“Scott Free, talking to you is like talking to a wall. None of your  answers was worth the pixels it was printed on.

You were incorrect on so many answers anyway it would take far too long to answer it, and its not like you are reading anyway.”

Surrender noted. Ceasing fire.

yes

Dugger

You were incorrect on so many answers anyway it would take far too long to answer it, and its not like you are reading anyway.

Either I’m in the dark or I just haven’t seen it (though my media intake has stayed the same), so why have there been no terror threats since the end of the 2004 elections? It seemed that before the election we received regular threats of potential terrorist attacks, and we yo-yo’d up and down from yellow to orange to yellow. And at least one of those threats — regarding financial institutions in New York and Newark — was known about for months but wasn’t announced until close to election time (or was it when Kerry was gaining ground in the polls?).

Rove is a very smart strategist, and it was no secret that Republicans knew their winning strategy was to convince Americans that the right is the stronger party militarily and could keep us safer than the left.

Were these regular terror threats, which, by the way, cost New York City millions of dollars each time the threat was raised to orange, more Republican exaggerations of the truth? Do Republicans no longer have to exaggerate terror threats now that they won? Did they only win by scaring and misleading us with lies or exaggerations? Were these threats as credible as our reasons for invading Iraq and did they originate from the same group of deceivers?

Judging by the current polling, sans the threats and the need to protect ourselves, Republican policy is not a winning strategy.

Am I missing something here?

 How about no WMD s? How about no nuclear weapons programs? Just those two get summed up by  Bush Lied

I have yet to hear any convincing evidence from the left that Bush knew that WMDs did not exist in Iraq. If he did not know, he could not have lied.

 Other less published reasons to not go to Iraq that I ve been blogging about for 6 years:
 Iraq will be our Vietnam, our quagmire from which no heros will walk .
Can you think of any Vietnam veterans that are considered national hero s? Kerry, Cleland and others are considered hero s, but does anyone really connect that to the Vietnam war?

Of course not. The left did such a good job at vilifying our troops and our cause during the Cold War, Vietnam will always be regarded as a stain on our Nations history.

 Other than that, how about Condie Rice s arguments or Colin Powell? Both said Iraq was contained and the sanctions were working.

Saddam was contained  unfortunately for 25 million Iraqis, they were contained with this monster. Not such a good deal for them, is it? As for the sanctions working  clearly both Rice, Powell and most of the rest of the world were deceived. The sanctions were working, but only in the sense that they were enriching Saddam and the bribed European political figures that were looking out for his interests, while the common people suffered.

 Terrorism? & given that Saddam was a secularist and that bin Laden considered Iraq more of a target than  training ground or haven, we can easily surmise those two never would have been able to work together to get anything done.

For f ck sake, Binkey, bin Laden was working with the United States (Great Satan Inc.) for years, and was able to get plenty done  as in the Soviet Union driven from Afghanistan!!! I hardly think he would then find it a stretch to work with Saddam and his Baathists after that!

Here s a little quiz, Binkey. Name the region of the world from which the following saying originated:  My enemies enemy is my friend.

Need a clue? (Need I ask?)

 Now, why didn t we pull out immediately after the elections?

Err, because the elected government asked us not to? Because they know that if we did they would be plunged into full-scale civil war, and that would be bad?

 It was the perfect opening, it was a great  success according to the press. Purple fingers and stinky fingers, everyone was happy.

Yes, the perfect opening for a government that only cared about poll numbers and not about the fate of the Iraqi people. Fortunately, Bill Clinton left office some time ago.

 If America doesn t mark the war as illegal and ill-fated, make an organized entire pullout from Iraq we ll be stuck there for at least 2 more generations. Are you willing to sacrifice that much for  liberation ?

Substitute  Europe for  Iraq and the exact same argument could have been made on the day of the Normandy invasion. And yes, it was worth it.

 Our troops accomplished everything they needed to within days.

Nonsense. We didn t even capture Saddam, much less lay a foundation that a democratic Iraq could arise on.

 Our armed forces have never been very good at pretending to be a police force.

Whose have?

 And as for war, can you please show me a declaration?

Such quaint 19th century formalities have gone by the wayside since the end of WWII. Congressional authorization was all we needed.

 The US is not a country builder? Even then we suck at it.

Yeah, just look at Germany and Japan. What basketcases.

 Afghanistan is growing restless& 

Afghanistan is growing civilized, slowly but surely. How many times before the invasion did we hear from the left that Afghanistan was  the graveyard of Empires , that it defeated the Brits and Soviets and would defeat us, that we would need tens of thousands of troops to overthrow the Taliban, yada, yada, yada.

 As for the cease fire, can you please tell me how we can increase our airborn flights over Iraq soil, actively highlight military installations and not think they  shouldn t fight back?

Because the cease fire gave us explicit rights to do so in order to verify their compliance, that s why.

 Explain to me what winning would be? Do you think Iraq will ever be an  America Lite version of democracy?

You mean like Germany or Japan?

 We were defeated the moment we walked into that sandtrap. We allowed ourselves to be lied into an illegal invasion.

More irrational defeatist claptrap. As I already pointed out, there is nothing illegal about resuming hostilities when a cease-fire has been violated.

 What is more shameful? Killing Iraqi s with bombs because they had a tyrant for a ruler or for allowing a tyrant to bomb them?

We killed thousands of innocent French civilians when we invaded and liberated (yes, Binky, those two concepts are not mutually exclusive) France from Nazi oppression. Was that immoral Binky?

 Of course it is a shame that millions of Europeans are being murdered by those beastly Nazis, but we must not soil our hands with the blood of innocents to stop it, because that would be  shameful. ?

Should we have just stood back and put  Free France and  War is not the Answer bumper stickers on our  39 Fords while the Nazis trampled Europe under their jackboots?

How about no WMD’s? How about no nuclear weapons programs? Just those two get summed up by “Bush Lied”.

Other less published reasons to not go to Iraq that I’ve been blogging about for 6 years:
“Iraq will be our Vietnam, our quagmire from which no heros will walk”.
Can you think of any Vietnam veterans that are considered national hero’s? Kerry, Cleland and others are considered hero’s, but does anyone really connect that to the Vietnam war?

Other than that, how about Condie Rice’s arguments or Colin Powell? Both said Iraq was contained and the sanctions were working. Why the rush to war? Possibly because given another year the American emotion of revenge may have cooled to the point where a war would not have been as popular? They knew what they were doing when they manipulated American emotions to point to Iraq.

Terrorism? We all know that the press reported Saddam paying off suicide bomber’s families. But as was proven long before the war started, Saddam really didn’t get along with the terrorists that were targetting America and American interests (I’m not going to call Israel and American interest, thats an unending debate). Also, given that Saddam was a secularist and that bin Laden considered Iraq more of a target than “training ground” or haven, we can easily surmise those two never would have been able to work together to get anything done.

Ending the sanctions? Other than never being mentioned by an official in any serious capacity (I don’t know that it was never brought up), this would have been a serious stopping point for most Americans in the run to war. It just wouldn’t have carried weight, for dozens of reasons.

Pits, prisons, rapes, etc: Sorry, there are dozens of brutal dictators that break this rule daily, and we work with them non-stop, ignorning these occurances as blatently as we ignore the dog farting.

So why are we in Iraq?

Now, why didn’t we pull out immediately after the elections? It was the perfect opening, it was a great “success” according to the press. Purple fingers and stinky fingers, everyone was happy. According to the administration more police troops were trained then than there are now (I was listening to Rummy and Bunnypants on multiple radio speeches claiming great big huge numbers). So now what milestone will jump out of the shrubs and yell “boo” and let us know the time is right to at least PLAN for a withdrawl? I see nothing, no magical number of Iraqi troops, no sudden stopage of car bombings, no sudden relaxation of insurgency that will mark that great popular groundswell of appreciation.

All that will happen is that Iraq will slowly fade from the American vision, keeping our 7 permanent bases wide open and large targets for any stubbed toe terrorist. If America doesn’t mark the war as illegal and ill-fated, make an organized entire pullout from Iraq we’ll be stuck there for at least 2 more generations. Are you willing to sacrifice that much for “liberation”?

And as for war, can you please show me a declaration?

Bush has discredited himself. He’s lied, repeatedly, from one end of the spectrum to the other. No permanent bases? Ooops, 7 of them at last count. The US is not a country builder? Even then we suck at it. Afghanistan is growing restless and Iraq is in the initial throes of a civil war.

Iraq was a sovereign nation. There are many nations that are not fully recognized by the UN, but Iraq was. As such, certain “quaint formalities” should have and could have been followed. As for the cease fire, can you please tell me how we can increase our airborn flights over Iraq soil, actively highlight military installations and not think they “shouldn’t” fight back?

Explain to me what winning would be? Do you think Iraq will ever be an “America Lite” version of democracy? We were defeated the moment we walked into that sandtrap. We allowed ourselves to be lied into an illegal invasion. You may like it that he has an (R) next to his name, and that may release him from having to tell the truth to you, but I expect more.

What is more shameful? Killing Iraqi’s with bombs because they had a tyrant for a ruler or for allowing a tyrant to bomb them?

Ok, but certainly there were many more visible and vocal “liberal” opponents of Afghan than otherwise. And you (“liberals” ) may be right about Iraq. Or the neocons may be right. Its too bad the decent arguments that could be made against Iraq are drowned out by meaningless cr*p like Bush lied etc. On Iraq, why can’t liberals just argue on merit rather than (suspected) motive.

Dugger

What does this all mean? Nothing. Many liberals opposed the Afghan war. Most liberals, in particular the ones in elected office, were for the war. Some were for the general principle of attacking, but were unsure of GWB pulling it off successfully (and they were right, BTW).

As far as Iraq, our “better idea” was not to invade at all. As Condi and Colin said in 2001, Saddam was contained.

A. This was not an illegal invasion. Saddam violated the terms of the Cease Fire, which is and has been a legitimate casus belli for as long as there have been rules for war.

B. Why do you libs constantly throw the phrase  sovereign nation into your arguments against the war? Do you have any idea what those words mean? If you do, please explain to me their relevance in the discussion. Every nation our country has ever been at war with (by definition) has been a sovereign nation. What is your point? Or do you just like to toss a few important sounding words into the mix to make yourselves seem more intelligent than you really are?

C.  & when winning was never a real possibility&  A perfect encapsulation of the irrational defeatist mindset.

 Do you believe that children should grow up without fathers? That families should be torn asunder& 

No, which is why I supported the overthrow of an evil, warmongering dictator who has murdered tens of thousands of fathers and torn apart tens of thousands of families.

 & I guess I want us to lose, just so we can bring our military home.

Yes, bring them home in defeat and shame, prove Osama bin Laden right about America being a paper tiger, abandon the people of Iraq to the tyrrany of the head-chopping fanatics and leave the entire Middle East to stew in despotism. All so you can discredit Bush.

And you wonder why the voters don t take your kind seriously on defense issues?

OK an argument can be made on Iraq either way. But many liberals opposed the Afghanistan action. As for your list of “whys” or questions, I would much rather see a program to do those things presented as a “better idea’ option by the Democrats than “Bush lied”, etc..

Dugger

Why are only 2% of containers being inspected?
Why are the borders porous?
Why is Homeland Security underfunded where it is needed and overfunded where the need is less?
Why do airports STILL not have the best scanning machines available?
Why are the leaders of Al Queda still at large?

THESE are the things that affect our security from terrorism. NONE of these situations have anything to do with Iraq. In fact, the resources, human and financial, wasted in Iraq are not being deployed to keep America safe from terra’.

He didn’t just indict “liberals”. He later said that DEMOCRATS didn’t get 9/11, and questioned our “motives”.

Bahh. Pity party. As with conservatives, you are one of the reasons the country is great. However, you are wrong on terrorism and insufficiently focused on winning the war on terrorism. It seems you are always out to get Bush, get the military or get our anybody on our side. Then when you are called on it, you scream about your patriotism being challeneged.

Dugger

Do you believe that children should grow up without fathers? That families should be torn asunder for a war that was built up on false intelligence (the intelligence given to all those Democratic Senators).

There had to be those high up that knew the truth. Iraq had no WMD’s and no nuclear weapons programs. When the US supplied the rest of the world with its cooked intelligence and its sense of fear and paranoia, much of the world was onboard the great Crusade against Terrorism.

Congrats, wingers, you are the ones supporting a lying, cheating worm of a President. A small man with Napolionic tendencies.

Ah, so this is the official excuse for losing the war huh? Better keep repeating that sparky, and click your heels three times while you’re at it. In fact, why not just enlist?

LONDON – U.S. officials recently met secretly with Iraqi insurgent commanders at a summer villa north of Baghdad to try to negotiate an end to the bloodshed, a British newspaper reported Sunday.

Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, asked about the report, suggested that meetings between Iraqi officials and insurgents “go on all the time” and said “we facilitate those from time to time.”

I thought the Bush administration didn’t negotiate with terrorists? Why are we now negotiating with them? Could that be a flip flop? Or maybe Rove didn’t get the memo?

This isn t a game of  Risk, nitwit. We re NOT SUPPOSED to be occupiers, remember? Bush said no nation building in 2000 remember?

>According to whom, are we not to occupy Iraq? It seems to me, that if you’d occupied the airspace of a country for a dozen years, you are technically at war with it.
>What part of the Iraq Liberation Act, passed unanimously by the Senate in 1998, did you happen to take issue with AT THE TIME?

>It’s convenient to be critical of a statesman who acted on intelligence that every major intelligence service agreed with AT THE TIME.

>Which particular Senator quoted above do you disagree with?

>So, in your view, a candidate running for president must be bound to his comments on nation building and therefore a post-invasion must immediatly be followed by a total retreat? And this makes sense why?

Right out of the gate, you prove yourself to be a lap dog for this administration s failures.

By the way, it s not just the left that are concerned about losing this war, cries of  we ve already lost are increasingly being heard from the right as well.

>You might not want to lecture about holding a principled position when your own is simply that reflexive and empty.

You guys are really a piece of work. Forget studying warfare. Political psychology should become a new field, and people like you, Scott, should be case studies for future generations of enligtened Americans.

>He’s made valid points in arraying a hypothesis, something you feel unburdened by.

Yes, let s teach future generations of young Americans how to start a war based on false intelligence, send Americans off to die without a plan to win the peace, create ill defined goals; and no forseeable exit strategy. Let s teach our West Point ers how to start a war with a serious lack of international cooperation and support. Once the war starts, let s teach our young officers what to do when you find out you re fighting a war thats a whole heck of a lot different than what you bargained for.

>Where in the history of warfare has there ever been a predictable outcome? Nevermind your requisite international disqualifier, in the Korean War for example, Ethiopia gave more troop support than France did at 1,350 troops.
Have you any knowledge of history? philosophy? military life? ettiquette?

In the first 30 days of the Iraq war, a VASTLY superiour American miltary rolled over a military just out of the stone age.

>Where do you come up with this “stone age” fiction? Perhaps you’re conflating Afghanistan and Iraq by using a term detractors of that war used back in 2001? Bombing them into the “Stone Age” ?

We re proud of our troops but let s be honest when we say that they re fighting a war right now that we didn t really see coming

>Funny way to illustrate your being proud of the troops whom you describe as defeating a force that is just out of the “stone age”. Despite the media saying from day 3 that “the marines are trapped”, forget the New York Times editorial page using the word quagmire from week two, forget that our forces did more damage to the enemy in 9 days than the Iranians were able to do in 7 years.
What part of classical deterence do you not understand?

. These insurgents aren t going away any time soon, Scott& and that 2,000 that you seem to gloat about (makes me ILL to think about that), could turn to 10,000 at some point.

> It makes others ill to consider fighting jihadists in the states rather than in Iraq. If you saw Ted Kennedy on Meet the Press today, you’d have heard him say..”we can’t take our eyes off of Al Qaeda”. Where is Al Qaeda killing more innocents everyday? Iraq.

You people have lost a complete grip on what s real. You re out of touch with what mainstrean America thinks about this war. (Over half think it s a mistake.)

> Over half the nation thought slavery was moral. What’s your point?

Get a grip, or get out of the way. This war must end.

> This brings us to the very question of the ages. How are wars won? Wars are won when one side loses and perceives itself to have lost. WW1 you could say that Germany was defeated and yet the military was a ferocious, efficient force. They did not think they were defeated.
Wars are won when the deterence is reinstated and the cost of going to war far outweigh the benefits.
If the U.S. were to leave Iraq before the Jihadists and insurgents are defeated, this would be a victory for Al Qaeda, Bin Laden and Islamists who threaten civilization, nevermind the geopolitical stability of the greater M.E.