Who exactly are “they”. Seriously, there are millions of people protesting peacefully in the street. Basically they just want electricity water and a politician to bitch at. 1 person dead a day is not an insurrection. It’s a small band of paid assassins trying to keep the majority miserable. Of course that’s just an opinion.
An illegal war? Congressional approval was required, not yours, and not Chiraq’s.
And you’re forgetting (d) the reporter should have taken more care; (e) the people that daily shoot at American and British soldiers created an environment where the soldiers feel it’s necessary to defend themselves quickly or die, so the blame lies with the terrorists/resisters; (f) if only God had not made Iraq, or if it was covered by the ocean, none of this would have ever happened, so the blame lies with God/geography/continental drift; or (g) more could have been done by everybody, but it was not reasonable to do everything that could possibly have been done, so “blame” need not with any one particular source.
Sorry, but I’m going to have to ask for some support for your assertion that anyone in the administration ever said that 1) civilians would not be killed; 2) maintaining public order in Iraq would not be a difficult task; and 3) reconstruction would be easy. And for the record, some Iraqis have welcomed American and British liberators.
And Congressional approval was obtained. The circumstances surrounding that approval have come to light, and a sordid thing it is, too.
As for Chiraq: if you see your friend fill his lap with gasoline and reach for the matches, are you somehow disloyal if you try to slap them from his hand?
And finally, this just in, which I find astounding: CNN’s afternoon poll was Is Iraq A Quagmire. Latest results as of about 5pm Cent. was 94% yes, 6% no. Spin that anyway you want, that is some serious shit. Someone should dispatch a cardiac squad to President Rove’s office.
I disagree. If you listen to the street interviews they want basic services and they’re pissed that the United States can’t provide them. IMO, Bathest party members are NOT part of the general populace. They are the working people behind Saddam’s bloody regime. If you think rapists and murderers are fighting for a free nation you’re mistaken. These people have a vested interest in bringing Saddam back. If a legitimate government is installed, they will be held accountable for their actions.
And I listened to Bush very carefully, I never once heard him say it was going to be easy. In fact, I heard him say just the opposite. I did hear Bush and Blair anticipate troops being welcomed, which they were in non-bathist areas. If memory serves me, the operation was supposed to take years and be difficult. I took this to mean exactly what is happening now. I envisioned 100’s of dead soldiers when he said it. Specifically from Bathist party members. Maybe we hear what we expect to hear from our politicians.
I will admit that I also expected resistance to Bathists in the form of political rallies. Maybe that will come to pass. Don’t know.
>> (d) the reporter should have taken more care;
No, all the reports say he did everything right. He asked and got permission from the US army but some other unit did not know it. He did everything right and the US army screwed up.
>> (e) the people that daily shoot at American and British soldiers created an environment where the soldiers feel it’s necessary to defend themselves quickly or die, so the blame lies with the terrorists/resisters;
Except that they are legitimately defending their homeland against foreign occupation forces so the blame would lie with the foreign occupation forces.
>> Sorry, but I’m going to have to ask for some support for your assertion that anyone in the administration ever said that 1) civilians would not be killed; 2) maintaining public order in Iraq would not be a difficult task; and 3) reconstruction would be easy.
Oh, give me a break. I am not going to waste my time looking for cites. Just search for the threads around that time. The government knew that they could not say it was going to be difficult and not lose support. the fact is that things are going much worse than the US government predicted and that the occupation forces cannot maintain safety and order necessary for reconstruction.
MARCH 21, 2003?! You had to go back to 3/21/03 to find some scrap of evidence? How sad is that?
Oh, I know! It must be that the news services were so inundated by stories, day in and day out, of Iraqi’s strewing rose petals in that path of our soldiers, offering thier daughters, that sort of thing…well, it just got to be too much, you know? After a month or so of people flinging themselves at the feet of our soldiers in flailing spasms of gratitude, they just stopped running them.
No, wait! Its the modesty and quiet dignity of Karl Rove. They have politely requested that those stories be downplayed, as it is so unseemly. Besides, it might lead to an unethical political advantage for the Admin, and they’ll have none of that, you may be sure!
Of course, there are going to be those who argue that shootings, bombings and mass demonstrations of antipathy are evidence that the Iraqi people don’t view America with adoration and fawning approval.
Methinks you need a refresher on the etiquette of Great Debates. Earlier, you asked me for a cite and I provided one. Now I’m disputing a factual assertion you’ve made, and you don’t want to “waste your time looking for cites”? Maybe your time would be better spent looking up the word “hypocrite” in the dictionary. Maybe you should stop making factually incorrect statements. Maybe you should stop wasting our time and stay out of GD.
This Feb. 2003 article from the Observer says that the administration estimated that the first phase of post-war Iraq – US military rule – would last between 6 and 18 months; followed by a second phase – international civilian administration backed by a diminished military presence – of indeterminate length; followed by a third phase – instituting Iraqi self-rule – at some point further down the line. Here, Bush said the Iraqi occupation could last two years (from April 2003). Here, General Tommy Franks says four years (no date provided).
I would encourage you to not “waste your time looking for cites” because it appears that there are none that support your point. Now please stop wasting our time and either play by the rules of GD, or else stick to IMHO.
You are asserting trivial displays of candor, candor on issues of secondary significance. It hardly matters how straightforward the Admin was, or was not, on those points. On the one crucial issue, the necessity for war, the Admin was tirelessly misleading.
It takes maybe a thousand licks to get to the center of this particular Tootsie Pop, but the brown stuff ain’t chocolate.
Now that’s funny.
-Is today better for you?
In your opinion the war is not necessary. Pointless to argue opnions so I won’t but if a straightforward Admin doesn’t mean anything to you then you gain the advantage of having a larger choice of candidates to choose from.
I know very well the meaning of “hypocrite” and, you are right, it fits president Bush perfectly. Thank you for pointing that out.
Other than that I will choose my own debating style and I choose not to waste time searching for cites of something I consider obvious and common knowledge. If it turns out I am wrong and most posters disagree with my assesment that such things are common knowledge then my reputation will suffer but, other than that, I am under no obligation to spend my time providing you with cites. You are free to support your own view with cites but the cites which you provided are straw men and do NOT support your point. Which means that you tried to find cites and you couldn’t. Those cites talk about how long the occupation would be but do not say anything about it being about fighting a guerrilla war and suffering daily casualties. Feel free to try again. Maybe you can find a cite from a US government official which predicted the occupation would be about suffering casualties and fighting guerrillas and facing daily anti-American demonstrations. In the meanwhile I remain convinced that I remember the president saying it was going to be much easier than this.
I came to this thread kinda late, but what the heck.
I think the death of the journalist was simply an occupational hazard. Spend enough time in the presence of flying bullets and odds are some will hit you.
One poster implied that the reporter should wear blaze orange to make himself known as a non-combatant. It wouldn’t do him any good. Not against tanks, anyway. I’m a gunner in an M1 Abrams tank. We use thermal sights almost exclusively. Hot spots usually signify something worth looking at; vehicle engine or exhaust, muzzle blast or rocket plume, soldiers’ body heat, etc. The gunner was very likely “color blind”, looking at a guy with some kind of device on his shoulder pointed at the tank. What would you do in the same situation? If you wait to see a rocket plume, you’re dead. You don’t have time to move out of the rocket’s path. Remember, there are 3 other crewman in that tank.
I’m not saying “tough shit” for the journalist, but the fact is, he DID know the risk. Just like cops, soldiers, and Dale Earnhardt.