Who Lost Iraq?

LoneStarMadam wrote:

"It is premature ...."
Exactly, & I agree, the war has not gone as we expected it to, but then we haven't really turned loose yet, not sure that we ever will. PC is the culprit in this war, IMO.
The bomb dropped on Nagasaki & Hiroshima was a terriable thing, but it sure ended hostilities with Japan & saving lives, both American & Japanese.

This is what we've go to contend with.

So, to further the Pax Americana, what should we nix? Damascus? Tehran?

Curious influx of new posters here.

Lone Star Madam

You said, in a post last evening, that the negative progress of the war in Iraq can be attributed to "PC". That's a cliche, precisely the sort which tells us much about what information sources you attend to. Cliches don't expand or encourage thought, they act to terminate it. "With us or against us" or "You can't talk to terrorists" being two more such examples. Last weekend, Dan Bartlett revealed that the administration has, after all, been talking with Syria and with Iran. The response of many of us on hearing that admission (certainly including James Baker, Brent Scowcroft and probably Bush 1, etc) was approximately, "Thank you for dropping the stupid black/white cliches and finally getting real".

Blaming some conception you have of PC doesn't make much sense. Where does that (presumably limiting) PCness reside? The War College? The Pentagon? Rumsfeld's or Cheney's staff? Franks? The Provisional Authority? The White House? Strategic and tactical plans and decisions weren't made elsewhere. Congress has ponied up for the WH on pretty much every request.

Another cliche is that "this President doesn't attend to nor care about polls". Some folks, quite amazingly, actually believe that to be so though Karl Rove wouldn't be one of them. But if you hold it to be an accurate description of this president's independence, self confidence, and propensity to operate on principal, then it's rather difficult to reconcile how he would be bothered one whit by PCness nor why he would establish or change policy to match it. Yes?

I suppose you might make an argument that the recent election results are a consequence of too many of the electorate coming to hold PC notions but that obviously has no retroactive effect on the war.

So, how do you conceive that it is any sort of relevant factor at all in what has happened?

Second question, relating to the several articles at and near the beginning of this thread... what is your conception of the role of the neoconservative contingent in and around this administration in the rationale/push for this war, and third question...what thoughts do you have on this community's growing consensus (or public statements, at least) that blame for the negative progress of the war falls to Rumsfeld, to the administration generally and to Bush specifically?

LoneStarMadam wrote:

The bomb dropped on Nagasaki & Hiroshima was a terriable thing, but it sure ended hostilities with Japan & saving lives, both American & Japanese.

Are you suggesting we start dropping nukes to end the Iraq conflict? Or do you think we should do to the Sunnis insurgents what Saddam did to the Shiite and Kurd insurgents?

Quote:

Numbers. They've swung wildly from 600,000 Iraquis killed to over 1,000,000 Iraqui casualties and all to be blamed on the United States, or worse, republican administrations in the United States. So my first question is why stop at 1,000,000? Why not 10,000,000 or 100,000,000? What are the sources for these numbers? If it's the democratic underground, the figures probably come from bodycount.org., another propoganda site.

The Iraqi Health ministry estimates 150k dead. That's not a propaganda site, now is it?

Cycloptichorn

PC is the culprit & I say that because people refuse to call this war what it is, a religious conflict.
Answer to our third & only, IMO, relative question, it is Bush/Rumsfeld/Cheneys faylt that the war has not been handeled the way it should be.

Quote:

PC is the culprit & I say that because people refuse to call this war what it is, a religious conflict.
Answer to our third & only, IMO, relative question, it is Bush/Rumsfeld/Cheneys faylt that the war has not been handeled the way it should be.

Iraq was a secular state. The original proposition justifying attacking Iraq was that it held chemical and nuclear weapons. How is this religious?

blatham wrote:

Quote:

PC is the culprit & I say that because people refuse to call this war what it is, a religious conflict.
Answer to our third & only, IMO, relative question, it is Bush/Rumsfeld/Cheneys faylt that the war has not been handeled the way it should be.

Iraq was a secular state. The original proposition justifying attacking Iraq was that it held chemical and nuclear weapons. How is this religious?

Being coy Blatham? How peculiar.

Well, i no longer have any doubt about Monte Cargo--i'm callin' that one Renatus5 (a name the cognescenti will recognize).

The jury is still out on the Madam of the Lone Star Whorehouse.

You've been here three days--and you are averaging nearly 50 posts per day--48.33 posts per day according to your profile. You puke it as fast as the nastiest troll.

You laughed your pathetic ass off yesterday, so the reasonable conclusion is that you don't have one to lose today.

This is not an obsession--everyone at this web site who posts regularly knows what's up with trolls. Even if you are not involved, your appearance, spreading your smelly **** all over the site on the very first day has shown you to be a troll, whether or not a recurrent troll.

I sometimes enjoy posting here. It is significant, though, that you are averaging twice as many posts on a daily basis as i make, and this day is far from over.

None of that changes your troll behavior, though. Did you go look at Free Republic as Dys advised, or are you already a Freeper? You do display that core Freeper characterisitc, though--ignorance coupled with certitude.

Ignorance coupled with certitude: by this ye shall know them.

I like that.