[Dork.]

Some of you are probably expecting me to link to the NY Times or some other commumist rag after a headline like that. But these words were penned by a person many consider to be one of the founders of the Conservative movement in America: William F. Buckley, in his latest piece for the National Review.

He does not say that we shouldn't be there at all -- but he does say that certain assumptions that this administration made going into Iraq appear in hindsight to be wrong, and that the administration needs to "acknowledge a tactical setback", in order to assure "the survival of strategic policies".

In other words, this administration needs to be able to admit that it was wrong about at least some of its assumptions about how the war in Iraq would turn out, in order to save its overall foreign policy objectives (including the Bush Doctrine). I don't think that will ever happen. This administration has put so much of its political capital into the Iraq "experiment" that to admit anything other than a resounding victory in Iraq would be political suicide. George W. Bush's legacy is Iraq, and admitting defeat in any aspect of its policy in Iraq is tantamount to admitting defeat in the Presidency.

The Daily Show had a bit on the other night with someone in the Bush administration estimating before the war that the whole thing would cost a few billion dollars and be over in a few months. It's now up to a few years, almost 250 billion, and after all that there's a civil war looming. At what point will the administration take accountability for the discrepancy? They can't blame this one on Gov. Blanco and Mayor Nagin.

(And about that Bush Doctrine: Have you ever wondered why everyone's so upset about Iraq, and not Afghanistan? It's because we had more of the world's backing to go into Afghanistan, we seem to have done some genuine good there, and it appears to be a startling example of the Bush Doctrine done right. The Taliban provided harbor to Al Qaeda, and we went in and ousted them and set up a Democratic government there, which seems to be doing better than Iraq's at this point. That's what probably makes this Iraq mess so disappointing to people like Mr. Buckley: if the Bush Administration does not make a tactical shift soon, then the Bush Doctrine will end up being judged solely on Iraq, and not on Afghanistan at all, where it appears to be a success....)

[Spliffdaddy]

Ah, but if it works in Iraq - and some sort of Democratic government takes hold - it'll be tantamount to a miracle.

It's one of those situations where you either lose or win big.

But, win or lose, it's certainly worth the effort to try.

If not the US, then who has the balls to put forth the effort?

[bboisvert]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Ah, but if it works in Iraq - and some sort of Democratic government takes hold - it'll be tantamount to a miracle.

It's one of those situations where you either lose or win big.

But, win or lose, it's certainly worth the effort to try.

If not the US, then who has the balls to put forth the effort?

what about the fact the country is in worst shape now then before, that still means it was worth the effort?

[Moderator]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

It's one of those situations where you either lose or win big.

But, win or lose, it's certainly worth the effort to try.

Ah. 30,000 dead and counting....on an ill concieved, poorly planned gamble. Gotta luv that.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Moderator

Ah. 30,000 dead and counting....on an ill concieved, poorly planned gamble. Gotta luv that.

It's worth the effort, as long as you're not risking innocent American lives. Lives on the other side of the planet and part of a completely different culture are intangible and only pictures on the TV.

[Spliffdaddy]

You cannot put a price on freedom.

Many hundreds of thousands of lives were lost just so we can be here now.

It is my hope that all people can live as free as myself.

30,000 lives is a small price to pay for the freedom of millions.

At least that's how I judge things.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

30,000 lives is a small price to pay for the freedom of millions.

A small price for you and me. A fairly substantial price for those who actually paid (ie: the 30,000)

[Spliffdaddy]

Indeed it is.

We owe our lives to those that have died on our behalf. There's really no way to repay that debt except to remember their sacrifice.

I wish freedom was free.

[Dork.]

So is that the idea, then? We invade all foreign countries, one by one, until they're all Free™?

[pooka]

There's a hefty fcukin' fee

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by Dork.

(And about that Bush Doctrine: Have you ever wondered why everyone's so upset about Iraq, and not Afghanistan? It's because we had more of the world's backing to go into Afghanistan, we seem to have done some genuine good there, and it appears to be a startling example of the Bush Doctrine done right. The Taliban provided harbor to Al Qaeda, and we went in and ousted them and set up a Democratic government there, which seems to be doing better than Iraq's at this point. That's what probably makes this Iraq mess so disappointing to people like Mr. Buckley: if the Bush Administration does not make a tactical shift soon, then the Bush Doctrine will end up being judged solely on Iraq, and not on Afghanistan at all, where it appears to be a success....)

i think bush thought that he would have more support in iraq after afghanistan, but while the justifications remained the same from one conflict to the other, the rest of the world didn't agree to the same extent.

i can't speak to the conditions in afghanistan (though, politically, there is a threat of taliban insurgency there) but iraq's conditions, infrastructure-wise, is only conditionally positive. a few weeks ago, condalezza rice claimed big gains in the "capacity" of the infrastructure of iraq, though the amount going towards that capacity has in many cases decreased. the amount of electricity and water available has decreased but that decreased amount is shared among more people.

there were good steps taken with regard to post-war iraq planning. powell at the state dept was putting together plans for redevelopment for a post-hussein iraq. those plans were scrapped before the war for some reason with no alternative proposed.

and now we have schools and power plants, but no pipes to bring in fuel to generate electricity for those schools, more water pipes to carry water to people, but no way of utilizing that capacity. i think bush's planning was minimal and not very comprehensive. give 'em schools! give 'em powerplants! but don't worry about the details that make the whole thing work together.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Ah, but if it works in Iraq - and some sort of Democratic government takes hold - it'll be tantamount to a miracle.

It's one of those situations where you either lose or win big.

But, win or lose, it's certainly worth the effort to try.

If not the US, then who has the balls to put forth the effort?

Welcome, visitor from 2003. You have somehow arrived three years in your future. The entire point of this post is that we haven't won big.

[Spliffdaddy]

We haven't lost either.

Let's give Iraq as much time as we gave Germany.

[Kevin]

This is the era of microwave meals and instant downloads. People want action and progress NOW!!11

[OreoCookie]

To answer the OP's question and comment on that: I absolutely agree that admitting these mistakes would tantamount to political suicide. I also think it would have negative effects on any subsequent elections for the Republican party.

I also agree that admitting failure at this point would be a decent thing to do. At least the administration would have my respect for saying so. But anyway, this is not going to happen.

There are a significant number of issues where Congress and the White House had disagreements: the issue of ports is just the latest example (and remember what happens when there is noticeable opposition not just from the political enemy, but also from the own political party … just ask Harriet Miers).

Spliffidaddy's suggestion might work for staunch supporters of the Bush Presidency, but I doubt it will work for millions of voters in the middle … just wait another 10 or 20 years until the country has developed

(@Spliffidaddy: Germany was industrially fully developed and only 30 % of its production capacity was destroyed during WW2, so the two situations are a tiny bit different. Plus there was no looming civil war )

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by Kevin

This is the era of microwave meals and instant downloads. People want action and progress NOW!!11

Yup. We're lucky that the administration told us up front that it would take years and over 250 billion dollars before we can get to the point where Iraq has almost plunged into civil war. Bush even flew onto an aircraft carrier emblazoned with the words "Our Mission is not yet Accomplished, Please Stand By." We can take comfort in knowing they were talking straight to the American people, and weren't lying to us at the time.

[Kevin]

Um, they did say it would take years. From the very start.

And "Mission Accomplished" was overthrowing Saddam.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Um, they did say it would take years. From the very start.

And "Mission Accomplished" was overthrowing Saddam.

Yeah, riiiiight, and why did the Administration do that again?

Even if what you're saying is true (for me, I would define Mission Accomplished as the point in time when the large majority of the troops in Iraq is back in the States, but hey, that's just me), the Bush Administration was very optimistic about the costs such an endeavor would have … 

Nobody is arguing that the US-led coalition hasn't won the war, but it seems to me, they are losing the peace in Iraq. That is the failure we're discussing here.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Indeed it is.

We owe our lives to those that have died on our behalf. There's really no way to repay that debt except to remember their sacrifice.

I wish freedom was free.

Especially since the vast majority of the innocent who have died in Iraq as a result of this war would not have chosen to die for your freedom.

Freedom isn't free, but it is easily paid for with the blood of others.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

Yeah, riiiiight, and why did the Administration do that again?

Do what again?

Even if what you're saying is true (for me, I would define Mission Accomplished as the point in time when the large majority of the troops in Iraq is back in the States, but hey, that's just me), the Bush Administration was very optimistic about the costs such an endeavor would have … 

Nobody is arguing that the US-led coalition hasn't won the war, but it seems to me, they are losing the peace in Iraq. That is the failure we're discussing here.

There will always be a "failure" in Iraq with some sore losers. I've learned to accept that.

Regardless, what you replied to still stands.

[gadster]

The American objective … what was the objective?

[Kevin]

The very same one Australia had.

[Spliffdaddy]

Innocent people die everyday. Most from natural causes. We mourn their deaths just the same.

We speak of our unwillingness to allow children to be born into a life of hardship and inequality. We endeavour to improve the lives of our poor and elderly citizens. We pronounce that all people were created equal.

Yet we exclude the people outside our shores.

I believe there is no more noble cause than to extend our blessing of liberty to all humanity.

To suggest that some human beings aren't worth the effort simply because they might not reciprocate our assistance is the epitome of selfishness. You don't give in order to recieve.

If, instead, Iraq were Australia or England or Canada - then my point wouldn't need to be made.

Either people are the same the world over, and are deserving of our assistance and sacrifice - or they aren't. We can't pick and choose based on their language, outward appearance, and their culture.

The handful of Iraqi immigrants that I've known are not unlike the Americans that I've known. By and large, they're decent worthwhile individuals.

Win or lose, our efforts and sacrifices in Iraq will be remembered as a noble cause. Nobody ever suggested it would be an easy thing to do. As evidenced by the fact that the rest of the world hasn't lifted a finger to try.

Sometimes doing the right thing comes with the chance that you may not succeed. That should never mean that you shouldn't bother to try.

[Kevin]

Well said Spliff. Well said.

[Pendergast]

Freedom is meant to be owned. Not given as a "gift" through the sacrifice of others...

If there is civil war, that will be because those iraqis will want to own it by themselves.

There is the difference.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally Posted by Pendergast

Freedom is meant to be owned. Not given as a "gift" through the sacrifice of others...

If there is civil war, that will be because those iraqis will want to own it by themselves.

There is the difference.

If there's a civil war it will be because a segment of the Iraqi population would like to dictate the terms of government for all Iraqis.

The same situation occurred during our own civil war.

And you're correct about freedom. It can't be given as a gift.

You can, however, help speed things along by promoting an environment that is condusive to the establishment of freedom. An environment where basic human needs are met. Where thoughts and ideas can be communicated without reprisal.

That's a tough thing to do. I wouldn't want the job.

[Kevin]

Spliff I have really given up trying to talk to people about this. Certain people will never admit that there was good done here. There would be too much crow to eat. So they will just spin and make excuses.

[Spliffdaddy]

Nah, Kevin. They just need a little bit of love and some words of extraordinary wisdom.

It's what I do best.

They'll come around in due time.

just you wait and see.

[gadster]

US invades Iraq, Iran wins war. If that was the objective, the US has done a great job.

[Spliffdaddy]

OK then.

What did Iran win?

You claim they won the war with Iraq - so in what way is Iran better off now?

Iran looks the same to me.

[gadster]

Iran is the Shiite seat of power. The Shiite theocracy now extends right across the middle-east, thanks to W taking out the Sunnis. Good job.

It wouldn't surprise me if Chalabai was on the Tehran payroll. We never did find out who forged those yellowcake documents, did we?

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Nah, Kevin. They just need a little bit of love and some words of extraordinary wisdom.

It's what I do best.

They'll come around in due time.

just you wait and see.

That's hilarious.

What you do best is wear rose colored glasses, and ignore reality.

[Dork.]

If we go back to Buckley's article, he states two specific assumptions that have been proven over the last three years to have not panned out:

1) That the three main tribes would put aside their differences for the common good of the country.
2) That native Iraqi troops could keep the peace without relying too much on American troops, giving the peace more legitimacy.

It's been three years, and while there has been progress, both the government and the anti-insurgency efforts still rely too much on American assistance. That is the failure here. The voices of the people who want to unite the country are being simply drowned out, and even our military might can't stop that, because the more we use it, the more the insurgents can point to the government and say that it's a puppet of America. The bombing of the Mosque in Samarra is going to be a symbol of this failed effort, I'm afraid.

I wish it turned out differently, I really do.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by bboisvert

what about the fact the country is in worst shape now then before, that still means it was worth the effort?

Some of you seem like the kinds of chaps who would bitch and whine and complain with every breath while someone else scores the pot for you, goes to the store for papers and rolls the joint. And even as you are toking on it you'd STILL be bitching until the moment you FINALLY ( ) got high. At which point you'd revel in the result and forget all about how much of a pain in the ass you were during the process.

Just thought I'd put it in easy to understand terms. Maybe you'll better grasp the concept now.

BTW, some people really CAN'T afford to get high. They have little enough sense as it is without getting goofier.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Innocent people die everyday. Most from natural causes. We mourn their deaths just the same.

We speak of our unwillingness to allow children to be born into a life of hardship and inequality. We endeavour to improve the lives of our poor and elderly citizens. We pronounce that all people were created equal.

Yet we exclude the people outside our shores.

I believe there is no more noble cause than to extend our blessing of liberty to all humanity.

To suggest that some human beings aren't worth the effort simply because they might not reciprocate our assistance is the epitome of selfishness. You don't give in order to recieve.

If, instead, Iraq were Australia or England or Canada - then my point wouldn't need to be made.

Either people are the same the world over, and are deserving of our assistance and sacrifice - or they aren't. We can't pick and choose based on their language, outward appearance, and their culture.

The handful of Iraqi immigrants that I've known are not unlike the Americans that I've known. By and large, they're decent worthwhile individuals.

Win or lose, our efforts and sacrifices in Iraq will be remembered as a noble cause. Nobody ever suggested it would be an easy thing to do. As evidenced by the fact that the rest of the world hasn't lifted a finger to try.

Sometimes doing the right thing comes with the chance that you may not succeed. That should never mean that you shouldn't bother to try.

This is my nomination for Post of the Week!

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter

Some of you seem like the kinds of chaps who would bitch and whine and complain with every breath while someone else scores the pot for you, goes to the store for papers and rolls the joint. And even as you are toking on it you'd STILL be bitching until the moment you FINALLY ( ) got high. At which point you'd revel in the result and forget all about how much of a pain in the ass you were during the process.

Some of you seem like kind of the fellows who'd like a big guy repeatedly slap you around, slam you into the wall and have his way with you anally, but you'd still think, "One of these times, he's gonna give me a million dollars."

Pardon me if I lack faith after somebody fails to deliver any results for years and can't promise any results at all on any kind of deadline.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by Pendergast

Freedom is meant to be owned. Not given as a "gift" through the sacrifice of others...

If there is civil war, that will be because those iraqis will want to own it by themselves.

There is the difference.

So, that means all the pro-freedom people in here and out there should join us in praising GWB! Because NO ONE ELSE was doing anything about helping the Iraqis realize their divine right to freedom until he did.

He's like Lincoln when he freed the slaves!

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Some of you seem like kind of the fellows who'd like a big guy repeatedly slap you around, slam you into the wall and have his way with you anally, but you'd still think, "One of these times, he's gonna give me a million dollars."

Pardon me if I lack faith after somebody fails to deliver any results for years and can't promise any results at all on any kind of deadline.

We haven't even bought the papers yet, Chuckit! Chill out, man!

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter

So, that means all the pro-freedom people in here and out there should join us in praising GWB! Because NO ONE ELSE was doing anything about helping the Iraqis realize their divine right to freedom until he did.

He's like Lincoln when he freed the slaves!

Please don't compare Troublya to Abraham Lincoln. What's really sad is that you really believe that we invaded Iraq to bring them freedom and peace. How naive.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by KarlG

Troublya

How old are you Karl?

[Krusty]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Indeed it is.

We owe our lives to those that have died on our behalf. There's really no way to repay that debt except to remember their sacrifice.

I wish freedom was free.

The unfortunate thing about this war is that, for all intents and purposes, the war is "free" for the general American populace right now (those in uniform excepted, of course). Our astronomical budget deficit is larger than the cost of the war .. meaning we haven't actually paid a dime for the war (yet). Volunteer forces have been stretched to the limit with multiple tours and the age of enlistment has been raised a couple of times ... but no draft has been ordered. As long as people can "support" the war effort in word only, their will be some large portion of people who will.

Trade the tax cuts for the quarter trillion (at least) tax INCREASES necessary to pay for this outing. Have a real risk or implementation of a universal draft. You'll see the support for the war, which appears to be in the slight minority now, drop to nearly nothing. Americans were under universal draft, rationing, you name it, during the second world war. We were also under the real threat of being overrun if the entire population didn't make a daily sacrifice to support the war effort.

Originally Posted by Kevin

This is the era of microwave meals and instant downloads. People want action and progress NOW!!11

Amen to that. In this same era people want war with no cost or sacrifice with all the personal impact of watching a movie or playing a video game. Many of the people who "support" the war are of age to fight in it and/or well off enough to support it financially but absolutely refuse to inconvenience themselves in either of these ways. Pat Tillman had a multi-million dollar football career which he gave up because he believed in the war effort ... then he gave his life in it. Most war supporters won't quit their crappy, run-of-the-mill careers, give up their creature comforts, or ... in some cases ... won't even put down their bongs long enough to do anything other than cheer on the war from their easy chairs.

American popular support for wars has followed a pretty regular pattern at least through the 20th century -- support starts high and then falls steadily as costs mount. The exception, of course, being wars in which we are actually fighting to keep from being taken over by an enemy which we clearly aren't doing in Iraq. We are, by the Administration's own words, engaging in a "pre-emptive" venture.

[Kevin]

Meh you wont see me putting a price on the freedom, and life of humans.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by KarlG

Please don't compare Troublya to Abraham Lincoln. What's really sad is that you really believe that we invaded Iraq to bring them freedom and peace. How naive.

Ahhhhh! Thank you. I was dreading ONE MORE post which said, 'you are so full of yourself' or 'there are no terrorists under your bed.'

You don't learn. You are an example of getting the horse to water but he's too whatever to drink.

Here, almost two years ago I stated MULTIPLE reasons/possibilities for the invasion.

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...s+for+invading
aberdeenwriter
Addicted to MacNN
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Aberdeen, WA
Posts: 3,924
Status: Invisible
 
10-06-2004, 09:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
So, you find it acceptable to invade, without provocation, one sovereign nation for the sole purpose of using it as a staging point for the invasion, without provocation, of another sovereign nation?

In any case, MANY of us suggested that Iraq would only be the beginning of US expansion through the Middle East. Also, I don't recall using Iraq as a staging point to invade Iran as a justification presented for the invasion of Iraq. If it was the "real" reason, your government STILL lied to it's own citizens, Congress and the rest of the world.

See, it makes some sense when you consider the US MUST watch out for itself. The UN failed to protect us from 9/11. The UN has proven itself ineffective in preventing the growth of terrorism. OBL and alQaeda were spawned and have thrived because of or in spite of UN actions.

None of our allies have been able to stop 9/11 or the spread of al Qaeda and terrorism.

The rogue nations mentioned as representing an Axis of Evil have gained WMD capability despite all the words and diplomacy and the best wishes or sanctions of all the other nations in the world and the UN.

After 9/11, I imagine President Bush looked to his advisors for suggestions and they pointed to the aggressive policy blueprint (PNAC) which would make use of our singular might and world leadership to not only clean up the cancers that have grown in the presence of the UN and all the other nations' well meaning efforts, but also set the stage for a new era of peace and world stability.

He might have asked, 'If we adopt and implement this plan you mean there's a chance we can:

1) Permanently rid ourselves (and the world) of the threat of Saddam?

2) Replace his totalitarian regime with a Democracy?

3) Eliminate the Taliban in Afghanistan and prosecute the WOT against OBL and Al Qaeda?

4) Replace the Taliban with a Democracy?

5) Help protect Israel?

6) Reduce or eliminate the threats to peace in the ME?

7) Prevent Iran's invasion of Iraq?

8) Combat the spread of radical Islamic terrorism the world over?

9) Secure the supply of oil for US as well as the rest of the world?

10) Establish a new era of peace, prosperity and freedoms the world over?

I can see him saying, 'Heck yeah! Divert troops from Afghanistan ASAP and let's get this thing done!'

Oh, did I forget to mention the plan would ALSO make the US safer from 9/11 type attacks by taking the fight to the terrorists rather than letting THEM take the fight to the US?

Iraq was a brilliant stroke.

You even posted in this same thread.

KarlG
Addicted to MacNN


Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Posts: 4,937
Status: Offline
Report Abuse
10-06-2004, 07:22 PM

These threads get more humorous by the day. This is some funny sh!t!
__________________
Elsewhere, elsewhere, President Bush's new Medicare drug plan will provide aspirin for people who attempted to understand the plan.

I rest my case. Have you won any of the races you've run in? Maybe you'd like a carrot or a lump of sugar?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

I can't believe you just looked up a specific two-year-old post. That level of intensity scares me.

greg

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter

Ahhhhh! Thank you. I was dreading ONE MORE post which said, 'you are so full of yourself' or 'there are no terrorists under your bed.'

You don't learn. You are an example of getting the horse to water but he's too whatever to drink.

Here, almost two years ago I stated MULTIPLE reasons/possibilities for the invasion.




You even posted in this same thread.



I rest my case. Have you won any of the races you've run in? Maybe you'd like a carrot or a lump of sugar?

1) We got rid of Saddam, and now we have a civil war on our hands. There will be many more despots like him in the future. We didn't get rid of tyranny, and we never will. Let them be their own policemen.

2) We didn't replace his regime with anything, other than a dysfunctional government that is in chaos, as competing factions, which have warred against each other before Saddam got there, are now going to kill each other even more.

3) The Taliban is making a resurgence in Afghanistan, and that country is once again one of the largest, if not the largest, producer of poppy plants in the world, while Hamid Karzai hides in his "Presidential" office, behind U. S. troops, because he knows he dare not go too far from Kabul, as the rest of the country is once again divided amongst competing warlords, just as it's been for long before you and I were around. OBL has managed to hide from the world's largest "superpower" (whose leaders have superegos that far outstrip their capabilities to solve anything).

4) The Taliban has not been replaced by a democracy, in Afghanistan or anywhwere else.

5) The only reason we protect Israel is because they buy lots of guns and ammo from us. We are not altruistic in any sense of the word.

6) Peace in the ME is farther away today than it's ever been, thanks to our insatiable appetite for oil.

7) Let Iran invade Iraq; maybe then we'd finally realize that we have to stop drinking at the oil trough.

8) You can't "combat" an ideology with guns. It's never been successful in the past and it won't be successful now. Rid ourselves of our ludicrous demand for their liquid gold, and the funds for these lunatics would dry up.

9) The real reason we invaded Iraq. Once again, stop buying their oil, and we wouldn't have to witness our children being brought home in body bags to satisfy our greed and to enrich arms makers (think the Bush family, among others). Let the rest of the world worry about getting their own oil.

10) We should not be the world's policeman. We have enough of our own problems to solve. Unfortunately, it's always easier to point fingers elsewhere, as that means you don't have to pay attention to the mess in your own house. It's even easier to do when you're in power and you can make lots of money doing so, with no regard for lives lost in the process.

ShortcutToMoncton nails it right on the head as well. Get off your computer, raise the blinds and look at the real world out there; it's not as bad as you think, and you're going to die from something besides from the actions of some "terrorist." Just because Bush is a broken record doesn't mean you have to believe him. I realize it probably is more comforting than to have to think for yourself, but there really is no bogeyman under your bed.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

I can't believe you just looked up a specific two-year-old post. That level of intensity scares me.

greg

Thanks, Alberta.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by KarlG

1) We got rid of Saddam, and now we have a civil war on our hands. There will be many more despots like him in the future. We didn't get rid of tyranny, and we never will. Let them be their own policemen.

2) We didn't replace his regime with anything, other than a dysfunctional government that is in chaos, as competing factions, which have warred against each other before Saddam got there, are now going to kill each other even more.

3) The Taliban is making a resurgence in Afghanistan, and that country is once again one of the largest, if not the largest, producer of poppy plants in the world, while Hamid Karzai hides in his "Presidential" office, behind U. S. troops, because he knows he dare not go too far from Kabul, as the rest of the country is once again divided amongst competing warlords, just as it's been for long before you and I were around. OBL has managed to hide from the world's largest "superpower" (whose leaders have superegos that far outstrip their capabilities to solve anything).

4) The Taliban has not been replaced by a democracy, in Afghanistan or anywhwere else.

5) The only reason we protect Israel is because they buy lots of guns and ammo from us. We are not altruistic in any sense of the word.

6) Peace in the ME is farther away today than it's ever been, thanks to our insatiable appetite for oil.

7) Let Iran invade Iraq; maybe then we'd finally realize that we have to stop drinking at the oil trough.

8) You can't "combat" an ideology with guns. It's never been successful in the past and it won't be successful now. Rid ourselves of our ludicrous demand for their liquid gold, and the funds for these lunatics would dry up.

9) The real reason we invaded Iraq. Once again, stop buying their oil, and we wouldn't have to witness our children being brought home in body bags to satisfy our greed and to enrich arms makers (think the Bush family, among others). Let the rest of the world worry about getting their own oil.

10) We should not be the world's policeman. We have enough of our own problems to solve. Unfortunately, it's always easier to point fingers elsewhere, as that means you don't have to pay attention to the mess in your own house. It's even easier to do when you're in power and you can make lots of money doing so, with no regard for lives lost in the process.

ShortcutToMoncton nails it right on the head as well. Get off your computer, raise the blinds and look at the real world out there; it's not as bad as you think, and you're going to die from something besides from the actions of some "terrorist." Just because Bush is a broken record doesn't mean you have to believe him. I realize it probably is more comforting than to have to think for yourself, but there really is no bogeyman under your bed.

People with your attitude are the kind of folks who (God forbid!) minimize the nagging pains they feel which would reasonably send anyone else to the Doctor. Your kind of people, on the other hand, just deny the pain. You don't get it checked out. You put a bandaid on it. You take some aspirin. You sweep the dirt under the rug. Until it's too late.

President Bush saw the gaping open wound that represents the M.E. and said, 'this needs major attention.'

The fact that it is difficult is only a sign that it has been left to rot for to damn long.

You'd continue to let it rot.

And any way you define it YOU are a bogey.

“Bogey”
Glossary
From Brent Kelley,

FREE Newsletter. Sign Up Now!
Definition: A score of one over par on any individual hole. On a par-3, a score of 4 is a bogey; on a par-4, a score of 5 is a bogey; on a par-5, a score of 6 is a bogey.

BOGEY: An unknown radar/visual contact.

Bogeyman, that's you.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter

President Bush saw the gaping open wound that represents the M.E. and said, 'this needs major attention.'

So he attacked a two-bit dictator who was a pretty unpleasant guy but wasn't really the cause of any of the Middle East's problems?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

So he attacked a two-bit dictator who was a pretty unpleasant guy but wasn't really the cause of any of the Middle East's problems?

*guffaw*

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

So he attacked a two-bit dictator who was a pretty unpleasant guy but wasn't really the cause of any of the Middle East's problems?

First of all, there was a little matter of WMD's and whether we should have stupidly disbelieved what everybody else almost CERTAINLY knew, what Saddam was trying his best to get everyone to believe, what we may discover in the future to be the case (and which we thought we had reliable evidence of) that Saddam had WMD's.

Next, I really can't believe you don't appreciate the wisdom of Iraq being an important and maybe the easiest key to changing the M.E. dilemma, once and for all.

It's obvious you have no grasp of military strategy, international politics or world history.

You still haven't proved to me I should give your posts even this amount of effort.