From the current Foxnews story on “revisionists”
“They,” who? The Bush Administration? Glad you finally agree.
let me ask you a serious question, though Scylla - of those who in the past said they believed that SH had WoMD, how many of them:
-
Claimed that there was imminent threat to the US from that?
-
Claimed that the level of risk to US citizens was so high that it required us to invade another country in order to protect ourselves?
-
Claimed that he was ‘months’ away from having Nukes ready to use?
note, too, please, the real difference between ‘having a weapons program’ and “having a weapons program, having weapons of biological, chemical and nuclear capability, having the means to use said weapons against another sovereign nation half the world away”.
Oh my God! Do you mean to say that the Democrats are a bunch of craven, lickspittle politicians! I gasp with astonishment!
Of course they caved in! If they had the balls of Paul Wellstone (the late lamented) they would have been wiped off the political map by the avalanche of hysterical patriotism unleased by Fearless Misleader and his Greasy Eminence, President Rove. And you, sir, you would have cheered!
And what of our troops, so solemnly blubbered over by these paragons of mendacity you defend so fervently? What do they want? Well, they want to come home, don’t they? They want to be in a place where you don’t have to worry that the man smiling at you has a grenade in his pocket. And what point in time will our losses from “peacekeeping” exceed our losses in the actual war? September? Sooner?
But they can’t, can they? They’re stuck there, and will remain there for…how many years? Anyone care to guess? The best they can hope for is to be one set of miserable grunts replaced by another set of miserable grunts. This is our gift to our best and bravest.
We are fools led by jackals. Lets chuck 'em out! And lets start at the very top.
Ah, yes. We again see the program qualifer.
Consider this: Now that this is over and Saddam is presumably still alive, wouldn’t the fact that he can show he was “telling the truth” serve to legitimize his return, or at the very least make his people think that he really wasn’t as bad as the US said he is?
I’ve said before that I thought he fully intended to survive this. I thought a while ago that this might enhance his credibility and maybe facilitate his return, in addition to making us look bad.
…if in fact we don’t find any weapons. I’m not quite ready to give up on that yet, but I’m getting close. And if that does come to pass, I’ll have some serious words about it.
Wring:
Oh I dunno. Off the top of my head Congress, Blix, Khoffii Annan, Gore, Clinton and every Democrat in 1998 as well as the entire UN.
Elucidator:
You go ahead, I’m making a sandwich.
Really? you have a cite for those claiming that we in the US were in imminent danger of being attacked by Iraq that we needed to invade their country?
that SH was gonna have an operational nuke w/in months (as opposed to wanting one or working on it or trying to get it)?
love to see that.
**
Tomahawk Missiles and no fly zones, babes.
Then go look for it. Frankly, I’m not jumping through hoops for loaded questions.
Don’t forget Tony Blair’s infamous “45 minutes to WMD deployment” lie, and the “sex it up” document.
tomahawk, no fly zones are not in any way the same thing as an invasion.
you asserted a claim, it’s up to you to support it, not the one challenging it.
**
Sure they are. We’re blowing stuff up in his country. We have an unwanted military presence in the country. That’s an invasion, Babes.
Answer your own loaded rhetorical questions, then. I’m not wasting my time on make work for rhetorical nonsense.
Uh, Scylla - would you agree that what we did over the last couple of months, and the level of force we currently have inside of Iraq, is a significant increase over what we had been doing for the past decade or so?
There has not yet been any signs that the prior status quo was unsuccessful in “controlling” SH. The fact that we have yet to uncover whatever WMD may exist, as well as the relative ease with which we defeated their armed forces, suggests to me that they were not a realistic threat - most certainly not to the US, and probably not to the region.
Absent that imminent threat, I am unable to imagine why the increased offensive military actions were necessary at this time.
Why couldn’t inspections have been given more time? It seems they would have been guaranteed at least as much success as we have enjoyed post-invasion.
IMHO, what made war necessary at this particular moment was the fact that Bush sent the troops there, whether in an attempt at brinksmanship or already having decided to send them in. Having his bluff called (if it was a bluff) and having incurred the expense of amassing an invasion force, I suspect he was unwilling to pull them back without something he could present as a victory.
The next area historians will undoubtedly revise is reminding the administration of its overly optimistic predictions of force levels needed after hostilities. At this point, it looks like we’re in Iraq in a big way for the long haul. That’s gonna start getting REAL expensive.
I’m afraid to ask what message board is responsible for this glaring piece if idiocy. You know very well that the two words together have a totally different meaning. God god, that was stupid.
Haj
Very true.
Wring, you have to accept that the recent history of questionable military actions in Iraq certainly does include the Clinton era. If Britain started military missions over Ireland, and set up no fly zones, how would the rest of the world react. It’d be an invasion.
He’s right, wring! Babes. (May I call you babes? It sounds so dismissive and condescending, I’m quite taken by it… 's almost as good as “honey” or “toots”.)
The US has always been at war with Iraq. No fly zones are exactly the same as massive troop engagements. Tomahawk missiles are clearly regime-changing missions. Economic sanctions are indistinguishable from military occupation.
-Do not question these simple truths. To question the truth is to be weak. Through unquestioning acceptance, we can relinquish the tyranny produced by liberty of thought. And only through armed conflict with those we are told are our enemies can we be free of fear.
xeno
(waiting for the inevitable “Orwell references are passe” argument)
Weren’t the no fly zones part of the treaty from GW1? Un resolution and all? if so, then I do not accept that they would constitute an invasion as commonly thought of. And, as Dinsdale points out, certainly not in the same league as current.
Scylla - you made the claim. You don’t want to back it up, say so, don’t toss it back on my shoulders.
The no-fly zones were implemented to protect the Kurdish and Shiite citizens who rose up against Saddam at Bush the Elder’s urging, but were left unsupported to be slaughtered by Saddam’s forces. They had nothing to do with WMD’s.
Scylla, don’t be such a goddamn weasel. If you’re going to claim that “[Hans] Blix, Khoffii Annan, Gore, Clinton and every Democrat in 1998 as well as the entire UN” claimed Saddam Hussein’s WMD’s were “an imminent threat to the US,” “that the level of risk to US citizens was so high that it required us to invade another country in order to protect ourselves,” and “that [Saddam] was ‘months’ away from having Nukes ready to use,” it is encumbent upon you to prove the truth of those assertions.
Actually, no fly zones aren’t the same as massive troop engagements. Tomahawk missiles might change a regime, I suppose, if you used enough of them or got a lucky hit. Economic sanctions are distinugishable from military occupations.
Oh, and I don’t think Orwell quotes are passe at all. “People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf”.
Anything else I can help with? Or do you really just want to bandy around partisan soundbites and black and white ideology? It’s not attractive from either side of the political spectrum, to be honest.
Minty:
Don’t misquote me
Wring:
You know full well the context of my answer. Please don’t play semantic games and insist on interpreting it that I am literally suggesting every Democrat in the world, as well Blix, Clinton, Annan, and Gore in 1998 did all three things, and then ask me for a cite to back it up.