[QUOTE=Chief Pedant]
Great post, but in fairness we have also seriously degraded Iraq’s ability to make WMDs. Let’s be willing to post the positives along with the criticisms.
[/QUOTE]
But their likelihood of producing and spreading something like cholera is probably much greater. Better nuke 'em.
-Joe
[QUOTE=Terrifel]
Furthermore, there are definite verified rumors that Iran’s secret nuclear enrichment program is hidden somewhere in the World of Warcraft.
[/QUOTE]
It is! Just what do you think is REALLY going on in Gnomeregan, anyway?
What has this done for me - and by extension you, Chouan?
I / we can be designated by Bush / and some number of underlings as a terrorist; denied hearings and charges against us, denied legal representation, taken on a CIA plane to a foreign country and “urged” to confess to terrorist acts. Every one breaks under torture - as said by any number of Vietnam POWs. I mean anyone - innocent people have already undergone this treatment, by mistake.
I / we can have our phones / internet communications monitored without warrants. Bush and others claimed it would be specifically targeted - it wasn’t. Bush / others claimed we had to act quickly and not be delayed by legal niceties. We have had for many years a special court fully staffed with Judges 24/7 to specifically prevent delays and they have never turned down a warrant for wiretapping/eavesdropping/searches. But you do actually have to have some evidence.
I /we are impoverished by massive debt loads generated by the Iraq war. Do you know the burden on future families?
Congress, despite protestations, is evermore in control of lobbyist / money interests. The massive budgets are home to huge numbers of pork projects. More money, just scream “national security”.
My security is lessened. My constitution has been reduced to tatters; we have government by “findings”. The future of our country is seriously jeopardized by international distaste / hatred of current policies. The cost to American people in deaths, serious injuries requiring lifetimes of treatment, and plain money is incalculable.
By the way; I’m 35 miles down the road from Osama over here in Afghanistan. We are a second rate theater in so far as allocation of materials, parts, and effort by the administration. (Note: nobody tries harder than our soldiers here). The Iraqi diversion was a surrender in our efforts to eradicate Al-Qaeda here. Wasn’t “shock and awe”, didn’t have network news access, wasn’t a poster child for latest and greatest weapons (we used Spec Forces on camels directing 40 year old B-52s), can’t generate contracts and monies for political backers like that. Tough Bush talk about going anywhere, no sanctuaries, stopped at the Pakistani border. He needed a bigger distraction; more wag-the-dog effect, to become the tough guy war president. Pakistan would have made a public stink about a hot chase across the border but the territories here aren’t really governed by the central government.
I look forward to the entire series of upcoming posts by our guest OP, which I’m told will comprise topics as diverse as “Testicular electrotorture feels neat,” “Haggis: the most popular food on Earth,” and “Resolved: the greatest film in the history of cinema is Freddy Got Fingered.”
Does anyone else get the feeling that the next generation of Republican talking points is being spawned? “We were inches from total victory, but sabotaged at the last minute by blame-America-first leftists!”
Isn’t that actually just the Vietnam talking points, recycled and distributed by e-mail?
[QUOTE=Chouan]
No. The libertarians are too liberal when it comes to social issues.
[/QUOTE]
If you reject the basic concept that government has no business interfering in the personal sphere, it’s rather disingenous to cite alleged improvements in freedom as a benefit (even setting aside the factual question of whether or not that acutally resulted from the invasion of Iraq).
[QUOTE=elucidator]
And certainly the political interference of the Western world is an important issue, but I tend to think that cultural interference may be more important, though more difficult to actually pinpoint. There is a Calvinist killjoy streak in just about every major religious grouping, but seems very prominent in Islam. Their turds aren’t tapered, but clipped, because their Nixons are so tight, they slam shut, they make American tighty righties seem like Wavy Gravy. Like the Puritans, they are haunted by the fear that somewhere, someone is having a good time without actually praying for forgiveness.
[/QUOTE]
The social-right faction of the GOP (except for the minority that recognizes that social issues are social issues, not political ones, and can only be addressed by social rather than political means) really wants that man-behind-the-curtain to remain hidden. The obvious parallels between their worldview and the enemy’s don’t exactly help the saleability of the former.
[QUOTE=Marley23]
Isn’t that actually just the Vietnam talking points, recycled and distributed by e-mail?
[/QUOTE]
Except they were true in Vietnam, it remains to be seen if they are true here. I think they will be, as long as we stay the course, but the OP here is way premature, we won’t begin to know for another decade.
You’d think a war supporter would actually be more angry about the way the war has been fought. Not less. If you don’t support the war, then it doesn’t matter what we do or did there. It’s all wrong, regardless. But if you did think overthrowing Saddam was a great idea, why aren’t you outraged by the disasterous and incompetent way the war has been handled: The failure to send in enough troops, the failure to control looting, De-baathification, disbanding the Iraqi army, staffing the green zone with inexperienced political appointees, Jerry Bremer, the “light footprint,” generally ignoring what generals and mid-east experts had to say. If overthrowing Saddam and establishing a democratic Iraq is so important, surely you’re outraged that such an important task was so badly bungled.
[QUOTE=Weirddave]
Except they were true in Vietnam, it remains to be seen if they are true here.
[/QUOTE]
I would be ecstatic if would could expect the same outcome in Iraq as we saw in Vietnam. But we won’t be that fortunate twice.
[QUOTE=Weirddave]
Except they were true in Vietnam, it remains to be seen if they are true here. I think they will be, as long as we stay the course, but the OP here is way premature, we won’t begin to know for another decade.
[/QUOTE]
Stay the course for another decade?
So when do you think America would have achieved victory in Vietnam? 1984?
[QUOTE=Larry Borgia]
You’d think a war supporter would actually be more angry about the way the war has been fought. Not less. If you don’t support the war, then it doesn’t matter what we do or did there. It’s all wrong, regardless. But if you did think overthrowing Saddam was a great idea, why aren’t you outraged by the disasterous and incompetent way the war has been handled: The failure to send in enough troops, the failure to control looting, De-baathification, disbanding the Iraqi army, staffing the green zone with inexperienced political appointees, Jerry Bremer, the “light footprint,” generally ignoring what generals and mid-east experts had to say. If overthrowing Saddam and establishing a democratic Iraq is so important, surely you’re outraged that such an important task was so badly bungled.
[/QUOTE]
What makes you think that we’re not? Let me ask you a question: Do you honestly believe that a nuanced discussion about the best methods of fighting the war, and admission of mistakes made and how to correct them, discussions of long term goals that don’t start “We need to get out of Iraq as soon as possible” or anything else of the sort would be met with anything except overwhelming opposition from the vast majority of people who post here? Any statement that begins 'Well, I support the war, but…" is completely ignored except for the first 5 words, and the person making that statement is blindly attacked. Personally, I just don’t bother here anymore, although if you meet me at a dopefest or something and want to discuss it I’d be more than happy to, I’ve done that many times, frequently productively.
[QUOTE=Terrifel]
Stay the course for another decade?
[/quote]
At least. I’ve been saying it all along.
71-72 if we hadn’t handcuffed ourselves the way we did.
[QUOTE=Weirddave]
At least. I’ve been saying it all along.
71-72 if we hadn’t handcuffed ourselves the way we did.
[/QUOTE]
How did we “handcuff ourselves” in Vietnam, and how does that apply to the current Iraq conflict?
[QUOTE=Weirddave]
Except they were true in Vietnam . . .
[/QUOTE]
:rolleyes: No, they weren’t. We’ve been over this.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
:rolleyes: No, they weren’t. We’ve been over this.
[/QUOTE]
In fact, we haven’t, but that’s OK, it’s beyond the scope of this thread.
Well, with Iraq as with Vietnam, you could also ask yourselves, as war supporters, “Was this the best possible use of the trillion dollars we will have spent?” Even if you think the war was a good thing, or will produce a good outcome at whatever remove, it seems like it would be hard to answer that question in the affirmative.
[QUOTE=Weirddave]
In fact, we haven’t, but that’s OK, it’s beyond the scope of this thread.
[/QUOTE]
Fair enough. How will we know when victory in Iraq has been achieved? The Iraq war has already cost hundreds of billions of American dollars and thousands of American lives. You propose that we should keep doing what we’re doing for at least ten more years. Do you think that there is any limit to the amount of lives and money the United States should sink into this venture?
[QUOTE=Weirddave]
What makes you think that we’re not? Let me ask you a question: Do you honestly believe that a nuanced discussion about the best methods of fighting the war, and admission of mistakes made and how to correct them, discussions of long term goals that don’t start “We need to get out of Iraq as soon as possible” or anything else of the sort would be met with anything except overwhelming opposition from the vast majority of people who post here? Any statement that begins 'Well, I support the war, but…" is completely ignored except for the first 5 words, and the person making that statement is blindly attacked. Personally, I just don’t bother here anymore, although if you meet me at a dopefest or something and want to discuss it I’d be more than happy to, I’ve done that many times, frequently productively.
[/QUOTE]
Fair enough, Weirddave. You seem like a pretty smart guy and my post wasn’t directed to you. And I agree that most discussions of the Iraq war around here are not very edifying.