Someone Remind Me Again Why We Are In Iraq
- Thread starter AAAintheBeltway
- Start date
OMG....You are spineless puke. Everyone and their mother on ET knows you are a water-carrying bush butt-boy for his continuos global march of folly. For you at this point, with a straight face, to try to claim otherwise is the beyond the pale. But this is not altogether unexpected. I've always suspected a serious lack of character with you. Party over People...right?
Deal with this....You've been sucking bush's dick for beer money since this war started. Now be a man and own it.
Further, your recent attempt at rehabilitation is hardly admirable since you've finally decided to join the rational 75% of Americans. Very brave.
Deal with this....You've been sucking bush's dick for beer money since this war started. Now be a man and own it.
Further, your recent attempt at rehabilitation is hardly admirable since you've finally decided to join the rational 75% of Americans. Very brave.
I don't expect a big thinker like you to understand anything more complicated than "paper or plastic", and you never fail to disappoint.
Here's a sample of my posts on Iraq:
AAAintheBeltway
Registered: Oct 2001
Posts: 7738
04-22-04 05:21 PM
I think this illustrates the difficulty of imposing democracy before a country is ready for it. So now we will have a government formed by radical Islamists beholden to Iran and recycled thugs and murderers from the former government.
In retrospect, what we should have done was attempt to keep the Iraqi military in existence, thrown out the top officers who were Baath loyalists and appointed some professional Iraqi colonels to run it, then used that force to keep order in the country. Then we could have gradually moved to a secular democratic system, much as Turkey has done. Instead they disbanded the military, leaving tens of thousands of disaffected young men with no way to earn a living, and invited Muslim clerics into the government structure.
Bush is extremely lucky that he does not have a credible opponent because he has truly made a mess of this occupation.
****************************
Very astute. What do you think about the idea of partitioning Iraq or carving out portions and giving to Kuwait and Saudi? I don't think there is any way a democracy can function when youbegin by allocating power to competing Muslim sects and basically install their clerics as power brokers. We should have followed the model of the only functioning Muslim secular state, Turkey, and insisted on a secular state with a dominant military. Probably too late for that now.
******************************
03-29-04 12:33 PM
waggie,
I admit to not being as familiar as you seem to be with all the pre-war intell. I think you would agree that there was a general consensus that Saddam was a threat, with less consensus on the actual dimension of the threat. I think we can also agree that if Saddam truly had done away with all his WMD, his pre-war bluff was a very odd strategy. Having said that, I would also concede that he has made irrational moves beofre. For example, he could have put us in a real bind when he invaded Kuwait if he had kept coming and taken over the oil fields in the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia. They were basically undefended. Some analysts thought he was convinced we would let him keep Kuwait.
I have said this here many times. I was not completely convinced the Iraq war was a good idea, but I don't think it was totally crazy either. I complained about the occupation from the beginning, and I feel my complaints have been vindicated. Basically, I thought we should put on a harsh lockdown and make the number one priority minimizing casualties to our troops. We didn't, and Bush is paying the political price now.
**********************************
11-10-03 08:56 PM
I have yet tohear any of the Democrat candidates offer any credible solution or plan of action for Iraq or terrorism. I think if even one of them offered a sensible suggestion, instead of trying to undermine a President at war, they would at least earn some respect. As it is, the voters have tuned them out before the race has even started.
Our country faces a serious problem, and Iraq and terrorism are only tangentially involved. The obsession to hold political power is so great that it has totally overwhelmed any sense of duty or honor among most politicians. The most recent evidence was the leaking of a memo from a Democrat staffer that suggested ways the Democrats could manipulate the 9/11 investigation to make Bush look bad. Is nothing sacrosanct?
I have a lot of problems with Bush, but the entire Democrat party seems to have been taken over by space aliens. Zell Miller, retiring Democrat Senator from Georgia, just published a book that basically says his party should not be trusted with power, that it is no longer mainstream.
AAAintheBeltway
Registered: Oct 2001
Posts: 7738
04-22-04 05:21 PM
I think this illustrates the difficulty of imposing democracy before a country is ready for it. So now we will have a government formed by radical Islamists beholden to Iran and recycled thugs and murderers from the former government.
In retrospect, what we should have done was attempt to keep the Iraqi military in existence, thrown out the top officers who were Baath loyalists and appointed some professional Iraqi colonels to run it, then used that force to keep order in the country. Then we could have gradually moved to a secular democratic system, much as Turkey has done. Instead they disbanded the military, leaving tens of thousands of disaffected young men with no way to earn a living, and invited Muslim clerics into the government structure.
Bush is extremely lucky that he does not have a credible opponent because he has truly made a mess of this occupation.
****************************
Very astute. What do you think about the idea of partitioning Iraq or carving out portions and giving to Kuwait and Saudi? I don't think there is any way a democracy can function when youbegin by allocating power to competing Muslim sects and basically install their clerics as power brokers. We should have followed the model of the only functioning Muslim secular state, Turkey, and insisted on a secular state with a dominant military. Probably too late for that now.
******************************
03-29-04 12:33 PM
waggie,
I admit to not being as familiar as you seem to be with all the pre-war intell. I think you would agree that there was a general consensus that Saddam was a threat, with less consensus on the actual dimension of the threat. I think we can also agree that if Saddam truly had done away with all his WMD, his pre-war bluff was a very odd strategy. Having said that, I would also concede that he has made irrational moves beofre. For example, he could have put us in a real bind when he invaded Kuwait if he had kept coming and taken over the oil fields in the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia. They were basically undefended. Some analysts thought he was convinced we would let him keep Kuwait.
I have said this here many times. I was not completely convinced the Iraq war was a good idea, but I don't think it was totally crazy either. I complained about the occupation from the beginning, and I feel my complaints have been vindicated. Basically, I thought we should put on a harsh lockdown and make the number one priority minimizing casualties to our troops. We didn't, and Bush is paying the political price now.
**********************************
11-10-03 08:56 PM
I have yet tohear any of the Democrat candidates offer any credible solution or plan of action for Iraq or terrorism. I think if even one of them offered a sensible suggestion, instead of trying to undermine a President at war, they would at least earn some respect. As it is, the voters have tuned them out before the race has even started.
Our country faces a serious problem, and Iraq and terrorism are only tangentially involved. The obsession to hold political power is so great that it has totally overwhelmed any sense of duty or honor among most politicians. The most recent evidence was the leaking of a memo from a Democrat staffer that suggested ways the Democrats could manipulate the 9/11 investigation to make Bush look bad. Is nothing sacrosanct?
I have a lot of problems with Bush, but the entire Democrat party seems to have been taken over by space aliens. Zell Miller, retiring Democrat Senator from Georgia, just published a book that basically says his party should not be trusted with power, that it is no longer mainstream.
How about some more?
*********************
AAAintheBeltway
07-19-03 11:14 AM
I love the way the administration's critics dance around the issue. Are they for the war or not? Several of their dwarf presidential candidates voted to support the war, so they are in an awkward position. One way out is to focus on irrelevant details like the uranium non-issue.
I have more respect for the posters here who were against the war from the outset and made their arguments. I personally had some doubts, as preemptivce invasion is a big step, and I also have some qualms about the neo-con swamp draining strategy. When we went in though, I think you have to support the team. I have zero respect for the John Kerry's and others who voted to support the war, supported Clinton's attack on Iraq, but now are in high dugeon over some idiotic debating point.
*****************************
Edit/Delete ⢠Quote ⢠Complain
AAAintheBeltway
Registered: Oct 2001
Posts: 7739
06-25-03 02:19 PM
The most significant factor in Iraq seems to be the constant deadly attacks on our troops, even though major hostilities are over. In past wars, we have not had to contend with this, at least not to this degree. What makes Iraq different?
First, we took extraordinary care to protect civilians. In WW II there was widespread destruction of civilian areas, and indeed deliberate targeting of civilians. The end result was a totally devasted enemy population with no meaningful capacity to mount attacks on our troops during the postwar occupation.
Second, in other wars we liberated countries from foreign oppressors. Here some fanatical Iraqi's view us not as liberators but as oppressors.
Third, As Kymar Fye pointed out, Iraq is a battle within a larger war. No doubt much of the current violence is fomented by Iran, which would love to see us leave Iraq in humiliation.
Fourth, as brilliant as our war plans were, our post-war planning does seem disorganized. The explanation for this no doubt largely lies in the bifurcated responsibility between State and Defense. The State Department's orignal post war plan had to be scrapped and its original administrator, a notoriously pro-Arab careerist, replaced. In other major wars, it is my understanding that the military exercised sole authority over occupied territory. Gen. MacArthur for example, pretty much ran Japan.
I think we have to accept that we will be in Iraq for good. Not as administrators, but with large bases. The situation in Saudi is growing increasingly intolerable. Revolution is certainly possible there, and our ability to respond could be constrained if the major part of our Gulf assets were there. Qatar is too small, and is itself potentially unstable. So it will have tobe Iraq.
Our goal now should be to get our troops garrisoned in Iraq and out of the reach of terrorists. Put Iraqi's in charge of urban security, subject to American oversight. Use special op's troops and technology to root out terrorists and Saddam fanatics in the cities. Impose stricter controls over Muslim extremists. shutter mosques if need be. Ban all demonstrations. Impose censorship on radio and TV. Return order to the country and take control from the extremists.
***************
*********************
AAAintheBeltway
07-19-03 11:14 AM
I love the way the administration's critics dance around the issue. Are they for the war or not? Several of their dwarf presidential candidates voted to support the war, so they are in an awkward position. One way out is to focus on irrelevant details like the uranium non-issue.
I have more respect for the posters here who were against the war from the outset and made their arguments. I personally had some doubts, as preemptivce invasion is a big step, and I also have some qualms about the neo-con swamp draining strategy. When we went in though, I think you have to support the team. I have zero respect for the John Kerry's and others who voted to support the war, supported Clinton's attack on Iraq, but now are in high dugeon over some idiotic debating point.
*****************************
Edit/Delete ⢠Quote ⢠Complain
AAAintheBeltway
Registered: Oct 2001
Posts: 7739
06-25-03 02:19 PM
The most significant factor in Iraq seems to be the constant deadly attacks on our troops, even though major hostilities are over. In past wars, we have not had to contend with this, at least not to this degree. What makes Iraq different?
First, we took extraordinary care to protect civilians. In WW II there was widespread destruction of civilian areas, and indeed deliberate targeting of civilians. The end result was a totally devasted enemy population with no meaningful capacity to mount attacks on our troops during the postwar occupation.
Second, in other wars we liberated countries from foreign oppressors. Here some fanatical Iraqi's view us not as liberators but as oppressors.
Third, As Kymar Fye pointed out, Iraq is a battle within a larger war. No doubt much of the current violence is fomented by Iran, which would love to see us leave Iraq in humiliation.
Fourth, as brilliant as our war plans were, our post-war planning does seem disorganized. The explanation for this no doubt largely lies in the bifurcated responsibility between State and Defense. The State Department's orignal post war plan had to be scrapped and its original administrator, a notoriously pro-Arab careerist, replaced. In other major wars, it is my understanding that the military exercised sole authority over occupied territory. Gen. MacArthur for example, pretty much ran Japan.
I think we have to accept that we will be in Iraq for good. Not as administrators, but with large bases. The situation in Saudi is growing increasingly intolerable. Revolution is certainly possible there, and our ability to respond could be constrained if the major part of our Gulf assets were there. Qatar is too small, and is itself potentially unstable. So it will have tobe Iraq.
Our goal now should be to get our troops garrisoned in Iraq and out of the reach of terrorists. Put Iraqi's in charge of urban security, subject to American oversight. Use special op's troops and technology to root out terrorists and Saddam fanatics in the cities. Impose stricter controls over Muslim extremists. shutter mosques if need be. Ban all demonstrations. Impose censorship on radio and TV. Return order to the country and take control from the extremists.
***************
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Dr2AqrqIELE"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Dr2AqrqIELE" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
You're threatening me now? Really, you need professional help. I feel sorry for people who have to be around you.