Support for the War in Iraq has declined to an all time low

[Mephisto]

Quote:

Originally posted by Ziggurat
How did FDR explain to the mothers of kids killed on the beaches of Normandy that France was worth liberating from a nation that hadn't even attacked us? Quite simple: the fight is larger than it seems if all you look at is who already attacked you personally.

Now, you're exhibiting delusions of grandeur. What's the matter haven't the conservatives of your generation done anything worthwhile?

I can't believe what I'm seeing here! I've been jumped on by conservative robots for even suggesting the parallel between Vietnam and Iraq, and here YOU openly compare our invasion of Iraq to D-Day! You're comparing our invasion of Iraq to World War II!

Where is the Hitler (no, it wasn't Hussein, Hitler was actually a major threat to everyone around him), where is the Mussolini and the Hirohito? The world was full of madmen and they were on the march (pssst, that's why it was called a WORLD WAR). Iraq isn't anywhere close!

Also, if you're comparing Iraq to WWII, then you should take into consideration WHO is in charge of the invading army (psst, it's us).

As for what Franklin told those mothers and fathers of sons that died on the beaches of Normandy, it didn't matter much. They saw that the threat was real, they knew their loved ones were paying the price of ACTUAL freedom. Not so in Iraq, where families are left to ponder whether their children/husbands/wives/brothers and sisters are dying for WMD, to liberate Iraq, to bring the Iraqi people Democracy, or just because Georgie-Boy wanted to impress his Daddy!

[Mephisto]

Quote:

Originally posted by Cylinder
Because our current President has the judgement and foresight to stay the course and equip the Iraqi people (not Saddam; not Usay; not Zarqawi; not the jihadis) with the tools for self governance. Because peace in chains is slavery. Because the single most positive change to counter Arab repression would be a healthy democracy dead-center of the map of the Middle East. Because we made promises in 1991 that were never fulfilled. Because President Bush might actually in his heart-of-hearts believe (stay with me here) that democratic governance is a fundemental right of Man.

. . . and don't forget the oil . . . Oh yeah, and the laurel and hearty handshake from Daddy.

[demon]

Mephisto:
"I'll say! And to think I chalked up the majority of resistance to this stupid war to serious malcontents like myself!"

Hey, you live and learn...I used to think the same, it`s heartening.

Zig and mates seem to have a fantasy cd playing in their heads about what happened to lead us to invade Iraq or what is happening in Iraq now.

This thead has also made passing remarks about Iraqi casualties...13,000...I`ve seen quoted...why rely on IBC and not The Lancet Report?

I think it has been established that we have been on a killing spree over there...oh, and a torturing one too.

Methinks it`s time for a thread on Fallujah.

[Mephisto]

. . . for those who keep claiming how popular the war is. And this is "new news."
__________

More in Congress Want Iraq Exit Strategy
By Susan Milligan
The Boston Globe

Saturday 11 June 2005
Unease grows as war backing falls.

Washington - Faced with plummeting public support for the war in Iraq, a growing number of members of Congress from both parties are reevaluating the reasons for the invasion and demanding the Bush administration produce a plan for withdrawing US troops.

A bipartisan group of House members is drafting a resolution that calls on the administration to present a strategy for getting the United States out of Iraq, reflecting an increasing restlessness about the war in a chamber that 2 1/2 years ago voted overwhelmingly to support the use of force in Iraq.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/061105X.shtml
_____________

Those fickle Americans. They only want to fight in wars that are over quickly, are just, allow us to feel good about ourselves and that don't have overwhelming casualties. They just don't want to stay the course like Dubya. He's willing to sacrifice for this war. Just last week people kept pestering him about not having attended ONE SINGLE MILITARY FUNERAL (a first for any President), but did you see his resolve weaken? No, that's because God has told him, "this war is right and just."

(insert Twilight Zone theme).

[Ziggurat]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mephisto
Now, you're exhibiting delusions of grandeur. What's the matter haven't the conservatives of your generation done anything worthwhile?

You're assuming I'm conservative. But you are wrong about that, among other things.

Quote:

I can't believe what I'm seeing here! I've been jumped on by conservative robots for even suggesting the parallel between Vietnam and Iraq, and here YOU openly compare our invasion of Iraq to D-Day! You're comparing our invasion of Iraq to World War II!

Where is the Hitler (no, it wasn't Hussein, Hitler was actually a major threat to everyone around him), where is the Mussolini and the Hirohito? The world was full of madmen and they were on the march (pssst, that's why it was called a WORLD WAR). Iraq isn't anywhere close!

Nor are 1600 dead anywhere near close to the number that died in WWII. Or even Normandy. The idea that Iraq didn't pose a threat comparable to Hitler doesn't mean that the cost of the Iraq invasion wasn't worth it either, because the cost has also been orders of magnitude smaller. I never said Iraq = WWII (although there are some superficial similarities: a mustachioed dictator with a hatred for Jews, a propensity to gas enthic minorities, a habit of invading his neighbors, and a fetish for mass graves). I'm making the point that Ladyhawk's argument about the inability of justifying their sacrifice simply makes no sense. It can be used to argue against just about every war we've ever fought, including (but by no means limited to) WWII. Such arguments do not bring moral clarity, they do not bring strategic clarity, all they do is breed paralysis. But that was probably her goal in bringing it up. It certainly seems to be your goal.

Quote:

As for what Franklin told those mothers and fathers of sons that died on the beaches of Normandy, it didn't matter much. They saw that the threat was real, they knew their loved ones were paying the price of ACTUAL freedom.

That's the popular narrative. But it's also not true. There were a LOT of Americans at the time who didn't think it was in the least bit worth it, which is why it took so bloody long for us to even enter the war. Lots of Americans thought we should stay out of Europe, let them kill each other and sort it out. Why sacrifice GI's to liberate France? Hell, more french people were killed during the liberation than during the occupation - does that mean it wasn't worth it to them either? We get a nice sanitized version about how the whole country was behind the troops, because those in favor of going to war in Europe got their war, and they won it. And the press actually supported the troops, and tried to build up morale rather than tear it down (miracle of miracles, or horror of horrors, depending on your perspective - hard to imagine them doing that now). But there was never actually the unanimity you imagine at the time, and CERTAINLY nothing like it before we actually entered the war.

[Ladyhawk]

FWIW, it's not my intent to 'whoop ass' on anyone. (Although I appreciate the...uh....encouragement )

TK posed a serious question. Zig, Red and Cylinder have their opinions, several others (myself included) have others. While we disagree, I've no personal animosity toward any here and I've no need to start a war of my own. Truth be told, I'm more of a 'dove' than a 'hawk'...

I sincerely believe that the majority of Americans who support our presence in Iraq do so because they believe our cause is a just and worthwhile one. There is no denying that a world without Saddam in power is a better world to live in. I've no objection with the removal of SH from power. I've no problem with our attempt to introduce democracy to the Middle East.

While we can argue day and night the justification of the Iraq invasion, certain facts remain indisuputable. The ends do not (and should not) always justify the means, my friends. It may well be that the IC should be blamed for the 'flawed conclusions' that they drew. Inevitably, it was George W. Bush who told us and the rest of the world that Iraq had WMDs and that the security of the US was in jeopardy. And that was the justification he used for going over there. And we believed him. And we supported the invasion based on that statement.

He refused to allow more time to the UN inspectors to validate the IC report. Why? What was the big hurry, after all? Iraq had not attacked Americans on U.S. soil. Our security was never in jeopardy. So, why was W in such a hurry to get the invasion going in Iraq?

Zig says we had almost all the allies we needed. And Zig's right. But, we didn't have all the allies we should have had.

The U.S. probably has egg on its face as far as most of the world is concerned. When I think of the outpouring of sympathy we received during 9/11 (even Khaddafi stated that the attack was uncalled for!) and then we turn around and do something as short sighted as this, I just have to believe we have lost credibility with much of the world. I hope this is not so. I love this country and there is nowhere I'd rather live. And I simply cannot accept that 3500 Americans were tossed into an invasion of a country that never posed a threat to us in the first place and that our troops are still there and the death toll will continue to rise.

[Mephisto]

Quote:

Originally posted by Ladyhawk
FWIW, it's not my intent to 'whoop ass' on anyone. (Although I appreciate the...uh....encouragement )

TK posed a serious question. Zig, Red and Cylinder have their opinions, several others (myself included) have others. While we disagree, I've no personal animosity toward any here and I've no need to start a war of my own. Truth be told, I'm more of a 'dove' than a 'hawk'...

I sincerely believe that the majority of Americans who support our presence in Iraq do so because they believe our cause is a just and worthwhile one. There is no denying that a world without Saddam in power is a better world to live in. I've no objection with the removal of SH from power. I've no problem with our attempt to introduce democracy to the Middle East.

While we can argue day and night the justification of the Iraq invasion, certain facts remain indisuputable. The ends do not (and should not) always justify the means, my friends. It may well be that the IC should be blamed for the 'flawed conclusions' that they drew. Inevitably, it was George W. Bush who told us and the rest of the world that Iraq had WMDs and that the security of the US was in jeopardy. And that was the justification he used for going over there. And we believed him. And we supported the invasion based on that statement.

He refused to allow more time to the UN inspectors to validate the IC report. Why? What was the big hurry, after all? Iraq had not attacked Americans on U.S. soil. Our security was never in jeopardy. So, why was W in such a hurry to get the invasion going in Iraq?

Zig says we had almost all the allies we needed. And Zig's right. But, we didn't have all the allies we should have had.

The U.S. probably has egg on its face as far as most of the world is concerned. When I think of the outpouring of sympathy we received during 9/11 (even Khaddafi stated that the attack was uncalled for!) and then we turn around and do something as short sighted as this, I just have to believe we have lost credibility with much of the world. I hope this is not so. I love this country and there is nowhere I'd rather live. And I simply cannot accept that 3500 Americans were tossed into an invasion of a country that never posed a threat to us in the first place and that our troops are still there and the death toll will continue to rise.

That was beautifully said, and with more sincerity and tact than I could ever muster. It is heartening to know that someone so even-tempered agrees with me (us + demon) on this. Everyone does have their opinion, but as you so aptly pointed out, there are indisputable FACTS that surround our unlawful invasion of Iraq.

With that fact staring them in the face, some people still assert that two wrongs make a right. We're not in Iraq to have the Iraqis line up to sing the "Battle Hymm of the Republic" while throwing flowers at our feet (to thank us as liberators).

It amazes me that some "skeptics" here will laugh at a God who attempts to make a swan, but makes a duckbill platypus, yet they'll throw support behind (and excuses for) a President who LIED to his people and dragged the fair-but-faltering reputation of our "noble" country through the mud!

[Mephisto]

Quote:

Originally posted by demon
Zig and mates seem to have a fantasy cd playing in their heads about what happened to lead us to invade Iraq or what is happening in Iraq now.

Yes, I think that has become more evident with quotes like these. They seem to be writing the narration for a really bad movie. Here are my favorites (I picture an over-acting William Shatner reading the narration).

Quote:

Originally posted by Cylinder
Because our current President has the judgement and foresight to stay the course and equip the Iraqi people (not Saddam; not Usay; not Zarqawi; not the jihadis) with the tools for self governance. Because peace in chains is slavery. Because the single most positive change to counter Arab repression would be a healthy democracy dead-center of the map of the Middle East. Because we made promises in 1991 that were never fulfilled. Because President Bush might actually in his heart-of-hearts believe (stay with me here) that democratic governance is a fundemental right of Man.

Quote:

Originally posted by Red Siegfried
Those who lie about how the US supposedly violates these conventions do nothing but lend credibility to those nations who never chose to abide by it in the first place.

That means you. Knock it off. You're just giving countries like Iran an excuse not to treat people in a civilized manner. "Look! The US does it all the time so why should we follow the rules.'

Think about what you are doing. By abiding by these conventions the best we can, and not spreading libel like that, you would be choosing to promote a better way.

Quote:

Originally posted by Ziggurat
If someone wants to do something that is good and noble, but their motivation is selfish and petty, do you oppose them because of their motivation? Or do you support them because the action itself is still good and noble? Sorry, but I simply cannot buy the argument that you would have supported the war had they made the case on some other basis. All that tells me is you're not really willing to make an evaluation of the situation for yourself.

(chorus of Republican Congressmen humming "Pomp & Circumstance" fades out slowly)

[Elind]

Quote:

Originally posted by Ladyhawk

FWIW, it's not my intent to 'whoop ass' on anyone. (Although I appreciate the...uh....encouragement )

do be carefull however of those who come bearing compliments, or encouragement ....uh....)


While we can argue day and night the justification of the Iraq invasion, certain facts remain indisuputable. The ends do not (and should not) always justify the means, my friends. It may well be that the IC should be blamed for the 'flawed conclusions' that they drew. Inevitably, it was George W. Bush who told us and the rest of the world that Iraq had WMDs and that the security of the US was in jeopardy. And that was the justification he used for going over there. And we believed him. And we supported the invasion based on that statement.


Perhaps you did support it mainly on that argument. Personally, and I think many others also, did so mainly on the basis that he most certainly would have had many more by June 2005, or 2006, had sanctions been ended as many of our so called friends wanted. Call it speculation perhaps, but I don't see how any rational person can think that Saddam, and his regime, would suddenly have changed spots after being released.


He refused to allow more time to the UN inspectors to validate the IC report. Why? What was the big hurry, after all? Iraq had not attacked Americans on U.S. soil. Our security was never in jeopardy. So, why was W in such a hurry to get the invasion going in Iraq?


GW was in a "hurry" because after a certain point it was do it or forget it for all the logistic, momentum and other reasons that we heard ad nauseam at the time, and which were real. The inspectors were tending to say that they couldn't find anything, while Saddam was doing his best (presumably for local propaganda reasons) to give indications that he was hiding something. Nobody rational could have reason to believe anything from Iraq.


Zig says we had almost all the allies we needed. And Zig's right. But, we didn't have all the allies we should have had.


We didn't "need" any allies, and the ones who could have made the biggest difference we didn't have, including those who could have backed the threat of force at an early stage in the UN, thereby probably forcing Saddam to cave in such an obvious manner, to all the inspection impediments he created, that the US probably would have found it impossible to justify going to war. Instead he had what certainly seemed like tacit support all the time, from France, Germany, Russia and even Turkey at the end. He didn't believe he would be invaded for that reason, and screwed himself accordingly.



The U.S. probably has egg on its face as far as most of the world is concerned. When I think of the outpouring of sympathy we received during 9/11 (even Khaddafi stated that the attack was uncalled for!) and then we turn around and do something as short sighted as this, I just have to believe we have lost credibility with much of the world. I hope this is not so. I love this country and there is nowhere I'd rather live. And I simply cannot accept that 3500 Americans were tossed into an invasion of a country that never posed a threat to us in the first place and that our troops are still there and the death toll will continue to rise.

That sympathy was shortlived, when it became clear it called for action. I do not recall unanimous worldwide approval of attacking Afghanistan either, nor a great deal of friends clamoring for a piece of that action.

Saddam of course stood out as about the only leader on the planet who expressed no sympathies for 9/11.

You say Iraq posed no threat. I disagree and think that had circumstances been different and he free and with full resources, as was the only alternative; then we would most certainly see him as a major threat by today.

Again, at the risk of repeating myself, just what do you think would have been his priorities with freedom to act and no threat from the US (or of course anyone else), thanks to an acquiesent UN?

[President Bush]

Quote:

Originally posted by Regnad Kcin
Where do these types come from? Seriously.

Quote:

Abandoneros hiding from our poisoned sun, miles below our feet...

Working as a welder at an auto plant in Detroit. I began to notice that one of the welding guns on my job site, by some freak of its coil's field atunements, was allowing me to read the thoughts of the men working around me. More frighteningly, I then picked up the telepathic record of a torture session conducted by malign entities in caverns deep within the earth.

If you doubt this, you may be suffering from brain damage.


http://www.softcom.net/users/vtown/feardownbelow.html

[Orwell]

Memo disputes Bush Iraq claims

The secret Downing Street memo

[Mephisto]

" The memo, in which British foreign-policy aide Matthew Rycroft summarized a July 23, 2002, meeting of Prime Minister Tony Blair with top security advisers, reports on a U.S. visit by Richard Dearlove, then head of Britain's MI-6 intelligence service.

The visit took place while the Bush administration was declaring to Americans that no decision had been made to go to war. While the memo makes observations about U.S. intentions toward Iraq, the document does not specify which Bush administration officials met with Dearlove.

The MI-6 chief's account of his U.S. visit was paraphrased by the memo: "There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and [weapons of mass destruction]. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. ... There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."

No weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq since the U.S. invasion in March 2003.

from the first link
__________

isn't it still good if Democracy takes hold?

Well, would you thank me for kicking you in the groin and, after having pissed blood for a week, found out you had testicular cancer?

[Cylinder]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mephisto
Ah, I see. And what if Colonel Lumbaktu Nawambai of Western Lawtavia decided that President Bush was a threat to world peace and thought his stockpile of ACTUAL WMD (as opposed to Iraqi WMD) was reason enough to invade the U.S. Would he be acting legally?

I know for certain that there are literally thousands of people who think Bush should be removed from power, I know that we have many nuke-ular weapons in our arsenal, and I'm not too sure I'm too comfortable with the fact that Bush believes God speaks through him. Would Colonel Lumbaktu be justified in invading the U.S? Would YOU cooperate with the Lawtavian military after they bombed your city and when roll through with their armor? I hear so many conservatives audibly patting themselves on the back, but apparently empathy among them has gone the way of the Dodo bird, the Compassionate Conservative and other mythological critters.

The legality of the requirements stem from UNSCR 687 and the seperate cease-fire with the United States that Hussien himself agreed to at the end of the first Gulf War. In a legal sense, they are not seperate wars.

In a practical sense as well, the US has been at war with Iraq since 1991. We have excersized sovereignty over his airsapce and portions of his land territory as well. He has attacked US forces literally thousands of times over the course of the last decade, attempted to assasinate a president on a state visit, and have called for terrorist attacks against the United States.

[Cylinder]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mephisto
Yes, I think that has become more evident with quotes like these. They seem to be writing the narration for a really bad movie. Here are my favorites (I picture an over-acting William Shatner reading the narration).


(chorus of Republican Congressmen humming "Pomp & Circumstance" fades out slowly)

Critical thinker or Kool-Aid drinker?

I guess you're asserting that I am wrong becuase my opinion does not fit well with your world-view. Wow - where have we seen that before?

[Mephisto]

Quote:

Originally posted by Cylinder
I guess you're asserting that I am wrong becuase my opinion does not fit well with your world-view. Wow - where have we seen that before?

Iraq?

[The Fool]

Quote:

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
I can't wait to hear Mr. Habib's lawyers explain what he was doing in Afganistan in the first place when Mr. Habib tries to get his passport restored.

His story is that he was investigating which muslim school to send his son to....Have you any evidence he was doing something else?
If you have any evidence of any criminal activity against this man then please bring it forward. If all you have is inuendo or a wink and a nod or tapping the side of your nose in a knowing manner then please join the cue for those with irrelevant input behind the US government.

I know you think he is guilty pep...I think he may be guilty too. Fortunately our opinions on his guilt are not used as a reason to lock someone away without due process....Unfortunately, the US has decided that the opinions of some other unknown people is sufficient. I cannot for the life of me ever understand how someone from a Nation like America that was founded on principles of Justice could be comfortable with what is happening at gitmo.

[Mephisto]

Quote:

Originally posted by Cylinder
The legality of the requirements stem from UNSCR 687 and the seperate cease-fire with the United States that Hussien himself agreed to at the end of the first Gulf War. In a legal sense, they are not seperate wars.

Isn't it ironic how you can quote a UN Security Counsel resolution when it's convenient to you, but when it comes to answering why Bush didn't wait for the UN to complete its search for WMD, conservatives always state various reasons why they believe the UN is ineffective?

[Cylinder]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mephisto
Isn't it ironic how you can quote a UN Security Counsel resolution when it's convenient to you, but when it comes to answering why Bush didn't wait for the UN to complete its search for WMD, conservatives always state various reasons why they believe the UN is ineffective?

Let's see if I can help clear this up for you.

Quote:

legal (adj.) - In conformity with or permitted by law: legal business operations.
Source: Dictionary.com

effective (adj.) - capable of bringing about an effect: effective assistance of counsel
Source: Dictionary.com

[Ladyhawk]

Quote:

Originally posted by Elind

Perhaps you did support it mainly on that argument. Personally, and I think many others also, did so mainly on the basis that he most certainly would have had many more by June 2005, or 2006, had sanctions been ended as many of our so called friends wanted. Call it speculation perhaps, but I don't see how any rational person can think that Saddam, and his regime, would suddenly have changed spots after being released.

Yes, I expected he would have more justifications by this time, but I never suspected that his ORIGINAL justification would have been wrong. Makes any further argument tougher to believe. And, can we please stop using the "how any thinking/rational/human person could not support the destruction of SH regime" argument? I haven't seen any one here who disagrees with the invasion of Iraq say that they thought SH should remain in power...not one.

Quote:

GW was in a "hurry" because after a certain point it was do it or forget it for all the logistic, momentum and other reasons that we heard ad nauseam at the time, and which were real. The inspectors were tending to say that they couldn't find anything, while Saddam was doing his best (presumably for local propaganda reasons) to give indications that he was hiding something. Nobody rational could have reason to believe anything from Iraq.

And had we given the inspectors what they asked for, isn't it possible we would have taken the 'forget it' part of that path? There were no 'other' reasons that we were given for the invasion. We were told Iraq had WMDs and American security (and that of the world) was at risk.
It turns out that this is not and was not true.

Quote:

We didn't "need" any allies, and the ones who could have made the biggest difference we didn't have, including those who could have backed the threat of force at an early stage in the UN, thereby probably forcing Saddam to cave in such an obvious manner, to all the inspection impediments he created, that the US probably would have found it impossible to justify going to war. Instead he had what certainly seemed like tacit support all the time, from France, Germany, Russia and even Turkey at the end. He didn't believe he would be invaded for that reason, and screwed himself accordingly.

We don't "need" allies when we declare war on a country that has made no attacks against us? Are you serious? Shouldn't we at least try to get a little global community buy in?

Quote:

That sympathy was shortlived, when it became clear it called for action. I do not recall unanimous worldwide approval of attacking Afghanistan either, nor a great deal of friends clamoring for a piece of that action.Saddam of course stood out as about the only leader on the planet who expressed no sympathies for 9/11.

But the world did not openly oppose our invasion of Afghanistan. Come on, Elind, that war was far more understandable and justified since we'd been attacked HERE! This is not even close to an apple to apple comparison!

Quote:

Again, at the risk of repeating myself, just what do you think would have been his priorities with freedom to act and no threat from the US (or of course anyone else), thanks to an acquiesent UN?

I don't know. Neither do you. Neither did George Bush. And to act on a presumption , let alone an unsubstantiated IC report, is a dangerous thing to undertake. As we just proved with our unwarranted, unsubstantiated and unjustified invasion of a country that clearly posed no threat to us at the time of our invasion .

But don't worry, Elind (or Zig...or Cylinder...or Red). We're not going anywhere. The US will continue to occupy Iraq for as long as it takes Georgie to figure out how to get that oil. Many, many more Americans will die. We currently have no exit strategy and it's clear that Georgie boy has no intention of coming up with one any time soon.

[Ladyhawk]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mephisto
Isn't it ironic how you can quote a UN Security Counsel resolution when it's convenient to you, but when it comes to answering why Bush didn't wait for the UN to complete its search for WMD, conservatives always state various reasons why they believe the UN is ineffective?

I was going to say this but Mephisto beat me to it!

It does seem somewhat hypocritical to cite the UNSC resolution when justifying an unprovoked invasion and, at the same time, throw eggs at the UN inspectors who merely wanted to insure that the invasion was warranted, in the first place.

Make no mistake...I've no great love for the UN. My feeling is that, had they enforced their own resolutions against Saddam in the first place, this invasion may never have taken place. But, I think it's bad form for the US to use the UN resolutions to justify the war and yet turn their back on the lack of evidence of WMDs that the inspectors warned us about.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Ladyhawk
While we can argue day and night the justification of the Iraq invasion, certain facts remain indisuputable. The ends do not (and should not) always justify the means, my friends.

They do not and sometimes, and this may be one, history has to judge. Right now I wish we had never gotten involved, it may simply be that I am short on courage and vision. We will see.

It may well be that the IC should be blamed for the 'flawed conclusions' that they drew. Inevitably, it was George W. Bush who told us and the rest of the world that Iraq had WMDs and that the security of the US was in jeopardy. And that was the justification he used for going over there. And we believed him. And we supported the invasion based on that statement.

Clear, concise and true.

He refused to allow more time to the UN inspectors to validate the IC report. Why? What was the big hurry, after all? Iraq had not attacked Americans on U.S. soil. Our security was never in jeopardy. So, why was W in such a hurry to get the invasion going in Iraq?

I think that the inspection notion was a joke. I simply do not believe that an absolute dictator, with years to do it, could not hide lots of dangerous things. This is completely independent of the manufacturing process which, I suspect is harder to hide. I also doubt that even if stuff were found the UN would have approved anything. The fix, after all, was in.

Zig says we had almost all the allies we needed. And Zig's right. But, we didn't have all the allies we should have had.

The fix was in.

I've no problem with our attempt to introduce democracy to the Middle East.

I put your first, most important point, last. I really believe that unless it happens the west will be engaged in an ongoing war with radical Islam for the indefinate future. Beyond that, the Mideast will be, forever, a microcosm of mideviel europe. Now the Joooos and the US are blamed for the failures of the various despots there to be responsive to their people. They, themselves are the problem and are not going to change because they are asked nicely. Beyond the welfair of the inhabitants of the reigon, it is imperative that we have access to oil. You can whine and moan and groan about it but it is a simple fact and it is not going away.

Unfortunately, it seems to me that there are no plesent ways of accomplishing change in the ME. GW has taken a direct approach and if, in 50 years, there is a level of freedom over there, he will be judged one of the greatest US presidents. If not, welllllllll.......

As I said, it could be that my courage is not up to such a task. If he succedes, the whing folks will be less than a footnote, me included. If he succedes the cost will definately be worth it.

[/b][/quote]

[Kevin_Lowe]

Quote:

Originally posted by Cylinder
The legality of the requirements stem from UNSCR 687 and the seperate cease-fire with the United States that Hussien himself agreed to at the end of the first Gulf War.

What separate cease-fire? It is the first I have ever heard of such a thing.

[Elind]

Quote:

Originally posted by Ladyhawk

Yes, I expected he would have more justifications by this time, but I never suspected that his ORIGINAL justification would have been wrong. Makes any further argument tougher to believe. And, can we please stop using the "how any thinking/rational/human person could not support the destruction of SH regime" argument? I haven't seen any one here who disagrees with the invasion of Iraq say that they thought SH should remain in power...not one.



I didn't say that. I said that he (Saddam) would not have changed. There are many who do seem to think that if he was not a "clear and present danger" before the invasion, he would have remained so after.



And had we given the inspectors what they asked for, isn't it possible we would have taken the 'forget it' part of that path? There were no 'other' reasons that we were given for the invasion. We were told Iraq had WMDs and American security (and that of the world) was at risk.
It turns out that this is not and was not true.


Yes, that specific part of the argument was the major one, and it was wrong. But it was not actually the only one.


We don't "need" allies when we declare war on a country that has made no attacks against us? Are you serious? Shouldn't we at least try to get a little global community buy in?



Of course. I meant that we did not "need" in a material sense.



But the world did not openly oppose our invasion of Afghanistan. Come on, Elind, that war was far more understandable and justified since we'd been attacked HERE! This is not even close to an apple to apple comparison!


You misunderstand. Sure it was, but I venture that the majority of the shrill voices against Iraq, were the same shrills against Afghanistan, whatever the reasons they were giving.


I don't know. Neither do you. Neither did George Bush. And to act on a presumption , let alone an unsubstantiated IC report, is a dangerous thing to undertake. As we just proved with our unwarranted, unsubstantiated and unjustified invasion of a country that clearly posed no threat to us at the time of our invasion .

Yes, but we come full circle. The "at the time" argument may be true in the sense of threat of attack at the time. The threat of preparing for a future attck was still real then, once the restriction would have been lifted. Obviously however that is a speculation and therefore harder to justify a war on. I don't think I could have taken that step either, but now that we are where we are the course is clearer and the naysayers have little to contribute (I don't mean you).



But don't worry, Elind (or Zig...or Cylinder...or Red). We're not going anywhere. The US will continue to occupy Iraq for as long as it takes Georgie to figure out how to get that oil. Many, many more Americans will die. We currently have no exit strategy and it's clear that Georgie boy has no intention of coming up with one any time soon.

I am sympathetic to most of your comments, but why would you disappoint by that hackneyed "oil" comment? Everyone on the planet has an interest on that being on the open market. It will never be "owned" by the US. I might remind you that it is the countries that have the least that are most hurt by high oil prices, like the African debt issue. How much of that debt do you think can be attributed to the increasing cost of fuel, for example.

[Cylinder]

Quote:

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe
What separate cease-fire? It is the first I have ever heard of such a thing.

The agreement signed at al Safwan airfield in Iraq which included the provisional demarcation lines for opposing forces and a non-hostility agreement. I cannot find the text on the web (which may be due to the general lack of records from that time or the secret nature of the agreement). At any rate, since the use of force resolution from Congress does not assert this specifically, I should not have asserted it (in a legal sense) here. Mea cupla.

[Mephisto]

Quote:

Originally posted by Elind
. . . but I venture that the majority of the shrill voices against Iraq, were the same shrills against Afghanistan, whatever the reasons they were giving.

Well, you ventured wrong as far as my shrill voice goes. I fully supported the war in Afghanistan because it seemed as though our purpose was to find and punish those who were responsible for 9/11.

It's just that our search for Bin Laden went by the wayside in what has been an extremely costly tangent in terms of lives and resources, and Bin Laden is still free.
__________

Shifts from bin Laden hunt evoke questions
By Dave Moniz and Steven Komarow, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — In 2002, troops from the 5th Special Forces Group who specialize in the Middle East were pulled out of the hunt for Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan to prepare for their next assignment: Iraq. Their replacements were troops with expertise in Spanish cultures.

The CIA, meanwhile, was stretched badly in its capacity to collect, translate and analyze information coming from Afghanistan. When the White House raised a new priority, it took specialists away from the Afghanistan effort to ensure Iraq was covered.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2...p-shifts_x.htm

[Ziggurat]

Quote:

Originally posted by Ladyhawk
The U.S. probably has egg on its face as far as most of the world is concerned. When I think of the outpouring of sympathy we received during 9/11 (even Khaddafi stated that the attack was uncalled for!) and then we turn around and do something as short sighted as this, I just have to believe we have lost credibility with much of the world. I hope this is not so.

If it were that simple, one would expect that our loudest critics would have risen in stature, and those who supported us would be relegated to obscurity. But for the most part, that has not happened. Instead, Chirac is hanging on for dear life with an approval rating less than half of Bush's. Schroder is facing electoral defeat. Kofi is under seige for his inability to handle the massive corruption of his underlings and even his family members. But Blair won an unprecedented third term. Howard beat the pundit's predictions and sailed to victory. The only real ally to face electoral defeat was Aznar, and 3/11 had quite a lot to do with that. And even there, there's a LOT of fishy business about the whole thing (the unexploded bomb was never wired to go off, contrary to initial reports. The man who sold the explosives to the terrorists had the head of the Spanish bomb squad's phone number in his rolodex. And on and on).

Quote:

I love this country and there is nowhere I'd rather live. And I simply cannot accept that 3500 Americans were tossed into an invasion of a country that never posed a threat to us in the first place and that our troops are still there and the death toll will continue to rise.

So are you similarly upset about US involvement in the former Yugoslavia? We had even less strategic interest there, we had no UN approval, the whole thing is STILL a mess, and Americans have been dying because of it.

[Ziggurat]

Quote:

Originally posted by Ladyhawk
We currently have no exit strategy and it's clear that Georgie boy has no intention of coming up with one any time soon.

Exit strategies are how you cut your losses when you're losing. But we're not losing. I don't WANT an exit strategy, which is why I didn't vote for Kerry. I want a victory strategy. That is something we DO have. That is something we have been making progress on, and something the Iraqi "resistance" has been completely unable to stop. It consists of creating a democratic government and arming that government with a security force capable of fighting and defeating the terrorists. That is how we win.

[Ladyhawk]

Quote:

Originally posted by Ziggurat
Exit strategies are how you cut your losses when you're losing. But we're not losing. I don't WANT an exit strategy, which is why I didn't vote for Kerry. I want a victory strategy. That is something we DO have. That is something we have been making progress on, and something the Iraqi "resistance" has been completely unable to stop. It consists of creating a democratic government and arming that government with a security force capable of fighting and defeating the terrorists. That is how we win.

I respect your POV, Zig and I understand that you sincerely believe that our efforts in Iraq are worthwhile and justified. I, OTOH, believe that the existence of an exit strategy would further assure the American people that there is a light at the end of the tunnel. The absence of one implies that we've not accomplished what we set out to do (what'ere it turns out that actually is) and that we clearly do not forsee accomplishing the objective(s) any time soon.

Of equal concern should be that the 40% whose approval is waning may well include our young enlistment-eligible men and women. Isn't it interesting that military enlistment is down for the first time since 2000? (Something like 27% for the Army, last I read). Apparently, young men and women aren't as confident about victory in Iraq, either. Either that, or they don't feel in a big hurry to die for it.

[Renfield]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mephisto
Isn't it ironic how you can quote a UN Security Counsel resolution when it's convenient to you, but when it comes to answering why Bush didn't wait for the UN to complete its search for WMD, conservatives always state various reasons why they believe the UN is ineffective?

Well, it wasn't the first time the US has ignored a UN resolution actually. The right is pretty selective about that sort of thing.

[rikzilla]

Quote:

Originally posted by The Fool
I cannot for the life of me ever understand how someone from a Nation like America that was founded on principles of Justice could be comfortable with what is happening at gitmo.

If we went back to 1776 and asked every generation of Americans what we should do with a bunch of un-uniformed murderers of civilians (aka pirates) I find it quite likely that the majority of every generation that has existed since then up to and including the present one would be very comfortable with putting the GITMO prisoners through a military tribunal and then up against a wall.

-z

[Ziggurat]

Quote:

Originally posted by demon
This thead has also made passing remarks about Iraqi casualties...13,000...I`ve seen quoted...why rely on IBC and not The Lancet Report?

Because the Lancet report is fatally flawed.

http://www.seixon.com/blog/archives/...x.html#a000003

It sampled all 7 of the most dangerous provinces, and only 2 of the least 7 dangerous provinces. The sampled provinces are shown in light green, the unsampled provinces in dark red. Notice a pattern?



The reason these samples were excluded was based on a subjective evaluation of the equivalence of danger in different provinces, a subjective evaluation that was not born out by actual data. Whether intentionally or accidentally, they biased their own sampling, all just so that they could reduce travel time. This sampling error absolutely destroys the conclusion of the study. And the worthlessness of that data is born out by more recent and much more comprehensive study by the UN Development Program, which sampled more than 20 times as many housholds and didn't skip over any provinces. They came up with 24,000 deaths (95% confidence interval: 18,000 - 29,000). Which is roughly in line with the IBC count.

The question isn't why don't people use the Lancet report, but rather why would anyone believe it given that it is fatally flawed, and that much more reliable data now exists?

Edit: note also that Iraqi military and terrorist deaths are included in both the UNDP and Lancet numbers, a fact that sometimes gets brushed under the rug, intentionally so in the case of the Lancet study.

[Mephisto]

Quote:

Originally posted by rikzilla
If we went back to 1776 and asked every generation of Americans what we should do with a bunch of un-uniformed murderers of civilians (aka pirates) I find it quite likely that the majority of every generation that has existed since then up to and including the present one would be very comfortable with putting the GITMO prisoners through a military tribunal and then up against a wall.

-z

Somehow, I don't think "due process of law" includes, "ready, aim, fire."

[rikzilla]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mephisto
Somehow, I don't think "due process of law" includes, "ready, aim, fire."

So you're saying what? That executions are not part of due process? If that's what you're saying then you're objectively wrong. (when speaking of past and present law in the USA that is)

Now you may disagree with the death penalty, that's rational. It is irrational to live in denial of truth; that's what it looks like you're into.

-z

[CapelDodger]

Quote:

Originally posted by Ziggurat
How did FDR explain to the mothers of kids killed on the beaches of Normandy that France was worth liberating from a nation that hadn't even attacked us?

Germany declared war on the US and immediately began sinking ships along the eastern seaboard. The US didn't invade Normany to liberate the French, any more than they did in 1940 or 1941, before Germany declared war on the US. The US invaded Normandy on the way to Germany, which is where the top Germans were (unsurprisingly) and Germany had declared war on the US, so it was impossible to ignore them any longer. Long story short, FDR didn't have a problem explaining the invasion of Normandy to the US population, given Germany's declaration of war and all.

[CapelDodger]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mephisto
Now, you're exhibiting delusions of grandeur. What's the matter haven't the conservatives of your generation done anything worthwhile?

It was drinks all round after George the Elder liberated Kuwait. How time does tarnish ...

Quote:

I can't believe what I'm seeing here! I've been jumped on by conservative robots for even suggesting the parallel between Vietnam and Iraq, and here YOU openly compare our invasion of Iraq to D-Day! You're comparing our invasion of Iraq to World War II!

There is no sense of scale, is there?

Quote:

Where is the Hitler (no, it wasn't Hussein, Hitler was actually a major threat to everyone around him), where is the Mussolini and the Hirohito?

Where the Roosevelt, where the Churchill, the Stalin, the de Gaulle? Bush, Blair, Putin and Chirac. It's not the Age of Heroes, is it?

[CapelDodger]

Quote:

Originally posted by rikzilla
If we went back to 1776 and asked every generation of Americans what we should do with a bunch of un-uniformed murderers of civilians (aka pirates) I find it quite likely that the majority of every generation that has existed since then up to and including the present one would be very comfortable with putting the GITMO prisoners through a military tribunal and then up against a wall.

-z

Call me a traditionalist, but hanging's the thing for pirates.

An interesting point though. How applicable might piracy laws be to the Guantanamo prisoners? The best Law tends to be evolutionary, and pirates - irregular combatants - have been a subject of Law since forever. IIRC, one of the earliest acts of US diplomacy involved a treaty with Algiers concerning Barbary pirates. Established powers colluding with and exploiting pirates - privateering, letters of marque, turning a blind eye - is also nothing new. Nor is justifying a war by accusing the enemy of colluding with piracy, or simply calling them pirates directly. The similarites with "terrorism" today are quite striking.

[Ladyhawk]

Quote:

Originally posted by rikzilla
If we went back to 1776 and asked every generation of Americans what we should do with a bunch of un-uniformed murderers of civilians (aka pirates) I find it quite likely that the majority of every generation that has existed since then up to and including the present one would be very comfortable with putting the GITMO prisoners through a military tribunal and then up against a wall.

-z

True, Rik, but that doesn't mean we should , right?

We're the United States of America. Like it or not, we're held to a higher standard by the rest of the world. Unfortunately, that's what tends to happen when you hold yourself up as the moral compass for everyone else. The citizens of the world start to watch what you do verrrreeeeee closely....

I personally don't have a problem with torturing, beheading and then hanging out to dry the carcass of any GITMO prisoner even remotely linked to the 911 attack. But, either we're a nation of laws or a nation migrating toward mob mentality. I don't know that all of the reports that have come out about Gitmo are true, but I can't think of a rational reason for the Red Cross to lie. Even McClellan (spokesman for the White House) never denied the allegations of the Red Cross report. Instead, he simply said that nothing had been done at Gitmo that was "inconsistent with the polices that the president outlined".

Not the kind of answer I hoped for....

[Ladyhawk]

Quote:

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Germany declared war on the US and immediately began sinking ships along the eastern seaboard. The US didn't invade Normany to liberate the French, any more than they did in 1940 or 1941, before Germany declared war on the US. The US invaded Normandy on the way to Germany, which is where the top Germans were (unsurprisingly) and Germany had declared war on the US, so it was impossible to ignore them any longer. Long story short, FDR didn't have a problem explaining the invasion of Normandy to the US population, given Germany's declaration of war and all.

Thank you.

[jj]

Quote:

Originally posted by CapelDodger
There is no sense of scale, is there?

Where the Roosevelt, where the Churchill, the Stalin, the de Gaulle? Bush, Blair, Putin and Chirac. It's not the Age of Heroes, is it?

No, there certainly isn't any sense of scale here at all, and no, this is most assuredly not the age of heroes nowdays.

Getting back to the OP, while it's not surprising that support for the war is disappearing fast, given that it was started on a lie, and that most of the people recognize the lie by now, that there was obviously no plan to restore Iraq to operation, and that it is now clear that we're headed down the same old "support the ARVN" path we did in 'nam, it is a serious tragedy, because we've taken a country, albeit one run by a psychopathic, violent, insane man, and turned it into the biggest breeding ground for terrorists that ever existed.

The palestinians, who were kept in poverty and the virtual equivelent of hades by their own people in order to create the rage we face today, will be total, absolute pikers compared to the anger coming from the average Iraqui, who has had his country destroyed, turned into a bunch of competing maniacal factions, a place that was not as bad and is now much worse, and now, it would appear, that may be abandoned before it can be stabilized at all.

The rage of the palestinians will be nothing compared to the rage of the average Iraqui, who did have something, and who has had it utterly destroyed and taken from them by a "liberator".

So, what am I saying? I think that it's a bad idea to do either troop reductions OR pull out at this point, or the mess we've made here is going to be worse than any bunch of Al-Quaida psychopaths ever wished for.

[CapelDodger]

Quote:

Originally posted by jj
Getting back to the OP, while it's not surprising that support for the war is disappearing fast, given that it was started on a lie, and that most of the people recognize the lie by now, that there was obviously no plan to restore Iraq to operation, and that it is now clear that we're headed down the same old "support the ARVN" path we did in 'nam, it is a serious tragedy, because we've taken a country, albeit one run by a psychopathic, violent, insane man, and turned it into the biggest breeding ground for terrorists that ever existed.

I feel your pain. There are some right dipwicks running the show today, and I'm damn' glad I'm not in the middle of their playground.

Quote:

The palestinians, who were kept in poverty and the virtual equivelent of hades by their own people in order to create the rage we face today

The Palestinians were plunged into poverty when they were evicted from their homes and into the lands of strangers who had their own concerns. The Palestinian problem would not exist had Israel not been created where they lived, by foreigners. The apportioning of blame for the Palestinian situation, which didn't get any better in 1967 or since, to those countries (such as the US) that didn't take them in rather than the people that pauperised them in the first place is stomach-turning.

Are we to understand that zionists pauperised the Palestinians in order to create the rage the US faces in the region today? Wouldn't that imply a Jewish conspiracy to manipulate the US for zionist purposes?