Bless your heart. Finally, someone willing to make a stand.
You see, I don’t even wanna argue. I simply want to know what one stands for.
Everybody is bitching, but noone would say what one would do. That’s why I like Mr. Ritter, because while I might disagree with him, at least I like dealing with the man who has a plan of action. Not many are joining him, though…
What, running for cover already? There weren’t too many options: only three (3).
Hiya, Isk, hope things are well w/you. Meantime, hate to disappoint you, but I’m nowhere near exploding – coming up on the half century mark this summer so I know I need to keep the infamous Spanish Temper under control.
Be that as it may, as much as liked and agree with 'luc’s response to your query, I thought it might be a good idea to allow Mr Ritter to answer for himself:
From your own link:
Not half bad, huh?
Moving on:
Hmm…take a look at this poll and see if it changes your opinion any:
U.S. Troops in Iraq: 72% Say End War in 2006. Read that again. See where it says Troops in Iraq? Does that tell you anything? No? Nothing at all?
Think it’s any better at home? Think again. To paraphrase Rummy, you work with the anti-war movement you have, not the one you want.
Not only are you – and other warmongers such as yourself – now in the minority but Americans Favor Bush’s Impeachment If He Lied about Iraq
How about them apples?
Take good care.
While reading Red Fury’s post I realized I overlooked this.
Nowhere did I make an argument you claim I did. I simply said that US was trying to get rid of Saddam since 1991 and by 2002 it was facing a choice: continue with sanctions, finish him off or disengage completely. Bush decided to finish Saddam off, so it is perfectly understandable for Bush to stress all the dangers Saddam presented.
As one decides on the course of action, one summons all the arguments to justify it. This is perfectly normal. Bush decided to finish Saddam off and he talked to the world how dangerous Saddam was. Likewise, Scott Ritter decides that US should reach accomodation with Saddam and he summons all the arguments in favor of his conclusion. Again, perfectly normal.
Yes, there were real dangers, Mr. Ritter confirms that explicitly himself. Actually, I like Ritter’s summary much better then Bush’s.
I want to make it perfectly clear: while I support invasion, I also keep in mind that there were other two (2) options and other people might like them better. This is a basis for a valid and crucial argument. What I can’t stand and what I am deeply suspicious of is the attitude that US is always wrong: sanctions are criminal and genocidal, invasion is criminal and genocidal, accomodating evil dictators is, again, criminal and genocidal. There are too many voices here blaming US for whatever it does.
What the hell that has got to do with anything? OP subject is, ‘Why are we in Iraq’. That has to do with events of 2003. If troops want to go home now, it’s fine by me.
Who holds the attitude that the US is always wrong? Genocide has a very specific meaning and should not be used casually, I agree. Are you referring to Dopers when you express your frustration? Democrats? Liberals? Congressional leaders? I don’t know of anyone who blames the US for “whatever it does.”
Since you “can’t stand” that and are “deeply suspicious” of that attitude, please tell us who has it. Be specific.
Thanks.
Bush crossed the line and went well beyond, ‘summoning all the arguments.’
Why? Because had he stated the real reasons, no-one would have bought it. So the US is taking a lot of heat and rightfully, because
Now, lying to start a war might be well outside your conception of blameworthy, but I feel confident you can see how many people feel otherwise. Particularly, as there were other, workable solutions at hand to the problems Bush asserted he was addressing.
We went to war to protect our oil sources and keep gas prices from rising above $1 at the pump.
(checks current gas prices) Yeah, there’s another success from the Bush War Cabal… :rolleyes: 
Well, I have it on pretty good authority (ie. Limbaugh and Hannity) that absolutely everything wrong with the USA is the fault of liberals. So, according to Hannity, you need to “blame a liberal while pumping your gas this weekend.”
Amazing how we had a Republican majority in the House and Senate, as well as a Republican President, yet the Democrats are managing to ruin everything for everybody. Who knew the minority party could accomplish so much evil?
Oh, and a new term to look for from the Usual Suspects: “Drive-by media”. Keep an eye out - both trolls have used it the last two times I’ve heard their shows - so you know certain Dopers will be whipping that one out pretty soon…
-Joe
The Iraq invasion has been a fiasco. Not only is the country on the verge of civil war, we have managed to alienate most of the people (excluding the Kurds). What are the chances of getting the former dictator to take over again? Iraq needs a strongman type leader. Perhaps it would be best if we also decided to turn over security to the Iaqi army.
I don’t see many good options for the US-the previous was mostly in jest, but things are not going well. Maybe we should just forget trying to install democracy there.
Humorously enough, it seems like the Usual Suspects (both on the SDMB and goold ol’ Right-Wing Hate Radio) are no longer clinging to the “Iraq is fine, it’s the Left-Wing Media that’s making things sound bad”, but are rather going with the “It’s all the Libruls fault that things are going badly”.
Anyone noticed what brought about this change? When did it happen?
-Joe
I have been waiting for the “The liberals\protesters are the reason we lost” argument ala-Vietnam to rear its ugly head. Can you direct me to some sources of this angle?
Thanks for bringing all the 'whereas’es into the discussion, and I hope you don’t mind my added emphasis.
Those are indeed the reasons the Bushies said we were going to war. But many people better (and worse, but still more knowledgeable) than I have thought it important to distinguish between the reasons we said we were going to war, and the reasons we did go to war.
First up, Paul Wolfowitz:
I know that quote’s old news, but this discussion is still incomplete without it.
Similarly, from George Packer’s The Assassins’ Gate:
And for good reason: in June 2002, Haass met with then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice.
This was, of course, three months after another famous event recounted in the book:
We know what the public case was for war, and why the American people and Congress bought into it enough so that Bush could go ahead with it. We know the various reasons why the neocons wanted this war; PNAC was pretty evangelical about sharing its reasons. But it really comes down to Bush and Cheney: why did they seek this war? Why did they give the neocons free rein to pursue it, why did they make the for-public-consumption case about WMDs?
Unless and until we have the opportunity to administer truth serum to these two men, Haass is right: we’ll never know why we went to war in Iraq.
And then there’s the question of why we’re still in Iraq.
That’s simpler: the Administration never had a plan for what to do in Iraq after the statue was toppled, so by definition we never had an exit plan of any sort. (Packer goes on at great length about the absence of a plan for the postwar, and how those attempting to create such a plan were frustrated at every turn.)
And then of course, the Bushies thought we’d take the unformed clay of Iraq and mold it into the perfect model state, which would have a flat tax, privatize of government-run businesses, have no barrier on foreign investment, (outside the scope of the link) recognize Israel, be a willing host to U.S. bases, and all that.
Unfortunately, before we were done with The Great Iraq Makeover, it turned into a quagmire: can’t leave because things are too bad to look like we succeeded; and can’t leave because they might get even worse if we did.
I’ve seen plenty of examples, but they pop up and disappear with the frequency and shelf-life of dandelions, so I don’t have a pile of cites. This one’s kind of unusual, though, due to its authorship - Nixon’s Secretary of Defense, Melvin Laird:
There ya go: “the enemy” perceives “reasoned public debate” as showing weakness and lack of resolve on our part. So on account of us war critics, the enemy sees light at the end of the tunnel, and thus emotionally fortified, keeps up the good fight. When presumably they otherwise might have turned their IEDs into plowshares.
Change? Say what you like about the conduct of the war itself, the conduct of the media campaign is masterly, if not subtle. One stands in awe at its military precision. I’m given to contemplate what the outcome might have been, had that skill been directed to the prosecution of foreign policy objectives, instead of radio jingles.
“It’s all the Libruls fault that things are going badly” was as predictable as the tides the, the sun and the moon. As to the timing, it was similarly predictable that when the evidence of failure was beyond the power of the deepest faith to deny, then the question of ‘whose failure?’ would be met finger-pointing at ‘them’.
Yeah, but from a Bush POV, what would have been the point of that??
And the idea that it would have credibility with anyone with an IQ above ‘hamster’ is indicative of how America-centric this country is. That so many people are capable of believing the media debate over here is something more than at the very periphery of the typical Sunni insurgent’s perception, if they’re aware of it at all, is just plain astounding. I’m sure they’ve gotten a hell of a lot more ‘comfort’ from the fact that we didn’t have a plan for the postwar until the ‘postwar’ had been going on for a year and a half, and had long since become ‘the’ war, than they’ve gotten from all the criticisms of the war put together.
Perhaps I’ve gone too far and better backpedal a bit.
I’m not really ‘suspicious’ of any permanent members here. I’m sometimes suspicious about occasional guests that pop up and disappear.
Now about ‘can’t stand’.
There wasn’t much outrage about sanctions policy lately, but before the invasion the situation was very different. US was castigated by all for ‘sanctions genocide in Iraq.’ Al Qaida was using the outrage for their propaganda. Suddenly it became accepted wisdom that sanctions ‘contained Saddam’ quite well, as according to some senior US Amy staff. Fact is, sanctions were unqualified humanitarian disaster. That’s why nobody would dare to support them openly, but only by insinuation.
Regarding doing business with brutal dictators and oppressive regimes, we have many offenders here. Time was, rjung wouldn’t miss a day without showing us a photo of Rumsfield shaking hands with Saddam. elucidator would regularly wax indignant how Kissinger betrayed the Kurds or Reagan officials were making nice with dictators in South America or whatnot.
Now, the same elucidator suddenly tells us that it was better to make a deal with Saddam. Excuse me, but to make a deal somebody would have to go there and shake hands with Saddam or his sons, or Tariq Aziz or something and get some pictures of the event taken. Which might be for the greater good, but somebody here must eat crow, I think.
Meanwhile, Sevastopol still insists that “there were other, workable solutions at hand to the problems Bush asserted he was addressing”, without explaining what he’s talking about.
Yes, because we all know that the problem isn’t with the politicians who sent Rumsfeld over to barter with Iraq, but with the troublemaking posters who point out the inconvenient truth. :rolleyes:
Seemed obvious to me. Which bits do you want elaborated?