Hypocrisy

[rob]

OMG! Kevin started a three star thread!

 

OH SNAP

[111]

 

Reconstruction was always on the minds of those constructing the war-plan (though not as much as it should have been).

 

Bullshit! The extent of planning was pretty hoping the Iraq would say "yay, The amerikan smart bombs and smart bullets and smart soldiers (not at all smart btw) only killed military targets with no collatoral damage! Woohoo, now lets vote and get on with our lives"

 

 

[Hugh Conway]

OMG! Kevin started a three star thread!

 

OH SNAP

 

he followed the Peter Puget "every thread I start is a 5-star thread" green washing

[akhalteke]

 

Reconstruction was always on the minds of those constructing the war-plan (though not as much as it should have been).

 

Bullshit! The extent of planning was pretty hoping the Iraq would say "yay, The amerikan smart bombs and smart bullets and smart soldiers (not at all smart btw) only killed military targets with no collatoral damage! Woohoo, now lets vote and get on with our lives"

 

 

More hyperbole. Please. It really helps to bring intelligence to this discussion.

[TheJiggler]

 

Reconstruction was always on the minds of those constructing the war-plan (though not as much as it should have been).

 

Bullshit! The extent of planning was pretty hoping the Iraq would say "yay, The amerikan smart bombs and smart bullets and smart soldiers (not at all smart btw) only killed military targets with no collatoral damage! Woohoo, now lets vote and get on with our lives"

 

 

More hyperbole. Please. It really helps to bring intelligence to this discussion.

 

Akhalteke, please don't dismis this attitude quite so easily. I think you fail to understand that us "Libs" really believe the above. We really believe that there are only three explanations when it comes to the Bush administration and Iraq:

 

1) Utter incompetence

2) Pure Evil

3) Both

 

Perhaps we're just cynical, stupid or nieve. But I'd really love it if you could give us evidence of this so called plan. I simply don't see it. Give me evidence and I'll look at it with an open mind. Lacking that I must fallback to number 3 above.

 

[rob]

If you keep talking like that, Dick Cheney is going to blast you in the face with his shotgun!

[Bug]

 

Reconstruction was always on the minds of those constructing the war-plan (though not as much as it should have been).

 

Bullshit! The extent of planning was pretty hoping the Iraq would say "yay, The amerikan smart bombs and smart bullets and smart soldiers (not at all smart btw) only killed military targets with no collatoral damage! Woohoo, now lets vote and get on with our lives"

 

 

More hyperbole. Please. It really helps to bring intelligence to this discussion.

Well I'm glad to see you taking that stance on intelligent discourse even if I do disagree the position you are holding.

Let's not forget that teh Bushites were so wrapped up in promoting their war, and so wrapped up in being the all-powerful saviors after 911, that they outed a CIA operative. That was treason. Not my call. It is in the books.

Someone still needs to be held accountable for that crime. But aside from that whole arguement is the point that this administration was operating on a "power high". They had power over this country while it was in a grip of fear (not arguing wether they caused it or not) and used that fear to further their own agenda. That agenda was not based on careful examination of objectively gathered intelligence. The record is clear that Rummy and Cheney openly rejected numerous attempts to provide eveidence that this war in Iraq would end in a quagmire. Even G senior saw that during his presidency and during his son's presidency. His comments on the matter were the most scathing comments a former president has made regarding a sitting president's policies. It was all whitewashed and forgotten though.

When the dust clears, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, etc. will be seen as the three stooges of the 21st century.

Do we "HAVE" to stay the course?

I think not. I beleive this because the middle eat is a huge conglomerate of under educated religious fanatics who have access to too many weapons. We were not able to contain the outburst of Islamic fundamentalism in Iran and it is just a matter of time before that wave washes over Iraq imo. Already, moderating populations have been eradicated or forced to flee. Over 300,000 Christians have met one of those two fates in Iraq. Funny how our Christian president does not let that statistic out of the bag.

There are many secular and moderate Islamic groups that have also been attacked. To have served on the "Elected" government in Iraq is to be looking over your shoulder and fearing for your families indefinately.

We did not beat this kind of popular insurgency in Vietnam. It will not work in Iraq where the borders are open supply lines for anti-US and anti-Israel sentiment and weaponry.

Those poor people are in for an ugly ride. We can stop it only temporarily and at great cost. The only question is, how long can we prop up this effort on credit?

[TheJiggler]

If you keep talking like that, Dick Cheney is going to blast you in the face with his shotgun!

 

As long as he was aiming my way, he'd be sure to hit someone else.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

[TheJiggler]

 

I see you have located the weapons of mass destruction!!

[kevbone]

 

Our aim in Iraq was to make it a better place and install a democratic government.

 

 

Define "our"

 

 

Your turn

[akhalteke]

 

Our aim in Iraq was to make it a better place and install a democratic government.

 

 

Define "our"

 

 

Your turn

 

The United States.

[akhalteke]

I agree with you Bug. We were too hasty. As I said before, it would have been wiser to have done as Sun Tzu stated and prepared for every contingency. You have no disagreements there.

 

I don't believe we actually had a plan, but rather intention of reconsruction. There are too many variables (as we have seen) to have a plan for a reconstruction pre-war (though a general idea would have been prudent).

 

My premise was that we had the intention of reconstructing whereas Russia makes it a point of announcing with much bravado that they have no intentions whatsoever of reconstructing.

[kevbone]

I agree with you Bug. We were too hasty. As I said before, it would have been wiser to have done as Sun Tzu stated and prepared for every contingency. You have no disagreements there.

 

I don't believe we actually had a plan, but rather intention of reconsruction. There are too many variables (as we have seen) to have a plan for a reconstruction pre-war (though a general idea would have been prudent).

 

My premise was that we had the intention of reconstructing whereas Russia makes it a point of announcing with much bravado that they have no intentions whatsoever of reconstructing.

 

Hey Scott, did Iraq have anything to do with 9/11?

[akhalteke]

I agree with you Bug. We were too hasty. As I said before, it would have been wiser to have done as Sun Tzu stated and prepared for every contingency. You have no disagreements there.

 

I don't believe we actually had a plan, but rather intention of reconsruction. There are too many variables (as we have seen) to have a plan for a reconstruction pre-war (though a general idea would have been prudent).

 

My premise was that we had the intention of reconstructing whereas Russia makes it a point of announcing with much bravado that they have no intentions whatsoever of reconstructing.

 

Hey Scott, did Iraq have anything to do with 9/11?

 

Nope

[mattp]

Bill,

As one who spends a lot of time whining on a public bulletin board I disagree with you where you suggest this is going to “f*ck this up for the rest of us.” I agree with you that the outcome in Iraq is very important and for a long time I felt like you - that although we should not have invaded to begin with I thought that by doing so we had assumed a responsibility to “make it right.” However, at this point I’m afraid Bug is right. I don’t think we CAN win this one and I seriously doubt we are going to be able to prevent the broader civil war that we have torched off. Meanwhile, debating how we got into this war or arguing about whether we should continue to torture prisoners of war may not constitute important intellectual discourse but it may not only pass time but also help us refine our views on these matters and this actually is important stuff. It is too bad our leaders are unwilling or unable to have any similar debate.

[billcoe]

It's difficult to reconstruct exactly what happened, but the safe bet that what caused the lack of easy transition is that before day one the Sec of Defense overode the head of the joint chiefs and decreed that light and tight was the operational mode of the day. General Shinseke was advocating like 400,000+ troops (going from memory here) and Donald Rumsfeld personally won the power struggle dictating less. General Shinseki was then either asked to step down, or volentered to do so rather than be relieved of command given his lack of mandate. Turns out that the General was right and Rumsfeld was wrong.

 

They needed the extra troops for all kinds of reasons. Hard to say who was pushing which operational plan before hand. In my mind that doesn't give us any clue as to where we need to go from here to follow the best course of action. Certainly Vietnam was was an example where the political leaders like Secretary of Defense Mcnamara started micromanaging folks like General Westmoreland much to their later chagrin. Letting Petraeus do his job, which he has clearly layed out, is the best course forward IMO.

 

We may have been stupid and childish to enter as we did, but that doesn't mean pulling out half assed is the best course of action from here.

 

BTW, allowing and conceding to the Russians some security issues near and dear to them would be a good thing going forward as well.

[kevino]

... smart soldiers (not at all smart btw) only killed military targets with no collatoral damage! Woohoo, now lets vote and get on with our lives"

 

 

I don't really care to participate in this converstion, except I saw this. Did you really need to add that? If you honestly think that, then fuck you. I am not a soldier, but I know many and that is incredibly offensive and arrogant.

 

And I'm done.

[akhalteke]

I don’t think we CAN win this one and I seriously doubt we are going to be able to prevent the broader civil war that we have torched off.

 

-I really think that victory (being a autonomous government for Iraq) is possible. We are not that far off.

 

-We didn't "torch" off any civil war. This has been going on for a damn long time. Perhaps we have opened up some old sores, perhaps we will help to heal them; Only time will tell.

[akhalteke]

It's difficult to reconstruct exactly what happened, but the safe bet that what caused the lack of easy transition is that before day one the Sec of Defense overode the head of the joint chiefs and decreed that light and tight was the operational mode of the day. General Shinseke was advocating like 400,000+ troops (going from memory here) and Donald Rumsfeld personally won the power struggle dictating less. General Shinseki was then either asked to step down, or volentered to do so rather than be relieved of command given his lack of mandate. Turns out that the General was right and Rumsfeld was wrong.

 

They needed the extra troops for all kinds of reasons. Hard to say who was pushing which operational plan before hand. In my mind that doesn't give us any clue as to where we need to go from here to follow the best course of action. Certainly Vietnam was was an example where the political leaders like Secretary of Defense Mcnamara started micromanaging folks like General Westmoreland much to their later chagrin. Letting Petraeus do his job, which he has clearly layed out, is the best course forward IMO.

 

We may have been stupid and childish to enter as we did, but that doesn't mean pulling out half assed is the best course of action from here.

 

BTW, allowing and conceding to the Russians some security issues near and dear to them would be a good thing going forward as well.

 

Yes. I think that opening up diplomacy would be a good thing as far as Russia goes. They are wary of us and they also are jumpy violent bastards. Still, better to take the high road and offer some compromises and at least talk with them. If they don't bite the hook, we can always go 'Dundee fishing.'

[akhalteke]

 

Reconstruction was always on the minds of those constructing the war-plan (though not as much as it should have been).

 

Bullshit! The extent of planning was pretty hoping the Iraq would say "yay, The amerikan smart bombs and smart bullets and smart soldiers (not at all smart btw) only killed military targets with no collatoral damage! Woohoo, now lets vote and get on with our lives"

 

 

...and as one of your 'not at all smart' soldiers, why do you find it so hard to keep up with my pedestrian discussion?

[General Zod]

To all you right wing nut cases out there. Why is it ok for the US to occupy Iraq but it is not ok for Russia to occupy Georgia?

 

Damn hypocrites....

 

[Bug]

BillCoe, the one major flaw I see with your arguement is the assumption that we, the US, is economically viable enough to sustain any effective presence in Iraq.

The financial chickens have not come home to roost yet (OK Cock, flash us with your inane presence).

We are alone in the world in this endevour.

It is "bad business".Follow the money. It is NOT flowing our way.

[mattp]

Alkahete, we have been told that victory is at hand for over five years now and the fact is that bug is right: we cannot sustain the military strength we have deployed there nor can we afford to keep paying everyone to hold off on that civil war. And, yes, we in fact DID torch it off. Saddam had it under wraps.

[akhalteke]

He had it under wraps by killing those that disagreed with him. There was a German man in the 40's that had racism "under wraps." I think you know as well as I do that Saddams' methods were contrary to everything tha our country believes in.