The Assassination Of George W. Bush????

O'Bill, are you even remotely aware of how ridiculous the expression "winning the peace" is? It's a contradiction in terms.

Peace is what happens after the shooting is over. Is the shooting over? No.

This administration coined, or at least adopted, the absurd phrase "winning the peace" because after Bush went on that aircraft carrier and proclaimed victory, the White House spinmeisters tried to hammer into the heads of the American public that what was going on was not really war, it had shooting and bombing and dead bodies but it really isn't war, it's peace.

The very fact that you are willing to latch onto this crazy expression is evidence that you are willing to go along with any rationalization, that you give more credence to the Adminstration spokesmen than your own eyes.

I suspect that the "win the peace" expression derives, mostly in ignorance by the people abusing it, from Winston Churchill's exposition upon how the west (or the UK...I can't remember now) "won the war, but lost the peace".


I believe that he was commenting on the west vis a vis the Soviet Union.


Given that the Soviet Union's defeat of Hitler at Stalingrad, and hence the stymieing of Hitler's eastern ambitions, was one of the germinal struggles of WW II, and likely was one of THE decisive turning points of the war, the phrase was always rather suspect and cavalier...but nonetheless made some sense in the context of post WW II cold war thinking. Whether it reflected an accurate and useful analysis is moot.


However, the victory of the allies at the end of WW II was decisive.



This phrase used re the Iraq conflict is patently ridiculous, however, KW, you are not, I believe, dealing with rational language when debating this point with the people you are attempting to debate with here.


Clearly, as you say, there is no peace in Iraq.

Tico and, it seems Bill, will use a costive definition of the word, relying on the capitulation of the then Iraqi government, and the formation of a new one, which sort of accepts American guidance.

Let them play with words. It appears to amuse them and make them happy, which has some benefits attached to it, if little truth, intellectual rigour (except in the most pettifogging legalistic sense) or rationality.

Shrugs. I doubt even Bush any longer claims victory, or speaks of peace.....but it is hard to accept your support of such an endeavour was wrong and misguided when you have invested so much energy, at least in Ticos's case (I don't remember Bill's stuff on this, but I suspect it was similar, but perhaps less over the top? Or not...?) in vilifying those against Bush's mad endeavour and defending the prosecution of the war.


That Rumsfeld/Cheyney/Bush disregarded knowledgeable advice in invading Iraq, and in the under resourcing of the invasion, is unquestioned by now by any but the most ridiculously partisan people.


That Iraq is now a terrible mess, again, is unquestioned.



That, by invading, the countries involved have taken on a moral responsibility to attempt to leave the place less appalling than it was when they invaded, if possible, is a reasonable view.


Yes, for the Iraqis, squabbling about who was wrong and who right is irrelevant.

I would love to see the Bushniks admit that they were wrong in supporting the war and the means of prosecuting it.


However, their error is manifest, except, possibly, to them. Some mature souls have admitted it; the rest will likely never do so....at least publicly....(look to cognitive dissonance theory, and human nature shared by all, to understand why. It is a very hard thing to do, and indicates a maturity to be desired by all...but vanishingly rare..) We know how wrong they were.




But, the situation is as it is.


I find myself agreeing with those who say "What, in all rationality and conscience is the best thing to do now?"


I do not know what that is.



It may be that withdrawal will cause least harm.


I listen to Vietnam vets say this and, frankly, tremble.


Might it be that the tactics advocated by the American military, broadly speaking, at the beginning, (in despite of their advice not to invade) might actually create a better outcome?


To use this possibility, as Tico does, to attempt, as ever, to vilify those who dare critique Bush's decisions and tactics, is clearly irrational and simply more attempted bullying of those who dare to question. In fact, it is, in my view, reflective of the most dangerous thinking currently around about the issues in question. "If you disagree, you comfort and aid the enemy". Aha, I see." Freedom of thought and expression is only acceptable if you agree with me."

However, it seems to me that what is needed is sober, rational, informed and ethical decision making re where to from here.....sans "I must be seen to be right, no matter the consequences."


Possible?


I doubt it, sadly.

Deb, it doesn't sound like you are so very far from understanding my rationale as to how to proceed from here. One need not focus on the FACT that, yes, I supported the effort from the beginning, to analyze my thoughts on how best to proceed. Good on you for seeing that... and I likewise understand your not committal as I myself harbor no certainty that carrying through is the lesser of many evils.

You and KW's thoughts on "winning the peace" simply don't add up. Of course there is no peace, or the statement would be "won the peace". Do you doubt that's the objective? I'll not prejudge the possibility with the pessimism of KW. I don't live in a world where things like Peace in the ME and ending starvation across the world are impossible. In the world I live in; these things are unlikely, largely do to the apathy of my fellow citizens and their leaders on Planet Earth. To the extent the Bush's "Military adventurism" may result in a better world for Iraqis, I support it. To the extent UNICEF's charitable adventurism may result in solving some of the world's hunger, I support that as well. I'm under no illusion that either is the end of the journey, or holds the power of a magic wand... but I'll be damned before I'll believe either isn't worth the effort.

Turning the blind eye to the likes of Saddam is no different than turning the blind eye to Kim Jong Il's Korea... or the genocides in Darfur. My crystal ball may not be accurate, but I've little choice in but to believe any attempt to correct world's problems are better than no attempt at all. The apathy that allows people to believe "containing" NK is a solution; is the very apathy that allows North Koreans to be imprisoned in hell. As it says in my sig-line: The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. Truer words have never been spoken. World Hunger persists because people have actually convinced themselves it can't be helped or they just don't care. Tyrannical Regimes and all the suffering they cause, persist for the same reason.

It continues to astound me that anyone could view an attempt at establishing a peaceful democracy in place of a murderous tyranny with such contempt. I will never accept that the status quo in the lands of hopelessness, and the collective apathy that allows it, is the lesser of two evils. NEVER.

in order to win the peace we must, in true American form.... declare "War on War"!!!!

No, because you don't "win the peace". You win a war. Or you lose a war. But peace is what happens after the war is over.

So if you see a lot of bullets flying, bombs going off and bloody bodies lying around, you aren't seeing people "fighting a peace". They are fighting a war. Which is what is going on in Iraq right now.

Anybody who can seriously swallow the idea that we have been "fighting a peace" for the past three years has clearly had their critical functions anesthetized. As the facts of this war build up, more and more people have taken off the rose colored glasses and begun to see and think for themselves. Clearly, you have not done that yet.

You don't "win the peace" when you are fighing a war.
You win the war and hope that peace is the consequence of the war.


This is just another semantic game where more pleasant words are supposed to conjure up better images or an horrific situation. It's simply another cliche that can't tread water.

Quite true. But after winning the war against Saddam, peace was not the immediate consequence. The Iraqis have many unresolved problems to work out, now that their oppressor has been THOROUGHLY DEFEATED. Citizens of the United States were not suddenly of the same mindset on Civil Rights at the close of the American Civil War, either... and much violence and hardship ensued. Pity, the war didn't come with a fairytale ending to erase century's old disputes. Still, now that we've defeated our enemy, it is our responsibility to assist his former victims in finding peace. It's a long row to hoe, but every alternative looks worse.

The day President Bush declared Mission Accomplished; he could easily have brought our troops home to a Victory Parade and our enemy (Saddam's Iraq) would be just as defeated. That he didn't do that changes the simple FACT of Saddam's DEFEAT not at all.

O'Bill:

Are you under the impression that anyone is arguing with you that Saddam was defeated?

But that doesn't mean we left the war phase and entered the peace phase. It is plain that after Saddam was defeated, Iraq broke out into a civil war and we are right in the middle of it. Many more of our troops have been killed AFTER we moved into Baghdad and took over Saddam's palaces than before.

Nobody doubts that we put Saddam out of power. But we are still at war in Iraq.

I'm sorry KW, I just don't see it that way. A war is fought against an enemy until he surrenders or is eliminated. That's been done. Who are we fighting this war against? Is it the Sunnis? The Shia? The Kurds? No, no, and no. While a minority of Sunni and Shia may think they're at war with each other; we have taken no side. We seek to end the conflicts between these minority factions and are acting as a surrogate police force until such time as the Iraqi government can handle their own internal strife... hopefully with means short of a full blown Civil War or Massive genocide. This is no more a War than the War on Drugs is a war... in that there is no clearly defined enemy with which to fight. That wasn't the case when we went to war. We went to war against Saddam's Iraq and thoroughly defeated them in short order.

An invasion by a super power like the US is quite different matter to "going to war" with Iraq. Some "defeat"! Some contest!

And the US invaded Iraq to find those hidden WMDs, remember?

Something to do with the UN weapons inspectors not doing their job properly .....

More to do with the weapons inspectors not having been allowed to do their jobs, for years, thereby denying any certainty about weapons programs. Had Saddam not seen fit to defy the UN weapons inspectors in the late 90's there would have been no doubt with which to use weapons as a justification with (Probably the most idiotic bluff in history.) People who actually bother to look at the history there, know that in the early 90's Saddam was much closer to WMD than we suspected. Our Intel was just as wrong then, in the other direction. Anyone who claims they were certain of their absence this time; is flat out lying. Saddam foolishly made sure NO ONE could be certain... one way or the other. This, of course, was contrary to his obligations and ultimately the reason for his demise.

I was going to say something about "people who bother to look at history" checking out the Saddam/US connection .... but hey, I think I'll leave it for the moment ....

Good on you to do so, since it would be irrelevant anyway. Pointing out that accurate intelligence is difficult to get, isn't.

Bill, Bill, you have an answer to everything, don't you?


Nothing anyone could say could shake your faith, could it? :wink: