Damn fool war

Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports
161

Wow, first “uninteresting”, and now “fatuous”! All these kind words are going to go to my head!

The question is about Bush’s time in the Guard, whether he went AWOL, what the punishment for doing so was at the time, and why there hasn’t been much press about it. The question also hints that someone who has previously shirked military duties is a hypocrite for ordering soldiers into battle.

What does this have to do with whether the United States was justified in invading Iraq?

The “damn fool war” comment does nothing to answer the question, and is only tenuously related to the subject matter of the question.

I suppose it’s because of how uninteresting I am as a commentator that you’re now putting words in my mouth. Where did I say what Cecil should and should not write in his column? All I asked was why did he write what he did:

At no point did I say “Cecil shouldn’t have written that” or “Cecil is wrong”. I just asked “Why did he write that?” What were his reasons for doing so?

After seeing some first-time/last-time posts of people saying they won’t read Cecil’s columns anymore, I’m beginning to wonder if he did it to separate the wheat from the chaff :wink:

162

TheMemeWarrior, again you are misunderstanding. Chemical and biological are great WMD…if used properly at the right time and place. Using C&B WMD against a modern army with protective measure in place is diminishing returns. You might manage to surprise some of the opposing troops (and maybe some of your own that didn’t get the word in time) and kill a few. You certainly will impair their efficiency somewhat (as well as your own troops again)…its a royal pain in the arse to put on the suits, and they are VERY uncomfortable. But over all, they will have little to no effect on opposing troops. So, as they wouldn’t of been very effective against our troops in Iraq, they would certainly of killed off a lot of his civilian population (and while he might not of cared about that too much, it would of caused a general revolt much sooner than one happened), as well as turned world opinion against him. Why is this so hard to understand??

Him using WMD against our troops was never the issue (nor did I, personally every thing there was much chance of it…but they never asked me :)), talking head on CNN or NBC aside. The ISSUE was using the WMD against CIVILIAN targets…namely civilian targets in the US or our allies. Because in THAT circumstance, you’d come to learn why they are caused weapons of MASS destruction TheMemeWarrior.

With Hitler I’m talking about exactly the SAME weapons and circumstances. He did not use his stock pile against his MODERN enemies for a few good reasons…reasons exactly why Saddam didn’t use his. Basically, he didn’t use them against the allies because A) They wouldn’t be very effective against the enemy armed forces (even the Russians had chemical protection for some of their troops…and large stockpiles of C&B weapons too). B) If he used them against civilian targets, he knew that the allies would return the favor in kind. C) Post use clean up is a bitch, and costs a lot of money…many of the agents can linger for years, sort of like land mines.

Time will tell if he has said weapons. As I’ve said, circumstatial evidence seems to point that way. I’m willing to wait and see…gods people, the fighting hasn’t even stopped yet, we have a major cleanup, humanitarian aid is desparately needed there after the convoys can get through safely, there are looting in the streets still…there is a lot on our plate atm. I’d say give them a few weeks…the first shots of the war were only fired 3 odd weeks ago and people want everything done already. lol

Certainly if he DID have them, he was a threat to this country. Why? Well, he obviously had a major grudge against us. If he had the weapons, he certainly was making them in secret, in violation of agreements he made post 1991. Who would he use such things against, and why would he need them (in light of what I said about their ineffective use against modern armies)? Even the Iranian army (he used them against them extensively in the Iran/Iraq war…they learned the lesson) has protection against such things now, let alone the other neighbors in the region. I suppose they could of been used against Israel’s civilian population. :dubious: Who else comes to mind that he could use them against? Hm…let me think. :frowning:

-XT

163

Banger you said “But when the war in question is an issue of heated debate, which of the two characterizations do you think would more likely raise hackles?” implying that the thing to do would be choose the path that would cause the least heckles.

164

xtisme,

The cite may have been from thismodernworld but the orignal source was the Associated Press. Look Junior, maybe I’m going to fast but if Geo. Pataki who is governor of New York State and is just one of many to link the attacks to the war in Iraq and nobody says boo, doncha think that kinda means that the idea’s been accepted and become part of the political either? Just because, it’s cited by Tom Tomorrow doesn’t make it untrue if it really happened. Your longwindedness may be tiresome and confusing but it does not hide this essential point.

here’s the link: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030410/ap_on_re_mi_ea/war_ground_zero_rally_2

Then there’s the poll conducted by those lefy meat-heads over at KnightRidder also cited by Tom Tomorrow (who, unlike some people I could name, tends to get his facts straight) which showed that 44% of all Americans think that most or some of the hijackers were Iraqi. Here’s the link:

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/4920860.htm

So here’s where we stand. 1) President Bush is constantly tying 9/11 and Saddam Hussein together in his speeches without ever making the crucial distinction that Iraq had nothing to do with it. 2) Others, following his lead are doing the same. 3) We are led to believe that Saddam has absolute control over his people and sponsors terrorism. 4) 44% of Americans think that Iraqis were mainly behind or partially behind 911 and yet Shifty McCoy here refuses to believe that there’s any kind of connection. Look, you can believe whatever you what, Einstien, but what I want to know is who’s glue have you been sniffing?
Now about strategic use of WMDs. I just love the way the war nuts keep radically shifting the context of their arguments without ever acknowledging that that’s what they’re doing. Before the war peaceniks were saying that it made no sense for Saddam to support terrorism on US soil because if he did anything funny we could wipe him out. To this the hawks said YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND YOU IDIOTS!!! HE’S EFFING CRAZY!!! Now that I point out that he didn’t use his weapons of mass destruction at the very moment we’ve come to kill him and suggest that i’s because he didn’t have access to them all of a sudden the guy’s Neville Chamberlain who of course would never use WMDs against us because of the sensitive political consequences involved you understand. Well, I don’t know about you, Percy, but if people are coming to kill me, I’m hitting them with everything I’ve got. As for xtisme’s assertion that him using WMDs against us was never a worry I can’t help but wonder why all those embeded reporters kept obsessing over the possibility.

By the way xtisme, could you do me a favor and work a little harder on your prose before you publish? It’s really is a pain in the A to reread reams of your somewhat incoherent blather to figure out what your point is.

As for the other distortions, I really don’t have the time. I’ve gotten tired of this thread. It’s time to retire.

165

Braintree, Sorry my ‘prose’ isn’t up to your standard…and that I’m long winded and tiresome. I guess you have me there ‘old one’. lol.

Reading through your first link, from a real main stream source for a change, I fail to see what you are getting at again. Did you READ the article? You do read English I assume. The article, as you must of not read it, is about a rally in support of the troops. They talk about the war starting right there…and it did. Maybe you posted the wrong link? I fail to see the leap of (ill)logic necessary to jump from a rally in support of the troops at ground zero, to the assertions that the majority of Americans are so stupid as to think Saddam=Bin Ladin, which was your original assertion. I can only assume you (and Tom Tomorrow) fixated on this:

"Many speakers and participants described the war as a natural outcome of the World Trade Center attack, drawing little distinction between the terrorist group al-Qaida and Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein (news - web sites). "

If THIS is what has set you off, all I can say is, whatever you are smoking, please pass some to me. :wally

To your points…I’m trying to be brief: 1) President Bush is constantly tying 9/11 …: You know this? Wow. Please cite your evidence that Saddam and Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11, etc. 2) Others, following his lead are doing the same. Its called propaganda. 3) We are led to believe that Saddam has absolute control over his people and sponsors terrorism: Hm…terrorist base camps in Northern Iraq, payouts to palistinian terrorists families for suicide attacks, 2 of 3 branches of Iraq’s military trained in terrorist tactics, hundreds of vests ready made and intended as suicide weapons…I’d say we didn’t need to be lead to believe anything. Except for you. Again, please pass over what you are smoking… 4) 44% of Americans think that Iraqis were mainly behind or partially behind 911… : Again this assertion without anything to back it up. Again, did you READ the link you provided? I assume, as this was the only part I could find relavent, that you mean this:

“Two-thirds of the respondents said they thought they had a good grasp of the issues surrounding the Iraqi crisis, but closer questioning revealed large gaps in that knowledge. For instance, half of those surveyed said one or more of the Sept. 11 terrorist hijackers were Iraqi citizens. In fact, none was.”

Its a long leap from the above to your assertions. The fact that half of the people poled didn’t know the nationalities of the 9/11 terrorists?? Hell, do YOU know the nationalities of all the terrorists Brain? It doesn’t surprise me that half the people don’t know that when half the people in this country probably don’t know what state Washington DC is in (this is a trick question).
Look, YOU can and will believe whatever you what, Brain (though you don’t seem very brainy to me), but what I want to know is have you ever considered reading anything BUT the liberal press? It might help broaden your horizons. Now, sit back with the other martians and pass me that joint…

-XT

p.s. As to your assertions about the WMD issue, I’m tired of talking about the WMD stuff…you guys just don’t get it. :smack: I will say…come one Brain…THEY ARE EFFING REPORTERS. WTH do they know?? Gods.

166

You’re reading into that something I didn’t say or mean. I was merely pointing out that of two possible characterizations, one was more likely to raise hackles. This goes back to my referring to “damn fool war” as strongly worded. You’ll also note in that same paragraph I indicated that I never said Cecil went too far.

167

GWB himself said there is no direct link between Saddam and September 11th. This was back in January of this year.

This guy says a CNN poll showed 51 percent of the public believe that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was responsible for the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. But, without reviewing the source material, I take what he says with a grain of salt.

168

li’l Dickie Dirtz, ah a source. I stand corrected…maybe my fellow Americans ARE that stupid after all. Its a sad state of affairs. :frowning: Thank you for providing this.

Still, it seems to me, from reading the article that its not exactly the Bush administration propaganda machine (as was asserted earlier), nor the media that have given folks this impression, but their own stupidity…
From the article posted:
"Like a befuddled chemistry lab student who works backwards from the answer in order to ensure the correct results, the Moron Majority have talked themselves into an excuse they can live with for a war they can’t otherwise morally justify. Denial, after all, isn’t just a river in Egypt. "

:smack: I guess I shouldn’t be surprised…look at all the people that believe in dowsing, homeopathic medicine, UFOs from another planet, accupuncture…a whole host of boondogles and unproven non-sense. :frowning:

-XT

169

I was going to say that. Sort of, anyway. :wink:
The republicans (of today) don’t even claim to be the same party as the one of Abe’s heyday.
Or do they? :confused:
Besides, it’ll be a long time before we can draw any valid conclusions about the effects of this war. A long time. We don’t even have any WMD’s or Bad Guys yet. Well, one Bad Guy.
Don’t hold me to that, I haven’t seen the news since last night.

170

As a matter of historical continuity of the organization, yes, today’s GOP is the party that elected Lincoln in 1860. (In 1864, Lincoln was technically the candidate of the Union Party.) Jefferson’s Republican Party, on the other hand, became today’s Democrats.

In the aftermath of the war, the Republicans had the power to denounce all Democrats and Southerners as “traitors”, and, consequently having a monopoly on power, proceeded to go straight to Hell. There were only about two honest men in the Grant administration, and the 1876 presidential election was stolen outright by wholly unconstitutional acts of the Republican congress.

Corrupt governments, of course, are always the friends of the rich, so the Republicans became the party of capitalism, which was already far stronger in the North.

Eventually some reaction set in, and the Democrats began to pick up the support of farmers and labor, to the point where they could win the White House if the Republicans made a big enough mistake. That’s still largely the situation.

However, there was no clear “conservative” / “liberal” division yet. The Republicans were definitely the party of the rich, and the Democrats were definitely the party of poor whites, but the South continued to stick with the Democrats, partly because they could not stomach the thought of joining the party of Lincoln, and partly because the South was poor. (I have a survey of US education in the 50’s that remarks offhand that the book would be discussing only the North, because, apart from a handful of good universities, the South had to be regarded as part of the Third World.) Southern blacks were another matter, but almost none of them could vote. There was a clear tension in the situation; the 1948 breakaway “Dixiecrats” were one symptom, and it is almost unimaginable to people who don’t remember the time that George Wallace, for example, was, on all points but one, a strong liberal.

One other oddity was that, due to a long tradition of Democratic corruption, the Republicans were the de-facto liberals in New York City. As a general rule, they could control the city if and only if they ran a fusion campaign with NYC’s Liberal party (created by anti-Marxist breakaway Socialists).

In 1964, everything changed. Barry Goldwater’s “Southern strategy” suddenly made the Republicans the party of segregation. We are still living in the political world he created.

171

I know I said I was retiring but I can’t resist this one:

“Please cite your evidence that Saddam and Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11, etc.”

Ah, demanding that I prove a negative. More war nut-jazz. I trust that most posters here have sufficient grounding in critical thinking to see what’s wrong with that one.

Tell you what, xtisme, I’ll prove that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 just as soon as you prove that you don’t have sex with small children. Ta.

172

rowrbazzle writes:

Fair enough. My views on this subject are unexceptional, so I’ll be brief.

My objection to the war is that we got into it without due process. “Due process” may seem like an odd term to use here, but I think it is apropos. I am not a pacifist; there is no such thing as a good war, but there are necessary ones. However, when we invade a sovereign state not in our hemisphere in the absence of a clear provocation - and I’m thinking of an act of aggression such
as Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait - and without world opinion behind us, we travel down a dangerous road.

Don’t misunderstand. Saddam Hussein was a brutal tyrant and Iraq is well rid of him. I’m relieved the campaign has gone as successfully as it has. But in the past we have not regarded tyranny alone as sufficient grounds for war. It’s true we said we were looking for weapons of mass destruction, and I certainly hope we find some, lest our justification for this war look hollow. But the search for WMD clearly was a pretext. We were bound and determined to take Saddam Hussein out regardless of what he did, or what the inspectors found, or what anybody else
thought. Or so it certainly seemed.

Make no mistake. We got into this war because we can do as we like in the world today, and a few hawkish policymakers got the president’s ear. Notwithstanding the efforts of Senator Byrd
and a few others, there was nothing like a serious debate about the war in this country. My guess is that many if not most Americans have misgivings even now, but supported the war in the wake of 9/11. Now some tell us that this campaign is only the first of many. I hope that isn’t so, but what is to prevent it? The nature of the presidency is such that few Americans oppose U.S.
military action until it has become a quagmire - witness Vietnam.

In principle I’m not opposed to removing someone from power because he terrorizes his own people. But to do so chiefly on our say-so, in the face of the opposition of most of the world, seems to me an invitation to disaster. We have often been lucky in this country and perhaps this will be another one of those times. Perhaps Iraq and the Middle East will become democratic and
prosperous as a result of the war, and the president will go down in history as a great liberator. But if he does, my guess is that historians will regard him as the most fortunate man who ever
lived.

173

First post after cecil! woohoo! What do I win?

174

Personally, I don’t see the bickering between sides over this, or any future wars, ceasing. Excellent post, Cecil (meant without any obligatory brown-nosing).

This thread, brought about by an honest comment, shows the road ahead is still unwinding into the dark. Peace to all – at least within the confines of the mind.

175

However I dont agree with his argument. After also believeing Bush was in it for the Oil, and a chance to avenge his father’s mistake, I have no become convinced (though not 100%) that Bush and Blair do have Iraq’s best needs at heart.
I will conceed that the pretext for the war was not sound, unlike 1991, (as Cecil pointed out) but I think the historic scenes of the Statue being pulled down must make the case for war somewhat stronger, and the anger and relief, agnoy and joy on those Iraqi’s faces was plain to see.
War is not always right, or neccessary. War here was not neccessary, was it right? Well thats the arguement. I think that sometimes an end can justify a means, and if the removal of a brutal dictator, and a cause of unstability in the Middle-East can be achieved without France and Russia’s ‘blessing’ then it shows that sometimes it takes a bold action to produce a better outcome.

176

I would quickly like to add I agree with Icewolf, and that opinion can and will cause divide over everything, be it War or a CD.

177

How soon will we know if it’s a better outcome, Homer J? A month after the end of the war? A year? Five years? Ten? A generation?

We lock horns these past few weeks over a war in Iraq instigated by a coalition of nations. My concern (and prediction) is that we will lock horns later, as the reactions begin in that turmoiled part of the world. The debate will be whether the war sparked them or not.

This war may have ended. The others have yet to, sadly, begin.

178

Well, I had retired from this too, but can’t resist a parting shot either:

You can’t prove a negative, this is true. But Brain, YOU at least seemed SO sure I figured you must have some proof. I on the other had said (repeatedly) that I’m taking a wait and see attitude.

Your quote:

“1) President Bush is constantly tying 9/11 and Saddam Hussein together in his speeches without ever making the crucial distinction that Iraq had nothing to do with it.” (my emphasis)

To me, this seems a statement of fact…without ever making the crucial distinction that Iraq had nothing to do with it. Maybe you’d like to tone down your retoric and restate that as “without ever making the crucial distinction that there is no currently available evidence that Iraq assisted in 9/11”?

If it makes you feel better to put me down, I’m glad I could make your day. :frowning: For myself, I’m filled with doubts about the whole thing, and wish I had your mindless confidence that I know it all and am always in the right.

As for Cecils piece, not that he cares about my opinion I’m sure, but I thought it was extremely well done and cuts to the heart of the matter. A lot of Americans are NOT sure about all this, or how it will all turn out. The jury is out on Iraq has WMD, but as Cecil said, it was just a pretext, as was the ‘liberation’ of the people. I don’t credit that we went to war for oil, as some have said, but I do find it plausable that went to war for other less than noble goals. As I said in an earlier post, we had both base and noble reasons for going…and things are never black and white but shades of grey. Frankly, I’m worried about the post war environment over there…and about the seemingly beligerant attitude our government is taking now that we’ve had such an easy victory. Only time will tell how this mess will all turn out…

I’m not a hawk or warmonger, though I can see why YOU would think so based on reading through the cites you posted Brain. To me your obvious bias and knee jerk attitude toward the current administration is no more helpful than those idiot conservatives demonizing the Clinton administration and the liberal left.

/em retires from the board and slinks away…

-XT

179

“Regime change” in Iraq has been settled U.S. foreign policy since the end of the first Gulf War. On one reading, this Administration merely decided to use more efficacious means of accomplishing that policy than had been tried before, i.e. offering to hold other people’s coats while they fought Saddam for us (George I) or sending cruise missles Baghdadwards at random intervals (Clinton).

As I stated, I sincerely hope the rationale for this will turn out to have been a serious threat to our national security that could have been addressed in no other way short of war. Otherwise, whatever history determines about the current inmate of the White House’s luck and/or strategic skill, it must certainly return a verdict that he is one of the most reckless individuals ever to be put in charge of a great nation.

180

I must add that I too have lost a great deal of respect for Cecil today. I have always come to the straight dope for exactly that, the truth, or in cases where no absolute truth can be established facts and related evidence that allow you to draw your own conclusions.

Why after years and years of being an unbiased, beacon of enlightenment did Cecil have to poison his life work and come out as a liberal. When I want hear conservative commentary I listen to Rush Limbaugh or Michael Savage. When people want to hear liberal propaganda they turn on CNN. Until today (for me that is, technically April 11, 2003) people of all political beliefs and backgrounds could come to this site or read Cecil’s books and feel fairly confident that they were getting “the straight dope.” Now we are all forced to question whether our source still wishes to fight ignorance or spew his own ignorance to promote a liberal agenda. It’s a damn shame.