[QUOTE=ManiacMan]
There are plenty of cites that talk about Syria’s roll…so many in fact that I believe firmly in the saying “where there is smoke there is fire”.
[/quote]
Are you sure you don’t instead want to say that “we can’t wait until a smoking gun becomes an atom bomb”?
This is three years out of date and does not say what you claim it says.
This is five years out of date (!), does not say what you claim it says, and comes from The National Review. Try a little bit harder, will you.
(You may, of course, respond by telling me that my cite is also out of date. I can only respond like this. Although you apparently still say that foreign fighters are responsible for the chaos in Iraq, the Bush administration gave up on that lie many years ago. Hence there hasn’t been any reason for anyone to bother debunking that lie during the last couple years.)
Very true. The only difference is that my opinions are reasonable and my beliefs are valid. Other than that, we’re much the same.
[QUOTE=ManiacMan]
There are plenty of cites that talk about Syria’s roll…so many in fact that I believe firmly in the saying “where there is smoke there is fire”.
an opinion piece from four years ago from a cheerleader for the administration making claims that have utterly failed to have been demonstrated in the ensuing four years while ignoring the facts that the U.S. military, itself, noted the paucity of actual foreign involvement at the same time that the administration was making its claims, two years ago.
There may be something to the old saying about smoke and fire, but when ther smoke is being generated by proven liars, I suspect a smokescreen rather than a real fire. When the liars contradict their own professionals, I see no reason to believe any of their nonsense.
[QUOTE=ITR champion]
In answer to the first question, asking who wrote Squink’s post is a pretty silly question even by your standards. In answer to your second question, yes.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
Except in passing, “what should we do now”?" is not the topic of this thread. You started out with bold (false) claims of victory everywhere we look. You are now reduced to saying “Well, we screwed this up pretty badly; we can’t leave now.” I take that as a serous admission that the OP was just so much neo-con, Bush Administration posturing that has been overwhelmingly destroyed by the facts.
[/QUOTE]
I said “for the sake of argument”; I didn’t say I was disavowing the OP. I’ve admitted that the immediate aftermath of the 2003 liberation wasn’t handled as well as it could have been. That’s not the same thing as admitting defeat.
We have achieved victory over Saddam. Now, with the invaluable assistance of the Iraqis, we’ve got the insurgency pretty much under control. It IS in its last throes, and as the Vice President reminded everybody a couple of years ago, “throes” can be violent at times. The good news is that the throes are becoming increasingly less violent as the people of Iraq reject the terrorists en masse.
And we–that is civilization, not just the US–are in the process of achieving victory in reshaping the Middle East as a stable and safe region, freed of its centuries of anti-western, anti-Christian, anti-Jewish hatred.
If I diverged from the topic of the OP–the points of victory which I once again outline above–I apologize. But it seemed to me that lots of posters are bringing up other related topics, and thought I’d join in. My bad.
[QUOTE=Chouan]
It IS in its last throes, and as the Vice President reminded everybody a couple of years ago, “throes” can be violent at times.
[/QUOTE]
The last throes have been going on since at least “a couple of years ago”? I’m not entirely sure that’s a time frame you can call “last throes”.
[QUOTE=Chouan]
IAnd we–that is civilization, not just the US–are in the process of achieving victory in reshaping the Middle East as a stable and safe region, freed of its centuries of anti-western, anti-Christian, anti-Jewish hatred. .
[/QUOTE]
We are further from peace in the Middle East now than we have ever been in the last 30 years. When you find yourself in a hole, the first step in getting out is to put down the shovel.
We look in the wrong place. Saudi Arabia finances the insurgents and I read a couple weeks ago 40 % of the foreign insurgents were Saudis. They were the vast majority in the towers. That is where we look. But, we know how friendly Bush is with them.
[QUOTE=Chouan]
Now, with the invaluable assistance of the Iraqis, we’ve got the insurgency pretty much under control. It IS in its last throes, and as the Vice President reminded everybody a couple of years ago, “throes” can be violent at times.
[/quote]
The thing was STARTING a couple of years ago and those can’t logically be called its last throes. And when he said it’s in his last throes, I don’t think he meant “things are going to get steadily worse for about three years, then quiet down a little as the refugees leave for good and the ethnic cleansing gest finished.” Perhaps I’m parsing his words incorrectly, though.
So this war isn’t just going to start democracy in the Middle East - Iraq is the envy of everybody who has electricity, I’m sure - it’s going to make people stop hating Israel? How’s that going to work?
**43% of Britons would like to see Tony Blair join infamous leaders such as ex-Yugoslav leader Slobadan Milosovic and ex-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein by standing trial for war crimes. **
And this is what you call undying support? :smack:
Please have the grace to apologise for your remarks.
[/QUOTE]
First of all, when I say “the British” I mean the British government, which still maintains an alliance with the US against global terrorism, including the war in Iraq. The only reason PM Brown is drawing down forces is because the predominately Shi’a region in the south is so stable. The US forces have had to deal with the more volatile central and northern regions, so we’re not yet at the point where we can start any phased withdrawals. In any case, I don’t expect that the British government will cease its traditional alliance with the US in our struggles (whether it be fascism, communism, or terrorism).
Second of all…why would I apologize because a silly satire on Channel 4–apparently featuring people wearing funny Blair masks, to judge by the photos–is doing a show about Blair in a hypothetical future? And really, how scientific is the Channel 4 poll that you cite? I mean, come on. And even if you could show me a more scientific poll showing a majority of Brits opposed to the war in Iraq, polls like these are never a good indication of how the government will conduct its foreign policy. There are a lot of things that the common “man on the street” type person can’t appreciate when it comes to foreign policy–I’d rather leave those decisions in the hands of informed officials than a bunch of TV show watching people.
[QUOTE=Chouan]
The only reason PM Brown is drawing down forces is because the predominately Shi’a region in the south is so stable.
[/QUOTE] As British Leave, Basra Deteriorates
[QUOTE=jlconsultants]
On this topic, I encourage you all to read a fabulous article written by Christopher Dickey in the Oct 29, 2007 Newsweek titled “Deliverance and Iraq.” Some of you may remember that Mr. Dickey’s father, James wrote the book, later to become a movie, “Deliverance”, which Christopher quite astutely juxtaposes against the war in Iraq.
[/QUOTE]
I think most of us are quite ready to squeal like a pig.
[QUOTE=Sophistry and Illusion]
Hey Chouan–But when Saddam did use chemical weapons, we made sure that he wouldn’t suffer for it at the hands of the UN or anything. Remember Rumsfeld’s infamous trip to Iraq to assure Saddam that we wouldn’t raise a fuss about any small issues like his using chemical weapons. Just go to google images and google rumsfeld saddam hussein. We provided him the political cover to use WMDs to commit war crimes. And then we use his WMDs (no longer existing, by that point) as a pretext for saying he was a bad guy. Why wasn’t he a bad guy when Rumsfeld was shaking his hand with a shit-eating grin on his face?
[/quote]
Hey, I’ve seen the pictures and the videos. But you have to remember the context. Iraq was fighting Iran. Iran in 1983 was definitely THE bad guy in the eyes of the US…it had only been four years since they overthrew the Shah. We weren’t happy that Saddam had used chemical weapons on the Iranians, and our concern was brought up during Rumsfeld’s visit to Iraq (although apparently the topic didn’t arise during the meeting with Saddam that you see in the photos…apparently it came up during a talk Rumsfeld had with Tariq Aziz, and Rumsfeld expressed both our willingness to work with the Iraqis but concerns about the chemical weapons reports).
So, yeah, Saddam was a bad guy for using mustard gas and other CW on the Iranian army…but he still represented the lesser of the two evils AT THE TIME. This was long before the genocides of Halabja and Al-Anfal, too.
Why not? Afraid it won’t be the echo chamber that it usually is (judging by this thread)??
[QUOTE=Chouan]
I said “for the sake of argument”; I didn’t say I was disavowing the OP. I’ve admitted that the immediate aftermath of the 2003 liberation wasn’t handled as well as it could have been.
[/quote]
It wasn’t a liberation, it was conquest.
[QUOTE=Chouan]
I. Now, with the invaluable assistance of the Iraqis, we’ve got the insurgency pretty much under control. It IS in its last throes, and as the Vice President reminded everybody a couple of years ago, “throes” can be violent at times.
[/quote]
Only in your dreams. The resistance will last as long as we are there.
[QUOTE=Chouan]
IThe good news is that the throes are becoming increasingly less violent as the people of Iraq reject the terrorists en masse.
[/quote]
First, it’s become less violent for the moment because many of the people doing the killing have FINISHED. They won, their opponents are dead or fled. You might as well claim that it was a victory for France when they surrendered to Germany because the rate of French military deaths went down.
[QUOTE=Chouan]
IAnd we–that is civilization, not just the US–are in the process of achieving victory in reshaping the Middle East as a stable and safe region, freed of its centuries of anti-western, anti-Christian, anti-Jewish hatred.
[/quote]
Outright insane, or bald faced lies. Only you know which. We have done the exact opposite; we’ve encouraged and validated that hatred, and made the region less stable and safe. And Iraq was ALREADY a civilization.
You know, it’s a good thing that the Continental Congress wasn’t run by the Straight Dope. Did you realize that 15 years elapsed between the first CC’s meeting (1774) and the US Constitution went into effect in 1789? 15 years!
It’s only been almost 5 years since the Iraq war began. Iraq experienced its first free elections in 2005. So, an Iraqi democratic government has only been in existence for 3 years, and you guys are already declaring it a “failed state”??
And the Cedar Revolution–also just 3 years ago–has been delayed by the Hezbollah terrorists. And you guys are already giving up on freedom in Lebanon?
Nobody said that the reshaping of the New Middle East would be easy or swift. But right away, as soon as the Iraq war started, the left picked on every setback as proof that the mission was a failure. You guys were ready to leave the first time a carbomb went off.
And now we’re finally seeing some positive signs emerging from Iraq, and you’re refusing to recognize them for what they are.
So the liberals don’t have the stomach for a prolonged struggle against the forces of evil.
[QUOTE=Chouan]
I said “for the sake of argument”; I didn’t say I was disavowing the OP. I’ve admitted that the immediate aftermath of the 2003 liberation wasn’t handled as well as it could have been. That’s not the same thing as admitting defeat.
We have achieved victory over Saddam. Now, with the invaluable assistance of the Iraqis, we’ve got the insurgency pretty much under control. It IS in its last throes…
[/QUOTE]
We’ve been hearing this for over five years.
It’s all just bullshit until the war in Iraq is actually won. All we’ve been hearing for five-plus years is how the war will end any day now, and it never does. Put up or shut up; don’t claim victory until victory happens.
[QUOTE=Chouan]
You know, it’s a good thing that the Continental Congress wasn’t run by the Straight Dope. Did you realize that 15 years elapsed between the first CC’s meeting (1774) and the US Constitution went into effect in 1789? 15 years!
It’s only been almost 5 years since the Iraq war began. Iraq experienced its first free elections in 2005. So, an Iraqi democratic government has only been in existence for 3 years, and you guys are already declaring it a “failed state”??
[/quote]