'Best trained, best equipped' baloney

Tico wrote
[speaking of our war of independence]

Just remember who fought the war of independence. To enlighten you, it was people fighting for their own freedom. No rich and powerful nation invaded the colonies and forced them to adopt a form of government that they approved of.

Asherman
Was it capital, oil, religious fervor, miscalculation, poor intel or just stupid ego that caused us to invade Iraq I have still not been able to understand. However, IMO it
has turned into a Viet Namese style quagmire with very little light at the end of the tunnel. There is no doubt we are getting a hell of a lot resistance than we ever planned or bargained for.

You are correct. BPB does not find that war "acceptable." How 'bout you?

Tico
Ridiculous question. Of course from my prospective it was justified. And although you did not ask the war in Iraq is not. Were we not such a power there would be a call for Bush to stand trial for what could only be termed a criminal act.

Had we not won WWII, it would have been our government leaders and Generals facing the noose for the atrocities committed in that war.

Au,

"Was it capital, oil, religious fervor, miscalculation, poor intel or just stupid ego that caused us to invade Iraq..." None of those reasons is correct. Certainly not capital, religious fervor, or stupid ego. Were there miscalculations? Yes, one of the most common things that ever happens in military conflict. Poor Intelligence? Well, the intelligence was wrong, but it wasn't necessarily poor. US HUMINT was greatly circumscribed by the Congress and SOG after the Cold War ended in '94. Since that time we've had to rely on information from long-range technical systems, or from information shared with us by friendly services. Even at its best HUMINT is as much an art as it is a science. In retrospect things look boneheaded that at the time were perfectly reasonable. Finally as to oil, the world does indeed rely heavily on oil reserves in Southwest Asia, but this conflict wasn't about oil except in a very tangential way.

So what was is it about? Our entry into Iraq can't be reduced to a simple rational. Iraq under Saddam was an outlaw nation that had previously demonstrated its willingness to use terror weapons, and that openly supported terrorism. Saddam gave the world every reason to suppose that he had, or soon would have even more terrible weapons than he had in the past. Saddam was in major violation of every condition of the cease fire, and had thumbed his nose at the UN. He openly paid rewards to the families of suicide bombers, and applauded the attacks on the U.S. U.S. and its Coalition partners, did what the UN was able to do because France, Russia and Germany were afraid that they would never collect the rewards for supporting Saddam's avoidance of Cease Fire conditions.

The Iraqi people did suffer under a repressive and brutal dictatorship that owed more to Hitler and Stalin than to any other model. Iraq was a loose-end and a destabilizing agent in one of the worlds most volatile regions. By all the evidence Iraq left unresolved was more likely a greater threat to regional and world peace than not. Freeing Iraq to set up a stable secular government to act as a change agent in the heart of enemy territory was a consideration. I don't think that many truly appreciated how hard the radicals and Saddam loyalists would fight to prevent setting up a democratic Iraqi government.

Iraq is not Vietnam, and I don't believe that it will become a pool of quicksand. I expect that the violence, especially against the new Iraqi government, will intensify over the next few months. For the "insurgents" and the radical Islamic movement, this is a mini-Battle of the Bulge. Their resources are limited and declining. Greater intensity attacks, especially against Iraqi citizens and aid workers, doesn't help their cause in the long run. It will take some time after the Iraqi elections for a stable government capable of protecting itself can come into being. Once the Iraqi's can withstand the attacks from those who wish to impose a Taliban-like government, we will be on our way.

and they can establish a taliban style government on their own....

I see a certain and expanding Civil War in a country that has no historical sense of unity nor common community. If we play our cards correctly, we can initiate WWIII with this adventure.
Asherman, why is it that, while we adress the UN as the Commie pinko outfit of the world, we use the infamous" Sanctions that Saddam ignored' as a justification to invade a country that was only guilty of human rights violations and mass murder? Doesnt it sound like this admin was making this **** up as they went along.? ie
"Well they aint buyin WMDs, how about regime change and human rights violations?"
Hell we live with those kinds of guys every day. The only diff is the countries we leave alone dont have any "resources"

NEOCON HUBRIS?

Asherman
This line gave me a chuckle
"and had thumbed his nose at the UN." [speaking of Saddam.] Did we not do the same thing when we invaded Iraq? I suppose that was OK since our thumb was bigger than his.
Rather than go point by point let me say I see no justification for our preemptive attack. Further, your scenario of what will eventually happen is something that at the moment can only be seen through rose colored glasses.

Iraq was not a pre-emptive attack. Saddam failed to comply with the conditions of the Cease Fire, and the pace of combat re-escalated. The UN had already authorized the Gulf War, so we didn't really need their approval to resume operations. It would have been nice to have the UN on board, but wasn't absolutely necessary. So, no we didn't thumb our nose at the UN, and it did not pass a resolution saying that we should not resume combat operations.

Farmerman, I don't know who it is that refers to the UN as a "Commie, pinko outfit". I haven't done that nor has any of the other participants here, so far as I know. Can you cite any administration statement that even insinuates that the UN is a "Commie pinko outfit"? Now, I will admit to saying that the UN is about as effective as the League of Nations was, and that it is unable and/or willing to do anything in response to worst and most brutal dictatorships. The UN, it seems to me, is dominated by a bunch of little nations that are more interested in picking our pockets than in helping themselves. Need someone to blame for almost anything, and the U.S. is a handy target. Not only that, but you can find a whole passel of Americans to agree with their charges. The UN does do some fine work with refugees and providing emergency aid, so long as the United States provides the aid and the lift to deliver it. Personally, I'm not impressed with the UN.

However, we are members and our leaders over the past sixty years have agreed to many of the UN's treatys and obligations. As the military arm responsible for enforcing the Iraqi Cease Fire, we acted on their behalf. We were obligated to act. Does that mean we didn't have other reasons to take Saddam off the board? Certainly not. Saddam encouraged the belief that he had, or soon would have, weapons of terror and atomic warheads. He denied it all, with a shrug and a wink. In the absence of HUMINT and effective UN inspections, virtually everyone in the world believed that Saddam possessed weapons that he pledged not to have. He was open in his admiration for Hitler and Stalin, and modeled his government on them. He made no secret of supporting and sponsoring suicide bombers and terrorist acts.

The fact that much of the world's oil reserves are located in Southwest Asia must have been a factor, but not the determining factor. Saddam was taken down because he was a destablizing agent in a volitile region of the world. Iraq lies near the heart of the region that international radical Islamic terrorist regard as their own. We are at war with the the terrorists, and it is far better to carry the fighting to them than to leave them the initiative to strike us where and when they please.

The world is safer today because of our being in Iraq, but the fight is not over yet. The enemy is still capable, but has suffered terrible losses. We need to keep the pressure up, and be patient.

What would U.S. Grant have done?

Asherman wrote


It certainly did not pass a resolution barring the resumption of combat. However, it was made clear by the UN that they were against it's resumption. The absence of a formal document should not have been license for the Bush to invade. .

Asherman wrote

Is it? I think just the opposite is true. The threat of terrorism has become greater, the ranks of the terrorists have swelled. In addition the insurgents and Al Qaeda have joined forces. And due to our negligence they are well armed.

You cant see a looming Civil War ? or are we commited for another 100 years?.

My use of terms such as Commie pinko outfit was not issued at you but if you carefully listen to some of the right wing radio talkers, the comment often was obliquely uttered.

uN scy General is as pinko as you get

Communists leaning United Nations and (-----) members of the Security Council\

Hannity called the Un a bunch of Commie sympathisers almost as a drumbeat


Its hard to tell where the "right wing news ends and the administration begins" at least to me. The Rush HannityBeckoreillySavageGrants (not Ulysses David). These individuals , in a fair and balanced fashion provide the "propoganda" that Der Zentrals radioundZeitungsfuehrer approves.

are you saying that we should stay this like the civil War? At that rate wed lose over 10000000 troops and be bankrupt for another 35 years. remember Grant kept Lincoln "out of the loop" cause he (Lincoln) had a big mouth. maybe thhats what should be done, except the out of the loop circuit should include most of the presidents advisors and most of the cabinet.

Revisionist history. Always the most intriguing.

you want volatile? the US can provide the volatile , look what we did in Afghanistan in the 1980s,

I see you are a card-carrying member of the blame America first crowd. You have neglected to look at the total issue. Did you forget that Russia invaded Afghanistan before we were involved? You never look past your own hate for the US and think all problems with the world reside with the US.

I believe American baloney is quite exceptional. Is it the best trained baloney though? Hard to say... compared to what? Salami?

I go for kosher style baloney. It tastes much better than the white bread kind.

White bread kind?

I like this stuff.

It's a bit uppity, as it calls itself "bologna", but it is really good.

farmerman's "loop" is, in practice, a militocracy rather than a Democratic Republic... do the American people WANT to be dictated to by a Military cabal?
Do you propose that we opt for the Spartan model rather than the Athenian?
Actually, it sounds as if he is extolling the corrupt Roman model ( i.e., Senators and Generals constantly intriguing and backstabbing?).

This thread/topic seems directed towards destroying illusions and delusions of "devout believers"... alas,
"religious mania" does not respond to rationale.
Obstinately refusing to accept a concept anathematous to your religious/partisan interests seems (to some) to be a "Badge of Courage".
(Those superficial enough to base their self-esteem upon such foolish badges... desperately NEED those badges.)

When Galileo and Copernicus defied The Church/Rome and announced that the Earth orbited around the Sun (rather than vice-versa), staunch Papists clung to the outmoded belief... as a matter of HONOR.
They banded together to target and persecute those who believed otherwise, and exploited such "honorable" actions as a justification for strutting and parading their Devotion to the Papal Authority.
They wore their badges ever so PROUDly.

In so doing, they made ignorance their bliss... and demanded that none dare to challenge that ignorance, which they perceived to be Virtuous and HONORable.

No, there's no reasoning with the "devout"... their illusions are sacrosanct, and they will battle to the death rather than surrender them.

THAT is what we are facing in Quagdad... just as we face it in Washington, D.C.
Hijacked by by fanatics... Society is enslaved by their conflicts.

BTW, Saddam was a (US) puppet who defied his puppeteers... and dared to threaten the orderly progress of the puppeteers' plans for Iraqui Oil.
Saddam had the ability to either withhold Iraqui production or to flood the market . .. and the Petrocracy decided that it was unacceptable to allow so much power in the hands of a Rogue Element.

That was the pretense used for invading Quagdad... But the REALITY is that we needed to secure a Base of Operations in the area, from which to stage our dances with Iran and the Saudis.

( Note that the Marionettists' faces always remain hidden... )

Rafick? Is that you?