THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

cicerone imposter wrote:

Gee, wouldn't it be some'tn if General Franks' family were killed by what somebody else believed to be 'true' killers.

That's a valid point. There are four possibilities:
1. Frank's family dies because Franks allowed the true killers to live.
2. Frank's family dies because sombody else allowed the true killers to live.
3. Franks family lives because Franks killed the true killers.
4. Franks family lives because sombody else killed the true killers.

All I ask is that we all recognize that this debate here is about what those who are responsible for the security of our lives should do. It's a copout to look at this problem as if it were only a matter of whether this or that person is well intended. Intentions don't protect and save lives; actions do. Intentions don't make lives unsafe; actions do.

ican711nm wrote:

Intentions don't protect and save lives; actions do. Intentions don't make lives unsafe; actions do.

Interestingly, as I understand it, Franks was opposed - as was most of the military - to Rumsfeld's belief that Iraq would be quick and easy - and require very few troops. The military wanted a large commitment - if the damn thing was done at all - believing that there would be a great deal of difficulty in maintaining order and fighting insurgents.

Ticomaya wrote:

Now, as far as my views on the subject, IMO the invasion of Iraq was fully justified based upon the actions of Iraq in failing to fully cooperate with UN weapons inspectors and to account for the whereabouts of WMD....

So the US military is the executive arm of the UN? No further resolution or mandate was required? Just the Congress: "Some Saudis have attacked us. We will declare a War on Terror and attack Iraq."

...

Here is what you need to know: America is good. Our intentions are always better than good. Errors or misapprehensions are the result of actions taken by our enemies and never our fault.

Joe (They are handing out the gags on Inauguration Day) Nation

Until proven otherwise I will continue to operate with the understanding that the US acted illegally in the pre-emptive invasion of Iraq without a shred of justification. Furthermore, I believe that the US Government, under the direction of George Bush has consistently lied to the community at large.

dyslexia wrote:

Until proven otherwise I will continue to operate with the understanding that the US acted illegally in the pre-emptive invasion of Iraq without a shred of justification. Furthermore, I believe that the US Government, under the direction of George Bush has consistently lied to the community at large.

Elegantly put, cogently argued, and admirably brief.

McTag, do you think the same about my "cogent argument" in response to dyslexia's?

McTag, do you think the same about my "cogent argument" in response to dyslexia's?

There was no question: Phase IV would be a crucial period. Having won the war, we would have to secure the peace. And securing the peace would not be easy in a country that had been raped and massacred for more than three decades under Saddam Hussein. There were deep divisions among Sunnis and Shias, Kurds and Arabs, haves and have-nots; the regions traditional tribal rivalries would be hard to overcome. It would take time—perhaps years. And the costs would be high, certainly in money and conceivably lives.

There was no doubt about the actions that would be required. Coalition military leaders across Iraq would provide civil affairs expertise, government assistance, security, and Humanitarian Assistance to millions of Iraqis. Our conventional forces and Special Forces teams had the capability and expertise to accomplish these tasks, and Gene Renuart’s fifty-pound brains had done a masterful job in identifying and providing the resources to Coalition units to do the job.

Given our key policy goal of establishing a representative government in Iraq, though, it would be necessary to establish civilian control across the country as soon as possible. The questions were: How long would it be necessary to maintain military rule in Iraq? How quickly could the Iraqis take over? What form should a “Provisional Authority” take? These are tough questions, and there was no easy recipe for the answers.

On one hand, larger Coalition military forces and martial law might be required to stay in country for years, in order to preserve security. On the other, the Iraqis might claim their country as their own: they might welcome the liberation and organize themselves swiftly to control Iraq without Coalition help.

These problems commanded hours and days of discussion and debate among CENTCOM planners and Washington officials. If a true consensus leader—a kind of Iraq Hamid Karzai—could be located, then a representative government might be possible in the short term. Majority and minority factions could be represented, and Iraq would become a model for the Arab-Muslim world. But where to find that consensus leader?

Quote, "There were deep divisions among Sunnis and Shias, Kurds and Arabs, haves and have-nots; the regions traditional tribal rivalries would be hard to overcome. It would take time—perhaps years. And the costs would be high, certainly in money and conceivably lives. " This is supposed to be "news?" Those of us not well versed in Iraq had this information way before Bush decided his invasion.

well some of you may have known all that back then but I get my news from fortune cookies and usually have to wait for a fresh batch for current events.

Yeppers, that's it! We goldanged persnickity nitpickin' Bush haters are, in reality, just a bounch of pants wetters. By golly ican I believe you have hit on something here. (does Bob Novak know about this?) Well as soon as my pants dry out I am off to nuke a gay iraqi for peace and freedoms' sake. I have seen the light. (I guess that republicans wear Depends to support the war). Support our troops, sent them the equipment that Rummy forgot.

Yeppers, that's it! We goldanged persnickity nitpickin' Bush haters are, in reality, just a bounch of pants wetters. By golly ican I believe you have hit on something here. (does Bob Novak know about this?) Well as soon as my pants dry out I am off to nuke a gay iraqi for peace and freedoms' sake. I have seen the light. (I guess that republicans wear Depends to support the war). Support our troops, sent them the equipment that Rummy forgot.

I should only ask Georgeob to find PDiddy "cogent" and then get laughted off the forum.