Post by: Paddy on September 06, 2007, 07:33:22 AM
Post by: longeyes on September 06, 2007, 07:37:54 AM
The problem Over There is cultural, that's why, and the sooner we recognize that our paradigm of "conversion to Americans in Iraqi skins" isn't going to really work the better off we'll be.
We need to define clearly where the real sources of danger to this nation and to civilzation are and bring all practical force to bear on them. All the rest seems to me throughly tainted with economic expediency, empty moralizing, and misplaced "humanitarianism." This is one theater of a do-or-die global war, not more expensive social work.
Post by: wooderson on September 06, 2007, 10:07:41 AM
Quote
If we hadn't invaded the middle east: Deniable state sponsored terrorists would have continued to train. We probably would have had another major attack on US soil.
It continues to amaze me that people genuinely believe this nonsense.
Post by: The Rabbi on September 06, 2007, 10:29:38 AM
Quote
If we hadn't invaded the middle east: Deniable state sponsored terrorists would have continued to train. We probably would have had another major attack on US soil.
It continues to amaze me that people genuinely believe this nonsense.
I'm amazed that people continue to deny what seems like an obvious truth.
Post by: wooderson on September 06, 2007, 10:49:08 AM
Post by: roo_ster on September 06, 2007, 11:50:35 AM
Why is it an 'obvious truth'?
Because our enemies have repeatedly told us they are trying to attack us and that our operations have caused them quite a bit of damage. Give them some credit for forthrightness.Removing their training grounds (Afghanistan & Iraq), disrupting commo & financing ("Bushitler" wiretaps), and planting a flag in the ground for them to be attracted to and attack (Iraq) have definitely disrupted Al Queda and other terrorist types. We have intercepted their own communications stating as much.
Iraq & Afghanistan may never be Switzerland, providing "Victory And Peace In The World, Now And Forever," but they are part & parcel of the fight civilization must take to barbarism if civilization is to endure. The current struggle has been going on since 632AD, so expecting it to be over & done with by Christmas when it has been in progress for centuries is unrealistic.
Post by: wooderson on September 06, 2007, 12:08:32 PM
Quote
Removing their training grounds (Afghanistan & Iraq)
Remarkably dishonest to conflate the two.Which is to say that's often the only way we often see justification for the debacle in Iraq - when it involves assigning credit for victories in Afghanistan to our Middle East adventurism (which, of course, stalled progress in Pakistan and Afghanistan...).
Post by: Paddy on September 06, 2007, 12:08:38 PM
It's not. It's a bunch of unsophisticated brainwashed third world dirtbags with a lot of money behind them looking for an opportunity to kill/maim/terrorize. 9/11 happened because of our weaknesses, not their strengths. It was not necessary to send our military into Afghanistan & Iraq. The bombing raids on both would have accomplished as much. 9/11 was a wake up call for us to guard our flanks, beef up our defenses (ie border security, and immigration policy) and keep our ears and eyes open. That's all.
If they're not here, they can't hurt us, on the CONUS, anyway, which, we are told is what it's about, right?
Post by: The Rabbi on September 06, 2007, 12:11:51 PM
Quote
Removing their training grounds (Afghanistan & Iraq)
Remarkably dishonest to conflate the two.Which is to say that's often the only way we often see justification for the debacle in Iraq - when it involves assigning credit for victories in Afghanistan to our Middle East adventurism (which, of course, stalled progress in Pakistan and Afghanistan...).
Nothing dishonest about it.
Both countries aided and abetted terrorists. Saddam had a 30 year history of supporting terrorists. When the US reached Baghdad they picked up the mastermind of the Achille Lauro hijacking. He was there for his health.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 06, 2007, 12:14:43 PM
You talk about al-queda like it's a huge, highly organized, technologically advanced, formidable enemy. It's not. It's a bunch of unsophisticated brainwashed third world dirtbags with a lot of money behind them looking for an opportunity to kill/maim/terrorize.
Where do you get your information on Al-Qaeda?
Post by: wooderson on September 06, 2007, 12:53:52 PM
Quote
Nothing dishonest about it.
Of course there is. Afghanistan and Iraq are two separate theaters - in 2003, were two different wars. The victories in one are not victories in the other.Speaking of dishonesty...
Quote
Both countries aided and abetted terrorists. Saddam had a 30 year history of supporting terrorists.
Ah, right, he 'supported terrorists.' We, the people, are supposed to then infer that he was 'supporting terrorists' who posed a threat to America, and perhaps even the 9/11 hijackers... but wait - he wasn't. Numerous nation-states - including the US and Britain - have a recent history of "aiding and abetting" terrorists against their enemies (aiding and abetting Saddam as well...), not to mention dictators and assorted low-life thugs around the globe. That's what happens when your guiding policy is "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."
The argument you can't make except through insinuation (because it's untrue) is that Saddam's "support" posed a realistic threat to American security. I mean, your trump card here is...
Quote
When the US reached Baghdad they picked up the mastermind of the Achille Lauro hijacking. He was there for his health.
The hijacker - from an era when Saddam was functionally our ally against Iran - of an Italian cruise ship, leader of a functionally irrelevant Palestinian sect (who had apologized for the hijacking).
Post by: Paddy on September 06, 2007, 12:56:43 PM
Quote
Where do you get your information on Al-Qaeda?
Probably the same place you get yours. We just interpret it differently. Some of us have had it with the multicolored fearmongering.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 06, 2007, 01:02:14 PM
Anyhow, I wonder why your information on Al-Qaeda doesn't include one of its most prominent figures, a physician named Al-Zawahiri. And I wonder why you don't also recall the medical students in the UK, recently picked up on terrorism charges.
Post by: The Rabbi on September 06, 2007, 01:59:39 PM
Quote
Nothing dishonest about it.
Of course there is. Afghanistan and Iraq are two separate theaters - in 2003, were two different wars. The victories in one are not victories in the other.Speaking of dishonesty...
Nice straw man argument there. No one claimed Saddam aided the 9/11 hijackers (although he did meet with al Qaeda in Prague, as the Czech secret service still insists). But many do claim, rightly so, that Saddam aided and abetted a lot of terrorists.Quote
Both countries aided and abetted terrorists. Saddam had a 30 year history of supporting terrorists.
Ah, right, he 'supported terrorists.' We, the people, are supposed to then infer that he was 'supporting terrorists' who posed a threat to America, and perhaps even the 9/11 hijackers... but wait - he wasn't. Numerous nation-states - including the US and Britain - have a recent history of "aiding and abetting" terrorists against their enemies (aiding and abetting Saddam as well...), not to mention dictators and assorted low-life thugs around the globe. That's what happens when your guiding policy is "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."
ANd that's relevant how exactly?The argument you can't make except through insinuation (because it's untrue) is that Saddam's "support" posed a realistic threat to American security. I mean, your trump card here is...
Quote
When the US reached Baghdad they picked up the mastermind of the Achille Lauro hijacking. He was there for his health.
The hijacker - from an era when Saddam was functionally our ally against Iran - of an Italian cruise ship, leader of a functionally irrelevant Palestinian sect (who had apologized for the hijacking).No, my argument is that Saddam was in material breach of numerous UN resolutions, that he had a program for WMD (which has been established numerous times), that he had a demonstrated tendency to aid and abet terror as well as invade neighbors and destabilize the region. And for all those reasons he became a prime candidate in the post 9/11 world for removal.
And a terrorist is a terrorist, no matter how many times he apologizes.
Post by: MechAg94 on September 06, 2007, 02:10:07 PM
You talk about al-queda like it's a huge, highly organized, technologically advanced, formidable enemy.
It's not. It's a bunch of unsophisticated brainwashed third world dirtbags with a lot of money behind them looking for an opportunity to kill/maim/terrorize. 9/11 happened because of our weaknesses, not their strengths. It was not necessary to send our military into Afghanistan & Iraq. The bombing raids on both would have accomplished as much. 9/11 was a wake up call for us to guard our flanks, beef up our defenses (ie border security, and immigration policy) and keep our ears and eyes open. That's all.
If they're not here, they can't hurt us, on the CONUS, anyway, which, we are told is what it's about, right?
The attack on the USS Cole and our Embassies were not in the CONUS. I guess you don't mind attacks in Hawai? It's not. It's a bunch of unsophisticated brainwashed third world dirtbags with a lot of money behind them looking for an opportunity to kill/maim/terrorize. 9/11 happened because of our weaknesses, not their strengths. It was not necessary to send our military into Afghanistan & Iraq. The bombing raids on both would have accomplished as much. 9/11 was a wake up call for us to guard our flanks, beef up our defenses (ie border security, and immigration policy) and keep our ears and eyes open. That's all.
If they're not here, they can't hurt us, on the CONUS, anyway, which, we are told is what it's about, right?
If you think the leadership of al-queda is that unsophisticated, you must not be paying attention. The actually suicide bombers may be stupid, but the people organizing them and setting it up are not. You need to pay more attention to what you are saying.
Post by: jeepmor on September 06, 2007, 02:10:41 PM
They did in Vietnam against the US.
They did in Afghanistan against the Russians.
and they're winning in Iraq against the US yet again.
When you cannot sway the hearts and minds of the people your fighting, they won't give up. When they won't give up, you won't win.
Their resolve is not politically driven in the same context as our is.
War is not a political football game, I disagree, it always has been. And this one is a good example of the blatant profiteering the art of war really is for our current administration.
Post by: wooderson on September 06, 2007, 02:45:37 PM
Quote
And both were part of the same WOT. So what's your point?
So you can't credit the Normandy invasion for ensuring that the Japanese fleet didn't attack Pearl Harbor again. Duh.Quote
But many do claim, rightly so, that Saddam aided and abetted a lot of terrorists.
And, as stated, you carefully avoid stating that the terrorists in question weren't actually those involved in attacks on American soil. You keep forgetting to add that qualifier.One might wonder why...
Quote
ANd that's relevant how exactly?
Because your argument is that Saddam "supported terrorists" - not that he "supported terrorists who posed a threat to America" or that he and his military posed a threat - and everyone 'supports terrorism.'Your house of cards has no foundation.
Quote
No, my argument is that Saddam was in material breach of numerous UN resolutions, that he had a program for WMD (which has been established numerous times),
I don't see anything their about the safety of Americans, or posing a threat to the US or planning a terrorist attack on Americans or...Anyway, the statement I've been responding to this entire time was that if we had not toppled Saddam, we most certainly would have had another attack on American soil, 'because he was a gosh-darned terrorist suporter' and blah blah blah. If you don't agree with that argument, then you didn't really need to respond to me.
Quote
invade neighbors and destabilize the region.
Haha, we had to destabilize the region because Saddam (twice - once thirty years ago with our support and once twenty years ago without) attempted to 'destabilize the region'! You're a laugh riot.Post by: Tallpine on September 06, 2007, 02:54:58 PM
Post by: Bogie on September 06, 2007, 03:13:54 PM
You own Bubba's Auto Sales. You're the best, most reputable, car dealer in your metro area.
Joe el-Badgui owns Camel Auto Sales. Most of 'em run.
Joe wants your customer base. He wants your house. He wants your wife. He wants your daughters. And since he's a member of the Church of Not Liking Other People, he also wants you dead.
But he knows that if he does anything, the sheriff's gonna get his SWAT team together, and visit him at 3:00 ayem, with herd of crotch-eatin' attack poodles.
Joe doesn't want that.
So, he goes over to the bad side of town, and talks to a few trailer trash... He's gonna give 'em a brand new used pick'em'up truck if they do bad things to your car lot. He doesn't want to know what. He doesn't want to know how. He just wants to make your life a living hell. Your customers get carjacked. Your lots are egged. BB-gun damage is found all over the lot every Monday morning... Your service bays catch fire.
That's what state sponsored terrorism is.
Post by: wooderson on September 06, 2007, 03:24:59 PM
Post by: The Rabbi on September 06, 2007, 04:06:11 PM
More argument by insinuation. You have no factual argument that Saddam played a role in attacks on American soil, or had the desire and capability to do so in 2003.
He certainly had the desire to do so. He planned to assassinate an ex president. As to capability, he certainly had the capability to fund terrorism and was known to do so. He had the capability to allow terrorists to train in his country. And was known to do so.
It's called war by other means.
No, he was not threatening to launch an all out invasion of the US mainland, so by your reading he wasn't a threat, I guess.
Your arguments are nonsensical, tiresome, self-contradictory.
Post by: The Rabbi on September 06, 2007, 04:07:41 PM
History being an indicator of the future. The guerillas always win.
They did in Vietnam against the US.
They did in Afghanistan against the Russians.
and they're winning in Iraq against the US yet again.
They did in Vietnam against the US.
They did in Afghanistan against the Russians.
and they're winning in Iraq against the US yet again.
Yes, just like they won in the Philippines.
Or just like they won in Malaysia.
Or in various south American countries.
Oops, no. The guerrilas lost in every one of those conflicts.
Yet another argument blown away in the clear light of facts.
Next.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 06, 2007, 04:11:06 PM
More argument by insinuation. You have no factual argument that Saddam played a role in attacks on American soil,
And none is required. None was implied.
Post by: wooderson on September 06, 2007, 06:39:46 PM
Quote
And none is required. None was implied.
So we can agree that Saddam was not involved in executing successful terrorist attacks on American soil, nor did he have the capability to do so in 2003?
Excellent.
Post by: wooderson on September 06, 2007, 06:47:16 PM
Quote
He certainly had the desire to do so. He planned to assassinate an ex president.
I have "the desire" for a three-way with Heidi Klum and Mary-Louise Parker. In that we don't want to endlessly play with words, let's assume that 'desire' here denotes a realistic capability.Quote
As to capability, he certainly had the capability to fund terrorism and was known to do so.
You left out the qualifier again: "was known to do so, as long as you're not talking about, like, attacks against the US."Quote
No, he was not threatening to launch an all out invasion of the US mainland, so by your reading he wasn't a threat, I guess.
He wasn't threatening anything in, near or around the US mainland.Quote
Yes, just like they won in the Philippines.
Or just like they won in Malaysia.
Or in various south American countries.
The first required a genocide.Or just like they won in Malaysia.
Or in various south American countries.
The second was essentially a stalemate over 40 years - and weren't, of course, facing a foreign invader.
Not sure what "various south American countries" refers to - guerillas have generally been rather successful overthrowing governments in the region.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 06, 2007, 07:08:10 PM
Quote from: fistful
More argument by insinuation. You have no factual argument that Saddam played a role in attacks on American soil,
And none is required. None was implied.
So we can agree that Saddam was not involved in executing successful terrorist attacks on American soil, nor did he have the capability to do so in 2003?
That's not what I said. I said nothing about whether he had the capability to attack America.* Look at the statement which I quoted. I don't recall the administration, or Rabbi, claiming that Saddam had played a role in attacks on American soil. Rabbi explicitly denied such. Even if Bush had so claimed, that was never THE basis for the Iraq war. Bush emphasized other valid reasons, which Rabbi has been kind enough to list. Of course, you will now claim that Bush moved from one reason to the next, as each was proved false. This is not true, but that won't stop you.
* Of course it would seem quite foolish to suppose that he couldn't. If al-Qaeda did, why couldn't the Iraqi Baathists? Or why couldn't they collaborate with others to do the same?
Post by: stevelyn on September 06, 2007, 07:23:43 PM
Because it wasn't done in response to a clear and imminent threat.
Ha!!Double ha.
If you are only ready to go to war when the enemy has been massed and awaiting orders for attack, then you've already lost.
Iraqi army amassed and awaiting orders to cross the border to attack us......
HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHA.............................
This is Israel's proxy war that we were dumb enough to get sucked into.
Feith, Wolfowitz and Perle worked behind the scenes manipulating half assed intel and hiring PR firms to turn public opinion against Iraq enough to where the American gullibles would be beating their war drums demanding blood.
It's not a dem or rep issue since there's no different between the two.
Read "A Pretext For War: 9/11, Iraq and the abuse of America's Intelligence Agencies" by James Bamford. If you want to skip the dry reading, start on page 250.
Post by: Paddy on September 06, 2007, 07:39:47 PM
Sorry.
Post by: wooderson on September 06, 2007, 08:00:04 PM
Quote
Or why couldn't they collaborate with others to do the same?
"Why couldn't the North Koreans?""Why couldn't the Chinese?"
"Why couldn't the Russians?"
"Why couldn't the Italians?"
Post by: Bogie on September 06, 2007, 08:03:44 PM
More argument by insinuation. You have no factual argument that Saddam DID NOT PLAY a role in attacks on American soil, or THAT HE DID NOT HAVE the desire and capability to do so in 2003.
Hey, wait... We're pretty sure he DID have the desire and capability... And he sure was pretty free and easy with using weapons of mass destruction on both his own people and his neighbors...
So, we can agree that Hussein was in all probability acting in support of the attacks upon US soldiers and civilians, and that his regime did, in fact, pose a clear and present danger to the United States?
Post by: Paddy on September 06, 2007, 08:06:37 PM
Quote
You have no factual argument that Saddam DID NOT PLAY a role in attacks on American soil, or THAT HE DID NOT HAVE the desire and capability to do so in 2003.
Bullcrap. George Bush already admitted as much.
Post by: Bogie on September 06, 2007, 08:12:45 PM
If Hussein was paying someone to screw with us, then he's got what they call plausible deniability.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 07, 2007, 02:04:22 AM
Quote
Or why couldn't they collaborate with others to do the same?
"Why couldn't the North Koreans?""Why couldn't the Chinese?"
"Why couldn't the Russians?"
"Why couldn't the Italians?"
Ah, OK. Can I assume you've got no response to the rest of the post? And this is all you can come up with? Good. We've reduced you to the typical anti-war illogic of taking each reason to invade Iraq, and considering it all by itself, as if it existed apart from all the other reasons.
To clarify, yes, any nation could be involved in terrorist attacks against us. But no one ever said that that alone was a good reason to invade a country.
Next.
Post by: The Rabbi on September 07, 2007, 02:40:26 AM
Quote
He certainly had the desire to do so. He planned to assassinate an ex president.
I have "the desire" for a three-way with Heidi Klum and Mary-Louise Parker. In that we don't want to endlessly play with words, let's assume that 'desire' here denotes a realistic capability.You raised the issue of desire in one of your posts. Now you are saying desire counts for nothing? A little consistency would be nice.
We do not know what Saddam's realistic capability was. He had the capability of funding Palestinian suicide bombers. And did so. Why wouldn't he have the capability of funding terrorist attacks on American soil?
Will you argue that bin Laden did not have the capability to do so? Bin Laden lacked the resources that Saddam had. Ergo Saddam had desire and resources to stage terrorist attacks. With WMD those resources were magnified to an unacceptable level, as the scenario was he would give a nuke or something else to a terrorist org to carry it out.
Post by: The Rabbi on September 07, 2007, 02:43:00 AM
Iraqi army amassed and awaiting orders to cross the border to attack us......
HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHA.............................
This is Israel's proxy war that we were dumb enough to get sucked into.
Feith, Wolfowitz and Perle worked behind the scenes manipulating half assed intel and hiring PR firms to turn public opinion against Iraq enough to where the American gullibles would be beating their war drums demanding blood.
It's not a dem or rep issue since there's no different between the two.
Read "A Pretext For War: 9/11, Iraq and the abuse of America's Intelligence Agencies" by James Bamford. If you want to skip the dry reading, start on page 250.
First off, you obviously didnt comprehend my post.
Anyway, let's cue up the Protocols and play that tune.
The Israelis working through their agents in State and Defense and their Amen Corner in Washington convinced the President and his other advisors, as well as a majority in COngress (and the American people) to engage in a war which was patently unjustified and served only Israel's defense needs.
Yea. Right. Tin foil hats anyone?
Post by: roo_ster on September 07, 2007, 05:06:19 AM
Quote
Removing their training grounds (Afghanistan & Iraq)
Remarkably dishonest to conflate the two.Before accusing others of dishonesty, be sure to dispel your own ignorance. Saves you from having to be an adult and admitting you were wrong or using the "octopus method" of venting ink from your nether regions and desperately back-swimming to waters warmer to your position.
Post by: roo_ster on September 07, 2007, 05:06:37 AM
History being an indicator of the future. The guerillas always win.
I would suggest reading more in depth and breath on the topic of military history, as your statement has the defect of being incorrect.
Post by: The Rabbi on September 07, 2007, 05:12:18 AM
Quote
Removing their training grounds (Afghanistan & Iraq)
Remarkably dishonest to conflate the two.Before accusing others of dishonesty, be sure to dispel your own ignorance. Saves you from having to be an adult and admitting you were wrong or using the "octopus method" of venting ink from your nether regions and desperately back-swimming to waters warmer to your position.
I predict we will see the latter approach.
Post by: Bogie on September 07, 2007, 05:18:24 AM
SAD when the leaders of the country are looking for short-term political gains instead of long-term strategies to ensure the country's security and well-being.
Post by: roo_ster on September 07, 2007, 06:03:00 AM
IIRC, most Republicans were against Clinton's adventurism in the Balkans. Yet both the Republican leadership and the vast majority of Republicans drank a nice, warm glass of STFU and supported our boys & girls once the decision was made and they were committed. How long have our troops been committed in the Balkans*? What is "victory," there? What is our exit strategy? How many accusations of abuse by our folks have the Republicans helped to promote and treat as a political football?
* After Clinton said they'd be out in ONE year. GWB never said it would be that easy in the ME.
Post by: wooderson on September 07, 2007, 11:34:19 AM
More argument by insinuation. You have no factual argument that Saddam DID NOT PLAY a role in attacks on American soil, or THAT HE DID NOT HAVE the desire and capability to do so in 2003.
Well, we know that he didn't have the desire and capability to do so because in the 12 intervening years, he never carried out any such attacks and was in worse shape by 2003 than in 1995. He had no WMD program, no legitimate military might, constant fear of losing his grip on the country and financial difficulties.As to the first line... proving a negative is impossible. That's why rational people discuss what is and can be proven.
I don't know what's more disturbing: that you believe policy arguments don't need a factual, provable grounding, or that you're the last person in America who genuinely believes that Saddam was behind 9/11. If I treat your fictions about how Saddam MIGHT have been behind 9/11, or MIGHT have attacked America (note, your MIGHTs were FACTs to start with - if not for invading Iraq, we WOULD have had another attack) as legitimate points, I might as well also listen to the people claiming Israel was behind it, or George Bush - or aliens, for Christ's sake.
Quote
And he sure was pretty free and easy with using weapons of mass destruction on both his own people and his neighbors..
Weapons of mass destruction that he no longer had, right?Now, when did he use these WMDs "on his own people" and "on his neighbors." Dates, please. I think they'll be... telling.
Post by: wooderson on September 07, 2007, 11:36:14 AM
Can I assume you've got no response to the rest of the post?
Don't mistake 'can't respond' with 'nothing worth responding to.' Your argument devolved into the standard solipsism of "well, he coulda!" You're right, he coulda done all kinds of things. And Martians coulda been behind 9/11. Should we treat the latter as a reasonable point of discussion?
Post by: wooderson on September 07, 2007, 11:41:38 AM
Quote
Uh, no. Both were terrorist training grounds. Terrorist training camps were found in both. Both were also known beforehand to operate these facilities. The USA might suck rocks at humint these days, but we do have decent satellites.
Covered, repeatedly. Saddam's 'terrorist' connections (including these vaunted training grounds cannot be shown to have ever been involved in attacks on American soil - you know, like that wacky 9/11 thing that started the War on Terra. It remains dishonest to conflate all terrorism with terrorism that poses a threat to our security. Or, I'll give the benefit of the doubt and say it's either dishonest or ignorant. Y'all can choose.
Post by: The Rabbi on September 07, 2007, 11:44:26 AM
Saddam had a WMD program. That was known both before and after the invasion. He had plans to continue it once sanctions were lifted. THere is no debate on this.
Again, it is a straw man to claim that he was not behind 9/11. No one (except you) ever said he was. What we do say is that he actively promoted terrorism for 30 years and had the means and desire to continue that and augment it with the WMD he was planning to develop (see above).
More argument by insinuation. You have no factual argument that Saddam DID NOT PLAY a role in attacks on American soil, or THAT HE DID NOT HAVE the desire and capability to do so in 2003.
Well, we know that he didn't have the desire and capability to do so because in the 12 intervening years, he never carried out any such attacks and was in worse shape by 2003 than in 1995. He had no WMD program, no legitimate military might, constant fear of losing his grip on the country and financial difficulties.As to the first line... proving a negative is impossible. That's why rational people discuss what is and can be proven.
I don't know what's more disturbing: that you believe policy arguments don't need a factual, provable grounding, or that you're the last person in America who genuinely believes that Saddam was behind 9/11. If I treat your fictions about how Saddam MIGHT have been behind 9/11, or MIGHT have attacked America (note, your MIGHTs were FACTs to start with - if not for invading Iraq, we WOULD have had another attack) as legitimate points, I might as well also listen to the people claiming Israel was behind it, or George Bush - or aliens, for Christ's sake.
Quote
And he sure was pretty free and easy with using weapons of mass destruction on both his own people and his neighbors..
Weapons of mass destruction that he no longer had, right?Now, when did he use these WMDs "on his own people" and "on his neighbors." Dates, please. I think they'll be... telling.
Post by: wooderson on September 07, 2007, 11:48:52 AM
Quote
Saddam had a WMD program.
I have a 'sleep with supermodels program.' Again, "Saddam coulda" is not relevant - "Saddam posed a legitimate threat to security" is. And what you can't argue - and what you dance around, is the latter.
Quote
He had plans to continue it once sanctions were lifted. THere is no debate on this.
When were these sanctions going to be lifted, again? Had they been in 2003? Quote
Again, it is a straw man to claim that he was not behind 9/11. No one (except you) ever said he was.
Bogie and others certainly seems to believe he was involved, and that barring 'regime change' we would have 'most certainly' had another 9/11.You seem to have missed that - the genesis of this entire string.
Quote
What we do say is that he actively promoted terrorism for 30 years
You left out the qualifiers again. Naughty naughty.
Post by: jnojr on September 07, 2007, 01:22:23 PM
It seems an article of faith, even among conservatives, that the Iraq War is lost, it is just a matter of time. Even if it isn't lost on the battlefield, it will be lost domestically.
But what if that's wrong?
What if the surge strategy actually works and the country is stabilized?
But what if that's wrong?
What if the surge strategy actually works and the country is stabilized?
That would be fantastic.
But it just isn't very likely. Iraq was only "stable" under the brutal dictatorship of Saddam Hussein, just as every other Middle Eastern Islamic nation is "stable" under strong, authoritarian governments. There is no sign that Western-style democracy can, or has ever, worked over there. Hell, look at what a train wreck it is for us... the US was never supposed to be a majority-rules democracy. Now that it is, we get more and more Socialism. And we want to visit the same thing upon the Iraqis?
I do not believe we've "lost" in Iraq. We won, three years ago. But there is no further victory for us. We are never going to "stabilize' Iraq. There is no sign that what we're supposedly doing is working. The puppet government we're propping up will collapse within a week of the withdrawl of our soldiers and money, and there is absolutely no sign that that is ever not going to be the case.
We should give the current Iraqi government a timeline for our withdrawl, and tell them what they need to have accomplished at each stage of that timeline. No, not "when you accomplish X, we'll do Y"... "You had good and goddamned better have accomplished X on this date, because we're doing Y, and you are the ones who'll have your heads on display in the public square if you screw this up"
An Iraq that collapses into civil war, foreign incursions, proxy warfar between Shi'a and Sunni, etc. would be really unfortunate, but it just isn't our responsibility. We've given Iraq almost 4000 American lives and nearly $500 billion. What more do we owe them?
Post by: The Rabbi on September 07, 2007, 01:33:31 PM
Quote
Saddam had a WMD program.
I have a 'sleep with supermodels program.' Again, "Saddam coulda" is not relevant - "Saddam posed a legitimate threat to security" is. And what you can't argue - and what you dance around, is the latter.
Quote
He had plans to continue it once sanctions were lifted. THere is no debate on this.
When were these sanctions going to be lifted, again? Had they been in 2003? Quote
Again, it is a straw man to claim that he was not behind 9/11. No one (except you) ever said he was.
Bogie and others certainly seems to believe he was involved, and that barring 'regime change' we would have 'most certainly' had another 9/11.You seem to have missed that - the genesis of this entire string.
Quote
What we do say is that he actively promoted terrorism for 30 years
You left out the qualifiers again. Naughty naughty.Good. So you admit that Saddam had the willingness to carry out an attack. You admit he had the means to do so. The only thing he didnt have was the opportunity. And it would have been foolhardy and irresponsible in the extreme to allow him time to get that opportunity.
Or do you think he was lacking any of these things?
Mere assertion is not argumentation, and you have been shown wrong on every post you've made.
And if you think Bogie believes Saddam was behind 9/11 then your reading comprehension skills are poor because he says no such thing.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 07, 2007, 01:50:14 PM
Can I assume you've got no response to the rest of the post?
Don't mistake 'can't respond' with 'nothing worth responding to.' Your argument devolved into the standard solipsism of "well, he coulda!" You're right, he coulda done all kinds of things.
You took one comment from me, and treated it as if it was my entire and only argument for the Iraq war. This happens a lot with your side. Or perhaps you didn't read the following, from the post that you responded to?
Quote from: fistful
To clarify, yes, any nation could be involved in terrorist attacks against us. But no one ever said that that alone was a good reason to invade a country.
I have not even begun to argue for the Iraq war. (And you might want to look up "solipsism.")But I wonder if you could help me with something. Can you quote anyone in this thread saying that Saddam was involved in terrorist attacks on U.S. soil?
Also, you seem to believe that a nation must attack us before we attack them. Why?
Post by: Bogie on September 07, 2007, 04:06:34 PM
Okay?
However, in all likelihood, he paid for someone to do so.
Does this mean that liberals now support murder for hire, as long as the folks being hired are discreet and deniable?
Post by: RevDisk on September 07, 2007, 06:17:20 PM
You also have political difficulties.
A Kurdistan is the last thing Turkey, an important ally in the region, wants. A divided and weak Iraq would be inviting to Iran, possibly leading to an annexation.
It isn't that the division plan doesn't have merit, I think it does. But it is a lot harder than snapping fingers.
A Kurdistan is the last thing Turkey, an important ally in the region, wants. A divided and weak Iraq would be inviting to Iran, possibly leading to an annexation.
It isn't that the division plan doesn't have merit, I think it does. But it is a lot harder than snapping fingers.
Best if I disclose something first. I'm biased towards the Kurds, as I spent time with them. Lemme put it this way, I have a huge Kurdish silk rug in my closet. They don't hand out the things like candy, yanno? I respect them because they've been fighting since 846 for freedom. They will not give up their quest for independence. Amusingly, Salah al-Dīn Yusuf ibn Ayyub (Saladin) was an Iraqi Kurd. He'd probably be proud of the fact that the modern Iraqi Kurds are getting their once enemy (the US) to build them shiney new infrastructure, kill their current enemies (Iraqi Sunni and Shiites) and give their enemies a unifying opponent to focus on so they can have time to build up their forces.
There's 11 to 15 million Kurds in Turkey. Conservatively, one in seven Turks are Kurds. Yea, Turkish Kurdistan would get nasty. It'd be the last section of Greater Kurdistan to be integrated, if ever. Iran I think would be open to the possibility of a fully autonomous Iranian Kurdistan. I could see them swapping Iranian Kurdistan for support in annexation of Iraqi *expletive deleted*it population.
Iraqi Kurdistan already exists. We don't quite officially recognize it, but we don't have much choice either. We don't have the manpower to properly suppress the Kurds. PR wise, a large part of our justification for occupation of Iraq was Saddam's genocide against the Kurds. If we crushed the Kurds for trying to be free, it'd be a hard sell. We alternate helping the Kurds and screwing them over. Granted, we usually screw them over by standing back and looking the other way as some other country pounds them flat. They are starting oil production independent of federal control in Baghdad. The Iraqi military is not suicidal enough to try to prevent this. With oil comes money. Money buys power.
I happen to agree basically completely with Phantom Warrior. I spent significant time in the former Yugoslavia. I agree that Balkanizing Iraq is our best chance. Dicey, risky and expensive. But far better odds than our current strategy. Give the Kurds their independence and the majority of their own oil revenue to keep them happy. Build a DMZ between the Sunni and Shiites. Forcibly segregrate them. Somehow work out an oil revenue sharing program. Enforce it at gunpoint.
Post by: RevDisk on September 07, 2007, 07:14:09 PM
Hussein didn't attack us. He had a personal alibi. He never went near the World Trade Centers.
Okay?
However, in all likelihood, he paid for someone to do so.
Does this mean that liberals now support murder for hire, as long as the folks being hired are discreet and deniable?
Okay?
However, in all likelihood, he paid for someone to do so.
Does this mean that liberals now support murder for hire, as long as the folks being hired are discreet and deniable?
Uh, even Bush admitted that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11.
"First, just if I might correct a misperception, I dont think we ever said at least I know I didnt say that there was a direct connection between September the 11th and Saddam Hussein." - President Bush, March 20, 2006 12:05 CT, FOX News
"No, we've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th," - President Bush, September 17, 2003
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/18/national/18BUSH.html?ex=1189310400&en=441fddd241c04883&ei=5070
You are aware that Saddam was a secular kind of dictator? Saddam and bin Laden hated each other. Both would have gladly killed the other if they could.
Post by: stevelyn on September 07, 2007, 07:37:02 PM
Iraqi army amassed and awaiting orders to cross the border to attack us......
HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHA.............................
This is Israel's proxy war that we were dumb enough to get sucked into.
Feith, Wolfowitz and Perle worked behind the scenes manipulating half assed intel and hiring PR firms to turn public opinion against Iraq enough to where the American gullibles would be beating their war drums demanding blood.
It's not a dem or rep issue since there's no different between the two.
Read "A Pretext For War: 9/11, Iraq and the abuse of America's Intelligence Agencies" by James Bamford. If you want to skip the dry reading, start on page 250.
First off, you obviously didnt comprehend my post.
Anyway, let's cue up the Protocols and play that tune.
The Israelis working through their agents in State and Defense and their Amen Corner in Washington convinced the President and his other advisors, as well as a majority in COngress (and the American people) to engage in a war which was patently unjustified and served only Israel's defense needs.
Yea. Right. Tin foil hats anyone?
I really didn't expect you to accept it. But the documentation and sources are there in the book for anyone that wishes to do the research on their own. You at least acknowledge the Amen Corner in Wash. DC.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 07, 2007, 07:43:24 PM
RevDisk, the Bush comments don't contradict Bogie. Bush is only saying that we don't have evidence of any involvement, and that he never claimed Saddam was "directly involved." Bogie seems to agree there is no evidence. That's why he keeps talking about "plausible deniability." And Bogie hasn't so far accused Saddam of direct involvement, or claimed that Bush did so.
You are aware that Saddam was a secular kind of dictator? Saddam and bin Laden hated each other. Both would have gladly killed the other if they could.
I understand that Saddam was no great hero of the faith. I think Bogie understands that, as well. And we all know that bin Laden was opposed to secular regimes such as Saddam's. But do you think he was so principled as to turn away assistance from Iraq? Why do you say that Saddam hated and would have killed bin Laden? Was this true even after 11 Sept.?
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 07, 2007, 07:45:30 PM
Hussein didn't attack us. He had a personal alibi. He never went near the World Trade Centers.
However, in all likelihood, he paid for someone to do so.
However, in all likelihood, he paid for someone to do so.
OK, now he's actually said what wooderson accused him of saying. Congratulations, wood, you're a mind reader.
Post by: roo_ster on September 07, 2007, 08:47:37 PM
Quote from: RevDisk
If we crushed the Kurds for trying to be free, it'd be a hard sell.
Understatement of the month.Quote from: RevDisk
You are aware that Saddam was a secular kind of dictator? Saddam and bin Laden hated each other. Both would have gladly killed the other if they could.
We have seen too many instances of *expletive deleted*it militants, sunni militants, and secular militants aiding each other for tactical advantage. What looked good on paper was not what was found in reality. If those powers still exist in Iraq when the US leaves, I bet there will come a reckoning.
Post by: Sergeant Bob on September 08, 2007, 06:12:52 AM
You are aware that Saddam was a secular kind of dictator? Saddam and bin Laden hated each other. Both would have gladly killed the other if they could.
I hear that all the time, from the same people who say Bin Laden, who hates the US, was created as a power by our support in Afghanistan. So, it appears he's not that choosy about where he gets his support from, as long as it helps him achieve his desired ends.
Post by: wmenorr67 on September 08, 2007, 08:04:06 AM
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 08, 2007, 10:34:12 AM
Post by: Bogie on September 08, 2007, 01:19:36 PM
What would you do if Joe el-Badgui over in that car dealership by the trailer park across town started spreading the word all over town that he wanted you dead. And that he wanted your family dead? Now you find out that Joe has been accumulating one heckuva gun collection, and is refusing to cooperate with authorities who are alarmed at his actions, and want to make sure that they're all where they're supposed to be. And suddenly a few of the trailer park lowlifes show up nicely armed, and do a drive-by on your house, killin' your dog in the process.
Wouldn't you start working at putting two and two together?
Or would you advocate writing a strongly-worded letter...
Sigh...
With Iraq, regardless, they were making a lot of noise. And they _were_ the strongest military outfit in the region. And we basically kicked their army's ass in a few days. Yes, there's some guerilla terrorists. But the people as a whole want them gone as much as they want us gone. If Iraq turns into a stabilizer, instead of a destabilizer, that's a good thing...
Funny... None of the liberals seem to mind about all the priceless religious artifacts that were destroyed in Afghanistan by the taliban nutjobs either... and they weren't even christian artifacts...
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 08, 2007, 01:39:00 PM
But some weird people prefer having a life. Whatever.
Post by: wooderson on September 08, 2007, 02:18:42 PM
But no, once any argument gets to the point where no one's saying anything, I don't generally continue. No one has even attempted to illustrate exactly how, had we not invaded Iraq in 2003 that we 'most certainly' would have had another 9/11. That's the first issue, the genesis of all this - and I'm not going to keep asking about evidence. All arguments have devolved to hearsay or confusing Afghanistan with Iraq (the former actually did make us safer and 'punished' the right people).
The secondary argument, that Saddam was a security threat to the United States in 2003, is also specious and headed nowhere. I want facts and evidence - not vague statements that he used WMDs once upon a time (when I was in, uh, kindergarten - maybe first grade?), or that in the fantasy world where sanctions were about to be ended he would have immediately regained WMD capabilities. If the justification for Iraq is going to revolve around security, someone actually needs to show that he posed a threat to our security.
Bogie's assertions in terms of Iraq/Saddam and 9/11 are amusing, but genuinely not worth responding to any more than the guys who (as referred to before) blame Israel or Dubya (or better, teh black helicopters!).
Post by: The Rabbi on September 08, 2007, 04:18:27 PM
Iraqi army amassed and awaiting orders to cross the border to attack us......
HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHA.............................
This is Israel's proxy war that we were dumb enough to get sucked into.
Feith, Wolfowitz and Perle worked behind the scenes manipulating half assed intel and hiring PR firms to turn public opinion against Iraq enough to where the American gullibles would be beating their war drums demanding blood.
It's not a dem or rep issue since there's no different between the two.
Read "A Pretext For War: 9/11, Iraq and the abuse of America's Intelligence Agencies" by James Bamford. If you want to skip the dry reading, start on page 250.
First off, you obviously didnt comprehend my post.
Anyway, let's cue up the Protocols and play that tune.
The Israelis working through their agents in State and Defense and their Amen Corner in Washington convinced the President and his other advisors, as well as a majority in COngress (and the American people) to engage in a war which was patently unjustified and served only Israel's defense needs.
Yea. Right. Tin foil hats anyone?
I really didn't expect you to accept it. But the documentation and sources are there in the book for anyone that wishes to do the research on their own. You at least acknowledge the Amen Corner in Wash. DC.
The documentation is there that the Jews are trying to control the world. It doesnt make it so.
Your post is pretty classic anti-Semitism. I've seldom seen a purer representation of it.
Post by: Bogie on September 08, 2007, 06:59:53 PM
Quote
he used WMDs once upon a time (when I was in, uh, kindergarten - maybe first grade?)
So, if Adolf Hitler, now the world's oldest man, scientifically kept alive by the results of infernal Nazi experiments, turns up, he should be given a pass because he did all that stuff before you were born?
Please. Go back to the student center, and hone the ol' debate skills a bit more.
As for the Jewish thing - if there were a vast Israeli conspiracy to control the world, and they were actually serious about it, pretty much every racist redneck would be dead by now...
Post by: Paddy on September 08, 2007, 09:37:16 PM
Post by: Phantom Warrior on September 09, 2007, 11:43:39 AM
Post by: The Rabbi on September 09, 2007, 12:24:48 PM
Another Iraq war thread has degenerated into "Bush said this, Bush said that." Good, we definitely don't have enough of those. Thank you to everyone that made this possible.
In some ways it was inevitable.Of course I started off with a supposition, that we won.
What I learned from this is that no matter what happens, some people will declare this a defeat. It doesn't matter if we stabilize the country and leave it the Switzerland of The Middle East, some people will moan about the "unacceptable cost" etc etc.
Truly snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
Post by: Bogie on September 09, 2007, 12:33:15 PM
If Bush accidentally stumbled across a cure for cancer, the democrats would blame him for overpopulation.
Post by: Gewehr98 on September 09, 2007, 12:37:06 PM
Quote
If Bush accidentally stumbled across a cure for cancer, the democrats would blame him for overpopulation.
Ain't that the truth!
Post by: wooderson on September 09, 2007, 01:17:12 PM
Quote
So, if Adolf Hitler, now the world's oldest man, scientifically kept alive by the results of infernal Nazi experiments, turns up, he should be given a pass because he did all that stuff before you were born?
Equating Hitler with Saddam. Nice. I'm sure that would go over like gangbusters with Holocaust survivors.Equating 'not invading' with 'giving Saddam a free pass.' That's just stupid.
Of course, perhaps I'm unaware here - when did we topple the German government specifically to pursue Nazis for crimes committed twenty years' past? That would be rather an odd change to history - given the post-war relationship between some Nazis and the West German government (and the CIA).
If toppling Saddam was a moral crusade akin to punishing the Holocaust (never mind that the Holocaust had not a damn thing to do with WWII...) - then what about North Korea, Darfur, Saudi Arabia, East Timor, etc. etc. etc. - there are dozens of horrific situations around the globe, oppression in all its forms, human rights abuses left and right. What makes Saddam special for you?
That's the problem with 'Saddam was a bad bad man' arguments: they don't pass any reasonable BS test. We don't have a policy of invading and occupation based on a country's leadership being 'bad bad men' - we occupy when our security is threatened. Now, some bleeding heart lefties might want to pursue war for human rights reasons, but there is no tradition of doing so - and it becomes a rather sticky issue of where one starts. Do you genuinely believe that Saddam in 2003 was a greater threat to his people than the Chinese or North Korean governments are to theirs? If not - why not start with those?
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 12, 2007, 02:16:35 PM
Post by: Bogie on September 12, 2007, 06:49:37 PM
I hope that the team that did the house that they found him in had a pack of crotch-eatin' K-9 attack poodles with 'em.
Post by: Len Budney on September 14, 2007, 04:59:35 AM
So, if Adolf Hitler, now the world's oldest man, scientifically kept alive by the results of infernal Nazi experiments, turns up, he should be given a pass because he did all that stuff before you were born?
Your analogy lacks one thing: When Hitler turns up, we decide that instead of arresting him, extraditing him, or even assassinating him, we'll just bomb the crap out of the corner of the world where he's found, and kill tens of thousands of his innocent neighbors. Apparently you advocate this?
--Len.
Post by: CAnnoneer on September 22, 2007, 07:08:35 PM
Post by: Paddy on September 22, 2007, 08:42:25 PM
I re-read Starship Troopers more recently. Maybe if we had more Dubois's in the school system, it would not be necessary to spend 5 pages of posts to try to convince the younger generation that 2+2=4.
Well, then win it. Either win it or withdraw. YOUR problem is you don't have the vaguest idea of what 'win' looks like. Neither does Bush.
Post by: CAnnoneer on September 22, 2007, 10:03:16 PM
Well, then win it. Either win it or withdraw. YOUR problem is you don't have the vaguest idea of what 'win' looks like. Neither does Bush.
I don't see where you get that conclusion.
For me, the "win picture" is a relatively stable reasonably democratic Iraq, which modernizes politically and economically, does not harbor terrorists, and resists the destabilizing religious and political influences of Iran and Saudi Arabia. I think that goal is achievable and it involves letting Iraqis take larger and larger control of their country and responsibility for its security. Yes, there are many problems, and it is not going to be easy, especially since the Iraqis have a lot of political maturation to do, but it is achievable.
It seems to me Bush has essentially the same vision, and curiously has been harping about it for quite a long time now. But nobody listens to him because he has insufficient charisma and an ostensibly weak character. Many people think he is a weakling because he is not as self-assertive as Reagan or that he is a moron because he is not as book-smart as McNamara. The reality is he is not a strong, dynamic, charismatic, energetic leader. He tries to be but he is not. So, although his message is fundamentally correct, people simply turn off the minute he opens his mouth. Then they say he has not formulated this or that. Well, if you ain't listening, you won't be hearing. The problem IS in your TV set.
The left cannot forgive him for beating their candidates or for making mistakes concomitant with the mantle of power. The right are often spineless and sacrifice their principles for "electability", because they feel they need to bamboozle enough independents and fence-sitters to get elected. Some of them secretly crave the approval of the leftist elite because of class ties, which is sad and pathetic IMO.
Post by: jeepmor on September 23, 2007, 12:32:58 AM
Quote
History being an indicator of the future. The guerillas always win.
I would suggest reading more in depth and breath on the topic of military history, as your statement has the defect of being incorrect.
I would suggest reading more in depth and breath on the topic of military history, as your statement has the defect of being incorrect.
Please point me to some good text and I'll dig into it. But as I see it over my lifetime, the guerillas have been winning purely because their resolve outlasts any political squabbling and the superpowers eventually just pull out. Superpowers have huge bureacracies with sides squabbling every little detail with each other in hopes of grabbing a little more power for their side. The insurgents could give a crap, they want us out, and until then, they simply keep shooting at us from the shadows and planting bombs along side the roads.
Iraq is a good example of a small insurgency having the resolve to keep the world's mightiest military at bay with small arms fire, RPGs and roadside bombs. Sure, we kicked Saddam's military's ass, but the common folk got tired of us and decided to start shooting, and they are not giving up, period. It's their country, they'll keep shooting until we leave. I don't see them ever stopping, especially with the likes of Russia feeding the resistance arms through the clandestine pipeline. They're getting their arms somewhere.
Before that, it was Afghani's keeping the Russians at bay while America was pleading with Russia that Afghanistan was "their Vietnam". Meanwhile, we were feeding the Afghani's weapons.
Please show me where we have stomped an insurgency into submission, for I don't see it in the examples stated. What, the Falkland Islands?
BTW - How many of you spend this much effort letting your elected representatives know how you feel. How many letters or e-mails does your congress critter get from you? Arguing with each other has rendered us exactly where, influenced exactly who? The handful of folks squabbling details here, what is that changing, what's the goal in all this. To say you won an argument, fine, you won. Me, I've been sending my reps letters about Iraq, Wiretapping and Illegal immigration. And most of you easily stomp my arguments to oblivion, fine. But your supporting the cause by sending letters to your reps right? I hope the hell you do, if not, get off this site for a while and get it done.
Don't get me wrong, I mean no disrespect, quite the opposite. However, I think there are more fruitful avenues to discuss your positions for many of you are solidly well backed with facts, know your history and current events, and pose some damn good arguments. That said, are they landing the laps of our decision makers? I really hope so, for you're much more articulate than I. Now, if you need to know anything about a jeep, I'm your man. I've spent more of my life on the technical side and basically ignored the political side until I got into guns and started delving into the freedoms and usurpations of such. I have a lot to learn in this arena and I thank you all for the bludgeoning I so often deserve.
Post by: roo_ster on September 23, 2007, 05:22:34 PM
If you just want accounts of Americans dealing with insurgencies, try Max Boot's Savage Wars of Peace.
Here are a few failed insurgencies from the top of my head:
1. EVERY American Indian tribe that I can think of that tried an insurgent campaign
2. Malaysian commies after WW2
3. Greek commies after WW2
4. Second Pali Intifada (first was negotiated away, but the second was met with force and the Palis pretty much cried uncle)
5. Spanish "Republicans" before WW2
6. Philippine Moros after the Spanish-American War
7. Barbary Pirates
8. Turkish pacification of the Balkans
9. A baker's dozen insurgencies in Africa & India quashed by the Brits
10. Another several score quashed by the Romans
11. The Confederacy
12. Warsaw ghetto
13. Countless slave rebellions over thousands of years
14. Viet Cong after Tet (S Viet Nam was conquered by the N Viet Nam Army, not the shattered remnants of the VC)
Well-disciplined regular troops can initially be knocked for a loop, but adapt and overcome, as history has shown. Those insurgencies that do succeed are exceptions and studied as to why they managed to succeed where most fail. Common threads are:
1. External support of rival great power
2. Insurgency eventually matures and fields a regular army in addition to the insurgents
3. Some level of support from the locals, though that level can be a small minority
Post by: Bogie on September 23, 2007, 07:34:41 PM
Quote
When Hitler turns up, we decide that instead of arresting him, extraditing him, or even assassinating him, we'll just bomb the crap out of the corner of the world where he's found, and kill tens of thousands of his innocent neighbors. Apparently you advocate this?
If those "innocent" neighbors are the ones hiding him, fine.
No aid and comfort to the enemy.
The terrorists in Iraq (I _really_ don't like the word "insurgent") are essentially engaged in a power play. They are saying "Make the Americans go away, and I will not blow up your markets."
Well, folks don't want the markets blown up, so... And they're scared of the terrorists, many of whom are NOT Iraqis...
Post by: RevDisk on September 24, 2007, 04:53:15 AM
If those "innocent" neighbors are the ones hiding him, fine.
No aid and comfort to the enemy.
The terrorists in Iraq (I _really_ don't like the word "insurgent") are essentially engaged in a power play. They are saying "Make the Americans go away, and I will not blow up your markets."
Well, folks don't want the markets blown up, so... And they're scared of the terrorists, many of whom are NOT Iraqis...
Uh. Most of the Iraqis are not pro-insurgency or pro-American. They want no part of any of it. Ask wmenorr67, he's in the position to give ya an earful about it.
I, and the US Army, see the difference between terrorists and insurgents. Terrorists are predominately the foreign fighters, not good people. They love killing US nationals. Insurgents are Iraqi nationals. Primarily, they're killing more of each other than US nationals. Very different breeds of bad guys. Lumping them together is a bad idea if you want to develop tactics and strategy.