Seaver, please share some examples of links to "political sites" in my posts that are not more than not, representing the opposite POV from my own.
I'm the "MSM news outlets are not of a "liberal bias"", guy. I cite mainly their reporting and many refenences to pages from federal government webpages.

I suspeect that you label as "political sites", links to pages from sites that feature news and commentary that you disagree with. I don't think that talkingpointsmemo.com , for example, is a "political site", any more than Matt Drudge's site would be fairly called a "political sites".

The differennce, IMO, is that the reports emphasized by Drudge have a less reliable record of accuracy than what appears on talkingpointsmemo.com .
Surely you aren't arguing that the quality and reliability of Malkin's "work", rises to the level of Marshall's on talkingpointsmemo.com ?

Here is a link to info about Michael Crook, the first "attacker'" of Malkin's favorite troop, Joshua Sparling. Is Michael supposed to be an example of an anti Iraq war "liberal'. C'mon you can do better than that.....and you'll have to do better than Sparling as a contemporary equivalent of the mythical "spit on" Vietnam vet. I detail Sparling and his father and the severa Sparling "victim stories" at the top of my last post.....

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&s...ng&btnG=Search

powerclown, near the bottom of my last post, I displayed a result from a year old Zogby poll of uS troops that indicates that 90 percent of them thought that Iraq was linked to the 9/11 attacks.

I also show in that area of ny post, that Cheney on 9/10/06, was still claiming that Saddam 's iraq had ties to Zaraqawi and his poison camp at 'Krmal", two days after the Senate intel committee issued a long delayed report segment that stated clearly that this wasn't true.

.....and today, there is also, this:
How can you say that "the troops knew what they were getting into", when it turns out that Cheney never stopped his deceptiion campaign and the republican house majority leader admits that he didn't look closely enough at the resolution to authorize the POTUS to use force against Iraq, if the POTUS deemed it absolutely necessary to do so?

Here goes once again:

Army recruiting goals are not down. In fact, in 2006 the army successfully recruited the most soldiers since 1999. I have to post a link for this as otherwise I would just be blowing steam: http://www.army.mil/recruitingandretention/ I post this reluctantly because I don't want to start a link war, but I think the numbers, in this instance, are appropriate. In addition, the active endstrength is up to the largest number since 1995 (clinton was cutting back the military at that time). The recruiting goals were not reduced, but rather were raised to 80,000 active army and similar numbers for the other services.

My actions are not governend by international treaties... Rather the uniform code of military justice reflects our interpretation of those treaties.

For example: The military's decision to avoid the use of hollowpoint bullets. This is done because of an agreement aimed at preventing 'unecessary pain and suffering.' As a soldier I am held responsible by my own government (not anybody elses!) should I use non-approved ammunition. However, our government has interpreted 'unecessary' differently from other governments and allows, in some cases, the use of hollowpoint bullets.

Example 1: Our snipers use HPBT bullets because the hollow point causes an air vortex that greatly increases the accuracy of the ammunition....this is considered entirely necessary and is not done to cause additional suffering.

Example 2: Law of Land Warfare provides against the mistreatment and/or execution of prisioners and injured on the battlefield. The US Interpretation of this binds soldiers uner UCMJ. But it is our interpretation because at the end of the day fights are down and dirty and sometimes you have to be brutal to survive: Other countries don't always agree with our interpretation. I am not talking here about torture, but rather when you risk your life to take a combatant prisioner verses simply shooting him again so you can continue to fight. Sometimes it's justified, sometimes it's murder.

That single defector may have claimed that Saddams chemical weapons were destroyed, but even Clinton has come forward to state that his administration (who was in power in 1995) honestly believed Saddam had his chemical weapons stockpile. Furthermore, we have sniffers to detect CW residue. Even if they were destroyed we would know about it (at least now after the war)....We even asked Saddam to simply take us to the locations where the weapons were destroyed and we would have been able to confirm their destruction...didn't happen.

I need to clarify an Illegal order: A soldier may be ordered to do something 'Illegal' and be obligated to obey. For instance, if a general orders one of his subbordinates to attack a town and he refuses, his men are still under his command and obligated to obey him until the general relieves him of command. It may be 'illegal' to kick in the door to an Iraqi storefront, but if you are told to do it you are obligated to do so...it isn't your place to argue with everything. A good example is George S Patton, who on more than one occasion launched a 'reconnaissance in force' when ordered not to attack. He disobeyed his orders, but his men were still bound to obey him. He saved many lives as a result because he better understood the situation on the ground than his superiors.

Claiming that congress and the president are responsible for our troops in time of war is partially accurate....They are responsible for the decision to send them into harms way. However, suggesting that they are in the unfortunate situation of having to decide whether a particular action is worth the potential cost in american lives. They are ultimately people operating in an uncertain world who have to make hard decisions....It is possible that somewhere bad decisions were made, but that doesn't mean they were criminal, just incorrect.

Ok, we both agree that saddam was a bad guy and he isn't the focal point of this discussion. However, though America may have broken international law, that is something for the international community to decide and to act upon...it in no way absolves the American soldier from his responsiblity to enforce the will of the United States. America is a very polarized country...always has been and probably always will be. The only reason the military manages to win anything is because it works as a unified entity. After the decision has been made you have to proceed in unison. Had we made the decisoin to enter WW2 earlier, we could have ended the war quicker and saved millions of lives. However, we were divided as a country and the decison was made, in this case, to stay out of the war. If those who thought war was justified all took up arms they would have been held accountable just as those who disagree with war and refuse to fight are held accountable.

Your neighbor analogy is flawed. We took action in Iraq because nobody else would. We played the role of police while all of Saddams neighbors stood around and watched. The United Nations is ineffective, cumberson, and corrupt. We had a ceasefire agreement with Saddam from the first war. We agreed to leave him in power provided he met certain conditions. He systematically broke every single one of those conditions so we were justified in continuing the war. However, first, we tried to resolve things diplomatically and through the UN, which was done out of the goodness of our hearts and a desire to be 'liked' by other countries. We got plenty of resolutions passed, but the UN refused to enforce them. The actions of the UN are tainted by politics (like everything else in the world) and the UN was perfectly happy to frustrate the united states in any way possible. Several UN member nations were also receiving oil at rock bottom prices for the first time due to the oil-for-food program and Koffi Annon (via his sun) was accepting huge payments directly from Saddam Hussein. Yet this is the organization to whom you would have the United States submit?

When I said I don't care what should have been done I mean in the context of this argument and our path forward. Mistakes were made, and now we find ourselves in a situation where we either honor the commitments we made, or make the situation worse by flat out betraying hundreds of thousands of people and abandoning them. History has taught me that the principle failing of liberal democracies is their lack of resolve...we go to war strong and then peter out when the public becomes divided and demonstrates it's lack of backbone.

Whether you like or dislike Bush, he wasn't a draft dodger. He served. Which is more than most people can say. He may have been given a job as a pilot because of who his father is, but he could just as easily have been flying over vietnam. If you don't think it took guts to sign up and train to be a pilot then read a thing or two about what happenned to John McCain when he was shot down and the events that transpired afterwards due to his father being a senator.

If he simply wanted to avoid the war there were plenty of other, less honorable options. However, he stood up and vounteered which is hardly dodging the draft. Not all military jobs are dangerous (most are very safe) and to suggest that soldiers who volunteer to fill a need are somehow 'dodging the draft' is to suggest that everyone who isn't infantry, deployed, and getting shot at is a coward.

Being a pilot took a lot more guts than volunteering to become a cook, or a water purification specialist. Etc. Our Navy was almost unchallenged during Vietnam and would have been far safer than flying. Were all sailors draft dodgers?

What would you do if you were drafted for this Iraq war? Would you go? You believe that American Soldiers are obligated to refuse to participate in this illegal war, and you draw analogies between this one and vietnam, yet you criticize Bush for his service claiming he was 'dodging the draft.' Aren't you basically telling me to do that?


We can't just break the law when we feel like it. That is why we have the UCMJ. We also have JAG oversight and ethics play a large role. However, you can't have a lawyer standing behind every soldier or nothing will ever get done for fear of the consequences if a wrong decision is made. The other side plays brilliantly against our cheif weaknesses...our media and our desire to 'see things their way.'

There is a big difference between the US recorded death toll after our invasion and Saddams reported death toll when he simply made things dissappear and claimed that everything was just peachy.

Oh, and for the record, we had most power and infastructure up and running after the war. It is really amazing how much damage a bunch of bad guys who are willing to kill their own people (or their neighbors since most come from outside Iraq) can do to prevent progress.

You say more than 20,000 have been injured or killed and imply that we are now short more than 20,000 troops as a result. It doesn't work that way. First off, most of the injuries are not career ending...Soldiers heal up and go back. Second, the hurt or wounded are replaced. Units don't remain shorthanded because someone got shot three years ago. The addional 20,000 troops are to augment the current number in Iraq. The current number was decided upon and held constant despite injuries.

And here's what that 20,000 could accomplish: 80 percent of all US Casualties in Iraq occur in Baghdad now. It is a divided city between Sunni and Shia. There are armed insurgents and militia on both sides. Neither side is willing to disarm out of fears of an impending civil war (largely because continued US involvement is uncertain now, thank you). President Malaki talks big, but being Shia really wants to retain the Maudi (spelled wrong, almost positive) army controlled by Al-Sadr and is doing nothing to disarm them. So the Iraqi Police forces in this issue are nearly useless. They won't disarm the poeple in their own neighborhoods and if you sent a bunch of Sunni's to go disarm the Shia or vice versa you would have a bloodbath.

Baghdad is also the nexus for foreign fighters. Not to mention Haifa street, which is all bad. Saddam built haifa and offered it to palestinians and baath loyalists for free...and they have remained loyal.

Our 20,000 troops are supposed to go into baghdad and disarm by force the major militias and warlords. We did not do so previously due to political concerns (we didn't want to dig Al-Sadr out of the mosque he took refuge in) and since moved many soldiers to other hot spots around the country. It is believed that 20,000 will be able to lock baghdad down, strip away the weapons and the ability of the insurgents to fight, remove the foreighn instigators, and restore order to the city. At least for a little while. During that period of respite we should be able to restore and harden the infrastructure in the city and really get the Iraqi police on their feet. After we get baghdad locked down our job should mostly consist of oversight and supporting the Iraqi military and national police and securing the border so more radicals cannot enter the country. Once that is done we can leave.

That's all for now.

greg: welcome, first of all.

this business that runs through your post about the "lack of resolve" in a democracy seems to me close to an old argument for dictatorship.
do you mean that?

how does this notion of "will" that seems to be presupposed by this argument function?
do you really believe that there is a direct connection between the "will" of the people and military actions?
how does that work?
do you imagine the american people sitting around radios and televisions thinking really hard about iraq? do you see a linkage between that collective thinking really hard and outcomes, such that you can effectively link "division of the will" to problematic outcomes on the ground in the context of a particular military operation? how does that work? i understand that abstract argument, but think it goofy: i want to know how you imagine this theory to operate in fact.

i dont think it does operate in fact.
i think it is an element of authoritarian mythology the primary function of which is to demonize dissent.
it is ideological dreaming. ideology here is in the marxist sense: an argument rooted entirely in the class interests of a particular faction of the dominant order that is presented as if it were general. in this case, it seems like you have an ideological expression of the authoritarian dreamworld of a hyper-conservative faction within the military apparatus.
but whatever: maybe if you can explain to me how this business of the unity of a "national will"--whatever the hell that is--is operationalized in the world that other people know about (and not just in the ideological fantasyworld of the authoritarian right) and we'll go from there.

your understanding of the run-up to the iraq war seems to me surreal. where did you get that information? is this the kind of "history" that you are fed in the context of the military? what happens to it if your introduce more complex factual material into the mix? i ask because all i see in reading your post is a justification for the invasion of iraq that distorts history nearly to the point of replacing it with a conservative dreamscape. i am particularly amused by the erasure of the un sanctions regime and your apparent assumption--which follows from the erasure of the un from your "history"---that the americans "had to act" because no=one else would.

this leads you straight into a wholly fictional scenario that justifies american actions in iraq. maybe this sort of stuff is psychologically necessary to persuade folk whose ambivalent fortune it is to be facing having to go to iraq that there is some rationale behind it--but if that is the case, you should perhaps be up front about it. say: i accept this because, given my position, i see no alternative.

because that at least provides a rationale for floating the arguments that you do which are from any other angle empirically false.

there's more but i'll hold off for the time being.

This was the last article I had read on the subject: http://www.military.com/NewsContent/...tml?ESRC=eb.nl
Apparently, that's quite dated and 2006 was a good year for recruitment. You're a recruiter, aren't you? Call it a hunch.
A lot of people thought that they had weapons, but the problem was that if they didn't where was all this evidence coming from that he did?
"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons." George W. Bush September 12, 2002
"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent." George W. Bush January 28, 2003
"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have." George Bush February 8, 2003
"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." George Bush March 18, 2003

The office of the president either didn't fact check or lied about Iraq having these weapons. There was no proof of these claims as was made clear by the fact that no weapons existed. We were watching to borders, so they didn't move to Syria or anything. We are scouring the desert for some sign of anything, and we've found nothing.
I'm not asking soldiers to argue with everything, just to be aware that they have rules to follow. Our treaties and laws are not contradicted by the UCMJ. I don't remember reading anywhere in the UCMJ that the UN Charter doesn't apply. Specitically on the subject of preemptive strike against a soverign nation, there is no rule in the UCMJ that overrules the UN Charter.
Yes, they have hard decisions to make and yes the world can be a scary place, but part of how we, as a spesices, have dealt with difficulties is by agreeing on rules by which to live. We have laws over soverign countries and treaties between countries and organizations in order to regulate safety and freedom so that we can try to make our world a little less scary and a little more fair. If, however, we begin to allow ourselves to break these rules because they might be in our way, then why bother with them? The criminality is in breaking our agreement, and yes, I do think that when the ultimate decision was made to go to war that a crime was committed. I find it horribly ironic and hypocritical how we are punishing Iraq for breaking the rulings of the UN by breaking the agreement we made with the UN.

I think it was obvious that my analogy only mentioned 3 parties: you, your neighbor and your neighbor's kids. No one else was mentioned, therefore my analogy was fine. Police were not mentioned. Other neighbors were not mentioned.
Can't you see that's the pot calling the kettle black?
No one forced us to sign the Charter. We did, though, and unless we're willing to drop out of the UN, we are committing a breach of that treaty when we invade. I think that the UN and US should be reorganized completely, but that doesn't mean that I get to ignore their rules. That's not low the laws work. You change the laws through the proper channels, you don't just break them. You do it legally.
Ask your general if he or she thinks we can actually win the war over there. Does he or she think that, realisticaly, we can bring peace to Iraq, end the civil war, and leave them in a peaceful democracy? I don't like to put words in people's mouths, but I can bet that the answer is no. Iraq lacks the resolve to be a democracy because we fought for their independance instead of allowing their hunger lead to rebelion and eventually independance from the corrupt state. America would have fought the British with or without the aid of the French. Would Iraq have fought Saddam with or without the US?

We lack the manpower and resolve to force democracy and peace on Iraq.

The reality is that Bush didn't fly over Vietnam, he defended Texas from the Viet-Cong at home, away from harm. He was never going to be in any danger. It would have taken guts to allow himself to be drafted, like my father's generation (my uncle was over there, and lost a lot of good friends). 12 days before his draft, Bush signed up for the National Guard, behind thousands of men, and he scored a 25/100 on his aptitude test (1 more than failure), but he got in because of his father. I may not respect McCain as a politican, but at least he was willing to fight and die for his country.
Had W. Bush run, then there would have been consequences for his father, H.W. Bush, who was already poltically important. It could have ruined the family's reputation, something W. Bush wouldn't do until he stole the election decades later. His father was the real guilty party in his being accepted into the Texas Air National Guard, but Bush went right along with it, and now he pretends like he knows the first thing about war.
The sailors were not on the oposite side of the world from the war. Bush was. He never left Texas. Had the Viet Cong invaded Texas, then we would be having a different conversation.
I can't be drafted because of a severe heart condition, but if that were not the case I would have to fight. While I would make it abundantly clear that we were in an illegal war, and I would do what I could to hold those responsible for going to war responsible for their actions, but I would fight none the less. It's my responsibility as a citizen. I would not torture, murder in cold blood, rape, etc., though. If I was given an order to waterboard someone, I would need to be relieved of my duties.
The US doesn't have a recorded death toll for Iraqis. Other organizations had to step in and do it, then the government begrudgingly put out a very low number. The estimates are between 50,000 and 200,000+ Iraqi deaths since the invasion in 2003. Do you really think that the dissapearances by Saddam can compare to that number?
We weren't ready to rebuild Iraq. One of the biggest mistakes the government made was not having a feasable rebuilding or exit strategy.

As to the 20,000 troops thing, yes the 25,000 number does not mean that we are short 25,000 troops. It's closer to 16,000. Still, how is 20,000 more troops really going to change the tide? Violence and attack numbers continue to increase, not just in Baghdad, but all over the country. Attacks are becoming more complex (example: Iraqi insurgents in US military uniforms, which is f**king scary).

So willravel, you don't subscribe to the Sadaam as fallguy for 9/11 theory of invasion? Why/why not?

Lies and double talk about 9/11 were used as part of the justification for the invasion of Iraq. The reality, of course, is that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. That's what I subscribe to.

Right, but if you look past the lies and double talk, do you see the logic of it?

Logic of attacking Iraq? There was none.

9/11 happened, and the next logical step would be to take the power from those who attacked us and rally support to that end. The world moruned with us after the attacks, and it seemed for one fleeting moment that we could rally a superior, miltilateral operation to disable terrorist networks around the world. What did we do? We f**ked up Afghanistan in a way that the Taliban coulnd't even acheive, and we attacked a country that had no links whatsoever to 9/11. We fumbled the ball, to use Super Bowl day appropriate language, and a lot of people died needlessly and global terrorism has increased several fold.

There was no logic in attacking Iraq in 2003.

You would have acted unilaterally? And gone after whom? Who would you have gone after? What if the UN said "no" once again? Can you remove a terror network - an movement - from power? Are they in power anywhere, officially? It seems to me that Iraq was as good place to start as any. I wonder if its a coincidence that there have been so few major acts of terrorism anywhere, now that the jihadis have congregated in Iraq? Even Israel has had only 1 suicide bomber in the last 8 months. Coincidence, or the GWOT in full effect?

Question: are people on the left more angry about being perceived as lied to, or are they more angry at the invasion? Is the issue Bush's sales pitch, or is it the concept of revenge?

Did you miss the word "multilateral" in my post? I think you did.
Collect evidence on who was responsible, then release it publicly and then, with the assistence of other nations who are also plagued by terrorism, we go out and stop the attackers.
Dude, we were attcked by someone on 9/11 and we have permission, since we were attacked, to defend ourselves from further attacks. Iraq has NEVER attacked the US. There is a massive and fundamental difference between the two logically, morally, and legally. Under that same UN Charter, we had permission to go after who attacked us on 9/11.
You coulnd't possibly be more wrong, and it scares the shit out of me. Saddam didn't like the al Qaeda and did what he could to keep them out of Iraq. Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 and was not a theat to the US in any way. Staring there was actually an attack on a soverign nation that had not attacked us. It was an act of war, and it was illegal.


Do you even read the news? Remember Madrid? London? This conversation is going nowhere, and it's clear that you don't know what you're talking about.
I'm pissed as hell that Bush was allowed to stay in the oval office after losing to Gore in 200. I'm dissapointed that he was on vacation 60% of the time and then 9/11 happened. I'm livid that no evidence was provided about the actual 9/11 attack's connection to the al Qaeda, as Condi promised. I'm enraged that we attacked Iraq instead of doing what makes an iota of sense and no one could stop it. I'm confused as to how people that still think Iraq wasn't a mistake can walk and breathe at the same time.

Right, but who attacked us? Who is to be held officially responsible? I'm not aware of another country's army being responsible for the attack. Therefore, perhaps an alternate approach seems in order. Again, how does one attack a movement? Who is responsible for fueling that movement? Who are allies, and who are enemies? Who is part of the problem, who is part of the solution? Who are the victims of terrrorism? Who is involved in movements of religious extremism and who is sympathetic to them? I'm sure you are aware of Hussein's past support of suicide bombing an American ally.

It seems to me that the Iraq War is a continuing salvo in some sort of struggle against the forces that shaped 9/11. No, Iraq didn't directly attack the US, but they were part of the bigger problem that led to 9/11. No, Iraq wasn't a religious theocracy, but it was sympathetic to religious causes when politically expedient, and when it went against western interests. I would submit that Sadaam Hussein was one of the biggest fomenters of anti-western sentiment in the entire world. IMO and many others smarter than myself, he was most definitely an existential threat to the west in general, and America specifically. He deliberately and boastfully put himself square in the crosshairs of an angry, bloodied post-9/11 America and he paid the price. SOMEBODY had to.

Apparently, you think otherwise.
We seem to disagree on even the most fundamental issues of the scenario, such as terrorism and geopolitics.
Not unlike the current state of the rest of the country, eh?
While I understand where you're coming from, I have to, again, respectfully disagree.

Honestly? Well I can't really go into that here. The general concensus is that members of the al Qaeda, under the leadership of OBL, were responsible for 9/11. They borded planes and hijacked them in order to crash them in to military and economic targets of opportunity.
OBL and the al Qaeda terrorist network.
So only countries are capable of attacks?
By attacking the movement. Hitting the training camps (check), and tracking down leadership (check).
Do you mean who is responsible for funding? Saudis. Or do you mean who is responsible for throwing fuel on the fire? That would be the US.
Allies were, before 2003: Germany, France, Turkey. Then we invaded Iraq for no reason and everyone got rightfully pissed.
The oil industry and corrup corporations are part of the problem, and the soultion would be in allying ourselves with those who share our goals.
Anyone who has ever died, injured, or frightened by acts of a country, organization, or individual that intend to control through fear is a victim of terrorism.
Do you want a list?
Seems to me as if you don't understand what Iraq was willing and/or able of doing. I'm sure you're aware that Iraq was not even threat to Israel, that has one of the most powerful militaries in the region and could probably attack Iraq, Iran, Jordan, Lebanon and Egypt at once without breaking a sweat.
Of course this isn't based on any facts, but simply on ascertion and baseless inuendo. Did we attack China after Pearl Harbor was bombed?
So you're saying that because some Islamic arabs attacked the US, they all deserve to be lumped together and killed? Wow.
Ah, the war on Islam. At last the true colors are revealed.
He was, but not in 2003. In 2003 he wasn't even a blip on the radar. OBL was much more prominant. Oh yeah, and he was behind 9/11.
Don't assume people are smarter than you. Make them prove it through their words and actions. I think you'll find that those who you are assuming to be smarter than you actually have their collective heads up their asses. Iraq was not a threat to the west.

edit: Ok, I agree that the construction of evidence given to the people was miserably poor. I have a huge beef about this as well. If Bush would have taken the time to explain it honestly, I don't think he would have had a problem getting it to stick. People wanted answers...and there were good, solid answers, a bit complex perhaps, but there nonetheless. I think he was in too much of a hurry that the window of opportunity to act would close. Got caught up in all the pressure to do something and fast. He underestimated the intelligence of the American people, and this was a huge mistake.
Why not? I'm always interested in learning something new. Please feel free to explain who you think attacked America on 9/11. It might lead to new understandings, and prove enlightening. As far as exacting revenge on an ideology, it's difficult on such a scale, don't you agree? Asymmetric warfare and all that. The question then becomes how does a formal state operating with a formal army get access to guerilla training camps and radical madrassas fueling religious fundamentalism? It seems to me the only way is with the help of whoever's government those targets are found on.
Not sure I follow. Do you mean that the American oil industry, and corrupt American corporations are part of the problem of religious extremism in the world? Any other countries involved here possibly?
Not only financially, but spiritually, militarily, technically, morally, emotionally supporting religious extremism and anti-western sentiment. Unfortunately, it ain't just the Saudis. Before Hussein was removed, can there be any doubt that he was vehemently anti-western and intent on dominating the region militarily? Can there be any doubt that if and when he took over the region - even if it was by military proxy - that the world over would be that much more unstable? Can you imagine how China and India would feel with Sadaam Hussein as ruler of the Middle East? Or at minimum, continuing to destabilize the region through hostility? Do you think maybe with such a hegemony, Hussein would have become a moderate leader seeking to re-establish good relations with the rest of the world? Maybe once he was finished conquering the region, he would have mellowed out and became a friendier guy. It's a thought.
More than that I would say. There were many, many countries - dozens - allied with the US against Hussein (at least publically), much before Gulf War 1 and stretching back decades. I think that even after the Iraq War, out allies will still be our allies, and our enemies will still be our enemies. It seems we have too many cultural similarities and international arrangements for everyone stay angry at America for ever. Hopefully, America will have fewer enemies in the future. Wouldn't it be beautiful if we can put Iraq back together? What an inspiration...just what the world could use right?
Come on now, isn't that just silly? How many Scud missiles did Iraq fire into Israel during GW1...are you saying Iraq didn't fire them? Can you imagine what would have happened to Israel if one of those missiles were tipped with a chemical or worse agent? You want to talk about the Dead Sea overflowing. If Iraq wasn't a threat to Israel than I swear I must be living on another planet. Do you see what you are doing here? You are playing the kill-all-arabs race card. That's not a good sign...it means you are not thinking clearly. Go back 10 spaces, lose a turn, pay $500. Did I ever say anything about lumping arabs together and killing them? Did I even imply it? Why are people so sensitive about discussing religious extremism? Are you willing to at least acknowledge that there is a problem with religious extremism in this part of the world? I've said it here many times, there is a combination of over-reliance on oil, no religious separation in politics, and the wrong kinds of govermental systems that is primarily to blame for fostering the type of environment that caused 9/11. Iraq was of that environment. Why would you say "War on Islam" instead of War on Extremism and Terrorism? Or is the world actually devoid of this thing called 'terrorism'? Have I fallen into an alternate universe again?

"He was..."
Man, I think you're just arguing to argue now. Not a blip on the radar? A true friend and trusted ally of the West was he?
Am I on the wrong planet again?

That's what spies are for. A formal state has the foresight to not make dumb mistakes that end up having what could be peaceful people turn into violent radicals, and to have a consistant intelligence program.

The other thing isn't relevant to this thread.
Funding for 9/11 came from Saudi Arabia, the country of orgin of all those who are suspects. Training can be chalked up to the CIA who trained Bin Laden and his religious zealots once upon a time. Morally? I'm not sure how relevant that is, but moral support came from all over in small doses. There are people who hate America all over the world, and want to see it's destruction (though it's not as cut and dry as an episode of 24). If we're going to attack an entire government because some of it's members want to see the US attacked, then Iraq was hardly the biggest target. France would probably be higher on that list than Iraq. That, of course, is quite moot. Sadam didn't have any weapons of mass destruction. They were to weak to hope to attack Iran, Israel, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and yes, even Kuwait. Any thoughts otherwise suggest a fundamental misestimation of the military power of Iraq. A lot of people are basing their opinions on outdated information. It's not 1997 anymore. We all knew that Iraq wasn't a threat.
It'd be nice, but it's not going to happen at this rate. The US has only stopped one civil war in our history, and it was our own. We screwed the pooch in Korea, and this war is being waged in a very similar way to Korea. As long as W. Bush is in office, it will be difficult to get any kind of support from most counrties in Europe and Asia (or the UN).
You're living in 1992, not another planet. This is 2007 now, and we invaded in 2003. In 2003, Iraq was not a threat to anyone. Why is that so complicated? Did you forget that there was a time period between the Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom of over 10 years? Are you aware of what happened in Iraq over that span of time? I am.
Here is the logic you are putting down on the page: 9/11 happened, and Iraq gives moral support to terrorism, therefore we should invade Iraq. Tha is an alternate universe of thought.

Only the sith deal in absolutes. Saddam was in a place between what you're saying (a real threat to the west) and what you sarcastically made my stance (a friend to the west). Saddam was not a threat. That's really all that matters. It doesn't matter if he sent kind thoughts to terrorists or whatever. He lacked the means in 2003 of attacking anyone with anything. All he was capable of at that time was kidnapping some of his own citizens and torturing them to death. While it's obvious that's horrible and wrong, we have no right to destroy the government because of it, and there are much bigger things to deal with.

Ok, Roachboy: How about you give me the more complex 'factual' history about the runup to the war in Iraq?

I wasn't trying to be thorough or entirely rigorous. I am currently engaged in a debate with Willravel about the war in Iraq and am attempting to provide a counterpoint to his views. Let me know where I went wrong as well as how I did so. So far, you have told me I am wrong without providing any 'right' explanation.

And no, I am not refering to a collective will of the people, at least not in the marxist sense.

I do not think that the average person sits down and puzzles the Iraq war. However, I do think that the average person is easily influenced by news about bodies and stories concerning the war. I also think that bad news almost always trumps good news, regardless of the context. The result is that with any endeavor (not just Iraq), even possible future wars, the American public will tend to support the action initially and then as the footage of dead bodies starts to stream across our TV's, people stop supporting that action. It is a broad generalization and by no means applies to everybody, but it holds true for enough people that professional politicians will take advantage of it and thus it will eventualy influence military strategy. Also, military planners recognize our fickelness and plan accordingly...short, quick actions, though as we see things don't pan out that way.

What does this even mean? I admit I have had a few beers and am a bit worn out, but I can't for the life of me make sense of this sentance. I have an ideological expression? authoritarian dreamworld?

Personally speaking, my politics are far from republican and I am certainly not authoritarian. I have also never said whether or not I personally supported the war. Some things are nobodies business and some opinions would be inappropriate for me to express (either way) considering my current employment.

This isn't a bigggest word contest. I am not an uneducated individual, but I am not interested in having to break out the thesaurus in order to have a debate.

My intent was never to justify the actions leading to war in Iraq (not saying I was against the war either). Rather, I was trying to pick apart what I felt were the flawed suppositions of Willravel and others on this sight. I think he was making flawed assertions and I was trying to address those, not make overarching statements about the entire situation. Likewise, he has been trying to do the same, near as I can tell.

You think my suppositions are wholy fictional? then detail how and maybe I will learn something.

If my arguments are empirically false then they are false, regardless of the point of view. But again, you have accused me without providing any alternative explanation.

I think my opinions are colored more by my being an inherently violent person. I am not inclined to sit around and talk to someone who is wronging me.

Willravel:

The CIA never trained Bin Laden, though I believe he did profit indirectly from efforts to fund and equip mujahadeen.

Iraq still had a large standing army, one of the largest in the middle east. It was largely ineffective against US technology, but it could still have put a hurting on it's neighbors should it have so chose.

I can't believe you used a star wars quote. That should be a corollary to Godwins law.

I sincerely doubt that there was a big conspiracy about WMD in Iraq. It would have been far easier for us to simply plant something and then 'find' it. Instead, we keep looking and eventually admitted failure. The military, our intelligence agencies, congress, and the president all believed WMD was a real problem. Whether it should have been used to justify a war is still a seperate issue.

Out of curiosity, did the UN ever sanction us for the war in Iraq? Because they sure sanctioned Iraq, several times. If what we did was really so bad where are the sanctions against our country?

As for your analogy, I got confused by powerclowns. But I am more than happy to readdress yours. If you have someone who is victimizing someone else and there is no other reasonable way to stop it, then you should be able to do whatever needs to be done in order to end it. Laws are imperfect. Something can be illegal and perfectly justified. For instance, it is illegal to give someone your prescription medicine. But if your best friend (who uses the same medicine as you) has a severe asthma attack and forgot his inhaler, you are doing the right (though illegal) thing by allowing him to use yours.


Sure, our government is flawed, cumbersom, and at times corrupt. But the UN takes it to a whole different level, and we are often the target of that corruption. So no, I don't think it is the pot calling the kettle black. Unlike the UN, we are not wholely ineffective.

We don't have to leave them in a democracy, just an elected representative government of some kind. They tried several times to rebel it always ended badly. Even though we may have been willing to fight our own revolution without French help, it would have failed. Just like every attempt by the Shia or Kurds to oust Saddam.

The idea that Iraq will instantly adopt a model, peaceful democratic government and everyone will get along is laughable and I don't believe it is our intention. However, they can make real progress, obtain a stable representative government, and rebuild the country (they have access to immense oil wealth so they have the resources).

Again with Bush, he served in the military when he could have avoided service through any number of means (including graduate school) or chosen a less risky path. Even though he never did deploy, he very easily could have. I am not claiming him to be a war hero, but he did serve, and you shouldn't trash that.

I absolutely guarantee that no US soldier is asked to torture, rape, or kill in cold blood. I can tell you for a fact that every single one of the soldiers I work with thinks the soldiers who were recently convicted of raping (and killing?) an Iraqi girl should be executed.

And yes, I do think that Saddam's dissappearances are at least that number. A lot of the Iraqi's that have died since our invasion deserved it...they took up arms against us and shouldn't be counted tragedies.

No, I am not a recruiter.

Humint is of critical importance I agree. Allies are important too. The biggest problem facing the middle east isn't the west, it's the middle east. I think that solving internal domestic issues there should be the #1 priority. They need to get their house in order first and foremost. Religious extremism is a by-product of a failed state. Removing Hussein was a positive step in addressing the issue of failed states as breeding grounds for religious extremism. Iraq as an ally and productive country would be an extraordinary American foreign policy success and a major step in the right direction for the rest of the middle east and the rest of the world by extension. I'm not a huge fan of France right now either. Did you know they STILL mourn Arafat over there, those silly people. Chirac made an interesting comment the other day about Iranian intransigence, saying basically that Iran would be "razed" if they were to fire off a nuclear missile. I think something strange is in the water supply in France. Wait, why would you want to attack France?Did you ever see the pictures circulating the net of the missile murals they found in one of Sadaam's palaces...he had gigantic wall paintings of nuclear missiles aimed at Israel, painted in Iraqi national colors, with burning phoenixes, comet trails, victory symbols, with himself as Saladin riding a white horse in flamboyant military kit. He sure seemed like he had bad intentions...I don't know that he was the unarmed choirboy that he was made out to be. Haha, but you know South Korea isn't doing too badly nowadays. Throw a little free trade into the mix, and like magic you have prosperity, jobs, a sound economy, fiscal discipline, peaceful citizens, and an ally of the west. Sounds like a good formula for bringing about some desperately needed change in the middle east.
Well, we seem to be stuck on this. Each of us sees something the other doesn't. It is as if we are talking about apples and oranges. It's quite a conundrum. I saw no signs of reconciliation from Hussein in the 10 years between GW1 and OIP. He was as belligerent and defiant as ever. I don't understand claims of innocence as applied to Sadaam Hussein. More like this: 9/11 originated in the middle east, Iraq is in the middle east, Iraq is run by a virulently anti-westen dictator, attacked Kuwait, attacked Israel, attacked the Kurds, a major cause of instability in the region, supports terrorism against an American ally, ambitions of regional dominance, invade Iraq, take him out. Iran, while possibly more dangerous than Iraq, was keeping a low profile then, not yet chanting Death to America, and letting Iraq take all the heat from the world community. Iraq was the bully in the region, perhaps thats why he got spanked hardest.

I don't know too much about the sith, but I do know that Sadaam had ambitions to dominate the region and its resources with an iron fist. I don't think there is any middle ground about it. You say yes, he was maybe sorta a real threat, but not totally a threat, I'm not sure what this means. I'm not sure you're sure what this means. Then you say that this sorta threat really wasn't a threat, that sponsoring terrorism shouldn't be seen as a threat anyway, and it really doesn't matter anyway or whatever. He didn't do anything to anybody, he was perhaps busy growing dates in his orchard or something, somewhere, it doesn't matter anyway really. Yes Im being sarcastic because I don't know what the heck you mean that he was somewhere between a real threat and no threat.

Greg, in case you have come to think otherwise, willravel and roachboy are not making a personal attack. Will can get very heated in supporting his wish for peace and supporting the reasons that support it. If you remain open to his thoughts, you learn much more about him.

Roachboy, isn't trying to dismiss you or your experience, but he is honestly questioning how you came to have the opinion you have. His questions are sincere; as is his analyses of the thinking processes within a particular context; and he offers his thoughts within that context. He is asking for your clarification in a very honest way.

I pretend to know something about the intention of these two men, after two years of experience in reading the thoughts/observations/challenges that they bring to this forum. Either one of them may rightfully chuckle at making such a presumption on my part, but I do feel confident in saying that neither of them intended a personal attack on your views.

Please keep sharing your thoughts.

Pen

My understanding of the situation: In 1978, the People's Democratic Part of Afghanistan took power against a very repressive government. The main goals of the new controling party was land development, trade union rights, better education and social services, and surprisingly equal rights for women and seperation of church and state. The problem was, of course, that these same people wanted to get into bed with the Soviet Union. This did two things: it really, really pissed off the rich landlords (basically warlords), the muslims, and the tribal cheifs, and it really, really pissed of Washington, which was still stuck in McCarthy mode (communism = the boogey man). A resistence was formed in Afghanistan, and the US offered support. This was the birth of the Mujahddin. In '79, Soviet troops poured into Afghanistan to protect the PDPA. This, of course, got the Mujahddin up in arms. The Mujaheddin won. Durring the fight, the US government spent at least $6b (unconfirmed reports say $20b) into arming, training, and funding the Mujahddin factions. One very prominant Mujaheddin fighter and funder was wealthy arab fanatic Osama bin Laden, who provided funds and training and even worked directly with the fighters.

I'm not sure how familair you are with John Cooley who was a very prominant journalist with ABC and an author, but he made it very clear that his sources provided documentation that showed how Mujaheddin fighters were sent to Camp Peary in Virginia (for those who don't know, Camp Peary is a CIA training camp) to be trained in "sabatoge skills". In November of 1998, The Independant reported on how one of the men charged with bombing the US embassy in Kenya (and I believe the embassy in Tanzania), named Ali Mohammed, had trained "bin Laden's operatives" in the late 80s. Ali Mohammed was a greet baret. I think the name of the program to recruit and train the operatives was called something like Operation Cyclone, but don't quote me on that.

Pakistan's Inter-Service Intelligence Directorate used an organization called Maktab al Khidamar in order to distribute money and equiptment to the Mujaheddin. The CIA and Saudis assisted the MAK unofficially, while OBL was one of three people who ran (and eventually took overall control over) the MAK.

The Independant also named Omar Abdel-Rahman (from the first WTC bombing in 1993) as a part of Operation Cyclone. Moving on...

OBL joined the Mujaheddin in 1980. He was in charge of things like recruiting, financing (obviously, the dude was loaded), and training mercinaries. In 1986, OBL was in charge of building and running training camps in collaboration with the ISI and the CIA. It is in these camps that the CIA armed and trained OBL and his fellow contra fighters. Fomer British SAS officer Tom Carew, who fought with the Mujaheddin was interviewed by the Observer in 2000, and explained that the Americans trained the Afghans urban terrorism (car bombing, etc.), so that tehy could hit the soviets in cities. The al Qaeda was actually formed to run the camps in 1987.

So when did Bin Laden go from CIA friend and freedom fighter to terrorist? OBL lost it when his family allowed 500,000 US troops to be stationed in Saudi Arabia leading into Desert Storm. The problem, and something OBL predicted, is that a great deal of US troops (I don't have a number beyond "many thousands") stayed behind long after the Gulf War. OBL made outrageous claims like the Saudi Government was a puppet government of the US (they really have more of an onofficial partership in reality, though many of their deals are somewhat...questionable), and called for the overthrow of Saudi Arabian and Egyptian governments. In 1994, his assets were finally frozen and he was thrown, kicking and screaming, out of Saudi Arabia.

The rest, as they say, is history, but the bottom line is that OBL was directly involved with and trained by, the CIA. Our dirty anti-Soviet deals, which were swept under the perverbial carpet, came back to haunt us when OBL revamped his private army and joined with the Taliban and started bombing and attacking people and places.
The thing is, Iran and Israel - I'd say those would be Iraq's main enemies - are technologically advanced, maybe not as much so as the US (no one is), but I'm sure they are enough so to deal quickly and easily with a standing army with outdated weaponry.
My horrible sense of humor. The point I was trying to make is that the world is not black and white, and when you make an argument where the only two options are absolutes, you're probably exaggerating to try and make a point.
I'm not sure how far we can go back into the history of TFP, but I remember discissions back in 2003 about how Iraq probably didn't ahve weapons of mass destruction or links to al Qaeda. It didn't make sense. Yes, the inspectors were kicked out a few times (Saddam was often his own worst enemy), but leading up to the war it was the opinion of those at the UN who were responsible for monitoring Saddam that he did not have the ability to make war with any kind of weapon of chemical, nuclear, or other powerful nature. We constantly had spy planes and such monitoring the deserts of Iraq for places where he might be illegally manufacturing these weapons, and they never whitnessed anything damning. It was also clear that Bush had alrterrior motives, as not just anti-war or anti-Bush Americans were aginst the war, but most the the rest of the world was against it. Even the UN strongly suggested we don't invade.
The UN can be effective against smaller, less powerful countries, but when it comes to the US, we have no one to answer to. If the UN wanted to do anything to us, it would put them in a pickle, as we are massively powerful and also influential in the UN itself. If the UN had the power to do so, it's possible they may have taken action to either deter or stop us from invading.
Laws are imperfect, but so is intel. The problem was that this was an agressive violent move, so I had to have an aggressive, violent move in my analogy (so the asthma thing may not be apt). Saddam was a horrible man, and it was illegal for us to stop him. We also had more pressing matters to attend to. It's clear now that we lowered the priority of finding OBL when we turned out attentions on Iraq. The man who is generally accepted as being responsible for most of the terrorist attacks over the past 10 years, everything from 9/11 to Madrid to London. It's clear that the terrorist networks of the world are a much, much bigger threat than Iraq, and deserve more of our attention. How many troops are in Iraq right now? I think it's something like 90,000 active troops and 60,000 reserve. Can you imagine them in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and all the areas where we know there to be terrorist activity? Is it possible that, if the U had not invaded Iraq in 2003, we might have prevented the Madrid and London bombings? I can't answer that, but I can say that they would be less likely.
The UN is not wholely inneffective either. They are working vigilantly to meeet the 'millennium goals' (end extreme poverty and hunger; universal primary education; gender equality; reduce child mortality; inprove maternal health; fight hiv/aids; environmental sustainability; and developing a global partership for development). At the end of 2006, they reported a great deal of progress on each front listed. You can find more information on them on their website, www.un.org, and there are plenty of articles about them from news sources.
The Shia or Kurds should have asked for our help. The thing is, I don't think they wanted our help...but we went in anyway.
Yes, the idea is laughable. That is, however, exactly what the administration was expecting. Do you remember when Cheney said the Iraqi's would "welcome us with open arms as liberators"? They were expecting everything to go perfectly, and it's lunacy.
Buhs isn't what you call a thinking man. He would have flunked out of graduate school, and he couldn't run because of his family's reputation. The air national guard was a perfect option for him.
Are you 100% sure it's only the CIA that waterboards POWs? I'm pretty sure the Army has their hand in that.
You think Saddam killed 60,000-200,000 people in 4 years?! Don't you think we'd know about that? Where are you getting your information?

I count any death as a tragety, but that's just me. I'm what you might call anti-war.
You have the tenacity of a recruiter. It was just a guess.
K, I'm going to try and make it clear: yes! Saddam did want to take over the Middle East. Yes, he wanted to take out Israel and even attack the US. The problem was, all he had was an outdated military with no real weapons, and paintings of missles that really couldn't do any harm. I have ambitions to have my daughter take over the world, but we lack the means so I don't think that any government will consider us a threat. Do you see? Had Iraq utilized it's only strength, a large number of soldiers, they would have been descimated from the air by missles and bombs. The Soviets are arming China now and have their own oil, so they don't care about Iraq enough to sell them weapons. The US isn't going to sell Iraq weapons. France wouldn't dare because if they were caught, they'd be in a shitload of trouble with it's friends the UK, Germany, Spain, and Italy.

So in review: Saddam never changed his outlook. He still wanted to kill everyone and dominate everything. He lacked the means. He was not innocent, he was not dangerous. There is a difference.

Iraq lacked the means to endanger the US, therefore attacking them was not an act of protection. Protection is the only legal excuse for invading and ovethroing a government. Saddam's intent won't change that fact. Saddam was not a threat to the US. Saddam was only a minor threat to his neighbors. Saddam was a threat to the Iraqis.

Alright willravel sir, have it your way. Iraq wasn't a threat to anyone. Or it was a minor threat (not a major threat) but no danger to America. But Sadaam was a danger to Israel, and to his own people. He was not dangerous, but he wanted to kill everyone and dominate everything. But he wasn't a threat to anyone outside of his people in Iraq. But he wanted to take over the Middle East, and attack the US if only he somehow had the means (paging Dr. AQ Khan!). But he could never get the means, so he could only kill his people and try to dominate the Middle East by killing everyone. I'm so confused.

powerclown, you might us well be trying to get us to believe in the tooth fairy, the easter bunny, or in santa claus.....

There was no logic to a strategy of invading Iraq, for your stated reasons, powerclown, the M.E. country with the most secular regime....the regime that had the greatest incentive and a proven trackrecord of "discouraging" the Iranian/Iraqi, fundamentalist Islamic connection and associated ambitions....in early 2003, or back in 1920, where a study of history would have yielded the Churchill/Bell strategy of sunni rule of Iraq, precisely because of the lack of religious influence and ambitions for control of sunni secular politics:
I have quotes from DIA (March, 2002) and CIA (March, 2001) directors, Powell,(Feb. thru May, 2001) Rice,(July, 2001) and Cheney,(5 days after 9/11 attacks) that are consistent in the opinion that Saddam was "bottled up", was "no threat to his neighbors", "had not rebuilt his military", and UN sanctions and "no fly zones" "are working" to keep him from rebuilding pre-1991 WMD capabilities.

<b>Can you share how you "know" what you know? What date did the Bush admin's and the DIA/CIA threat assessment of Saddam's WMD capabilities change, and what was discovered to support the new alarmist communications of Cheney, and then Bush, et al, in view of the consistent contrary determinations, as recently as on March 19, 2002, by DIA director, Vice Admiral Thomas R. Wilson ?:</b>
powerclown, let's hop into Professor Peabody's "wayback machine" and compare the points in your post with what was reported between Feb., 2001, through 2006:
(I think that it is important to note that then French foreign minister, and now prime minister, Dominique de Villepin, was not persuaded by Powell's extensive presentation to the UN, shortly before this excerpted Villepin UN speech, that Zaraqawi, Ansar al-Islam, and the "poison camp" at Khurmal were evidence of links between Saddam's Iraq and al Qaeda

Former Senate Intel. Committee chair, Sen. Pat Roberts, worked to block the release of confirmation of what Villepin knew about Powell's presentation, 3-1/2 years before:

I'm making a sincere and thorough effort to demonstrate, and document, why I believe that the Bush administration had no basis for pre-emptive invasion and occupation of Iraq, for the justifications that you maintain are valid and legal. Kindly respond with some references that explain what triggered the "About Face", that changed the threat that Saddam's Iraq posed to the US, considering the comments of Powell, Rice, and DIA chief Thomas R. Wilson, in 2001, before 9/11, and Cheney's 9/16/01 statment that we had Saddam Hussein, "bottled up".

I would think that you would perceive a motivation to defend your justification for the invasion, since the record strongly indicates that Saddam posed no threat, in Cheney's own opinion, as late as on 9/16/01, Powell said that the sanctions against Iraq had been reformed to keep Saddam from obtaining WMD, Duelfer reported that there was no program to obtain or rebuild the WMD capability, and ten days before the invasion, the WMD inspection program was back in place in Iraq, and the French Foreign Minister, Villepin, made a speech before the UN, stating that:
I'm documenting that Powell said he had worked to "reform" the sanctions, and right after the 9/11 attacks, Cheney said that Saddam was "bottled up". Rice had the same opinion, six weeks before 9/11. When the US invaded Iraq, Villepin had said in his speech, ten days before that the WMD inspectors were back in Iraq, and making serious progress for "a month". I will credit the Bush policy of assembling a threat of use of military force, under the resolution of the UN, for restoring the inspections teams that "were making progress".

<b>The scenario to keep Saddam from restarting WMD development or obtaining and holding WMD, was in place, by all accounts, before Bush ordered the military invasion. To order invasion, in spite of that, is a war crime, similar to shooting a disarmed "suspect". Your stance IMO, reduced to unsubstantiated and it follows...unjustified, pre-emptive war.....is one that both Bush and Cheney failed to justify, in new attempts in the last few days, probably because of the huge, contrary body of evidence that hangs over this. A strong case, IMO, can also be made that the invasion of Iraq was not justified to the point that arguments that it was an illegal war of aggression, must be respected, and without any more valid justification than Bush and Cheney can now come up with, may end up prevailing.</b>
Powell, Rice, Cheney, Tenet, and Adm. Wilson were on record, contradicting the later case made for "war".
Finally, they thought it necessary to legislate a CYA for anticipated later war crimes investigations:

I always think things have gotten really weird when people say stuff like this. As if Sadaam Hussein and the entire history of his dictatorship in Iraq was scripted, and only really existed in some alternate reality of fairy tale and fantasy. Or at the very least, that the documented history of Sadaam - all the movies and news clips and magazine ads and UN sanctions and suicide bombings and mass graves and invasions and torture and such - were part of a hollywood produced movie, where in fact Sadaam and Bush and Putin and Chirac and Singh and Zemin were actually good friends who vacationed together in sunny locales and played poker together every week.

To stray from that for a second, If we can pretend for a moment that the tooth fairy is real and that Sadaam was in fact a bad guy, it seems to me that whatever evidence we were given by hollywood points to a guy bent on regional dominance by any means necessary. Yes, hollywood has provided us with a cast of characters saying Sadaam violated this, but hasn't done that, but is contained, but is still a threat, but is still shooting at planes, but the no-fly zones are working, but he still violates 10 years of UN-sanctioned weapons inspections, but no evidence of anything exists, but he killed a bunch of people with wmd at one time, but he's no longer a threat, but he had a history of funding islamic terrorism, but that he's been rehabilitated and is good once again, that he sponsors orphanages in the Congo and constructs universities in Baghdad, but he once invaded a country and tried to enslave it, that he kills off political opposition and dissent, but he won 100% of the democratic popular vote for his 'presidency', but there is no evidence now of a means to project his ambitions in the region, and he is now honest and forthright, but he once fired missiles into Israeli cities, but now somehow he is contained and harmless and simply needs looking after like an old lady at a nursing home and the like.

It seems to me the movie is available to whomever wants to watch it. I guess we're all different, we all process our facts differently, we have the ability to see similar things in different ways. Sometimes what is black to one person, can be bright white to another. I guess one person's horror movie is another person's musical. It seems to me we've all watched the same story, and sliced and diced it up in 50 differents ways to suit our sensibilities.

Great "come back"...."Rovesque" in that attempts to turn the strength of my argument from "facts" to confusion and uncertainty.....

From my last post....I'll try asking, one more time....

Heres the reality folks.....as well as the primary reason for Partisan Politics. Perception creates opinion, and opinion is....well...theres the A$$hole analogy. I have found that keeping this in mind when reading a post, can be extremely helpful in trying to make a debate, a discussion as well.

September 11, 2001
I really think it changed everything.

And host, I'm not trying to cause confusion, I truly, honestly believe this is the way things were/are.
Yeah, it's just one person's opinion.

That's gotta be a joke. You do know a lot of people are dying because if this right now, right?

greg: i wasn't making assumptions about your personal politics, really: i was just reacting to what i was reading. sometimes the internal logic of posts tells more about how folk think than what they say about what they think.

i am going to be on here in a reduced capacity for a while: i'll try to come back and address your post in more detail later.

but in general, elphaba was kind enough to provide a gloss on the motives behind my post, and in general i think it accurate. so what she said....

more later then.

...any ideas about why Cheney said that we have Saddam "bottled up", on September 16, 2001, or why the director of DIA is saying this "stuff", six months, and loonnnngggger, after September 11, 2001? Doesn't DIA have a bigger budget and operation, than CIA?
Vice Admiral Thomas R. Wilson made the comments in the preceding quote box six months after 9/11. Nine months after that, UN inspectors were back in Iraq, and the Iraqi government responded, about Dec. 13, 2002, to a demand of full WMD and WMD programs disclosure, with a level of detailed compliance that turned out to be much more reliable than the descriptions of Bush admin. officials, that suddenly began after Admiral Wilson's March 19, 2002 assessment of the Iraq threat.

I don't see anything of substance....a breakthrough, "if you will", that justified the dramatic reversal of Cheney and Admiral Wilson's post 9/11 comments of the threat posed by Saddam's Iraq.

That is the problem, as I see it, with your argument powerclown. Nothing changed after 9/11....with regard to any actual threat capability from Saddam. Only the rhetoric changed.

Do you think that the twice postponed <b>briefing</b>, described in the LA Times article, following Bush's newest misleading and unproven claim in last month's "address to the nation", would have been postponed, if not for the constant emphasis and focus on the facts by people as inconsequential as those of us
who do that "work" in places like this.

Do you see, at all, that your blanket;
...does the opposite of "supporting the troops", because according to you, they must not question, they must follow all orders...

So, they aren't allowed to question, and you could, but won't, because of "September 11".....so who is there to hold the CIC accountable.....to pressure him to stop short of backing up his bogus SOTU rhetoric with a bullshit, propaganda media "presentation", like the one Powell gave to the UN in Feb., 2003, to "justify" the invasion and occupation of Iraq?

THe LA Times shows that what we do, collectively, is working....it's slowly making these thugs blink...making them hesitate to lie to us as blatantly and superficially as they did about Saddam's WMD.

<b>I support the troops, powerclown, by forcing this adminstration to either tell us and "the troops" the truth, or to STFU until they are prepared to do so.....</b>

Of course I know dammit, but why should it by default have the connotation that because people are dying, and people like me seem to be condoning others dying, which I am not, that nothing good will come out of this in the long term? Why? Because you are anti-war and pacifistic - fine, I can respect that - but it doesn't have to mean that I have to believe that out troops are fighting for absolutely nothing. What the hell do you think they're doing over there...hunting Iraqi civilians for fucking sport? Don't you think anyone is trying to do anything good there? Don't put it on me like I'm some kind of emotionless, warlike robot seeking to satisfy my lust for violence...I truly believe that something good can come out of this mess.

"Trying to do good" really isn't relevant. Read Host's post. He corrected you on a few key points.

Ok, I will try to distill what I am attempting to say.

First: I believe Bush scored above 1330 on his SAT's, and he maintained a good GPA throughout highschool and college. Is he smart enough to be the president? Couldn't tell you. Is he smart enough for graduate school? Most definately. Also, in order to successfully campaign and win high office he demonstrated a tremendous amount of discipline, which implies that he would have had the willpower to be successful in gradutate school as well. He may not be a master orater, but he is not an idiot either.

greg:
one other thing:

the debate that is the center of this thread is about the contrasting versions of the history of the run-up to the iraq debacle. going through will and host's post will give you a good outline of it. i dont feel any particular need to repeat what they have already been good enough to post. i'd be happy to comment on things if it seems germaine, but for the most part, there we are.

Actaully..."trying" to do good is extremely relevant in this situation. Unfortunately, the perception of what is good, and what is not are the underlying issue of disagreement. I for one, fully understand there is an attempt to create freedom for a people that were kept away from it in the past. There is however a point where we must accept this "Good" has been botched with ineptitude....we were there last year in my opinion, and now are destroying any possible chance of meeting the objective of the month.
It has reached the point where our policy is destructive to the United States, as well as the Iraqi future....and therefore becomes counter-productive to all involved. Anyone who believes this war can be salvaged by further military action is, in my opinion.....not paying attention to the realities of warfare.

Bush has been quoted saying he got a 1206, though I'm really not sure how dependable his word is and there is no official confirmation. That's a really low score for Yale, but his family was connected, so it makes sense. His scores in High School were good, but his grades at Yale are about what you'd expect for someone with a 1206, he had just under a C average. He was also a bit of an alcoholic in college (which is hardly something out of place).

Quick moment of pride: I got a 1556. :thumbsup:

We only said that Iraqi Freedom was about freing Iraqi's after it was clear that there was not going to be a smoking gun so far as links to 9/11 or WMDs.

Our best bet right now is to do absolutely everything reasonably possible to have Iraqi defence forces protecting law abiding Iraqis from the 'bad guys', be they insurgents or forigners. The US needs to make sure that Iraq doesn't become dependant on our assistance, otherwise we won't ever be able to leave. The trick to that is to move from a position of defensive forces to a position of mostly training and being with the Iraqi defence forces on the ground. No more Coalition-only convoys. We have US soldiers and Iraqis serving shoulder to shoulder and we do more to teach them to defend their home. We also need a time table of withdrawl, so that the American people and the Iraqi defence forces know what they're working with. I'm of the personal opinion, based on previous situations, that 8 months is not unreasonable, but I'd be happy with anything under 14 months. After that, the US forces are only there to train local police or to be in a US embassy.

I am indeed humbled, sir....given what little, God has seen fit to give me to work with, to be on the same side of this argument, as you are!

"host"=
http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/Pre1974SAT.aspx
SAT Score=1162 [IQ=127]

"willravel"=
http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/SATIQ.aspx
SAT Score=1550 [IQ 15 SD =148.56] [IQ 16 SD=151.79]

....and there is this:

I think that comparing our posts here on TFP is proof that an IQ or SAT score does not necessarily mean one person is smarter than another.

The two arguments from the "stay the course" (aka "new way forward" surge and hold) crowd here that I find have the least intellectual honesty are:

Powerclown's contention that opposing the surge is anti-troop:

"The time for dissent has passed. Congress has debated, and they have spoken. Our troops are in place and under fire. It is now (or was) the Public's job to express approval for the mission of the troops."

Dissent is at the foundation of our democracy. Is is the public's job to hold their political leaders accountable for their policies and actions, particurlarly when those policies are based on lies and their subsequent actions are managed ineptly and irresponsibly (with the the troops as their pawns). To suggest otherwise is simply a means to demonize those with whom you disagree with no basis of fact.

Greg's inference of a "pull-out now" as the only alternative:

I think that regardless of past misadventures or conquests, the US has placed itself firmly in a position where to pull out of Iraq now would cause far more harm to come to the Iraqi people and would be decidedly against our national best interests because the whole region would be likely to decay as a result of the internal strife in Iraq.

There are other options - the Biden plan, the Iraq Study Group plan, and mostly recently the Obama plan (The Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007).

Where I fault the Dems and those who oppose the "surge" policy are not having the balls to stand behind one of these (or other) real alternatives.

The new NIE for Iraq (summary pdf) paints a pretty pestimistic assessment of current conditions and the short-term future, regardless of options.

Time for me to hop off this merry-go-round of a discussion.

I think Biden's plan is not unreasonable. Though I think he has added the drawdown of US troops almost as an afterthought. I am not against getting troops out of Iraq, but not until we have made the country stable.

If we were able to successfully implement all other aspects of his plan except troop removal we would no longer have any reason to remain in Iraq and our withdrawl would be inevitable. Of course, the devil is in the details.

I dont see any details or explicit measurable benchmarks in Bush's "new way forward". Without holding the Iraqi government to such benchmarks, it is doomed, IMO, to be more of the same.

Good points. Are you saying its time to bring home the troops because you think the country is so divided, or because you think the mission is hopeless?

I can't support a total withdrawal of troops quite yet. There seem to be too many dynamics still at work in Iraq, from the question of whether the militias can be destroyed, to whether political compromises can be made, to an Iraqi security force that still needs manpower, training, and supplies. Since no one else outside of the coalition seems interested in helping Iraq, it is the coalition's responsibility to get it back running, and it needs more time. If I were a senator, I would vote in favor of giving them that time. It has turned into a situation where to stop now would make null and void any and all contributions and sacrifices made by our soldiers. Only by quitting will their losses be in vain. I also realize the value of cutting your losses. We went into this thing cold. Once the shit started hitting the fan, we lost our equilibrium and had no idea what we were doing. Now that we have learned more about who the enemy is and how he operates, and since we have put a political process in place (from scratch) and we are learning the dynamics of that, I think we have a better chance of success. Before making final decisions, lets see how effective or ineffective this 'surge' is. It seems to be addressing an area of significant importance, securing of Baghdad and eliminating the militias. That al-Sadr is alive today (although 2 of his top monkees were killed today) is proof that there is still an on-the-job learning process going on.
You're not looking carefully enough. Concerted effort to secure Baghdad, concerted effort to hit anbar province, concerted effort to hit the militias. The dissent comment was tongue in cheek. I'm a democracy guy, so I understand the importance of dissension. Not to say I don't think people abuse the notion now and then.

Acccording to Abizaid's testimony in Dec, he, Casey and all the commanders on the ground indicated that more troops were not required...to secure Baghdad, hit Anbar, or take out the militias. The plan also has NO real benchmarks to hold the Iraqis accountable for demonstrating progress on either the security or polical front.

And you are also making the same narrow assumptions as Greg - either support the Bush plan or withdraw the troops:
How many times must it be said that there are other viable options, with a much greater emphasis on political and diplomatic solutions.

There are many who believe it is time to hold the Iraqis more accountable in a definable measurable way, both in terms of politcal progress among the sectarian interests and in terms of training the ISF, while continuing our support in a different manner than a growing face of US military occupation with no end in sight.

Without such benchmarks and a firm and clearly understood timetable for the Iraqis to act, they will continue to suck off the US tit and our guys will continue to be in the cross-fire of what the recent NIE says is primarily a sectarian civil war.

Than why would they send more soldiers?
Hasn't the complaint from the very start been "not enough soldiers"?
Now people are saying "too many soldiers".
Give it a try...see if there is improvement. If the objetives aren't being met in a set amount of time, pull 'em back.

Agreed, but there needs to be some amount of security and stability in Baghdad proper( the seat of government) for the political process to work, if its going to work at all. Why nobody figured this out 2-3 years ago I have no clue. Maybe they were not willing to put more troops into Iraq due to low public opinion, which was partly due to negative publicity, which was partly due to partisanship in Washington.

Agreed. Perhaps what Maliki is doing is using US Forces to 'allow' shiite attacks on sunnis. It's bullshit and it should stop. NATO is helping train Iraqi forces as well. I agree there needs to be more of a sense of urgency from the Iraqi goverment. Give it a little longer...let this last go-round play out.

Good question! The answer is, quite simply, that Bush and his administration are too stubborn to do the right thing.

Is there nothing that can be posted....no fact(ssssssssssssssssssss), no dose of reality that can make you stop? When you post that crap, four years and NO WMD, NO CREDIBLE THREAT FROM SADDAM's IRAQ later.......it makes you look like you have an IQ even lower than....mine.....
.<b>....and what do you read that provides any basis for your statement that
Gen. Abizaid only anticipated needing "more troops" in regard to the June, 2004 transfer of "sovereignty" to the new Iraqi provisional government. At no other time, did US commanders "in the field" request more troops, and I included the ISG Commission finding, as to why that was.....commanders thought that whatever benefit a troop increase would gain in security, would be temporary and reversed when the extra troops left....and it is clear that a greater level could not be maintained.....troops and equipment were stretched past reasonable, responsible limits, to the point where they compromised "readiness" of US forces around the world, and training back in the US....

What happened to Shinseki when he asked Rummy for more troops? What makes you think that Rummy was going to send anymore troops after he fired Shinseki? What makes you think that the generals would dare to ask Rummy for more troops after they all saw what happened to Shinseki? Why the hell do you think Bush fired Rummy?

Abizaid is 'macro-general' who looks at the bigger picture of not just war in Iraq, but religious extremism around the world. He's not so much concerned with flooding troops into Iraq as he is with strategically placing them elsewhere in the world where islamic extremsim exists: afghanistan, africa, pakistan. Thats why Abazaid is cautious about the Bush troop level numbers into Baghdad. But the thing is, time is running out. People like you are foaming at the mouth for immediate, unconditional withdrawal. If you read your own articles, General Casey recommends 2 additional brigades into Baghdad, saying that if General Petraeus asks for more, he should get them.

I'm not saying that additional troops alone are going to solve the political problems facing Iraq. I am saying that a lessening of ethnic fighting in Baghdad, a halt in the suicide bombings and sectarian neighborhood murders and cleansings, and the re-establishment of some level of security and basic services to the citizens of Baghdad would increase the chances for political advancements on multiple fronts.

Offered without comment: <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act">Iraq Liberation Act</A>, passed by Congress in 1998 and signed by President Clinton.

Loquitor: What's your point?

The Iraq Liberation Act clearly had a political and diplomatic focus and specifically did not authorize military intervention:

Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces (except as provided in section 4(a)(2)(related to funding opposition groups) in carrying out this Act.

Before you dismiss the lyrics above as a silly taunt, consider how whacked the results of your own advocacy is. The Bush/Cheney PNAC driven leadership has failed our troops and country into a quagmire that can only be "improved" if Iran is eliminated as a threat. I predict that "the plan" is to try to accomplish that with an almost exclusive reliance on "air power". Let the bombing begin in.....as St. Reagan once put it....

<b>Here is a recent report on the shi'a cleric with the LEAST ties to and sympathies with Iran:</b>
<b>This is the alternative to al Sadr and his mahdi army, courted by the US government, as the "less extreme" alternative to al Sadr:</b>

one thing that i take to be bizarre about this discussion when it addresses elements of, say, the biden plan, is the way in which the options are posed: either one fumbles along the path layed out by the bush administration or one withdraws all american troops immediately from iraq. that is an idiotic framework that functions mostly--if not entirely--from a viewpoint informed by the administration's choices, as if these choices were the legitimate center of any debate.

the question is not increase troop numbers or pull out right away: it is more about strategic direction. the americans need to find a way to internationalize this farce so they can begin rolling out of its center. the americans are a faction within a civil war and are not in a position to be other than a faction within a civil war--the problem then is the american presence itself at this point. replacing the americans with an international coalition of peacekeepers (say--for the sake of being able to point to something in this context--no doubt the actual nature and goals of such a force would be determined collectively) seems the only way out.
this would require extensive diplomatic work, which HAS TO BE PART OF THE STRATEGY that informs a coherent withdrawal of american military forces from iraq. so american military actions have to be linked to diplomatic action in the context of a lucid overall strategy. this seems beyond the abilities of the bushpeople to manage. and it is this failing that makes me wish that the americans had a no=-confidence mechanism that could clear these people out of power.

the bush people have obviously created about the worst possible climate for this diplomatic project--but they really have to suck it up, eat some shit and deal with it---- and this they seem wholly unwilling or unable to do--and it is here that the extent to which american options have been boxed in by the disaster that is neocon-influenced policy remains fully in force. instead of a coherent diplomatic strategy that worked in tandem with the military deployment, you get dickwaving in the direction of iran--a dickwaving that is at this point the best friend of ahmadinejad (whose administration is in a vry very weak position, likely to fall but for american dickwaving--and i would have thought that the administration considers him to be a problem rather than a kind of screwy tactical asset--if he is a problem, then maybe not doing things that prop him up, that help keep him in power, might be a good idea--but not in bushworld--go figure).

fact is that the bush administration appears to reject the notion of coupling a diplomatic strategy--which is the condition of possibility for a coherent withdrawal--to its military strategy. and it is because this administration has made this choice that all options seem to be equally zero-sum.

the problem is the bush administration itself.

roachboy, what this is about now, is the divergence between the interests of the US people ("the troops" are located in that group, too), versus the interests of the Bush/Cheney presidency in it's waning days, specifically, it's legacy, assuming that they will withdraw from office when the provisions of current constitutional mandate it....

They're still trying to "move the ball"; working up their "hail mary" pass "play", as their offense is poised to take the "field", one last time....
I predict that the Bush "policy institute" will be a very lonely place....

My point is that Saddam was viewed as a threat by the Clinton Administration. And in terms of using military force, shortly after the Iraq Liberation Act was passed, Clinton ordered cruise missiles to be shot at various Iraqi facilities due to Saddam's defiance of the WMD terms of the Gulf War termination agreements - was that illegal? (ineffectual, I'll grant you).

Loquitor...I am well aware of Clinton's limited military action against Iraq in the 90s. I dont know if it was legal or not under the Iraq Liberation Act.

What I fail to understand is how it is relevant to a discussion of supporting the troops and the contention by some that there are only two options - support Bush or withdrawl the troops.

Edit: I was talking in circles.

Immediate withdrawl? I guess I missed that post.

I would suggest we are losing our eminence because we have lost our moral authority, both in the eyes of many Americans, and among our allies around the world, through many of the policies and actions of the current administration.

Here is just one perspective on one specific Bush action:

In a letter (pdf) to Congress about Bush's plan to unilaterally reinterpret the Geneva Conventions, Colin Powell recognized both the moral implications and the risk to our own troops:

“The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism. To redefine Common Article 3 would add to those doubts. Furthermore, it would put our own troops at risk."
~ Colin Powell

Eminence requires a demonstration of leadership and leadership requires a capacity to listen and not simply bully those who may not support your "cause.". And it requires a recognition that imposing our military might should not be always our first option.

From the emphasis on human rights and diplomacy of the Carter administration, as a consequence of the Kennedy / Johnson / Nixon/Kissinger militarism, to your having to post what you did.....just 25 years later.

dc_dux, it is as obvious as posting "look both ways before crossing", but there is a need for you to spell it out.....Greg700 does not see that the "problem", the principle shortcoming in US policy, is totally opposite what he posted that it is.

The next reaction by the American people to the policies that took us from Le Monde's 9/12 headline, <b>"We are all Americans, Now!"</b>...to THIS, is already underway....since the mid-term election, last november.

The continuing "military madness" of the last 5 years and 5 months, along with the tottering state of US currency exchange rate, will determine how far away from militarism we journey, in this new cycle of voter sentiment, already underway.....

....and Greg700, re: your early comments about Clinton cutting the military in 1995.....Even at the end of 1995, with Clinton in office just 35 months, that "activity" was the still the early stages of the Cheney designed, Bush '41 approved, post cold war era, post Gulf war I reductions in military programs and force size. I'd be happy to show you the accuracy of this with links, excerpts, etc.

....and your "lament" about US forced failing to kill al Sadr in Najaf in 2004.....what have you been reading? Recall that Saddam was behind al Sadr's father's assassination in 1999.....it made him a a martyr, and.....since al Sadr the younger, took over the leadership of his father's huge, mainly poor shi'a following, and the fact that al Sadr is fiercely nationalistic, unlike the shi'a political leadership that spent time in exile in Iran, and is closely aligned with Iran, al Sadr is the shi'a leader who has no ties to Iran, and has avoided making them. It is a truer statement that it is a stroke of luck that the US failed to kill al Sadr.

In your closed world, can you see the "logic" in posting an advocacy, on this forum of all places....for killing the son of a man who was killed by Saddam, and was so despised by him, that this exchange took place:
(....and, to an extent, isn't there a measure of truth in Saddam's claims....he repeated them as he stood at the gallows....that his shi'a enemies are "persians", i.e. Iranian spies? Can you perceive, at all, even now, the delicate balance in the region that only existed because Saddam was Saddam because Iraq was where, and how, it was....next to Iran, populated mainly by shi'a aligned by both blood and religious sympathies, with Iran? Can you see that, in destroying Saddam's Iraq, the US gained the Saddam's role of checking Iran, but with the liability, that, unlike Saddan and his sunni base, the US is regarded as an infidel.... ?)
I've already posted the support for the accusation that US troops are fighting and dying in Iraq to give the "fragile" shi'a Iraqi government, which is closely aligned to Iran, including agreeing, for more than a year, to an "intelligence sharing" relationship with Iran, "MORE TIME"....the question, Greg700, is "more time", to do what? If the US had supported al Sadr, instead of the shi'a al Dawa and SCIRI party leaders, would Iraq have closer ties to Iran, than currently? Is there more "democracy", less theocracy, under the current leadership? Your al Sadr was bad....so it was necessary to support the shi'a who were closely aligned to Iran....the ones who lived in Tehran in exile, POV, is a symptom of where we are in the progress towards a US victory in Iraq...

I don't have easy solutions to offer, but I didn't proclaim that it was necessary or justified to invade and occupy Iraq, and as willravel said, <b>did we miss the post where one of us advocated immediate US military withdrawal from Iraq?</b>
But....I do have a clue. I know that the killing of al Sadr, by US forces..... killing the sole major shi'a leader with no ties to Iran, and an intent to discourage forming them, would have been another in a long series of profound, and very troubling US mistakes in it's GWOT!

I haven't seen any argumentative evidence yet that the Iraq War was strategically or even morally unsound. Vietnam was handled less than ideally on the tactical level (show me the Perfect War), but fighting the spread of communism proved - historically - to be the right thing to do in the broader sense. For all the protesting and draft dodging the left indulged themselves in during 'Nam, can anyone say the fall of the Iron Curtain and defeat of communism was a bad thing for the world? In the same way, does anyone believe that fighting the spread of terrorism is wrong?

Are we saying the concept of GWOT is sound, but the methods are wrong? Are we expressing our disapproval over how the GWOT has been fought, or is the problem the GWOT itself? Something else?

Strategically it was unsound because it created a stronger Iran and has placed US troops in the role of policemen in a sectarian civil war. Morally it was unsound because it unleashed that sectarian violence resulting in the death of over 100,000 Iraqi civilians and the disiplacement of more than 2 million more.

The Iron Curtain fell and communism was defeated without a major war in Europe. It came about as much as a result of an implosion from within and our support for internal democratic movements in eastern europe as from any military actions (other than our troop presence in Germany and the broad stategic MAD policy). I give as much credit to Gorbachev (policies of glasnost and peristroika), Lech Welesa and the laboor movement in Poland, Vaclev Havel and the "intellectuals" in Czech and a vocal anti-communist Pope as I do Reagan (the great anti-communist crusader given far to much credit by some)

The cocept of a GWOT may be sound, but the practice of justifying every foreign policy action on that concept is not. The American people arent buying it, many of our allies are not supportive, and it has created more empathy among the Muslim nations for those who strike against the US and ultimately has created more terrorists.

I found it interesting that a BBC channel chose, with no external follow up reporting from the rest of the media, to broadcast the following on radio, just last week. I post this here because it is support for the coverage of this historic (and buried....) event that I posted about in <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=2188768&postcount=22">post #22</a>, on the first page of this thread. I don't fully understand it's implications, but the congressional hearings that followed, produced a report that was hidden for the next four or five decades, and the son and grandson of one of the conspirators became US presidents, the latter bringing about more "fascist like" "reform", in just a few years, than I could ever have imagined:


History Channel video:

It looks like it "really happened".....and that there were no consequences to the perpetrators...when it failed....and that it has been deliberately "covered up". In view of the recent American experience under the leadership of this US president, is now not the time to learn about it, react to it, talk about it, attempt to understand why there was no criminal investigation, or even a negative impact to the reputations of these men who worked with "foreign agents", against the US government? Isn't the Bush "drive" to eliminate and evade FISA restrictions, supposed to be about making it easier to investigate people like....his own grandfather.....Prescott Bush?

Man, Host your hatred for Bush is soooo deep you'll grasp at anything and I mean anything, just to vent some of that bile you spew.

This was an OP about troops and support, and once again you turn it into Bush, FISA and whatever else you feel the need to throw in.

I am really surprised you also didnt bring up the wealthiest 10% with the Prescott Bush segway, dam your slipping.

Does this mean that RFK should have been investigating his murdering, smuggling grandfather?

From the OP:
Read the OP before you make yourself out to be an expert on it. The OP is talking about the "support your troops" line to mean support that administration. The funny thing is, not only are you wrong, but you condescended to someone who was right. You know how that makes you look, right?

Reconmike:

Pick the leader, of these three, in the instances that they are displayed in here, who exhibited integrity:

...was it this one?

or.....this one?

...or is it this one.....?
My "pick" for the leader who displayed integrity, is #3... Gen. Smedley Butler, USMC (retired)... who did you pick, Reconmike?

<center><img src="http://www.infowars.com/headline_photos/March03/03-07-03/nazibush.gif"></center>

Come on Will, you have to be kidding or one of Host's minions, here is the actual question in the OP;

Then Host comes out with posts about Prescott Bush? Would you care to assplain to me how that figures into the original post?

I don't see you mentioning Prescott here. I see you talking about the president, of whom you are seemingly a minion, being brought up. This thread is about Bush.

You were wrong. Stop backpedalling.