SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

   PoliticsForeign Affairs Discussion Group


Previous 10 Next 10 
To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (159350)3/20/2005 6:45:19 PM
From: Orcastraiter
   of 281497
 
Remove Saddam and leave whoever was left to fight for succession? Is that what you thought the mission was?

The president didn't outline a clearly defined mission. He never said that we will take out Saddam, find the WMD and bring democracy to Iraq. If he said that, provide a link that shows that.

Casualties have increased over time. You don't need to be a general to see that:

ac.wwu.edu

The exit strategy was never clearly defined. That was a complaint of many right out of the blocks

By whom?


Powell for one, by virtue of his "You break it you buy it comment" he was saying what is the plan here? You need a plan before you can have an exit plan. Powell was simply saying what is the plan? There was no plan articulated.

If the President clearly stated the plan before we went to war, I missed it.

Orca

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (159353)3/20/2005 6:52:48 PM
From: marcos
   of 281497
 
They picked the wrong location for the zionist project, and in so doing chose the wrong enemies, yes that's pretty clearly true .... had the Uganda proposal [which while then called Uganda was actually much of present-day Kenya as well] gone over better at that early zionist congress, they could have much more easily wiped out or subjugated or chased away the inhabitants, and ended up with a larger, more fertile, and far more defensible nation now ... also with a degree of perceived legitimacy, had they done this earlier on, before sensibilities had shifted towards regarding the indigenous as human beings .... note how today, the southwestern third of the United States is regarded by many as legitimately occupied even though it was stolen in most brutal fashion from mexicanos only fifteen decades ago ..... had they waited till 1948 and then taken it, we'd likely be having a different conversation now

But you'll grind on and on, with the same old arguments as always ... well i don't have the time to keep up, got things to do ... later ... cheers

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)


To: marcos who wrote (159355)3/20/2005 8:53:48 PM
From: Nadine Carroll
   of 281497
 
Hey marcos, hasn't it yet dawned on you that if the Zionist project had been attempted in Uganda, you would be shedding passionate tears now over the fate of the poor poor tribesmen, Dinka or Kikuku or whoever whose human rights had been so brutally run over by those bad Zionists? Just as you do for the poor poor Palestinians?

It isn't like you actually care about the Ugandans anymore than you care for the Palestinians. It's only that you don't like the Jews. Whatever they do, they are held to a standard of perfection, with all mitigating circumstances forgotten totally.

The proof is, there isn't one other case where such a standard is applied. Nor do you give a tinker's dam about Arab suffering anywhere else.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)


To: Orcastraiter who wrote (159354)3/20/2005 9:10:53 PM
From: Nadine Carroll
   of 281497
 
The president didn't outline a clearly defined mission. He never said that we will take out Saddam, find the WMD and bring democracy to Iraq. If he said that, provide a link that shows that

From the President's speech March 31, 2003, one example among many:

It has been 11 days since the major ground war began. In this short time, our troops have preformed brilliantly, with skill and with bravery. They make us proud. (Applause.) In 11 days, coalition forces have taken control of most of western and southern Iraq. In 11 days, we've seized key bridges, opened a northern front, achieved -- nearly achieved complete air superiority, and are delivering tons of humanitarian aid. By quick and decisive action, our troops are preventing Saddam Hussein from destroying the Iraqi people's oil fields. Our forces moved into Iraqi missile launch areas that threatened neighboring countries. Many dangers lie ahead, but day by day, we are moving closer to Baghdad. Day by day, we are moving closer to victory. (Applause.)

Our victory will mean the end of a tyrant who rules by fear and torture. Our victory will remove a sponsor of terror, armed with weapons of terror. Our victory will uphold the just demands of the United Nations and the civilized world. And when victory comes, it will be shared by the long-suffering people of Iraq, who deserve freedom and dignity. (Applause.)

The dictator's regime has ruled by fear and continues to use fear as a tool of domination to the end. Many Iraqis have been ordered to fight or die by Saddam's death squads. Others are pressed into service by threats against their children. Iraqi civilians attempting to flee to liberated areas have been shot and shelled from behind by Saddam's thugs. Schools and hospitals have been used to store military equipment. They serve as bases for military operations. Iraqis who show friendship toward coalition troops are murdered in cold blood by the regime's enforcers.

The people of Iraq have lived in this nightmare world for more than two decades. It is understandable that fear and distrust run deep. Yet, here in the city where America itself gained freedom, I give this pledge to the citizens of Iraq: We're coming with a mighty force to end the reign of your oppressors. We are coming to bring you food and medicine and a better life. And we are coming, and we will not stop, we will not relent until your country is free.
whitehouse.gov

There are two DNC talking points going around now: first, that the President never made democracy in Iraq a war goal. I don't believe Bush ever used the word "democracy", he just used the word "freedom" a lot, preferring to leave the final shape of the government up to the Iraqis. However, he clearly cited humanitarian reasons for the war.

The second talking point is that, well okay, the President may have talked about Iraqi freedom and those awful neocons did talk about Iraq as a model for Arab democracy, but none of that counts because Bush didn't use democracy as his 'official reason' in front of the UN. For a crowd who has been complaining bitterly for 3 years about how the neocons have hijacked foreign policy to now claim that what the neocons had to say doesn't count (because it looks to be, um, working) is just not a serious criticism in my view.

The neocons did gain lots of influence after September 11th, because it was the neocons who had been paying attention to the rise of Islamism and were expecting such an event. Everybody else, most notably the Arabists at State whose 'stability above all' policy had just been blown up under them, needed time to rearrange their thinking.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (159345)3/20/2005 9:29:48 PM
From: Win Smith
   of 281497
 
Barnett is an ironic citation on this topic. From command-post.org

My problem with this description, as I've noted many times in my blog, is that it conflates two concepts: regime takedown and the post-conflict stabilization / nation-building effort. I call the former, the "war," and the latter, the "peace." So, in my more careful lexicon, I say that Rumsfeld was arguing—and arguing correctly—about how to "win the war," while Shinseki was arguing—and arguing correctly—about how to "win the peace." command-post.org

But Shinseki is the canonical citation on more troops, resolutely badmouthed by the innermost circle of the people who had to have the war, and have it their way. Also pretty definitely an "old Army" type. Of course, badmouthing the US uniformed military leadership was a integral part of the pre-war propaganda campaign. "Perfumed Princes" was, I believe, the fashionable term among the local "intellectually honest" war cheerleaders.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (159356)3/20/2005 11:07:01 PM
From: marcos
   of 281497
 
What a view you'd like to present of your critics, tsk tsk ... for starters, i don't shed tears, passionate or otherwise ... man's inhumanity to man has been quite extensive and near universal over the ages, shedders of tears would have cried such a river by now that they'd have drowned in it ... no, it's about seeing situations as they are, rather than how partisan propagandists would like us to see them

And especially, it's about you, Nadine ... eight hundreds thousands egyptian troops in the Sinai, pfffft, lol ... though generally you do try to refrain from easily disproven falsehoods, i will give you that, you tend to just gently fudge the numbers while you use fallacious logic, skip inconvenient facts, and cite irrelevant points, in the hope that your readers won't know, or won't care to admit they know, the actual situation

Which is, lest we forget the context, that zionists have crossed the sea to conquer arab land, leaving you with the chore of trying to justify their continuing occupation to those SIers who happen to drift by this corner .... and you do fine at it, really, best that could possibly be done in the circumstances, such single-minded devotion to duty, hammering away time after time at the evil-indigenous theme ... to be admired, really, such dedication .... it's just that once in a while, there is something about it that stimulates in me the puke-or-post reflex

Nothing to do with 'the Jews' ... a group which includes, as you will be well aware, quite a number of individuals who oppose zionism, there have been many jewish Thoreaus and Websters, to balance in part the effects of the Clays and Calhouns ... it wasn't 'the jews' who invented that 'land without a people' fiction, it was a single zionist individual who had never been to Palestine and was making stuff up out of his head .... hey, too bad he's dead, you could have maybe got him to confirm that there were eight millions egyptians in the Sinai, and perhaps also have him assist you in working that into a justification for your Excludostaat

So now you've done your standard accusation of anti-semitism, what's next, hmmm .... ever think of changing the pace? ... or, ahem, the location ... how about you try justifying chinese hegemony over Tibet, and/or over Formosa, and i'll take the locals' side ... granted the natives there are not arab, but they are still indigenous, and therefore scum to be bulldozed aside, right?

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)


To: marcos who wrote (159355)3/20/2005 11:33:53 PM
From: neolib
   of 281497
 
had the Uganda proposal [which while then called Uganda was actually much of present-day Kenya as well] gone over better at that early zionist congress, they could have much more easily wiped out or subjugated or chased away the inhabitants, and ended up with a larger, more fertile, and far more defensible nation now ... also with a degree of perceived legitimacy, had they done this earlier on, before sensibilities had shifted towards regarding the indigenous as human beings ..

Black Africa is a stellar example of indigenous peoples triumphing over outsiders. I doubt "zionists" would have faired any better than the Brits in Kenya/Uganda. Now the Americas, Australia, and New Zealand are a different matter.

I have long thought that the county of Palestine in the state of Texas would have been a great location for modern Israel. They could have built the New Jerusalem there (admittedly, not quite to Revelations proportions though), and had a great run of trade with southern evangelical tourists. Kind of like an enormous religious Disneyland.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: neolib who wrote (159360)3/21/2005 12:38:51 AM
From: marcos
   of 281497
 
Tejas eh, hmmm, yes we might have been able to make a deal, but too bad, the estadounidenses took it first .... and you know what they're like -g-

Difference with Africa was that brits were not attracted to colonising so much there, settling in large enough numbers to form significant proportion of the population .... they just administered it, maybe made a few quid and went home, for the most part ... your homeland and Zuidafrika being exceptions, to an extent, but still not near enough to form even a sizable minority

Had there been a serious focussed effort to colonise Uganda, i think it probably could have been done, but of course it wasn't, for a number of reasons, and that post to Nadine is really only for her, it's making another sort of point, you know that of course .... N and i have had this out so many times, it's like a dance routine

Is it a smart idea to start up a new country centred around a single religous bond, as late as even say 1882 when the Rothschild colonies first started in Palestine? .... is this good for us, as a species? ... arabs don't think it's good for them, not when it's placed on arab land anyway, but is it even good for the jews? ... has it brought them peace? ... meaning israeli jews of course, i know jews who live in peace but they are canadians and mexicanos

'Kind of like an enormous religious Disneyland.' - that's it! ... the catholics have the Vatican, though they haven't got any good rides, but they don't seem to have much trouble out of it ... of course they don't periodically get in their tanks and roll towards Milan and Salerno either, and far as you can tell from reading the paper they seem to observe the Rome bylaws prohibiting armoured D9s .... yes, they should maybe go on the examples list eh, also for the lutherans, who might be able to centre a theme park around the ninety-five faeces that the old fellow nailed to the door at Worms

A nation is a different sort of critter ... i really like Mandela's flag, the Y on its side to signify variety coming together, the rainbow colours .... many difficulties along the road for them, many injustices will happen on the way, lesser evils hopefully but evils nonetheless ... it'll work out a little better each year though, provided no single group based on colour or religion or length of pubic hair takes it into their heads to force on the rest an Excludostaat.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (159357)3/21/2005 12:40:54 AM
From: Orcastraiter
   of 281497
 
The argument made to the American people and to the UN was that Saddam was a threat to national security. Powell testified to the UN about hidden WMD, mobile weapons labs and so on. It turns out that none of these existed in Iraq at the time of the war. That the US was not under any threat from Saddam. In fact after 12 years of no fly zones and sanctions Saddam was impotent. Saddam was afraid that if Iran knew how weak he was they would attack him, and was trying to curry favor, once again with the US, while trying to appear strong to his enemies. Powell has since apologized for getting it wrong.

Bringing freedom, which you say is Bushspeak for democracy, was never sold to the public, nor to the UN. What was sold was that Saddam had WMD and was a terrorist supporter. After all he was sending money to the families of martyrs in Palestine. We won't talk about the fact that money for the families of martyrs came from every country in the middle east, including Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan...and of course Iraq. Saddam controlled the resources of Iraq. No other entity in Iraq could have made any payment to Palestinian families from Iraq. It's incredible that some how Saddam's support of the Palestinians is parlayed by the Bushies into support of Al Qaeda...and support of 9-11. Even today more than half of Americans think that Saddam was involved in 9-11. And this after both the President and Condaleeza Rice have stated that Saddam was not involved.

So the real reason for the war in Iraq was all along to bring democracy...er a...freedom to the Iraqi people. It's the only thing left that might have a ring of truth to it...unless we talk about the reason behind much of the neocon plotting...OIL.

I'm sure you'll take offense to such a statement. Certainly we went there to help the Iraqi people get freedom...we didn't go there for their oil. We never went to Rwanda to secure their freedom. We don't go to the Sudan to secure their freedom, and the death toll there is now 4 times the death toll in Rwanda. Welcome to the hotel Darfur.

I find it interesting that in Bush's speech which you posted, That the first paragraph doesn't mention freedom or democracy for the Iraqis. The first paragraph frames the real success which was securing the oil fields. Bush boasts that we have nearly achieved air superiority. Hello...we have had air superiority in Iraq for the past 12 years. Not a single sortie was sent up by Saddam 's forces.

Amazing that the second paragraph reprimands Saddam for torture. The Bush administration has gone out of their way to find ways to use torture. In Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and in Afghanistan. This administration has sent folks to foreign countries for a little contract torture. Then one can argue that torture is ok...so long as it's a terrorist that your torturing...but how do you know if they really are terrorists? And how many innocents have been tortured by our country? All in the name of fighting torture and terror!

I certainly won't argue that removing Saddam was bad. But I can argue that when we do it we need to do it in the right way. Certainly torture has no place in our efforts. Further, I believe that freedom could have been brought to the Iraqi people with out the bombing and the invasion and the 20,000 collateral deaths and 100,000 wounded and maimed.

War may be quicker in removing a dictator. But war never changes the political landscape that lies beneath the evil head. Now that Saddam is gone we still will see struggle for power in Iraq. The Sunni will not kow tow to the Shia. The autonomous Kurds will not be dictated to either. Even with Saddam gone we have infighting, terror and war still going on. As the chart I posted points out...that casualty rate has increased over the two year period. This war is not over. At best we can train Iraqis (Shia I suppose) to defend against the remnants of the Sunni Baathists. Removing Saddam does not open the door to peace.

We will see American troops in Iraq for at least a decade. Certainly for the full Bush term. Any wagers? They will be there serving the Shia majority. A buffer to the insurgents (Sunni). But it will be a you scratch my back I'll scratch yours affair. We'll have bases in Iraq, and we will have access to their OIL.

Bush cited the main goal of the war was to protect America. After all that's what the military is for. It's not for freeing the people of the world. Most of the world is not free. In the killing fields of Sudan...not one American soldier goes there to bring democracy. And after Iraq, we'll need to free the rest of the middle east...the list is long where democracy has yet to stand. And then off to Africa and Asia.

Since you have championed the Neocons here...lets examine the policies of the PNAC. Certainly their policy is to use American power, military power, to secure the middle east. And why the middle east? OIL. The notion of Peak OIL is not some whacko extremist concept. We are running out of oil. $80/bbl is right around the corner...whether we drill ANWR or not.

You say the Neocons were watching Islam...they knew that something was brewing. Well christ...why didn't they tell Bush and Rice!?? Rice stated to the 9-11 commission that "Who would have dreamed that someone would use a plane as a missile?" Well she certainly should have been listening to the neocons in the back row.

One thing that is clear about the war in Iraq. It was not fought for the sake of freedom, read democracy. That is the biggest load of crap I have heard today. The war was taken to Iraq for one...and only one reason...to secure the second largest oil reserve on the planet. It was sold under the label of "threat of WMD" and "terrorist connections" (to Al Qaeda). I'll believe the crap about democracy when congress starts allocating $80 billion to save the Sudan.

Orca

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)


To: Win Smith who wrote (159358)3/21/2005 1:08:53 AM
From: Nadine Carroll
   of 281497
 
Of course, badmouthing the US uniformed military leadership was a integral part of the pre-war propaganda campaign. "Perfumed Princes" was, I believe, the fashionable term among the local "intellectually honest" war cheerleaders.


As usual, Win, you think that an insult is an argument.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)
Previous 10 Next 10