Re: A war of utter folly

by Aaron Mon Mar 24, 2008 2:15 pm

TerryRC wrote:Are we justified in defending ourselves militarily against an economic attack?

Not necessarily. It depends on the type of attack. Why is it relevant?

You made a statement. I ask a question. It can be very relevant in how long we continue in Iraq

As for the type, an 'economic attack' would be an attack on our economy meant to hurt us economically.

1) Is there competitive companies that provide the same services and

Bad question. If it was to support the troops, it should have been done internally, through the Corps of Engineers. If it was to rebuild Iraq, it should have been contracted by the Iraqi government.

No, it's not a bad question. There are provisions in United States law that allows for no-bid contracts, thus the question.

2) what did Congress do as far as oversight on this?

How much oversight has this administration let ANYONE have. Haven't you read the latest on the "ruined hard drives"? Regardless, Congress gave Bush the OK to invade Iraq if there were WMD's present. Bush kicked out the inspectors so that he wouldn't have to deal with the pesky fact that there weren't any.

Even if they did hand him the gun, Bush pulled the trigger. He hasn't bothered to answer to anyone since.

That's a cop out for apologist, at least as far as the past two years go. Congress controls the purse strings. If they want cooperation, all they have to do is withhold funds until they get it. Hell, if they want us out of Iraq, all they have to do stop funding the war. It's really very simple.

I explained what I meant. You don't buy it. You're wrong. What else is there to say?

No, you didn't. You said you "believe" he saved thousands of people and saved us millions of dollars (while killing thousands of people and spending billions of dollars). You have provided no EVIDENCE to support your position.

You've yet to prove me wrong.

I have given you some facts on the bad things he has done (rights abuses, distortion of facts and outright lies, sanctioning torture) and you ignore them.

Show me a violation of the Geneva Convention. Until then, all you have is puff.

You never did address the fact that has has spent more time on vacation than any president in history. Great leadership, there, Lou.

I don't know a Lou. I'm Aaron. Says so on my home page. So who's this Lou fellow?

I'm the one that is wrong, however. Brilliant.

Yes you are.

Bush is a buffoon. Two out of three people seem to agree, not that polls mean that much.

Bush is a government worker. And at one time 4 out of 5 adored him. They thought he was doing a marvelous job.

by **Stephanie** Tue Mar 25, 2008 7:28 am

Terry,

You and I disagree on so much, having read the posts I missed on this topic, I must say I find myself in nearly 100% agreement with you.

I think that some see Bush as a savior because he conducted himself admirably in the days and weeks following 911, or at least he appeared to. I remember thinking at the time, thank goodness it's not AlGore dealing with this!

I agree invading Afghanistan was the "right" thing to do. Perhaps if our forces hadn't been spread so thin due to the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

I hear these ridiculous justifications for our aggression in Iraq and want to know why we don't follow these policies everywhere. If the issue is that Hussein was a ruthless enemy dictator threatening our oil supply why don't we invade Venezuela and topple Chavez? If the people of Iraq were so oppressed as to need US salvation why aren't we invading China and saving the people of Tibet? Keep in mind with China, they are launching direct economic attacks on the USA when they depress their currency and flood our markets with cheap, subsidized goods. They spy on us, the list is endless. Not only aren't we invading China, Bush still plans on attending the Olympic games there!

by **SheikBen** Tue Mar 25, 2008 7:46 am

Stephanie,

Great point. I would think if we wanted to eliminate a threat to us, it would have been North Korea. I think Bush and company chose Iraq because they thought it would be easier than taking out North Korea.

We have a selective tolerance of despots that really should be clarified (as should our foreign policy in general). As it stands right now, we can trust neither party to keep us out of such unfortunate situations.

As for China, they have Most Favored Nation trade status and our trade deficit with them is astronomical. Do we really want to be caught in a vice by these freakin' people? Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia (and not Iraq) provided us with the great majority of the 9/11 hijackers and we're as beholding to their oil as we have ever been.

I think the problem is that the public appears unwilling to consider actual alternatives. Right now the great bulk of anti-war statements are coming from people who are perfectly fine with other wars. That is, I fear that the public in general is unwilling to really consider the terms of "just war" and then hold both parties' leaders accountable when they get us into wars based on unwise or unjust precepts. Where I would disagree, I think, with you and TerryRC is that I think Bush's intentions were good, it was the policy, rather than the man, who failed. If more people demanded to know why exactly it was that American troops had to die, and what would happen if those reasons were shown false, then I would expect the Iraqs AND the Kosovos to be greatly fewer in number.

Not to be callous, but what would have been wrong with a good old fashioned assassination on Hussein?

by **Stephanie** Tue Mar 25, 2008 8:01 am

Michael,

Assassination certainly may have been preferable to what we did and what we are doing, but should the US government be in the business of deciding who gets to govern another country?

I think something that is totally overlooked in this conversation is a sound discussion on how our government could have gone a tremendous way toward ending our dependency on foreign oil if they had invested the billions, and billions, of dollars we've spent invading and occupying Iraq in alternative energy sources.

As long as we remain this dependent on foreign energy we are extremely vulnerable. This needs to be addressed. NOW!

by **SheikBen** Tue Mar 25, 2008 8:45 am

Stephanie,

In general, no, it should not be to the US who governs another country, but the potential that Hussein was believed to have had at the time, to be an eventual threat to the United States, justified an assassination, particularly given Hussein's general character.

That is, while despots should not necessarily be removed at the whim of the US (a point I readily concede), when they have shown aggression in the past and are viewed as a threat today, it is reasonable to take them out.

So I guess my equation would be despot+threat=justified assassination.

The threat itself, we now know, was grossly overestimated, but Hussein was not giving the kind of compliance with the inspections that would have easily proved that to be the case. I wonder why not?

by **SheikBen** Tue Mar 25, 2008 8:47 am

As far as the dollars being wasted in Iraq going to alternative energy, I could not agree more that such would be better for our economy AND ultimately our foreign policy. I see some promise in Butanol. Oil has no future and, as you say, we need to reduce our dependency on it yesterday.

by SamCogar Tue Mar 25, 2008 9:07 am

TerryRC wrote:
You never did address the fact that has has spent more time on vacation than any president in history. Great leadership, there, Lou.

Oh, I see, it is only you extremely capable, hard working, diligent State employees that are entitled to HUNDREDS OF HOURS of Comp Time that permits you to take extra weeks n' weeks off work each year, ........ right.

How many days each year are you actually "in the office"?

Lie to us and cite some excuses, ......... we will believe ya, big boy.

TRC, you have no frigging idea in the world ....... how many hours each day Bush is involved in Government business, ......... or how many days each year he is doing Government work or business.

Do ya big boy, .......... no frigging idea in the world. Evil or Very Mad

Yet you got the frigging gaul to make such a statement based solely on what some reporter or editor stated in a newspaper, ..... which was probably the Gazette.

One thing for sure, when Bush is at his ranch in Texas ...... he still engages in and conducts Government business.

And that is more than you can say "you do" when you are taking your Comp Time off or are on vacation.

GEEEZUS, iffen you did do any "state work" when at home ....... you would just "charge more Comp Time" for it.

.

by SamCogar Tue Mar 25, 2008 10:02 am

SheikBen wrote:Stephanie,

Great point. I would think if we wanted to eliminate a threat to us, it would have been North Korea. I think Bush and company chose Iraq because they thought it would be easier than taking out North Korea.

YUP, and probably because they would have had to take out China also. And the same reason they wouldn't let General Macarthur do it.

SheikBen wrote:As for China, they have Most Favored Nation trade status and our trade deficit with them is astronomical. Do we really want to be caught in a vice by these freakin' people?

That vice is less painful than it would be if you "cut off" all their imports which would cause an immediate socio-economic collapse in the US.

SheikBen wrote:Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia (and not Iraq) provided us with the great majority of the 9/11 hijackers and we're as beholding to their oil as we have ever been.

YUP, and Italy provided us with 100% of the Italian Mafia, rackateers, etc. and we're as beholding to their fine wines, etc. as we have ever been.

SheikBen wrote:I think the problem is that the public appears unwilling to consider actual alternatives. Right now the great bulk of anti-war statements are coming from people who are perfectly fine with other wars. That is, I fear that the public in general is unwilling to really consider the terms of "just war" and then hold both parties' leaders accountable when they get us into wars based on unwise or unjust precepts. Where I would disagree, I think, with you and TerryRC is that I think Bush's intentions were good, it was the policy, rather than the man, who failed. If more people demanded to know why exactly it was that American troops had to die, and what would happen if those reasons were shown false, then I would expect the Iraqs AND the Kosovos to be greatly fewer in number.

Absolutely right, Michael.

If Bush had had a General to take control of Iraq following "Mission Accomplished", ..... like General Macarthur took control of Japan, ....... Iraq would now be a peaceful country with the Iraqi people learning to "rule their own country".

Like Shaka Zulu said, ........ "Never leave an enemy behind."

But that is exactly what the Bush Haters and Democrat Partisans ...... scared the President into doing.

So, ....... they sucked for it, ....... now they will have to swallow it.

And if the voters give them control of both the Congress and the White House they will force the "working class" to swallow it ......... adding insult to their injury.

.

by ziggy Tue Mar 25, 2008 11:12 am

SheikBen wrote:I think the problem is that the public appears unwilling to consider actual alternatives. Right now the great bulk of anti-war statements are coming from people who are perfectly fine with other wars. That is, I fear that the public in general is unwilling to really consider the terms of "just war" and then hold both parties' leaders accountable when they get us into wars based on unwise or unjust precepts. Where I would disagree, I think, with you and TerryRC is that I think Bush's intentions were good, it was the policy, rather than the man, who failed.

When we're looking at the President, and the policies of the President, you cannot separate the two. Bush the man may not be a failure. But Bush the President certainly is a failure- as demonstrated by the failure of his policy.

by Aaron Tue Mar 25, 2008 12:05 pm

Presidents are judged by future generations. If 50 years from now, that generation looks back and Iraq is a stable democracy and a leader in that part of the world in promoting peace and prosperity, will Bush still be a failure? Or is it simply the polls of today that make him a failure?

by Aaron Tue Mar 25, 2008 2:03 pm

Aaron wrote:
What do we do with Al Qeada, which clearly in now in Iraq, regardless of how they got there. And what do we do when Sunni governments refuse to set back and watch Moqtada al Sard take over Iraq and join forces with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's Shite govenment and move thier beliefs into other countries such as the UAE, Kuwait and Qatar?

Your answers are simple but they fail to address very REAL problems.

It is a very real problem.

Basra province was handed over to Iraqi control by British forces in mid-December.

It has since become the theatre of a bitter turf war between the Mahdi Army, the Badr organisation allied to the Supreme Iraqi Islamic Council (SIIC) of powerful politician Abdel Aziz al-Hakim, and the smaller Shiite party, Fadhila, ahead of provincial elections in October.
source

This is a power struggle between Shite leaders AND between Shite and Sunni factions that if left unchecked will surely spill over to civil war, both in and outside of Iraq.

Yeah, we should just "march out".

Rolling Eyes

by ziggy Tue Mar 25, 2008 8:03 pm

Aaron wrote:This is a power struggle between Shite leaders AND between Shite and Sunni factions that if left unchecked will surely spill over to civil war, both in and outside of Iraq.

Yeah, we should just "march out".

As with Vietnam, some President, some day, is eventually going to just "march out" sooner or later anyway.

by ziggy Tue Mar 25, 2008 8:43 pm

SheikBen wrote:Ziggy I have to disagree with the idea that life as usual was an acceptable situation under Saddam Hussein.

"Acceptable" to whom? Is it up to the U.S. to decide what is and is not "acceptable" for Iraqis?

I also disagree that it's worse there today than it was under Hussein.

By what measure is it better?

Before this Iraq War, in what Islamic country did people lead the
most "Western," secular, life? In what Islamic country were women most able
to live what we would consider a "normal" life and be completely active in
society? In what country did religious zealots have the least influence?
Iraq is that country. Next after it would be Syria. Precisely Uncle Sam's two least favorite Islamic countries, judging by his actions.

But what Islamic countries does Uncle Sam like -- or at least pretend to
like? Why, all of the most backwards and oppressive ones that will have
anything to do with him, that's who.

Were we merely afraid that Saddam could put together a big, united, Arab
state and threaten our economic control of Arab resources? And threaten to
reestablish Palestinians on their own land?

Is that why we have supported ethnic cleansing in Palestine for so many
years? It's hard to think of a better place to use that term, since Israel
was started by driving out better than 2/3 of the native population and
taking their land and property. And it has continued to expropriate the land
steadily ever since. All while we pose as everybody's fair and friendly
uncle while actually financing it all and guaranteeing that no one is ever
able to make it stop.

It is hard to believe that there is any step that our government is likely to
take in the Islamic world that would fail to make things even worse than they
are. And much of this is because we cannot see our way clear to support a
just solution for the Palestinian people.

by **Stephanie** Tue Mar 25, 2008 9:15 pm

ziggy wrote:
Aaron wrote:This is a power struggle between Shite leaders AND between Shite and Sunni factions that if left unchecked will surely spill over to civil war, both in and outside of Iraq.

Yeah, we should just "march out".

As with Vietnam, some President, some day, is eventually going to just "march out" sooner or later anyway.

Yes, hopefully sooner rather than later. We trade with our former Vietnamese enemies and our citizens travel there for business and pleasure.

We just marched in, we can just march out. There's no reason for another 4000, or 400, US troops to die over there.

by **SheikBen** Wed Mar 26, 2008 6:37 am

Ziggy,

As for Iraq having had been a somewhat tolerant nation as Islamic nations go, I'd have to agree, provided that you were not a Kurd being gassed or a political dissident being tortured to death.

by Aaron Wed Mar 26, 2008 7:09 am

ziggy wrote:
Aaron wrote:This is a power struggle between Shite leaders AND between Shite and Sunni factions that if left unchecked will surely spill over to civil war, both in and outside of Iraq.

Yeah, we should just "march out".

As with Vietnam, some President, some day, is eventually going to just "march out" sooner or later anyway.

It won't be Obama or Hillary, both of whom I think will make it worse.

by Aaron Wed Mar 26, 2008 7:12 am

Stephanie wrote:
ziggy wrote:
Aaron wrote:This is a power struggle between Shite leaders AND between Shite and Sunni factions that if left unchecked will surely spill over to civil war, both in and outside of Iraq.

Yeah, we should just "march out".

As with Vietnam, some President, some day, is eventually going to just "march out" sooner or later anyway.

Yes, hopefully sooner rather than later. We trade with our former Vietnamese enemies and our citizens travel there for business and pleasure.

We just marched in, we can just march out. There's no reason for another 4000, or 400, US troops to die over there.

Thank God in heaven above that simple minded people with simple minded thinking like this doesn't run our military.

You've shown you don't understand Vietnam, Korea, the cold war or any of the past. Now you're showing you don't understand Iraq, Iran, Muqtada al Sadr or the future.

Rolling Eyes

by TerryRC Wed Mar 26, 2008 7:40 am

Oh, I see, it is only you extremely capable, hard working, diligent State employees that are entitled to HUNDREDS OF HOURS of Comp Time that permits you to take extra weeks n' weeks off work each year, ........ right.

How many days each year are you actually "in the office"?

Lie to us and cite some excuses, ......... we will believe ya, big boy.

Well, Sam, I'm not the leader of the free world, for one thing.

Since the state won't pay professionals what they are worth, they make up for it with leave time (some of which I give back every year because I never get the chance to use it).

Basically, Sammy, take it up with the State if you don't like it.

The fact remains that our President spends beaucoup time on his ranch and not in the White House.

The other facts, such as the sweeping powers he has taken for the executive branch, speak for themselves.

Keep up with the personal attacks, though. It does wonders for your credibility.

Bush gave a speech about the "romance" of serving on the front lines. Funny stuff from a young man that avoided that very thing.

by TerryRC Wed Mar 26, 2008 7:47 am

You've shown you don't understand Vietnam, Korea, the cold war or any of the past. Now you're showing you don't understand Iraq, Iran, Muqtada al Sadr or the future.

And you do? Do you speak Persian or understand some of the subcultures in Iraq? Why aren't you working in a federal think tank seeing as how you are a military genius?

Bah... I'm still waiting to hear how Bush "saved" this country. I have yet to be presented with any evidence, much less compelling evidence. The man took us into an unprovoked war and he lied to Congress and to the country to do it. Now the Taliban is resecuring strongholds in Afghanistan and our military is spread as thin as it ever has been.

You and I have wildly differing views on what it takes to save this country.

by Aaron Wed Mar 26, 2008 7:55 am

TerryRC wrote:You've shown you don't understand Vietnam, Korea, the cold war or any of the past. Now you're showing you don't understand Iraq, Iran, Muqtada al Sadr or the future.

And you do? Do you speak Persian or understand some of the subcultures in Iraq? Why aren't you working in a federal think tank seeing as how you are a military genius?

Bah... I'm still waiting to hear how Bush "saved" this country. I have yet to be presented with any evidence, much less compelling evidence. The man took us into an unprovoked war and he lied to Congress and to the country to do it. Now the Taliban is resecuring strongholds in Afghanistan and our military is spread as thin as it ever has been.

You and I have wildly differing views on what it takes to save this country.

Those without ears cannot hear and those without eyes cannot see. I've explained what I meant too many times. Your lack of comprehension is your problem dude, not mine.

And maybe I should go to work for a think tank because it seems like everything I say is backed up by one military expert or another somewhere along the line. Once again, your lack of comprehension is your problem dude, not mine.

And right now, there's no saving this country. Not from the likes boneheaded idiot liberals. I fear they've got too much of a hold. I think we're on the downside of the mountain and it's only going to get worse.

by SamCogar Wed Mar 26, 2008 8:49 am

TerryRC wrote:Oh, I see, it is only you extremely capable, hard working, diligent State employees that are entitled to HUNDREDS OF HOURS of Comp Time that permits you to take extra weeks n' weeks off work each year, ........ right.

How many days each year are you actually "in the office"?

Lie to us and cite some excuses, ......... we will believe ya, big boy.

Well, Sam, I'm not the leader of the free world, for one thing.

Since the state won't pay professionals what they are worth, they make up for it with leave time (some of which I give back every year because I never get the chance to use it).

Basically, Sammy, take it up with the State if you don't like it.

The fact remains that our President spends beaucoup time on his ranch and not in the White House.

The other facts, such as the sweeping powers he has taken for the executive branch, speak for themselves.

Keep up with the personal attacks, though. It does wonders for your credibility.

Bush gave a speech about the "romance" of serving on the front lines. Funny stuff from a young man that avoided that very thing.

TRC, you are the expert on unfounded, unproven, maligning personal attacts on anyone that disagrees with you ......... and especially against those who have demostrated a measure of success in their life, ......... but you know very little about and could care even less about "one's creditability", ........ even your own. Twisted Evil

Terry, .... read my writing, ..........

There are very, very, very, very few professionals that are not paid what they are worth, but you are not one of them, ....... and many, many that are paid more than what they are worth, which you might be one of.

So big boy, consider yourself lucky and quit bitching about what the State pays you.

It really irks me when I hear of someone who begged, pleaded and promised "anything" if they would just be hired for a job ............ and then shortly after being hired they start bitching, pissing and moaning about the "hard work", .... the "long hours", ...... the "low pay" ...... or something.

Terry, apply and beg for a WV Teaching job, ....... you know exactly what the salary and benefits are ......... and after you gain tenure you can join the ranks of "bitchers n' complainers" and voice your dissatisfaction for the hard work, long hours and low pay that is being forced upon you. Razz

cheers

by **Stephanie** Wed Mar 26, 2008 10:46 am

TerryRC wrote:You've shown you don't understand Vietnam, Korea, the cold war or any of the past. Now you're showing you don't understand Iraq, Iran, Muqtada al Sadr or the future.

And you do? Do you speak Persian or understand some of the subcultures in Iraq? Why aren't you working in a federal think tank seeing as how you are a military genius?

Bah... I'm still waiting to hear how Bush "saved" this country. I have yet to be presented with any evidence, much less compelling evidence. The man took us into an unprovoked war and he lied to Congress and to the country to do it. Now the Taliban is resecuring strongholds in Afghanistan and our military is spread as thin as it ever has been.

You and I have wildly differing views on what it takes to save this country.

Sheesh, Terry! Do I have to 'splain everything to you?

We toppled the dictator Saddam, we for so many years supported. We opened the floodgates for terrorists so now we have a new place to fight them. They'll be very thankful to us one day, to be sure. After all, we've done it for their own good, don't ya know?

They're only Arabs, we don't need to worry about the deaths of innocents or the maiming of civilians or the displacement of a large portion of the population. It's ok, they're mostly Muslim so they don't count. They don't matter in Palestine so they don't matter in Iraq either.

You never know, someday we may actually install some semblance of democracy and bring a little Western culture to them, make a people out of them. If we just do a little more bombing and a few decades of occupation anything is possible.

by Aaron Wed Mar 26, 2008 10:55 am

Stephanie wrote:
TerryRC wrote:You've shown you don't understand Vietnam, Korea, the cold war or any of the past. Now you're showing you don't understand Iraq, Iran, Muqtada al Sadr or the future.

And you do? Do you speak Persian or understand some of the subcultures in Iraq? Why aren't you working in a federal think tank seeing as how you are a military genius?

Bah... I'm still waiting to hear how Bush "saved" this country. I have yet to be presented with any evidence, much less compelling evidence. The man took us into an unprovoked war and he lied to Congress and to the country to do it. Now the Taliban is resecuring strongholds in Afghanistan and our military is spread as thin as it ever has been.

You and I have wildly differing views on what it takes to save this country.

Sheesh, Terry! Do I have to 'splain everything to you?

We toppled the dictator Saddam, we for so many years supported. We opened the floodgates for terrorists so now we have a new place to fight them. They'll be very thankful to us one day, to be sure. After all, we've done it for their own good, don't ya know?

They're only Arabs, we don't need to worry about the deaths of innocents or the maiming of civilians or the displacement of a large portion of the population. It's ok, they're mostly Muslim so they don't count. They don't matter in Palestine so they don't matter in Iraq either.

You never know, someday we may actually install some semblance of democracy and bring a little Western culture to them, make a people out of them. If we just do a little more bombing and a few decades of occupation antying is possible.

What is "antying"? That's a new one on me.

Correct me if I'm wrong (we both know I'm not Very Happy

) but weren't you one of those that supported toppling Sadaam. You're part of the problem. It's because of people like you and the rest of the poll chasers that Congress gave their voices away and allowed this entire mess to start. And now you just want to march out.

So my question is, with your history of always being wrong, why would anyone take your or your kinds advice ???

Just curious.

Cheers Very Happy

by ziggy Wed Mar 26, 2008 10:37 pm

"If a war be undertaken for the most righteous end, before the resources of peace have been tried and proved vain to secure it, that war has no defense, it is a national crime." - Charles Eliot Norton

by ziggy Wed Mar 26, 2008 11:23 pm

SheikBen wrote:Ziggy,

As for Iraq having had been a somewhat tolerant nation as Islamic nations go, I'd have to agree, provided that you were not a Kurd being gassed or a political dissident being tortured to death.

Yes, those things were happening 20 and 25 years ago in Iraq- while the U.S. was supporting Saddam with arms and $$$$. We didn't have a problem with it back then, when Reagan and Bush 1 were president.

And how much "better" are things there today? Do we have reliable sources to refute the following?

"According to George Bush, the war in Iraq is “a major strategic victory” and “the successes we are seeing are undeniable”. The reality for Iraqis is somewhat different, as described by Seumas Milne in The Guardian: “They have seen the physical and social destruction of their country, mass killing, tens of thousands thrown into jail without trial, rampant torture, an epidemic of sectarian terror attacks, pauperisation, and the complete breakdown of basic services and supplies."

http://blikk.wordpress.com/2008/03/26/what-planet-is-george-bush-on/ .

by Sponsored content