Iraq and MONEY!

[Natoma]

In July the administration derided the Europeans (namely the french and the germans) when they suggested that control be given to the Iraqis as quickly as possible.

Um....source? The plan was always to reliquish control as soon as possible. The disagreements will come over when "as soon as possible" actually is.

The source is the administration themselves. The french and germans were suggesting 6-9 months. They were derided for that opinion and told that the iraqis would get control "when they're ready". Two months later after a 10-15 point drop at the polls, they were ready. Yea.....

Why? Because they voted no at the UN. That's wrong.

Voted no on what?

What do you think Joe. I'm not going to spell everything out for you. You're not dumb.

However, we are the ones who pushed blindly into the breach...

Wrong.

We had a disagreement. We both pushed in different directions.

We are the ones who started this war with only the support of 3 major countries. We are the ones who are now asking for money and lives from the very countries we called "Old Europe" and "irrelevant". We are the ones who have to begin the process of mending those fences, but the french and germans, among other countries, have to come in and apologize as well in large part for being obstructionists.

 

[RussSchultz]

He opposes the President. HE'S LIBERAL! INEFFECTIVE! BURN HIM!

I don't give a god-damn if you oppose the president.

I do despise people who use that as their reasoning for opposing and continuing to oppose bringing democracy to Iraq.

 

[Natoma]

He opposes the President. HE'S LIBERAL! INEFFECTIVE! BURN HIM!

I don't give a god-damn if you oppose the president.

I do despise people who use that as their reasoning for opposing and continuing to oppose bringing democracy to Iraq.

I don't see anyone here or anywhere else opposing bringing democracy to Iraq because they have a personal issue with President Bush.

Frankly I thought this war was about WMD. Not Bush............

 

[Clashman]

No Russ, I think you actually love those people. They give you an excuse to simply dismiss anything else anyone says as part of that crowd of "Bush-haters".

 

[RussSchultz]

Yes, because being dismissive is my primary goal.

 

[Clashman]

And it shows. You're very good at it.

 

[RussSchultz]

Oh, patronize me some more. I like it.

Lets start at some common ground and see where we end up...


Does Iraq(or Iran, or insert hell hole here)'s people deserve freedom?

 

[Humus]

I don't remember ever saying your prophet being a terrorist. Either way it matters none. Do you think I give a rats ass about what you think? The facts are simple; the majority of the leaders in your religion (Islam) are tyrants. This is going to change one way or another. Your religion will adopt or be killed off.

You don't like the sounds of that? Well I not even going to try and be politically correct. The time for that has passed. You should be trying to help Islam adopt (you are directly involved?). Instead you sit behind your keyboard in the comfort of your home trying to justify/defend those vile people (leaders). While you do this so smug in your superior intelligence... millions suffer.

So do you think you have any credibility? I would think many would hate you. You are part of the problem along with the rest that aren't willing to put their ass on the line to help these people.

Do me a favor. Don't ever reply to a post of mine. You disgust me.

Do you ever post anything that isn't racistic or generally hateful? Would it be up to me you'd have been banned long ago, like you were on rage3d for the same reasons.

 

[Humus]

As I said...."progressives" are all topsey-turvey.

Gee. Horray for generalisation.

 

[RussSchultz]

As I said...."progressives" are all topsey-turvey.

Gee. Horray for generalisation.

I agree I was generalizing. Sorry.

Does it change the fact that the argument (that the US is privatizing business and engaging in economic reform in Iraq against the previous "constitution" of a despotic ruler) is topsey turvey in relation the stated goals of "progressives" when compared to the end result (providing economic opportunity and other freedoms not associated with command economies and brutal dictatorship)?

 

[PaulS]

Does Iraq(or Iran, or insert hell hole here)'s people deserve freedom?

Sure. Was that America's primary motivation in this? Were America right to ignore the millions of protestors who opposed invasion (and it IS invasion), ignore the evidence that the WMD didn't exist, and ignore the UN? Given that last point, are they right to now come running back, cap in hand?

 

[RussSchultz]

Does Iraq(or Iran, or insert hell hole here)'s people deserve freedom?

Sure.

Good, we agree.

Was that America's primary motivation in this? Were America right to ignore the millions of protestors who opposed invasion (and it IS invasion), ignore the evidence that the WMD didn't exist, and ignore the UN? Given that last point, are they right to now come running back, cap in hand?

Does that matter? For me, ending the dictator ship and providing representative democracy is good enough reason.

How would you have freed the Iraqi people?

(p.s. you're skewing the WMD evidence with hindsight. but we'll ignore that because it isn't the point.)

 

[Natoma]

Does Iraq(or Iran, or insert hell hole here)'s people deserve freedom?

Sure. Was that America's primary motivation in this? Were America right to ignore the millions of protestors who opposed invasion (and it IS invasion), ignore the evidence that the WMD didn't exist, and ignore the UN? Given that last point, are they right to now come running back, cap in hand?

Especially since with the other hand, they're slapping the countries they ignored months ago in the face by saying "you're not getting any contracts."

 

[Natoma]

Was that America's primary motivation in this? Were America right to ignore the millions of protestors who opposed invasion (and it IS invasion), ignore the evidence that the WMD didn't exist, and ignore the UN? Given that last point, are they right to now come running back, cap in hand?

Does that matter? For me, ending the dictator ship and providing representative democracy is good enough reason.

How would you have freed the Iraqi people?

(p.s. you're skewing the WMD evidence with hindsight. but we'll ignore that because it isn't the point.)

PaulS is skewing the WMD evidence???? That's the funniest thing I've read today.

p.s.: Yes, let's ignore the WMD evidence, just like the Bush Administration did in it's march to war. skewing wmd evidence.. hysterical.

p.p.s.: The primary mission was to take out and destroy the WMD, not free the Iraqi people. That was a benefit to the primary mission, not the main objective. Let's not forget that bit.

 

[RussSchultz]

Sigh...please, not the tired WMD debate again. Certainly we can agree that there was evidence on both sides, and most institutions believed there was weapons and/or programs and the big debate was over what to do about it.

 

[Natoma]

Sigh...please, not the tired WMD debate again. Certainly we can agree that there was evidence on both sides, and most institutions believed there was weapons and/or programs and the big debate was over what to do about it.

I don't find the debate tired at all. The people in the Bush Administration was so sure they knew where the weapons were, they should have allowed the Weapons Inspectors to go in, find them, and find Saddam in breach of the UN Resolutions. Then the other countries would have had no choice but to support us and we wouldn't be there basically alone now.

No we went in basically alone and without mandate, only to find when we got there that there are no WMD. If the weapons inspectors were allowed to complete their job we would have found, without the loss of thousands of Iraqi lives and hundreds of American lives, that there was no WMD breach of UN Resolutions. Would Saddam still be in power today? Probably. But again, freeing the Iraqi people was not the primary objective of going to war in the first place. It was a new reason tacked on when it became increasingly clear that we weren't going to find WMD, or in the quantities that were purported (anyone remember 500 Tons of Chem Bio Agent?).

The point was to destroy the Weapons of Mass Destruction and the imminent threat they posed to our national security interests. In the aftermath we have found neither WMD nor an imminent threat. That is certainly worth discussing.

What went wrong. Who failed. How can we prevent this in the future. If I were President I'd be busting heads right now to find out wtf screwed up the intelligence gathering, or the interpretation of that intelligence. Either way, we've got serious egg on our face, Billions in spent money that could have been used elsewhere, and hundreds of american soldiers dead and buried (not to mention our "coalition of the willing" allies).

In the rush to go to war with Iraq, we've also found out that the administration had no realistic exit strategy whatsoever. The bumbling of the past 7 months brings this painfully to light.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

That's because it is.

Really.

How many months after the major offensive have passed? And loosing the amount of troops we have since then, is considered a "quagmire?" Um, excuse me, but exactly how soon did you expect us to be completely out of Iraq?

So, what precautions were taken to minimize civilian deaths in Mosul or Fallujah, when the U.S. opened fire on those demonstrators?

The same precaustions taken when pregnant women strap explosives to themselves and blow up our troops. Precautions does not eliminate mistakes with civilians...and at the same time they usually escalate the risks for out own troops.

 

[Humus]

I agree I was generalizing. Sorry.

Does it change the fact that the argument (that the US is privatizing business and engaging in economic reform in Iraq against the previous "constitution" of a despotic ruler) is topsey turvey in relation the stated goals of "progressives" when compared to the end result (providing economic opportunity and other freedoms not associated with command economies and brutal dictatorship)?

Well, if you'd ask me for a description of where I stand today on the policital scale I would say progressive liberal. Progressive because I strongly believe in progress, and liberal because I strongly believe in freedom. For some reason though in american terms the meaning of those words are completely different when you talk about politics, so liberal means you're a socialist, and progressive means left-winger. At my place liberal, as should be expected from the meaning of the word, is a right-wing concept and naturally the two most right-wing parties describe themselves as liberal and stand in opposition of the socialistic parties.

So as a progressive liberal, who wants progress in the region and wish them their freedom, I fully support the US presence in Iraq. I do however think Bush could have handled a lot of stuff around it in much better ways, but in no way do I think that Saddam should not have been taken down.

 

[Natoma]

That's because it is.

Really.

How many months after the major offensive have passed? And loosing the amount of troops we have since then, is considered a "quagmire?" Um, excuse me, but exactly how soon did you expect us to be completely out of Iraq?

The quagmire isn't just about the loss of american lives. It's also about the clear lack of an exit strategy that has caused many bunglings that should have been handled in a smoother fashion.

So, what precautions were taken to minimize civilian deaths in Mosul or Fallujah, when the U.S. opened fire on those demonstrators?

The same precaustions taken when pregnant women strap explosives to themselves and blow up our troops. Precautions does not eliminate mistakes with civilians...and at the same time they usually escalate the risks for out own troops.

Civilian deaths will always occur in war, no matter how much you try to avoid them. Someone will always be in the wrong place at the wrong time, so I agree with you here. America doesn't go out of its way to kill civilians. In fact we spend most of our time trying to avoid civilian deaths. If we didn't care, you would not have seen the precision bombing during the war. We would have leveled all of baghdad to make sure we got saddam.

 

[Natoma]

So as a progressive liberal, who wants progress in the region and wish them their freedom, I fully support the US presence in Iraq. I do however think Bush could have handled a lot of stuff around it in much better ways, but in no way do I think that Saddam should not have been taken down.

I fully support our presence in Iraq now that we're there, and I fully believe that we cannot leave as people like Dennis Kucinich have spouted off about. That would be a disaster that we cannot afford. But as you said, there were many things that should have been handled differently by this Administration, and that is what I have a problem as, as do you and other people in America and around the world.

No one believes in keeping a people under a despot. But that is not why we went to war. And the methods used by this administration to get us into war were frankly despicable and unnecessary.

I cannot stand it when people come out and say you're unpatriotic or you support dictatorialism or you're a believer in evil regimes because you dissent regarding our reasons for going to war. I cannot stand it when people say "well the reasons we went to war, even if they aren't true, don't matter. We freed a people." I hate being mislead by my leaders, and I hate it when those reasons are not fully vetted. We went in to find WMD, and that's what I expected to find, especially given the "We are right" unilateralism of the administration and their supporters. Since we have found no WMD and no imminent threat, it is completely fair to ask "What the hell went wrong?"

My only question is, why isn't the administration and their supporters asking that very same, and vitally important in a new era of "pre-emptive wars", question?