[QUOTE=aceventura3;2718799]I am simply surprised by the tone of your answer. I appreciate the issues involving being in a position of not having "perfect" information or to not be the expert who develops the minute details to execute a strategy, but to suggest that you are not capable of deciding general priorities, goals, objects, and directives to those who are the experts seems to be a cop out. I am not a carpenter or an architect but I could get a house built. Your tone suggests that you can not. Perhaps I give people too much credit.[COLOR="DarkSlateGray"]



Making decisions on impulse or "feelings" is why Bush fucked up Iraq. He had no clear goal going in, and no exit strategy.

And regarding your house building scenario, you could probably build a little make shift house having no knowledge of architecture or engineering, but it's gonna be a really shitty house that will probably stand for a week or two but will probably fall apart after a good rain storm. That's what happens when you do something complicated you have no idea how to do. That's why you hire someone who does know what they are doing.

so it seems that we've now devolved into a non-discussion concerning aesthetic preferences centered on the sort of details one would prefer have draped about the floating televised head of El Jeffe--whether a conservative preference for inward details which refer to the person of the Leader (which reveals something of the contempt for democracy particular to neo-fascists around the world) or another. i mean, it's not like there's anything of substance being discussed at this point. ace has shifted his monologue to this sort of question. so the only response really is that i or someone else does not share ace's aesthetic nor the conception of Power which it expresses and that's the end of that.

Woah, slow down, roachboy. I'm still trying to get my head around why having convictions for the sake of having them is perhaps the highest ideal.

I seem to keep coming to the same conclusion: it's hard to demonstrate and express one's own convictions when one's job is to manage, control, or otherwise undo the damage caused by the convictions of others.

that's an effect of the way in which conservatives prefer to stage power as a media event. it's all about inwardness dontcha know. in the same way that poverty in conservativeland is about lack of gumption or drive or any number of other inward attributes. certainly not about class position or the social distribution of opportunities or anything else. its about soul, man.
it's kinda hard not to see in this a kind of strange royalism, really: the person of the Leader is supposed to Embody the Nation and does that by Mirroring Back onto it, and presumably us, a List of Virtues. so we are as the Leader is. no matter how arbitrary that linkage might in fact be. it's all the second body of the king. you know, that old kantorowicz book. great stuff if you can find a copy and read it.

except that it's not a royalist situation and conservatives have, since reagan, had a kind of penchant for this vacant manly man Leader-images that in the world govern out of a state of emergency when the chance presents itself. so that makes this aesthetic something quite different from royalism. but i don't feel like running out this obvious line of argument again.

i don't see having convictions for their own sake as a rational approach to actually living in the world, but it's pretty obvious that ace doesn't either, given the way he moves around his frame for argument, if you want to call it that.
so this isn't about actual human beings.
it's about image, and it's about the Image of the Leader.

in my humble opinion of course.

I think it all comes down to this idea of perpetual crisis that Americans seem to value in a twisted kind of way: war isn't something you use as a tool--a means to an end--war is something you manage; war (and even lesser conflicts) is an ongoing procedural reality of a nation's perceived security and even survival.

We know how G. W. Bush marked a turning point in foreign policy with this regard, and now we have Obama handling the fallout of that. If anything, Obama has shown his convictions in that he believes it would be folly to carry on how his predecessor did. He's just not nearly as overt about it. The impact of not doing something isn't nearly as visible as doing something. And when you have Obama doing such things that can be deemed as "staying the course" a la Bush, it's perceived as business as usual--a third term. But what new Bushlike initiatives has Obama unleashed on the world?

yeah--things get all christian/heideggery from there if you want to pull on the thread a bit: war, state of emergency become originary in a sense, a kind of groundless vortex from which the People shine forth and all that. so it's a way of "accounting for" history while at the same time evacuating the actual history part (you know, things that are done by actual people in particular contexts using particular frameworks that have implications which could, in principle, be altered)...
kinda the idea that only a god creates, so nations have always been there and war becomes a blood ritual of renewal--but because this is america, its largely mediated by television, so happens in the Big Elsewhere. because everyplace is the Big Elsewhere. except the living rooms where people watch the world happen inside a rectangle.
you know.

Some profanity is o.k., just not the type that offends you?

---------- Post added at 11:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:16 PM ----------

Bush did not "fuck up" Iraq, once the dust settles let the Iraqi people address that issue. From the point of view of the "war on terror", we are still at war, and it is "our" war.

I would hire people with expertise to design and build the house I want. They would follow my vision, my direction. I would rely on their expertise for the details and to get the job done to the standards I define.

---------- Post added at 11:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:22 PM ----------

I simply posted (#266) my opinion and a couple of quotes from journalists. On the question, I did not expect a response. When I post my opinion it has no more value than anyone else's, and it is clear to anyone who has read my views, knows my opinion as I expressed it, is not open to real discussion because the only way it will change is based on different behavior from Obama, not from the opinions of others. I often make it clear when I am not open minded, this is one of those occasions. So, again your post should not be directed to me, but to those who engage me and for you to ask yourself why you continue to read what I post since you have a problem with just about everything I post.

---------- Post added at 11:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:34 PM ----------

I don't find that a challenge at all. No matter what the circumstances or conditions, you do what you think is right. Every day is a new day. Every problem is a new problem. Focus on undoing, compared to doing, in my view seems to be backward and perhaps counter-productive.

---------- Post added at 11:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:39 PM ----------

You mis-characterize conservative view. Opportunity to exercise free choice is a cornerstone to people reaching their maximum potential. Big government often robs people of the opportunity to exercise free choice. Even when the intent may be good, often the consequences are not.

---------- Post added at 12:00 AM ---------- Previous post was Yesterday at 11:44 PM ----------

The Canadian involvement in the Iraq war was interesting. I seemed the country took a principled stance against preemptive war but got involved after the invasion apparently to help re-build but what some called "re-building" others called an occupation and no matter how you say it- it was a war. As Canadian leaders took a principled stance against the invasion they also made note of how they supported the US military effort. Canada committed money to the effort and Canadian died in the conflict. How did Bush's reach affect Canadians and why did it happen?

Who fucked it up then? The Easter Bunny?
Umm, it was rebuilding, we sent RCMP officers there to train Iraqi police, not to occupy the country, and Bob Rae, went in the summer of 2005 to help compose the new Iraqi constitution, and Jean-Pierre Kingsley served as head of the international team observing the Iraqi legislative election of January 2005, oh yeah and we gave approximately $300 million towards the rebuilding effort, so yeah, no occupation there.
Maybe read this, I know it's Wiki, but it may give you some insight Canada and the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Certainly not the PM at the time, if he supported the military effort, I reckon he would have supported the invasion, then again I'm not Mr. Chretien so I can't say what he was thinking. Maybe Harper when he was opposition leader, but look how well that support went once he was PM, he figured out fuck that, the people will butcher me if I sent soldiers to that clusterfuck.

We live in a world of shifting realities. A pussy to Peter may be a chimp to Paul. Don't git yer panties in a wad.

How many civilian deaths per year were there before the invasion vs. during and since? How was infrastructure in Iraq before the invasion vs. during and in the following 6 years? What was the state of radical (violent) islamic influence in Iraq before the invasion vs. after? By what measure do you find that Iraq was equal before and after the invasion?

I have eschewed underwear since 1982

Well, I think the challenge is in being obvious about your convictions in the type of circumstances such as those Obama faces. It's not like he walked into your average presidential office.

Maybe Obama's convictions aren't obvious to you; to say he has no convictions is a serious charge.

And sometimes you must undo, where the mess is so terrible that doing something else would only make matters worse. If you're on the wrong path, you don't keep trotting down it; sometimes you have to backtrack.

silent_jay more or less summed it up. But I will add that any support offered by Canadians on the level of government or elsewhere was generally applied more so to the "War on Terror" than it was in the mess (i.e. war operations) in Iraq.

Canadians tend to have a knack for wanting to fix things and make them better, and so that's what we do. Afghanistan is a bit of a different story, but it's a good place to look to see the difference between how we view one situation versus the other.

---------- Post added at 11:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:16 PM ----------

[/COLOR]

Bush did not "fuck up" Iraq, once the dust settles let the Iraqi people address that issue. From the point of view of the "war on terror", we are still at war, and it is "our" war.



Bush declared mission accomplished on may 2, 2003. We are still at war in Iraq. What do you think he was referring to when he declared victory? Having gone in under false pretenses, having no clear mission or goal and no exit strategy in what way would you put this in the "win" column for the U.S.?

You dont think creating over 4 million refugees/displaced persons is a "fuck up"?
Think about it in US terms. It would comparable to nearly every resident of California, or Pennsylvania/Ohio/Michigan combined, displaced from their homes and many forced to leave the country for their own safety.

Iraq was not Bush's war it is our war. Congress authorized the war and now it has spanned two different administrations and we are still there.

I get confused sometimes it is "rebuiling" or "nation building" and sometimes it is an "occupation" or an "illegal occupation" - like I said no matter how you say it, it was a war zone.

Why did they send soldiers to Afghanistan. I read a report that Canadian soldiers were disproportionately killed in combat. What was the difference? Why did Canada even get involved?

---------- Post added at 03:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:20 PM ----------

I am not going to make a judgment on the question of if Iraq was F'd up by the US invasion or "occupation". I never lived their, it is not my country and I have no first hand basis to compare before and after. All I will say is that in some cases sacrifice or taking steps back may lead to long-term gain and may be well worth the price. It like when the US dropped nuclear bombs on Japan, who am I to say it F'd up Japan or not from the perspective of the Japanese people. From my point of view, it helped end the war - and that was worthwhile even-though there was loss of life and massive destruction. I think the alternatives would have been more costly.

---------- Post added at 03:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:27 PM ----------

We can not say Obama walked into a surprise. Everyone knew the circumstances and he ran saying how he would lead, his priorities, his goals, and how he believed the previous administration failed. Since he has not followed through.

I see a pattern. We all occasionally fall short of what we want to be, but there is a theoretical point subjective to each of us where we make a determination on the question based on observed actions. On this question, I reach that point sooner than some. But at some point, I think even you would come to the same conclusion. This was my observation leading to my post #266. I think more people are coming to the conclusion I reached awhile ago.

And sometimes you must undo, where the mess is so terrible that doing something else would only make matters worse. If you're on the wrong path, you don't keep trotting down it; sometimes you have to backtrack.

I understand taking a principled stance against preemptive war. what I am not clear on is a commitment of treasury and life to a war zone where a principled stance against a preemptive occurred. And my question has to do with how Bush influence Canada in that regard, if he did? And if so, why did it happen? What we have is American liberals saying Bush more or less fooled them into supporting a preemptive war, and now it appears Canadian's may have avoided initially being foold but later fell into Bush's trap. Given, Bush's alleged lack of intellect and diplomatic skills, it seems incredible that he could do all of that.

---------- Post added at 03:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:43 PM ----------

There are two issues here.

First, if it is a F-up, I see it as a US issue not a Bush issue.
Second, I say let the Iraqi people write the history on the impact the war had on their country. I would not want a war fought in my backyard, but before I concluded it was a F-up, I would want to see how everything ended up.

---------- Post added at 03:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:49 PM ----------

After sleeping on this, I apologize. I should not have expressed my thought in that manner.

Sorry mate, that was/is Bush's war, it hasn't spanned two different administrations, it went through most of Bush's, and well if you think you can pull troops out of a country in 10 months, whicch is all it has lasted in Obama's term.
War zone or not, you do know there are different roles to play in a war zone don't you? Combat, logistical, and yes even construction, which is often done by civilians, so saying occupation is just a cop out, or you really have no idea what diffetrent roles there are in a war zone.
Wait, wait, are you trying to say that because the Canadian government sent troops to Afghanistan, that equals supporting the invasion of Iraq? If you can tie the two together, you'll be able to do something Bush never could, so I'd like to see your reasoning for that one.


I don't know, I haven't read said report, care to share if with the rest of the class? What's the difference between Iraq and Afghanistan? If you don't know this by now, there is no use explaining it, it's the proverbial dead horse.

Yes, you can withdraw the troops in 10 months or less. Or, you can say the war was wrong and put plans in place to remove the troops by a date certain. But, back to the point, Congress authorized the use of military force, they funded the war, Bush was re-elected by the American people - remember "stay the course". So to sum it all up:

Congress had the opportunity to say no, not yes.
Congress had the opportunity to give a conditional yes, not a "blank check".
Congress had the opportunity to re-visit the yes and make it no.
Congress had the opportunity to set conditions.
Congress had the opportunity to not fund the invasion.
Congress had the opportunity to set conditions for the continued funding.
Congress had the opportunity to impeach.
The American people had an opportunity to not re-elect Bush.
The American people had multiple opportunities to vote for people who would end the war.
The new administration had an opportunity to end the war or set a time frame for its end.
A Congress with a super majority and a President of the same party had an opportunity to do whatever they want.

And, you call it Bush's war???????????

I understand that, what I don't understand is why do it? Why take the risk?

It goes to a broader issue raised in an earlier post regarding the inferred US predisposition to war. I assume people follow the flow of the posts. Some here seem to assume a comment taken out of context illustrates ignorance. If you ever have a question about what I am trying to say, just ask. I know that I have a problem communicating with people because I often have multiple trains of thought running at the same time.

This train:

If in principle a nation takes a stance that war is not a solution, preemptive or not, why engage in war? What was the "thing" that made making war in Afghanistan o.k., (the Afghan people were not involved in 9/11, nor was 9/11 an attack against Canada)? Then what is the "thing" that made making war in Afghanistan o.k. but making preemptive war in Iran wrong? If preemptive war in Iran is wrong, what is the "thing" that make any involvement in that war o.k.? If preemptive war is wrong why not take issue with the nation involved in initiating the preemptive war? Why pretend to be neutral? given these questions and others, what influence did Bush have and why?



True, but not for the reasons you state.

sophistries ace. all of that. look it up.

I complement you. On most people what you do is probably pretty effective. Just so that you know, we both know what your approach is - I call you on it. We both know the true sophistry is in the argument that it is "Bush's war". In our form of government, and in fact any form of government, no one man can be solely responsible for war. If you want to make a case to defend that position, give us your best shot. Or, simply respond with a short one liner that adds no value.

uh ace. you could i suppose refer to iraq as the project for a new american century's war. but it was in fact the bush administration that fabricated the case for it, that launched it, that pursued the "wolfowitz strategy" on and on and on.

as a political label, calling iraq bush's war is pretty accurate. i read your "arguments" above and kind nothing of interest in them, so i'm leaving it at that.

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?