Pure comedy gold!
Your post? Singular? That’s how you arrive at the conclusion I “dodged” the issue? All three of your preceeding posts to this thread (#'s 109, 192 & 195, to be specific) spoke of “power” and “doesn’t affect them” as being reasons for supporting the war on the part of those of us who do support it. That was what I was addressing.
Starving Artist: Would you please, at least for this debate, define exactly what victory and failure would be in your mind? At what point do fuckups stop being ‘part of war’ and start being part of ‘mismanaged war’ ? At what point, no matter what the goals, does a war become lost ,a failure?
I don’t even want you to say that Iraq right now is a failure. You think it’s working out well? More powe to you. But please define sucess and failure.
Ah, luci, you’re a bright guy and a lot of fun. I almost hate to point out that your entire post had virtually nothing to do with anything being discussed here in this thread. Notice I say “virtually,” because you did try to discredit what you percieve as my “pose” by bringing up some totally irrelevant B.S. regarding airstrips. Unfortunately, I don’t see how this uncharacteristically lame post of yours has anything to do with the subject at hand, i.e. the war in Iraq and/or Nightime’s contention that we who support it do so because we’re insulated by “power” or because it “hasn’t affected us yet.”
Do try to stay a little more on point, won’t you, old boy?
All of my posts spoke of how the war was being run, not whether the war itself was right or wrong. Remember:
“Why don’t they care that the army said they had way too few troops to stop looters from taking nuclear material for potential dirty bombs? Why don’t they care about increasing hostility towards us, partially as a result of our own torture of people we want on our side?”
“Who cares how poorly the Iraq war is being run, when our power protects us from any consequences? How does Iraq having democracy or not personally affect a Bush supporter? It doesn’t.”
"The fact that the civilian leaders of our government ignored military advice, fell for the lies of Chalabi despite the CIA telling them he was a liar and a criminal, and sent in woefully unprepared and insufficient forces is evidence of failure of the highest order.
Remember, “You go to war with the army you have…”
Of course, since the administration has admitted there was no imminent threat, you might wonder why they didn’t wait until they had sufficient, prepared forces."
So yeah, still a non sequitur, and you still completely dodged the issue.
And I still believe (I have to) that you will someday look back at how you supported the way this war was being run, and not be able to recognize yourself.
"“I supported believing Chalabi, rushing in unprepared forces despite no imminent threat, letting nuclear material be looted, torturing Iraqis… what the hell was I thinking!?”
See, now you’re just lying. Try to avoid that.
I said nothing about the war itself being right or wrong. I spoke only of how it was being run. See my last post for quotes.
I could answer you, but I guarantee you won’t like it. And it might send poor elucidator into apoplexy. 
Not to disappoint, Starve, but I frequently have things to say that have nothing whatever to do with you. Hard to imagine, I know. But its true.
Well, I might not like it, but I’d at least be able to judge your paradigm.
For all I know ‘victory’ means ‘there’s still a single Iraqi left alive.’
Define your terms, then you can go about proving your premises.
Right?
There was a king reigned in the East:
There, when kings will sit to feast,
They get their fill before they think
With poisoned meat and poisoned drink.
He gathered all that springs to birth
From the many-venomed earth;
First a little, thence to more,
He sampled all her killing store;
And easy, smiling, seasoned sound,
Sate the king when healths went round.
They put arsenic in his meat
And stared aghast to watch him eat;
They poured strychnine in his cup
And shook to see him drink it up:
They shook, they stared as white’s their shirt:
Them it was their poison hurt
- I tell the tale that I heard told.
Mithridates, he died old.
A.E. Housman
Give it your best shot. If eight years of Nixon couldn’t do it, you ain’t got much chance.
What, I accidentally lied?
You know, I’ve been trying to be at least somewhat respectful in my answers to you and reign in my admitted proclivity for condescention, despite the fact that your particular postings are almost custom-made to bring it out. I would thank you to show me at least a modicum of respect as well.
Hey, bub, the post you quoted when you blessed us with your little gem about Clint Eastwood and airstrips was mine. Surely I can be forgiven for thinking you were talking to me…yes, no?
I hate spelling errors, especially when I’m being snippy. :smack:
Make that “rein” in my admitted proclivity…etc.
I have one question here, based on these facts:
- Up until the early 1990’s, Iraq did have an active chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons program, to the point of actually manufacturing and possessing the “yellowcake” uranium oxide.
- Although Iraq documented the destruction of some (not all) of these materials, presumably it retained all the knowledge and information of how to produce these materials (having already done so).
- According to the Duelfer report, Hussein intended to resume WMD production after the inspections regime was complete and sanctions were lifted.
- In 2003, the UN weapons inspectors had all but stated that there was no WMD in Iraq, so sanctions were certain to be lifted soon.
Thus, Iraq had the knowledge, experience, but most importantly the intent to produce WMD’s, and the opportunity to do so was nigh in coming. It would defy all logic to assume that Iraq would not have once again possessed WMD some time soon after 2003. Does anyone dispute that conclusion? If anything I’ve said is wrong, I welcome corrections. As far as I know these premises are all facts according to the Duelfer report and reputable media reports from 1991 onward.
It’s all but certain they would have regained this capability in short order. But Iraq had no WMD’s in 2003. Does anyone seriously believe Iraq never would have been a WMD threat? I think it’s more of a case where Bush’s public falsehoods prove too juicy a political target for his detractors to refuse.
As I recall from previous threads, neither of us like having our positions distorted. I have avoided distorting the meanings of your posts, and would of course appreciate the same. To that effect, I have provided quotes to clarify:
“Why don’t they care that the army said they had way too few troops to stop looters from taking nuclear material for potential dirty bombs? Why don’t they care about increasing hostility towards us, partially as a result of our own torture of people we want on our side?”
“Who cares how poorly the Iraq war is being run, when our power protects us from any consequences? How does Iraq having democracy or not personally affect a Bush supporter? It doesn’t.”
"The fact that the civilian leaders of our government ignored military advice, fell for the lies of Chalabi despite the CIA telling them he was a liar and a criminal, and sent in woefully unprepared and insufficient forces is evidence of failure of the highest order.
Remember, “You go to war with the army you have…”
Of course, since the administration has admitted there was no imminent threat, you might wonder why they didn’t wait until they had sufficient, prepared forces."
As you can see, I never said anything about the war itself, but rather how it was being run.
And I still believe (I have to) that you will someday look back at how you supported the way this war was being run, and not be able to recognize yourself.
"“I supported believing Chalabi, rushing in unprepared forces despite no imminent threat, letting nuclear material be looted, torturing Iraqis… what the hell was I thinking!?”
So I see this guy who doesn’t like me very much, and I gun him down. I take out his wallet and say “See?! He had enough money to go and buy a gun! Self-defense!”
And Dueffler’s reports says he “intended” to start up a WMD program? I dunno about you, but I’m a bit wary of military decisions based on precognition.
I know. If it was up to you, we’d never take any action that wasn’t retaliatory. “Wait till they cream us, then take action!”, that’s luci’s motto.
Well, if it’s all the same to you, I’d prefer an ounce of prevention to a pound of dead Americans.
Would it be accurate to conclude that you believe Iraq was an imminent threat?
Otherwise, I have trouble figuring out this statement. Especially considering that we rushed in unprepared on the word of a known criminal and liar (and which criminal and liar we intended to set up as Iraq’s leader. Remember?)
Oh, and by the by, is this all you have to say in response to NattoGuy’s excellent post? How about addressing some of his, you know, points?
~sniffles~ Starving Artist doesn’t love me! ~cries~
Seriously though, can you please define your terms? I’m especially weirded out because you say I won’t like them… and it is my firm opinion that most reasonable people could and can agree on what constitutes a victory, and what constitutes defeat in general, or in specific wars.
If, for instance, you are arguing that defeat is only a valid term if every US soldier over there is slaughtered, and victory is anything as long as a single US soldier is left standing… well…
The problem is I don’t know what your definitions are, so I can’t discuss with you whether or not this is victory or failure.