What the Iraqis are Saying
alohacyberian
Voices of Citizens Have been Drowned Out by Naysayers
We know what the liberal media think. Hardly a night goes by when the CBC
doesn't run a sneering story about Iraq under U.S. control -- with a heavy
emphasis on the shootings and the power blackouts. These reports are
broadcast without irony by the CBC from Toronto, a city itself known for its
shootings and power blackouts.
So let us take a break from the "experts" in the media and hear from ordinary
Iraqis instead. The following voices all appeared in the media since the
liberation, but have been drowned out by the naysayers. Many more quotes from
real people, each meticulously documented, are available at
whitehouse.gov/iraq.
Some of the quotes are simple, some are eloquent, some are selfish, some are
enlightened. All have a precious innocence to them, a tentativeness, as if an
entire people, enslaved for a generation, is still not used to freedom and
not sure how to handle it. Here are a some of those voices:
"We felt better after the regime fell, now we are really happy -- we have
been freed from our nightmare."
~ Alaa' Kathem, an Iraqi soccer player whose team had been tortured for
losing games.
"We didn't believe these things, but we had to say them. Saddam was there in
all the books, even the math books."
~ Ghada Jassen, a Grade 5 teacher.
"For the first time, I feel really free."
~ Latif Yahia, Uday Hussein's former body double.
"We have full freedom to print anything we want. The coalition doesn't
interfere in our work." -- Ishtar el Yassiri, editor of a new satirical paper
Habez Bouz.
"The tension is reducing every day. We are seeing a change. People are
starting to realize the soldiers are not here to occupy Fallujah forever --
they're here to help us rebuild.
~ Taha Bedawi, mayor of Fallujah.
"We feel safer now because we used to hear lots of stories about girls. We
were so afraid to go out in case Uday saw us."
~ Farrah, a 15-year-old Iraqi girl.
"There's more opportunity, more chances to earn money."
~ Um Khalid, on life in Baghdad.
"The establishment of this council represents the Iraqi national will after
the collapse of the dictatorial regime."
~ Muhammad Bahr al-Ulum, a Shiite on Iraq's Governing Council.
"We can't train staff fast enough. People are desperate here for a neutral
free press after 30 years of a totalitarian state."
~ Saad al-Bazzaz, editor of the Azzaman Daily.
"I like free discussions. I talk about these issues with my families and
friends. This could never happen during the Saddam years."
~ Maha Abrahim, owner of a wedding dress shop in Baghdad.
"I will run for mayor. Because we have freedom."
~ Dhirgham Najem, a 23-year-old busboy in Najaf.
"They're buying them (satellite dishes) like they buy bread. They say they're
buying freedom."
~ Mohammed al-Mulla, a worker at an electronics store.
"Saddam would not allow us here; he would slay whoever came here. It's
freedom now!"
~ Salah Maadi Khafaji, swimming in a part of the Tigris River that had been
off limits to ordinary Iraqis.
"I couldn't teach the students the truth. I was unable to tell them that we
were ruled by a dictator. If I did, my neck would be on the line."
~ Wijda Khalidi, a school teacher.
"Before, if I had sold this, they would have cut my head from my body."
~ Imad Saad, selling a copy of an opposition-run paper.
Any one of these average Iraqis is more persuasive than a dozen cynics.
~ EZRA LEVANT, "Calgary Sun" 8/26/03
--
(-:alohacyberian:-) At my website there are 3000 live cameras or
visit NASA, play games, read jokes, send greeting cards & connect
to CNN news, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards or learn all
about Hawaii, Israel and more: http://keith.martin.home.att.net/
SteveR
<crR2b.116180$3o3.8...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"alohacyberian" <alohac...@att.net> wrote:
Given the general historic disposition of people that have been
liberated from totalitarian brutalities, one might find your collection
of quotes superflous.
How odd a time that we have people so ignorant of human nature that they
require quotes from the liberated as actual proof of the advantages of
liberation.
--
"The common good comes before the private good". --- Nazi slogan
"We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about
what is best for society".-- Hillary Clinton
alohacyberian
news:texdriver-01A92...@netnews.attbi.com...
It's a sign of the times, but, I think it's just more of the inbred
negativity of the Leftwing Liberal Pessimism Platoon. In spite of the best
efforts of the Liberal media, more and more word is reaching the rest of the
world that the media are lying to them about what the Iraqis and the
occupying soldiers are saying and feeling. KM
SteveR
<kXZ2b.116740$3o3.8...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"alohacyberian" <alohac...@att.net> wrote:
The media is losing the hearts and minds of the soldier through their
all-negative-all-the-time coverage.
An awful lot of reporters dream of the day they have enough pull to
bring down a president, or stop a war. Idealist activists in search of
glory, driven and callous to the standards of their profession.
Journalists are supposed to report, not report only that which supports
their worldview.
Chris Bellomy
: On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 08:26:56 GMT, "alohacyberian"
: <alohac...@att.net> wrote:
:
:
: >> Given the general historic disposition of people that have been
: >> liberated from totalitarian brutalities, one might find your collection
: >> of quotes superflous.
: >>
: >> How odd a time that we have people so ignorant of human nature that they
: >> require quotes from the liberated as actual proof of the advantages of
: >> liberation.
: >>
: >
: >It's a sign of the times, but, I think it's just more of the inbred
: >negativity of the Leftwing Liberal Pessimism Platoon. In spite of the best
: >efforts of the Liberal media, more and more word is reaching the rest of the
: >world that the media are lying to them about what the Iraqis and the
: >occupying soldiers are saying and feeling. KM
: ****Gasp**** You mean the liberal-biased media actually..........lied?
Pretty soon you guys are going to be convinced that the boxes
coming home with dead Americans in them are also products of
a pathologically liberal media.
There is nothing quite so surreal as watching you wingers
circle-jerk each other around the Usenet bonfire. The degree
to which you guys descend into fits of denial to continue
propping up your failed ideology borders on the psychotic.
Godwin's Law be damned: just about the only thing separating
you guys from Goebbels is your lack of fluency with German.
The mendacity, the pre-emptive false blame of your scapegoats
for allegedly doing what you do, the denial that things in-
convenient to your agenda might even have happened -- you
guys have all that down.
OK, I'll let you all get back to your Karl Rove pictorials now.
cb
Raptor
> The media is losing the hearts and minds of the soldier through their
> all-negative-all-the-time coverage.
>
> An awful lot of reporters dream of the day they have enough pull to
> bring down a president, or stop a war. Idealist activists in search of
> glory, driven and callous to the standards of their profession.
>
> Journalists are supposed to report, not report only that which supports
> their worldview.
Things going well is not news. Not here, not in Iraq.
And BTW, Thomas Friedman of the NY Times does take some time to note
what IS working, while properly excoriating Bush/Rumsfeld for screwing
the pooch in 90% of the details.
If this thing works out okay for the US, it'll be a minor miracle.
--
--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
"I'm not proud. We really haven't done everything we could to protect
our customers. Our products just aren't engineered for security."
--Microsoft VP in charge of Windows OS Development, Brian Valentine.
alohacyberian
> In article
> <kXZ2b.116740$3o3.8...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> "alohacyberian" <alohac...@att.net> wrote:
> > It's a sign of the times, but, I think it's just more of the inbred
> > negativity of the Leftwing Liberal Pessimism Platoon. In spite of the
best
> > efforts of the Liberal media, more and more word is reaching the rest of
the
> > occupying soldiers are saying and feeling. KM
>
> The media is losing the hearts and minds of the soldier through their
> all-negative-all-the-time coverage.
>
> An awful lot of reporters dream of the day they have enough pull to
> bring down a president, or stop a war. Idealist activists in search of
> glory, driven and callous to the standards of their profession.
>
> Journalists are supposed to report, not report only that which supports
> their worldview.
>
You're being very charitable to call the media's agenda of mind-control and
propaganda, "worldview". More and more people are distrustful of the media
and the media keeps digging their graves deeper. KM
alohacyberian
news:37nqkv4368c4ep7hu...@4ax.com...
> >> liberated from totalitarian brutalities, one might find your collection
> >> of quotes superflous.
> >>
> >> How odd a time that we have people so ignorant of human nature that they
> >> require quotes from the liberated as actual proof of the advantages of
> >> liberation.
> >
> >It's a sign of the times, but, I think it's just more of the inbred
> >negativity of the Leftwing Liberal Pessimism Platoon. In spite of the
best
> >efforts of the Liberal media, more and more word is reaching the rest of
the
> >world that the media are lying to them about what the Iraqis and the
> >occupying soldiers are saying and feeling. KM
>
> Seriously, SteveR has a good point. Quotes such as these should be
> accepted as the obvious. So why are the Baxter's, Homuth's,
> Shatzer's, Wingrump's, Mitchum's et. al. of the world still slamming
> the U.S. and the Bush administration while hysterically beating the
> anti-war drum?
> Ideological hypocrisy? You bet.
> I doubt that they will ever join mainstream America in rejoicing along
> with the Iraqi's.
> Maybe when they get slapped in the face with a Bush re-election
> victory in 2004 the crybaby bed-wetters will finally cease flapping
> their jaws with all the cynical pessimism.
> It's going to be sweeeeeeeeet. I promise to be gracious in
> victory.(maybe) ;-)
>
"Liberals want to be able to attack America without anyone making an issue of
it. Patriotism is vitally important--but somehow impossible to measure.
Liberals relentlessly oppose the military, the Pledge of Allegiance, the flag
and national defense. But if anyone calls them on it they say he's a kook
and a nut. Citing the unpatriotic positions of liberals constitutes
"McCarthyism".
~ Ann Coulter
alohacyberian
>
> If this thing works out okay for the US, it'll be a minor miracle.
>
The degree of success of the allies, to date, is already a major miracle and
90% of the Iraqis rejoice in it and will be thankful until the day they die.
How many Americans agree? We'll see on election day. KM
SteveR
Chris Bellomy <pu...@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
Would that be the failed" ideology which now has majority control of
federal government? Or would tht be the "failed" ideology that has
Republicans holding almost all elected positions in Texas?
Methinks you had better update your dictionary.
Raptor
>
> "Liberals want to be able to attack America without anyone making an issue of
> it. Patriotism is vitally important--but somehow impossible to measure.
> Liberals relentlessly oppose the military, the Pledge of Allegiance, the flag
> and national defense. But if anyone calls them on it they say he's a kook
> and a nut. Citing the unpatriotic positions of liberals constitutes
> "McCarthyism".
> ~ Ann Coulter
Anyone can imagine a monster and call it whatever they want. My
objection to the cunt isn't that she hates certain people with certain
ideas, it's that she's pinned the label historically applied to the
political philosophy I hold on her chimera. It's as if we just decided
to call child molesters "conservatives."
Raptor
> "Raptor" <m...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:3F4D8ABF...@attbi.com...
>
>>If this thing works out okay for the US, it'll be a minor miracle.
>>
>
>
> The degree of success of the allies, to date, is already a major miracle and
> 90% of the Iraqis rejoice in it and will be thankful until the day they die.
> How many Americans agree? We'll see on election day. KM
I can accept the proposition that overall, the second Iraq war is a
success so far. But knowing what I know of military and political
matters, it could be MUCH more successful in many ways. Bush has done
at least half of it wrong.
SteveR
Thomas <mau...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 08:26:56 GMT, "alohacyberian"
> <alohac...@att.net> wrote:
>
>
> >> Given the general historic disposition of people that have been
> >> liberated from totalitarian brutalities, one might find your collection
> >> of quotes superflous.
> >>
> >> How odd a time that we have people so ignorant of human nature that they
> >> require quotes from the liberated as actual proof of the advantages of
> >> liberation.
> >>
> >
> >It's a sign of the times, but, I think it's just more of the inbred
> >negativity of the Leftwing Liberal Pessimism Platoon. In spite of the best
> >efforts of the Liberal media, more and more word is reaching the rest of the
> >world that the media are lying to them about what the Iraqis and the
> >occupying soldiers are saying and feeling. KM
>
> ****Gasp**** You mean the liberal-biased media actually..........lied?
> I'm stunned (Not).
> Seriously, SteveR has a good point. Quotes such as these should be
> accepted as the obvious. So why are the Baxter's, Homuth's,
> Shatzer's, Wingrump's, Mitchum's et. al. of the world still slamming
> the U.S. and the Bush administration while hysterically beating the
> anti-war drum?
> Ideological hypocrisy? You bet.
> I doubt that they will ever join mainstream America in rejoicing along
> with the Iraqi's.
> Maybe when they get slapped in the face with a Bush re-election
> victory in 2004 the crybaby bed-wetters will finally cease flapping
> their jaws with all the cynical pessimism.
> It's going to be sweeeeeeeeet. I promise to be gracious in
> victory.(maybe) ;-)
More "dismal" polls on Bush :)
http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr030828.asp
The principal issue I have with the "antiwar" people is their
consistent inability to differentiate American interests from partisan
concerns.
Election or no, I feel it is not in our best interests as a nation to
project an indecisive, unpredictable front to the world in such
dangerous times. If the shoes were reversed, I would in no way vote for
a Republican presidential candidate who built a platform of reactionary,
unfocused denouncements in a time of war, with language identical to
that of the enemy.
At least Bill Clinton had the decency to back Bush up, but the identical
language from both sides of the aisle seems to have escaped the people
who seem to view GW Bush as the greatest enemy they've ever encountered.
And, on that note, I'll quote a letter to the editor of the FWST which
illustrates the bizarre fixation that seems to have infected mainstream
Democrats:
"Like many Americans, I watched in fear as George Bush was
inaugurated..."
Over the course of this century's birth, and the shattering realities of
a *declared war*, this poor bastard's ove-rriding fear seems to be the
two-party system. Damn, were we all so carefree.
=^.^=
>I can accept the proposition that overall, the second Iraq war is a
>success so far. But knowing what I know of military and political
>matters, it could be MUCH more successful in many ways. Bush has done
>at least half of it wrong.
the end of hostilities. casualties increase...
it isn't a war, or an occupation
it is a fucken duck shoot
alohacyberian
> alohacyberian wrote:
> > "Raptor" <m...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3F4D8ABF...@attbi.com...
> >
> >>If this thing works out okay for the US, it'll be a minor miracle.
> >
> > The degree of success of the allies, to date, is already a major miracle
and
> > 90% of the Iraqis rejoice in it and will be thankful until the day they
die.
> > How many Americans agree? We'll see on election day. KM
>
> I can accept the proposition that overall, the second Iraq war is a
> success so far. But knowing what I know of military and political
> matters, it could be MUCH more successful in many ways. Bush has done
> at least half of it wrong.
>
The person who actually does something will always be the one who bares the
brunt of the criticism. Doing something took a lot more guts than doing
nothing. KM
"There's not the least thing can be said or done, but people will talk and
find fault."
~ Miguel de Cervantes
alohacyberian
> alohacyberian wrote:
> >
> > "Liberals want to be able to attack America without anyone making an
issue of
> > it. Patriotism is vitally important--but somehow impossible to measure.
> > Liberals relentlessly oppose the military, the Pledge of Allegiance, the
flag
> > and national defense. But if anyone calls them on it they say he's a
kook
> > and a nut. Citing the unpatriotic positions of liberals constitutes
> > "McCarthyism".
> > ~ Ann Coulter
>
> Anyone can imagine a monster and call it whatever they want. My
> objection to the cunt
>
support their positions. No amount of money, influence or publicity could
possibly paint Leftwing Liberals in a worse light than they readily portray
themselves. They are their own worst enemas. KM
alohacyberian
> two-party system. Damn, were we all so carefree.
>
I'm pretty sure Americans in general are more concerned for America and
Americans than for any particular party. KM
alohacyberian
Updating a dictionary is of no value to those who insist on living in a world
of make-believe. KM
Rev. 11D Meow!
Tear their gonads out by the stem and see how well they pontificate!!!!
"alohacyberian" <alohac...@att.net> wrote in message
news:fUW3b.121089$3o3.8...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Skip
<alohac...@att.net> wrote:
>
>I'm pretty sure Americans in general are more concerned for America and
>Americans than for any particular party. KM
Hell, I just want a job.
----------------------------
We contemplate eternity
Beneath the vast indifference of heaven
- Warren Zevon
Raptor
> "Raptor" <m...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:3F4E80BD...@attbi.com...
>
>>alohacyberian wrote:
>>
>>>"Raptor" <m...@attbi.com> wrote in message
>>
> news:3F4D8ABF...@attbi.com...
>
>>>>If this thing works out okay for the US, it'll be a minor miracle.
>>>
>>>The degree of success of the allies, to date, is already a major miracle
>>
> and
>
>>>90% of the Iraqis rejoice in it and will be thankful until the day they
>>
> die.
>
>>>How many Americans agree? We'll see on election day. KM
>>
>>I can accept the proposition that overall, the second Iraq war is a
>>success so far. But knowing what I know of military and political
>>matters, it could be MUCH more successful in many ways. Bush has done
>>at least half of it wrong.
>>
>
>
> The person who actually does something will always be the one who bares the
> brunt of the criticism. Doing something took a lot more guts than doing
> nothing. KM
Tim McVeigh thought so, and Osama bin Forgotten thinks so too. My
criticism is more the how than the why. Bush is running this show like
it's Amateur Hour.
Raptor
> "Raptor" <m...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:3F4E8044...@attbi.com...
>
>>alohacyberian wrote:
>>
>>>"Liberals want to be able to attack America without anyone making an
>>
> issue of
>
>>>it. Patriotism is vitally important--but somehow impossible to measure.
>>>Liberals relentlessly oppose the military, the Pledge of Allegiance, the
>>
> flag
>
>>>and national defense. But if anyone calls them on it they say he's a
>>
> kook
>
>>>and a nut. Citing the unpatriotic positions of liberals constitutes
>>>"McCarthyism".
>>> ~ Ann Coulter
>>
>>Anyone can imagine a monster and call it whatever they want. My
>>objection to the cunt
>>
>
> Name-calling and personal slurs are the first sign of people's inability to
> support their positions. No amount of money, influence or publicity could
> possibly paint Leftwing Liberals in a worse light than they readily portray
> themselves. They are their own worst enemas. KM
I'm just more succinct in my name-calling than Ann Coulter is. Some of
us aren't paid by the word.
Raptor
>
> I'm pretty sure Americans in general are more concerned for America and
> Americans than for any particular party. KM
Our success in those nations is too important to sacrifice to politics.
I would much rather Bush pull his head out of his ass and start
conducting the Iraq and Afghanistan missions in their most effective
manner, and thereby gain re-election next year, than to see those
missions fail and a Democrat replacing him as a result.
I think what WILL happen is that Bush will be too slow to realize how
badly he's fucked them up, he'll lose the election, then a Democrat will
wade in to clean up the messes. I hope the situation is salvageable by
the time that happens.
Raptor
> On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 11:49:10 -0600, Raptor <m...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
>
>>alohacyberian wrote:
>>
>>>I'm pretty sure Americans in general are more concerned for America and
>>>Americans than for any particular party. KM
>>
>>Our success in those nations is too important to sacrifice to politics.
>> I would much rather Bush pull his head out of his ass and start
>>conducting the Iraq and Afghanistan missions in their most effective
>>manner, and thereby gain re-election next year, than to see those
>>missions fail and a Democrat replacing him as a result.
>>
>>I think what WILL happen is that Bush will be too slow to realize how
>>badly he's fucked them up, he'll lose the election, then a Democrat will
>>wade in to clean up the messes. I hope the situation is salvageable by
>>the time that happens.
>
>
> situation in Iraq and Afghanistan shows more spin then a Duncan Yo-Yo.
> Give us a break.
I already know neocons are disingenuous and easily amazed, so your
flattery gets you nowhere. As for getting a break, just be perfect -
simple as that. I expect no less from the opposing party when it's in
power.
> Iraq, one of the most stunningly successful military operation in
> history, accomplished in record time, with a minimal loss of both
> Iraqi civilian and American military casualties doesn't need
> "cleaning", steady progress towards the goals stated by the Bush
> administration i.e. Iraqi autonomy, true law and order IS being made.
> That's despite the cynical pessimism and outright lying of the
> Bush-bashing "anti-war" bedwetting crybaby crowd.
Yes, anyone criticizing the performance of Central Command is a fool.
They've done a superlative job of carrying out their orders. But above
& outside of Centcom is complete incompetence. Complete. Incompetence.
Can you name a single thing that the Office of the President, or the
Office of the Secretary of Defense, has done right regarding Iraq and
Afghanistan?
"Progress" is very hard to measure with the kind of terrorism that's
been done recently. Such "progress" in the US would be intolerable -
why should we expect the Iraqi people to feel different? And it's been
unforgiveably slow. What's the excuse for power and clean water being
so slow to show up? Saddam did a better job than we're doing, to hear a
lot of Iraqis talk.
It's a nice feat of deceptive footwork to spin the current hornet's nest
in Iraq as a crafty strategy to get the terrorists to fight "over
there." But it doesn't change the fact that Iraq's still getting busted
up, only it's not the Americans doing it. We're just the enablers this
time.
Where the HELL are the nation builders and peace keepers? They're at
home inside the borders of our former allies, and Shrub STILL won't lift
his finger off the Iraqi purse strings to make the necessary deal for
the assistance our forces need so badly. No, those profits are for
Halliburton.
(Such deals would not be needed if he didn't completely fuck up the
diplomacy leading up to the invasion.)
Time will tell, but there is little cause for optimism.
> As for Afghanistan, the Taliban is gone, Osama is hustling from cave
> to cave like the coward he is, and the Afghani people have much more
> freedom then they did under the former despots.
> Your analysis of the entire situation in the Middle East is so
> off-base, as to put into question not only your credibility, but your
> intelligence.
You are lying or ignorant. The Taliban is most certainly NOT gone.
Kabul is a pocket of order in the middle of chaos. The warlords are
still in charge, and Osama bin Forgotten's boys & former friends are
raiding with apparent impunity.
What Shrub SHOULD have done was reserve the force, cooperation of our
allies, and American credibility and prestige to really make Afghanistan
an example of the good that America can do, and let Saddam continue
twisting in the wind. Saddam was no threat.
Instead, he's remaining true to form: screwing up everything he touches.
Neal Atkins
>Saddam did a better job than we're doing, to hear a
>lot of Iraqis talk.
Ah, talked to a lot of Iraqis lately? Or are you listening to the
ABCNNBCBS "editorials"?
>It's a nice feat of deceptive footwork to spin the current hornet's nest
>in Iraq as a crafty strategy to get the terrorists to fight "over
>there." But it doesn't change the fact that Iraq's still getting busted
>up, only it's not the Americans doing it. We're just the enablers this
>time.
Yah, it would be MUCH BETTER to fight them on our shores, wouldn't it?
And at the current rate, in FIFTY YEARS we will have lost as many
troops as in Vietnam.
BTW, when are we going to pull out those OCCUPATION TROOPS from
Germany, Italy, Japan and Korea?
alohacyberian
> alohacyberian wrote:
> >
> > I'm pretty sure Americans in general are more concerned for America and
> > Americans than for any particular party. KM
>
> Our success in those nations is too important to sacrifice to politics.
>
those nations will be determined almost solely by politicians and
businesspeople. President Bush certainly will not make any effort to please
people who obviously would never support him - he's going to listen to those
who do. That's life. KM
alohacyberian
> >>
> >> I'm pretty sure Americans in general are more concerned for America and
> >> Americans than for any particular party. KM
> >
> >Our success in those nations is too important to sacrifice to politics.
> > I would much rather Bush pull his head out of his ass and start
> >conducting the Iraq and Afghanistan missions in their most effective
> >manner, and thereby gain re-election next year, than to see those
> >missions fail and a Democrat replacing him as a result.
> >
> >I think what WILL happen is that Bush will be too slow to realize how
> >badly he's fucked them up, he'll lose the election, then a Democrat will
> >wade in to clean up the messes. I hope the situation is salvageable by
> >the time that happens.
>
> situation in Iraq and Afghanistan shows more spin then a Duncan Yo-Yo.
> Give us a break.
> history, accomplished in record time, with a minimal loss of both
> Iraqi civilian and American military casualties doesn't need
> "cleaning", steady progress towards the goals stated by the Bush
> administration i.e. Iraqi autonomy, true law and order IS being made.
> That's despite the cynical pessimism and outright lying of the
> Bush-bashing "anti-war" bedwetting crybaby crowd.
> to cave like the coward he is, and the Afghani people have much more
> freedom then they did under the former despots.
> Your analysis of the entire situation in the Middle East is so
> off-base, as to put into question not only your credibility, but your
> intelligence.
>
I spent about 5 hours with a United States Marine who just returned from a
tour in Iraq. Over here, he's a military policeman and over there what he
witnessed on a daily basis is absolutely counterpoint to what the Western
media is presenting. In the last few months I've spoken to a number of Army,
Navy and Marine returnees from Iraq and all of them are in lock-step in their
reports and determinations. The media seeks out the one ten-thousandth of a
percent of the malcontents and leads us to believe that all the people there
are of like mind, when in fact they're in the distinct minority. KM
alohacyberian
> alohacyberian wrote:
> > "Raptor" <m...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3F4E80BD...@attbi.com...
> >>alohacyberian wrote:
> > The person who actually does something will always be the one who bares
the
> > brunt of the criticism. Doing something took a lot more guts than doing
> > nothing. KM
>
> Tim McVeigh thought so, and Osama bin Forgotten thinks so too. My
> criticism is more the how than the why. Bush is running this show like
> it's Amateur Hour.
>
LOL! You praise Timothy McVeigh and Osama bin Laden and desparage George W.
Bush. Go figure. KM
alohacyberian
Did it ever occur to you that Ann Coulter is paid because her words are worth
reading? If her words weren't worth reading, nobody would be buying her
books, now would they? KM
SteveR
<Dwi4b.120751$0v4.8...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"alohacyberian" <alohac...@att.net> wrote:
I will echo that assesment, based on the anecdotes of several returned
US Marines (including my son).
It boils down to this: Hundreds of people gave thanks and expressed joy
at their liberation every single day to these Marines. Offers of food
and lodging, and yes flowers - an admiration for the US Military and a
great co-operation from these people as these military people helped to
rebuild in ways great and small.
OTOH, there was a contingent of people who tried to kill the US military
on a daily basis. One must keep in mind that these same people were part
of the group that also terrorized and murdered the Iraqi people on a
daily basis over the past 30 years.
One can apply some logic here. If that logic is driven by available
fact, and not partisan loathing, it would appear that the enemies of the
US Military are also the enemies of the vast majority of the Iraqi
people.
On that basis, one can choose to asses the situation based on the
actions and desires of whichever group best makes their case. I choose
to view the vast majority of the liberated Iraqi people as more
representative than their historic victimizers.
Raptor
> On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 21:20:17 -0600, Raptor <m...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Saddam did a better job than we're doing, to hear a
>>lot of Iraqis talk.
>
>
> Ah, talked to a lot of Iraqis lately? Or are you listening to the
> ABCNNBCBS "editorials"?
It's several of the complaints I've heard from Iraqis quoted on American
press.
>>It's a nice feat of deceptive footwork to spin the current hornet's nest
>>in Iraq as a crafty strategy to get the terrorists to fight "over
>>there." But it doesn't change the fact that Iraq's still getting busted
>>up, only it's not the Americans doing it. We're just the enablers this
>>time.
>
>
> Yah, it would be MUCH BETTER to fight them on our shores, wouldn't it?
> And at the current rate, in FIFTY YEARS we will have lost as many
> troops as in Vietnam.
Tell it to the Iraqis. Changing the battlefield of the War on Terrorism
was not even hinted at as the reason to invade Iraq.
> BTW, when are we going to pull out those OCCUPATION TROOPS from
> Germany, Italy, Japan and Korea?
It could be pretty soon the way Shrub has over-deployed our forces. But
I don't see your point regardless.
Raptor
> "Raptor" <m...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:3F50E396...@attbi.com...
>
>>alohacyberian wrote:
>>
>>>I'm pretty sure Americans in general are more concerned for America and
>>>Americans than for any particular party. KM
>>
>>Our success in those nations is too important to sacrifice to politics.
>>
>
> Wild-eyed idealism is never going to accomplish anything. Our success in
> those nations will be determined almost solely by politicians and
> businesspeople. President Bush certainly will not make any effort to please
> people who obviously would never support him - he's going to listen to those
> who do. That's life. KM
I meant, our success in those nations is too important to sacrifice to
domestic politics. Like I said, I'd rather Shrub manages to straighten
out Iraq and thereby win the election, than Iraq be a failure and a
Democrat unseat him.
Raptor
> I spent about 5 hours with a United States Marine who just returned from a
> tour in Iraq. Over here, he's a military policeman and over there what he
> witnessed on a daily basis is absolutely counterpoint to what the Western
> media is presenting. In the last few months I've spoken to a number of Army,
> Navy and Marine returnees from Iraq and all of them are in lock-step in their
> reports and determinations. The media seeks out the one ten-thousandth of a
> percent of the malcontents and leads us to believe that all the people there
> are of like mind, when in fact they're in the distinct minority. KM
I, OTOH, do not have any friends who've recently "toured" Iraq. I've
noted that things going well isn't news, so there could be a lot of the
right things happening that we don't hear about. But there is enough
bad news from Iraq to leave a gloomy impression. Their interim
government seems to be struggling to lead, to boot.
I have been reading Thomas Friedman's (NYTimes) columns. He's been
there three times since the hot war. His assessment from the very
beginning (long before the invasion) has been right in line with mine,
so I trust his version. His opinion is that the situation is still
winnable, but it's very loseable too.
Raptor
> "Raptor" <m...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:3F50E27...@attbi.com...
>
>>alohacyberian wrote:
>>
>>>"Raptor" <m...@attbi.com> wrote in message
>>
> news:3F4E80BD...@attbi.com...
>
>>>>alohacyberian wrote:
>>>
>>>The person who actually does something will always be the one who bares
>>
> the
>
>>>brunt of the criticism. Doing something took a lot more guts than doing
>>>nothing. KM
>>
>>Tim McVeigh thought so, and Osama bin Forgotten thinks so too. My
>>criticism is more the how than the why. Bush is running this show like
>>it's Amateur Hour.
>>
>
>
> LOL! You praise Timothy McVeigh and Osama bin Laden and desparage George W.
> Bush. Go figure. KM
Silly you. I used very simple counter-examples to your shallow rhetoric
to disprove your point, whatever it was. Try stronger stuff next time.
It doesn't matter to me how gutsy Shrub is if the outcome is failure.
Raptor
> "Raptor" <m...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:3F50E2B3...@attbi.com...
>
>>alohacyberian wrote:
>>
>>>"Raptor" <m...@attbi.com> wrote in message
>>>>objection to the cunt
>>>
>>>Name-calling and personal slurs are the first sign of people's inability
>>
> to
>
>>>support their positions. No amount of money, influence or publicity
>>
> could
>
>>>possibly paint Leftwing Liberals in a worse light than they readily
>>
> portray
>
>>>themselves. They are their own worst enemas. KM
>>
>>I'm just more succinct in my name-calling than Ann Coulter is. Some of
>>us aren't paid by the word.
>>
>
>
> Did it ever occur to you that Ann Coulter is paid because her words are worth
> reading? If her words weren't worth reading, nobody would be buying her
> books, now would they? KM
All that says is that there are a lot of people who like to read
inflammatory garbage largely devoid of deep thought. We already knew that.
Raptor
> I will echo that assesment, based on the anecdotes of several returned
> US Marines (including my son).
>
> It boils down to this: Hundreds of people gave thanks and expressed joy
> at their liberation every single day to these Marines. Offers of food
> and lodging, and yes flowers - an admiration for the US Military and a
> great co-operation from these people as these military people helped to
> rebuild in ways great and small.
>
> OTOH, there was a contingent of people who tried to kill the US military
> on a daily basis. One must keep in mind that these same people were part
> of the group that also terrorized and murdered the Iraqi people on a
> daily basis over the past 30 years.
>
> One can apply some logic here. If that logic is driven by available
> fact, and not partisan loathing, it would appear that the enemies of the
> US Military are also the enemies of the vast majority of the Iraqi
> people.
>
> On that basis, one can choose to asses the situation based on the
> actions and desires of whichever group best makes their case. I choose
> to view the vast majority of the liberated Iraqi people as more
> representative than their historic victimizers.
There seems to be no doubt that the Iraqi people are generally grateful
(profoundly) to have been liberated from the regime. That's not really
the point. Very few argue that liberation from oppression is a bad
thing. Rather, the points are (among others) the means deployed to do
so, the effectiveness of those means, or the arbitrariness of the
decision to do so.
The justification for this war has changed completely, that I can see.
That says two things: it was not justified, and having been waged, the
people running it suck.
The original reasons for the invasion have largely evaporated:
1. Bush couldn't make the case for liberation for its own sake because
he'd have to answer to the dozens of other cases of oppressed people
left languishing because we can't or don't want to liberate them.
2. He couldn't suggest that by changing the venue for the war on
terrorism from the US and other allied countries to Iraq would increase
our security, because that would have been grossly unfair to the
long-suffering Iraqi people.
3. He couldn't argue that we needed to remove Saddam merely because he'd
used WMDs in the past. Actually, Bush tried that, and it worked on a
lot of people. But it was faulty because lots of nations have "had"
WMDs, lots have used them, and many of these nations are now peaceful
and cooperative. And of course, all those missing WMDs is the basic
reason we see the administration playing "limbo" with the goal posts.
Our inability to restore and maintain basic services wears on the
understandable and real gratitude of Iraq. I'd love to ask a bunch of
Iraqis how long their goodwill can last given the state of their nation.
Clearly, it can't last much longer. We have statements from the
Administration implying this. The Interim Authority said over a month
ago that we're running out of time, and Shrub's assertion last week that
"there will be no retreat" was damn startling, if you ask me. I really
didn't think the criticism of the war and reconstruction was that
strong. I don't recall many people actually suggesting that we should
pull out. It looked to me like a HUGE admission that the wheels are
falling off.
If the Bush Administration started giving our pissed-off allies enough
of what they wanted to get a strong multi-national / UN presence of
peace-keepers and nation-builders in Iraq, I'd have reason to be hopeful
and my criticism would be largely muted. I'd be left to complain about
the faulty justification for the war and the mess made in the interim -
yesterday's news.
SteveR
That's your decision to make. In my view, the justificcations never
changed, they were just added to until the desision practically made
itself.
Regime change became official policy in the previous administration. The
reasons are obvious - no matter what "legal bounds" were placed on
Saddam, the core problem was his clearly-stated goals, and the rightful
assumption that he would at first opportunity, resume that course.
The resolutions, and all the legal contraints which he so clearly
ignored gave us the means to effect official policy.
I often wonder what the comparison is for the view that it has all been
mishandled. All of that is based on hindsight, both on the part of the
administration and its critics. I would hardly expoect *Any*
administration to operate in the unattainable world of pure perfection
in an instance like this. Better yet we accept that mistakes have been,
and will be made - and that reality was not birthed by a change of
administration.
Like military plans, unforseen and unanticipated roadblocks will arise.
It is what we choose to do when those inevitable circumstances present
themselves. It is traditionally American to meet the challenge, make
whatever course adjustments are neccessary, and press on with the sense
of mission undiluted. This is a major element of our success as a
country, and will be *the* deciding factor in whether this attempt to
redirect a dangerous region is a monumental waste of lives, money and
effort, or whether the basics of human freedoms are realized.
There are many that desperatly want our efforts to fail, and one can see
some predictable alliances forming - it is thee alliances that the
totalitarians are eager to exploit. They know full well how to defeat
America, they are well aware they cannot defeat a unified and determined
country, their intent and methods are well-stated. Divide and conquer
is historically successful.
Will it be in this case? When they state that their path to victory is
to demoralize the majority of American people, they can only be
encouraged by the tide of voices that declare "you have successfully
demoralized us".
That, simply put, is surrender.
>
> The original reasons for the invasion have largely evaporated:
>
> 1. Bush couldn't make the case for liberation for its own sake because
> he'd have to answer to the dozens of other cases of oppressed people
> left languishing because we can't or don't want to liberate them.
>
> 2. He couldn't suggest that by changing the venue for the war on
> terrorism from the US and other allied countries to Iraq would increase
> our security, because that would have been grossly unfair to the
> long-suffering Iraqi people.
>
> 3. He couldn't argue that we needed to remove Saddam merely because he'd
> used WMDs in the past. Actually, Bush tried that, and it worked on a
> lot of people. But it was faulty because lots of nations have "had"
> WMDs, lots have used them, and many of these nations are now peaceful
> and cooperative. And of course, all those missing WMDs is the basic
> reason we see the administration playing "limbo" with the goal posts.
>
> Our inability to restore and maintain basic services wears on the
> understandable and real gratitude of Iraq.
Think less in terms of "rebuilding", because we made every effort to
spare infrastructure during the war. THe reality is that we are
"building" what a totalitarian regime had efficiently destroyed. IF we
are "rebuilding" anything, it is what the remnants of that regime
destroy after we have built it.
> I'd love to ask a bunch of
> Iraqis how long their goodwill can last given the state of their nation.
You make the assumption that this process of building a new country and
a new reality for the victims of a despot is destined to fail, or at the
least, fail to measurably proceed.
Reality in Iraq shows that the process is working, regardless of the
efforts of the resistance to destroy the future of the majority - and it
is proceeding at a pace that is quite remarkable and unprecedented.
Like the invasion itself, a new standard has been set for the process.
> Clearly, it can't last much longer. We have statements from the
> Administration implying this. The Interim Authority said over a month
> ago that we're running out of time, and Shrub's assertion last week that
> "there will be no retreat" was damn startling, if you ask me. I really
> didn't think the criticism of the war and reconstruction was that
> strong. I don't recall many people actually suggesting that we should
> pull out. It looked to me like a HUGE admission that the wheels are
> falling off.
An affirming statement of goals is an indication of inevitable failure???
I believe a simple statement like that in the face of efforts to derail
the process would be much more re-assuring to the Iraqi people than a
statement indicating we may abandon the effort.
>
> If the Bush Administration started giving our pissed-off allies enough
> of what they wanted to get a strong multi-national / UN presence of
> peace-keepers and nation-builders in Iraq, I'd have reason to be hopeful
> and my criticism would be largely muted. I'd be left to complain about
> the faulty justification for the war and the mess made in the interim -
> yesterday's news.
I have an opposite take on this "pissed-off allies" thing. IN my
estimation, it is they who failed, not us. It is they who sought to keep
the Iraqi people in misery fopr their own gain. This includes the UN.
I presume you are aware that the Iraqi people do not consider the
western Europen nations and the UN any sort of friend. Why should they?
To do so would fly in the face of logic.
Why should those that enabled a murdering totalitarian to continue his
ways be held to some standard that supposes we need to mollify their
anger towards us for doing the right thing?
On that note, I'll leave you with something I picked up on
instapundit.com that may better make my point::
----
THIS IS INTERESTING: A reader from Iraq emails that the U.S. authorities
are distributing leaflets offering rewards for turning in saboteurs.
Apparently, some Iraqis have added a sticker reading as follows
(translated):
Iraq is for Iraqis
Arab national should leave Iraq
If they don't they will bear the consequences
The Iraqi people won't tolerate their remaining here.
Gee, you think this mosque-bombing stuff could be backfiring?
-----
That sums it up. It is not a case of US vs. Aabs, US versus Iraqis, it
is a case of the strong horse Osama alluded to. If we are not the strong
horse, the brutal minority will be. And if we abandon the majority to
the brutal minority, we will not have only sealed our *own* doom, we
will have richly deserved and engineered our own demise.
SteveR
Thomas <mau...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Superbly put Steve. I was going to respond more to the pessimistic
> and negative gloom and doomers, but with your slam dunk of a fantastic
> post, no need.
>
At some point, the major US media will switch gears, simply because the
scope of success of this initiative will no longer be deniable.
They need to save face, having had so many dire yet unrealized
scenarios. But, in the end, they will find that the richest story is the
incredible birthing of human freedoms.
That is the real story - not the fact that one patrol of over one
thousand was attacked, and the smart journos will figure that out and
tell the real story. When they do, they will bring honor to those who's
deaths they slobbered over in an effort to advance their own ideoligical
agendas. I can only hope they feel a sense of shame, but having been in
the business, I suspect most won't. Most of them are mindless whores.
Were I an editor, I would direct my field reporters to focus on the real
story - liberation.
SteveR
Thomas <mau...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Coulter, like Limbaugh and Hannity et. al. scare the beejeesus out of
> the crybaby bedwetters of the left because of the fact that their
> views are so much more compelling to the American people than the
> childish rantings of the Michael Moore's and Al Franken's of the
> world. That fact forces the realization that their own personal views
> are misguided and unsupportable on them. Their discomfort with that
> realization, despite their impassioned and vitriolic protestations to
> the contrary is so obvious it's kind of amusing.
> I am going to enjoy 2004 sooooo much. ;-)
>
Michael Moore is a propogandist. Ann Coulter is a highly skillled and
very insightful observer. Both are entertaining as well.
Raptor
The non-appearance of the WMDs really knocked the administration for a
loop. I was one of few people in this country, apparently, who actually
thought Saddam would/could see the writing on the wall and eliminated
his WMDs. There is evidence that he did just that, but the neocons had
a simple-minded view of the matter.
> Regime change became official policy in the previous administration. The
> reasons are obvious - no matter what "legal bounds" were placed on
> Saddam, the core problem was his clearly-stated goals, and the rightful
> assumption that he would at first opportunity, resume that course.
>
> The resolutions, and all the legal contraints which he so clearly
> ignored gave us the means to effect official policy.
If we had acted within the framework of international law - the unwieldy
process the United Nations laid before us - then we could continue to
claim the blessings of legality. As it is, the usual peaceniks who carp
reliably about the illegality of any war have a case this time. It
would also have made the reconstruction so much cleaner and easier.
> I often wonder what the comparison is for the view that it has all been
> mishandled. All of that is based on hindsight, both on the part of the
> administration and its critics. I would hardly expoect *Any*
> administration to operate in the unattainable world of pure perfection
> in an instance like this. Better yet we accept that mistakes have been,
> and will be made - and that reality was not birthed by a change of
> administration.
No! The criticisms are NOT (all) based on hindsight. I said all along
(google it) that this was a bad idea. There were quite a few people
saying that. I believe I noted specific reasons for why it was a bad
idea, and the lack of planning might have been one of them.
I saw the lack of post-war planning from the very beginning, and was
greatly disquieted! Who's going to fix what we break? "The Iraqi
people," according to the CiC. I was reminded of that cartoon we've all
(most of us) seen, depicting blackboards of equations with a box at the
end reading, "Then a miracle happens." There was NO apparent planning
for the "after." I fully expected a second wave of MPs, civil engrs.,
public affairs, humanitarian workers, on the heels of the combat wave.
It wasn't there, and I didn't see it mentioned in any of the talking
about the plans.
When Turkey threw a wrench into our plans, I mean Good God! Why the
hell didn't that give the prez pause? He just proceeded "full speed
ahead." What was so damn important about the end of March? (I'd say
more but want to refrain from beating a dead horse.)
> Like military plans, unforseen and unanticipated roadblocks will arise.
> It is what we choose to do when those inevitable circumstances present
> themselves. It is traditionally American to meet the challenge, make
> whatever course adjustments are neccessary, and press on with the sense
> of mission undiluted. This is a major element of our success as a
> country, and will be *the* deciding factor in whether this attempt to
> redirect a dangerous region is a monumental waste of lives, money and
> effort, or whether the basics of human freedoms are realized.
>
> There are many that desperatly want our efforts to fail, and one can see
> some predictable alliances forming - it is thee alliances that the
> totalitarians are eager to exploit. They know full well how to defeat
> America, they are well aware they cannot defeat a unified and determined
> country, their intent and methods are well-stated. Divide and conquer
> is historically successful.
>
> Will it be in this case? When they state that their path to victory is
> to demoralize the majority of American people, they can only be
> encouraged by the tide of voices that declare "you have successfully
> demoralized us".
>
> That, simply put, is surrender.
Which is why I am alarmed (as usual by this president) by Bush's "bold"
assertion that retreat is not an option. I'm like, who the hell said
anything about RETREAT? Pull your head out of your ass and start doing
it right, man!
>>The original reasons for the invasion have largely evaporated:
>>
>>1. Bush couldn't make the case for liberation for its own sake because
>>he'd have to answer to the dozens of other cases of oppressed people
>>left languishing because we can't or don't want to liberate them.
>>
>>2. He couldn't suggest that by changing the venue for the war on
>>terrorism from the US and other allied countries to Iraq would increase
>>our security, because that would have been grossly unfair to the
>>long-suffering Iraqi people.
>>
>>3. He couldn't argue that we needed to remove Saddam merely because he'd
>>used WMDs in the past. Actually, Bush tried that, and it worked on a
>>lot of people. But it was faulty because lots of nations have "had"
>>WMDs, lots have used them, and many of these nations are now peaceful
>>and cooperative. And of course, all those missing WMDs is the basic
>>reason we see the administration playing "limbo" with the goal posts.
>>
>>Our inability to restore and maintain basic services wears on the
>>understandable and real gratitude of Iraq.
>
>
> Think less in terms of "rebuilding", because we made every effort to
> spare infrastructure during the war. THe reality is that we are
> "building" what a totalitarian regime had efficiently destroyed. IF we
> are "rebuilding" anything, it is what the remnants of that regime
> destroy after we have built it.
The institions of government and society (many of them) were destroyed.
That's what "regime change" is all about. Hence, "rebuilding" is the
word. As for infrastructure, where's their electricity, again? It was
there until about a week before the war ended.
>>I'd love to ask a bunch of
>>Iraqis how long their goodwill can last given the state of their nation.
>
>
> You make the assumption that this process of building a new country and
> a new reality for the victims of a despot is destined to fail, or at the
> least, fail to measurably proceed.
Any prudent planner must entertain the assumption of failure in order to
meet and thwart it. Heck, you need to look at worst-case just to budget
if nothing else. I see none of this going on by our alleged leadership.
Worst-case planning or budgeting, I point out. Rummie is always
"everything's coming up roses."
> Reality in Iraq shows that the process is working, regardless of the
> efforts of the resistance to destroy the future of the majority - and it
> is proceeding at a pace that is quite remarkable and unprecedented.
>
> Like the invasion itself, a new standard has been set for the process.
Of course the progress is unprecedented, the whole thing is unprecedented.
One Iraqi comment I heard was (something like), "Saddam had the
electricity back on a week after the first war. These people (the
Americans) can't do it in three months?" How long do we have to wait
before Iraq's borders become kind-of secure again? Media convoys are
still being robbed by gangs on the main road. Etc.
I would have been more comfortable about this escapade if we HAD a
schedule of some sort, something that said, "We want X to happen by Y."
AFAIC see, there's nothing like this anywhere.
>> Clearly, it can't last much longer. We have statements from the
>>Administration implying this. The Interim Authority said over a month
>>ago that we're running out of time, and Shrub's assertion last week that
>>"there will be no retreat" was damn startling, if you ask me. I really
>>didn't think the criticism of the war and reconstruction was that
>>strong. I don't recall many people actually suggesting that we should
>>pull out. It looked to me like a HUGE admission that the wheels are
>>falling off.
>
>
> An affirming statement of goals is an indication of inevitable failure???
>
> I believe a simple statement like that in the face of efforts to derail
> the process would be much more re-assuring to the Iraqi people than a
> statement indicating we may abandon the effort.
In the political world where appearances are paramount, where every word
from the president is read into, such a statement at this time is an
acknowledgement of big problems as well as resolve. AT this point, I'm
not confident that Bush IS wise enough to see this through, given the
mistakes he's made to date.
>>If the Bush Administration started giving our pissed-off allies enough
>>of what they wanted to get a strong multi-national / UN presence of
>>peace-keepers and nation-builders in Iraq, I'd have reason to be hopeful
>>and my criticism would be largely muted. I'd be left to complain about
>>the faulty justification for the war and the mess made in the interim -
>>yesterday's news.
>
>
> I have an opposite take on this "pissed-off allies" thing. IN my
> estimation, it is they who failed, not us. It is they who sought to keep
> the Iraqi people in misery fopr their own gain. This includes the UN.
Your take is wrong wrong wrong and I am baffled as to how anyone can
maintain it given the facts. At the very least, you can't say France et
al weren't fully prepared to support the invasion if Bush had given the
inspectors their requested additional time. It wasn't tried, for
downright childish reasons: "No-no-no, we've waited twelve years and we
want our war NOW!"
> I presume you are aware that the Iraqi people do not consider the
> western Europen nations and the UN any sort of friend. Why should they?
> To do so would fly in the face of logic.
My sense is they have the same kind of ambivalent opinion that they held
for Saddam. (He "defeated" the great America, and they respected that,
but he sucked big time.) The UN HAS been there all along providing
basic needs. They're not going to bite the hands that feed them.
Grouse about 'em, yes.
> Why should those that enabled a murdering totalitarian to continue his
> ways be held to some standard that supposes we need to mollify their
> anger towards us for doing the right thing?
The UN didn't enable *our* tyrant, so we don't have a bone to pick with
them. They were just doing things the same old way - slowly and
deliberately. It's worked, or been the closest thing to working, in the
past many times. This president was just too impatient to work it.
Why should *we* "mollify" their anger toward us? Simply because we NEED
their help, and Iraq NEEDS their help. Failure to work with the allies
that he pissed off from the very beginning is just one more example of
Bush's childishness.
> On that note, I'll leave you with something I picked up on
> instapundit.com that may better make my point::
>
> ----
>
> THIS IS INTERESTING: A reader from Iraq emails that the U.S. authorities
> are distributing leaflets offering rewards for turning in saboteurs.
> Apparently, some Iraqis have added a sticker reading as follows
> (translated):
>
> Iraq is for Iraqis
> Arab national should leave Iraq
> If they don't they will bear the consequences
> The Iraqi people won't tolerate their remaining here.
>
> Gee, you think this mosque-bombing stuff could be backfiring?
>
> -----
>
>
> That sums it up. It is not a case of US vs. Aabs, US versus Iraqis, it
> is a case of the strong horse Osama alluded to. If we are not the strong
> horse, the brutal minority will be. And if we abandon the majority to
> the brutal minority, we will not have only sealed our *own* doom, we
> will have richly deserved and engineered our own demise.
I remind you that I'm not supporting retreat. Hell no. I simply expect
the president to start acting somewhat intelligently for a change.
Raptor
> On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 10:58:37 -0600, Raptor <m...@attbi.com> wrote:
>>I have been reading Thomas Friedman's (NYTimes) columns. He's been
>>there three times since the hot war. His assessment from the very
>>beginning (long before the invasion) has been right in line with mine,
>>so I trust his version. His opinion is that the situation is still
>>winnable, but it's very loseable too.
>
>
> because not only is it from someone who is in Iraq, but also from
> someone in a position to know that the situation isn't all of the doom
> and gloom as portrayed in mediums like the "NY Times". I hope you
> find it helpful in a possible re-assessment of your "views".
>
>
>
> Editor's Note: This is an open letter from U.S. Army Maj. Eric Rydbom
> in Iraq
> to the First Lutheran Church of Richmond Beach in Shoreline, Wash.
> Rydbom is
> Deputy Division Engineer of the 4th Infantry Division.
I read it earlier, yes. I really wonder what's going to win out in the
end: the slow progress toward civilization, or the guys bombing UN
headquarters and oil pipelines and killing ethnic leaders? Will the dam
break before we patch it? Given that currently, nothing's stopping
every Osama wannabe from "invading" Baghdad, it's unknowable. Given
that there are definite steps we could take to improve the security and
civilization situation there, that we're not taking, it's a travesty of
leadership.
Raptor
> The convoluted logic, twisted facts and the detritus they utilize to
> justify their terrorist-apologist rantings is actually quite amusing,
> and the rooster will come home to roost in 2004. To tell the
> truth.......I can't wait. ;-)
FWIW, I look forward to a return to reason in the White House. Give me
a philanderer who actually knows how to run a country any day!
Raptor
> At some point, the major US media will switch gears, simply because the
> scope of success of this initiative will no longer be deniable.
Remember, things going well is not news. I actually thought that the
lack of news from Afghanistan was a sign that things might be going well
there, but sadly, it was just pushed off by the administration's Iraq
pageant, and there's now too much "news" coming out of that country as well.
> They need to save face, having had so many dire yet unrealized
> scenarios. But, in the end, they will find that the richest story is the
> incredible birthing of human freedoms.
>
> That is the real story - not the fact that one patrol of over one
> thousand was attacked, and the smart journos will figure that out and
> tell the real story. When they do, they will bring honor to those who's
> deaths they slobbered over in an effort to advance their own ideoligical
> agendas. I can only hope they feel a sense of shame, but having been in
> the business, I suspect most won't. Most of them are mindless whores.
>
> Were I an editor, I would direct my field reporters to focus on the real
> story - liberation.
And you'd be turned down by Fox News, which already has a staff working
that story. :-) Of course, they still employ Geraldo, so if you had any
sense of journalistic ethics, you wouldn't even apply.
SteveR
> SteveR wrote:
> >
> > That's your decision to make. In my view, the justificcations never
> > changed, they were just added to until the desision practically made
> > itself.
>
> The non-appearance of the WMDs really knocked the administration for a
> loop. I was one of few people in this country, apparently, who actually
> thought Saddam would/could see the writing on the wall and eliminated
> his WMDs. There is evidence that he did just that, but the neocons had
> a simple-minded view of the matter.
So, where is the downside?
Saddam clandestinely destroys the weapons, but in a moment of sheer
genius, neglects to tell anyone leading to his ouster and the liberation
of his victims.
Weapons gone, regime gone, people liberated. Game, set, match.
> >
> > The resolutions, and all the legal contraints which he so clearly
> > ignored gave us the means to effect official policy.
>
> If we had acted within the framework of international law - the unwieldy
> process the United Nations laid before us - then we could continue to
> claim the blessings of legality. As it is, the usual peaceniks who carp
> reliably about the illegality of any war have a case this time. It
> would also have made the reconstruction so much cleaner and easier.
Involving the UN does not at all make things cleaner and easier. They
tend to get in the way.
Remember, it is primarily a collection of nations with dismal rights
records which actually rewards terrorism and exists today primarily as a
vehicle for despots to hobble the US.
If they had any actual membership standards vis a vis human rights,
freedoms, etc - they could meet in a coffee shop rather than that huge
building.
As for "international law" - keep in mind that the adherence to this
self-proclaimed "law" is voluntary (ask the French and Bill Clinton).
Bush chose to involve the UN to give them a chance to do something about
Saddam, who had ignored "international law" for quite some time with no
real consequence. The UN chose to protect the profits of the status quo
while trying to have it both ways - kepping US troops on the border
presumably in perpetuity while reaping enormous profits by keeping him
in power.
Not to mention the blind eye they had concerning his human rights abuses.
In short, the UN is an immoral, dysfunctional collection of money and
power-grubbing whack jobs, and when Bush took them out of the loop, he
did absolutely the correct thing. If the UN doesn't like it, let them
issue a new resolution or condemnation every year or so - that'll make
'em feel useful.
>
> > I often wonder what the comparison is for the view that it has all been
> > mishandled. All of that is based on hindsight, both on the part of the
> > administration and its critics. I would hardly expoect *Any*
> > administration to operate in the unattainable world of pure perfection
> > in an instance like this. Better yet we accept that mistakes have been,
> > and will be made - and that reality was not birthed by a change of
> > administration.
>
> No! The criticisms are NOT (all) based on hindsight. I said all along
> (google it) that this was a bad idea. There were quite a few people
> saying that. I believe I noted specific reasons for why it was a bad
> idea, and the lack of planning might have been one of them.
Everyone was/is an armchair Commander-in-Chief, and when plans go awry
in any area, someone is bound to have had a "better" plan upfront to
avoid the mistake.
As it is, one must consider what *didn't* go wrong, when so many dire
scenariios were predicted. Mass Casualties, humanitarian crisis, mass
refugees - evn chemical warfare with the weapons he "didn't have".
Given the tremendous strides we have made in these few months, our
efforts are truly amazing in the context of history.
> I saw the lack of post-war planning from the very beginning, and was
> greatly disquieted! Who's going to fix what we break? "The Iraqi
> people," according to the CiC. I was reminded of that cartoon we've all
> (most of us) seen, depicting blackboards of equations with a box at the
> end reading, "Then a miracle happens." There was NO apparent planning
> for the "after." I fully expected a second wave of MPs, civil engrs.,
> public affairs, humanitarian workers, on the heels of the combat wave.
> It wasn't there, and I didn't see it mentioned in any of the talking
> about the plans.
There could have been better planning in areas. That is the nature of
such a huge undertaking. As in all aspects of planning anything, not
everything goes according to plan - in which case you readjust to meet
the unforseen or poorly-planned for.
No matter the plan or who makes the plan, all plans are subject to
miscalls. It's the big picture that counts.
> When Turkey threw a wrench into our plans, I mean Good God! Why the
> hell didn't that give the prez pause? He just proceeded "full speed
> ahead." What was so damn important about the end of March? (I'd say
> more but want to refrain from beating a dead horse.)
Heat.
My son has had three depolyments there, including the invasion. The heat
is a serious detriment to military operations.
Not to mention even more time for Saddam to dig in his forces and ready
for the invasion.
> >
> > Will it be in this case? When they state that their path to victory is
> > to demoralize the majority of American people, they can only be
> > encouraged by the tide of voices that declare "you have successfully
> > demoralized us".
> >
> > That, simply put, is surrender.
>
> Which is why I am alarmed (as usual by this president) by Bush's "bold"
> assertion that retreat is not an option. I'm like, who the hell said
> anything about RETREAT? Pull your head out of your ass and start doing
> it right, man!
What would you have him say, when we have a domestic collection of
shrill voices who declare QUAGMIRE with every military casualty. The
enemy has CNN, and they know they have allies in the US who are behaving
precisely as predicted. American leftists are an asset to the Baathists
and Islamists, and they have said so many times.
Perhaps that statement from Bush was directed at the locals, as well as
the enemy - in any event, I'm not quite sure why you find his
reassurance to a skeptical populationin Iraq that we plan to stay the
course. After all, these people know their history: Kurds, Vietnamese,
Cambodians - millions slaughtered because we chose retreat.
> >
> > Think less in terms of "rebuilding", because we made every effort to
> > spare infrastructure during the war. THe reality is that we are
> > "building" what a totalitarian regime had efficiently destroyed. IF we
> > are "rebuilding" anything, it is what the remnants of that regime
> > destroy after we have built it.
>
> The institions of government and society (many of them) were destroyed.
> That's what "regime change" is all about. Hence, "rebuilding" is the
> word. As for infrastructure, where's their electricity, again? It was
> there until about a week before the war ended.
It was? That's not what I've heard.
Infrastructure in Iraq was in decay well before the invasion - sometimes
purposefully. Massive ecological damage, crumbling power grid, etc.
As we restore the fragile infrastructure which was neglected over the
years, we have something Saddam didnt have, which is constant sabotage.
Once again, the undertaking is massive, and the destruction is not all
of our doing (we purposefully avoided destroying that which we knoew
would have to be rebuilt), and we are doing a damn good job under very
difficult circumstances.
> > You make the assumption that this process of building a new country and
> > a new reality for the victims of a despot is destined to fail, or at the
> > least, fail to measurably proceed.
>
> Any prudent planner must entertain the assumption of failure in order to
> meet and thwart it. Heck, you need to look at worst-case just to budget
> if nothing else. I see none of this going on by our alleged leadership.
> Worst-case planning or budgeting, I point out. Rummie is always
> "everything's coming up roses."
HE is merely pointing out there is another side to the story you won;t
get from the ant-war, anti-administration press.
If you read blogs from Iraq, and international press, you would
sometimes wonder if the NYT et al are reporting on the same war. They
seem to have taken the role as reporters only of pitfalls - they are
entirely uninterested in the truly amazing spectacle of the birth of a
nation - they are missing the *real* story bigtime, because their petty
hubris will not allow them even a grudging admittance that things are
improving in Iraq by leaps and bounds.
Having blown so many dire warnings of scenarios that never came to pass,
they are desperately trying to save face by harping on the things that
don't go right.
> > Reality in Iraq shows that the process is working, regardless of the
> > efforts of the resistance to destroy the future of the majority - and it
> > is proceeding at a pace that is quite remarkable and unprecedented.
> >
> > Like the invasion itself, a new standard has been set for the process.
>
> Of course the progress is unprecedented, the whole thing is unprecedented.
>
> One Iraqi comment I heard was (something like), "Saddam had the
> electricity back on a week after the first war. These people (the
> Americans) can't do it in three months?"
SAddam had crews working around the clock under threat of punishment,
and did not have saboteurs undermining their efforts.
Many Iraqis of today, OTOH, seem to be content to sit by as the US
rebuilds. Perhaps if we enslaved them to the task as Saddam did, things
would go a bit faster. They are slowly figuring out that, yes, they need
to get involved, and they will in time tire of their fellow countrymen
who blow up what we fix.
> How long do we have to wait
> before Iraq's borders become kind-of secure again? Media convoys are
> still being robbed by gangs on the main road. Etc.
Absolutely no different than post WW2. Why is this such a surprise? One
can expect a certain level of anarchy when there is a power vaccuum. One
can also expect it to eventually come under control - and that will
happen when there is a sufficcient Iraqi security force in place, which
is happening.
> I would have been more comfortable about this escapade if we HAD a
> schedule of some sort, something that said, "We want X to happen by Y."
> AFAIC see, there's nothing like this anywhere.
There is, but things don't always go according to plan. You can't take a
host of unknowns and create a schedule around those unknowns.
Didn't we have a clear exit strategy for the Balkans? What ever
happpened to that schedule?
It's called "best case/worst case scenario", and anyone who sets a hard
date for completion stands to look a bit silly. This also applies to
construction projects.
>
> >> Clearly, it can't last much longer. We have statements from the
> >>Administration implying this. The Interim Authority said over a month
> >>ago that we're running out of time, and Shrub's assertion last week that
> >>"there will be no retreat" was damn startling, if you ask me. I really
> >>didn't think the criticism of the war and reconstruction was that
> >>strong. I don't recall many people actually suggesting that we should
> >>pull out. It looked to me like a HUGE admission that the wheels are
> >>falling off.
> >
> >
> > An affirming statement of goals is an indication of inevitable failure???
> >
> > I believe a simple statement like that in the face of efforts to derail
> > the process would be much more re-assuring to the Iraqi people than a
> > statement indicating we may abandon the effort.
>
> In the political world where appearances are paramount, where every word
> from the president is read into, such a statement at this time is an
> acknowledgement of big problems as well as resolve. AT this point, I'm
> not confident that Bush IS wise enough to see this through, given the
> mistakes he's made to date.
Acknowledgement of problems and statement of resolve in the face of
those problems is somehow a bad thing? If he did not acknowledge
problems, I suspect you would be taking him to task for that as well.
>
> >>If the Bush Administration started giving our pissed-off allies enough
> >>of what they wanted to get a strong multi-national / UN presence of
> >>peace-keepers and nation-builders in Iraq, I'd have reason to be hopeful
> >>and my criticism would be largely muted. I'd be left to complain about
> >>the faulty justification for the war and the mess made in the interim -
> >>yesterday's news.
> >
> >
> > I have an opposite take on this "pissed-off allies" thing. IN my
> > estimation, it is they who failed, not us. It is they who sought to keep
> > the Iraqi people in misery fopr their own gain. This includes the UN.
>
> Your take is wrong wrong wrong and I am baffled as to how anyone can
> maintain it given the facts. At the very least, you can't say France et
> al weren't fully prepared to support the invasion if Bush had given the
> inspectors their requested additional time.
France had no intention whatsoever to have their cash cow deposed.
Saddam was paying laughably inflated prices for everything under the
sun, and the profiteers loved the arrangement. They didn't give a rat's
ass about the Iraqi people. It was *Disgusting*
> It wasn't tried, for
> downright childish reasons: "No-no-no, we've waited twelve years and we
> want our war NOW!"
You just made my case. 12 years. Twelve damn years of duplicity,
profiteering and deplorable abuses and potential weapons buildup. Would
you have felkt better if we waited 15 years? 20?
That's a helluva "rush to war", eh?
> > I presume you are aware that the Iraqi people do not consider the
> > western Europen nations and the UN any sort of friend. Why should they?
> > To do so would fly in the face of logic.
>
> My sense is they have the same kind of ambivalent opinion that they held
> for Saddam. (He "defeated" the great America, and they respected that,
> but he sucked big time.) The UN HAS been there all along providing
> basic needs. They're not going to bite the hands that feed them.
> Grouse about 'em, yes.
THe Iraqis know the UN profited off of SAddam's regime while they
suffered. The USS, NOT the UN is the hand that feeds them, liberated
them, and will protect them as this is sorted out.
The UN can't even protect themselves. Believe me, they are not
well-liked in Iraq, and their surprise at the recent attack demostrates
just how bumbling and clueless an operation it is.
> > Why should those that enabled a murdering totalitarian to continue his
> > ways be held to some standard that supposes we need to mollify their
> > anger towards us for doing the right thing?
>
> The UN didn't enable *our* tyrant, so we don't have a bone to pick with
> them. They were just doing things the same old way - slowly and
> deliberately. It's worked, or been the closest thing to working, in the
> past many times. This president was just too impatient to work it.
Twelve years. Goodness, how *impatient* we were!
> Why should *we* "mollify" their anger toward us? Simply because we NEED
> their help, and Iraq NEEDS their help. Failure to work with the allies
> that he pissed off from the very beginning is just one more example of
> Bush's childishness.
AS far as I'm concerned, France, Germany and Russia can kiss my American
ass. They are disgusting, immoral monsters who knew full well where the
"Oil for food" money was going. They stood by and turned a blind eye to
the human misery that is a part of all totalitarian regimes.
And those slimy little bastards are paying a price they deserve. They
miss all the American dollars. They can rot in their crumbling socialist
paradise as the hordes of Muslims slowly overtake them as they have
stated they will.
> > That sums it up. It is not a case of US vs. Aabs, US versus Iraqis, it
> > is a case of the strong horse Osama alluded to. If we are not the strong
> > horse, the brutal minority will be. And if we abandon the majority to
> > the brutal minority, we will not have only sealed our *own* doom, we
> > will have richly deserved and engineered our own demise.
>
> I remind you that I'm not supporting retreat. Hell no. I simply expect
> the president to start acting somewhat intelligently for a change.
What would you have him do?
Raptor
> In article <3F52E739...@attbi.com>, Raptor <m...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
>
>>SteveR wrote:
>
>
>>>That's your decision to make. In my view, the justificcations never
>>>changed, they were just added to until the desision practically made
>>>itself.
>>
>>The non-appearance of the WMDs really knocked the administration for a
>>loop. I was one of few people in this country, apparently, who actually
>>thought Saddam would/could see the writing on the wall and eliminated
>>his WMDs. There is evidence that he did just that, but the neocons had
>>a simple-minded view of the matter.
>
>
> So, where is the downside?
>
> Saddam clandestinely destroys the weapons, but in a moment of sheer
> genius, neglects to tell anyone leading to his ouster and the liberation
> of his victims.
>
> Weapons gone, regime gone, people liberated. Game, set, match.
See, that's just the wrong attitude that pisses off people like me who
like to think of themselves as prudent. Who actually believe war should
be a last resort, instead of just saying it like Bush does. "War is
hell" is not just a slogan:
A few hundred dead Americans.
A few dead Brits.
Lots of dead Iraqis.
Pissed-off allies.
A bunch of pissed-off Iraqis.
A couple $hundreds-of-billions.
A mess in Afghanistan that's harder to clean up.
A busted-up Iraq.
Pissed-off Arabs everywhere, Arabs who can now mock the US as easily as
they respect us.
A weakened strategic position world-wide.
This nation has used the UN throughout its history, most of the time to
help solve the problem of the day. The UN has served America's
interests many times in many ways. Suddenly this president decides to
give the far-right fringe UN haters their due, ridiculously. Rarely is
such a fringe element allowed to control the foreign policy of a great
nation.
There's nothing wrong with the UN "getting in the way" when the
destination is war - nothing at all. That's what you don't see.
I mean look, why couldn't Bush have dragged Blair and the rest of us
into this mess two months later than he did, giving the UN and their
inspectors the time they said they needed?
Can you give me an answer reflecting more maturity than a four-year-old
demanding candy? I'll bet you can't.
>>>I often wonder what the comparison is for the view that it has all been
>>>mishandled. All of that is based on hindsight, both on the part of the
>>>administration and its critics. I would hardly expoect *Any*
>>>administration to operate in the unattainable world of pure perfection
>>>in an instance like this. Better yet we accept that mistakes have been,
>>>and will be made - and that reality was not birthed by a change of
>>>administration.
>>
>>No! The criticisms are NOT (all) based on hindsight. I said all along
>>(google it) that this was a bad idea. There were quite a few people
>>saying that. I believe I noted specific reasons for why it was a bad
>>idea, and the lack of planning might have been one of them.
>
>
> Everyone was/is an armchair Commander-in-Chief, and when plans go awry
> in any area, someone is bound to have had a "better" plan upfront to
> avoid the mistake.
>
> As it is, one must consider what *didn't* go wrong, when so many dire
> scenariios were predicted. Mass Casualties, humanitarian crisis, mass
> refugees - evn chemical warfare with the weapons he "didn't have".
>
> Given the tremendous strides we have made in these few months, our
> efforts are truly amazing in the context of history.
It doesn't matter how lucky we get, how good things ultimately go.
Bush/Rummy didn't do some very simple, very prudent things up front, and
the results show that. They will always be criticized, rightly so.
It's simply too late for Iraq to become a clear victry. We as a nation
and the president as a legacy holder will have to be happy with a
figurative pulling of our nuts out of the fire.
>>I saw the lack of post-war planning from the very beginning, and was
>>greatly disquieted! Who's going to fix what we break? "The Iraqi
>>people," according to the CiC. I was reminded of that cartoon we've all
>>(most of us) seen, depicting blackboards of equations with a box at the
>>end reading, "Then a miracle happens." There was NO apparent planning
>>for the "after." I fully expected a second wave of MPs, civil engrs.,
>>public affairs, humanitarian workers, on the heels of the combat wave.
>>It wasn't there, and I didn't see it mentioned in any of the talking
>>about the plans.
>
>
> There could have been better planning in areas. That is the nature of
> such a huge undertaking. As in all aspects of planning anything, not
> everything goes according to plan - in which case you readjust to meet
> the unforseen or poorly-planned for.
>
> No matter the plan or who makes the plan, all plans are subject to
> miscalls. It's the big picture that counts.
This (serious thought given to the reconstruction) was big-picture
planning that, not being done, is inexcusable. I invite you to really
try to explain to me why you think it IS excusable. I'll listen.
>>When Turkey threw a wrench into our plans, I mean Good God! Why the
>>hell didn't that give the prez pause? He just proceeded "full speed
>>ahead." What was so damn important about the end of March? (I'd say
>>more but want to refrain from beating a dead horse.)
>
>
> Heat.
>
> My son has had three depolyments there, including the invasion. The heat
> is a serious detriment to military operations.
>
> Not to mention even more time for Saddam to dig in his forces and ready
> for the invasion.
But we're there now, in the heat, conducting combat operations.
As for Saddam digging in better than he already was, if we have the
assistance of the French, Germans and possibly an Arab nation or two,
wouldn't it have been worth it? Especially in the long term? I guess
if you have a problem seeing the long term, you wouldn't see the equation.
>>>Will it be in this case? When they state that their path to victory is
>>>to demoralize the majority of American people, they can only be
>>>encouraged by the tide of voices that declare "you have successfully
>>>demoralized us".
>>>
>>>That, simply put, is surrender.
>>
>>Which is why I am alarmed (as usual by this president) by Bush's "bold"
>>assertion that retreat is not an option. I'm like, who the hell said
>>anything about RETREAT? Pull your head out of your ass and start doing
>>it right, man!
>
>
> What would you have him say, when we have a domestic collection of
> shrill voices who declare QUAGMIRE with every military casualty. The
> enemy has CNN, and they know they have allies in the US who are behaving
> precisely as predicted. American leftists are an asset to the Baathists
> and Islamists, and they have said so many times.
>
> Perhaps that statement from Bush was directed at the locals, as well as
> the enemy - in any event, I'm not quite sure why you find his
> reassurance to a skeptical populationin Iraq that we plan to stay the
> course. After all, these people know their history: Kurds, Vietnamese,
> Cambodians - millions slaughtered because we chose retreat.
Okay, I'll grant that Iraq is one audience where such a statement was
proper and valuable. But it is not a proper or proportional response to
complaints of quagmire.
American leftists (at least all those not very far left of myself) are
NOT saying the US should pull out, so telling us we're damn well not
going to just makes us wonder where the idea came from and why the hell
the president is talking about it with his advisers. We want this thing
to work despite how it might benefit this sorry excuse for a president.
As I've said, it's too important to become a failure.
Some are saying "Send more troops now," but that's the sound-bite
version. We know that Iraq needs more troops, but the right kinds, the
types you see me demanding.
>>>Think less in terms of "rebuilding", because we made every effort to
>>>spare infrastructure during the war. THe reality is that we are
>>>"building" what a totalitarian regime had efficiently destroyed. IF we
>>>are "rebuilding" anything, it is what the remnants of that regime
>>>destroy after we have built it.
>>
>>The institions of government and society (many of them) were destroyed.
>> That's what "regime change" is all about. Hence, "rebuilding" is the
>>word. As for infrastructure, where's their electricity, again? It was
>>there until about a week before the war ended.
>
>
> It was? That's not what I've heard.
>
> Infrastructure in Iraq was in decay well before the invasion - sometimes
> purposefully. Massive ecological damage, crumbling power grid, etc.
>
> As we restore the fragile infrastructure which was neglected over the
> years, we have something Saddam didnt have, which is constant sabotage.
>
> Once again, the undertaking is massive, and the destruction is not all
> of our doing (we purposefully avoided destroying that which we knoew
> would have to be rebuilt), and we are doing a damn good job under very
> difficult circumstances.
We all saw Baghdad under lights until one day US forces started knocking
on the airport doors, IIRC.
I can hear you make those points and not disagree with them. But it's
another thing entirely to expect the typical Iraqi to be so
understanding. I think you can understand why I'm worried about it, and
therefore why I suggest (demand) solutions to this problem.
>>>You make the assumption that this process of building a new country and
>>>a new reality for the victims of a despot is destined to fail, or at the
>>>least, fail to measurably proceed.
>>
>>Any prudent planner must entertain the assumption of failure in order to
>>meet and thwart it. Heck, you need to look at worst-case just to budget
>>if nothing else. I see none of this going on by our alleged leadership.
>> Worst-case planning or budgeting, I point out. Rummie is always
>>"everything's coming up roses."
>
>
> HE is merely pointing out there is another side to the story you won;t
> get from the ant-war, anti-administration press.
>
> If you read blogs from Iraq, and international press, you would
> sometimes wonder if the NYT et al are reporting on the same war. They
> seem to have taken the role as reporters only of pitfalls - they are
> entirely uninterested in the truly amazing spectacle of the birth of a
> nation - they are missing the *real* story bigtime, because their petty
> hubris will not allow them even a grudging admittance that things are
> improving in Iraq by leaps and bounds.
>
> Having blown so many dire warnings of scenarios that never came to pass,
> they are desperately trying to save face by harping on the things that
> don't go right.
Got any URLs for Iraq blogs? I'd love to see one or more from Iraqis.
I have a much better feel for what our soldiers are going through, doing
and how they're reacting. But a blog from one of them would be cool too.
Again I point out that things going well is not news. I watch the
long-format news coverage, and therefore I DO hear that not everything
sucks in Iraq. But the bad news is bad enough to possibly cancel out
the widespread but de rigeur good news.
>>>Reality in Iraq shows that the process is working, regardless of the
>>>efforts of the resistance to destroy the future of the majority - and it
>>>is proceeding at a pace that is quite remarkable and unprecedented.
>>>
>>>Like the invasion itself, a new standard has been set for the process.
>>
>>Of course the progress is unprecedented, the whole thing is unprecedented.
>>
>>One Iraqi comment I heard was (something like), "Saddam had the
>>electricity back on a week after the first war. These people (the
>>Americans) can't do it in three months?"
>
>
> SAddam had crews working around the clock under threat of punishment,
> and did not have saboteurs undermining their efforts.
>
> Many Iraqis of today, OTOH, seem to be content to sit by as the US
> rebuilds. Perhaps if we enslaved them to the task as Saddam did, things
> would go a bit faster. They are slowly figuring out that, yes, they need
> to get involved, and they will in time tire of their fellow countrymen
> who blow up what we fix.
Either that, or join their countrymen in blowing up what we fix.
Shouldn't we have an ample supply of civic affairs people over there to
make things go fast enough as to make those kinds of decisions moot?
Shouldn't we have enough police on the ground there to make such
decisions ineffective?
>>How long do we have to wait
>>before Iraq's borders become kind-of secure again? Media convoys are
>>still being robbed by gangs on the main road. Etc.
>
>
> Absolutely no different than post WW2. Why is this such a surprise? One
> can expect a certain level of anarchy when there is a power vaccuum. One
> can also expect it to eventually come under control - and that will
> happen when there is a sufficcient Iraqi security force in place, which
> is happening.
It's been four months. If we had help, we'd probably have those borders
somewhat secure by now using UN and other allied forces.
>>I would have been more comfortable about this escapade if we HAD a
>>schedule of some sort, something that said, "We want X to happen by Y."
>> AFAIC see, there's nothing like this anywhere.
>
>
> There is, but things don't always go according to plan. You can't take a
> host of unknowns and create a schedule around those unknowns.
>
> Didn't we have a clear exit strategy for the Balkans? What ever
> happpened to that schedule?
>
> It's called "best case/worst case scenario", and anyone who sets a hard
> date for completion stands to look a bit silly. This also applies to
> construction projects.
Have you seen a schedule, or do you just take it on faith that one
exists somewhere? Given the way things are being run now, I don't think
you can reasonably have that kind of faith.
Yes, we had a (plausible) plan in the Balkans. I care less about
whether the plan is met, than that there is one. If there is a plan,
then some thought was given to the potential consequences. I saw no
plan, and therefore see no thought.
>>>> Clearly, it can't last much longer. We have statements from the
>>>>Administration implying this. The Interim Authority said over a month
>>>>ago that we're running out of time, and Shrub's assertion last week that
>>>>"there will be no retreat" was damn startling, if you ask me. I really
>>>>didn't think the criticism of the war and reconstruction was that
>>>>strong. I don't recall many people actually suggesting that we should
>>>>pull out. It looked to me like a HUGE admission that the wheels are
>>>>falling off.
>>>
>>>
>>>An affirming statement of goals is an indication of inevitable failure???
>>>
>>>I believe a simple statement like that in the face of efforts to derail
>>>the process would be much more re-assuring to the Iraqi people than a
>>>statement indicating we may abandon the effort.
>>
>>In the political world where appearances are paramount, where every word
>>from the president is read into, such a statement at this time is an
>>acknowledgement of big problems as well as resolve. AT this point, I'm
>>not confident that Bush IS wise enough to see this through, given the
>>mistakes he's made to date.
>
>
> Acknowledgement of problems and statement of resolve in the face of
> those problems is somehow a bad thing? If he did not acknowledge
> problems, I suspect you would be taking him to task for that as well.
Sure I would. What would have him off the hook (and it's not that much
of a hook, really - I'm just scratching my head about the comment) is
something in the middle. Simply acknowledging the problems would be
fine with me, but it wouldn't spare Bush the criticism for continuing to
run things foolishly. He'll have to start running things smartly to
mute that criticism. (Then, like I said, we'll only have the mistakes
he made in the past to skewer him on.)
>>>>If the Bush Administration started giving our pissed-off allies enough
>>>>of what they wanted to get a strong multi-national / UN presence of
>>>>peace-keepers and nation-builders in Iraq, I'd have reason to be hopeful
>>>>and my criticism would be largely muted. I'd be left to complain about
>>>>the faulty justification for the war and the mess made in the interim -
>>>>yesterday's news.
>>>
>>>
>>>I have an opposite take on this "pissed-off allies" thing. IN my
>>>estimation, it is they who failed, not us. It is they who sought to keep
>>>the Iraqi people in misery fopr their own gain. This includes the UN.
>>
>>Your take is wrong wrong wrong and I am baffled as to how anyone can
>>maintain it given the facts. At the very least, you can't say France et
>>al weren't fully prepared to support the invasion if Bush had given the
>>inspectors their requested additional time.
>
>
> France had no intention whatsoever to have their cash cow deposed.
> Saddam was paying laughably inflated prices for everything under the
> sun, and the profiteers loved the arrangement. They didn't give a rat's
> ass about the Iraqi people. It was *Disgusting*
So are fresh oysters, but people like them and even learn to like them.
You have no reason to believe the French government wouldn't keep
their word. (I guess, unless you think they're too much like our
government, which spares no effort in sheltering its commercial interests.)
It was not tried, and you can not explain it away with nothing but
speculation no matter how hard you try. We might as well drop it. You
and your ilk were wrong, and it's time to try to fix the mess.
>>It wasn't tried, for
>>downright childish reasons: "No-no-no, we've waited twelve years and we
>>want our war NOW!"
>
>
> You just made my case. 12 years. Twelve damn years of duplicity,
> profiteering and deplorable abuses and potential weapons buildup. Would
> you have felkt better if we waited 15 years? 20?
>
> That's a helluva "rush to war", eh?
YOU HAVE NO CASE. Like a spoiled, bawling ankle biter, you wanted a
WAR, you wanted it NOW, and you were unwilling to wait even two more
months to try to avert one, OR to wage one with much more support from
our allies than we had.
Next, you'll be parroting our president and saying, "War is always the
last resort." Don't make me puke.
Honestly, I would have felt better if our president had actually allowed
the UN to do its foot-dragging, to dot all its annoying little i's and
cross its annoying little t's, and THEN, if necessary, attacked against
the international community's wishes.
I don't think it would have been necessary. At the very least, our
"coalition" would have been less of a joke. Best case, we'd have all
our traditional allies with us, with a possible Arab representative. At
worst, we'd have spent a couple $billion that we spent anyway, and our
soldiers would have had to fight through higher temps for three weeks.
Where's the downside of having waited a little while longer just to
satisfy the panty-waists in the diplomatic corps?
>>>I presume you are aware that the Iraqi people do not consider the
>>>western Europen nations and the UN any sort of friend. Why should they?
>>>To do so would fly in the face of logic.
>>
>>My sense is they have the same kind of ambivalent opinion that they held
>>for Saddam. (He "defeated" the great America, and they respected that,
>>but he sucked big time.) The UN HAS been there all along providing
>>basic needs. They're not going to bite the hands that feed them.
>>Grouse about 'em, yes.
>
>
> THe Iraqis know the UN profited off of SAddam's regime while they
> suffered. The USS, NOT the UN is the hand that feeds them, liberated
> them, and will protect them as this is sorted out.
The US is the owner of the hand that's getting bitten now, isn't it?
> The UN can't even protect themselves. Believe me, they are not
> well-liked in Iraq, and their surprise at the recent attack demostrates
> just how bumbling and clueless an operation it is.
Sorry, I don't believe you without evidence.
>>>Why should those that enabled a murdering totalitarian to continue his
>>>ways be held to some standard that supposes we need to mollify their
>>>anger towards us for doing the right thing?
>>
>>The UN didn't enable *our* tyrant, so we don't have a bone to pick with
>>them. They were just doing things the same old way - slowly and
>>deliberately. It's worked, or been the closest thing to working, in the
>>past many times. This president was just too impatient to work it.
>
>
> Twelve years. Goodness, how *impatient* we were!
Twelve years plus two months was too long. Or six months, whatever. IT
got down to the point where Blix said he needed about two more months,
and that was too long for the spoiled brats in charge. If Bush had
waited that two months, that would've been enough for me, I think. It
probably would've been enough for France and Germany too.
But of course, then the inspectors would possibly have reported that
they could find no WMDs. And given the post-war situation, they'd have
likely been right. Now THAT would've been interesting, wouldn't it?
>>Why should *we* "mollify" their anger toward us? Simply because we NEED
>>their help, and Iraq NEEDS their help. Failure to work with the allies
>>that he pissed off from the very beginning is just one more example of
>>Bush's childishness.
>
>
> AS far as I'm concerned, France, Germany and Russia can kiss my American
> ass. They are disgusting, immoral monsters who knew full well where the
> "Oil for food" money was going. They stood by and turned a blind eye to
> the human misery that is a part of all totalitarian regimes.
>
> And those slimy little bastards are paying a price they deserve. They
> miss all the American dollars. They can rot in their crumbling socialist
> paradise as the hordes of Muslims slowly overtake them as they have
> stated they will.
Your childish attitude disgusts me. You'd rather have your pretentions
of propriety and petty "payback" while Iraq squanders away in the heat,
disease and terrorism that's there. Rather than re-build the
*generations* of good will and cooperation that we have had with those
"immoral monsters", good will that evaporated in LESS THAN A YEAR thanks
to our incompetent leadership, and provide the poor people whose nation
WE busted up (after decades of abuse by Saddam) with much more a
semblence of security and prosperity, you want to keep your shrivelled,
shrewish claws tight on the throats of the people our forces are
occupying, so that Halliburton and Bechtel can maximize their revenues.
How much of their stock do you own?
Hint: America is not strong enough to battle even half the world at
once. Attitudes like yours will unite opposition against my nation, and
you cannot be allowed to prevail.
>>>That sums it up. It is not a case of US vs. Aabs, US versus Iraqis, it
>>>is a case of the strong horse Osama alluded to. If we are not the strong
>>>horse, the brutal minority will be. And if we abandon the majority to
>>>the brutal minority, we will not have only sealed our *own* doom, we
>>>will have richly deserved and engineered our own demise.
>>
>>I remind you that I'm not supporting retreat. Hell no. I simply expect
>>the president to start acting somewhat intelligently for a change.
>
> What would you have him do?
I've stated it several times. From the look of things, you don't like it.
Roger R.
"SteveR" <texd...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:texdriver-B1944...@netnews.attbi.com...
> In article <3F52E739...@attbi.com>, Raptor <m...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
> > SteveR wrote:
>
> > >
> > > That's your decision to make. In my view, the justificcations never
> > > changed, they were just added to until the desision practically made
> > > itself.
> >
> > The non-appearance of the WMDs really knocked the administration for a
> > loop. I was one of few people in this country, apparently, who actually
> > thought Saddam would/could see the writing on the wall and eliminated
> > his WMDs. There is evidence that he did just that, but the neocons had
> > a simple-minded view of the matter.
>
> So, where is the downside?
>
> Saddam clandestinely destroys the weapons, but in a moment of sheer
> genius, neglects to tell anyone leading to his ouster and the liberation
> of his victims.
>
> Weapons gone, regime gone, people liberated. Game, set, match.
>
>
home in Fort Hood, etc. and everyone is happy now. Match is over. Ask the
3rd Infantry Division guys who have been told this twice already and learned
it wasn't true.
I mean, what's the problem? We invade Iraq, overwhelm them with schock and
awe, enjoy the flowers and kisses in Baghdad and Basra and go home to the
land of the great PX. Don't even have to stay in Iraq for the summer when
the temperatures get a bit warm.
Yeah. Right.
Roger R.
SteveR
> SteveR wrote:
> > In article <3F52E739...@attbi.com>, Raptor <m...@attbi.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>SteveR wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>That's your decision to make. In my view, the justificcations never
> >>>changed, they were just added to until the desision practically made
> >>>itself.
> >>
> >>The non-appearance of the WMDs really knocked the administration for a
> >>loop. I was one of few people in this country, apparently, who actually
> >>thought Saddam would/could see the writing on the wall and eliminated
> >>his WMDs. There is evidence that he did just that, but the neocons had
> >>a simple-minded view of the matter.
> >
> >
> > So, where is the downside?
> >
> > Saddam clandestinely destroys the weapons, but in a moment of sheer
> > genius, neglects to tell anyone leading to his ouster and the liberation
> > of his victims.
> >
> > Weapons gone, regime gone, people liberated. Game, set, match.
>
> See, that's just the wrong attitude that pisses off people like me who
> like to think of themselves as prudent. Who actually believe war should
> be a last resort, instead of just saying it like Bush does. "War is
> hell" is not just a slogan:
Perhaps some of us consider war is the last resort after 12 years.
He had every opportunity to avoid war.
>
> A few hundred dead Americans.
> A few dead Brits.
> Lots of dead Iraqis.
> Pissed-off allies.
> A bunch of pissed-off Iraqis.
> A couple $hundreds-of-billions.
> A mess in Afghanistan that's harder to clean up.
> A busted-up Iraq.
> Pissed-off Arabs everywhere, Arabs who can now mock the US as easily as
> they respect us.
> A weakened strategic position world-wide.
Actually, if you've been paying attention to the "Arab street" post-war,
you would realize that not only have we gained respect, our strategic
position there is greatly enhanced.
Or, are you one of those who believes Muslim radicals speak for all
Muslims?
Pissed off allies? Screw France - our national security *does not*
hinmge on how happy we make the French.
Dead Iraqis? How many Iraqis do you think Saddam will kill this
month..next month...next year? SAddam's days of killing Iraqis are
*over*. Unfortunately, we pissed off the French, who could care less how
many Iraqis are killed every year.
A busted up Iraq? Do you actually believe they prefferd life under a
murderous totalitarian? How quantly western of you to assume that.
Pissed off Iraqis? Which Iraqis do you think are pissed off? Could it be
the former victimizers? All polls taken there show great majority
support for the US effort.
> > In short, the UN is an immoral, dysfunctional collection of money and
> > power-grubbing whack jobs, and when Bush took them out of the loop, he
> > did absolutely the correct thing. If the UN doesn't like it, let them
> > issue a new resolution or condemnation every year or so - that'll make
> > 'em feel useful.
>
> This nation has used the UN throughout its history, most of the time to
> help solve the problem of the day.
Sometimes.
> The UN has served America's
> interests many times in many ways.
Not this time. They screwed up big time.
> Suddenly this president decides to
> give the far-right fringe UN haters their due, ridiculously. Rarely is
> such a fringe element allowed to control the foreign policy of a great
> nation.
By your calculations, the majority of Americans are "far right", because
the majority has and does support the effort.
>
> There's nothing wrong with the UN "getting in the way" when the
> destination is war - nothing at all. That's what you don't see.
The destination was liberation and reduction of threat. War was the
method.
>
> I mean look, why couldn't Bush have dragged Blair and the rest of us
> into this mess two months later than he did, giving the UN and their
> inspectors the time they said they needed?
Because nothing would have changed except the logistical problems of
mid-east heat.
>
> Can you give me an answer reflecting more maturity than a four-year-old
> demanding candy? I'll bet you can't.
I've given you that answer several times - it's you that seems to be
working up a bit of a hissy-fit, and it's quite obvious you would never
accept any answer, because you've decided it was wrong. Fine, enjoy your
minority position as the rest of us move on. You cannot undo the
liberation.
> >
> > Given the tremendous strides we have made in these few months, our
> > efforts are truly amazing in the context of history.
>
> It doesn't matter how lucky we get, how good things ultimately go.
> Bush/Rummy didn't do some very simple, very prudent things up front, and
> the results show that. They will always be criticized, rightly so.
That goes with the territory. Bush can handle it, he still has majority
support. And, it's not a popularity contest.
> It's simply too late for Iraq to become a clear victry. We as a nation
> and the president as a legacy holder will have to be happy with a
> figurative pulling of our nuts out of the fire.
You seem to consider every negative instance, no matter how
historically precedented, as signs of overall failure. You exhibit very
little historical perspective so far.
> >
> > No matter the plan or who makes the plan, all plans are subject to
> > miscalls. It's the big picture that counts.
>
> This (serious thought given to the reconstruction) was big-picture
> planning that, not being done, is inexcusable. I invite you to really
> try to explain to me why you think it IS excusable. I'll listen.
Are you aware that the mechanics of reconstruction were in place well
before the invasion? Contracts were signed, plans were made. Maybe
that's why the oil flows, all schools and hospitals are open, Internet
access is up and running. All that, of course, is subject to sabotage -
which you seem to misinterpret as "poor planning".
Seventy plus newspapers in Baghdad alone. Markets filling, progress
being made, but you sit here stamoing your tiny little feet because you
don't agree with the effort.
>
> >>When Turkey threw a wrench into our plans, I mean Good God! Why the
> >>hell didn't that give the prez pause? He just proceeded "full speed
> >>ahead." What was so damn important about the end of March? (I'd say
> >>more but want to refrain from beating a dead horse.)
> >
> >
> > Heat.
> >
> > My son has had three depolyments there, including the invasion. The heat
> > is a serious detriment to military operations.
> >
> > Not to mention even more time for Saddam to dig in his forces and ready
> > for the invasion.
>
> But we're there now, in the heat, conducting combat operations.
Without chemical suits.
>
> As for Saddam digging in better than he already was, if we have the
> assistance of the French, Germans and possibly an Arab nation or two,
> wouldn't it have been worth it? Especially in the long term? I guess
> if you have a problem seeing the long term, you wouldn't see the equation.
We had the support of at least three Areab nations.
Maybe you can identify exactly what the French could do for us, I sure
as hell can't.
> > Perhaps that statement from Bush was directed at the locals, as well as
> > the enemy - in any event, I'm not quite sure why you find his
> > reassurance to a skeptical populationin Iraq that we plan to stay the
> > course. After all, these people know their history: Kurds, Vietnamese,
> > Cambodians - millions slaughtered because we chose retreat.
>
> Okay, I'll grant that Iraq is one audience where such a statement was
> proper and valuable. But it is not a proper or proportional response to
> complaints of quagmire.
That's absurd. For a leader to state that we will not back down in the
face of pockets of resistence makes all the sense in the world.
Apparently, you have taken it to mean the opposite?
In that case, certainly you must be equally angry wioth McCain and
Howard Dean, who now say the same thing.
> American leftists (at least all those not very far left of myself) are
> NOT saying the US should pull out, so telling us we're damn well not
> going to just makes us wonder where the idea came from and why the hell
> the president is talking about it with his advisers.
It is because the lingering resistance and Islamists fully exoect the
left to engineer a retreat as they did in Vietnam, or they hope for
another Somalia. They've said it over and over again. Bush said "ain't
gona happen", which for some reason has caused you to become unglued.
How absurd.
> We want this thing
> to work despite how it might benefit this sorry excuse for a president.
> As I've said, it's too important to become a failure.
I get the feeling you feel one of the multitudes of Democrat hopefuls
will come in and somehow make things right. Dunno how you would arrive
at that conslusion, since not a one has the slightest idea what to do.
It appears GW gets under your skin. Get ready for a second term.
>
> Some are saying "Send more troops now," but that's the sound-bite
> version. We know that Iraq needs more troops, but the right kinds, the
> types you see me demanding.
Intel, and an Iraqi security force, that's what we need.
Oddly enough, that's exactly what is happening.
>
>
>
> >
> > Once again, the undertaking is massive, and the destruction is not all
> > of our doing (we purposefully avoided destroying that which we knoew
> > would have to be rebuilt), and we are doing a damn good job under very
> > difficult circumstances.
>
> We all saw Baghdad under lights until one day US forces started knocking
> on the airport doors, IIRC.
I suppose you feel Baghdad resembles Dresden. You're wrong. It was the
cleanest invasion ever.
>
> I can hear you make those points and not disagree with them. But it's
> another thing entirely to expect the typical Iraqi to be so
> understanding. I think you can understand why I'm worried about it, and
> therefore why I suggest (demand) solutions to this problem.
THe solutions are in progress. It's been less than 6 months, what the
hell do you expect? Progress is phenomenal.
> > Having blown so many dire warnings of scenarios that never came to pass,
> > they are desperately trying to save face by harping on the things that
> > don't go right.
>
> Got any URLs for Iraq blogs? I'd love to see one or more from Iraqis.
> I have a much better feel for what our soldiers are going through, doing
> and how they're reacting. But a blog from one of them would be cool too.
http://dear_raed.blogspot.com/ has been blogging well before the
invasion, and now writes for the Guardian. A very pragmatic guy, very
honest, and very nuetral. he has links to other blogs. Some are
obviously former Baathists, who deplore the liberation.
You can connect to all relevant blogs through instapundit.com (king of
the bloggers) - if you read that blog daily, you'll find all the
military blogs you want. (the best - LT-Smash, just got home).
I warn you, not a single miltary blog reflects the dismal assesment of
US media.
>
> Again I point out that things going well is not news. I watch the
> long-format news coverage, and therefore I DO hear that not everything
> sucks in Iraq. But the bad news is bad enough to possibly cancel out
> the widespread but de rigeur good news.
The bad news is nothing that anyone with historical perspective would be
surprised by. The good news is that this effort is simpy amazing in
scope and speed.
>
> > Many Iraqis of today, OTOH, seem to be content to sit by as the US
> > rebuilds. Perhaps if we enslaved them to the task as Saddam did, things
> > would go a bit faster. They are slowly figuring out that, yes, they need
> > to get involved, and they will in time tire of their fellow countrymen
> > who blow up what we fix.
>
> Either that, or join their countrymen in blowing up what we fix.
> Shouldn't we have an ample supply of civic affairs people over there to
> make things go fast enough as to make those kinds of decisions moot?
> Shouldn't we have enough police on the ground there to make such
> decisions ineffective?
All in due time. For perspective, study the situation in Post WW2
Germany, and you'll realize how amazing this all is.
>
> >>How long do we have to wait
> >>before Iraq's borders become kind-of secure again? Media convoys are
> >>still being robbed by gangs on the main road. Etc.
> >
> >
> > Absolutely no different than post WW2. Why is this such a surprise? One
> > can expect a certain level of anarchy when there is a power vaccuum. One
> > can also expect it to eventually come under control - and that will
> > happen when there is a sufficcient Iraqi security force in place, which
> > is happening.
>
> It's been four months. If we had help, we'd probably have those borders
> somewhat secure by now using UN and other allied forces.
We canno possibly secure all of the borders. We can' however, threaten
the nations from whom the combatants are coming.
Those that come in will die in Iraq, and the attraction of Jihad will
wane.
It's already happening. The Iraqis *do not like the Arabs* and want them
OUT of Iraq.
> >
> > It's called "best case/worst case scenario", and anyone who sets a hard
> > date for completion stands to look a bit silly. This also applies to
> > construction projects.
>
> Have you seen a schedule, or do you just take it on faith that one
> exists somewhere? Given the way things are being run now, I don't think
> you can reasonably have that kind of faith.
There has never been a "schedule", because it wopuld be impossible to
predict the variables.
> Yes, we had a (plausible) plan in the Balkans. I care less about
> whether the plan is met, than that there is one. If there is a plan,
> then some thought was given to the potential consequences. I saw no
> plan, and therefore see no thought.
The plan is working. There are setbacks, struggles, unforseen problems,
but the big picture (insluding the effect on neighbors) is right on
target.
> >
> > Acknowledgement of problems and statement of resolve in the face of
> > those problems is somehow a bad thing? If he did not acknowledge
> > problems, I suspect you would be taking him to task for that as well.
>
> Sure I would. What would have him off the hook (and it's not that much
> of a hook, really - I'm just scratching my head about the comment) is
> something in the middle. Simply acknowledging the problems would be
> fine with me, but it wouldn't spare Bush the criticism for continuing to
> run things foolishly. He'll have to start running things smartly to
> mute that criticism. (Then, like I said, we'll only have the mistakes
> he made in the past to skewer him on.)
I'm not sure how you can say things are being run "foolishly". Problems
arise, problems are dealt with. The only precedent is WW@, and with that
as comparison, this is a miracle of efficiency.
> >>Your take is wrong wrong wrong and I am baffled as to how anyone can
> >>maintain it given the facts. At the very least, you can't say France et
> >>al weren't fully prepared to support the invasion if Bush had given the
> >>inspectors their requested additional time.
> >
> >
> > France had no intention whatsoever to have their cash cow deposed.
> > Saddam was paying laughably inflated prices for everything under the
> > sun, and the profiteers loved the arrangement. They didn't give a rat's
> > ass about the Iraqi people. It was *Disgusting*
>
> So are fresh oysters, but people like them and even learn to like them.
> You have no reason to believe the French government wouldn't keep
> their word. (I guess, unless you think they're too much like our
> government, which spares no effort in sheltering its commercial interests.)
FRance has completely lost any semblance of my respect over this, Chirac
is a opportunistic mosnter.
And, how about Germany? Gosh, they are now selling devices to jam smart
bombs, so despots can cause ordinance to fall in civilian neighborhoods.
Now, there are some truly major assholes.
They can all kiss my ass.
> It was not tried, and you can not explain it away with nothing but
> speculation no matter how hard you try. We might as well drop it. You
> and your ilk were wrong, and it's time to try to fix the mess.
My "ilk", otherwise known as the majority of Americans, are right.
Leaving Saddam in power was *wrong*.
> > You just made my case. 12 years. Twelve damn years of duplicity,
> > profiteering and deplorable abuses and potential weapons buildup. Would
> > you have felkt better if we waited 15 years? 20?
> >
> > That's a helluva "rush to war", eh?
>
> YOU HAVE NO CASE. Like a spoiled, bawling ankle biter, you wanted a
> WAR, you wanted it NOW, and you were unwilling to wait even two more
> months to try to avert one, OR to wage one with much more support from
> our allies than we had.
Twelve damn years, and you honestly believe two months would have made
any difference at all.
Go figger.
>
> Next, you'll be parroting our president and saying, "War is always the
> last resort." Don't make me puke.
As it looks, it was not only the last resort, it was the best resort.
Remember, Saddam could have left - the offer was on the table.
> Honestly, I would have felt better if our president had actually allowed
> the UN to do its foot-dragging, to dot all its annoying little i's and
> cross its annoying little t's, and THEN, if necessary, attacked against
> the international community's wishes.
THey wouldn't have. They were making too much money off the status quo.
>
> I don't think it would have been necessary. At the very least, our
> "coalition" would have been less of a joke. Best case, we'd have all
> our traditional allies with us, with a possible Arab representative. At
> worst, we'd have spent a couple $billion that we spent anyway, and our
> soldiers would have had to fight through higher temps for three weeks.
You honstley believe this scenario would have played out? What a hoot.
Reapeat after me: France et al *wanted Saddam in power*. Do you not get
that?
>
> Where's the downside of having waited a little while longer just to
> satisfy the panty-waists in the diplomatic corps?
Again, heat, and the fact that it would have *made no difference*.
> >
> > THe Iraqis know the UN profited off of SAddam's regime while they
> > suffered. The USS, NOT the UN is the hand that feeds them, liberated
> > them, and will protect them as this is sorted out.
>
> The US is the owner of the hand that's getting bitten now, isn't it?
Yes, we are the force protecting the newly freed Iraqis from those that
seek to dominate and kill them. Someone had to do it. and it sure as
hell wasn't going to be the freakin' UN.
> > The UN can't even protect themselves. Believe me, they are not
> > well-liked in Iraq, and their surprise at the recent attack demostrates
> > just how bumbling and clueless an operation it is.
>
> Sorry, I don't believe you without evidence.
hahah. Dude - why don't you list the successful efforts of the UN and
get back to me. Thay are *incompetent*.
>
>rk it.
> >
> >
> > Twelve years. Goodness, how *impatient* we were!
>
> Twelve years plus two months was too long. Or six months, whatever. IT
> got down to the point where Blix said he needed about two more months,
> and that was too long for the spoiled brats in charge. If Bush had
> waited that two months, that would've been enough for me, I think. It
> probably would've been enough for France and Germany too.
heh, you are one nieve guy.
> But of course, then the inspectors would possibly have reported that
> they could find no WMDs. And given the post-war situation, they'd have
> likely been right. Now THAT would've been interesting, wouldn't it?
Ah yes, we would have pulled out the tropps and Saddam would
have....what?
>
totalitarian regimes.
> >
> > And those slimy little bastards are paying a price they deserve. They
> > miss all the American dollars. They can rot in their crumbling socialist
> > paradise as the hordes of Muslims slowly overtake them as they have
> > stated they will.
>
> Your childish attitude disgusts me. You'd rather have your pretentions
> of propriety and petty "payback" while Iraq squanders away in the heat,
> disease and terrorism that's there. Rather than re-build the
> *generations* of good will and cooperation that we have had with those
> "immoral monsters", good will that evaporated in LESS THAN A YEAR thanks
> to our incompetent leadership, and provide the poor people whose nation
> WE busted up (after decades of abuse by Saddam) with much more a
> semblence of security and prosperity, you want to keep your shrivelled,
> shrewish claws tight on the throats of the people our forces are
> occupying, so that Halliburton and Bechtel can maximize their revenues.
Piss off with your cluelessness on this issue. believe me, the Iraqis
*do not need your foot-stomping, spoiled western bullshit*
> How much of their stock do you own?
>
> Hint: America is not strong enough to battle even half the world at
> once. Attitudes like yours will unite opposition against my nation, and
> you cannot be allowed to prevail.
News flash: We prevail, go whine. We could care less.
> >
> > What would you have him do?
>
> I've stated it several times. From the look of things, you don't like it.
Beacuse it is as pointless as it is clueless. You simply make very
little sense, and I have a very strong suspiscion you are quite young.
SteveR
"Roger R." <jayrayn...@hotmail.com> wrote:
What's the matter, Roger - did someone tell you we'd be done in 4 months?
There's your problem, dude, you heard voices that aren't there.
Raptor
>>>>>That's your decision to make. In my view, the justificcations never
>>>>>changed, they were just added to until the desision practically made
>>>>>itself.
>>>>
>>>>The non-appearance of the WMDs really knocked the administration for a
>>>>loop. I was one of few people in this country, apparently, who actually
>>>>thought Saddam would/could see the writing on the wall and eliminated
>>>>his WMDs. There is evidence that he did just that, but the neocons had
>>>>a simple-minded view of the matter.
>>>
>>>
>>>So, where is the downside?
>>>
>>>Saddam clandestinely destroys the weapons, but in a moment of sheer
>>>genius, neglects to tell anyone leading to his ouster and the liberation
>>>of his victims.
>>>
>>>Weapons gone, regime gone, people liberated. Game, set, match.
>>
>>See, that's just the wrong attitude that pisses off people like me who
>>like to think of themselves as prudent. Who actually believe war should
>>be a last resort, instead of just saying it like Bush does. "War is
>>hell" is not just a slogan:
>
>
> Perhaps some of us consider war is the last resort after 12 years.
>
> He had every opportunity to avoid war.
It wasn't the last resort. QED: there were UN inspectors in place at
the time Bush's ultimatum was set.
Saddam could not have avoided this war.
>>A few hundred dead Americans.
>>A few dead Brits.
>>Lots of dead Iraqis.
>>Pissed-off allies.
>>A bunch of pissed-off Iraqis.
>>A couple $hundreds-of-billions.
>>A mess in Afghanistan that's harder to clean up.
>>A busted-up Iraq.
>>Pissed-off Arabs everywhere, Arabs who can now mock the US as easily as
>>they respect us.
>>A weakened strategic position world-wide.
>
>
> Actually, if you've been paying attention to the "Arab street" post-war,
> you would realize that not only have we gained respect, our strategic
> position there is greatly enhanced.
>
> Or, are you one of those who believes Muslim radicals speak for all
> Muslims?
I have been paying attention to the Arab street. Their emotional
devastation over how potent our military is is very tempered by our
apparent inability to clean up the mess we created. The message seems
to be that America is good at breaking things. That's a strong message,
but not the best one we could send. Wouldn't it be nice if we could
resurrect some of those fuzzy Marshall Plan feelings? How many millions
more Arabs would that have won over? But that opportunity has seemingly
passed.
But heck, maybe by this time next year, Iraq will be a sunny paradise.
The odds are against it. And Arabs (like much of the rest of the world)
do seem to have a longer memory than we Americans tend to. Such things
are a cause for concern.
> Pissed off allies? Screw France - our national security *does not*
> hinmge on how happy we make the French.
Excuse you: French, German and Canadian troops (among other opponents of
the Iraq invasion) are currently serving alongside Americans in
Afghanistan. (You know, the REAL war on terrorism.) They have some
soldiers who could really be helpful in Iraq right now. And if you
haven't seen the pic of the German frigate Lutjens taken shortly after
9/11, I can re-post it in alt.binaries.pictures.military for you.
> Dead Iraqis? How many Iraqis do you think Saddam will kill this
> month..next month...next year? SAddam's days of killing Iraqis are
> *over*. Unfortunately, we pissed off the French, who could care less how
> many Iraqis are killed every year.
>
> A busted up Iraq? Do you actually believe they prefferd life under a
> murderous totalitarian? How quantly western of you to assume that.
>
> Pissed off Iraqis? Which Iraqis do you think are pissed off? Could it be
> the former victimizers? All polls taken there show great majority
> support for the US effort.
I haven't received that particular sense from the polls from Iraq I've
seen. The problem with pissed-off Iraqis is, they're pissed off AT US.
Yes, many of those are former Baathists, and they will all hopefully
die soon. But not all of them. We need every happy Iraqi we can get,
and our efforts should be focused on minimizing the number that we piss
off. The war itself was conducted to that effect, but the "peace" is
being conducted somewhat ignorantly of that requirement.
>>>In short, the UN is an immoral, dysfunctional collection of money and
>>>power-grubbing whack jobs, and when Bush took them out of the loop, he
>>>did absolutely the correct thing. If the UN doesn't like it, let them
>>>issue a new resolution or condemnation every year or so - that'll make
>>>'em feel useful.
>>
>>This nation has used the UN throughout its history, most of the time to
>>help solve the problem of the day.
>
>
> Sometimes.
>
>
>
>>The UN has served America's
>>interests many times in many ways.
>
>
> Not this time. They screwed up big time.
"We" screwed up. The UN was doing the same job of serving our
interests, in the same way (slow and deliberate) it has in the past.
This president simply has a problem working with others.
>>Suddenly this president decides to
>>give the far-right fringe UN haters their due, ridiculously. Rarely is
>>such a fringe element allowed to control the foreign policy of a great
>>nation.
>
>
> By your calculations, the majority of Americans are "far right", because
> the majority has and does support the effort.
I recall the pre-war polls which indicated a LARGE majority thought the
US should get the support and endorsement of the UN for the invasion.
>>There's nothing wrong with the UN "getting in the way" when the
>>destination is war - nothing at all. That's what you don't see.
>
>
> The destination was liberation and reduction of threat. War was the
> method.
I've been over liberation - why stop at Iraq? (I'm clear on the "who to
liberate" question and can answer that question on my own, but I don't
think the Bushies [or you] are as clear on it as I am.)
The threat was effectively reduced before the first shot was fired, as
we have seen.
>>I mean look, why couldn't Bush have dragged Blair and the rest of us
>>into this mess two months later than he did, giving the UN and their
>>inspectors the time they said they needed?
>
>
> Because nothing would have changed except the logistical problems of
> mid-east heat.
You guess, because it's all you've got. It's kinda like me blowing away
your mother because "she's gonna die anyway." It's the same fallacy,
though I'm not enough of a philosophy student to be able to hang a name
on it.
I do not accept such casual illogic being applied to my nation's
prestige and future.
>>Can you give me an answer reflecting more maturity than a four-year-old
>>demanding candy? I'll bet you can't.
>
>
> I've given you that answer several times - it's you that seems to be
> working up a bit of a hissy-fit, and it's quite obvious you would never
> accept any answer, because you've decided it was wrong. Fine, enjoy your
> minority position as the rest of us move on. You cannot undo the
> liberation.
Yes, your answer is unacceptable given the parameters I set. I actually
knew this, but I thought I'd give your side yet another chance. That's
just me - I'm often uncommonly generous to the other side of an argument.
>>>Given the tremendous strides we have made in these few months, our
>>>efforts are truly amazing in the context of history.
>>
>>It doesn't matter how lucky we get, how good things ultimately go.
>>Bush/Rummy didn't do some very simple, very prudent things up front, and
>>the results show that. They will always be criticized, rightly so.
>
>
> That goes with the territory. Bush can handle it, he still has majority
> support. And, it's not a popularity contest.
>
>
>>It's simply too late for Iraq to become a clear victry. We as a nation
>>and the president as a legacy holder will have to be happy with a
>>figurative pulling of our nuts out of the fire.
>
>
> You seem to consider every negative instance, no matter how
> historically precedented, as signs of overall failure. You exhibit very
> little historical perspective so far.
I hold a longer view than most, I think. That's why I'm so pissed about
the way this affair was mis-handled. Some of that outrage may be
coloring my view of the operation's overall prospects. I try to keep
them separate.
>>>No matter the plan or who makes the plan, all plans are subject to
>>>miscalls. It's the big picture that counts.
>>
>>This (serious thought given to the reconstruction) was big-picture
>>planning that, not being done, is inexcusable. I invite you to really
>>try to explain to me why you think it IS excusable. I'll listen.
>
>
> Are you aware that the mechanics of reconstruction were in place well
> before the invasion? Contracts were signed, plans were made. Maybe
> that's why the oil flows, all schools and hospitals are open, Internet
> access is up and running. All that, of course, is subject to sabotage -
> which you seem to misinterpret as "poor planning".
>
> Seventy plus newspapers in Baghdad alone. Markets filling, progress
> being made, but you sit here stamoing your tiny little feet because you
> don't agree with the effort.
Those ARE good things. But the looting that went on unimpeded, the slow
recovery of basic services, the large-scale violence that's occurring,
are all signs of inadequate planning.
>>>>When Turkey threw a wrench into our plans, I mean Good God! Why the
>>>>hell didn't that give the prez pause? He just proceeded "full speed
>>>>ahead." What was so damn important about the end of March? (I'd say
>>>>more but want to refrain from beating a dead horse.)
>>>
>>>
>>>Heat.
>>>
>>>My son has had three depolyments there, including the invasion. The heat
>>>is a serious detriment to military operations.
>>>
>>>Not to mention even more time for Saddam to dig in his forces and ready
>>>for the invasion.
>>
>>But we're there now, in the heat, conducting combat operations.
>
>
> Without chemical suits.
Well, the "hot" combat was only three weeks long.
>>As for Saddam digging in better than he already was, if we have the
>>assistance of the French, Germans and possibly an Arab nation or two,
>>wouldn't it have been worth it? Especially in the long term? I guess
>>if you have a problem seeing the long term, you wouldn't see the equation.
>
>
> We had the support of at least three Areab nations.
Qatar, Kuwait and who? Limited support, but it's a limited good point.
> Maybe you can identify exactly what the French could do for us, I sure
> as hell can't.
Overall credibility: Turkey might have given us a different answer if
we had a better coalition.
I'm not up on the OOB of everyone, but I bet the French could've given
us some valuable WMD mitigation, and their counter-terrorism is world
class. And then there are the Frogs who could be helping us police
stuff now. They probably have a few interpreters we could use right now
too. We can't have too many of those.
>>>Perhaps that statement from Bush was directed at the locals, as well as
>>>the enemy - in any event, I'm not quite sure why you find his
>>>reassurance to a skeptical populationin Iraq that we plan to stay the
>>>course. After all, these people know their history: Kurds, Vietnamese,
>>>Cambodians - millions slaughtered because we chose retreat.
>>
>>Okay, I'll grant that Iraq is one audience where such a statement was
>>proper and valuable. But it is not a proper or proportional response to
>>complaints of quagmire.
>
>
> That's absurd. For a leader to state that we will not back down in the
> face of pockets of resistence makes all the sense in the world.
> Apparently, you have taken it to mean the opposite?
>
> In that case, certainly you must be equally angry wioth McCain and
> Howard Dean, who now say the same thing.
The point remains, the first prominent mainstream American politician to
raise the question of retreat was President Bush, in dismissing it.
>>American leftists (at least all those not very far left of myself) are
>>NOT saying the US should pull out, so telling us we're damn well not
>>going to just makes us wonder where the idea came from and why the hell
>>the president is talking about it with his advisers.
>
>
> It is because the lingering resistance and Islamists fully exoect the
> left to engineer a retreat as they did in Vietnam, or they hope for
> another Somalia. They've said it over and over again. Bush said "ain't
> gona happen", which for some reason has caused you to become unglued.
> How absurd.
I'm not unglued about this aspect of things. As I said, I'm mainly just
scratching my head. Your answer about the Iraqi audience helps clear
things up a little. I still thought it imprudent, but then I've come to
expect that of President Bush.
>>We want this thing
>>to work despite how it might benefit this sorry excuse for a president.
>> As I've said, it's too important to become a failure.
>
>
> I get the feeling you feel one of the multitudes of Democrat hopefuls
> will come in and somehow make things right. Dunno how you would arrive
> at that conslusion, since not a one has the slightest idea what to do.
Every one I've heard has said we need to get help from our allies,
implying patching things up where needed. That's what Bush must do.
> It appears GW gets under your skin. Get ready for a second term.
He sure does. He's failed to meet every expectation I had of him, and
they were very low. The only thing he's done right was his immediate
response to 9/11, and I give him credit for that. I had a hard time
complaining about the War on Terrorism until he went gallavanting to Iraq.
If you think I'm livid now, just wait to see me if he actually swings a
re-election. We'll make you right-wingers during the Clinton years look
like a church choir.
>>Some are saying "Send more troops now," but that's the sound-bite
>>version. We know that Iraq needs more troops, but the right kinds, the
>>types you see me demanding.
>
>
> Intel, and an Iraqi security force, that's what we need.
>
> Oddly enough, that's exactly what is happening.
We need more translators, border guards and security patrols. And until
the basic services are up to snuff, we don't have enough civil engineers
there.
We also need more grunts to relieve our people. Thank God (or Kim Il
Sung if you live in Pyongyang) that N. Korea is remaining non-combative, eh?
>>>Once again, the undertaking is massive, and the destruction is not all
>>>of our doing (we purposefully avoided destroying that which we knoew
>>>would have to be rebuilt), and we are doing a damn good job under very
>>>difficult circumstances.
>>
>>We all saw Baghdad under lights until one day US forces started knocking
>>on the airport doors, IIRC.
>
>
> I suppose you feel Baghdad resembles Dresden. You're wrong. It was the
> cleanest invasion ever.
Your hand-waving aside, we screwed the electric pooch.
>>I can hear you make those points and not disagree with them. But it's
>>another thing entirely to expect the typical Iraqi to be so
>>understanding. I think you can understand why I'm worried about it, and
>>therefore why I suggest (demand) solutions to this problem.
>
>
> THe solutions are in progress. It's been less than 6 months, what the
> hell do you expect? Progress is phenomenal.
I've got power and clean water. I really don't know how long my
goodwill would hold out if you took them away. I really don't care how
long Iraq goes without the basics, except that our friends and relatives
are over there trying to make their country work, and my nation has a
very strong interest in how well Iraqis take their current situation.
snip blogs - thanks
>>Again I point out that things going well is not news. I watch the
>>long-format news coverage, and therefore I DO hear that not everything
>>sucks in Iraq. But the bad news is bad enough to possibly cancel out
>>the widespread but de rigeur good news.
>
>
> The bad news is nothing that anyone with historical perspective would be
> surprised by. The good news is that this effort is simpy amazing in
> scope and speed.
Just about everyone was caught out by the looting. No one predicted the
scale of terrorism that's happened recently. That included a lot of
people with historical perspectives.
>>>Many Iraqis of today, OTOH, seem to be content to sit by as the US
>>>rebuilds. Perhaps if we enslaved them to the task as Saddam did, things
>>>would go a bit faster. They are slowly figuring out that, yes, they need
>>>to get involved, and they will in time tire of their fellow countrymen
>>>who blow up what we fix.
>>
>>Either that, or join their countrymen in blowing up what we fix.
>>Shouldn't we have an ample supply of civic affairs people over there to
>>make things go fast enough as to make those kinds of decisions moot?
>>Shouldn't we have enough police on the ground there to make such
>>decisions ineffective?
>
>
> All in due time. For perspective, study the situation in Post WW2
> Germany, and you'll realize how amazing this all is.
"All in due time" doesn't cut it. You guys got your war when you wanted
it, why shouldn't I demand blooming flower boxes on every Baghdad
windowsill NOW? (OTOH, I am not a student of post-war Europe.)
>>>>How long do we have to wait
>>>>before Iraq's borders become kind-of secure again? Media convoys are
>>>>still being robbed by gangs on the main road. Etc.
>>>
>>>
>>>Absolutely no different than post WW2. Why is this such a surprise? One
>>>can expect a certain level of anarchy when there is a power vaccuum. One
>>>can also expect it to eventually come under control - and that will
>>>happen when there is a sufficcient Iraqi security force in place, which
>>>is happening.
>>
>>It's been four months. If we had help, we'd probably have those borders
>>somewhat secure by now using UN and other allied forces.
>
>
> We canno possibly secure all of the borders. We can' however, threaten
> the nations from whom the combatants are coming.
>
> Those that come in will die in Iraq, and the attraction of Jihad will
> wane.
>
> It's already happening. The Iraqis *do not like the Arabs* and want them
> OUT of Iraq.
Right now, we don't seem to be securing ANY of the borders. Given that
we're the only thing Iraq has resembling security, isn't it a bit risky
that the Iraqis want the Arabs out (and kept out)? Pretty soon, they'll
realize that no matter how much they complain to their fellow Arabs, it
takes cops, guards and soldiers to keep them out. That would be us, or
our allies if Bush pulls his head out and does what needs to be done to
get help.
>>>It's called "best case/worst case scenario", and anyone who sets a hard
>>>date for completion stands to look a bit silly. This also applies to
>>>construction projects.
>>
>>Have you seen a schedule, or do you just take it on faith that one
>>exists somewhere? Given the way things are being run now, I don't think
>>you can reasonably have that kind of faith.
>
>
> There has never been a "schedule", because it wopuld be impossible to
> predict the variables.
>
>
>
>>Yes, we had a (plausible) plan in the Balkans. I care less about
>>whether the plan is met, than that there is one. If there is a plan,
>>then some thought was given to the potential consequences. I saw no
>>plan, and therefore see no thought.
>
>
> The plan is working. There are setbacks, struggles, unforseen problems,
> but the big picture (insluding the effect on neighbors) is right on
> target.
Plan/schedule, same difference. I've not seen either, but that could be
because I haven't looked for one.
>>>Acknowledgement of problems and statement of resolve in the face of
>>>those problems is somehow a bad thing? If he did not acknowledge
>>>problems, I suspect you would be taking him to task for that as well.
>>
>>Sure I would. What would have him off the hook (and it's not that much
>>of a hook, really - I'm just scratching my head about the comment) is
>>something in the middle. Simply acknowledging the problems would be
>>fine with me, but it wouldn't spare Bush the criticism for continuing to
>>run things foolishly. He'll have to start running things smartly to
>>mute that criticism. (Then, like I said, we'll only have the mistakes
>>he made in the past to skewer him on.)
>
>
> I'm not sure how you can say things are being run "foolishly". Problems
> arise, problems are dealt with. The only precedent is WW@, and with that
> as comparison, this is a miracle of efficiency.
I think I've covered the problems I have with the process and the situation.
>>>>Your take is wrong wrong wrong and I am baffled as to how anyone can
>>>>maintain it given the facts. At the very least, you can't say France et
>>>>al weren't fully prepared to support the invasion if Bush had given the
>>>>inspectors their requested additional time.
>>>
>>>
>>>France had no intention whatsoever to have their cash cow deposed.
>>>Saddam was paying laughably inflated prices for everything under the
>>>sun, and the profiteers loved the arrangement. They didn't give a rat's
>>>ass about the Iraqi people. It was *Disgusting*
>>
>>So are fresh oysters, but people like them and even learn to like them.
>> You have no reason to believe the French government wouldn't keep
>>their word. (I guess, unless you think they're too much like our
>>government, which spares no effort in sheltering its commercial interests.)
>
>
> FRance has completely lost any semblance of my respect over this, Chirac
> is a opportunistic mosnter.
You might want to note that the feeling isn't exactly mutual. The
French seem to despise our government but their respect for America as a
whole hasn't diminished. The French seem to be more magnanimous and
gracious than certain Americans.
> And, how about Germany? Gosh, they are now selling devices to jam smart
> bombs, so despots can cause ordinance to fall in civilian neighborhoods.
> Now, there are some truly major assholes.
>
> They can all kiss my ass.
And we're selling all kinds of nasty stuff ourselves. Everyone else
seems to want to ban land mines, for example.
Fortunately, our allies are a little more mature than you and your ilk.
Despite the collosal snub Shrub gave them, they are still willing to
help us in Afghanistan. And willing to help in Iraq, conditionally.
>>It was not tried, and you can not explain it away with nothing but
>>speculation no matter how hard you try. We might as well drop it. You
>>and your ilk were wrong, and it's time to try to fix the mess.
>
>
> My "ilk", otherwise known as the majority of Americans, are right.
>
> Leaving Saddam in power was *wrong*.
Leaving a dozen other despots in power is *wrong* too. Why aren't we
going after them, and having answered that, you can then return to
trying to justify our invasion of Iraq. And round and round we go.
>>>You just made my case. 12 years. Twelve damn years of duplicity,
>>>profiteering and deplorable abuses and potential weapons buildup. Would
>>>you have felkt better if we waited 15 years? 20?
>>>
>>>That's a helluva "rush to war", eh?
>>
>>YOU HAVE NO CASE. Like a spoiled, bawling ankle biter, you wanted a
>>WAR, you wanted it NOW, and you were unwilling to wait even two more
>>months to try to avert one, OR to wage one with much more support from
>>our allies than we had.
>
>
> Twelve damn years, and you honestly believe two months would have made
> any difference at all.
>
> Go figger.
I've explained why it would have made a difference.
>>Next, you'll be parroting our president and saying, "War is always the
>>last resort." Don't make me puke.
>
>
> As it looks, it was not only the last resort, it was the best resort.
>
> Remember, Saddam could have left - the offer was on the table.
There were quite a few alternatives we could've tried. I'm sure you can
come up with some if you think real hard. It would be nice if such
feel-good slogans were not spewing from the mouths of warmongers.
>>Honestly, I would have felt better if our president had actually allowed
>>the UN to do its foot-dragging, to dot all its annoying little i's and
>>cross its annoying little t's, and THEN, if necessary, attacked against
>>the international community's wishes.
>
>
>
> THey wouldn't have. They were making too much money off the status quo.
More useless speculation whose only value is to reinforce your
irrational opinion that you're right.
>>I don't think it would have been necessary. At the very least, our
>>"coalition" would have been less of a joke. Best case, we'd have all
>>our traditional allies with us, with a possible Arab representative. At
>>worst, we'd have spent a couple $billion that we spent anyway, and our
>>soldiers would have had to fight through higher temps for three weeks.
>
>
> You honstley believe this scenario would have played out? What a hoot.
Bush Sr. managed something like it in 1990-91. I approved of his
handling of foreign policy. But then, he is by definition more mature,
isn't he?
> Reapeat after me: France et al *wanted Saddam in power*. Do you not get
> that?
No, I do not get that. Regardless, even *if* they did, that doesn't
mean they wouldn't cut Saddam loose if doing so were worth more to them.
Nations act in their interests. Any skilled diplomat could have made
this invasion seem worthwhile to our long-time allies, if his boss
would've given him the reasonable amount of time required to do so.
>>Where's the downside of having waited a little while longer just to
>>satisfy the panty-waists in the diplomatic corps?
>
>
> Again, heat, and the fact that it would have *made no difference*.
Heat is a valid but limited point in your favor. The rest is shear
speculation on your part. The leader of the most powerful nation on
Earth should have given the alternative its due. Barring that, he has
no grounds for claiming that he ordered the attack as "the last resort."
>>>THe Iraqis know the UN profited off of SAddam's regime while they
>>>suffered. The USS, NOT the UN is the hand that feeds them, liberated
>>>them, and will protect them as this is sorted out.
>>
>>The US is the owner of the hand that's getting bitten now, isn't it?
>
>
> Yes, we are the force protecting the newly freed Iraqis from those that
> seek to dominate and kill them. Someone had to do it. and it sure as
> hell wasn't going to be the freakin' UN.
What matters now is how the Iraqis feel.
>>>The UN can't even protect themselves. Believe me, they are not
>>>well-liked in Iraq, and their surprise at the recent attack demostrates
>>>just how bumbling and clueless an operation it is.
>>
>>Sorry, I don't believe you without evidence.
>
>
>
> hahah. Dude - why don't you list the successful efforts of the UN and
> get back to me. Thay are *incompetent*.
Check the accomplishments of the UN guy who got killed last week for
starters. Mozambique is the big one.
>>rk it.
>>
>>>
>>>Twelve years. Goodness, how *impatient* we were!
>>
>>Twelve years plus two months was too long. Or six months, whatever. IT
>>got down to the point where Blix said he needed about two more months,
>>and that was too long for the spoiled brats in charge. If Bush had
>>waited that two months, that would've been enough for me, I think. It
>>probably would've been enough for France and Germany too.
>
>
> heh, you are one nieve guy.
And you are a warmonger. (Please replay all the usual "chickenhawk" and
"it's not YOUR ass on the line" and "babykiller!" stuff that goes with it.)
>>But of course, then the inspectors would possibly have reported that
>>they could find no WMDs. And given the post-war situation, they'd have
>>likely been right. Now THAT would've been interesting, wouldn't it?
>
>
> Ah yes, we would have pulled out the tropps and Saddam would
> have....what?
>
>
>
> totalitarian regimes.
Yep, it would've been a real interesting problem. But an honest player
would've packed up the troops and brought them home, probably after
instilling a program to ensure that Saddam played nice with the rest of
the world.
I remember pretty well the official pronouncements of the last two
years, and every time Saddam gave in to something the bar would be
raised again.
Our most significant goal post-9/11 would have been met: the prevention
of a nation contributing to international terrorism.
>>>And those slimy little bastards are paying a price they deserve. They
>>>miss all the American dollars. They can rot in their crumbling socialist
>>>paradise as the hordes of Muslims slowly overtake them as they have
>>>stated they will.
>>
>>Your childish attitude disgusts me. You'd rather have your pretentions
>>of propriety and petty "payback" while Iraq squanders away in the heat,
>>disease and terrorism that's there. Rather than re-build the
>>*generations* of good will and cooperation that we have had with those
>>"immoral monsters", good will that evaporated in LESS THAN A YEAR thanks
>>to our incompetent leadership, and provide the poor people whose nation
>>WE busted up (after decades of abuse by Saddam) with much more a
>>semblence of security and prosperity, you want to keep your shrivelled,
>>shrewish claws tight on the throats of the people our forces are
>>occupying, so that Halliburton and Bechtel can maximize their revenues.
>
>
> Piss off with your cluelessness on this issue. believe me, the Iraqis
> *do not need your foot-stomping, spoiled western bullshit*
That's about the size of it. I only hope I'm clearly communicating my
view, which is somewhat involved and complicated given that actions in
one realm have affects in other areas, and foreign policy is not for the
simple-minded.
I will not permit your views on foreign policy, shared as they are by
our current president, to prevail.
>>How much of their stock do you own?
>>
>>Hint: America is not strong enough to battle even half the world at
>>once. Attitudes like yours will unite opposition against my nation, and
>>you cannot be allowed to prevail.
>
>
> News flash: We prevail, go whine. We could care less.
Yeah, you'll be laughing your ass off when the EU negotiates forward
deployment bases in Canada and Mexico. (I know, it's silly fiction.
But it's also one potential ultimate outcome of the foreign policy of
the Bush Administration. Just little bitty North Korea could really
fuck our world up the way things are now.)
>>>What would you have him do?
>>
>>I've stated it several times. From the look of things, you don't like it.
>
>
> Beacuse it is as pointless as it is clueless. You simply make very
> little sense, and I have a very strong suspiscion you are quite young.
Not at all. You, like many on your side, have not spent enough time
carefully considering alternatives and the reasonably expected behavior
of allies and enemies alike. In short, you have a simple-minded and
arrogant view of America's place in the world. Unfortunately, those
thinking much like you are currently in charge of my nation, but we'll
address that problem in due time.
In case you've missed it, President Bush must relax American control
over what happens in Iraq's immediate future sufficiently to convince
our traditional allies (and other nations as needed) to contribute
meaningful assistance to our efforts to secure and rebuild Iraq. This
may well require the issuance of apologies and explanations, and will
probably require sacrificing some of the profitable contracts currently
being served by American companies generally linked to officials serving
in the current administration. Quite simple, really, but not easy. But
he made that bed.
Raptor
> Any one of these average Iraqis is more persuasive than a dozen
> cynics.
It's all heartening, but it's one-sided. Whereas the reportage of "the
liberal media" is mainly about (dire) events: Americans killed today,
UN HQ bombed, pipeline bombed, now repaired.
I'll read some blogs, but what I'd really like to see is a mini-debate
and longer quotes. "Yes, this isn't working yet, but we're [feeling
like this about it]. We love the freedom, but it'd be nice... We
really need this done, and it needs to be soon, or else [this]." That
and some polls of Iraqis, which are probably tricky given the state of
things.
Raptor
> Thomas wrote:
>
>> Any one of these average Iraqis is more persuasive than a dozen
>> cynics.
I'm now wondering why you guys suggested I read some Iraq blogs, or even
if you did. They do NOT help your case (along with Stever) that things
aren't that bad in Iraq.
From:
http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/
"Listen to this little anecdote. One of my cousins works in a prominent
engineering company in Baghdad- we’ll call the company H. This company
is well-known for designing and building bridges all over Iraq. My
cousin, a structural engineer, is a bridge freak. He spends hours
talking about pillars and trusses and steel structures to anyone who’ll
listen.
As May was drawing to a close, his manager told him that someone from
the CPA wanted the company to estimate the building costs of replacing
the New Diyala Bridge on the South East end of Baghdad. He got his team
together, they went out and assessed the damage, decided it wasn’t too
extensive, but it would be costly. They did the necessary tests and
analyses (mumblings about soil composition and water depth, expansion
joints and girders) and came up with a number they tentatively put
forward- $300,000. This included new plans and designs, raw materials
(quite cheap in Iraq), labor, contractors, travel expenses, etc.
Let’s pretend my cousin is a dolt. Let’s pretend he hasn’t been working
with bridges for over 17 years. Let’s pretend he didn’t work on
replacing at least 20 of the 133 bridges damaged during the first Gulf
War. Let’s pretend he’s wrong and the cost of rebuilding this bridge is
four times the number they estimated- let’s pretend it will actually
cost $1,200,000. Let’s just use our imagination.
A week later, the New Diyala Bridge contract was given to an American
company. This particular company estimated the cost of rebuilding the
bridge would be around- brace yourselves- $50,000,000 !!"
Now, this one's just about money and political payola. But elsewhere:
"Chaos
“[Iraq] is not a country in chaos and Baghdad is not a city in chaos.” –
Paul Bremer
Where is this guy living? Is he even in the same time zone??? I’m
incredulous… maybe he's from some alternate universe where shooting,
looting, tanks, rape, abductions, and assassinations aren’t considered
chaos, but it’s chaos in *my* world.
Ever since the occupation there have been 400 females abducted in
Baghdad alone and that is only the number of recorded abductions. Most
families don’t go to the Americans to tell about an abduction because
they know it’s useless. The male members of the family take it upon
themselves to search for the abducted female and get revenge if they
find the abductors. What else is there to do? I know if I were abducted
I’d much rather my family organize themselves and look for me personally
than go to the CPA.
By BBC’s accounts there are 70 cars a day being hijacked in Baghdad alone…"
After only 20 minutes of reading, I'm less inclined to believe your
sunny words than I was earlier.
alohacyberian
> alohacyberian wrote:
> > "Raptor" <m...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:3F50E27...@attbi.com...
> >>alohacyberian wrote:
> >>>"Raptor" <m...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> > news:3F4E80BD...@attbi.com...
> >>>>alohacyberian wrote:
> >>>The person who actually does something will always be the one who bares
> > the
> >>>brunt of the criticism. Doing something took a lot more guts than doing
> >>>nothing. KM
> >>
> >>Tim McVeigh thought so, and Osama bin Forgotten thinks so too. My
> >>criticism is more the how than the why. Bush is running this show like
> >>it's Amateur Hour.
> >
> > LOL! You praise Timothy McVeigh and Osama bin Laden and desparage George
W.
> > Bush. Go figure. KM
>
> Silly you. I used very simple counter-examples to your shallow rhetoric
> to disprove your point, whatever it was.
>
You're hilarious. You claim to "disprove" my point while admitting you don't
know what it is! Spoken like a true, Leftwing Liberal. Keep them laughs
comin'. KM
alohacyberian
> alohacyberian wrote:
> > "Raptor" <m...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3F50E2B3...@attbi.com...
> >>alohacyberian wrote:
> >>>"Raptor" <m...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> >>>>Anyone can imagine a monster and call it whatever they want. My
> >>>>objection to the cunt
> >>>
> >>>Name-calling and personal slurs are the first sign of people's inability
> > to
> >>>support their positions. No amount of money, influence or publicity
> > could
> >>>possibly paint Leftwing Liberals in a worse light than they readily
> > portray
> >>>themselves. They are their own worst enemas. KM
> >>
> >>I'm just more succinct in my name-calling than Ann Coulter is. Some of
> >>us aren't paid by the word.
> >
> > Did it ever occur to you that Ann Coulter is paid because her words are
worth
> > reading? If her words weren't worth reading, nobody would be buying her
> > books, now would they? KM
>
> All that says is that there are a lot of people who like to read
> inflammatory garbage largely devoid of deep thought. We already knew that.
>
Ah, the many faces of envy. KM
alohacyberian
worth
> >reading? If her words weren't worth reading, nobody would be buying her
> >books, now would they? KM
>
> the crybaby bedwetters of the left because of the fact that their
> views are so much more compelling to the American people than the
> childish rantings of the Michael Moore's and Al Franken's of the
> world. That fact forces the realization that their own personal views
> are misguided and unsupportable on them. Their discomfort with that
> realization, despite their impassioned and vitriolic protestations to
> the contrary is so obvious it's kind of amusing.
> I am going to enjoy 2004 sooooo much. ;-)
>
By 2004, the Leftwing Liberals should be hoarse from all their screeching and
shrieking and will hopefully be reduced to sighing and sobbing. KM
alohacyberian
You could have added that Michael Moore is a political illiterate, while Ann
Coulter has college degress which include a law degree and she has on-hands
experience with politics and politicians in Washington. KM
alohacyberian
> In article
> <Dwi4b.120751$0v4.8...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> "alohacyberian" <alohac...@att.net> wrote:
> > I spent about 5 hours with a United States Marine who just returned from
a
> > tour in Iraq. Over here, he's a military policeman and over there what
he
> > witnessed on a daily basis is absolutely counterpoint to what the Western
> > media is presenting. In the last few months I've spoken to a number of
Army,
> > Navy and Marine returnees from Iraq and all of them are in lock-step in
their
> > reports and determinations. The media seeks out the one ten-thousandth
of a
> > percent of the malcontents and leads us to believe that all the people
there
> > are of like mind, when in fact they're in the distinct minority. KM
>
> US Marines (including my son).
>
> It boils down to this: Hundreds of people gave thanks and expressed joy
> at their liberation every single day to these Marines. Offers of food
> and lodging, and yes flowers - an admiration for the US Military and a
> great co-operation from these people as these military people helped to
> rebuild in ways great and small.
>
> OTOH, there was a contingent of people who tried to kill the US military
> on a daily basis. One must keep in mind that these same people were part
> of the group that also terrorized and murdered the Iraqi people on a
> daily basis over the past 30 years.
>
> One can apply some logic here. If that logic is driven by available
> fact, and not partisan loathing, it would appear that the enemies of the
> US Military are also the enemies of the vast majority of the Iraqi
> people.
>
> On that basis, one can choose to asses the situation based on the
> actions and desires of whichever group best makes their case. I choose
> to view the vast majority of the liberated Iraqi people as more
> representative than their historic victimizers.
>
Yes, Western media coverage of Iraq would be akin to having Iraqi television
come to the United States and interview only members of the mafia and
patients in mental institutions while claiming such reporting to be
representative of Americans. KM
alohacyberian
> SteveR wrote:
> > I will echo that assesment, based on the anecdotes of several returned
> > US Marines (including my son).
> >
> > It boils down to this: Hundreds of people gave thanks and expressed joy
> > at their liberation every single day to these Marines. Offers of food
> > and lodging, and yes flowers - an admiration for the US Military and a
> > great co-operation from these people as these military people helped to
> > rebuild in ways great and small.
> >
> > OTOH, there was a contingent of people who tried to kill the US military
> > on a daily basis. One must keep in mind that these same people were part
> > of the group that also terrorized and murdered the Iraqi people on a
> > daily basis over the past 30 years.
> >
> > One can apply some logic here. If that logic is driven by available
> > fact, and not partisan loathing, it would appear that the enemies of the
> > US Military are also the enemies of the vast majority of the Iraqi
> > people.
> >
> > On that basis, one can choose to asses the situation based on the
> > actions and desires of whichever group best makes their case. I choose
> > to view the vast majority of the liberated Iraqi people as more
> > representative than their historic victimizers.
>
> There seems to be no doubt that the Iraqi people are generally grateful
> (profoundly) to have been liberated from the regime. That's not really
> the point.
>
Oh, yes it is the point. The primary reason for the allied invasion of Iraq
was to oust the Saddam Hussein regime. Mission accomplished. And the vast
majority of Iraqis will be grateful until the day they die. And the majority
of Americans still support the invasion. KM
alohacyberian
I don't share your optimism about the American media, though I hope you are
right because that is the only fair thing for them to do. However, If they
do switch gears it won't be until after the presidential election. By then
the public should be sick and tired of them and continue to trust the media
less and less with each passing day. KM
alohacyberian
> >>alohacyberian wrote:
> > Wild-eyed idealism is never going to accomplish anything. Our success in
> > those nations will be determined almost solely by politicians and
> > businesspeople. President Bush certainly will not make any effort to
please
> > people who obviously would never support him - he's going to listen to
those
> > who do. That's life. KM
>
> I meant, our success in those nations is too important to sacrifice to
> domestic politics. Like I said, I'd rather Shrub manages
>
"Shrub?" As long as you continue to characterize important people like the
President of the United States with prepubescent name-calling, no intelligent
person is going to take your words seriously. Even if you're only a 12 year
old, don't communicate like a 6 year old. Do Bill and Hillary Clinton or
Ralph Nader talk that way? Such behavior doesn't fall into the realm of
political analysts, it's the purview of psychologists and psychiatrists. No
amount of money or influence could possibly portray Leftwing Liberals in a
worse light than they readily portray themselves. KM
"Until you can intelligently articulate the other side's position, you are
not an adult. You are a liberal."
~ Ann Coulter
alohacyberian
> On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 00:35:47 -0600, Raptor <m...@attbi.com> wrote:
> >Thomas wrote:
> >> On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 10:58:37 -0600, Raptor <m...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
> well then nothing I say or no facts and/or logic employed will ever
> change your mind.
> Bottom line: The Iraqi people are no longer being tortured and/or
> killed by the thousands. Our military invasion, and current
> occupation is one of the most successful and breathtaking endeavors in
> order to remove power from Saddam and his family and return it to the
> Iraqi people that history has ever seen.
> The doom and gloom pessimists have their own agenda, and optimism and
> success are anathema to their views and hopes for the Iraqi people.
> That's pretty sad, actually.
>
There will always be people who live to spread the doomsday word. These
perennial pessimists are congenital malcontents who claim they actually think
the United States and her allies should take 20 minutes to put a bandaid on a
country that has lived in terror for half a century and has built customs and
traditions for centuries that are not things that pave the way for government
by the people. With less than half the population of the adult population
who is literate, in a country with only 675,000 telephones (mostly business
and government) and no cell phones, only one Internet Service Provider with
12,500 subscribers (mostly Baathists and foreign companies), and only one
radio for every 16,500 people and five times fewer television sets, the
United States is supposed to fix everything and make it better almost
overnight. It ain't gonna happen and anyone displeased with that fact should
find a hobby or get a dog to distract them from the hard, cold facts of life.
Are most Americans in the instant gratification mode of the sadist sobbers?
We'll see on election day. KM
manfrommars_43
> By 2004, the Leftwing Liberals should be hoarse from all their screeching and
> shrieking and will hopefully be reduced to sighing and sobbing. KM
those will be tears of
joy at the Howard Dean
victory party.
by the way, have you seen
recent pictures of bu$h...
he looks older than his
dad!
--
http://home.earthlink.net/~jabailo
finders storyTeller
manfrommars_43
> majority of Iraqis will be grateful until the day they die. And the majority
> of Americans still support the invasion. KM
'supported'
manfrommars_43
> "Until you can intelligently articulate the other side's position, you are
> not an adult. You are a liberal."
> ~ Ann Coulter
Ok, let me try. Here's alohacyberian:
BLOW THE LIMBS OFF THE IRAQI CHILDREN
LET THEM GO LEGLESS FOR LIFE
BECAUSE I AM A BLIND SHITHEAD WHO WORSHIPS
BU$H HINDQUARTERS
ok, now I see.
Raptor
> "Raptor" <m...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:3F522A24...@attbi.com...
>
>>alohacyberian wrote:
>>
>>>"Raptor" <m...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:3F50E27...@attbi.com...
>>>
>>>>alohacyberian wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"Raptor" <m...@attbi.com> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>news:3F4E80BD...@attbi.com...
>>>
>>>>>>alohacyberian wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>The person who actually does something will always be the one who bares
>>>>
>>>the
>>>
>>>>>brunt of the criticism. Doing something took a lot more guts than doing
>>>>>nothing. KM
>>>>
>>>>Tim McVeigh thought so, and Osama bin Forgotten thinks so too. My
>>>>criticism is more the how than the why. Bush is running this show like
>>>>it's Amateur Hour.
>>>
>>>LOL! You praise Timothy McVeigh and Osama bin Laden and desparage George
>>
> W.
>
>>>Bush. Go figure. KM
>>
>>Silly you. I used very simple counter-examples to your shallow rhetoric
>>to disprove your point, whatever it was.
>>
>
>
> You're hilarious. You claim to "disprove" my point while admitting you don't
> know what it is! Spoken like a true, Leftwing Liberal. Keep them laughs
> comin'. KM
You're just easily impressed. The 14-year-old skater d00d who launches
himself off a 5' high ledge, breaking his clavicle in the subsequent
fall, has guts.
Raptor
> By 2004, the Leftwing Liberals should be hoarse from all their screeching and
> shrieking and will hopefully be reduced to sighing and sobbing. KM
Either that, or something like impeachment.
SteveR
> SteveR wrote:
> >
> >
> > Perhaps some of us consider war is the last resort after 12 years.
> >
> > He had every opportunity to avoid war.
>
> It wasn't the last resort. QED: there were UN inspectors in place at
> the time Bush's ultimatum was set.
Ah, then he could have disposed of the weapons, or moved them...we go
away, and then what?
Of course! Lift the sanctions! He's clean! We can relax!
Then 5 years later.... a lot of people feel like big-time suckers,
becaue Saddam, God bless his honest honest, reformed little soul
commences to do what he always promised to do.
Chances are, a lot of folks would have scoffed at how paranoid Bush was,
right up until they found out that...Saddam reconstituted his weapons
program.
Personally, I was in no way willing to chance that particular scenario.
I was not willing to assume he had abandonded his life's calling,
because I, like Bush, am not a sucker.
I
> > Actually, if you've been paying attention to the "Arab street" post-war,
> > you would realize that not only have we gained respect, our strategic
> > position there is greatly enhanced.
> >
> > Or, are you one of those who believes Muslim radicals speak for all
> > Muslims?
>
> I have been paying attention to the Arab street. Their emotional
> devastation over how potent our military is is very tempered by our
> apparent inability to clean up the mess we created.
The emotional devastation was *exactly* what had to happen.
Had you actually paid attention to Srab press, you would have spotted
something you never, ever saw prior to the war - Arab introspection.
> The message seems
> to be that America is good at breaking things. That's a strong message,
> but not the best one we could send. Wouldn't it be nice if we could
> resurrect some of those fuzzy Marshall Plan feelings? How many millions
> more Arabs would that have won over? But that opportunity has seemingly
> passed.
The speed of this initiative dwarfs the Marshall plan.
>
> But heck, maybe by this time next year, Iraq will be a sunny paradise.
> The odds are against it. And Arabs (like much of the rest of the world)
> do seem to have a longer memory than we Americans tend to. Such things
> are a cause for concern.
Iraqis hate Arabs.
> > Pissed off allies? Screw France - our national security *does not*
> > hinmge on how happy we make the French.
>
> Excuse you: French, German and Canadian troops (among other opponents of
> the Iraq invasion) are currently serving alongside Americans in
> Afghanistan. (You know, the REAL war on terrorism.) They have some
> soldiers who could really be helpful in Iraq right now. And if you
> haven't seen the pic of the German frigate Lutjens taken shortly after
> 9/11, I can re-post it in alt.binaries.pictures.military for you.
The war against terrorism is not limited to Afghanistan.
>
> >
> > Pissed off Iraqis? Which Iraqis do you think are pissed off? Could it be
> > the former victimizers? All polls taken there show great majority
> > support for the US effort.
>
> I haven't received that particular sense from the polls from Iraq I've
> seen. The problem with pissed-off Iraqis is, they're pissed off AT US.
Some of them are, just like the Islamists.
The latest bombing which killed the Cleric - are you aware that the
demonstrations after that incident were not directed at the US.
Are you starting to get it now? The poeple you fear, the people you
assume speak for all Iraqis, do not.
> Yes, many of those are former Baathists, and they will all hopefully
> die soon. But not all of them. We need every happy Iraqi we can get,
> and our efforts should be focused on minimizing the number that we piss
> off. The war itself was conducted to that effect, but the "peace" is
> being conducted somewhat ignorantly of that requirement.
I don't think we can take a course that assumes we can effect change,
and kill the enemies of freedom by making efforts to not upset them.
That would take all the fun out of it.
> >>The UN has served America's
> >>interests many times in many ways.
> > Not this time.
>
> "We" screwed up. The UN was doing the same job of serving our
> interests, in the same way (slow and deliberate) it has in the past.
> This president simply has a problem working with others.
Next, you're going to tell me they were serving the interests of the
people of Iraq.
> > By your calculations, the majority of Americans are "far right", because
> > the majority has and does support the effort.
>
> I recall the pre-war polls which indicated a LARGE majority thought the
> US should get the support and endorsement of the UN for the invasion.
Right up until France guaranteed a veto, then the polls were reversed.
The American public basically said "fuck you" to the French. Heh.
> >>There's nothing wrong with the UN "getting in the way" when the
> >>destination is war - nothing at all. That's what you don't see.
> > The destination was liberation and reduction of threat. War was the
> > method.
>
> I've been over liberation - why stop at Iraq? (I'm clear on the "who to
> liberate" question and can answer that question on my own, but I don't
> think the Bushies [or you] are as clear on it as I am.)
Gotta start somewhere. This is my favorite part of the argument, when
those against the war come up with all these other people we *should
have attacked*. Freakin' warmongers.
>
> The threat was effectively reduced before the first shot was fired, as
> we have seen.
Bullshit. It would have been postponed, that's all. I'd wager Saddam
could sell you a used Yugo.
> > Because nothing would have changed except the logistical problems of
> > mid-east heat.
>
> You guess, because it's all you've got. It's kinda like me blowing away
> your mother because "she's gonna die anyway." It's the same fallacy,
> though I'm not enough of a philosophy student to be able to hang a name
> on it.
I think it's called "bullshit".
If my Mom had defied her weapons probation for a decade and refused to
disarm, and she had often told me she fully intended to rule the
neighborhood with some nasty stuff as soon as the cops were off her
back, I'd call 911.
>
> I do not accept such casual illogic being applied to my nation's
> prestige and future.
Bully for you. Gotta take a stand somewhere.
>
> Yes, your answer is unacceptable given the parameters I set. I actually
> knew this, but I thought I'd give your side yet another chance. That's
> just me - I'm often uncommonly generous to the other side of an argument.
Well then, here ya go:
http://chiefwiggles.blog-city.com
http://chiefwiggles.blog-city.com
http://turningtables.blogspot.com
http://turningtables.blogspot.com
http://www.chromedomezone.com/
> > You seem to consider every negative instance, no matter how
> > historically precedented, as signs of overall failure. You exhibit very
> > little historical perspective so far.
>
> I hold a longer view than most, I think. That's why I'm so pissed about
> the way this affair was mis-handled. Some of that outrage may be
> coloring my view of the operation's overall prospects. I try to keep
> them separate.
Try looking at it from the totally opposite perspective, free of
partisan considerations, and keep it relevant.
> > Seventy plus newspapers in Baghdad alone. Markets filling, progress
> > being made, but you sit here stamoing your tiny little feet because you
> > don't agree with the effort.
>
> Those ARE good things. But the looting that went on unimpeded, the slow
> recovery of basic services, the large-scale violence that's occurring,
> are all signs of inadequate planning.
You're right, they admin corectly assesed the grateful nature of the
majority of Iraqi people, correctly assesed their urgency to form an
Iraqi government, which they stressd repeatedly prior to the invasion.
They did not correctly asses the level of resistance from outside
forces. Perhaps they actually listened to those that insisted the
impossibility of a Baathist/al Queda alliance?
But, we will kill them, it's that simple. Osama...Saddam...they have
made some major mistakes. Game over.
>
> Well, the "hot" combat was only three weeks long.
Not really. It took three 6-month deployments in the mid-east desert for
my kid to be an efficient USMC sargeant able to conduct efficient
warfare in that damn heat. 130 degrees plus. The invasion was downright
chilly, no thanks to Jaques Chirac.
> > We had the support of at least three Areab nations.
>
> Qatar, Kuwait and who? Limited support, but it's a limited good point.
Do your homework.
> > Maybe you can identify exactly what the French could do for us, I sure
> > as hell can't.
>
> Overall credibility: Turkey might have given us a different answer if
> we had a better coalition.
You use "overall credibility" and "French" in the same sentence?
Fucking swine would have *loved* to see US Marines die in the hot summer
just to prove their damn point. Get a damn clue, these people *are not
your friend*
> I'm not up on the OOB of everyone, but I bet the French could've given
> us some valuable WMD mitigation, and their counter-terrorism is world
> class. And then there are the Frogs who could be helping us police
> stuff now. They probably have a few interpreters we could use right now
> too. We can't have too many of those.
We can't have too many targets, call in the French.
> > That's absurd. For a leader to state that we will not back down in the
> > face of pockets of resistence makes all the sense in the world.
> > Apparently, you have taken it to mean the opposite?
> >
> > In that case, certainly you must be equally angry wioth McCain and
> > Howard Dean, who now say the same thing.
>
> The point remains, the first prominent mainstream American politician to
> raise the question of retreat was President Bush, in dismissing it.
This is absolutely absurd. I have no idea whatsoever how to answer...but
hell...
Firstly, the "first" mainstream politico to counsel retreat (by your
interpretation) was not george Bush. Look it up.
Secondly, Bush never once suggested retreat. Look it up.
Thirdly, Bush, in the face of resistance, said "we will not retreat".
That meant "we will not retreat".
Now, you tell me how that all adds up to "we just might retreat", or "we
we're thinking of retreat, but maybe not", or whatever the hell you
think he was saying.
Dude, when he said that, he was saying exactly what a US Marine says
with ordinance. When he said "bring 'em on" he was vocalizing the
essence of US Marine combat strategy. Look it up.
The message was meant for *combatants*.
BTW, that's you too. Quibble over proper procedures of war, stay out of
tall buildings.
> > It is because the lingering resistance and Islamists fully exoect the
> > left to engineer a retreat as they did in Vietnam, or they hope for
> > another Somalia. They've said it over and over again. Bush said "ain't
> > gona happen", which for some reason has caused you to become unglued.
> > How absurd.
>
> I'm not unglued about this aspect of things. As I said, I'm mainly just
> scratching my head.
Then stop doing that, and do your homework. Study invasions. Study
liberation. Study combat. Then, you might gain some perspective on all
this. There is an upside you are missing.
> Your answer about the Iraqi audience helps clear
> things up a little. I still thought it imprudent, but then I've come to
> expect that of President Bush.
That's ok, just don't let yor concerns about Bush cloud the historic
significance of this war, the threats we face, the incredible price we
will pay to fight this war - you'll realize that Iraq is a *battle*.
And this war is on no matter who is in the white house, I'm just damn
glad that the administration seems to have reached the same conclusions
I did well before they were in office.
And, they never said anything but "this is going to be a long, dirty
war", and anyone who flinches at that assesment is in denial. The option
to retreat was never there, and Bush has never indicated any suggestion
of retreat. What does "we will not retreat" mean to you?
> > I get the feeling you feel one of the multitudes of Democrat hopefuls
> > will come in and somehow make things right. Dunno how you would arrive
> > at that conslusion, since not a one has the slightest idea what to do.
>
> Every one I've heard has said we need to get help from our allies,
> implying patching things up where needed. That's what Bush must do.
Uhhh...at this moment, Bush is seeking commitment from "allies". Let the
people who allied with Saddam and the Baathists for obscene profit put
their battle-ready troops in there among the people who's misery they
engineered. Then, stand back as revenge happens. Welcome to the
mid-east, stand back.
The Iraqis *know* who allied with Saddam. They *know* who had the balls
to put those people aside and bring at the very least a chance at
freedom.
I *want* the French in there, they *make better targets*.
God knows we have paid a great price to liberate, and screw the French,
and the UN, and the Germans, and all those who wanted to keep Saddam in
power.
But, I'm an old liberal, not a neo-lib. Neo-lib's aren't all that
concerned about violations of human rights and human dignity and human
survival unless they can blame the US for it. And I ask you,
comparitavely speaking: "what the fuck have France, Germany and Russia
done for us lately?" Think about it.
> > It appears GW gets under your skin. Get ready for a second term.
>
> He sure does. He's failed to meet every expectation I had of him, and
> they were very low.
I had low expectations, and have been impressed with the
administration's long-range view on the mid-east.
He just appointed Daniel Pipes to some mid-east wonk group against the
wails of the usual supects, which took some major balls.
And if you want to know why the usual suspects call him a "radical" on
radical Isalm, I provide the link, you decide:
Raptor
> On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 00:08:09 -0600, Raptor <m...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Thomas wrote:
>>
>>>Any one of these average Iraqis is more persuasive than a dozen
>>>cynics.
>>
>>It's all heartening, but it's one-sided. Whereas the reportage of "the
>>liberal media" is mainly about (dire) events: Americans killed today,
>>UN HQ bombed, pipeline bombed, now repaired.
>>
>>I'll read some blogs, but what I'd really like to see is a mini-debate
>>and longer quotes. "Yes, this isn't working yet, but we're [feeling
>>like this about it]. We love the freedom, but it'd be nice... We
>>really need this done, and it needs to be soon, or else [this]." That
>>and some polls of Iraqis, which are probably tricky given the state of
>>things.
>
>
>
> preconceived notions and obvious biases is a syndrome that you share
> with the loony liberal left. Notwithstanding that it's intellectually
> dishonest, irrational and unproductive, you will never get a true
> picture of Iraq with a mind so obviously closed.
> "Res Ipsa Loquitor". Translation: It's as it looks.
I gotta tell you, your mind seems at least as closed as mine is.
There's a gray area between civilization and anarchy. That's where Iraq
most certainly is today.
Raptor
(snippage throughout)
>>>
>>>Perhaps some of us consider war is the last resort after 12 years.
>>>
>>>He had every opportunity to avoid war.
>>
>>It wasn't the last resort. QED: there were UN inspectors in place at
>>the time Bush's ultimatum was set.
>
>
> Ah, then he could have disposed of the weapons, or moved them...we go
> away, and then what?
>
> Of course! Lift the sanctions! He's clean! We can relax!
>
> Then 5 years later.... a lot of people feel like big-time suckers,
> becaue Saddam, God bless his honest honest, reformed little soul
> commences to do what he always promised to do.
>
> Chances are, a lot of folks would have scoffed at how paranoid Bush was,
> right up until they found out that...Saddam reconstituted his weapons
> program.
>
> Personally, I was in no way willing to chance that particular scenario.
> I was not willing to assume he had abandonded his life's calling,
> because I, like Bush, am not a sucker.
Which is why you put a permanent inspection scheme in place before
taking your ball & bat and going home. Duh. We went decades with the
USSR having MIRVs on 5-minute alert aimed at us. What's the big deal?
>>But heck, maybe by this time next year, Iraq will be a sunny paradise.
>>The odds are against it. And Arabs (like much of the rest of the world)
>>do seem to have a longer memory than we Americans tend to. Such things
>>are a cause for concern.
>
>
> Iraqis hate Arabs.
I'm happy for them, to the extent you're right. Arabs tend not to like
other Arabs much anyway. What matters is that if they had some
security, these Arab invaders wouldn't be a problem. Now, who's
responsible for their security again?
>>>Pissed off allies? Screw France - our national security *does not*
>>>hinmge on how happy we make the French.
>>
>>Excuse you: French, German and Canadian troops (among other opponents of
>>the Iraq invasion) are currently serving alongside Americans in
>>Afghanistan. (You know, the REAL war on terrorism.) They have some
>>soldiers who could really be helpful in Iraq right now. And if you
>>haven't seen the pic of the German frigate Lutjens taken shortly after
>>9/11, I can re-post it in alt.binaries.pictures.military for you.
>
>
> The war against terrorism is not limited to Afghanistan.
No shit. It's a lot of places, which is why we need a president who
maintains good relations with our allies and works hard to make more
allies, not some dumbass who acts like we're the 900-lb gorilla that
sits wherever it wants. It's one thing to BE the gorilla, it's another
to act like one. People like friendly gorillas, but they'll try to
shoot crazy ones.
>>>Pissed off Iraqis? Which Iraqis do you think are pissed off? Could it be
>>>the former victimizers? All polls taken there show great majority
>>>support for the US effort.
>>
>>I haven't received that particular sense from the polls from Iraq I've
>>seen. The problem with pissed-off Iraqis is, they're pissed off AT US.
>
>
> Some of them are, just like the Islamists.
>
> The latest bombing which killed the Cleric - are you aware that the
> demonstrations after that incident were not directed at the US.
>
> Are you starting to get it now? The poeple you fear, the people you
> assume speak for all Iraqis, do not.
I'm aware that the demonstrations afterward were full of rage speaking
with lots of voices. Al Jazeera employees didn't hang around for long,
which is interesting and a little amusing. Some of those voices called
for civil war, some of them said, "Yankee go home!"
If you thought there were good signs in any aspect of that event, then
you are blinded by optimism.
>> Yes, many of those are former Baathists, and they will all hopefully
>>die soon. But not all of them. We need every happy Iraqi we can get,
>>and our efforts should be focused on minimizing the number that we piss
>>off. The war itself was conducted to that effect, but the "peace" is
>>being conducted somewhat ignorantly of that requirement.
>
>
> I don't think we can take a course that assumes we can effect change,
> and kill the enemies of freedom by making efforts to not upset them.
> That would take all the fun out of it.
You misunderstood. Every former Baathist can die for all I care, but
there are a lot of Iraqis pissed off at us that are NOT former
Baathists. They're just people who lived in neighborhoods that weren't
getting shot up a few months ago, but now are. Read some of those blogs
you pointed me to.
>>>>The UN has served America's
>>>>interests many times in many ways.
>>>
>
>>>Not this time.
>>
>>"We" screwed up. The UN was doing the same job of serving our
>>interests, in the same way (slow and deliberate) it has in the past.
>>This president simply has a problem working with others.
>
>
> Next, you're going to tell me they were serving the interests of the
> people of Iraq.
Under severe constraints put in place by Saddam, yes they were.
>>>By your calculations, the majority of Americans are "far right", because
>>>the majority has and does support the effort.
>>
>>I recall the pre-war polls which indicated a LARGE majority thought the
>>US should get the support and endorsement of the UN for the invasion.
>
>
> Right up until France guaranteed a veto, then the polls were reversed.
> The American public basically said "fuck you" to the French. Heh.
France guaranteed a veto *at that time.*
ISTR, the polls didn't swing in the president's favor until it became
clear that war was inevitable. The French (and Germans and Russians and
Chinese, etc.) were throwing up road blocks for a longer period of time.
You really need to get over your Francophobia. It blinds you to the
inescapable fact that President Bush alienated most of the world with
this escapade.
>>>>There's nothing wrong with the UN "getting in the way" when the
>>>>destination is war - nothing at all. That's what you don't see.
>>>
>
>>>The destination was liberation and reduction of threat. War was the
>>>method.
>>
>>I've been over liberation - why stop at Iraq? (I'm clear on the "who to
>>liberate" question and can answer that question on my own, but I don't
>>think the Bushies [or you] are as clear on it as I am.)
>
>
> Gotta start somewhere. This is my favorite part of the argument, when
> those against the war come up with all these other people we *should
> have attacked*. Freakin' warmongers.
"...Other people we should have attacked" if your motives are pure,
which they're not. Reducto ad absurdum.
You're holding up the shining beacon of freedom for Iraq as the primary
reason for this invasion because all the other alleged reasons you were
holding up have crumbled over recent months. WMDs? Nope. Ties to
terrorism? Nope, except the ones we created by opening up the borders
and putting targets there.
Bush did not offer liberation as the primary justification because he
knows it DOESN'T SELL. America would not support an invasion of Iraq to
liberate the Iraqi people, no more than we would in Cuba or Liberia,
especially if the rest of the world is calling us nuts about it.
Well, I can go on, but in the interest of brevity you might just want to
admit that I'm right.
>>The threat was effectively reduced before the first shot was fired, as
>>we have seen.
>
>
> Bullshit. It would have been postponed, that's all. I'd wager Saddam
> could sell you a used Yugo.
Of course he could, if the price were right and I had it checked out by
a reliable mechanic - and I wanted one. (See, you warmongers are so
gleeful over busting up shit that you've lost your creativity and
objectivity.)
A postponed threat is a postponed threat. Between the time it's
postponed and the time it becomes imminent, anything can happen. The
guy could swallow his tongue watching a torture session. Only an
irresponsible warmonger starts a war to avert a *future* threat.
>>>Because nothing would have changed except the logistical problems of
>>>mid-east heat.
>>
>>You guess, because it's all you've got. It's kinda like me blowing away
>>your mother because "she's gonna die anyway." It's the same fallacy,
>>though I'm not enough of a philosophy student to be able to hang a name
>>on it.
>
>
> I think it's called "bullshit".
>
> If my Mom had defied her weapons probation for a decade and refused to
> disarm, and she had often told me she fully intended to rule the
> neighborhood with some nasty stuff as soon as the cops were off her
> back, I'd call 911.
And the cops would try to arrest her, giving her potentially ALL THE
TIME IT TOOK to get her to come out peacefully before going to guns.
To return to the context, your mom (France AND OUR OTHER TRADITIONAL
ALLIES in this case, not Iraq) did NOT defy weapons probation. No,
they've come to our aid when asked as recently as... well, today,
despite the dissing our buffoon-in-chief - and your ilk - continue to
give them. We had every reason to expect the UN Security Council to
come around. Insanely, Bush refused to wait.
>>>You seem to consider every negative instance, no matter how
>>>historically precedented, as signs of overall failure. You exhibit very
>>>little historical perspective so far.
>>
>>I hold a longer view than most, I think. That's why I'm so pissed about
>>the way this affair was mis-handled. Some of that outrage may be
>>coloring my view of the operation's overall prospects. I try to keep
>>them separate.
>
>
> Try looking at it from the totally opposite perspective, free of
> partisan considerations, and keep it relevant.
How many cluster fucks work out all right in the end?
>>>Seventy plus newspapers in Baghdad alone. Markets filling, progress
>>>being made, but you sit here stamoing your tiny little feet because you
>>>don't agree with the effort.
>>
>>Those ARE good things. But the looting that went on unimpeded, the slow
>>recovery of basic services, the large-scale violence that's occurring,
>>are all signs of inadequate planning.
>
>
> You're right, they admin corectly assesed the grateful nature of the
> majority of Iraqi people, correctly assesed their urgency to form an
> Iraqi government, which they stressd repeatedly prior to the invasion.
>
> They did not correctly asses the level of resistance from outside
> forces. Perhaps they actually listened to those that insisted the
> impossibility of a Baathist/al Queda alliance?
>
> But, we will kill them, it's that simple. Osama...Saddam...they have
> made some major mistakes. Game over.
There's still a lot of internal resistance, from Iraqis. The big
problem is, it seems to be building, not waning.
>>Well, the "hot" combat was only three weeks long.
>
>
> Not really. It took three 6-month deployments in the mid-east desert for
> my kid to be an efficient USMC sargeant able to conduct efficient
> warfare in that damn heat. 130 degrees plus. The invasion was downright
> chilly, no thanks to Jaques Chirac.
The training time required to become capable in Iraq's Summer doesn't
have anything to do with the timing of the invasion, given that the
training was done by the time the capability was needed. What it means
is that we COULD have waited a little bit longer before shooting without
seriously degrading our combat effectiveness.
>>>We had the support of at least three Areab nations.
>>
>>Qatar, Kuwait and who? Limited support, but it's a limited good point.
>
>
> Do your homework.
I HAVE done my share of homework on this one. I know of two Arab
nations that helped us. I also know that Palau and New Guinea were
counted as part of our 43-nation "coalition," despite the fact that
they, like other members, do not have armies. I know that we had 20K
Brits, 2K Aussies and about 50 Poles in our "coalition forces." Czechs
covered our asses in Kuwait with WMD shields.
>>>Maybe you can identify exactly what the French could do for us, I sure
>>>as hell can't.
>>
>>Overall credibility: Turkey might have given us a different answer if
>>we had a better coalition.
>
>
> You use "overall credibility" and "French" in the same sentence?
>
> Fucking swine would have *loved* to see US Marines die in the hot summer
> just to prove their damn point. Get a damn clue, these people *are not
> your friend*
>
>>I'm not up on the OOB of everyone, but I bet the French could've given
>>us some valuable WMD mitigation, and their counter-terrorism is world
>>class. And then there are the Frogs who could be helping us police
>>stuff now. They probably have a few interpreters we could use right now
>>too. We can't have too many of those.
>
>
> We can't have too many targets, call in the French.
Here's something you don't seem to get: It is irrelevent how you feel
about France.
Not everyone despises the French. A lot of people/nations respect their
principled
stand against the amateurish American government's brash policies.
And again, you are reminded that we find ourselves needing help in Iraq,
and that
French soldiers are serving alongise Americans in Afghanistan. L'Idiot.
>>>That's absurd. For a leader to state that we will not back down in the
>>>face of pockets of resistence makes all the sense in the world.
>>>Apparently, you have taken it to mean the opposite?
>>>
>>>In that case, certainly you must be equally angry wioth McCain and
>>>Howard Dean, who now say the same thing.
>>
>>The point remains, the first prominent mainstream American politician to
>>raise the question of retreat was President Bush, in dismissing it.
>
>
> This is absolutely absurd. I have no idea whatsoever how to answer...but
> hell...
>
> Firstly, the "first" mainstream politico to counsel retreat (by your
> interpretation) was not george Bush. Look it up.
Just give me a name - I can't think of the keywords I'd use to find that
in a search. And I didn't say Bush "counseled" retreat. C'mon, I think
you get what I'm trying to say here. If you are up against a challenge,
and presenting a bold front is important, and you want to keep up
morale, you don't even act like the possibility of giving up exists.
(Well, I personally do, but that's because I love doing difficult things
that are often not possible. Presidents don't.)
>>Your answer about the Iraqi audience helps clear
>>things up a little. I still thought it imprudent, but then I've come to
>>expect that of President Bush.
>
>
> That's ok, just don't let yor concerns about Bush cloud the historic
> significance of this war, the threats we face, the incredible price we
> will pay to fight this war - you'll realize that Iraq is a *battle*.
You're the one here who seems to have lost track of the costs of war.
You're the one who actually thinks this was (Iraq) was worth fighting
and needed to be fought. You're the one who couldn't wait two more
months to get the diplomacy lined up to do it right.
> And this war is on no matter who is in the white house, I'm just damn
> glad that the administration seems to have reached the same conclusions
> I did well before they were in office.
The *war* is on as of 9/11 regardless of who's in charge, but in Iraq?
No. That's the neocons in the Bush Administration's fault. At the very
least, the nature of the battle we find ourselves in there would be very
different with a different president.
> And, they never said anything but "this is going to be a long, dirty
> war", and anyone who flinches at that assesment is in denial. The option
> to retreat was never there, and Bush has never indicated any suggestion
> of retreat. What does "we will not retreat" mean to you?
I'm afraid it means that the question of retreat is on the table
somewhere, and that we currently do not intend to retreat. If you think
it means something else, then I invite you to review the Vietnam War.
>>>I get the feeling you feel one of the multitudes of Democrat hopefuls
>>>will come in and somehow make things right. Dunno how you would arrive
>>>at that conslusion, since not a one has the slightest idea what to do.
>>
>>Every one I've heard has said we need to get help from our allies,
>>implying patching things up where needed. That's what Bush must do.
>
>
> Uhhh...at this moment, Bush is seeking commitment from "allies". Let the
> people who allied with Saddam and the Baathists for obscene profit put
> their battle-ready troops in there among the people who's misery they
> engineered. Then, stand back as revenge happens. Welcome to the
> mid-east, stand back.
It's about dog-damned time. This should have been taken care of
earlier, as in MARCH. There is no reason it could not have been
addressed before the invasion: who's gonna have how many troops where
fulfilling which mission when Saddam's gone. I point out that we did it
with the British in Basra. It's Bush's fault we don't have other allied
nations helping us out in Tikrit, Mosul and Najaf. No one's fault but
Bush's, and there's no excuse for it.
> The Iraqis *know* who allied with Saddam. They *know* who had the balls
> to put those people aside and bring at the very least a chance at
> freedom.
>
> I *want* the French in there, they *make better targets*.
>
> God knows we have paid a great price to liberate, and screw the French,
> and the UN, and the Germans, and all those who wanted to keep Saddam in
> power.
No one wanted to keep Saddam in power, any more than we want to keep
Castro in power. Nations trade with Cuba, they trade with North Korea.
That doesn't mean they *want* Fidel or Kim in power.
> But, I'm an old liberal, not a neo-lib. Neo-lib's aren't all that
> concerned about violations of human rights and human dignity and human
> survival unless they can blame the US for it.
I'm all for intefering in the internal affairs of another nation to
liberate its people, IF IT IS DONE WITH CARE. There is a list of
conditions that entails, and they were not met re Iraq. Thus, I was
opposed from the beginning and am pissed that we're in the thick of it.
And I ask you,
> comparitavely speaking: "what the fuck have France, Germany and Russia
> done for us lately?" Think about it.
Amazing. Your ignorance is so bad it's got to be willful. Snap out of
it, dude.
>>>It appears GW gets under your skin. Get ready for a second term.
>>
>>He sure does. He's failed to meet every expectation I had of him, and
>>they were very low.
>
>
> I had low expectations, and have been impressed with the
> administration's long-range view on the mid-east.
So much so that you give the administration a pass on the incredible
incompetence they display. Vision is one thing - who hates the idea of
a democratic Iraq? (No one.) But the execution is mind-boggling in its
ineptitude.
Seriously, my attitude was, "Invade Iraq? Well, I don't really see the
need at this time. Saddam's in a box and he's going to stay there. You
get me some better evidence and I'll support you. What, you insist?
Well, I'll give it my blessing IF you can get the rest of the world to
sign off on it." And I'll rip you a new one if you fuck this up.
SteveR
> Raptor wrote:
> > Thomas wrote:
> >
> >> Any one of these average Iraqis is more persuasive than a dozen
> >> cynics.
>
> I'm now wondering why you guys suggested I read some Iraq blogs, or even
> if you did. They do NOT help your case (along with Stever) that things
> aren't that bad in Iraq.
They help my case in one respect - they *exist*
alohacyberian
> alohacyberian wrote:
> > By 2004, the Leftwing Liberals should be hoarse from all their screeching
and
> > shrieking and will hopefully be reduced to sighing and sobbing. KM
>
> Either that, or something like impeachment.
>
You wouldn't want to be cash money would you? KM
alohacyberian
> Thomas wrote:
> > Attempting to manipulate the facts so that they conform to your
> > preconceived notions and obvious biases is a syndrome that you share
> > with the loony liberal left. Notwithstanding that it's intellectually
> > dishonest, irrational and unproductive, you will never get a true
> > picture of Iraq with a mind so obviously closed.
> > "Res Ipsa Loquitor". Translation: It's as it looks.
>
> I gotta tell you, your mind seems at least as closed as mine is.
> There's a gray area between civilization and anarchy. That's where Iraq
> most certainly is today.
>
That isn't what the dozen or so people who've returned from Iraq in the last
6 weeks have told me. Then again, while they were in Iraq, they didn't have
the advantage of the pessimistic Western media or the enlightenment of the
Usenet. But, something tells me in spite of those drawbacks to favor their
firsthand, eye-witness comments over yours. KM
alohacyberian
> On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 09:30:06 GMT, manfrommars_43
> <jab...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >alohacyberian:
> >
> >> "Until you can intelligently articulate the other side's position, you
are
> >> not an adult. You are a liberal."
> >> ~ Ann Coulter
> >
> >Ok, let me try. Here's alohacyberian:
> >
> >BLOW THE LIMBS OFF THE IRAQI CHILDREN
> >
> >LET THEM GO LEGLESS FOR LIFE
> >
> >BECAUSE I AM A BLIND SHITHEAD WHO WORSHIPS
> >BU$H HINDQUARTERS
> >
> >ok, now I see.
>
> foolish and idiotic then you have managed with the post above. You
> couldn't have come across more immature and ridiculous even if you
> tried.
> You probably don't even realize it, but your drivel above is
> compelling proof of A/C's point. Thanks.
> Keep it up. You are practically the poster boy for the wisdom of
> voting Republican.
> Again, thanks.
>
Could we be reading TrollAIDSfrommars? KM
Raptor
>>There's a gray area between civilization and anarchy. That's where Iraq
>>most certainly is today.
>>
>
>
> That isn't what the dozen or so people who've returned from Iraq in the last
> 6 weeks have told me. Then again, while they were in Iraq, they didn't have
> the advantage of the pessimistic Western media or the enlightenment of the
> Usenet. But, something tells me in spite of those drawbacks to favor their
> firsthand, eye-witness comments over yours. KM
Read some Iraq blogs, then, written by Iraqis. Check out
www.iraq-today.com.
Oh, and remember to tell the Bush Administration that things are peachy.
They seem to disagree, and are now asking for help.
Our frat-boy president will probably have to do a little "Thank you sir,
may I have another?" routine before our allies deign to help pull his
gonads out of the fire he started.
alohacyberian
> alohacyberian wrote:
> > "Raptor" <m...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3F5576CA...@attbi.com...
> >>I gotta tell you, your mind seems at least as closed as mine is.
> >>There's a gray area between civilization and anarchy. That's where Iraq
> >>most certainly is today.
> >
> > That isn't what the dozen or so people who've returned from Iraq in the
last
> > 6 weeks have told me. Then again, while they were in Iraq, they didn't
have
> > the advantage of the pessimistic Western media or the enlightenment of
the
> > Usenet. But, something tells me in spite of those drawbacks to favor
their
> > firsthand, eye-witness comments over yours. KM
>
> Read some Iraq blogs, then, written by Iraqis. Check out
>
become disinformed enough to bash Bush and hate America on the Usenet. KM
Raptor
> "Raptor" <m...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:3F578A36...@attbi.com...
>
>>alohacyberian wrote:
>>
>>>"Raptor" <m...@attbi.com> wrote in message
>>
>>
>
> LOL! I'm sure I've got time to go to an Internet propaganda source so as to
> become disinformed enough to bash Bush and hate America on the Usenet. KM
Damn, I can't believe I've debated with a troll this long and not
noticed. You bastard.
alohacyberian
> alohacyberian wrote:
> > "Raptor" <m...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3F578A36...@attbi.com...
> >>alohacyberian wrote:
> >>>"Raptor" <m...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> >>
> >>Read some Iraq blogs, then, written by Iraqis. Check out
> >
> > LOL! I'm sure I've got time to go to an Internet propaganda source so as
to
> > become disinformed enough to bash Bush and hate America on the Usenet.
KM
>
> Damn, I can't believe I've debated with a troll this long and not
> noticed. You bastard.
>
Well, when all you have to offer is petty name-calling, you're merely
indicating that you can't support your position. Typical of Leftwing
Liberals. Buh-bye now. KM
"But ad hominem attack is the liberal's idea of political debate. They
slf-consciously hold themselves outside the argument and make snippy personal
comments about anyone who is actually talking about something."
~ Ann Coulter
Diego Gastor
> company. This particular company estimated the cost of rebuilding the
> bridge would be around- brace yourselves- $50,000,000 !!"
http://riversbendblog.blogspot.com/
This is a very interesting site on the people over there.
However, I challenge anyone to find a contract on that bridge. I think
she didn't get her story correct.
SteveR
dga...@hotmail.com (Diego Gastor) wrote:
She's a Bitch Baathist Princess who is generally full of shit.
--
DESPAIR is the preferred narcotic of the intellectual classes.
----Ralph peters
Juan E Jimenez
>
> She's a Bitch Baathist Princess who is generally full of shit.
Oh. Your mother? :)
SteveR
Nah, she was born in Virginia. Maybe you're confusing "baathist" with
"those who bathe", which kinda figgers. As I understand it, the
Puertorican word for "bath" is the same as the word for "rain", so your
linguistic confusions are not unexpected.
We're just here to help you.
--
--
For the caucasians - everything
For non-caucasians, California.
Juan E Jimenez
>
> Nah, she was born in Virginia.
Oh, she never took a bath. That explains you. The smell must have attracted
those lower IQ species. :)
> Maybe you're confusing "baathist" with
> "those who bathe", which kinda figgers. As I understand it, the
> Puertorican word for "bath" is the same as the word for "rain", so your
> linguistic confusions are not unexpected.
That's because little-bitty brains like yours get confused about the fact
that rainwater, of the kind Puerto Rico gets oodles of, is much better for
bathing than the corrosive crap Texans draw out of their faucets.
> We're just here to help you.
Help me do what, laugh at you a little harder? <chuckle>
What a dolt.
SteveR
"Juan E Jimenez" <bd^5-n0_spam@b^d_5.c0m> wrote:
> "SteveR" <texd...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:texdriver-CF063...@netnews.attbi.com...
> >
> > Nah, she was born in Virginia.
>
> Oh, she never took a bath. That explains you. The smell must have attracted
> those lower IQ species. :)
Perhaps my daddy was a smart and horny capitilalist who sold soap -
lucky for you, your mama wasn't buyin'. We coulda' been brothers.
>
> > Maybe you're confusing "baathist" with
> > "those who bathe", which kinda figgers. As I understand it, the
> > Puertorican word for "bath" is the same as the word for "rain", so your
> > linguistic confusions are not unexpected.
>
> That's because little-bitty brains like yours get confused about the fact
> that rainwater, of the kind Puerto Rico gets oodles of, is much better for
> bathing than the corrosive crap Texans draw out of their faucets.
Nothing in Texas comes in "oodles".
>
> > We're just here to help you.
>
> Help me do what, laugh at you a little harder? <chuckle>
>
> What a dolt.
You may be surrounded by an oodle of dolts. Maybe it's the water?
Juan E Jimenez
>
> Perhaps my daddy was a smart and horny capitilalist who sold soap -
> lucky for you, your mama wasn't buyin'. We coulda' been brothers.
Capitilalist. Rhymes with Chupacabra, eh? Brothers? Doubtful. <chuckle>
> > That's because little-bitty brains like yours get confused about the
fact
> > that rainwater, of the kind Puerto Rico gets oodles of, is much better
for
> > bathing than the corrosive crap Texans draw out of their faucets.
>
> Nothing in Texas comes in "oodles".
We know. <chuckle>
> You may be surrounded by an oodle of dolts. Maybe it's the water?
Oh, that's funny! I'll give that a 1.2, and that's counting your Dolt
Comedian Handicap! :)
alohacyberian
news:Z8Oab.523489$o%2.229601@sccrnsc02...
Why Juan, personal slurs about someone's mother, no less! Are you vying for
6 year old readers again? Were you quoting Einstein or Shakespeare? No
amount of money, influence or persuasion can possibly paint Leftwing Liberals
in a worse light than they gladly portray themselves. They are their own
worse enemas. KM
alohacyberian
> In article <8fPab.526926$uu5.88180@sccrnsc04>,
> "Juan E Jimenez" <bd^5-n0_spam@b^d_5.c0m> wrote:
> > that rainwater, of the kind Puerto Rico gets oodles of, is much better
for
>
>
Maybe they use the "oodles" in gay hangouts. :-) KM
alohacyberian
> repartee' we expect from you. We already know you're a twit. You
> don't have to keep confirming it.
> There was a gerbil in a gay bar asking for you. Better go see what he
> wants. You know, at your regular hang-out.
>
Trying to help Juan is about as useful as taking an ailing gerbil to the vet.
Diego Gastor
> dga...@hotmail.com (Diego Gastor) wrote:
>
> > > A week later, the New Diyala Bridge contract was given to an American
> > > company. This particular company estimated the cost of rebuilding the
> > > bridge would be around- brace yourselves- $50,000,000 !!"
> >
> >
> > http://riversbendblog.blogspot.com/
> >
> > This is a very interesting site on the people over there.
> >
> > However, I challenge anyone to find a contract on that bridge. I think
> > she didn't get her story correct.
>
> She's a Bitch Baathist Princess who is generally full of shit.
I had another look at her site. Her attitude is changing.
http://riversbendblog.blogspot.com/
SteveR
dga...@hotmail.com (Diego Gastor) wrote:
> SteveR <texd...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:<texdriver-74AC7...@netnews.attbi.com>...
> > In article <b2917619.03091...@posting.google.com>,
> > dga...@hotmail.com (Diego Gastor) wrote:
> >
> > > > A week later, the New Diyala Bridge contract was given to an American
> > > > company. This particular company estimated the cost of rebuilding the
> > > > bridge would be around- brace yourselves- $50,000,000 !!"
> > >
> > >
> > > http://riversbendblog.blogspot.com/
> > >
> > > This is a very interesting site on the people over there.
> > >
> > > However, I challenge anyone to find a contract on that bridge. I think
> > > she didn't get her story correct.
> >
> > She's a Bitch Baathist Princess who is generally full of shit.
>
> I had another look at her site. Her attitude is changing.
> http://riversbendblog.blogspot.com/
Nah, she's still on her period.
Diego Gastor
Eventually she will get over that as well.
SteveR
dga...@hotmail.com (Diego Gastor) wrote:
> SteveR <texd...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:<texdriver-9B098...@netnews.attbi.com>...
> > In article <b2917619.0309...@posting.google.com>,
> > dga...@hotmail.com (Diego Gastor) wrote:
> >
> > > SteveR <texd...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> > > news:<texdriver-74AC7...@netnews.attbi.com>...
> > > > In article <b2917619.03091...@posting.google.com>,
> > > > dga...@hotmail.com (Diego Gastor) wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > A week later, the New Diyala Bridge contract was given to an
> > > > > > American
> > > > > > company. This particular company estimated the cost of rebuilding
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > bridge would be around- brace yourselves- $50,000,000 !!"
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > http://riversbendblog.blogspot.com/
> > > > >
> > > > > This is a very interesting site on the people over there.
> > > > >
> > > > > However, I challenge anyone to find a contract on that bridge. I
> > > > > think
> > > > > she didn't get her story correct.
> > > >
> > > > She's a Bitch Baathist Princess who is generally full of shit.
> > >
> > > I had another look at her site. Her attitude is changing.
> > > http://riversbendblog.blogspot.com/
> >
> >
> > Nah, she's still on her period.
>
>
> Eventually she will get over that as well.
Only if the Americans supply her with the lifestyle she apparently
enjoyed before she and her countrymen were freed.
But, given thata we have Americcans still bitter over the freeing of the
slaves, her children may well carry on the tradition of bitterness.
Who cares, anyway. Let her move to Inner city Detroit.
Raptor
> Only if the Americans supply her with the lifestyle she apparently
> enjoyed before she and her countrymen were freed.
>
> But, given thata we have Americcans still bitter over the freeing of the
> slaves, her children may well carry on the tradition of bitterness.
>
> Who cares, anyway. Let her move to Inner city Detroit.
Do YOU live in inner city Detroit? I don't know if you can assume she's
a Baathist. She was just educated and employed before the war,
presumably living a fairly comfortable life. Now, her life sucks. Take
away your electricity and security, and you'd think your life sucked.
I'm thinking they have power in Detroit.
SteveR
> SteveR wrote:
> > Only if the Americans supply her with the lifestyle she apparently
> > enjoyed before she and her countrymen were freed.
> >
> > But, given thata we have Americcans still bitter over the freeing of the
> > slaves, her children may well carry on the tradition of bitterness.
> >
> > Who cares, anyway. Let her move to Inner city Detroit.
>
> Do YOU live in inner city Detroit? I don't know if you can assume she's
> a Baathist. She was just educated and employed before the war,
> presumably living a fairly comfortable life. Now, her life sucks. Take
> away your electricity and security, and you'd think your life sucked.
It seems a wortwile and bearable price for basic human freedoms for
millions.
After all, a good hurricane can do a lot more damage.
=
> I'm thinking they have power in Detroit.
And Democracy.
Troy.
> On 19 Sep 2003 15:51:31 -0700, dga...@hotmail.com (Diego Gastor)
> http://www.unjlc.org/iraq/infrastructure/02_02.html
>
> _______
> "To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that
> we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only
> unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American
> public."
> -President Teddy Roosevelt
I can't open the document. Does it say that a contract was issued on the New Diyala Bridge?
Raptor
> In article <3F727BF3...@attbi.com>, Raptor <m...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
>
>>SteveR wrote:
>>
>>>Only if the Americans supply her with the lifestyle she apparently
>>>enjoyed before she and her countrymen were freed.
>>>
>>>But, given thata we have Americcans still bitter over the freeing of the
>>>slaves, her children may well carry on the tradition of bitterness.
>>>
>>>Who cares, anyway. Let her move to Inner city Detroit.
>>
>>Do YOU live in inner city Detroit? I don't know if you can assume she's
>>a Baathist. She was just educated and employed before the war,
>>presumably living a fairly comfortable life. Now, her life sucks. Take
>>away your electricity and security, and you'd think your life sucked.
>
>
> It seems a wortwile and bearable price for basic human freedoms for
> millions.
During the Kosovo fight, I suggested that all we were doing to the
typical Serb was making them "go camping" for a couple months. Sounds a
little fun. A polite Serb patiently informed me it wore out very
quickly. Unplug and clean out your refrigerator. You get nothing cold.
Such abstractions as "basic human freedoms for millions" are easy to
talk about around a conference table with a stomach full of tasty and
healthily-prepared food, air conditioning, clean clothes, and a home in
a quiet neighborhood to return to. But take that stuff away and the
typical content, quiet contributing member of society gets downright
churlish.
> After all, a good hurricane can do a lot more damage.
Temporary and unavoidable. It's another matter when someone is to
blame, and representatives of that someone are there on your street to
point to and glare at. And worse, they're still contributing to the
mess you find yourself in. We all hope and reasonably believe that life
for typical Iraqi will get better, but it's harder to call the current
mess unavoidable, in whole or in part.
>>I'm thinking they have power in Detroit.
>
>
> And Democracy.
It's one thing to encourage and support those complaining about
conditions in Baghdad, to assert that things will get better. Most of
them even believe it. It's another thing entirely to tell them to shut
up and stop complaining, or dismiss them as ideaolgical opponents. It's
worse than counter-productive, it's downright rude.
Not every Iraqi was being crushed by Saddam's heel, nor were all those
comfortable under Saddam's Baathism themselves Baathists. There was
commerce and science going on there, and now it's a lot harder if not
impossible to conduct.
Bush's policies and mis-steps have made the situation in Iraq worse and
longer-lived than it needs to be, and it's not getting better from a
policy standpoint.
SteveR
Which is why so many prefer life under a totalitarian regime - as long
as the trains run on time.
> > After all, a good hurricane can do a lot more damage.
>
> Temporary and unavoidable. It's another matter when someone is to
> blame, and representatives of that someone are there on your street to
> point to and glare at. And worse, they're still contributing to the
> mess you find yourself in. We all hope and reasonably believe that life
> for typical Iraqi will get better, but it's harder to call the current
> mess unavoidable, in whole or in part.
And exactly who is making life miserable for the average Iraqi these
days?
Oddly it's the same guys trying to kill everyone.
It does seem logical to leave, so that Iraq may become peaceful. If that
works, we should consider withdrawing our police forces from high-crime
areas of America's inner cities.
>
> >>I'm thinking they have power in Detroit.
> >
> >
> > And Democracy.
>
> It's one thing to encourage and support those complaining about
> conditions in Baghdad, to assert that things will get better. Most of
> them even believe it.
Oddly enough!
> It's another thing entirely to tell them to shut
> up and stop complaining, or dismiss them as ideaolgical opponents. It's
> worse than counter-productive, it's downright rude.
Yes, they are victims above all. And believe me, I hope the blood and
billions helps salve their transition to personal freedoms and
responsibilities.
>
> Not every Iraqi was being crushed by Saddam's heel, nor were all those
> comfortable under Saddam's Baathism themselves Baathists. There was
> commerce and science going on there, and now it's a lot harder if not
> impossible to conduct.
A good point. Who knows what incredible research was rudely interrupted
by our intrusions into 1940's Europe?
>
> Bush's policies and mis-steps have made the situation in Iraq worse and
> longer-lived than it needs to be, and it's not getting better from a
> policy standpoint.
It's not good to see mis-steps in war - and when we see them, it's time
to withdraw. Personally, I was hoping they would call it off when the
invasion became such a horrible quagmire in that awful sandstorm,
someone could have gotten hurt!
Raptor
> In article <3F732B04...@attbi.com>, Raptor <m...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
>
>>SteveR wrote:
>>
>>>In article <3F727BF3...@attbi.com>, Raptor <m...@attbi.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Do YOU live in inner city Detroit? I don't know if you can assume she's
>>>>a Baathist. She was just educated and employed before the war,
>>>>presumably living a fairly comfortable life. Now, her life sucks. Take
>>>>away your electricity and security, and you'd think your life sucked.
>>>
>>>
>>>It seems a wortwile and bearable price for basic human freedoms for
>>>millions.
>>
>>During the Kosovo fight, I suggested that all we were doing to the
>>typical Serb was making them "go camping" for a couple months. Sounds a
>>little fun. A polite Serb patiently informed me it wore out very
>>quickly. Unplug and clean out your refrigerator. You get nothing cold.
>>
>>Such abstractions as "basic human freedoms for millions" are easy to
>>talk about around a conference table with a stomach full of tasty and
>>healthily-prepared food, air conditioning, clean clothes, and a home in
>>a quiet neighborhood to return to. But take that stuff away and the
>>typical content, quiet contributing member of society gets downright
>>churlish.
>
>
> Which is why so many prefer life under a totalitarian regime - as long
> as the trains run on time.
There is no sacred form of government. I don't suggest that Saddam was
a good leader, but there were indeed a lot of people who managed a
decent life under his regime. Many/most of them don't have as decent a
life now.
>>>After all, a good hurricane can do a lot more damage.
>>
>>Temporary and unavoidable. It's another matter when someone is to
>>blame, and representatives of that someone are there on your street to
>>point to and glare at. And worse, they're still contributing to the
>>mess you find yourself in. We all hope and reasonably believe that life
>>for typical Iraqi will get better, but it's harder to call the current
>>mess unavoidable, in whole or in part.
>
>
> And exactly who is making life miserable for the average Iraqi these
> days?
>
> Oddly it's the same guys trying to kill everyone.
I don't know if there's a better way for our troops to behave over
there, but the raids they're conducting in response to the violence (and
terrorists that this war attracted) are part and parcel of the misery
many/most Iraqis are in. Seemingly, most of these raids find nothing,
they just bust up homes and scare the piss out of whole neighborhoods.
That's why you hear so many people calling our forces occupiers instead
of liberators.
> It does seem logical to leave, so that Iraq may become peaceful. If that
> works, we should consider withdrawing our police forces from high-crime
> areas of America's inner cities.
Don't even go there. Bush got us into this mess, and we've got to
succeed. The worst result would be a convenient re-definition of
"success" and a premature withdrawal.
>>>>I'm thinking they have power in Detroit.
>>>
>>>
>>>And Democracy.
>>
>>It's one thing to encourage and support those complaining about
>>conditions in Baghdad, to assert that things will get better. Most of
>>them even believe it.
>
>
> Oddly enough!
They're just normal folks from a different culture, at least reasonably
civilized.
>>It's another thing entirely to tell them to shut
>>up and stop complaining, or dismiss them as ideaolgical opponents. It's
>>worse than counter-productive, it's downright rude.
>
>
> Yes, they are victims above all. And believe me, I hope the blood and
> billions helps salve their transition to personal freedoms and
> responsibilities.
If Bush wasn't still screwing up the mission, we'd get the help we
clearly need to make the transition smoother and quicker.
>>Not every Iraqi was being crushed by Saddam's heel, nor were all those
>>comfortable under Saddam's Baathism themselves Baathists. There was
>>commerce and science going on there, and now it's a lot harder if not
>>impossible to conduct.
>
>
> A good point. Who knows what incredible research was rudely interrupted
> by our intrusions into 1940's Europe?
Those mass graves don't exactly stack up to Auschwitz. Try another
straw man, and think in terms of archaeology.
>>Bush's policies and mis-steps have made the situation in Iraq worse and
>>longer-lived than it needs to be, and it's not getting better from a
>>policy standpoint.
>
>
> It's not good to see mis-steps in war - and when we see them, it's time
> to withdraw. Personally, I was hoping they would call it off when the
> invasion became such a horrible quagmire in that awful sandstorm,
> someone could have gotten hurt!
You are all too willing to throw in the towel.
SteveR
> SteveR wrote:
>
> >
> > Which is why so many prefer life under a totalitarian regime - as long
> > as the trains run on time.
>
> There is no sacred form of government.
Actually, there is:
http://answering-islam.org.uk/Sharia/
> I don't suggest that Saddam was
> a good leader
He was a good leader, he lasted decades.
> but there were indeed a lot of people who managed a
> decent life under his regime.
Oddly enough.
> Many/most of them don't have as decent a
> life now.
Oddly enough.
>
>
> > And exactly who is making life miserable for the average Iraqi these
> > days?
> >
> > Oddly it's the same guys trying to kill everyone.
>
> I don't know if there's a better way for our troops to behave over
> there, but the raids they're conducting in response to the violence (and
> terrorists that this war attracted) are part and parcel of the misery
> many/most Iraqis are in.
War is hell. Iraqis know that, since their former elected leader was a
good teacher. His greatest lesson is his demise.
> Seemingly, most of these raids find nothing,
> they just bust up homes and scare the piss out of whole neighborhoods.
> That's why you hear so many people calling our forces occupiers instead
> of liberators.
Call the pentagon and complain. Tell them to shoot the right people!
> > It does seem logical to leave, so that Iraq may become peaceful. If that
> > works, we should consider withdrawing our police forces from high-crime
> > areas of America's inner cities.
>
> Don't even go there. Bush got us into this mess, and we've got to
> succeed. The worst result would be a convenient re-definition of
> "success" and a premature withdrawal.
You're half right, guess which half is which.
>
> >>It's one thing to encourage and support those complaining about
> >>conditions in Baghdad, to assert that things will get better. Most of
> >>them even believe it.
> >
> >
> > Oddly enough!
>
> They're just normal folks from a different culture, at least reasonably
> civilized.
It was the palaced few which were proved uncivilized. Now the civilized
have a better chance.
>
> >>It's another thing entirely to tell them to shut
> >>up and stop complaining, or dismiss them as ideaolgical opponents. It's
> >>worse than counter-productive, it's downright rude.
> >
> >
> > Yes, they are victims above all. And believe me, I hope the blood and
> > billions helps salve their transition to personal freedoms and
> > responsibilities.
>
> If Bush wasn't still screwing up the mission, we'd get the help we
> clearly need to make the transition smoother and quicker.
Yes, we must call France for help.
Hopefully, we have learned our lesson. If we salvage anything from this
unprecedented imperialistic slaughter, I hope it is a better respect for
the French.
>
> >>Not every Iraqi was being crushed by Saddam's heel, nor were all those
> >>comfortable under Saddam's Baathism themselves Baathists. There was
> >>commerce and science going on there, and now it's a lot harder if not
> >>impossible to conduct.
> >
> >
> > A good point. Who knows what incredible research was rudely interrupted
> > by our intrusions into 1940's Europe?
>
> Those mass graves don't exactly stack up to Auschwitz. Try another
> straw man, and think in terms of archaeology.
Perhaps the UN was right, we should have given him more time to meet his
quota.
>
> >
> > It's not good to see mis-steps in war - and when we see them, it's time
> > to withdraw. Personally, I was hoping they would call it off when the
> > invasion became such a horrible quagmire in that awful sandstorm,
> > someone could have gotten hurt!
>
> You are all too willing to throw in the towel.
Bloodthirty neocon.
Troy.
I tend to agree with Gastor above. Even a bitch on the rag can change when exposed to a better way of life
than what Saddam provided for the Iraqi.