16,653 Americans Wounded
No Weapons of Mass Destruction Found
Osama Bin Laden Still On The Loose
Otherwise, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?
16,653 Americans Wounded
No Weapons of Mass Destruction Found
Osama Bin Laden Still On The Loose
16,653 Americans Wounded
No Weapons of Mass Destruction Found
Osama Bin Laden Still On The Loose
That’s really creepy, Oliver…
Otherwise, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play??
Really creepy…
http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/products-docex.htm
More to follow:
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,18525236-38198,00.html
For those twisted minds who think there is ghoulish gloating, this
nugget from Tristero sums it up for how the left feels about it.
We Told You So.
by tristero
Three years on, the Times finally gets it.
The last three years have shown how little our national leaders understood Iraq, and have reminded us how badly attempts at liberation from the outside have gone in the past.
We told you so. And we weren’t alone. The truth is that the majority of the entire world told you so. Long before March 19, 2003, a day as infamous as Dec 7, 1941. Or September 11, 2001 for that matter.
I’ll say it again. I have never felt worse about knowing I was absolutely right than I did about the March of Folly. This was a lesson only incompetents unfit for public service needed to learn.
That s really creepy, Oliver&
Otherwise, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play??
Really creepy&
The rest of my comment is two links, so it’s awaiting moderation
It’s hard not to get the feeling that the left savors these anniversaries. They even sometimes report them with a feeling of near - glee, accompanied by ’sick’ jokes, to add to the levity.
Pedro, since when did anyone on the left actually enjoy those actions? Other than George Galloway, who has since made a fool of himself?
yea Ollie, too bad we can t just return to the halcyon days of saddam eh?
Is there a problem with that?
Seems he knew better than the “Koalition of the Kool-Aid swilling”
how to keep the lid on.
Maybe we should re-install him.
yea Ollie, too bad we can’t just return to the halcyon days of saddam eh?
Oil for food scandal, mass killings of enemies, chucking people off of roofs. Shooting at american planes, threatening the free world…
Ahh the dreams that inhabit the leftists soul…..
The reference to Mrs. Lincoln is an old joke. It’s not so much funny as it is ironic.
Imagine if we had followed your advice in WWII Leo….I mean, we had battles where we lost tens of thousands of allies at a time…
You right, it isn’t easy, fast, or simple, the important things never are.
I love how Bushbots love to create the false dichotomy - either you support the war or you support Saddam’s torture rooms! Did it occur to any of these people that Iraq COULD have been a better place than it is now, if Bushian incompetence hadn’t surrendered whatever good may have come from removing Saddam. Yes, Iraqis are glad Saddam is gone. No, Iraqis are not grateful to America for it. Why? Because the Americans have so botched the post-war period as to make life intolerable. Can we please have Door #3 please?
“It s hard not to get the feeling that the left savors these anniversaries.”
But Frank, it’s Pedro who wants to celebrate: “too bad we can t just return to the halcyon days of saddam eh?”
And please, there is absolutely no comparison between WWII and this debacle. It’s sheer mental masturbation to suggest that there is.
Exactly the same issues as WWII, smaller scale.
Either you stand up for what is right or you don’t….pick a side.
Hey DrPedro, stop comparing Bush’s Blunder to World War II. It is comparable to Vietnam. Remember this too, if Bush were in charge during WWII, on D-day he would have invaded Turkey instead of Normandy or sided with Germany.
As for the “Halcyon days of Saddam”, instead of a small oil for food scandal, we have had 10s of billions of US taxpayer dollars go missing or unaccounted for. Death squads roam Iraq, mosques are blown up, American planes and soldiers are being shot at and killed daily, etc. Everything you said but on a grander scale. Mass killings, for instance, have moved from government franchise to national pasttime. Ahhhhhh Progress.
“Either you stand up for what is right or you don t& .pick a side.”
I choose competence.
Exactly the same issues as WWII, smaller scale.Saddam != Hitler.
Must be nice living in your head. Everything’s black and white, good and evil. It must be like a gigantic world made entirely of flags.
Perhaps you should try to practice it too Frame…..
Come on, people, we’ve had this chat a thousand times already. DrPedro, Frank_D, Dugger, Mike, JWC, and all the others like them either thrive on merely provoking the same tired “debates” (which is being generous), or they have so thoroughly bought the Bushco line that there is no hope of ever breaking through no matter how perceptive or accurate your arguments.
G-r-o-u-n-d-h-o-g D-a-y
Saddam was a hitler-equivalent in the ME, just not as good at it as hitler, and the free world caught him earlier…..
So not so illogical….
“Perhaps you should try to practice it too Frame& ..”
You mean like this:
“I guess I am in good company with my misattribution& Regardless of who said it, the point stands& ”
Idiot.
Iraq is not WWII no matter how much you clap your hands. So move past that.
Nor is it Vietnam.
Figure it out.
Likewise, is it neccessary to “pick a side” when it comes to other past wars? If one doesn’t have an opinion on the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest, does that make one a moral coward? Of course not.
So to bring in WWII the way pedro is doing, is a cheap way to play on our emotions and trick us into a catch-22. If one doesn’t support the War in Iraq, then according to pedro’s logic, one might as well be a Nazi-sympathizer. If one emphasises that they agree with what the US did in WWII, then he/she is accused of not “standing up for what is right” unless he/she supports the actions of Bush 100%.
A dumb, illogical paradigm IMO.
Let’s move away from World War II, shall we? Fine, now let’s move away from Viet Nam, shall we?
Let’s look at Iraq — to look at it properly, I suggest we separate it from 9/11 and Al - Qaeda. With me so far?
Hussein, like Nasser, had hegemonic (Imperial) intentions. This is known, and can be documented. I will take the privelege of most liberal commenters, and treat it as a given, for you to disprove. (Good luck. It’s true.)
Hussein had plans for a Persian Empire going back to the invasion of Kuwait. I can’t think of anything that people said he did, that turned out be untrue.
More and more evidence of WMD’s and connections to Al - Qaeda are emerging by the day — as if they were needed.
Hussein was like a ripe apple in a very dangerous orchard. 20 / 20 hindsight suggests that we should have captured or killed as many of Hussein’s soldiers as we could. 20 / 20 hindsight says that it was wrong to assume that the soldiers would just go home, and be glad Saddam was gone. Give it a little thought, and you would assume that the soldiers would just go home, too.
As a Viet Nam veteran, I speak only for myself when I say that, when the US pulled out of RVN in 1975, I felt sorry for the South Vietnamese, many of whom were my friends, I hated and distrusted our government because of my perceived betrayal of the people, but I had no burning desire to “suit up” and go fight a guerrilla war against a totalitarian power.
Hussein deserved to be overthrown. Were So. Korea not relying on North Korean purchases for their prosperity, we would probably have asked them to support our overthrow of Kim Il Jong. If we wanted to trade millions of lives with Red China, we could have tried to overthrow them. (Many military strategists are working with the idea that Red China, not Iran, is next.)
People die in wars — our soldiers, their soldiers; our innocent civilians, their innocent civilians — that’s tragic, but true.
We must keep our eye on a larger picture — we have created a “speed bump” in the Arab Street. We have finally, after all these years, let the terrorists know that we will hunt them down and kill them, instead of licking our wounds or running away, filing UN Resolutions. That complaint is bipartisan, if one considers how we’ve closed our eyes and turned our backs on Palestinian terrorism, since 1948 (That’s the day I’m waiting for, when we turn on them, and say, “You’re next!”)
“Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it….”
Quite right, Dr P. I imagine Santayana’s ghost is weeping right now.
Iraq is closer to Nam than it is to WWII. WWII was some of our business, for one thing, unlike those two.
Our meaning britain or our meaning the US?
I don’t recall the nazis bombing new york city, do you?
AP Out - Olivers Oliver:
Deaths Continue As Iraq War Enters Year 4
Wow, Doper, you got a good memory, the Nazis did not bomb New York. They did land saboteurs in Long Island equiped with enough explosives to carry on their dirty deeds for two years. They were arrested before they could strike though. Why are we talking about Nazis bombing New York? We were talking about WWII and Iraq. Iraq did not bomb New York. Are you trying to say Bush’s blunder in Iraq is like WWII because none of the countries involved bombed New York? That makes no sense.
It would seem that some around here haven’t heard that Saddam’s ambitions went back a little further. As I recall, he instigated another war with one of his neighbors–and the U.S. took his side.
How’d that one work out?
Frank,
Man…what do you do..monitor this blog 24/7? Don’t you have other more important matters to attend to than be the first certified responder to OW?
Pathetic soul. Get out, and move to Austrailia, you freak.
Pedro. How’s that electricity flowing in Iraq? I’m glad you feel all warm and fuzzy that nobody is being thrown off of roofs in Iraq, the problem, however, is that wasn’t this administration’s rationale leading up to war.
Those pesky WMD’s and the “imminent danger” they posed to the United States? That grave and gathering danger. Remember that? No, I didn’t think so.
Equally pathetic soul.
Bill’s right. It’s groundhog day. Luckily, America ain’t buyin’ it anymore from your ilk.
JK
In September of 2001, George W Bush said, “Some will remember an image of a fire, or a story of rescue. Some will carry memories of a face and a voice gone forever. And I will carry this: It is the police shield of a man named George Howard, who died at the World Trade Center trying to save others.”
Later, in November of 2005, an Argentine journalist asked George W Bush what he carried with him. George W Bush emptied his pockets and turned them inside out to reveal only a handkerchief… George Howard’s badge was neither noted nor remembered.
But then, our empty-pocketed cheerleader president isn’t running the country. It’s the Cheney’s and the Rumsfeld’s and the rest of the crew from thirty years ago who’ve decided to test their “reverse-dominoe” theory on the Asian continent.
A little more context to the Gulf War then the constant “Saddam as evil Boogeyman” meme
And a little more historical context for Vietnam
Let s move away from World War II, shall we? Fine, now let s move away from Viet Nam, shall we?
Let s look at Iraq to look at it properly, I suggest we separate it from 9/11 and Al - Qaeda. With me so far?
You gotta love this. First bring up the comparison, then generously offer to let it drop. But it’s really only a feignt at compromise because it doesn’t take long before…
As a Viet Nam veteran, I speak only for myself when I say that, when the US pulled out of RVN in 1975, I felt sorry for the South Vietnamese, many of whom were my friends, I hated and distrusted our government because of my perceived betrayal of the people, but I had no burning desire to suit up and go fight a guerrilla war against a totalitarian power.
Bam! Back in the ‘Nam. Though it’s a minor comparison to Iraq, its real purpose is to shore up Frank’s credibility. As a vet (I see no reason to dispute that), Frank is arguing that he inherently has more insight into war than most and definitely more than wimpy liberals. Fighting in a war inherently passes on to the soldier an intimate understanding of the geo-political forces at work that both create and sustain hostilities. What’s more, Frank establishes his humanitarian bonafides by making sure to mention that his sympathies were with the Vietnamese and not the duplicitous American government. See, he’s not supporting Bush, he’s supporting the oppressed Iraqis. It’s all about the people and bombing the world to freedom and democracy. If a bunch of civilians die…especially their civilians, oh well. That’s part of the price, and like the firebombing of Dresden, Osaka, Tokyo, and Kobe, or the nuclear devastation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the carpet bombing of Vietnam (and Cambodia), or the levelling of Fallujah, sometimes civilians just “get in the way,” if you will.
But wait, Frank’s not done…
More and more evidence of WMD s and connections to Al - Qaeda are emerging by the day as if they were needed.
…
We must keep our eye on a larger picture we have created a speed bump in the Arab Street. We have finally, after all these years, let the terrorists know that we will hunt them down and kill them, instead of licking our wounds or running away, filing UN Resolutions. That complaint is bipartisan, if one considers how we ve closed our eyes and turned our backs on Palestinian terrorism, since 1948 (That s the day I m waiting for, when we turn on them, and say, You re next! )
And so we wind up right back at the beginning by returning to the Iraq War=War on Terror rubbish that forms the backbone of the Right’s foreign policy views (and domestic, if the “war president” excuse is extended to ‘Gitmo, illegal wiretaps, and so on).
Then, of course, there is the expected re-iteration of already debunked talking points about WMDs and al-Queda, along with the not so subtle jibe at war opponents as cowards hiding behind a weak and corrupt U.N. (though it was Dr.Pedro that brought up the almost laughable oil-for-food “scandal”).
Personally, I enjoy Frank’s assertions that the things he says can’t be disputed because of their overwhelming “truth.”
Hussein, like Nasser, had hegemonic (Imperial) intentions. This is known, and can be documented. I will take the privelege of most liberal commenters, and treat it as a given, for you to disprove. (Good luck. It s true.)
Notice the argument here amounts to little more than “Saddam was a bad man and had delusions of glory,” yet somehow it is held up as indisputable support for taking him down. Apparently wanting to rule the world is enough to actually make it happen, no matter how crippled you are militarily. Frank once challenged Frameone or Factcheck (I’m betting on Frameone)to “sue” him(figuratively, of course), and insisted he “couldn’t lose.” His truthiness is just to powerful for mere liberal mortals.
Sorry to get off topic, but I just had to step back and admire Frank’s logic and methodology, particularly as they reflect much of the self-reinforcing circular arguments I run into among many conservative these days.
I think I know the answer: If a chicken and a half lays an egg and a half, how many eggs will six chickens lay in six days?
Completely irrelevant, much?
Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it& .
No attribution this time, Pedro?
“Deaths Continue As Iraq War Enters Year 4″
What is factually wrong with this headline? Absolutely nothing. Indeed, Frank objects to it precisely because it IS factually correct. He just doesn’t think these are the facts that AP should be reporting. To put it another way, they aren’t the facts that he wants to hear. He doesn’t want to hear them because these facts might force him to confront the lies he had swallow to support this war: That it would last a few months, that it would pay for itself, that we’d be greeted as liberators with rose petals and statues of George Bush in Baghdad. The facts would force Frank to confront the paradox of our policy: that we are there to liberate a country AND turn it into a battlefield to “drain the swamp” of terrorists.
We we’re told, in part, that we have to fight the terrorists in Iraq so we don’t have to fight them here. But how does that jibe with this statement:
“We have finally, after all these years, let the terrorists know that we will hunt them down and kill them, instead of licking our wounds or running away, filing UN Resolutions.”
On one side, terrorists are coming voluntarily to Iraq to fight us and on the other side we’re finally showing those cowards who’s boss. Uh?
Yes, we got rid of Hussein. Fantastic. Last week they found 29 bodies buried in a mass grave in Baghdad. Don’t anybody tell Frank.
Bill L. If anything is to be “admired” it is your skill at misinterpretation, use of imagination, and, like most liberals, your assumption that you know more about what I mean than you do. (The most ironic 6 words? Sorry to get off topic, but…
I could elucidate your errors, Bill, but you seem to be having so much fun, I don’t want to spoil it.
Same goes for you, frameone. I think I know what really irritates me about you: Your absolute certainty that you know exactly what I think, when you are invariably wrong.
“More and more evidence of WMD s and connections to Al - Qaeda are emerging by the day as if they were needed.”–Frank D.
Too freaking funny, Frank. Just the kind of satire I’d expect from the comedic genius that gave us Condiblog.
Oh, wait, you’re being serious?
“Your absolute certainty that you know exactly what I think, when you are invariably wrong.”
So what is it that you really hate about the facts, Frank?
Elrod,
“if Bushian incompetence hadn t surrendered whatever good may have come from removing Saddam’
This is a different take. What should have been done after toppling Saddam? (spare me - that we should have stopped the looting - maybe so, but thats not a significant issue long term).
Dugger
Jamey - That’s CondiPundit, and it isn’t mine.
frame: are you being coached on non sequiturs by cleo? That was perfection…
Hardly a non-sequitor Frank. Just explain what is inaccurate about this headline: “Deaths Continue As Iraq War Enters Year 4″
I don’t hate the facts…. The non sequitur is that you don’t know what my objection is to that headline, but you think that I think it is false or a distortion. From there you leap to the next conclusion — that I hate the facts.
Once again, you think a) That you can tell me what I think, as if you’re in a better position to know that than I am; and b) You think you can argue a point with me that I haven’t raised.
Let’s review: I responded to Oliver’s post by saying, “That s really creepy, Oliver& ”
Later, I added: “It s hard not to get the feeling that the left savors these anniversaries.”
So, when I spotted the AP headline, I commented, in line with my previous comments — none of which denied the truth of either statement — I commented “AP Out - Olivers Oliver:
Deaths Continue As Iraq War Enters Year 4
As a jibe at Oliver and the AP.
Clear enough for you?
Damn, Paul, you could take the fun out of a Volkswagen full of clowns.
“Clear enough for you?”
No. What about this headline suggests that the AP is savoring anything about the situation: “Deaths Continue As Iraq War Enters Year 4″
Here’s something that should be ‘real creepy’ for Frank and everyone else — a war timeline. Read the part about the catastrophic success.
http://www.thinkprogress.org/iraq-timeline
Q But, still, those countries who didn’t support the Iraqi Freedom operation use the same argument, weapons of mass destruction haven’t been found. So what argument will you use now to justify this war?
THE PRESIDENT: We found the weapons of mass destruction. And we’ll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven’t found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they’re wrong, we found them.
I think the intelligence I get is darn good intelligence. And the speeches I have given were backed by good intelligence. [Bush, 7/14/03]
Who said it? Some guy from International ANSWER? Kos? Murtha?
No.
Paul D. Eaton, retired Army major general, who was in charge of training the Iraqi military from 2003 to 2004.
Objection! He’s badgering the witness! The question was already answered
Sustained
Go away, Paul… Go to the movies or something.
Badgering the witness? Asking for an explanation of your point is now considered badgering? Listen, Frank, if you can’t answer the question just say so.
How about “I’ve had enough of your friggin’ hectoring over nothing.”
What an idiot.
Can we have that last question read back?
What about this headline suggests that the AP is savoring anything about the situation: Deaths Continue As Iraq War Enters Year 43 ?
“The question was already answered.”
Um, where?
“You re the idiot.”
Longer Frank: “I don’t have an answer for your question because I never really thought through the post you’re asking about but rather than admit it I’m going get all huffy and bitchy and you’re a big meany anyway.”
Classic.
Stalk you? You are just so cute, Frank. I think you would be better off asking yourself:
1) Why do you post supid ass comments that you have no inclination or ability to explain?
2) Why do you keep responding to my every prompt?
God, what a moron.
BTW, whenever you want to actually answer the question, feel free:
What about this headline suggests that the AP is savoring anything about the situation: Deaths Continue As Iraq War Enters Year 43 ?
You could have saved me, and yourself, a lot of grief if you had stopped typing about, oh, 15 hours ago. You’re the idiot.
frameone: Don’t you have anything better to do than stalk me on Oliver’s blog? You’re friggin’ crazy, I swear…
“Or will that just be another indication of catastrophic success?”
Seriously, maybe the AP was simply savoring the victory of Bush’s brilliant “drain the swamp” strategery.
Will it be savoring if, a year from now, the AP has a headline reading: Deaths Continue As Iraq War Enters Year 53 ? Or will that just be another indication of catastrophic success?
“I could elucidate your errors, but…”
Too funny. I point out that Frank, like many on the Right, takes it as a given that the truth is so fully behind him that he never has to actually support his arguments, and he counters that I’m wrong but he doesn’t have to prove it.
Awesome.
But then again, when you have the staggering power of truthiness on your side, the petty opinions of elitist liberals are little more than a “speed bump,” eh?
And on that note, I’m done contributing to the “let’s make another thread all about Frank” syndrome that’s becoming a staple around here lately.
“ let s make another thread all about Frank syndrome that s becoming a staple around here lately.”
All apologies. I can’t resist. It’s like watching a kitten bat at string.
You really want an answer, Bill? Fine.
You gotta love this. First bring up the comparison, then generously offer to let it drop. But it s really only a feint at compromise because it doesn t take long before&
How does one set a subject aside without mentioning it? I’m open to suggestions.
Second, my reference to Vietnam was neither geopolitical, nor was it in reference to Iraq, except in one regard: I was making a point about the idea that military strategists might have been surprised that thoroughly defeated soldiers would turn around and engage in guerrilla warfare, rather than “just go home, and be glad Saddam was gone.” A clear literary device. Sorry you didn’t get it. When I said we would leave Viet Nam out of the argument, I didn’t mean the name of the country would never re - appear.
“… its real purpose is to shore up Frank s credibility. As a vet (I see no reason to dispute that), Frank is arguing that he inherently has more insight into war than most and definitely more than wimpy liberals. Fighting in a war inherently passes on to the soldier an intimate understanding of the geo-political forces at work that both create and sustain hostilities. What s more, Frank establishes his humanitarian bonafides by making sure to mention that his sympathies were with the Vietnamese and not the duplicitous American government. See, he s not supporting Bush, he s supporting the oppressed Iraqis. It s all about the people and bombing the world to freedom and democracy. If a bunch of civilians die& especially their civilians, oh well. That s part of the price, and like the firebombing of Dresden, Osaka, Tokyo, and Kobe, or the nuclear devastation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the carpet bombing of Vietnam (and Cambodia), or the levelling of Fallujah, sometimes civilians just get in the way, if you will.
To avoid a lot of boring detail, I will simply refer to a sentence at a time.
1. Wrong
2. Wrong — I meant no such thing (this is the part where you began to incorrectly read my mind)
3. I wasn’t saying that, because I don’t believe it’s true (incorrectly reading my mind again).
4. I wasn’t doing that, either –IRMMA — I was saying that, as much as I cared about them, I still wasn’t going to return to RVN to tilt at windmills.
5, 6, and 7. Total fiction, made up by you. I didn’t even imply or remotely comment like that.
But wait, Frank s not done&
More and more evidence of WMD s and connections to Al - Qaeda are emerging by the day as if they were needed.
&
We must keep our eye on a larger picture we have created a speed bump in the Arab Street. We have finally, after all these years, let the terrorists know that we will hunt them down and kill them, instead of licking our wounds or running away, filing UN Resolutions. That complaint is bipartisan, if one considers how we ve closed our eyes and turned our backs on Palestinian terrorism, since 1948 (That s the day I m waiting for, when we turn on them, and say, You re next! )
And so we wind up right back at the beginning by returning to the Iraq War=War on Terror rubbish that forms the backbone of the Right s foreign policy views (and domestic, if the war president excuse is extended to Gitmo, illegal wiretaps, and so on).
Then, of course, there is the expected re-iteration of already debunked talking points about WMDs and al-Queda, along with the not so subtle jibe at war opponents as cowards hiding behind a weak and corrupt U.N. (though it was Dr.Pedro that brought up the almost laughable oil-for-food scandal ).
Personally, I enjoy Frank s assertions that the things he says can t be disputed because of their overwhelming truth.
This may be — may be — one of the few arguable points you raised — but you didn’t argue against it, did you? Calling it “rubbish” is not an argument. After all, I’m taking the time, now, to respond to your mind reading act, aren’t I?
Hussein, like Nasser, had hegemonic (Imperial) intentions. This is known, and can be documented. I will take the privelege of most liberal commenters, and treat it as a given, for you to disprove. (Good luck. It s true.)
Apparently wanting to rule the world is enough to actually make it happen, no matter how crippled you are militarily.
[I never said anything about "ruling the world" -- you made that up, too] If it were true, and nearly every one in the world believed it was, that Saddam possessed Chemical and Biological weapons, and had 250,000 trained troops at his command, he was by no means, militarily crippled. But again, you didn’t argue anything. I was just supposed to accept your instant, undocumented military assessment, even though it flew in the face of dozens of other military strategists.
Well?
{ Aside: All apologies. I can’t resist. }
http://www.impawards.com/…/brokeback_mountain.jpg
drpedro Says:
March 19th, 2006 at 12:56 pm
Exactly the same issues as WWII, smaller scale.
Either you stand up for what is right or you don t& .pick a side.
If you really want to engage in straw man BS, peedro, then let’s have at it.
Hmmm. I wonder which side the Putsch family picked during WWII? Who was it that Prescott Putsch was the international banker for again? Oh, yeah - the Nazis.
I guess we know whose side they were on during WWII…
Frank_D Says:
frameone: Don t you have anything better to do than stalk me on Oliver s blog? You re friggin crazy, I swear&
# frameone Says:
Stalk you? You are just so cute, Frank.
“I wish I could quit you!”
duros62: Careful… Old Cambodian saying: “When elephants fight, the grass gets trampled.”
I never said anything about ruling the world you made that up, too] If it were true, and nearly every one in the world believed it was, that Saddam possessed Chemical and Biological weapons, and had 250,000 trained troops at his command, he was by no means, militarily crippled. But again, you didn t argue anything. I was just supposed to accept your instant, undocumented military assessment, even though it flew in the face of dozens of other military strategists.
Uh, no. First, while asserting that Hussein had “hegemonic intentions” could be interpreted as merely meaning countries like Iran and Kuwait (Kuwait was originally part of Iraq while the conflict with Iran was largely religious in nature), the implication is clear, Hussein wanted to be a conqueror. Since liberals are often accused of being appeasers, and that they would have let Hitler take over the world rather than “get in the fight” back in WWII, the “hegemonic intentions” remark implies that Hussein would have been our generation’s Hitler had we not intervened. This argument has been a staple of the Right wing meme on Iraq from the start. If that’s not what you meant, then be more precise than “hegemonic intentions.” Not militarily crippled? We crushed him in DAYS. “Nearly everyone in the world believed” that Saddam had biological and chemical weapons? Besides relying on your unproven psychic powers, your assessment flys in the face of the millions who protested at the start of the war and the multitude of nations that refused to participate in the invasion. They all may have had grave doubts about Saddam’s stability and trustworthiness as a leader (no one disputes he was a tyrant), but few were willing to make the leap from “evil despot” to “imminent threat” based on the Bush administration’s word. Even fewer thought that violating international law and staging a “pre-emptive” invasion would result in anything other than the spread of Islamic fundamentalism and the destabilization of the region.
As for the WMD’s and al-Qaeda questions, they are non-issues. They have been gone over dozens of times at exhaustive length and there is little point in my dragging it all out again so you can ignore it when you resurrect this tired debate again tomorrow. I think at this point we can take it as a given that the world isn’t flat. Though, if you are so inclined, you can read this for yet more evidence that the WMDs were and are a fantasy.
Oh, and you did it again, Frank, you simply assert that I’m “wrong” without providing any actual proof. Instead you insist I’m mind reading and side step the subject. If I misread your intentions, then restate them more clearly. You said people die in war and I replied that people often die in war unnecessarily as the result of deliberate military action directed at civilian targets. So yes, people die in war, but that doesn’t excuse tactics like levelling whole cities as an example to the enemy. Your statement implied that death is an unfortunate part of war, but an ultimately unavoidable one. I countered that that has often been patently untrue, and that there have been instances where civilians were targeted en masse for what can only be seen as summary execution. For many, the Iraq invasion is and has been one extended war crime, making every soldier, mother, father, son, or daughter killed unnecessary and eminently avoidable (although maybe not now that we have destabilized the region so badly that civil war is breaking out).
Is anybody else getting sore hands smacking Frank around? He seems to have become the whipping boy in every thread around here these days. Even Dugger, DrPedro, and the rest seem to have disappeared into Frank’s shadow.
Bill: I know I’m done. When you tell me what I think, and I tell you you’re wrong, and then you tell me I should have made myself clear, you’re missing a very important point — I dodn’t ask you to read my mind. If something I wrote was unclear, a simple “What do you mean”? Or, “Do you mean this?’ can clear that up.
When you make statements like “You said ‘hegemony’ so that means “take over the world” to me, so I get to say “You were wrong for suggesting that Hussein was going to take over the world,” something is way out of wack, and it’s not my comment. Why am I explaining this to you? Aren’t you just “smacking me around”?
I didn’t excuse any tactics of any kind — that came out of your head. Want to know how I feel about that? Ask me — don’t tell me. How can I restate my intentions more clearly, before you let me know that you didn’t understand something?
You’re right about one thing — you are “smacking me around.” You’re not proving a damn thing. You’re not even debating. You’re just wasting your time and mine. “This tired debate”, as you call it, I certainly don’t, will not be resumed tomorrow.
If you wish to continue the flamefest, that might be mildly interesting, you buffoon.
Naa Bill, just tired of constantly refuting the crap that is shoveled around here.
Lets look at some of your statements shall we?
“Not militarily crippled? We crushed him in DAYS”.
Yea, you are one brilliant tactitian…unfortunately we have quotes from before the war from your leftist collegues suggesting they didn’t get the memo…(by the way, those are the interesting quotes…the ones from before the war that didn’t come true. People were guessing about the outcomes for months, and so eventually every possible scenario was suggested. Then in hindsight, these folks cherry pick the ones that seem to be closest to the truth and say “see we told you so!”)
But how about some more hindsight quotes…
Ted Kennedy also predicted: “The U.S. could run through “battalions a day at a time” and that the fighting would look like “the last fifteen minutes of ‘Private Ryan.’”
Ted Kennedy predicted:”A war on Saddam might also cause an unprecedented humanitarian crisis with an estimated 900,000 refugees, a pandemic and an environmental disaster as Saddam lit the oilfields on fire.”
German politicians predicted: “Millions of people in Baghdad will be victims of bombs and rockets.”
What happened: The antiwar Iraqi Body Count site lists an estimated 4,000-6,000 civilians and fighters were lost in the startup months of the War in Iraq.
Then you go onto wholesale shell game semantics…
So yes, people die in war, but that doesn t excuse tactics like levelling whole cities as an example to the enemy. Your statement implied that death is an unfortunate part of war, but an ultimately unavoidable one. I countered that that has often been patently untrue, and that there have been instances where civilians were targeted en masse for what can only be seen as summary execution. For many, the Iraq invasion is and has been one extended war crime, making every soldier, mother, father, son, or daughter killed unnecessary and eminently avoidable
You make comments that can certainly be found true in past wars, Dresden and Tokyo for example, but for which no examples can be found in this war….
I have said it before and will say it again….This war set the gold standard for preservation of human life. Never before has so much land been liberated at such a small cost in human life…NEVER. Precision munitions and a superb military made that possible. We DID avoid useless civilian killing.
I could go on, but I grow weary of your ignorance….
Consider yourself smacked around…
RES IPSA LOQUITUR
“Never before has so much land been liberated at such a small cost in human life”
Interesting that you would put it this way given that much of Iraq is a vast empty desert.
http://www.ciaonet.org/special_section/iraq_review/pi_map/pi_map_04.html
thanks frame, I take it by your non-sequitor that you agree with my statement then….
Wait, I say Saddam was crippled militarily after the first Gulf War and that simply wanting to invade neighboring enemies was never going to put him in a position to do so, and I get a huge quote from Ted Kennedy in response?
Saddam is much weaker than we think he is. He’s weaker militarily. We know he’s got about a third of what he had in 1991. But it’s a house of cards. He rules by fear because he knows there is no underlying support. Support for Saddam, including within his military organization, will collapse at the first whiff of gunpowder.
That would be Richard Perle talking on PBS
Not good enough? How about the word of a general and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Richard Myers?
They are much weaker than they were during Desert Storm, and their forces have generally become-been less and less…
Shorter Frank, “but Ted Kennedy said he was a threat!”
In Teddy’s defense (I’m not a fan, so don’t bother going there), he seemed to be postulating a worst case scenario, not making a statement of absolute fact. It’s also quite a leap from “can’t invade anyone thanks to a crippled military” to “may burn down his own house out of spite.”
Still, when I talk about millions of people not being fooled into buying the “imminent threat” malarky, I’m talking about millions of people OUTSIDE the beltway.
Shorter Frank, but Ted Kennedy said he was a threat!
Incredible.
Look again, Bill.
Bill you do a great job proving my point……
The administration couldn’t appropriately respond to EVERY possible doomsday scenario…so coming back 3 years after the fact pulling up every crack pot with an opinion, opinion and saying “see we told you so” is ridiculous….
Non-sequitor? Your phrasing is a ridiculously deceptive bit of rhetoric, as if sheer landmass is in anyway suggestive of the monumentality of the invasion’s success. Driving really fast across a flat, depopulated empty wasteland does not exactly pose the most daunting of challenges, short of overheated engines and mechanical failure. Hell let’s really go for the history books and invade Antarctica!
I’d also like to point out that it’s a little absurd to claim that both Iraq is liberated but we have to stay until the job is done. Either Iraq is liberated or it isn’t. If the new government can’t defend itself without our help, a fat lot of good freedom does it, right?
At the same time, it’s equally absurd to suggest that we can pat ourselves on the back for the low civilian casualty count in the early weeks of the war when the three years of war to follow added 24,000 deaths to the tally. I mean come on.
Iraq is liberated….and there are still armed criminal elements running around there…the two aren’t mutually exclusive.
I don’t know where the 24 K deaths come from, but it was due to the american military…. We killed 40+K a year on our highways……
How about we describe the Iraq invasion as a the most people freed for the lowest body count in the history of the world….would that make you feel better? Are you ready to concede the point now?
Moron…..
“armed criminal elements…”
Who would that be, the Sunnis, Shiites, or Kurds? al-Qaeda? Kidnappers?
That’s a bit more than a minor criminal element or two. There are some major destabilizing forces at work that could easily escalate and fragment the country.
As for the “liberated” bit of semantics, that remains to be seen. The current Iraqi government (such as it is) is increasingly theocratic and, I believe, has moved to restrict women’s rights and even called for the execution of homosexuals.
Liberated doesn’t always equal liberty.
BTW, the administration didn’t respond to ANY doomsday scenario. They were convinced that victory would be a cake walk and Saddam’s forces would crumble within days. On that point, they were correct. It was, and is, the failure to do any post war planning that has led to the insurgency and growing sectarian violence, not to mention opened the door to groups like al-Qaeda.
Frameone, the estimate of 24,000 dead is a lowball estimate of Iraqi civilian casualties from the war. It’s well known that the Pentagon doesn’t track civilian deaths very carefully, . Tommy Franks himself said “we don’t do body counts.” Bush guessed 30,000 and the Lancet Study estimated that 100,000 or so civilian deaths have resulted either directly or indirectly (meaning disease, malnutrition, etc. thanks to ruined infrastructure and the resultant loss of services) from the invasion. A major problem with the official body count is the lack of comprehensive efforts to gauge the damage done by wholesale assaults like the attack on Fallujah. Who knows how high the number has gone in the past year with the increased attacks by various factions on civilian targets.
Reported Iraqi casualties
I’m amazed that this “unstoppable force meets immovable object” debate is still going on, but then again, that’s what most of the debates around hear devolve into.