"And that's the way it is"

[scott_harpell]

I am not sure what you mean about discouraging students. I have many friends from Albania and other former Easter Bloc countries that are studying in the states.

 

I agree about Saudi Arabia, and also Iran. I am sure they are next.

 

WHo has said we are done in Afghanistan? This is a ridiculous statement. Are you implying that we left Afghanistan to go to Iraq because I have a buddy from High School that is still in Afghanistan and he might like to know about this.

[selkirk]

(1)dead horse, get over it.... what do we do now?

and

(2)Good points CJ, save not going into Iraq, see (1)

[scott_harpell]

So I wonder CJ, would you support an attack of Iran or Saudi Arabia then? Or would you want to put "pressure" on them like we do with Cuba so that the only people who suffer are the citicens rather than the dictator? Economic sanctions are ridiculous and have little or no effect on the leader. Look at Saddam... the fucker had how many dozens of palaces? I don't think he was bumming it at all.

[scott_harpell]

Saddam was under the thumb of the world. We knew what he had and where it was - at least the UN and the IAEC did. Keep the pressure on, work with adjoining countries, and squeeze the juice outta him in the long run.

 

Of course they did. THey had to know where to send the checks. If what you mean by "squeeze the juice" is get illegal oil, then yes I know they did this.

 

If you are implying that the economic sanctions were hurting him any, you obviously don't remember how much money he had when he took off. Money that is and was beign spent on terrorist opperations. There was an article in wired just yesterday about that. I don't think economic sanctions do shit.

[cj001f]

WHo has said we are done in Afghanistan? This is a ridiculous statement. Are you implying that we left Afghanistan to go to Iraq because I have a buddy from High School that is still in Afghanistan and he might like to know about this.

Our Soldiers didn't leave; one need only look at the news to see our attention did.

[scott_harpell]

WHo has said we are done in Afghanistan? This is a ridiculous statement. Are you implying that we left Afghanistan to go to Iraq because I have a buddy from High School that is still in Afghanistan and he might like to know about this.

Our Soldiers didn't leave; one need only look at the news to see our attention did.

 

 

Ohhh... so you are saying that what the media thinks= what the people think. Well... that would explain Seattle, but I don't think you are going to be able to prove that correlation.

[scott_harpell]

WHo has said we are done in Afghanistan? This is a ridiculous statement. Are you implying that we left Afghanistan to go to Iraq because I have a buddy from High School that is still in Afghanistan and he might like to know about this.

Our Soldiers didn't leave; one need only look at the news to see our attention did.

 

Perhaps you should look inot the acronym for news and you will see why they are not covering it anymore.

[cj001f]

Ohhh... so you are saying that what the media thinks= what the people think. Well... that would explain Seattle, but I don't think you are going to be able to prove that correlation.

So most people think of places they've never been, that they don't hear anything about?

 

Check out Newsmap for an interesting perspective on the media

http://www.marumushi.com/apps/newsmap/newsmap.cfm

[scott_harpell]

There are new news stories about afghanistan everyday. I think you are hyperbolizing when you say that no-one knows about afghanistan. If you read the newspapers, you will get stories about afghanistan. Furthermore, I fail to see how it is the Bush administration's fault that Afghanistan is in the news.

[scott_harpell]

If anything, I see that the media would rather crucify bush on iraq so they choose to show the more violent and controvertial war.

[ian]

to answer the question on preemption and occupation we did that in cuba and the phillipeans (sp??) i surprised the liberals on here missed that one....a people's history anyone??

 

we did stop a full out pursuuit of bin laden in tora bora...and gave some control over to some of the war lords...i'm sure we still have plenty of sp forces in the area...just not enough...its obvious where the rest of them are....

 

yes bush lied about iraq...whether it was malicious is anyones guess...however it pretty obvious that they only listen to what they wanted and ignored and sidelined those that dissented....saddam is gone now and good ridance...piece of shit....its just too bad that we fucked up so bad since then and can't get the country under control...

 

would i as a liberal won't regime change in iran and sadia arabia....fuck yea....i just doubt the george could do it.....and you can throw in sudan, congo, libya, zimbabea....and all of central asia

 

god my spelling sucks but whatever

[scott_harpell]

I would say that the Cuba deal was "our" fault as we aimed missiles at Moscow out of Turkey first but that is besides the point.

 

As for regime changes in the places mentioned, I agree that it would have been better to get at those places first. I don't know what GWB was thinking. Baby steps?

[chucK]

I think it's clear that the neocons, or whoever is in charge, believed that Iraq would go down much more peacefully than it did. So, Scott, you're probably correct, they were probably thinking baby steps. Trash Saddam, give our military some "practice" and move on to a now encircled Iran. Too bad it didn't turn out that way.

 

While I doubt many people had any idea that Iraq would turn out so terrible, I think a lot of people were advising more caution than was used. The big fault here seems to be what seems to me (through Bush-hating glasses admittedly) to be the disregard of the neocons for any outside, evidence-based, information. Though some of the unexpectedly fierce resistance is just "who'd a thunk it", I think some of it is due to Bush administration blunders due to over-confidence (Bush-haters like me though prefer to use the word "arrogance").

[scott_harpell]

Not really ChucK. I was out of the country when we declared war and I was still there when we "won". I think it was a dumb move to say we won, but I can see where Bush was comming from; saying that he had defeated the Iraqui army (which he did rather quickly). I don't agree with how it went down either but hindsight is really 20/20. Most of the reports that said it woul be shitty also said that Saddams army was gonna hold out for a year before being taken over so really it is all a chucK of the dice.

[chucK]

Unless you're really desperate (which we were not), going to war should not be a "chucK of the dice". If you're going to electively get into a fight, you should be pretty damn sure you know what's going to happen.

 

I don't think the neocons are total idiots and I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt that they did not choose to recklessly endanger our fighting forces and our nation, so I'll assume that they were pretty damn sure that Iraq would be easier than it has turned out to be. The blame lies with the fact that they didn't use very good evidence-based procedures to carefully estimate the possible consequences. They relied on listening only to "yes"-men. I think this led to some serious miscalculations.

[scott_harpell]

ChucK you are twisting it and you know it. EVERY war is a chuck of the dice. You think that Bush had some magical intelligence that made him able to prognosticate the events of the war? The strong insurgancy? He was right in how long the military would take to collapse but he was wrong on the strength of the geurillas. Big freaking deal. It happens. It is planning a war against another country not planning you senior prom dude.

[chucK]

I have read many accounts of generals who told the administration that they would like to have a much greater force than they did, in order to deal with occupation I believe. For whatever reason, these people were deemed too conservative.

 

When you electively get into a war (that is, you CHOOSE to do it, nothing is forcing you to do so, which was the case in Iraq), you should stack the odds heavily in your favor. Yes you will still be "rolling the dice", but unless you're an idiot, you make sure that the dice has only a 1% chance producing a bad outcome. You do this by being conservative in your decision making. Bushco was not being conservative when they ignored the generals (the experts) who counseled more preparation.

 

If you're forced into a war, you do what you gotta do, roll the dice and hope.

 

If you choose to invade a country because .....(wait we still don't know why!) you better not be rolling the dice.

 

Like I said before, I'm sure those guys thought they had it all under control. My point is, is that they were idiots in the way they assessed their/our risk.

[scott_harpell]

Chuck, this obviously wont get us anywhere. There are no sure things in War. Saddam's army was weaker than expected; the geurillas comming in from different countries is more than expected. Shit happens, we deal with it and we take care of business. One other thing to take into consideration is that if the terrorists organizations are pumping this much attention into Iraq it is likely going to severely hamper them if we can achieve our goals there. I am confident that we can, but not with the help of France and Russia and Germany so they can get more cheap oil. That is the funny thing. You liberals screamed that this war was about oil but the ones that were really sucking the tit were all the European nations that opposed the war so vehemently in the first place.

[Camilo]

Big freaking deal. It happens. It is planning a war against another country not planning you senior prom dude.

I hope you're not referring to the "misunderestimation" of the insurgency as a "big freaking deal", because that would be pretty fucked up. I'm just wondering if that's what you meant, so you might want to clarify.

[scott_harpell]

Yes I am.

[slothrop]

If the Europeans were so dependent on Iraqi oil and crushing the insurgency is the only way to stabilize Iraq enough to allow oil to flow again, wouldn't Europe jump on the coalition bandwagon and start pulling their weight? Maybe one or more of your assumptions is incorrect.

 

Bush's war planning was terrible. If he didn't plan for an insurgency and Islamic terrorists running amok, he or his advisors have no grasp of what the "war on terror" means. Since they're not willing to adjust their strategy in the face of reality, there's no reason to reelect them.

 

When is the last time an invader won a guerilla war without resorting to genocide? I'm still awaiting an answer. Examples of when it went badly for the invader: Germany v. Russia ('40s), Russia v. Afghanistan ('80s), US v. Vietnam ('60s-'70s).

[scott_harpell]

If he didn't plan for an insurgency and Islamic terrorists running amok

 

That's it. Cite! This is totally hyperbolic crap and you know it.

[selkirk]

Germany v. Russia ('40s), Russia v. Afghanistan ('80s), US v. Vietnam ('60s-'70s).

England vs the US (1770's). Of course we did beat the American Indians, but that involved smallpox and genocide

[scott_harpell]

According to your boy Clinton, Yugoslavia was.

[slothrop]

Ah, "my boy" Clinton. Yugoslavia was what? Are you trying to say something, or are you resorting to again because you have nothing useful to say?

 

England v. the colonies was what? A guerilla war... that the guerillas won.