We weren’t speaking of damage…we were speaking of responsibility. By any objective measure, Saddam and the former Iraqi government had some non-zero responsibility in the events that transpired. They also had some non-zero amount of guilt for crimes committed before, during and after said invasion.
I say ‘non-zero’ here as a concession to your own, um, rather quirky world view, and because the amount of responsibility and guilt are probably debatable. Personally, I think Saddam et al have a rather large amount of both responsibility for what happened and guilt for crimes committed before and even after the invasion, but the point is that they weren’t guiltless. I rather doubt you will concede this point, but I thought I’d try bending over backwards, just for arguments sake.
Uhuh. Quirky, as I said. How do you explain the fact that we are already dropping our force levels so much then, since this is merely going to foment uppity-ness in the ‘serfs’? You don’t seriously believe that, having gotten all those troops out of there, we will, at some future point, put them all back in again…do you? I mean, even if we assume both that Obama get’s tossed out in the next election AND that the Pubs manage to take over the house and senate (:dubious:!!), you can’t seriously believe that we would or even could move them all back again. Do you?
You know, Curtis, one of your favorite themes on the boards is that America (and Western culture in general) is in a state of grievous moral decline, and is in a greatly debased state of affairs as compared to previous eras. Which makes me think you should be a bit more careful about who you label a pessimist.
As on many things, well just have to disagree to disagree on this subject. C’est la vie.
And they will probably be nearly as successful as they have been in getting RvW repealed, prayer put back in school and other such bread and circuses issues that seem to provide their base with endless fun and the opportunity to rant and rave to their little hearts content.
As with the imminent invasion of Iran, I’m going to have to take this one on a bit more than your say so and a few grains of salt…
Why no…that’s not what I want at all. What I want is, as in the endless Israeli threads, there to be some concession to the actual historical record, and an attempt to put the various actions into context. Saddam wasn’t just sitting around peacefully minding his own business when the US suddenly decided we were going to invade. For that matter, the US didn’t suddenly decide to invade at all, nor did we suddenly invade. It took us months to build up our forces there and launch our offensive…months when Saddam could have been doing a lot to ratchet down the situation, especially early on. He took a more graduated approach, opening up a bit here, a bit there, making a small concession here, a small one there. That would have been fine, a year or so before, especially if he didn’t later pull the rug back out from under the whole thing in a fit of pique. But by the time we started seriously moving forces into the area the time had come to stop fucking around and get serious…and he didn’t do so. At that point, the only real concession that would have worked would have been a negotiated settlement that had Saddam, his family, his top advisers and probably most of the high ranking military and government officials leaving for other climes (probably with a very nice golden parachute). This would have all had to happen weeks after the US and the Brits STARTED moving men and equipment into the area…not in the end, with days or a week or two before the operations were getting kicked off. By that time it was too late for anything but unconditional surrender (no golden parachutes by then, no getting out).
Saddam and the Ba’athist party weren’t the victims…they were, ultimately, the one’s responsible for bringing their country into direct confrontation with the US over, as it turns out, nothing. He had no WMD…none. It was all a bluff, complete bullshit. He hadn’t spent all that money on rebuilding his army (as he claimed)…he’d spent it on new palaces, new pussy, and on irregular insurgent groups. And when it because obvious his bluff was going to get called he didn’t fold…he tried to bluff it out. Unfortunately, he had aces and eights, while the US and the Brits between us had a royal flush, ace high.
I know there is no hope of even getting you to believe that this is a valid viewpoint, let alone convince you that it’s correct, but figured I might as well, since I certainly am too drunk to plan out these VRF routing tunnels or figure out this twisted mess of access-lists and hashed up static routing. I’ll do that tomorrow while enjoying the hangover…
No, he couldn’t have. Nothing he said or did could have changed the minds of people who were simply determined to invade, period.
Wrong; he tried, and our response was to attack as soon as we could to get in before the UN could expose our lies for what they were.
Nonsense; even before the war, I recall at least one Bush official admitting that it wouldn’t matter if Saddam fled or suicided or not. And since then there’s been various leaks showing that yes, they fully intended to attack no matter what.
Oh, garbage. Saddam and the rest were irrelevant. We attacked Iraq as a land and oil grab; that’s all. Saddam and friends were besides the point.
It’s right wing propaganda, nothing more. And it was obviously such even before the war, much less now.
Good for them. I truly hope it lasts and Iraq becomes a shining model of democracy.
Which Middle Eastern, Asian, African, Central American or South American dictatorship are you, Curtis, willing to die or lose your limbs for in order to cure next? I’m sure you’ll be volunteering the day you turn 18?
Actually, they have not. All the more in-depth coverage I have seen indicates that Alawi, while a secularist, ran as a Sunni supporter. Beyond that, all his party accomplished was to put together a small coalition among widely scattered parties that barely eked by Maliki’s small coalition. It may take several months for either group to actually find a working coalition to genuinely form a government, so we appear to be looking at a caretaker government making no headway for several months, followed by some period of dissatisfied reaction.
Claiming a “secularist” victory in this context has no correlation to reality. I wish them the very best, but it is far too soon to declare “Mission Accomplished” once again.
I have no idea what you thought was being predicted. As far as I know, nobody was saying the election wouldn’t occur. And obviously, if an election occurred somebody was going to get the most votes and declare themself a winner.
What was being predicted was that a lot of Iraqis would boycott the election and therefore the resulting government would not be seen as legitimate by many Iraqis. In the last general election in 2006, there was an 80% turnout of voters. In the 2005 interim election, there was a boycott and there was a 58% turnout. This time people were predicting a boycotted turnout between 55 and 60%. The actual turnout was 62% - not quite as bad as predicted but closer to a boycotted election than not.
The other issue is who won. Iyad Allawi is saying his coalition won the most seats and he’s the new Prime Minister. Current PM Nouri Maliki’s party lost by only two seats and he apparently has not yet conceded defeat. Neither party has a majority and will need to form a coalition with other parties to form a government.
So now we have to sit back and see what happens. Will Allawi find enough allies in Parliament to form a majority. Will Maliki? If Maliki loses will he accept his role as the loyal opposition? Will the third of the Iraqi population that didn’t vote accept either man as a legitimate head of government? Or will we see Iraqi teabaggers rioting and saying they want to take their country back?
I find it funny that while Bush and co. and their followers now were trying to take away guns and religious influence in Iraq, they were trying to do the exact opposite here in America. I’m happy a secular party won, but I wish it would win here too
I don’t think anyone here is killing people of other religions or kidnapping them or carbombing churches or stores or anything like that. Plus the Democrats by any measurable quality has “won” the last two elections ("08 and '06)
So now we’re praising secularism in government? Fantastic! When can we excise Christian “morals” from our own legislation? Hey, can we start with restoring the Pledge to its original secular phrasing?
I pledge allegiance to my Flag and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Our next step should be codify E pluribus unum as our federal motto and remove In God We Trust from our coinage. Then we can federally recognize gay marriage. You know, the legal contract part of it.
Oh, there is so much work we have ahead of us. So glad you finally came around.
I for one am happy for any news that indicates that the Iraqis might be in for easier times. I’m cautious about such news, of course. “Mission Accomplished”, and all that.
I will be much more happy when we can extricate ourselves from the situation, as much as is feasible.
But, all that said – whether or not Iraq becomes a democracy doesn’t indicate that the ends justify the means. I was against this war from the very beginning and I still feel that it was done on spurious grounds, and by deluding the public. I am angry that torture was carried out in my name and for all of the horrible things, and all of the needless deaths. I’m not convinced this was the best solution.
Heck, if Iraq turns into Candyland, and the Sunnis and the Shi’ites and the Kurds and all people in and near Iraq start holding hands and singing Kumbaya and throw all their guns away and pixies rain gumdrops from the sky, fantastic. I’m happy it turned out that way. But even then, our massive excesses and lapses of judgement and even evil acts in carrying out this war will not be washed away in rainbows.
Curtis feels that to question the price of establishing US hegemony is to be unpatriotic. And faithful Christian that he is, if you ask him what would Jesus do?, he’ll tell you, just what we’re doing.
