Iraq: we won, now let's leave

McGentrix wrote:

How can my opinion be a lie? Did you miss the part where I stated "Bush Sr. should have supported the insurgency"?

You wrote: . . . instead, he listened to the UN that imposed sanctions against Iraq. That is what i quoted, and that is a lie. The book which Bush wrote with Brent Scowcroft, his national security adviser in the relevant period, and which i have quoted, clearly shows that he made his decision based upon his own reasoning, rather than that he "listened to the UN that imposed sanctions."

Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under the circumstances, there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish

You must be a little slow today, McWhitey. I've quote Bush on that topic, and provided my sources.

Motive--his motive was clearly his own. Had he wanted to ignore the UN, he was free to do so, and especially in the case of Republicans, ignoring the UN is a favorite indoor sport.

It apparently doesn't occur to you (no surprise there) that if he considered, in conjunction with his national security adviser, the possibility of exceeding the UN mandate, that he was keeping his own counsel, and not "listenting to the UN."

I have revoked your permission to misuse my name and have reported your violation of the ToS. As I will every time you do so in the future.

Brandon9000 wrote:

As to legality, most countries initiating wars in history have not sought the concurrence of the international community.

Well, unlike the US in 2003, most countries in history haven't been constrained by treaty obligations to seek peaceful ways to resolve international disputes.

It's positively amazing just how weepy and sentimental some conservatives have gotten over the Iraqi people since 2003. It's almost enough to make one believe that these bleeding-hearts cared about the Iraqis all along....

The idea that we are constrained to never make war is stupid.

Military Analyst: West Needs More Terror To Save Doomed Foreign Policy

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Tuesday, July 10, 2007

The West needs more terror attacks on the scale of 9/11 and 7/7 in order to save a failing foreign policy, according to Lt.-Col. Doug Delaney, chair of the war studies program at the Royal Military College in Kingston, Ontario.

This alarming admission can be found right at the end of a long and academic Toronto Star article about the history of conflict and why the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq are doomed...

source

Brandon9000 wrote:

The idea that we are constrained to never make war is stupid.

Ooh, I found a strawman! What should we do with it?

Well, unlike the US in 2003, most countries in history haven't been constrained by treaty obligations to seek peaceful ways to resolve international disputes.

Apparently, Brandon, you are not able to argue the issue at all. Joe outlined his premise in the initial post, with reference to Mr. Tester's thesis. I guess you just wanted to vent your typical whine, rather than actually have to address the topic of the thread.

kickycan wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

The idea that we are constrained to never make war is stupid.

Ooh, I found a strawman! What should we do with it?

How so? It's a direct response to what Joe said:

Quote:

Well, unlike the US in 2003, most countries in history haven't been constrained by treaty obligations to seek peaceful ways to resolve international disputes.

Sometimes such an effort reaches the point of absurdity. We tried for 12 years. The idea that we are constrained to never make war is stupid.

Apparently you cannot argue the issues as presented, but must mind read base motives on the part of your debating opponents in lieu of an argument.

Sounds like a strategy even GW could agree with -

Just declare victory and hang out a banner...

I know how we can win.

Oh, look even a Military Analyst agrees with me:

Quote:

Military Analyst: West Needs More Terror To Save Doomed Foreign Policy

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Tuesday, July 10, 2007

The West needs more terror attacks on the scale of 9/11 and 7/7 in order to save a failing foreign policy, according to Lt.-Col. Doug Delaney, chair of the war studies program at the Royal Military College in Kingston, Ontario.

This alarming admission can be found right at the end of a long and academic Toronto Star article about the history of conflict and why the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq are doomed...

source

Please don't put it past any member of this administration to cheerfully arrange for this to happen before the wheels come completely off the war wagon.

From Chertoff's "gut feeling" that a US terror attack is looming for this summer to Rick Santorum's dark statement that more terror attacks will change the way Americans view the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, it appears that the US is being set up with fear, fear, and more fear possibly in advance of something terrible happening.