Surge Succeeds

However, if I break it, I buy it and I won it...then once we re-build Iraq, will you complain when we try to OWN IT and EVERYTHING in it?

Apparently, you're the only person who thought it was supposed to be funny.

woijo wrote :

Quote:

However, if I break it, I buy it and I won it...then once we re-build Iraq, will you complain when we try to OWN IT and EVERYTHING in it?

i believe this is how it works in business :

- i take a hammer into a pottery(iraq) and smash all the pieces in the pottery ,
- i'll have to pay the pottery owner(the iraqis) for the smashed pottery ,
- i can take the smashed pieces with me and glue them together at my leisure ,
- i do not get the pottery store in the bargain - it still belongs to the iraqis ,
- i don't get to stay in the store to glue the pieces together .

i'll also likely get a stiff jail sentence for destructive behaviour .
i understand that judges will often order restitution and hand out a jail sentence on top !

woijo : do you agree that might - in principle - also apply to the "smashing" of the iraq pottery ?

or do you think the miscreant should be given a suspended sentence and be sent to anger management classes ?
hbg

I will state for the record that I do not consider it immoral to leave Iraq before securing a goverment that can stand on its' own and defend itself. The enormity of this task is glossed over by proponents of doing so.

I think we should leave, now. I am fully aware that this may mean greater internecine warfare or regional warfare. It isn't our problem.

Cycloptichorn

cjhsa wrote:

Apparently, you're the only person who thought it was supposed to be funny.

Are you kidding, ceej? I assume that everything you say is supposed to be funny.

joefromchicago wrote:

cjhsa wrote:

Apparently, you're the only person who thought it was supposed to be funny.

Are you kidding, ceej? I assume that everything you say is supposed to be funny.

Which is a typical liberal trait. Anything that doesn't match up with your convoluted non-logic is laughed at.

I'll tell you exactly - they aren't conservative enough!! They haven't spent years here reading the liberal piss that passes for commentary. I am a moderate but what I've found on A2K really ticked me off. But I have fun with it.

Wanna bet?

Iraq posed a clear and present danger to the US as a result of numerous violations of the cease fire agmt and the WORLD agreed they possessed WMD.

Those are the facts.

And how do you interpret the one month vacation being taken by the Iraqi government? How long do you think the Iraqi government would need to get something done?

cicerone imposter wrote:

And how do you interpret the one month vacation being taken by the Iraqi government? How long do you think the Iraqi government would need to get something done?

To whom are you posting? Who are you looking for an answer from? It is impossible to tell from the message above.

Without the government's ability to become consequential, what little security is established will not have any long-term positive impact in Iraq.

I'm not sure even the democrats are suggesting we leave the area 100 percent. They are talking about leaving troops in the surrounding countries including Kuwait for awhile to ensure some regional stability.

woiyo wrote:

Iraq posed a clear and present danger to the US as a result of numerous violations of the cease fire agmt and the WORLD agreed they possessed WMD.

Those are the facts.

No, those aren't facts. They are the bizarre fantasy which conservatives have dreamed up to justify retroactively a controversial and flawed decision to go to war. The evidence that they possessed womds was disputed right around the world, and significantly was disputed by our NATO allies. Have you conveniently forgotten the obloquy and vile insults heaped on Chirac and France because he did his duty as the elected head of state of a democracy and refused to sign onto the neo-con madness in the rush to war?

Not only did the "WORLD" not agree that they possessed womd, Hans Blix as head of the United Nations Inspection team stated both that they had found no evidence of womd or womd programs, and that the Iraqis were cooperating with the inspections regime. The failure to find any womd or any evidence of womd programs after the invasion was a direct confirmation of what Blix had told the world, and the world definitely did not agree that Iraq presented any threat to the United States or anybody else.

Is this what conservatives are reduced to? Some bizarre 1984-like double think? You're just making sh*t up, now.

The Push for War
Anatol Lieven considers what the US Administration hopes to gain
The most surprising thing about the Bush Administration's plan to invade Iraq is not that it is destructive of international order; or wicked, when we consider the role the US (and Britain) have played, and continue to play, in the Middle East; or opposed by the great majority of the international community; or seemingly contrary to some of the basic needs of the war against terrorism. It is all of these things, but they are of no great concern to the hardline nationalists in the Administration. This group has suffered at least a temporary check as a result of the British insistence on UN involvement, and Saddam Hussein's agreement to weapons inspections. They are, however, still determined on war - and their power within the Administration and in the US security policy world means that they are very likely to get their way. Even the Washington Post has joined the radical rightist media in supporting war.

The most surprising thing about the push for war is that it is so profoundly reckless. If I had to put money on it, I'd say that the odds on quick success in destroying the Iraqi regime may be as high as 5/1 or more, given US military superiority, the vile nature of Saddam Hussein's rule, the unreliability of Baghdad's missiles, and the deep divisions in the Arab world. But at first sight, the longer-term gains for the US look pretty limited, whereas the consequences of failure would be catastrophic. A general Middle Eastern conflagration and the collapse of more pro-Western Arab states would lose us the war against terrorism, doom untold thousands of Western civilians to death in coming decades, and plunge the world economy into depression.

These risks are not only to American (and British) lives and interests, but to the political future of the Administration. If the war goes badly wrong, it will be more generally excoriated than any within living memory, and its members will be finished politically - finished for good. If no other fear moved these people, you'd have thought this one would...