|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,447
2000+ posts
|
|
2000+ posts
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,447 |
quote:
Originally posted by JQ:
quote:
Drain the swamp and there will be no more mosquitoes
By attacking Iraq, the US will invite a new wave of terrorist attacks
Noam Chomsky
Monday September 9, 2002
The Guardian
September 11 shocked many Americans into an awareness that they had better pay much closer attention to what the US government does in the world and how it is perceived. Many issues have been opened for discussion that were not on the agenda before. That's all to the good.
It is also the merest sanity, if we hope to reduce the likelihood of future atrocities. It may be comforting to pretend that our enemies "hate our freedoms," as President Bush stated, but it is hardly wise to ignore the real world, which conveys different lessons.
The president is not the first to ask: "Why do they hate us?" In a staff discussion 44 years ago, President Eisenhower described "the campaign of hatred against us [in the Arab world], not by the governments but by the people". His National Security Council outlined the basic reasons: the US supports corrupt and oppressive governments and is "opposing political or economic progress" because of its interest in controlling the oil resources of the region.
Post-September 11 surveys in the Arab world reveal that the same reasons hold today, compounded with resentment over specific policies. Strikingly, that is even true of privileged, western-oriented sectors in the region.
To cite just one recent example: in the August 1 issue of Far Eastern Economic Review, the internationally recognised regional specialist Ahmed Rashid writes that in Pakistan "there is growing anger that US support is allowing [Musharraf's] military regime to delay the promise of democracy".
Today we do ourselves few favours by choosing to believe that "they hate us" and "hate our freedoms". On the contrary, these are attitudes of people who like Americans and admire much about the US, including its freedoms. What they hate is official policies that deny them the freedoms to which they too aspire.
For such reasons, the post-September 11 rantings of Osama bin Laden - for example, about US support for corrupt and brutal regimes, or about the US "invasion" of Saudi Arabia - have a certain resonance, even among those who despise and fear him. From resentment, anger and frustration, terrorist bands hope to draw support and recruits.
We should also be aware that much of the world regards Washington as a terrorist regime. In recent years, the US has taken or backed actions in Colombia, Nicaragua, Panama, Sudan and Turkey, to name a few, that meet official US definitions of "terrorism" - that is, when Americans apply the term to enemies.
In the most sober establishment journal, Foreign Affairs, Samuel Huntington wrote in 1999: "While the US regularly denounces various countries as 'rogue states,' in the eyes of many countries it is becoming the rogue superpower ... the single greatest external threat to their societies."
Such perceptions are not changed by the fact that, on September 11, for the first time, a western country was subjected on home soil to a horrendous terrorist attack of a kind all too familiar to victims of western power. The attack goes far beyond what's sometimes called the "retail terror" of the IRA, FLN or Red Brigades.
The September 11 terrorism elicited harsh condemnation throughout the world and an outpouring of sympathy for the innocent victims. But with qualifications.
An international Gallup poll in late September found little support for "a military attack" by the US in Afghanistan. In Latin America, the region with the most experience of US intervention, support ranged from 2% in Mexico to 16% in Panama.
The current "campaign of hatred" in the Arab world is, of course, also fuelled by US policies toward Israel-Palestine and Iraq. The US has provided the crucial support for Israel's harsh military occupation, now in its 35th year.
One way for the US to lessen Israeli-Palestinian tensions would be to stop refusing to join the long-standing international consensus that calls for recognition of the right of all states in the region to live in peace and security, including a Palestinian state in the currently occupied territories (perhaps with minor and mutual border adjustments).
In Iraq, a decade of harsh sanctions under US pressure has strengthened Saddam Hussein while leading to the death of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis - perhaps more people "than have been slain by all so-called weapons of mass destruction throughout history", military analysts John and Karl Mueller wrote in Foreign Affairs in 1999.
Washington's present justifications to attack Iraq have far less credibility than when President Bush Sr was welcoming Saddam as an ally and a trading partner after he had committed his worst brutalities - as in Halabja, where Iraq attacked Kurds with poison gas in 1988. At the time, the murderer Saddam was more dangerous than he is today.
As for a US attack against Iraq, no one, including Donald Rumsfeld, can realistically guess the possible costs and consequences. Radical Islamist extremists surely hope that an attack on Iraq will kill many people and destroy much of the country, providing recruits for terrorist actions.
They presumably also welcome the "Bush doctrine" that proclaims the right of attack against potential threats, which are virtually limitless. The president has announced: "There's no telling how many wars it will take to secure freedom in the homeland." That's true.
Threats are everywhere, even at home. The prescription for endless war poses a far greater danger to Americans than perceived enemies do, for reasons the terrorist organisations understand very well.
Twenty years ago, the former head of Israeli military intelligence, Yehoshaphat Harkabi, also a leading Arabist, made a point that still holds true. "To offer an honourable solution to the Palestinians respecting their right to self-determination: that is the solution of the problem of terrorism," he said. "When the swamp disappears, there will be no more mosquitoes."
At the time, Israel enjoyed the virtual immunity from retaliation within the occupied territories that lasted until very recently. But Harkabi's warning was apt, and the lesson applies more generally.
Well before September 11 it was understood that with modern technology, the rich and powerful will lose their near monopoly of the means of violence and can expect to suffer atrocities on home soil.
If we insist on creating more swamps, there will be more mosquitoes, with awesome capacity for destruction.
If we devote our resources to draining the swamps, addressing the roots of the "campaigns of hatred", we can not only reduce the threats we face but also live up to ideals that we profess and that are not beyond reach if we choose to take them seriously.
© Noam Chomsky
New York Times Syndicate
Noam Chomsky is professor of linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and author of the US bestseller 9-11
I found this article on several different sites, and thought it was interesting. What do you guys think of it?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37 |
Noam Chomsky is notoriously anti-American, and always writes his articles with a slant on U.S. "imperialism", with no regard for anything the U.S. did right, or anything the U.S. was compelled to do to protect itself and its interests.
The reality is, Iraq violated 12 years of U.N. resolutions and inspections, that more than warranted the Iraq invasion. And the U.S. was the target of terrorism before the Iraq invasion.
And the U.S. troops poised in surrounding areas and no-fly zones across Northern and Southern Iraq for the last 12 years (in half-measures short of invasion, in order to comply with U.N. mandates) at least protected non-Baathist Iraqis from complete annihilation.
And when the invasion was done, it was with a minimum loss of life, among both Iraqi civilians and Iraqi military. Arguably among the most bloodless wars ever fought.
And the stated U.S. goal is to bring freedom and democracy to the Middle East. If the U.S. has its way, Iraq will be free and independent within 2 years. Only biased propaganda could accuse the U.S. of other goals, when the purpose is so clearly Iraq's prosperity, democratization and independence.
The reality is (as Chomsky's blame-it-on-America rhetoric perpetuates) no matter what the U.S. does, it can be re-spun to rationalize terrorism on the U.S.
I don't think the U.S. invasion of Iraq either increases or decreases the threat of terrorism, at this stage. Although those who are blindly anti-American, like Chomsky, will always spin it that way.
If U.S. presence in Iraq successfully creates a beach-head for democracy in the Middle East, it will spread prosperity through the region, and decrease the motivation for terrorism in the future.
I shudder to think what would have occurred, if we had NOT invaded Afghanistan, and wiped out the Al Qaida training camps there.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
|
|
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958 |
Dave, the figure for Iraqi casualties in the latest Iraq war was approx 20,000 of which approx. 6000 were civilians.
Whether one agrees with the war or not, discounting the sufferings of civilians is one way to get the entire international community allied against you.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
|
|
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203 |
Yeah, they had tons of, what's that stuff called?...oh, "free choice" before. Police transparency, people being taken to prison and disppearing for relatively minor offenses.
Yeah, Iraq is still in real bad shape. But there's a possibility that it'll get better.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,447
2000+ posts
|
|
2000+ posts
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,447 |
Dave the Wonder Boy: quote:
Noam Chomsky is notoriously anti-American, and always writes his articles with a slant on U.S. "imperialism", with no regard for anything the U.S. did right, or anything the U.S. was compelled to do to protect itself and its interests.
That's so far from the the truth. I'll give you the U.S. "imperialist" slant, but the rest isn't true. Chomsky isn't anti-American. He's a critic of the U.S. government policies, but he's still an American. Since when do you have to worship the government to be a patriot? That's where the quote "I love my country, but I fear my Government" comes from. He's just a critic of some of our Government's policies. He also backs up what he says with a lot of facts.
What the U.S. does to "protect itself and it's intrests" is actually exactly what he writes about.
quote:
Only biased propaganda could accuse the U.S. of other goals, when the purpose is so clearly Iraq's prosperity, democratization and independence.
That may be true, only people in the U.S. government can confirm or deny that.Just try and keep an open mind.
quote:
Although those who are blindly anti-American, like Chomsky, will always spin it that way.
You can spin things both way.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
|
|
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958 |
As far as Chomsky, it's right about what i'd expect as a response. That or "communist". Here's some breaking news. Perle Cites Errors in Iraq, Urges Power Transfer
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
|
|
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958 |
quote:
Originally posted by theory9:
Yeah, they had tons of, what's that stuff called?...oh, "free choice" before. Police transparency, people being taken to prison and disppearing for relatively minor offenses.
Innocent civilians dying is ALWAYS a tragedy. To try to reason it by saying they are now better off is small comfort for the families of those whose loved ones are no longer here. Rather it only serves to make oneself feel better about it.
quote:
Yeah, Iraq is still in real bad shape. But there's a possibility that it'll get better.
And Perle finally wised up and realized all our continued presence is doing is provoking discontent and hatred (and of course a politically dangerous billions dollar bill and a daily body count of dead G.I.'s.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
|
|
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958 |
quote:
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."
President Dwight D. Eisenhower
April 16, 1953
http://costofwar.com/
quote:
"In the councils of government we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
"We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
"The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.
"Down the long lane of history yet to be written, America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect." - President Dwight D. Eisenhower 1961
http://www.onlinejournal.com/Commentary/072503Saunders/072503saunders.html
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/presiden/speeches/eisenhower001.htm
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,447
2000+ posts
|
|
2000+ posts
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,447 |
That was a good speech he made.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 13
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 13 |
Yeah, Eisenhower had some good speeches.
I see now that as many US troops have been killed after George landed in his plane on the USS Abraham Lincoln, as during the "actual war".
Sad.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
|
|
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958 |
We are now told that Hussein may have sent out phony defectors bearing phony stories about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction, which is why we haven't found any. So Hussein tricked Bush into assaulting Iraq, overthrowing him and killing his sons. The wily devil! quote:
Deepening Doubts on Iraq
Where are the weapons of mass destruction? As President Bush and other administration officials made the case for war with Iraq, their biggest selling point was the claim that Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime possessed chemical weapons. Allegations he had biological weapons were shakier; assertions he had nuclear arms or could build them were even more dubious. There were other ever-shifting official rationales for the Iraq invasion, like Hussein's torture and killing of his own people and promoting Mideast democracy through his ouster. The main justification, however, for sending Americans to die in the desert was Hussein's earlier use of chemical weapons, his continued possession of them and the imminent threat he would inflict them on the United States.
In this year's State of the Union speech, Bush cited United Nations reports or U.S. intelligence that showed that Hussein had failed to account for 25,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin and material for 500 tons of sarin, mustard agent and VX nerve agent. "From three Iraqi defectors, we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapon labs designed to produce germ warfare agents," Bush said. Where are those chemicals, those poisons or those labs?
Times staff writer Bob Drogin reported Thursday the deeply disturbing news that U.S. intelligence officials were now laboring to learn whether they had been fed false information about Iraq's weapons, especially by defectors. U.N. inspectors' prewar searches found no chemical, biological or nuclear stockpiles. Hundreds of inspectors combing Iraq since major combat ended May 1 have fared no better. One U.S. intelligence official says analysts may have been too eager to find evidence to support White House claims about Iraqi arms. Intelligence and congressional sources told Times reporters in October, five months before the invasion, that senior Bush officials were pressuring CIA analysts to shape their assessments of the threat to build the case against Hussein.
On the eve of war, this editorial page said Iraq should be given more time to disarm, otherwise the U.S. "risks being branded as the aggressive and arrogant superpower that disregards the wishes of the international community." The United States now wears that label, especially in light of the administration's vacillations on involving other nations' forces in postwar Iraq.
But worse is the possibility that nearly 300 American personnel and dozens of British soldiers, plus U.N. officials and untold numbers of Iraqis, have died due to incredibly bad or corrupted intelligence. In Britain, a Sunday Telegraph poll showed that 67% of the public thought that their government, the main U.S. ally, had deceived the British people to get them into Iraq.
The war was more popular in the U.S. But Bush, administration officials, intelligence analysts and Congress need to keep asking: Where are the weapons of mass destruction? And if they are not found, was the defiant U.S. insistence that Iraq had them the result of incompetence or lies?
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/california/la-ed-iraq29aug29,1,364756.story?coll=la-headlines-pe-california
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,447
2000+ posts
|
|
2000+ posts
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,447 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 13
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 13 |
Actually, that makes some sense. Saddam might have gambled that telling the US that he had WMDs would have deterred an attack.
Certainly works for North Korea.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
|
|
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 13
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 13 |
The French have already said they will veto any language in the resolution which works as retrospective approval of the invasion.
But a lot of countries will get involved, which wouldn't have otherwise, if they go in as blue helmets. Including countries with sizeable Muslim populations, such as India (I'd add Nigeria, but they're sorting out Liberia right now, so I doubt they'd be involved).
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
|
|
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958 |
Rumsfeld in Gulf Region as U.S. Troops Battle IraqisFrom the article: "Foreign Secretary Jack Straw had urged Prime Minister Tony Blair (news - web sites) to send an extra 5,000 soldiers to Iraq or risk "strategic failure." Speaking of "strategic failure" the NON-PARTISAN Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reports that without either increasing past a year tours to Iraq or increasing the size of the Army by at least 2 divisions, we will run out of troops to maintain our CURRENT deployment (much less increase it) by March. ![[no no no]](graemlins/nono.gif) The Washintgton Post: Army Lacks Forces for Iraq Mission, CBO Warns How many of our troops will sign on for a second tour? From the article: "Guard and Reserve units are playing a major role in the occupation, and additional Guard and Reserve units are being activated to take over more of the Iraq mission early next year, the report noted. But it added that unless even more Guard and Reserve units are mobilized, "an occupation force of the present size could not be maintained past March 2004." Suddenly the U.N starts looking good again, eh?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,342
Peacock Teaser 3000+ posts
|
|
Peacock Teaser 3000+ posts
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,342 |
1. What was the war in Iraq all about? National security? WMD & Chemical weapons? Oil? The economy? Just for fun? To stimulate the economy? Liberate the people of Iraq? What?
Here is my interpretation of things:
I understand that the Gulf War's main object was to save Kuwait, and not to dispose of Sadam. However, I think getting rid of Saddam then would have saved more lives -- both Iraqi and American -- in the long run. I am a humanitarian, and that was one reason for going. I'm glad the people in Iraqi will have freedom. And it wasn't the only reason.
I believe Saddam was a threat. There are unaccountable weapons. I've been in labs and have seen biological and chemical threats. They're tiny. Remember in MIB, when Frank the Pug said 'You humans. When are you going to realize that size doesn't matter? Just because something is small, doesn't mean its unimportant.' They can be hidden easily. A few weeks ago we found several Russian MIGS hidden in the Iraqi sand. Those are huge-ass planes, and we only found them when some Iraqis told us. Judging by that, its going to take a loooooooong time to find a few vials.
2. Do you trust President Bush?
Yeah. I disagree with him sometimes, but I don't think he sitting in office, twiddling his thumbs and thinking how he can screw us over. I wish this chaos was over tomorrow, but the fact is this involves thousands of people working in a coordinated fashion. And Bush is only one person. People often forget how important the Congress is.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
|
|
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958 |
quote:
Originally posted by Cowgirl Jack:
People often forget how important the Congress is.
Yeah. Begining with Congress itself.
By the way...
Bush to Give Iraq Speech on Sunday Night
Here may be a reason for the adress.
Poll analysis: Bush election win no sure thing
Or who knows, maybe Bush will turn the camera over to Powell who will get to bytch slap Rumsfeld publicy.
![[who, me?]](graemlins/whome01.gif) One can dream
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
|
|
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958 |
quote:
"It's not about oil or Iraq..."
Correct. It's about SAUDI ARABIA!!!!!!
Saudi Arabia: Friend or Foe?
'Bush government sanctioned bin Laden family repatriation'
And in light of all the heated rhetoric of the past year it is difficult to understand how Bush, Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, national security advisor Condoleezza Rice and Powell would suddenly believe that an "old Europe" or an "irrelevant U.N." could now help us in our well-run war in Iraq.
That'll show 'em
Rumsfeld: France, Germany are 'problems' in Iraqi conflict
Colin Powell: "bullshit."
quote:
Now that some 140,000 American troops have proven inadequate to police Iraq, the president has to come back to international allies like France and Germany, which the administration once derisively referred to as "chocolate makers," to help rescue Iraq. Despite administration efforts to portray the war as a multinational effort, six out of seven military personnel now in Iraq are Americans.
Facing Up to a Hard Reality
quote:
It really depends upon how (the) Nation conducts itself in foreign policy. If we're an arrogant nation, they'll...resent us. If we're a humble nation, but strong, they'll welcome us. And our nation stands...alone right now in the world in terms of power. And that's why we've got to be humble and yet project strength in a way that promotes freedom. So I don't...think they ought to look at us in any way other than what we are. We're a freedom-loving nation. And if we're an arrogant nation, they'll view us that way, but if we're (a) humble nation, they'll respect us." - George W. Bush
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
|
|
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958 |
quote:
September 8, 2003
THE NATION
Bush to Seek $87 Billion for Effort in Iraq
Bush put a specific new price tag — $87 billion — on operations in Iraq and, secondarily, Afghanistan: $66 billion for military operations and $21 billion for reconstruction in the next year. That is in addition to a supplemental budget appropriation of $79 billion approved by Congress in April. His new request will bring the cost of fighting the war and winning the peace to about $166 billion, significantly more than had been expected.
Congress is expected to approve the additional money, which would push the federal deficit to more than half a trillion dollars.
Bush used his speech to formalize an about-face in his Iraq policy: After months of insisting the United States did not need the help of the United Nations, he has now decided to seek a new U.N. resolution authorizing the creation of a U.S.-led multinational force in Iraq. He also insisted that the push to get allies to contribute more troops is not a sign that the number of U.S. troops on the ground may be insufficient to provide security throughout the country.
"The current number of American troops — nearly 130,000 — is appropriate to their mission," Bush said. British and Polish troops are commanding two "multinational divisions" of 20,000 soldiers, he noted, and "in order to share the burden more broadly, our commanders have requested a third multinational division."
Bush gave no indication when the U.S. military role would be decreased. He pointedly compared Iraq to U.S. efforts after World War II, which lasted years.
A new U.N. resolution is desirable, he said, because "some countries have requested an explicit authorization of the United Nations Security Council before committing troops to Iraq."
But allies, who had opposed the invasion, last week greeted the resolution coolly, saying they wanted the U.N. to have more authority and the U.S. less.
Bush urged hesitating allies to let bygones be bygones.
Speaking days before the second anniversary of Sept. 11, he described Iraq as the "central front" in an ongoing "war on terror" that began with the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
"We are rolling back the terrorist threat to civilization, not on the fringes of its influence, but at the heart of its power," said Bush, who gave no evidence of Iraq's central role.
Bush did not mention two areas that are sore points for his administration: the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, one of the reasons he and aides cited for the invasion that toppled Hussein. Nor did he mention the crumbling peace process between the Israelis and the Palestinians.
Instead, Bush picked up on a theme introduced by top aides in recent weeks: that rebuilding Iraq is a commitment as important and extensive as the U.S. effort that rebuilt Europe and Japan after World War II.
James Thurber, director of the Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies at American University, described the delivery as "flat." He also said that although the president may have wanted to appear confident, his refusal to acknowledge a change in policy may be a sign of the opposite.
"It reminds me of [President Lyndon B. Johnson] and other presidents who needed to seem strong, and they perceive admitting mistakes as a sign of weakness," Thurber said. "They use a lot of words to cover up the fact that they are changing policy."
Thurber also described Bush's argument about not needing more troops as "logically inconsistent."
"If we're asking allies to supply troops, it means we really don't have enough troops," he said.
The situation in Iraq "is beginning to remind me of what happened with Lyndon Johnson and Dick Nixon during the Vietnam War," said former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, one of the leading contenders for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2004. "The government began to feed misinformation to the American people to justify an enormous commitment of American troops, which turned out to be a major policy mistake."
Rep. Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.), another contender for the nomination, said Bush's appeal to allies is "long overdue."
"From the start, I've told this president that we could win the war alone, but we won't be able to win the peace alone," Gephardt said. "Now that the president has recognized that he has been going down the wrong path, this administration must begin the process of fully engaging our allies and sharing the burden of building a stable democracy in Iraq."
The speech comes at a critical moment in Bush's presidency, with his ratings sinking slowly and signs of anxiety growing among the public.
Recent polls suggest the violence and uncertainty of success in Iraq is taking a toll on the president's standing with voters. A poll released Saturday by Zogby International showed Bush's positive performance rating in steady decline: 54% of likely voters rated Bush's job performance as fair or poor, and only 45% rated it as good or excellent.
A poll released Friday by Democracy Corps, a Democratic-aligned research group, indicated that Bush's overall approval rating — 55% — is hovering just 1 point above its lowest, pre-Sept. 11 level. The poll also found that a majority of respondents now believe the country is headed in the "wrong direction," and 50% feel the president lacks a plan to win the peace in Iraq. The same number said they did not believe Bush had been "honest about the dangers and threats Iraq posed before the war."
For much of the summer, congressional leaders — including key Republicans — have called for the president to do a better job explaining his policies and what they will mean for the U.S. in terms of a military and financial commitment.
"Tonight, the president offered glowing rhetoric but few specifics on how we will erase the mismanagement of this administration in Iraq," said Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass). "The president must now do what he should have done before the war began and go to the United Nations and our allies to build a true international coalition to share the burden of securing and rebuilding Iraq despite the administration's abysmal record of doing just that."
Sen. Bob Graham (D.-Fla.) said the $87 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan is more than the federal government will spend on education this year, and double what it will spend on roads and public transit.
"The president is clearly making a judgment that it is more important for us to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan than it is to deal with the very serious problems that we have in the United States," he said.
 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
|
|
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958 |
Well, i'm driving off to Las Vegas for a few days. I'm staying at the Luxor this time. It's the yearly wedding anniversary vacation. We'll probably come back and then hit Rosarito or Ensenada Mexico for another couple of days and then just do the L.A. sites like the beaches, Universal studios/citywalk or Dizzyland. Life is good in SoCal. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
|
|
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958 |
quote:
It is apparently too much to ask that the president acknowledge his errors, so costly in American and Iraqi lives, and show some humility for this mess he has created with his "my way or the highway" approach. He could also apologize to "Old Europe," which warned him that the invasion of Iraq was a distraction from the war on terror.
But never mind – while he won't ever admit it, Bush's speech was in many ways an admission of failure. "I recognize that not all of our friends agreed with our decision" to invade and occupy Iraq, Bush magnanimously allowed. "Yet we cannot let past differences interfere with present duties." Translation: We once thought it was Europe and the United Nations' duty to shut up and get out of our way. Now we think it is their duty to hurry up and throw us a rope.
http://www.robertscheer.com/
 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37 |
Whomod, you should have seen Meet the Press this morning, where Tim Russert interviewed Dick Cheney, and answered --and for my money DISPROVED-- all the allegations you've made in this lengthy and skewed Republican bash-fest of a topic. Interview of Dick Cheney http://www.msnbc.com/news/MEETPRESS_Front.asp A full transcript should be at this link in a day or two. Recent interviews I've seen of Democrat candidates/Senators John Kerry, Joseph Lieberman, and Joseph Biden, all express dissent from Bush on some of the finer points, but fully recognize the necessity of going to war in Iraq to wipe out the rat's nest there. Again, it seems to me that this "It's not about oil or Iraq..." topic is pure hate for the Republicans, and ignores the facts to blindly slander Bush, and undermine our military's ability to do the right thing. The simple truth is, at this point, 6 months after the war began, there are still less than 300 dead American soldiers in Iraq, which --far from a failure and a fiasco-- is instead a monumental achievement. Iraq was conquered and occupied in less than 3 weeks. It was expected before going in that Iraq would be occupied for about 2 years before an independent Iraqi government was fully established, and this schedule still seems realistic. But of course, a Bush-bashing liberal press reports it much differently than that reality. I fully expect the BBC, the French, the Germans and Muslims worldwide to unfairly distort America's actions for their own political gain. But I resent the hell out of this kind of slander from within the U.S. If this kind of liberal media dominance, venomous political posturing and distortion existed in the 1940's, we would have lost World War II. I think many leftists, out of sheer spite, WANT us to lose in Iraq, and churn out distorted angry propaganda toward that end. You'd destroy this country, just to spite Bush. As Vice President Cheney said today, whatever the war in Iraq's final price tag is, it's a tiny fraction of what September 11th cost.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,826
cobra kai 15000+ posts
|
|
cobra kai 15000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,826 |
dave, your argument doesn't really pack any weight until you include a random image of some sort.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37 |
Ha ! So true...  
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
|
|
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958 |
quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
Ha !
So true...
I've already used that one before.
By the way Dave, here's a transcript from the 9th of Sept. (mistakenly posted as 10/09/03)
Congress grills Bush administration over Iraq
quote:
Just when, for example, would more international troops arrive in Iraq?
MARC GROSSMAN, UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE: Senator, it depends on how quickly we pass this UN Security Council resolution and our objective is to -.
SENATOR JOHN McCAIN: That's true.
One month, six months, two months, five years?
NORMAN HERMANT: There weren't a lot of answers.
SENATOR JOHN McCAIN: I would repeat -- do you have any idea as to when we could expect the first international troops to arrive in Iraq?
MARC GROSSMAN: No, sir -.
SENATOR JOHN McCAIN: You have no idea?
MARC GROSSMAN: Well, sir, I -.
SENATOR JOHN McCAIN: Thank you.
NORMAN HERMANT: And more than four months after George Bush boasted of prevailing in Iraq, there was plenty of criticism for the American strategy -- or lack of one -- since the toppling of Saddam's regime.
PAUL WOLFOWITZ, US DEPUTY DEFENSE SECRETARY: You say we didn't plan for when the war was over.
The problem is that the war isn't over.
The problem is that the Ba'athist regime -.
SENATOR TED KENNEDY, ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE: You mean in spite of the President's statement out of that aircraft carrier, when he made his statement.
You're saying now the war is -?
PAUL WOLFOWITZ: Go back and read the statement, Senator.
SENATOR TED KENNEDY: I listened to it.
I heard the statement.
I saw that banner that was there.
PAUL WOLFOWITZ: He said it was the end of major combat operations, which indeed it was.
SENATOR TED KENNEDY: Now you distinguish between the end of major combat and the war isn't over -- that is very interesting for service men and women that are out there, very interesting.
NORMAN HERMANT: Many of those service men and women were reacting today to news that tours of duty for reservists have been extended.
Most will now be here for one year.
US SOLDIER: Well, morale was pretty high, but now it's at the bottom.
It's very disappointing.
Y'know, you can't always paint the non-rosy news as being "liberal" attacks, sir. I guess John McCain and Chuck Hagel are also part of this liberal conspiracy of yours.
quote:
administration officials had criticized former White House economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey for estimating the Iraq war would cost $100 billion to $200 billion. With the $87 billion request following $79 billion already approved by Congress, "we're already in the upper reaches of that estimate for the first two years of a long commitment," he said.
"And, Mr. Wolfowitz, you told Congress in March that 'We are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon.' Talk about rosy scenarios," he said.
Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass. said Iraq was "the wrong war at the wrong time."
"It was a go-it-alone policy. And we had a policy in order to win the war, but it's quite clear we didn't have a policy to protect our troops after the war is over," he said.
Not all criticism came from Democrats. Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska said Tuesday on the CBS News Early Show that the administration "did a miserable job of planning the post-Saddam Iraq."
At the hearing, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said "we underestimated the size of the challenge that we would face after the military operations were completed."
Noting estimates by Paul Bremer, the U.S. administrator in Iraq, that reconstruction would cost tens of billions of dollars, McCain said "That was not anticipated before we went in." http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/09/politics/main572278.shtml
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,447
2000+ posts
|
|
2000+ posts
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,447 |
quote:
The reality is, Iraq violated 12 years of U.N. resolutions and inspections, that more than warranted the Iraq invasion.
Name a country that hasn't violated a U.N. resolution.
quote:
If this kind of liberal media dominance, venomous political posturing and distortion existed in the 1940's, we would have lost World War II.
That's completely unfounded. Plus, WW2 was a much different situation.
quote:
I think many leftists, out of sheer spite, WANT us to lose in Iraq, and churn out distorted angry propaganda toward that end. You'd destroy this country, just to spite Bush.
I think that's true in many cases.
quote:
Y'know, you can't always paint the non-rosy news as being "liberal" attacks, sir. I guess John McCain and Chuck Hagel are also part of this liberal conspiracy of yours.
Well put.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
|
|
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958 |
quote:
Originally posted by JQ:
quote:
If this kind of liberal media dominance, venomous political posturing and distortion existed in the 1940's, we would have lost World War II.
That's completely unfounded. Plus, WW2 was a much different situation.
I was also trying to find a recent link to someone on the right AGAIN recently trying to stifle debate by saying that dissent encourages our enemies and is dangerous. I think it was either a senator or even Cheney. They were rightfully blasted immediately afterwards. This is healthy to democracy. It doesn't look as if the Administration is going to get to silence, question the patriotism, and intimidate any opposition again as they did in this long period immediately after 9/11.
by the by, regarding the "LIBERAL" media.
quote:
MEDIA ADVISORY:
Media Silent on Clark's 9/11 Comments:
Gen. says White House pushed Saddam link without evidence
June 20, 2003
Sunday morning talk shows like ABC's This Week or Fox News Sunday often make news for days afterward. Since prominent government officials dominate the guest lists of the programs, it is not unusual for the Monday editions of major newspapers to report on interviews done by the Sunday chat shows.
But the June 15 edition of NBC's Meet the Press was unusual for the buzz that it didn't generate. Former General Wesley Clark told anchor Tim Russert that Bush administration officials had engaged in a campaign to implicate Saddam Hussein in the September 11 attacks-- starting that very day. Clark said that he'd been called on September 11 and urged to link Baghdad to the terror attacks, but declined to do so because of a lack of evidence.
Here is a transcript of the exchange:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CLARK: "There was a concerted effort during the fall of 2001, starting immediately after 9/11, to pin 9/11 and the terrorism problem on Saddam Hussein."
RUSSERT: "By who? Who did that?"
CLARK: "Well, it came from the White House, it came from people around the White House. It came from all over. I got a call on 9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, 'You got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein.' I said, 'But--I'm willing to say it, but what's your evidence?' And I never got any evidence."
Clark's assertion corroborates a little-noted CBS Evening News story that aired on September 4, 2002. As correspondent David Martin reported: "Barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, the secretary of defense was telling his aides to start thinking about striking Iraq, even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks." According to CBS, a Pentagon aide's notes from that day quote Rumsfeld asking for the "best info fast" to "judge whether good enough to hit SH at the same time, not only UBL." (The initials SH and UBL stand for Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.) The notes then quote Rumsfeld as demanding, ominously, that the administration's response "go massive...sweep it all up, things related and not."
Despite its implications, Martin's report was greeted largely with silence when it aired. Now, nine months later, media are covering damaging revelations about the Bush administration's intelligence on Iraq, yet still seem strangely reluctant to pursue stories suggesting that the flawed intelligence-- and therefore the war-- may have been a result of deliberate deception, rather than incompetence. The public deserves a fuller accounting of this story.
http://www.fair.org/press-releases/clark-iraq.html
quote:
dave, your argument doesn't really pack any weight until you include a random image of some sort.
"It's time for the human race to enter the solar system." - Gov George W. Bush
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 13
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 13 |
I supported an invasion of Iraq to free the Iraqi people from tyranny...
...but now we have the US rejecting a French proposal to have an Iraqi constitution drawn up by the end of the year, and an interim government up and running by spring next year.
Great job on the invasion. 3 weeks gets the big thumbs up. Civilian casualties were minimal.
But, a very very low score on policing, restoring essential services (goodbye Jay Gardner!), and restoring Iraqi sovereignty to a democratically elected government.
The invasion was great. But the lack of planning on this has been nothing short of atrocious. Its an absolute disgrace.
While all the aircraft carriers were being positioned and the smart bombs were being locked and loaded, no doubt to the delight of Lockheed-Martin and their competitors, where were the plans for meaningful implementation of post-invasion security? Where were the plans for restoration of essential services?
But, of course, Lockhead Martin makes weapons, not power generators, medical equipment, and cheap pharmaceuticals.
If Medicins Sans Frontieres got the same level of government attention as the US arms industry, Baghdad hospitals wouldn't be the charnel houses they are.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37 |
quote:
Originally posted by whomod:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
Ha !
So true...
I've already used that one before.
From what I've observed here, the very point of these images, as you've posted them, is mindless repetition.
quote:
Originally posted by whomod:
By the way Dave, here's a transcript from the 9th of Sept. (mistakenly posted as 10/09/03)
Congress grills Bush administration over Iraq
[ The interview is partially printed out by Whomod above, I chose not to reprint again at length what can be accessed at the link above. ]
First of all, the interview excerpts you posted (from Australian television, ABC, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, easily confused with another well-known ABC in the United States ) don't prove anything.
Republican Senator John McCain and ultra-liberal Democrat Senator Ted Kennedy just ask questions that they --and we ALL-- already know the answers to, and basically just grill the undersecretary, posturing in front of the TV cameras for dramatic effect.
McCain HAS to know, when asking "when the first foreign troops will be in Iraq?" to relieve U.S. troops, that the ink is not even dry on a U.N. agreement yet, nothing has been signed, it's still being negotiated.
McCain doesn't condemn invasion of Iraq altogether (and neither do many of the more respectable Democrats, such as Kerry, Biden and Lieberman).
McCain (and others) merely questions some of the particulars of how the war is being fought.
Ted Kennedy, on the other hand, has said he wants us to cut and run, and get out of Iraq. And Dean and Gephardt have made similar statements. Which I think are dangerous things to say. Dangerous to military morale, dangerous to our necessary resolve. Democrat hyperbole of U.S. operations in Iraq, such as "another Vietnam" and "Miserable failure" are sweeping propaganda that slanderously impacts popular opinion without facts to back them up. And negatively affect the morale of our military. These statements by Democrats are aid to the enemy.
The Iraqis who support us (60% in the most recent poll I saw) WANT us to stay long enough to establish order, for at least another year. You have to really dig to find THAT truth reported. Most Iraqis are afraid we'll leave too soon, and that Saddam Fedayeen will rise up immediately after we leave, and re-establish a police state.
Wall Street Journal: "What do Iraqis really think. We asked them."
http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/?id=110003991
Which is the truth, and not reported by those who want to make the situation in Iraq look worse than it is.
The U.S. conquered a nation about the size of Texas, with a population of roughly 24 million people, in less than three weeks.
I don't think it can be emphasized enough: that is an unbelievable victory.
There are some minor problems, but in the entire six months, including the war itself, less than 300 American soldiers have died. That is STILL an amazing victory.
But to watch the liberal reporting, you'd think we were losing the war, instead of taking some very minor losses, and having them overdramatized by those who hate Bush and oppose the Iraq war, no matter what the evidence.
But whenever the truth is said in an interview (as Cheney did today) strong statements about how well the war is going, despite minor problems, are later re-spun and soundbyted by liberals in the press to sound half-hearted, self-consciously defensive, and unconvincing.
When I see Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell and others of the Bush Administration interviewed live, unsoundbyted, their arguments make sense.
After they've had their comments edited by a cynical media, the impact of their arguments are purposefully blunted. I saw Cheney's morning interview on Meet the Press, similarly blunted on NBC News tonight.
quote:
Originally posted by Whomod:
Y'know, you can't always paint the non-rosy news as being "liberal" attacks, sir. I guess John McCain and Chuck Hagel are also part of this liberal conspiracy of yours.
There's a difference between reasonable dissent on some finer points, and the treasonous demoralizing anti-American vitriol of liberal Democrats.
Hagel has some questions, McCain has some questions. Contrary to how you spin it, when I've seen Hagel interviewed (mostly on PBS News) he mostly supports the war. McCain as well generally supports the action in Iraq and (as a veteran himself) pushes on finer points to work for the safety of our troops on the ground.
I don't see McCain and Hagel opposing war in Iraq altogether, and saying to cut our losses and leave, as some of the more vitriolically liberal Democrats are doing. Or statements like "another Vietnam", or "miserable failure".
You seem to feel that if McCain and Hagel have any questions or constructive criticism whatsoever of Iraq policy, that they're siding with Democrats, condemning the invasion of Iraq entirely, and condemning the Bush Administration.
I've yet to see any news come out of Iraq, no matter who reports it, that's "rosy". (And I love the implied statement in that comment of yours, that if it's good news that reflects well on the war in Iraq, and doesn't make the Bush administration look bad, that it is "rosy", and in the implied context of that word, a distorted unrealistic view.)
There are always unexpected surprises in a war that might or might not have been anticipated. The U.S. military is adjusting to attacks on U.S. forces, and fine tuning how to defend against them. But 12 to 15 attacks a day (mostly unsuccessful) on an occupation force of 148,000 American soldiers, that have resulted in about 150 deaths in 4 months, is not "losing the war".
It's a reasonable expectation of loss, in a military operation of this size. (Again, less than 300 dead Americans, including the war, which doesn't even equal a week's worth of Vietnam dead. So much for "another Vietnam".)
And the U.S. is only seeking U.N./international assistance to further legitimize our nation-building in Iraq, as not being a U.S. "colonization".
And also seeking U.N assistance to offset the cost of the war, because Democrats are screaming about how much it costs the U.S.
( Again, Vice President Cheney emphasized today that, as large as the cost in Iraq is, it's a tiny fraction of what 9/11/2001 cost us.
The Wall Street Journal agrees:
Wall Street Journal: "What $87 Billion Buys.
Compare it to the price of another 9/11. "
http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/?id=110003995 )
Although a large sum, the U.S. could afford the cost of Iraq by itself, if not for the Democrats' pressure for the U.S. to pursue foreign assistance (and the threat of cutting off military funding to Iraq if Bush doesn't pursue international aid in Iraq).
Which again, gives the impression that the U.S. is weak and buckling, overwhelmed militarily in Iraq, that it suddenly changes policy and pursues U.N. assistance.
Which is utter nonsense, that the U.N. would be "bailing us out".
It's anticipated that (best case scenario) U.N. assistance MIGHT provide up to 20,000 troops.
And probably a lot LESS than 20,000.
Which is hardly any relief at all, to a U.S. occupation force of 148,000. The notion that the U.N. or anyone else is "bailing us out" is another liberal concoction, and absurd. It is a fabrication, to slander Bush and make him appear weak.
The request for U.N. assistance still means that the United States will still provide virtually ALL of the financial and military needs of Iraq. It's only to symbolically show that it's an internationally endorsed effort, and not an American colonization, and appease Democrats in the Senate and Congress who have insisted on requesting international assistance.
But the U.S. could handle Iraq's reconstruction on its own, and will have more power to do the job right, the less concessions and aid we have to take from the U.N.
quote:
From article posted by Whomod above:
Noting estimates by Paul Bremer, the U.S. administrator in Iraq, that reconstruction would cost tens of billions of dollars, McCain said "That was not anticipated before we went in." http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/09/politics/main572278.shtml
Again, we did not anticipate a geurilla war in Iraq following the war. NO ONE in the military (not just the Bush administration) seemed to anticipate this.
The initial plan was for an occupation force of 50,000 soldiers.
The current occupation force is 148,000, due to meeting the defense needs caused by remnants of Saddam Fedayeen.
And that cost no doubt includes not only soldiers on the ground, but tanks, planes, artillery, and repair of sabotage as well.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37 |
quote:
Originally posted by Rob Kamphausen:
dave, your argument doesn't really pack any weight until you include a random image of some sort.
Here you go...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
|
|
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958 |
quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
QUOTE]Again, we did not anticipate a geurilla war in Iraq following the war. NO ONE in the military (not just the Bush administration) seemed to anticipate this.
I'm late to work so I just wanted to highlight something that boggled the mind.
![[yuh huh]](images/icons/rolleyes.gif) :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952 Likes: 6 |
The Knight Ridder news service has interviewed some members of the anti-American guerrilla/terrorist forces in Iraq, and it's clear that this is not a popular resistance movement: quote:
The two cell leaders said their fighters primarily were former Iraqi army officers and young Iraqis who had joined because they were angry over the deaths or arrests of family members during U.S. raids in the hunt for Saddam Hussein and his supporters.
The group also shelters remnants of a non-Iraqi Arab unit of Saddam's elite fedayeen militia force, they said, as well as foreigners who slipped across the country's long and porous borders to battle American troops.
Those who say that the continuing resistance makes the war a "failure" are deluding themselves. That there are still active pro-Saddam forces is testament to the war's success: Most of these people would have been killed had the major combat part of the war been much longer and bloodier.
Furthermore, the presence of non-Iraqi terrorists is a positive. Much better to have these people in Iraq, where tens of thousands of American troops can kill or capture them, than in other countries where they'd pose a danger to civilians .
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 13
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 13 |
quote:
Originally posted by whomod:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
QUOTE]Again, we did not anticipate a geurilla war in Iraq following the war. NO ONE in the military (not just the Bush administration) seemed to anticipate this.
I'm late to work so I just wanted to highlight something that boggled the mind.
:lol:
Add me to the list of the boggled.
quote:
The request for U.N. assistance still means that the United States will still provide virtually ALL of the financial and military needs of Iraq. It's only to symbolically show that it's an internationally endorsed effort, and not an American colonization, and appease Democrats in the Senate and Congress who have insisted on requesting international assistance.
Another boggler!
So, you're saying that after avoiding a UN Security Council vote which would have rejected an invasion of Iraq by the US and the UK, the US now wants to have that symbolic nod.
Which France has specifically said it won't get.
This assertion is pure spin. What do you say to to the alternative explanation, that the US is seeking UN help of, say, 20,000 troops to supplement its force in circumstances where reserves won't sign on for a second tour?
I don't understand why it gags in the throat to concede that the US is seeking UN assistance for genuine and positive reasons, such as having Muslim peacekeepers, other then obtaining the suddenly necessary "symbology" of UN approval - which, natch, is all the Democrats' fault anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37 |
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
quote:
Originally posted by whomod:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
Again, we did not anticipate a geurilla war in Iraq following the war. NO ONE in the military (not just the Bush administration) seemed to anticipate this.
I'm late to work so I just wanted to highlight something that boggled the mind.
:lol:
Add me to the list of the boggled.
How about posting some evidence to justify your being "boggled"?
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
quote:
The request for U.N. assistance still means that the United States will still provide virtually ALL of the financial and military needs of Iraq. It's only to symbolically show that it's an internationally endorsed effort, and not an American colonization, and appease Democrats in the Senate and Congress who have insisted on requesting international assistance.
Another boggler!
So, you're saying that after avoiding a UN Security Council vote which would have rejected an invasion of Iraq by the US and the UK, the US now wants to have that symbolic nod.
Which France has specifically said it won't get.
Yes, France is holding out for a bigger slice of the spoils and power in Iraq.
And the war in Iraq and reconstruction/building democracy in Iraq are two different things. Despite opposing the first, the U.N. would like to participate in the second.
The U.S. fought the war, and could have let the U.N. take over after the war. And the nations of the U.N, even those who adamantly opposed the Iraq invasion in the first place, still have a vested interest in democracy succeeding in Iraq, regardless of their opposition to the initial war.
The U.S. has re-thought the logic of having Muslim nations, such as Turkey, India and Pakistan, provide Muslim people on the ground that would give legitimacy to the U.S. effort in Iraq, and provide many Arabic-speaking personnel that would help with U.S.-Iraqi communication.
And this is again in the U.N. interest as well (despite the Iraq war) to build a stable democracy in Iraq, that will increase stability of the entire region.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
This assertion is pure spin. What do you say to to the alternative explanation, that the US is seeking UN help of, say, 20,000 troops to supplement its force in circumstances where reserves won't sign on for a second tour?
I say that non-re-enlisters are a problem, but that the U.S. can always pull troops from elsewhere, as they did for the initial invasion in the first place. Many of the troops in Iraq were initially stationed in Europe.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
I don't understand why it gags in the throat to concede that the US is seeking UN assistance for genuine and positive reasons, such as having Muslim peacekeepers, other then obtaining the suddenly necessary "symbology" of UN approval - which, natch, is all the Democrats' fault anyway.
You and others like to say that everything is the Republicans' fault.
I can concede that the U.S. is pursuing U.N. endorsement for positive reasons. That does NOT include a need for the U.N. to "bail America out" in Iraq.
And it is false to imply that Bush's seeking U.N. participation is not partially motivated by Democrats' demand that the U.S. seeks international assistance in Iraq, and threatening to with-hold military/reconstruction funding unless the Bush administration does so.
That is not "positive", that is forcing the Bush administration to change course, and then accusing Bush of being weak and needing to be bailed out when he complies with Democrats' demands.
But otherwise, I do think U.N. participation (beyond the negative spin by liberals) IS a positive thing.
And part of it is still symbolism, to demonstrate with aid from Muslim nations that the occupation in Iraq is not an American/European/Christian colonization. And assistance from Muslim countries, even only two or three, will make that clear.
And I again point to the Wall Street Journal article, that far from the U.S. imposing a hostile occupation in Iraq, a majority of Iraqis WANT us there (as G-Man's post also makes clear, that resistance is not from the Iraqi people, but from remnants of Saddam Fedayeen, and terrorists slipping into Iraq from outside the country).
The advent of U.N. assistance IS a positive development.
But I resent the liberal/Democrat insinuation that (contrary to saying it's a positive development) alleges that the U.N. is "bailing America out."
Rebuilding Iraq is not a fiasco, it is not a disaster, and with or without the U.N., things are progressing along the pre-war projected timetable, even with the unforseen obstacle of some minor pro-Saddam resistance.
Yes, the U.S. is glad to have international assistance. But don't falsely try to paint that as "bailing the U.S. out."
Again, the U.S. has 148,000 troops in Iraq.
The U.N. can --at BEST-- provide 20,000 relief troops, and probably a lot less. Far from the spin-doctored argument of "bailing America out".
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 13
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 13 |
I actually, perhaps surprisingly, don't disagree with much of that, now you've clarified it. I note however: quote:
And part of it is still symbolism, to demonstrate with aid from Muslim nations that the occupation in Iraq is not an American/European/Christian colonization. And assistance from Muslim countries, even only two or three, will make that clear.
The latest I have read on this is that India, Bangladesh, and Turkey will probably not involve themselves in post-war peacekeeping because the war was either considered illegal by their governments, or is intensely unpopular. The speculation is that a UN resolution will not remedy that.
quote:
Yes, France is holding out for a bigger slice of the spoils and power in Iraq.
At least you're honest enough to impliedly admit that the US has the biggest slice.
As for the bogglement, I can't imagine why you'd think that post-war Iraq wouldn't be plagued with guerrilla warfare. You yourself have emphasised the Fedayeen's role. In addition, we're dealing with a country which has been brainwashed through propaganda by Saddam for over two decades. Some of the population will be loyal adherents. I guess we're seeing that in the so-called Sunni triangle.
Further, I read in the Economist that the sacking of Ba'athist public servants by the administrative authority has bolstered the ranks of the disenchanted and unemployed. Probably a poor decision - compare this to Nazi Germany, where many party members were retained by the public service and the police.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 13
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 13 |
Ooops. Sorry. I do disagree with something else, after all. quote:
Rebuilding Iraq is not a fiasco, it is not a disaster, and with or without the U.N., things are progressing along the pre-war projected timetable, even with the unforseen obstacle of some minor pro-Saddam resistance.
From www.economist.com
quote:
Last week, Mr Bush told Americans that he would ask Congress for $87 billion in extra spending on Iraq and Afghanistan, in addition to the $79 billion already approved. This would make Iraq’s reconstruction the costliest such endeavour since the Marshall Plan half a century ago....
...Is America’s occupation of Iraq going well, or badly? Certainly, it is not as rosy as the Bush administration is trying to suggest. Americans are having a tough time establishing security and credibility, particularly in those areas of Iraq dominated by Sunni Muslims (who made up most of Saddam Hussein’s regime). Already-tense situations can worsen quickly, as was evident last week in Falluja when American troops accidentally shot dead ten Iraqi policemen. At their funerals this weekend, Falluja residents vowed revenge, and one American soldier was killed in the town on Sunday (and another in Baghdad on Monday). Elsewhere, in areas dominated by Shia Muslims and Kurds, things are calmer. But there too progress is bumpy: last month, a top Shia cleric in the holy city of Najaf and more than 100 others were killed by a bomb. Still, that incident has not set off the spiral of violence that many predicted. Throughout Iraq, attacks on American forces and their allies have decreased in the past month.
...Mr Powell said America wants to get out as soon as it can, but will not do so before Iraqis have the capacity to run themselves. Already, America is hurriedly shoving more responsibilities at Iraqis—a plan to train a 40,000-member Iraqi army in three years has been accelerated into one year.
I don't think being $166 billion in the red over the war means it is proceeding as expected. Setting aside the army's rehabilitation, other matters also seem to be progressing very slowly - essential services, for instance.
I think things are not good over there, but I also think it seems to very much differ from region to region. The Kurdish north and Shi'ite south seem to be doing much better than the areas around Baghdad.
America isn't the bad guy in this - it is importing a tonne of wheat every hour of every day to help out with food shortages. While I'm still suspicious that the war is a boon for oil companies at the American taxpayers' expense, I at least think that in the very long run Iraqis will be better off as a result of the invasion. But the administration, or perhaps more accurately the Pentagon, has made a botch up of rebuilding - a terrible underestimate.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,826
cobra kai 15000+ posts
|
|
cobra kai 15000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,826 |
i think a lot of the "things are going poorly in iraq" idealology comes from the perspective (be it internal arrogance or external jealousy) that america is do-no-wrong perfect.
are there struggles in iraq, even beyond what was anticipated? absolutely. one half of the political spectrum is cleaning that aspect up as much as the other half of the political spectrum is blowing it out of proportion. but, bottom line, after all the political smoke dissipates, i think its clear to see.
but look at it this way ... this is 20 years of poverty and brainwashing and fear and pre-existing guerilla combat all being, amazingly, un-done in a span of months. weeks!
i would never sit here and deny that things are pretty bad in areas of the country and need serious work, continued attention, and alternate methods of aid. however... looking at the fact that iraq has only been saddam-less for, what, 3 months? 90 days? i'd say thats pretty darn good.
it takes a single person like a year to get in shape -- why expect a nation to do so overnight?
japan and germany were destroyed post ww-II, with decimated economies that, afterward, took american aid many years to rebuild. i think they've rebounded nicely.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,826
cobra kai 15000+ posts
|
|
cobra kai 15000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,826 |
i typically try to avoid these types of debates like the plague. political pissing contests rarely appeal to me -- especially on internet message boards, where everyone knows which online articles are the real ones to listen to.
but i have one serious question, if i may, of which i'm mostly interested in the liberal opinion (emphasized not to exclude the conservatives, but to underscore my belief that most from either side is nothing but sheer speculation)
if the current american administration is so diabolical, why not simply plant nuclear or chemical agents in iraq?
gi joe would walk in, find some vials, be a hero, and prove iraq is the bad guy and the us is the good guy once and for all in a handful of hours.
if "the shrub" (ingenius!) is truly all you make him out to be, wouldn't this have occurred before the second week?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37 |
I hope my comments here don't qualify as a "pissing contest." I Don't think T-Dave's do either.
In contrast to saying "all Democrats/liberals are bad" ( or vice versa, the consistent "all Republicans are evil" rhetoric of Whomod), my purpose in posting here is to say that anti-Bush naysayers are jumping to conclusions, and coloring the current Iraq situation, and many other Bush policies, far darker than they truly are.
I do feel some frustration that there are so many, even within the U.S., eager to tear down what my government is doing.
I think Whomod and others really believe these allegations, they aren't trying to deceive anyone, they truly believe the biased rhetoric that the liberal media relentlessly churns out. Again, allegations made so often to the point that people think it MUST be true, the allegations are made so often.
There is no balance, or attempt to explore the logic of policy from the opposing conservative/Republican perspective.
Unless you hear it live when a conservative is interviewed, unedited, the reporting is constantly filtered to support the liberal/Democrat perspective.
How different this war would be reported if Bill Clinton or Al Gore were in the White House, acting in the same way.
As I've said elsewhere, the media overwhelmingly endorsed Clinton's police actions in Bosnia, Kosovo, Haiti, etc., as "humanitarian wars of liberation.", even when the U.S. acted unilaterally without the U.N.
In sharp contrast to how the same actions by G.W. Bush are portrayed.
I think what Bush and Blair did (unilaterally going to war against a non-compliant and unquestionably evil Iraq, when the U.N. would not enforce its own resolutions after 12 years) was a tremendously courageous thing.
And as I've said repeatedly, it was like taking out Hitler in 1936, rather than waiting till September 1939, when he became a real threat.
And it is frustrating to me that so much conjecture, hyperbole and conspiracy theory --an opinion that liberals are entitled to-- is projected as fact, and widely believed as fact by much of the public, because the allegations are repeated so uniquitously in the liberal-dominated media.
If Bush (and his cabinet) are guilty of manipulating things for self-serving reasons, then I'd want to see him punished (I've yet to see any credible proof that they have done so).
But what is alleged by liberals here and elsewhere has no conformity to the facts as I have viewed them over the last year.
I initially, at the beginning of each of these allegations against Bush, have believed them.
And after further reading, have been outraged that these allegations against Bush can be passed off as facts, and that these half-baked allegations can be endlessly repeated in the media, to the point that many think they must be true.
I'm not interested in pissing contests, I just want to set the record straight, and say that these allegations don't conform to what I've seen reported.
It's sheer hyperbole to say that we're "losing" in Iraq, or need "bailed out" by the U.N. But most of the public believes that, in the U.S. and elsewhere, because of the slanted bias of Bush-hating liberal reporting.
I appreciate your perspective, and quote from The Economist, T-Dave. And I think you are partly correct. In that the Iraq war did not go exactly as planned.
But show me a war in history that DIDN'T have unforseen complications.
Despite the higher cost, it doesn't seem that pro-Saddam/terrorist forces are slowing down the 2-year timeframe given for building an independent Iraq.
Again, the cost is higher than anticipated (we have roughly three times the intended pre-war occupation force in Iraq of 50,000, projected before the war).
But even so, we are still winning, and the propaganda that we're "losing" just makes it harder to do the job right and commit to a long-term occupation, to adequately complete the mission.
The threat of Democrats to with-hold funding is what's rushing Bush to get out of Iraq. Bush is committed to do the right thing, if Democrats would just let him do it, and not turn the public against him with false and misleading rhetoric that we're "losing the war," or "bogged down in another Vietnam".
We lost more soldiers in one day in Beirut in 1983 than have been lost in a massive 6-month war and occupation of Iraq so far. To report the situation in Iraq as anything other than an incredible victory is misleading and false.
I think Rob Kamphausen makes a good insight, that the U.S. is expected to be perfect.
And anything less than perfection, the slightest mistake, is reported as disaster and failure.
Again, I expect this condemnation and hyperbole of U.S. military operations in Iraq, from Arabs and the French and Germans, but find it traitorously self-serving and destructive from our own U.S. Senators.
If Democrats were acting responsibly, morale among both the military and among U.S. citizens would be much higher. Constructively push for improvements, yes, but to blindly condemn our presence in Iraq as a whole, from within our government in Washington, is a betrayal of our troops in the field, and can do nothing other than confuse the public and demoralize our troops on the ground.
When in point of fact, our military should be proud of what they've accomplished, and be highly praised for such a monumental achievement.
So yes, I think you're right to some degree, T-Dave. There have been setbacks and un-anticipated complications, some (like the post-war looting) that could have been forseen.
But I think U.S. presence in Iraq, far from a fiasco, has been under-reported for the remarkable success that it is.
For all its setbacks and added costs, it IS a success.
|
|
|
|
|
