Revel writes
Quote:So bush hardly ever bows to political pressure but he did when the left wanted him to not cause a lot of deaths.
I don't recall any left leaning mouth pieces or journalist saying anything about not causing a lot of deaths, most of the arguments (what few there were to be heard at the time) from those opposing the invasion of Iraq was the going at all and not waiting for the inspections to completed.
If you have any links to back up your statements, dear, it would go a long way in the credibility department for you. Otherwise, it is just a big strawman and a typical way to deflect the failure of the Bush war used by right wingnuts.
This is so unresponsive to what I said, and so distorts what I said, I shall not respond to it at this time. If you care to discuss what I did say then we might have a discussion.
I do not fault him for his reasons for the war in Iraq. He and his military advisors made a serious mistake in bending to political correctness pressures from the Left. They should have gone in with overwhelming force and completed the job quickly and efficiently. They didn't, but it was their methodology, not their motives that are questionable.
He made no campaign promises regarding Iraq and, not being a military tactician, he was obligated to depend on the counsel of those who were. The decision to do it surgically neat and clean as it was done was specificially to reduce both loss of life on both sides and to appease the critics who think any death that occurs in war is an atrocity. (The same people of course had no problem with the 50,000 or so that we starved and neglected to death in the prior 12 years.) True conservatives would have gone in with overwhelming force, leveled all enemies no matter how much the liberals howled, won the war, mopped up, and gone home. The President erred in going with a 'liberal-planned war' instead of a conservative one.
He and his military advisors made a serious mistake in bending to political correctness pressures from the Left.
and to appease the critics who think any death that occurs in war is an atrocity.
Chris Wallace shoots down Feith's claims
Feith: Nobody in our office said there was an operational relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. It's not correct. Words matter.
Wallace: it turns out he did make that case in a memo he sent to the Senate Intelligence Committee in October of 2003. "The Weekly Standard," which saw the Feith memo, described it this way: "Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003.
That involved training and explosives and weapons of mass destruction, logistical support for terrorist attacks, al Qaeda training camps and safe haven in Iraq, and Iraqi financial support for al Qaeda." Later, VP Cheney said the article was the best source of information on the Iraq/al-Qaeda connection
video available at,
http://crooksandliars.com/
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-intel12feb12,0,1642172.story?coll=la-home-headlines
Foxfyre wrote:Revel writes
Quote:So bush hardly ever bows to political pressure but he did when the left wanted him to not cause a lot of deaths.
I don't recall any left leaning mouth pieces or journalist saying anything about not causing a lot of deaths, most of the arguments (what few there were to be heard at the time) from those opposing the invasion of Iraq was the going at all and not waiting for the inspections to completed.
If you have any links to back up your statements, dear, it would go a long way in the credibility department for you. Otherwise, it is just a big strawman and a typical way to deflect the failure of the Bush war used by right wingnuts.
This is so unresponsive to what I said, and so distorts what I said, I shall not respond to it at this time. If you care to discuss what I did say then we might have a discussion.
rehash
Quote:I do not fault him for his reasons for the war in Iraq. He and his military advisors made a serious mistake in bending to political correctness pressures from the Left. They should have gone in with overwhelming force and completed the job quickly and efficiently. They didn't, but it was their methodology, not their motives that are questionable.
and this
Quote:He made no campaign promises regarding Iraq and, not being a military tactician, he was obligated to depend on the counsel of those who were. The decision to do it surgically neat and clean as it was done was specificially to reduce both loss of life on both sides and to appease the critics who think any death that occurs in war is an atrocity. (The same people of course had no problem with the 50,000 or so that we starved and neglected to death in the prior 12 years.) True conservatives would have gone in with overwhelming force, leveled all enemies no matter how much the liberals howled, won the war, mopped up, and gone home. The President erred in going with a 'liberal-planned war' instead of a conservative one.
Pay attention to the underlined parts of your own words.
Here they are again:
Quote:He and his military advisors made a serious mistake in bending to political correctness pressures from the Left.
Quote:and to appease the critics who think any death that occurs in war is an atrocity.
You said the reason Bush didn't go in with overwhelming force was because of the political pressure from the left. I would like to know just what that political pressure from the left was and proof of it shown here or admit (for once) you pulled it out of the air.
Conscious also of the statements by Iraq threatening to use weapons in violation of its obligations under the Geneva Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, signed at Geneva on 17 June 1925, and of its prior use of chemical weapons and affirming that grave consequences would follow any further use by Iraq of such weapons
Aware of the use by Iraq of ballistic missiles in unprovoked attacks and therefore of the need to take specific measures in regard to such missiles located in Iraq,
Concerned by the reports in the hands of Member States that Iraq has attempted to acquire materials for a nuclear-weapons programme contrary to its obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons of 1 July 1968,
Deploring threats made by Iraq during the recent conflict to make use of terrorism against targets outside Iraq and the taking of hostages by Iraq
32. Requires Iraq to inform the Security Council that it will not commit or support any act of international terrorism or allow any organization directed towards commission of such acts to operate within its territory and to condemn unequivocally and renounce all acts, methods and practices of terrorism;
33. Declares that, upon official notification by Iraq to the Secretary-General and to the Security Council of its acceptance of the provisions above, a formal cease-fire is effective between Iraq and Kuwait and the Member States cooperating with Kuwait in accordance with resolution 678 (1990);
34. Decides to remain seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the area.
revel wrote:Foxfyre wrote:Revel writes
Quote:So bush hardly ever bows to political pressure but he did when the left wanted him to not cause a lot of deaths.
I don't recall any left leaning mouth pieces or journalist saying anything about not causing a lot of deaths, most of the arguments (what few there were to be heard at the time) from those opposing the invasion of Iraq was the going at all and not waiting for the inspections to completed.
If you have any links to back up your statements, dear, it would go a long way in the credibility department for you. Otherwise, it is just a big strawman and a typical way to deflect the failure of the Bush war used by right wingnuts.
This is so unresponsive to what I said, and so distorts what I said, I shall not respond to it at this time. If you care to discuss what I did say then we might have a discussion.
rehash
Quote:I do not fault him for his reasons for the war in Iraq. He and his military advisors made a serious mistake in bending to political correctness pressures from the Left. They should have gone in with overwhelming force and completed the job quickly and efficiently. They didn't, but it was their methodology, not their motives that are questionable.
and this
Quote:He made no campaign promises regarding Iraq and, not being a military tactician, he was obligated to depend on the counsel of those who were. The decision to do it surgically neat and clean as it was done was specificially to reduce both loss of life on both sides and to appease the critics who think any death that occurs in war is an atrocity. (The same people of course had no problem with the 50,000 or so that we starved and neglected to death in the prior 12 years.) True conservatives would have gone in with overwhelming force, leveled all enemies no matter how much the liberals howled, won the war, mopped up, and gone home. The President erred in going with a 'liberal-planned war' instead of a conservative one.
Pay attention to the underlined parts of your own words.
Here they are again:
Quote:He and his military advisors made a serious mistake in bending to political correctness pressures from the Left.
Quote:and to appease the critics who think any death that occurs in war is an atrocity.
You said the reason Bush didn't go in with overwhelming force was because of the political pressure from the left. I would like to know just what that political pressure from the left was and proof of it shown here or admit (for once) you pulled it out of the air.
The political pressure is evidenced in history in the last year of Korea and the condemnation heaped on Truman because of it. The political pressure is evidenced by an ill planned and ill fated Bay of Pigs invasion that included substantial negative political fall out. The political pressure is evidenced in history in the loud and ugly protests in the last years of Viet Nam. The poltiical pressure is evidenced in our ill fated excursion into Somalia and how we ran like rabbits once that became difficult.
The decision to go to war in Iraq was not done in a vacuum, and our President and his advisors were not ignorant of all this. Read some of the observations during the planning such as in Tommy Franks' A SOLDIER'S STORY.
Then after the invasion of Iraq, which was fantastically successful, the political pressure is evidenced after it became apparent that it wasn't going to be all guts and glory and progress. In Iraq, as in all wars, progress would include a cost in messiness and ugliness and cruelty and injury and death. The minute that became obvious, the critics began howling and uttering the proclamations of condemnation. The poliical pressure is loudly proclaimed by talking heads on all networks and from the halls of Congress and the Euroweenies who never pass up a chance to criticize us. The political pressure is evidenced on A2K on myriad threads including the posts of the trolls and spammers and eye pokers who haunt this thread along with a few souls who actually are interested in discussing things.
If civilians got caught in a crossfire, it was the USA's fault. Car bombs, suicide bombers, kidnappings, beheadings, etc. etc. etc. were all the US military and/or George Bush's fault for starting an 'illegal war'. Our troops were second guessed in every battle and condemned for anything that went wrong and rarely praised or even acknowledged for anything that went right. They had to pull their punches, be careful not to damage mosques or houses or frighten anybody.
Bush was condemned for not sending enough troops. And now he is being condemned for sending them. The anti-war and/or anti-Bush Left is doing everything it can to make certain that there is no success.
I didn't pull it out of my hat. Or the air.
So you meant lefty war critics way back in the Vietnam era rather than any war critics leading up to the invasion? Pitiful, foxy.
Revel writes
Quote:So you meant lefty war critics way back in the Vietnam era rather than any war critics leading up to the invasion? Pitiful, foxy.
I think what's pitiful is that is all you got out of my post. Oh well.
Foxfyre wrote:Revel writes
Quote:So you meant lefty war critics way back in the Vietnam era rather than any war critics leading up to the invasion? Pitiful, foxy.
I think what's pitiful is that is all you got out of my post. Oh well.
I think its just ridiculous that you are trying to say George Bush who defied most of our allies and has continued to do what he wants and who calls himself the "decider" let past (or any) war critics plan how he was going to conduct his wars.
Perhaps you've forgotten that there was nearly 100% universal agreement on the reasons that we invaded Iraq and that included virtually all the members of the UN, virtually all heads of state in the free world, virtually all members of the US Congress, and all the members of the present and previous administrations.
Virtually:
2 : almost entirely
Foxfyre wrote:Perhaps you've forgotten that there was nearly 100% universal agreement on the reasons that we invaded Iraq and that included virtually all the members of the UN, virtually all heads of state in the free world, virtually all members of the US Congress, and all the members of the present and previous administrations.
Quote:Virtually:
2 : almost entirely
If you use the meaning of Merriam-Webster quoted above, you must have a different observation and/or a different understanding of "almost entirely".
But I believe, it's me since I'm no native English speaker as noted here often enough.
Perhaps you've forgotten how many of those allies sent troops and/or other support for the effort.
Country Troops
1 USA 130,000
2 United Kingdom 9,000
3 Italy 3,000
4 Poland 2,460
5 Ukraine 1,600
6 Spain 1,300
7 Netherlands 1,100
8 Australia 800
9 Romania 700
10 Bulgaria 480
11 Thailand 440
12 Denmark 420
13 Honduras 368
14 El Salvador 361
15 Dominican Republic 302
16 Hungary 300
17 Japan 240
18 Norway 179
19 Mongolia 160
20 Azerbaijan 150
21 Portugal 128
22 Latvia 120
23 Lithuania 118
24 Slovakia 102
25 Czech Republic 80
26 Philippines 80
27 Albania 70
28 Georgia 70
29 New Zealand 61
30 Moldova 50
31 Macedonia 37
32 Estonia 31
33 Canada 31
34 Kazakhstan 25Perhaps you've forgotten that there was nearly 100% universal agreement on the reasons that we invaded Iraq and that included virtually all the members of the UN, virtually all heads of state in the free world, virtually all members of the US Congress, and all the members of the present and previous administrations.
And perhaps you think everybody else ought to tell the USA what it should do in its own interests.
You probably even think the UN is a competent, upstanding, righteous organization that has the best interest of all its members at heart.
And some of us don't buy into either the selective memory that seems to be epidemic among liberals nor the fuzzy notions about who is and who is not friend to the USA.
Foxfyre wrote:Perhaps you've forgotten how many of those allies sent troops and/or other support for the effort.
Or perhaps you have forgotten. Or perhaps you haven't, and are merely busy rewriting history. Luckily, we can easily go back and do a fact-check on who contributed and which country sent how many troops:
The "Coalition Of The Willing":
Code:Country Troops
1 USA 130,000
2 United Kingdom 9,000
3 Italy 3,000
4 Poland 2,460
5 Ukraine 1,600
6 Spain 1,300
7 Netherlands 1,100
8 Australia 800
9 Romania 700
10 Bulgaria 480
11 Thailand 440
12 Denmark 420
13 Honduras 368
14 El Salvador 361
15 Dominican Republic 302
16 Hungary 300
17 Japan 240
18 Norway 179
19 Mongolia 160
20 Azerbaijan 150
21 Portugal 128
22 Latvia 120
23 Lithuania 118
24 Slovakia 102
25 Czech Republic 80
26 Philippines 80
27 Albania 70
28 Georgia 70
29 New Zealand 61
30 Moldova 50
31 Macedonia 37
32 Estonia 31
33 Canada 31
34 Kazakhstan 25
Interesting, isn't it? It more like the "Coalition of the United States of America". Of course, more countries were in the "Coalition", as the
White House Website was busy pointing out. Amongst those e.g. Afghanistan (the US occupation force of Afghanistan must have volunteered), Costa Rica (too bad they don't even have an army), the Marshall Islands (no army), the Solomon Islands (no army) or Micronesia (I should mention they don't have an army, either).
Embarrassing.
And of those "member" countries, the population wasn't exactly happy about the adventure, either. 70% of the Japanese population opposed the war, as did 69% of the Italians. In Australia, too, 70% were against the war.
Foxfyre wrote:Perhaps you've forgotten that there was nearly 100% universal agreement on the reasons that we invaded Iraq and that included virtually all the members of the UN, virtually all heads of state in the free world, virtually all members of the US Congress, and all the members of the present and previous administrations.
Sure. That must be the reason why the UN refused to give the US a mandate for an invasion of Iraq. That must be the reason why the majority of western nations refused to send troops.
Foxy, I really urge you to stop making up those numbers, not to call them out-right lies. There was no "Coalition". The majority of countries and people around the world were opposed to the war. Millions around the world took to the streets to demonstrate against the American invasion. Please stop making up numbers and lying here. It is unbecoming.
Foxfyre wrote:And perhaps you think everybody else ought to tell the USA what it should do in its own interests.
If it seems to be in America's "own interests" to start unilateral wars without being provoked, resulting in the deaths of thousands of innocents and destabilizing a whole region, then, yes, somebody else should tell the US that they are about to commit a major mistake.
I don't know what you consider "own interests" to be, though. It was in Serbia's own interest to commit genocide in Bosnia. I suppose nobody should have intervened back then, right?
Foxfyre wrote:You probably even think the UN is a competent, upstanding, righteous organization that has the best interest of all its members at heart.
The representatives of the members of the UN and the people working there are, ultimately, humans. Humans make mistakes. But when it comes to Iraq, to the assessment of the threat Iraq constituted, to the existence of WMD or WMD programmes, the UN where right. And the United States where completely, utterly wrong.
I usually trust those people who get things right over those who are repeatedly mistaken.
Foxfyre wrote:And some of us don't buy into either the selective memory that seems to be epidemic among liberals nor the fuzzy notions about who is and who is not friend to the USA.
You are certainly one to talk about "selective memory". As long as you distort numbers and very recent events the way you do, I recommend that you refrain from accusing others of having a "selective memory".
And your point is?
Foxfyre wrote:
And your point is?
I certainly will answer your question, but I would really like you were so polite and did the same.
My point is: see my above quoted response. (Additionally old europe's response, which is more detailed.)
So, maybe I missed it, did he bend to the pressure or didn't he?
FreeDuck wrote:So, maybe I missed it, did he bend to the pressure or didn't he?
I didn't make up any numbers since I didn't cite any numbers.
Perhaps you've forgotten that there was nearly 100% universal agreement on the reasons that we invaded Iraq and that included virtually all the members of the UN, virtually all heads of state in the free world, virtually all members of the US Congress, and all the members of the present and previous administrations.
And I'm still waiting for you to show me at any time that the UN said that we could not (or should not) invade Iraq or passed any resolution of criticism or censure after we did.
I can't help it if most of the Euroweenies are willing to give silent assent while letting others get it done without soiling their own hands or risking anything themselves.
Especially those like France and Germany who were benefitting monetarily from having Saddam in power. (And no I don't intend to debate that again.)
The fact that you have an all or nothing attitude about these things and seem to have no ability to see any position between extremes does not make your point of view correct nor does it make mine wrong.