George Bush - a strong leader...

[Squid]

you monotone lunatic, how can you possibly compare the current fiasco in Iraq to WWI or WWII?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

you monotone lunatic, how can you possibly compare the current fiasco in Iraq to WWI or WWII?

 

thanks for elevating the debate, a-hole.

 

 

as for my point, which obviously went over your pointy little head - casualties are not the whole picture here. that's what I was responding to above. The success or failure of a war, or how well it is run, is not exclusively tied to the number of casualties in absolute terms.

[Squid]

Ok- agreed on that minor point- but how can you compare the defense of Europe from the Third Reich to our misinformed and 'pre-emptive' invasion of Iraq?

 

 

*you cocksucking windowlicker*

[whirlwind]

you cant compair iraq to any ww if you remeber wwI we were pretty much begged to jion and wwII we were attacked, although it may be the start of wwIII, vietnam and korea were a waste of lives too. we suposedly went in to iraq t o help, now its blow to shit, god only knows how man civl died, last i heard was like 120,000 iraq's and that was awhile ago, and most of the world hates what we have done, we hate whats happen, our eleced officals fucked up and they need to take resposiblity one way or another, btw all wars are utter fallures, unless you are deffending youself.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Ok- agreed on that minor point- but how can you compare the defense of Europe from the Third Reich to our misinformed and 'pre-emptive' invasion of Iraq?

 

1) we're not discussing the merits of one war versus another, but measures of success in the war's execution.

 

2) there were some poorly planned and executed battles or dubious strategy in WWII with a huge loss of American life.

[whirlwind]

The success or failure of a war, or how well it is run, is not exclusively tied to the number of casualties in absolute terms.

 

 

 

i agree and thats the point. but if it where a sucess in this situation there would be less civil casualties and less rebuilding of infostructure, we bomed the fuck out of a country in which most of its army serendered in the onset of the battle

[Squid]

How we defined success in both WWI & WWII was our (the US) adherence to a higher moral code than the cynical realpolitik of the continental powers. This was expressed with Wilson's proposal of the League of Nations, and the Geneva convention. Even in our worst lapses of WWII (the Japanese internment camps), we never allowed ourselves to sink to the levels that we sank to in Iraq.

The abandonment of human rights principles- in Abu Ghraib, in Guantanamo, in the legal counsel Bush sought to allow torture- has been by far the most significant casualty of this war, and on those grounds alone I consider this war a failure. If the US doesn't stand for the basic human rights outlined in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, then it doesn't stand for much at all.

[whirlwind]

Ok- agreed on that minor point- but how can you compare the defense of Europe from the Third Reich to our misinformed and 'pre-emptive' invasion of Iraq?

 

1) we're not discussing the merits of one war versus another, but measures of success in the war's execution.

 

2) there were some poorly planned and executed battles or dubious strategy in WWII with a huge loss of American life.

 

1) you started the comparison

2)true but once again the objective was finnaly met, we are running in circles in iraq and afganistan, and trying to escalae things in other countries.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

How we defined success in both WWI & WWII was our (the US) adherence to a higher moral code than the cynical realpolitik of the continental powers. This was expressed with Wilson's proposal of the League of Nations, and the Geneva convention. Even in our worst lapses of WWII (the Japanese internment camps), we never allowed ourselves to sink to the levels that we sank to in Iraq.

The abandonment of human rights principles- in Abu Ghraib, in Guantanamo, in the legal counsel Bush sought to allow torture- has been by far the most significant casualty of this war, and on those grounds alone I consider this war a failure. If the US doesn't stand for the basic human rights outlined in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, then it doesn't stand for much at all.

 

You've got to be kidding!

 

We bend over backwards not to violate human rights and cater to the sensitivies of our islamic opponents. In WWII we called the Germans Krauts and the Japanese Japs, and didn't bat an eye. Human rights? We interned 1000s of US *citizens*, confiscating their properties and depriving them of their rights. On the battlefield, there were incidents of what today would be called war crimes (shooting prisoners who surrender, knocking out teeth, you name it). In WWII we executed saboteurs on the spot. Talk to some veterans while they are still around.

 

The Leage of Nations? A great success! I'm glad we sacrificed over 50,000 lives for that! All WWI got us was... WWII. Yeah, the Treaty of Versailles was a great exercise in our moral leadership and idealism.

[whirlwind]

i think the point was to learn from the mistakes and not make them again, shit if we are no better off, when it comes to how we treat one another, than we were 50+yrs ago then we are in big truble and the whole civil rights movement, in the 60's btw, realy was a sham

[mattp]

KK:

 

Iraq was stable, albeit a thorn in our side. Now it is far from stable and many if not most in any position to say so agree it is dangerously close to civil war. There were no terrorists in Iraq and now it is a hotbed for sure. All military experts who have commented on this say that we could or might have avoided this situation if Rumsefeld et al had listened to the generals and sent in enough troops to do the job.

 

Virtually all our allies and much of the non-alligned world was ready to sign on to any U.S.- led war on terror. Now most of them are suspicious at best. This could have been avoided had our president and his men decided not to say insulting things about "old europe" and had they been willing to go along with the U.N. and waited for more inspection. The AbuGhraib and Guantanamo torture scandals did not help and they did not have to happen.

 

There is less power, water and sanitary service in Iraq now than before. I'm not sure if the disruption in services could have been avoided but the reconstruction would have gone a lot better if we had enough troops on the ground to quell the insurrection afterward - at least from what I hear the administration is blaming the clumsy and slow reconstruction effort on that insurrection. I have not heard even Administration spokesmen deny that much if not most of the reconstruction $ has been managed poorly.

 

The war has cost thousands of U.S. lives, and tens if not hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives. Sure, it could have gone worse. It hasn’t YET erupted into world war III, and U.S. casualties are only in the thousands, but how many fewer would have died if we had been content to let the U.N. and inspections continue?

 

The Iraqi oil industry is set way back. Again, I don't know how much of htis could have been avoided but I bet reconstruction would be further along if we had done a better job of the whole thing.

 

By all accounts, our military is severely strained by this war. Enlistment is almost certain to suffer for years to come, and a large number of our forces are tied down in Iraq for god knows how long.

 

The monetary cost of this war has been staggering and many economists are saying the budget deficits may be creating a disaster for us. What meager percentage of the actual cost was forecast by the Administration before we went in?

 

We were taken into Iraq on false pretexts, and we still don’t know why we are there. One thing is certain, though: the whole thing was optional in the first place. And, would you agree, we are LESS secure than we were when we went in?

 

 

Where is the “average” part of all this?

[Phil K]

Kzwhateverski is obviously delusional. Comparing this to WWI or WWII is ridiculous. Those were not wars we entered because a small group of throwbacks had a personal agenda to fulfill, and no one predicted that they would be a "cakewalk" or that they would last "days, weeks; I doubt months" like that lying sack Rumsfeld. If not for their arrogance it may not have turned into a disaster. Now they want to F'ING NUKE ANOTHER COUNTRY THAT THEY DON'T LIKE!!!!!! I just can't believe this shizzle. This looks bad folks, really bad. They have learned nothing from their mistakes precisely because they are unwilling to admit to them, like our vowel challenged friend.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

All military experts who have commented on this say that we could or might have avoided this situation if Rumsefeld et all had listened to the generals and sent in enough troops to do the job.

 

Yeah, right. The opponents of this war opposed the number of soldiers that were sent as it was. And the cost would have been greater too - "I voted for the 87 billion, before I voted against it".

 

I deleted a bunch of stuff that I actually agree with - and you didn't get in to hysterics, so you never lost me. :-)

 

We were taken into Iraq on false pretexts, and we still don’t know why we are there.

 

Yes we do. We are there to fill the vacuum left by Hussein, with a stable, pro-American (quasi)democracy (little d). It's part of a geo-political strategy in that region, which will pressure the governments of Iran and Syria to move in the same direction. I'm not saying this will work, but that is why we are there at this point.

 

And, would you agree, we are LESS secure than we were when we went in?

 

Nope. I wouldn't agree with that part at all.

 

As for the war, just to be clear of where I stand. I only supported it based on the premise of an "imminent threat". There was no imminent threat, so hindsight, I have to say that going in there in the first place was unjustified and wrong. But, let's spread the blame here - Saddam didn't help his case much. You don't play chicken with a hawkish administration after the largest terrorist attack against the US ever.

 

I also must say that I have problems with the growth of presidential power to deploy military forces without a declaration of war. This precedent was terrible to set, and has been exercised far too many times since WWII. I would prefer some type of constitutional amendment to prevent this in the future. And again, the blame is to share here. Congress is run by a bunch of self-serving cowards who simultaneously don't want to be on record for voting *for* a declaration of war, *nor* voting against funding military operations like this.

 

enjoy your evening folks... I'm outta here.

[whirlwind]

we are there to fill a vacum that we created... ahh ok now i feel much better

[mattp]

Now, I somewhat agree with this latest post from KK. We may now need to remain in at least somes capacity to fill the power vaccum we created (I'm not sure) and Saddam certainly didn't help matters any.

 

However, I believe he is wrong that the liberal critics of the war were anything like in agreement that if sending in troops was bad, sending in more would have been worse. I recall many saying, before we invaded, that we should listen to our own generals and invade with far more troops if we were going to go in at all (remember the line about how we could win the war but we might well lose the peace?). And, in retrospect, it might well have proven MUCH cheaper that way.

 

And, I'd have to add that you were not paying much attention if you actually believed, or were not at least a little bit skeptical of, the imminent threat line. The foreign press and the evil liberal media had plenty of stories about how the reports of Saddam's capabilities were being greatly exaggerated. Remember the stories about the aluminum tubes not being capable of use in a centrifuge? The missiles not having the capabilities reported? The complete lack of evidence of any nuclear weapons program? The fact that the Uranium purchase attempt had not happened? The fact that the alleged meeting between Iraqi officials and terrorists in Prague had never happened? And it was clear that we were enforcing a no fly zone so Saddam wasn't going anywhere. We had him surrounded by how many troops? And then, while the 911 hijackers were all from Saudi Arabia, Cheney was saying Iraq was behind the 911 attack every other day or so. This obvious lie lent a lot of credence to media reports that the imminent threat was being exaggerated, no? Didn't that, combined with the fact that George and friends started talking about targetting Iraq something like on September 12, 2001, and maybe before that, raise any questions in your mind?

[Raindawg]

The classic definition of insanity is when you keep doing the same thing and expect to get a different result than what you are getting.

 

That sounds like that tired and baseless cliché Hillary Clinton spewed out a few years ago. What you describe is not insanity, but persistence, which is a trait of many successful people.

[Peter_Puget]

imminent threat line

 

Stop baiting me!

 

Actually there is a good link in the "Decider" thread

Edited April 19, 2006 by Peter_Puget

[mattp]

No bait there, Peter. I think we more or less agree that the proper discussion should have been that the Administration thought there was a problem there which wasn't going to go away so we'd have to deal with it sooner or later. But apart from how you interpret statements that if we waited for proof we'd find that proof in the form of a mushroom cloud over Manhattan, didn't you see the same stories I did about how much of what they were trotting out as evidence was exaggerated at best? Wasn't that cause for just a little bit of skepticism? Did you think we couldn't wait any longer or just that it was time to invade if we were going to do it?

[cj001f]

Actually there is a good lick in the "Decider" thread

Jenna or Barbara

[JoshK]

KK, are you honestly trying to draw comparisons in any way, shape, or form between WWII, Vietnam, Korea and the current quagmire?? The only one that is even remotely appropriate would be Vietnam and even then we are talking about a starkly different world at that time. Just suck it up and admit what a total failure the "Iraq War" has become. Every day I log on to view news one of the top five articles is always "XX number of innocent people killed today in XX Iraqi town". We aren't winning. Neither are the poor citizens of that country. Your crew (Dumbsfeld, BushCo, etc.) are the ones who failed us. Sack up and stop defending these shmucks.

 

BTW, you don't grade a war with letter grades. That had to be one of the more oddly twisted things i've seen you drag out.

[JoshK]

And then, while the 911 hijackers were all from Saudi Arabia, Cheney was saying Iraq was behind the 911 attack every other day or so. This obvious lie lent a lot of credence to media reports that the imminent threat was being exaggerated, no? Didn't that, combined with the fact that George and friends started talking about targetting Iraq something like on September 12, 2001, and maybe before that, raise any questions in your mind?

 

It was just the evil liberal media that was making Cheney say that...

[willstrickland]

Short version even Kaskad the Retard might understand:

 

 

But why should Iran think we might fuck with them? Uhhh...duh

 

[G-spotter]

Mmmm, a town called Shiraz. I don't see Merlot on the map though?

[kevbone]

I thought this was cascade CLIMBERS.com not cascade politics.com, any body have any good CLIMBING stories to tell?

[cj001f]

I thought this was cascade CLIMBERS.com not cascade politics.com, any body have any good CLIMBING stories to tell?

WTF do you think people post in spray?