Again, you are good and I tip my hat to you.

You win.

As "a political label" we could call it Bush's war.

But as a military label we could call it "Operation Iraqi Freedom", since one of the consequences of the war is Iraqi freedom from Sadaam's tyrannical rule.

Or it could be called by al Queada: Operation,"Establish an Islamic authority or amirate, then develop it and support it until it achieves the level of a caliphate- over as much territory as you can to spread its power in Iraq, i.e., in Sunni areas, is in order to fill the void stemming from the departure of the Americans, immediately upon their exit and before un-Islamic forces attempt to fill this void, whether those whom the Americans will leave behind them, or those among the un-Islamic forces who will try to jump at taking power."
Iraq Is a Strategic Battleground in the War Against Terrorism

Or, I could call it:



On that note, have a good evening.

well, ace, i suppose were i to go about generating adequate consent for it, i could call the war in iraq "my aunt daisy's hat" really.

what you're trying to do is first argue that iraq was a legitimate aspect of the war on "terror"--that is false. finding conservative sources that use the same line of argument doesn't demonstrate anything.
second, you want to diffuse responsibility for the war away from the bush administration. to manage this feat, you resort to all kinds of rhetorical tricks and frankly i can't figure out who you think you're talking to with them. the key to successful use of rhetoric is knowing the audience.
third, you seem to want to make something Important out of the fact that the war has dragged on past the end of the bush people's regime. where the interest in this lay, i have no idea.
the other move is to attempt to make the war into some Collective Undertaking carried out in the name of some imaginary Us. on this point, you seem to be doing little more than stating the inverse of a couple of the previous arguments.
you can't seem to deal with the facts concerning the war in iraq, which have been known for quite some time, so you're dancing around in some strange exercise which i assume carries with it some combination of creative and political and maybe psychological gratification.

all this in the context of a thread the premise of which is patently false and was from its inception.

way to go.

I find if funny that every republican prediction about Iraq has been dead wrong, but they insist on telling us what will happen if we leave Iraq.

This is pretty much how I feel about it as well. The Bush Administration was the group the planned it, packaged it and sold it to congress.

Could congress have no? I not sure they would have. The political climate in Washington at the time was quite different and you can bet that Bush and Co. spent a lot of political capital to make the war happen.

Your version of events makes me dizzy with the amount of spin that is required to even begin to understand them.

Pentagon used psychological operation on US public, documents show | Raw Story

It's a long read, but it shows that not only did Bush and Co. lie to the American Public about Iraq, but that they used the Pentagon's propaganda machine (normally reserved for foreign countries) on the US citizens in order to sell the war.

I agree and agreed with that some time ago. Terrorism is a tactic, you can not declare war against a tactic. So, I don't argue that, nor have I ever tried to defend that. I acknowledge that "war on terror" is a convenient way to describe a complex military engagement that is non-traditional in the context of how we would normally define war.



Actually, I think "we" need to take responsibility, including Bush. I think it is dishonest for people to claim they were "talked" into war, or they were "lied to", that is a cop out in my opinion.


Ironically, my audience is me. I post to put my thoughts in writing. Writing helps me clarify my thoughts. Posting and reading information here is a convenient diversion for me. I love pointed debate to a degree that is not healthy in "real" life. I don't get emotional in a negative way when I am in a pointed exchange. In real life I can not be as direct as I am here, so this helps me get stuff off of my mind. When my sister-in-law makes the arguments people make here, occasionally I simply smile and walk away or enjoy the remainder of Thanksgiving dinner. For that I owe you folks.:thumbsup:

Again, I don't know what to say if you don't follow the flow of the exchanges. Take that one thing out of context and one can be confused by it. Put it in context of the total response to the post I was responding to and it is understandable. I think you know that, but you play this cheap gimmick. That is something I don't understand. When I have "discussions" with my son, and he does that I handle it as a "teachable moment". In your case I just want you to know, that I know that little debate trick.

You don't have to have an idea. No one does. If I posted my thoughts and no one ever responded, I would not respond in turn, but I would still post my thoughts. So, again I say if you have a problem with me, my style, my logic, me not being worthy, etc., ignore me. I would take no offense to that.

this is actually an interesting point, perhaps worthy of more thought. Where, how, what, or when is the separation between "the one", "the them", or "the us" that makes war?


I need and I think we need, in spite of strong conviction, reassurance that a path taken is the correct path. I think every thoughtful person goes through these mental gymnastics given tough decisions that involve life and liberty. I can not imagine what a person like Lincoln went through in his mind during the Civil War. There are real and honest conflicts. Those conflicts could honestly be explored and discussed once you get passed the did -Bush F-up Iraq for no reason - point that most here seem to argue. There clearly were reasons for the invasion of Iraq, it is more that simply saying Bush lied.

Do you ever just enjoy a walk in the rain? Sometimes you just go where the path leads, enjoy the rain, the air, the smells, just because, but when the premise of actually getting to some planned destination is patently false.

---------- Post added at 03:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:46 PM ----------

The person who wants to make war, will "sell" the war. Wasn't that a given? Didn't we all know that? When we studied wars past, didn't we see that pattern? Don't we know that the existence of a big military means there is a predisposition to want to use it (like a person having a 200 mph car and thinking he will never exceed the speed limit). So, all of that as a given - wouldn't we expect people to take a really take a long and hard objective assessment of the need for war. Isn't that the legal obligation of Congress, to check a President who wants to make war? Did Congress fail because they got brain washed?

I think a better question for you to ask is - how did so much power end up in the hands of a man you don't even think legitimately got elected? Not to mention the fact that you think he is an idiot, or do you think he is some kind of evil genius?