Sometimes it is better to settle for two states that are not at each other’s throats now.
I am surprised you are allowing for this at all, even as a remote possibility. If this occurs, doesn’t it mean thousands of Americans died in vain for the proposition that a united, democratic Iraq was the only way to fix what we had broken?
Golly, where did that little scamp get off to? Something about words like “proof” and “cite” just seem to drive him away.
Bush probably did not have the constitutional authority to engage in a unilateral pre-emptive invasion involving over 100,000 troops and hundreds of billions of dollars without congressional authority. They did an awful lot of selling for an administration that didn’t need public support to invade Iraq. We just basically disagree on this point, I think Bush lied because he had to misled us in order to get the result he wanted (this is pretty close to the legal definition of fraud), you think that this was irrelevant.
I suspect that you don’t think we were misled because you buy into the Bush Doctrine and that was sufficient cause for you, I don’t think most people supported the war based on the Bush Doctrine, I think most people supported the war and Bush on the Saddam Hussein is best buddies with Osama Bin Laden Doctrine. I also happen to think that Kerry ran a weak campaign against an unethical and ruthless Bush campaign.
The U.S. represents over 90% of that coalition, the U.S. and the U.K. represent over 98% of that coalition. About half the countries on that list are no longer there. Aside from the top 5 or so countries on that list the remainder did not provide more than 5000 personnel put together (mostly support (like engineers and medics) or specialists (like mine sweepers) and special forces (like people who handle WMD and speak Farsi), in contrast, the U.S. has employed up to 40,000 mercenaries (currently about 20,000 mercenaries). Almost all of those countries had majorities that opposed the invasion of Iraq and almost half those countries don’t have a single troop in Iraq (except for the odd blue helmet here and there). There are more than a few countries where people feel that their government sent people to kiss up to the US.
Perhaps there wasn’t almost unanimous international opposition but there was overwhelming international opposition and almost no international support for the invasion of Iraq.
Oh, come on… Do you have any idea whether or not we could have done it without the 9/11 connection and the WMD? It is certainly less likely, isn’t it?
I’m no expert on the middle east but, some people think the islamic states consider Israel to be our proxy in the Middle East. So they attack us to get us to withdraw our support of Israel. If we were to withdraw support from Israel and the zionist position, countries would stop harboring terroists that would get us pissed off at them.
Assuming unlimited resources and no problems with soldiers dying in the fields, yeah, that’s a great plan. What constantly baffles me is why people think that other people are going to make rational decisions in response to irrational behaviour on our part. If Lebanon successfully invaded and overthrew the British government because of their financial and moral support for Israel, would we suddenly turn our backs on Israel? And that’s without the entire “insurgents in a country like Iraq can bog down nearly the entire US military in an occupation that costs hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of American lives, imagine how far they would get in Syria, North Korea or Iran where no actually expects to be greeted with flowers” thing.
Do you think that it would have been enough to say, “Saddam Hussein says mean things about us (really mean) and he gives money to the widows of suicide bombers” to get America behind the war without the “imminent threat of WMD and the link to 9/11”?
By whole bunch you mean:
“Zarqawi was considered the head of an insurgent group called Al-Tawhid Wal-Jihad (“Monotheism and Holy War”)until his death on June 7, 2006, which according to U.S. estimates numbers in the low hundreds.”
"While it is not known how many of those resisting the U.S. occupation in Iraq are from outside the country, it is generally agreed that foreign fighters make up a very small percentage of the insurgency. "
“Major General Joseph Taluto, head of the 42nd Infantry Division, said that “99.9 per cent” of captured insurgents are Iraqi.”
“We had women and children, old men, young boys. . . [U.S. commanders] were trying to prove that there were a lot of foreign fighters in Falujah, so that was mainly what we were going for. Very few of them had foreign IDs. . . In an effort to, sort of, “cook the books”, you know, they would find a Qu’ran on the guy and the Qu’ran was printed in Algeria and they’d mark him down as an Algerian, or guys would come in with a black shirt and khaki pants, and they’d say, well, this is the Hezbollah uniform, and so they’d mark him down as a Lebanese. Which was ridiculous. . . I did say something to the Staff Sargeant, and, you know, I just got yelled down” -U.S. Army Specialist Tony Lagouranis spoke about his job identifying many of the bodies after the assault on Fallujah
The insurgency is now almost entirely Iraqis. I don’t know if that even makes a difference or if you are just trying to rebutt things that I think make a difference.
Which ones were made up? Was it the 14 year old getting raped? Haditha? The NSA wiretapping? Does it even matter that people make up and spew shit in support of Bush and the war, or are those OK because those lies are patriotic?
actually what constantly baffels me is the steady drone of continued support for such a fucked up beyond all comprehension war. The same folks who were chanting “mushroom cloud” years ago (and were wrong), who chanted “hearts and minds” (and were wrong), who predicted a short war followed by a brief (paid for by Iraq) reconstruction (and were wrong), who scoffed at dire predictions of cost in human and monetary terms (and holey shit were they wrong about that), who cheered the “mission accomplished” sign (and were wrong), who have spouted speeches about “last throes” and “turned the corner” so often that we did a spit take when one of them actually said recently “I never painted a rosy picture”, those folks are continuing to insist that they’re the ones w/a good grasp on reality in Iraq.
No. It’s this thing called “having a life.”
Nope. Wasn’t going to do that. It’s been done already. More than once.
Nope. Not that either. I’ve asked you to quote me directly, rather than paraphrase.
Post 204 contains my rationale.
Perfectly understandable! But, you must surely recognize, you are in possession of information that has eluded so very many Senators, Congressmen, investigators of every stripe. That you are unique is no surprise to any of us. Rather a blessing, when you think of it.
But that you possess unique sources of information! This casts the whole thing in a different light! It is your patriotic duty, as a non-traitor, to come forward with this treasure trove of fact. Surely you can see that! Fight ignorance, and cast the light into darkness! Bring forward your vast array of facts, cites, and attributions!
Of course, you are a busy, busy man. Rest assured, we are willing to remind you of this obligation, in the event that proves necessary. We understand, you’re a busy guy, sometimes details slip your mind.
Like proving shit.
I’m surprised you find it surprising. It seems you expect me to exclude the middle.
Obviously there are a host of possibilities for the future ranging from most desirable to least desirable, and we work to achieve the most favorable possible outcome.
We’re not having the same conversation. Are we?
Say what?
Were having a communication failure. What the hell are you talking about?
What I really need you to do is to help me by quoting directly which sentence or paragraph of mine you are responding to, in my own words, and then typing your response beneath it. Please?
It’s not that I’m particularly busy, per se. It’s more like I sleep sometimes. Go to work sometimes. Eat. Mow the lawn. Go for a jog. Hang out with family. Things like that.
THose things may not be your cup of tea, and you may prefer sitting here 24/7, but please don’t judge me to harshly that I don’t share your commitment to a continuous presence.
Now, I have to respond to some other nice people for a little while.
Excellent! What a time saver! All you need do now is point us to where has been proved, attributed, and cited! Nothing to it!
Here you go. No paraphrase, direct quote. We invaded Iraq to show that harboring terrorists is a cause for war. From this, we conclude that Iraq must have been harboring terrorists, according to Scylla. Otherwise, we might just as well have invaded Belgium, no?
So. Simple matter. Where is the proof you claim to have already shown?
Further, you claim (direct quote, mind you, none of that paraphrasing here, nosiree Bob!) that certain unnamed persons are “falsifying accusations against our troops and disseminating them”.
Name them. Cite them. Prove it.
You said “public support.” Congressional authority is something different. I don’t know that he needed it. I don’t think Clinton got anything like that when he sent troops into Mogadishu or bombed Iraq. I don’t recall if it was gotten on other deployments or for Vietnam or Korea. Weren’t they called “police actions” rather than wars, because Congress didn’t declare war or formally approve them?
It’s good to have. Doesn’t mean it’s impossible without it like you say.
No. I think Bush et al sincerely beleived he had WMDs. I beleive he was sure of it.
I think we were misled in that Bush pronounced certainty when in fact he didn’t have it. Anyway, I already said why I thought it made sense, WMDs aside.
Is that just an opinion or do you have some kind of poll or survey that would add credence to your viewpoint?
I agree that Kerry is a twit.
That’s all fine, but we weren’t talking about how much support was sent. That list is simply countries that sent support. Clearly those countries were not opposed to the invasion. Right? Clearly, not all of the ones that didn’t send support were automatically opposed either. Some may have had no opinion either way, or supported it, but didn’t send anything.
So, I’ve given you a list of countries that supported it in some way. You say there was near unanimous opposition to the invasion. You need to provide a list that is a lot longer of countries that opposed or voted against the invasion.
You say “near unanimous opposition.” I say my list of supporters pretty much precludes the possibility of near unanimous opposition.
I gave you a big list of supporters. What you should do then is give me a big list of opposers. If your list is overwhelmingly larger than mine than you have a point.
In fact though, you are completely wrong. My list is incomplete. It only includes countries that were part of the coalition. It does not include countries that supported the invasion without sending troops. Countries like Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Israel, etc etc.
But, if you wish to insist on “overwhelming opposition,” than it’s time to pony up your mega-sized list of opposers.
I don’t think the 9/11 connection was ever a major issue. Perhaps you can show it to me in the Wikipedia article I cited about the rationale, or perhaps you can show it to me in one of Bush’s major speeches.
Really, the only time I ever heard it was when some lefty guy was decrying it.
Yes. I suppose that’s true. We could let them kill all the jews and that might make them happy. Better yet, we should try to make friends with them. Let’s help them kill all those jews. Fuck 'em! They’ve been screwed by history for the last 2000 years, they probably expect it by now.
The first girl I ever seriously dated was jewish and she was really mean to me, I don’t find Adam Sandler funny, and Gefilte fish is disgusting, so I’m down with this. It will resolve the Mideast problems.
We can call it a “Final Solution.”
Say what? According to that Wikipedia article
“Although estimates of the total number of Iraqi guerrillas varies by group and fluctuates under changing political climate, the latest assessments put the present number at between 12,000 and 20,000 hardcore fighters, along with numerous supporters and facilitators throughout the Sunni Arab community.”
Alright?
Now this:
“A Washington Post Op-Ed article on November 22, 2005, estimated the number of insurgents killed in action in Iraq at between 45,000 and 50,000. This figure is fairly reliable, and is supported by several independent monitoring sites including “Jane’s Intelligence Online”, and the RAND Corporation”
We’ve killed like 50,000, there’s like 20,000 left. We’ve only lost 2,600. Our country hasn’t had to make a real sacrifice like in a World War. We haven’t had to get on a war footing. Basically our country is humming along.
You guys are painting this like some kind of hopeless, and infinite thing, but we are so kicking ass. We’re doing really well.
You basically just arguing by characterization now. It’s perfectly rational. “If you help people hurt me I will treat you as an enemy.”
That’s a bad analogy because were talking about something completely different. A country that is harboring terrorists and asissting them attack other countries is attacking other countries. They’re just doing so in a way that lets them not be held responsible for their reactions. We’re just holding them responsible and saying that won’t wash anymore.
I expect than knowing they face destruction may make them consider whether or not they want to play nice. I would expect we might get some saber rattling to save face from some, but maybe some other countries will capitulate and say they want to play nice. Maybe even some place like Libya. Oh wait! That already happened!
I dont really care. You seem really hung up on popular opinion, but it’s a fickle and ever-changing thing. You do what you think is right, and stick to your guns and don’t get swayed by worrying about what everybody will think of you. You keep coming back to this, but it’s a nonstarter as far as I’m concerned.
I notice you’ve selectively picked that cite for supporting quotes. Another source says 20% foreign in that cite. Still another says that virtually all of the suicide bombers are foreign. Regardless, there is a foreign presence there. Yes? Naturally we expect it to be mostly Iraqis, yes? Honestly, we really don’t know what the number is because most of these guys don’t walk around with their citizenship papers on them, yes?
But clearly, the insurgency has drawn Al Quaeda and other foreigners, so your suggestion that it hasn’t is not correct.
Well, there was a cite a page or two ago two another thread wherein the accusation was made that torture our troops had tortured dozens to death.
That turned out to be rather unsubstantiated. It may or not be true, but it was clear that he was not in posession of positive knowledge that it was before he asserted it.
I don’t wish to relive that or reopen old wounds or get into specific debates about this side topic as: I already did it, and I kind of have my hands full as it is right now.
My comment is more as a general guideline rather than a specific.
Yes. It matters. We shouldn’t do it. Republicans certainly do do this. Both sides engage in hyperbole and sometimes play fast with the facts and you are right and proper to suggest that it is a two street.
I am merely pointing out that it is not and even two way street as hyperbolous, fraudulent, or simply ill considered claims against our conduct serves the terrorists, too.
This kind of shit is lower than the sore on a catfish’s pecker. It beneath me, its beneath us, make it beneath you.
That’s it! That’s your cite? Something a page or two or maybe on another thread? Are you shitting me? This is all you got?
So the cite for harboring terrorists is…what? Maybe you heard it on the radio in the last several days?
Ah, enough, starting to feel sorry for you. Even a rabid puppy is still a puppy.
Thank you for quoting me. I’m noticing the part where I said Hussain or Iraq was “harboring” terrorists got left out. How come you didn’t include that part in your quote?
Hmmm. Where is that part?
OH yeah! I DIDN"T FUCKING SAY IT!!
Could you quote me where I claim to have already shown the proof?
That’s not a particularly useful quote. It’s a sentence fragment. Once cannot tell what it is referring to. It has no context to identify it. It’s just a gerund phrase, a part of speech. You might as well ask me to cite “running with scissors.”
No. You may recall that in past I considered your false attributions and endless requests for cites of false attributions to be tiresome. I noted that you seem to ask for cites automatically, rhetorically, and without reason, and that no amount of cites for anything seemed to satisfy you.
So, I told you that I wouldn’t be providing cites to you.
That still applies (unless, of course, I happen to feel like it at the time.)
I also note that your pretty demanding, and you jump all ugly with me because I’m not here 24/7 at your beck and call.
I am not your servant.
You request cites speciously, and you make specious accusations and ridiculous demands, you get all whiny and petulant when you can’t monopolize my attention, and sometimes its amusing but other times it’s not, and this is one of the latter.
I have sad news for you. Based on this statement, there are apparently several traitors in positions of the highest authority in the United States Government. What are you going to do about it?
I don’t really think helping them kill all the jews or even just letting them kill all the jews is such a hot idea.
Oh, sure, I get it now. In the midst of that litany of all the Excellent Reasons to Invade Iraq, suddenly you weren’t talking about Iraq any more. My presumption that “harboring terrorists” was a reason for invading Iraq is specious, because you didn’t actually say “Iraq” in that particular passage. Might have been Belgium. Poland?
C’mon. My cousin Clem, who they keep in the attic and feed on fish heads, wouldn’t buy that load of buttwhistle. Of course, you were talking about Iraq.
But your creativity knows no bounds, this next weaselworkken is choice! Definitely a candidate for your greatest hits collection. Now I supply you with your direct quote, as demanded, and…what? What is this, its a sentence fragment, an orphan gerund wandering homeless, why, I can’t tell if I said it or not! Might be somebody else!
But don’t you remember? You’ve covered this one already, its something somebody said. Somewhere. Maybe here. Maybe not. But somewhere.
Why, bless your heart, of course you do! You don’t have them! Tiresome, to be sure!
I’m insatiable! Give me all of your hot monkey cites! Harder, faster, more cites!
Hokily-dokily. Will you provide them to others, or is this a unilateral embargo?
Elucidator:
I didn’t say what you pretended I said, and you can’t even make it look that way by quoting sentence fragments.
To put words in somebody’s mouth they didn’t say is false attribution and it’s a lie, and it’s a serious lie.
You do it a lot to me. I’ve called you on it many many times. It’s not cool.
Please don’t do it anymore.