The War in Iraq is nowhere near over

[crocodile deathroll]

Who said the war in Iraq is over. It's not as this clearly demonstrates BBC News , and since they have not yet found those WMDs this will become a serious embarrassment to the Bush Administration who reklessly risked his countyman's troups just to settle a family vendetta when Saddam Hussein attempted to do in his dad. America is now in this war for the long hall and the Domocrats will capitalize in this fiasco of a millitary operation.

[Gem]

Technicly, it's a "resitance movement." It's not really a "war" anymore, but some sort of conflict.

But that's beside the point. It ain't over, baby.

And you bet the dems are going to capitalize on this, but it's a little early for all of them to start asking the questions. When re-election shows its ugly head, but WMD don't show up, the house is going to start shaking.

Gem

[Tony]

The democrats are in a position where they(possibly) benefit from any complications in the economy and the Iraq situation. You guys must jump for joy every time you hear that more US soldiers are getting killed.

[KelvinG]

Quote:

Originally posted by Tony
The democrats are in a position where they(possibly) benefit from any complications in the economy and the Iraq situation. You guys must jump for joy every time you hear that more US soldiers are getting killed.

Unfortunately Tony, the nature of politics is that the party not in power circles the party in power hoping to swoop in at the sign of any weakness. The situation would be exactly the same if the Democrats were in power. It would naive to think otherwise.

And I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't take pleasure in anyone dieing in Iraq, be they American or Iraqi. Death is never pleasant.

[crocodile deathroll]

Quote:

Originally posted by Tony
The democrats are in a position where they(possibly) benefit from any complications in the economy and the Iraq situation. You guys must jump for joy every time you hear that more US soldiers are getting killed.

I would not jump for joy every time I hear that more US soldiers are getting killed, or Australians or UK soldiers, for that matter. I just hang my head in disgust of what just this insane and insincere President has conned us into.

[crocodile deathroll]

Quote:

Originally posted by Gem
Technicly, it's a "resitance movement." It's not really a "war" anymore, but some sort of conflict.

But that's beside the point. It ain't over, baby.

And you bet the dems are going to capitalize on this, but it's a little early for all of them to start asking the questions. When re-election shows its ugly head, but WMD don't show up, the house is going to start shaking.

Gem

You could also argue the war in Chechnya is just a resistance movement but that is still running and causing serious problems for Putin.

For the sake of the credibility US and the few allies tagged along like Australia, the UK and Poland, these WMDs must be found, and in the quantifies they claimed like the 10,000 liters of liquid anthrax and thousands of tons of chemical weapon armaments; something to prove that America was in imminent danger of a terrorist attack by such weapons. That was the real objective of this military task and until then the war is not over, period.

[Tony]

Quote:

Originally posted by crocodile deathroll


I just hang my head in disgust of what just this insane and insincere President has conned us into.

Speak for yourself, I knew damn well what we were getting into. I wasnt "conned".

[Ian Osborne]

Quote:

Originally posted by Tony
Speak for yourself, I knew damn well what we were getting into. I wasnt "conned".

So you knew there were no WMDs and no Al-Queda connections? Don't remember you saying so here.

[Tony]

Quote:

Originally posted by Ian Osborne


So you knew there were no WMDs and no Al-Queda connections? Don't remember you saying so here.

I didnt support the war for those reasons.

[Malachi151]

Quote:

Originally posted by crocodile deathroll
Who said the war in Iraq is over. It's not as this clearly demonstrates BBC News , and since they have not yet found those WMDs this will become a serious embarrassment to the Bush Administration who reklessly risked his countyman's troups just to settle a family vendetta when Saddam Hussein attempted to do in his dad. America is now in this war for the long hall and the Domocrats will capitalize in this fiasco of a millitary operation.

The democrats appear to be too stupid and or too corrupt and or too spineles to do anything. The Democrats are just Republicans wearing a different insignia. I'll vote Democrat this election, but after that its all Green Party for me, if I even say in the US. The Democrats suck

[Tony]

Quote:

Originally posted by Malachi151


The democrats appear to be too stupid and or too corrupt and or too spineles to do anything. The Democrats are just Republicans wearing a different insignia.

You do know why that is, right?

[crocodile deathroll]

Quote:

Originally posted by Tony



I didnt support the war for those reasons.

So you have changed the rules of the game half way through. I thought the name of the game was "lets find them Goddam WMDs"
Now it is "lets liberate them all from the SOB dictator".
If that is the reason justifed this war, then why do you not press on Zimbabwe, Burma, N Korea and all the other tin pot dictatorships in Africa?

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Quote:

Originally posted by Tony



I didnt support the war for those reasons.

What reason was it then?

Was it, as George Carlin so brilliantly puts it, the "bigger d!ck policy". paraphrasing here: What those people have bigger
d!cks ! Bomb 'em.

War is...

Thats Our Job!

We can still bomb!

[Tony]

Quote:

Originally posted by crocodile deathroll


So you have changed the rules of the game half way through. I thought the name of the game was "lets find them Goddam WMDs"

You thought wrong, I never said I supported the war because of WMD.

Now it is "lets liberate them all from the SOB dictator".
If that is the reason justifed this war, then why do you not press on Zimbabwe, Burma, N Korea and all the other tin pot dictatorships in Africa?

Do some research, im not responsible for educating the ignorant. We've gone over this topic plenty of times.

[Mr Manifesto]

Tony, I'm sure you have a water-tight and completely noble reason for supporting the war on Iraq now- the Monday after the game, so to speak.

Would you like to post some quotes during the war of yours, or better still before the war saying what your reasons were? It might be interesting to compare them.

One thing you might find remarkable is how consistent the anti-war camp have been in their reasons for opposing it. Such as: it's plainly an illegal war. Saddam probably doesn't have weapons of mass destruction. If he does, he isn't in a position to threaten the US with them. If all the world is worried about is that he's a dictator, there are other dictators who should be taken care of first.

But what were your reasons?

[crocodile deathroll]

Quote:

Originally posted by Tony



Do some research, im not responsible for educating the ignorant. We've gone over this topic plenty of times.

Just bombing the crap out of them first. You must remember that "the seeds of terrorism are sewn through ignorance" (Rupert Murdoch)

[Tony]

Quote:

Originally posted by crocodile deathroll


Just bombing the crap out of them first. You must remember that "the seeds of terrorism are sewn through ignorance" (Rupert Murdoch)

Thanks for making me aware of this quote, but can you explain how this is relevant to the issue?

[crocodile deathroll]

Quote:

Originally posted by Tony


Thanks for making me aware of this quote, but can you explain how this is relevant to the issue?

All fundamentalists are ignoramuses, including xtian fundamentalists. That is the core of this problem isn't it?. Those xtian fundies who feel through Israel they are fighting a proxy war with Islam to continue their crusades.

You would not be an xtian fundie by any chance?

[Tony]

No im not a christian. I still fail to see what your point is. Are you saying we need to be educating the Iraqi populace?

[crocodile deathroll]

Quote:

Originally posted by Tony
No im not a christian. I still fail to see what your point is. Are you saying we need to be educating the Iraqi populace?

The education system in Iraq has suffered of course but it taking a big step backward leaving Americans up to the task most of which cannot speak a word of Arabic.

I still think GWB was just sexed up to this war, period and using his missiles as it ultimate phallic symbol to that end.

[athon]

OK, so for whatever reason, the justifications for this war are still absent.

Justification 1) WMD - Well, it's been done to death, but still there is no evidence available that they existed when claimed. And those who shouted this as the main reason for going in are strangely silent. Out of embarassment, perhaps?

Justification 2) War on Terrorism - No evidence showing that this war has had any impact on the financing of terrorist organisations, the supply of weapons or the impact on their esteem. That isn't saying that these impacts havn't occured - the point is, there is little intelligence on terrorist organisations to begin with, hence it was a bit of a guessing game at best. I don't feel safe in a world where a government can invade a country based on a 'guess'.

Justification 3) Regime change - Well, these advocats have half of their wish. The old regime is no longer in power. Much like the Taliban in Afghanistan. What about getting an Iraqi government set up about now? Or is this going to be like Afghanistan all over again? A half-arsed effort created because the war was waged more on an emotive issue than a rational one. The fighting was the easy part, and the coalition can be proud of winning a battle that was a difficult as a lion dominating a battle-scarred mouse. Now the difficult part - recovery. But that requires a plan, something that the myopic coalition never really had.

Plan? What plan?

Excuse my cynicism. While the regime change was always a positive thing, the arrogance behind the push wasn't. Let's face it - this war was based on the old-fashioned reasons; revenge, anger, pride and fear. Not a whisper of intelligence in there.

Athon

[crocodile deathroll]

Quote:

OK, so for whatever reason, the justifications for this war are still absent.

Justification 1) WMD - Well, it's been done to death, but still there is no evidence available that they existed when claimed. And those who shouted this as the main reason for going in are strangely silent. Out of embarassment, perhaps?

Justification 2) War on Terrorism - No evidence showing that this war has had any impact on the financing of terrorist organisations, the supply of weapons or the impact on their esteem. That isn't saying that these impacts havn't occured - the point is, there is little intelligence on terrorist organisations to begin with, hence it was a bit of a guessing game at best. I don't feel safe in a world where a government can invade a country based on a 'guess'.

Justification 3) Regime change - Well, these advocats have half of their wish. The old regime is no longer in power. Much like the Taliban in Afghanistan. What about getting an Iraqi government set up about now? Or is this going to be like Afghanistan all over again? A half-arsed effort created because the war was waged more on an emotive issue than a rational one. The fighting was the easy part, and the coalition can be proud of winning a battle that was a difficult as a lion dominating a battle-scarred mouse. Now the difficult part - recovery. But that requires a plan, something that the myopic coalition never really had.

Plan? What plan?

Excuse my cynicism. While the regime change was always a positive thing, the arrogance behind the push wasn't. Let's face it - this war was based on the old-fashioned reasons; revenge, anger, pride and fear. Not a whisper of intelligence in there.

Athon

Well said and Tony is become vaguer that ever before about his reasons for supporting this war. If it is none of the three reasons above, then what is it? He said it is not a crusade because he is not a Christian. Yes I do this war was based on the old-fashioned reasons; revenge, anger, pride and fear. Particularly getting revenge on the attempted assassination of his dear old daddy. Which smacks to me like a script from an old “B” grade Hollywood western.
National pride would also play a part. Some of the nationalist right wing supporters feel it is their patriotic duty to demonstrate their country’s military might to the rest of the world just in case they forget. There is a word of warning here, that is exactly how the Roman Empire and the Empire of the Mongols fell when they became a little too cocky about their military supremacy.

[Mr Manifesto]

You forgot the funniest reason, CD: "Saddam was going to fund Al Qaeda. And to prove it, we have a memo which proves he almost had a meeting with an A-Q operative back in '98. Well, not Saddam, but one of his underlings, anyway. That proves Iraq supports terrorism."



PS: What about all the other nations that support terrorism?

PPS: Still no response to my question from Tony. Is that the melodic sound of the chirping cricket I hear?

[Skeptic]

(Sigh)

"Crocodile" here is doing the same mistake most of the "blame America first" crowd routinely does--he looks at what the papers said today as the be-all and end-all of reality. Okay, so the BBC reported problems in Iraq. So?

One might wish to remember that "Crocodile" here, when the war in Iraq took more than 48 hours, was so impressed by some reporter writing that the war is "turning into a quagmire", that he wrote a post here--just as long as his latest "analysis"--about how the US will be defeated by the Iraqis, how the fact that the war will "go into summer" will cause the US to withdraw, how this will completely weaken Bush, blah blah blah.

"Crocodile" has quite a few other "predictions" of the same nature and accuracy, all based on what he read in the paper that day.

I am not saying the US conduct is beyound criticism, of course. I am saying that:

1). First, nobody in the US believed changing the regime in Iraq into a democracy is going to be without problems, therefore that there ARE some setbacks is hardly unexpected or "proof" the US policy is wrong.

2). Second, drawing long-range conclusions from what the papers say today is about as useless a "prediction" method as anything, so "Crocodile"'s unidsguised joy at the US "failure" beause somebody said so in the BBC is, likely, premature.

[Mr Manifesto]

I think it is more like what CD said. How can you say the war is over when there is still fighting? Clearly someone hasn't surrendered.

But then so many lines have been blurred in this conflict. And maybe those with any respect for the basic principles of justice will no longer have their voices heard for the shouting of the war mongers.

But if you do believe in those basic principles, click here.

[Monketey Ghost]

I never expected that the aftermath of the Iraqi "regime change" (such a sanitized phrase, like switching from Coke to Pepsi) would be simple.

The US MUST have had a plan to deal with it, and of course that plan couldn't cover all contingencies. It ain't an easy thing. Hostile populace, two different cultures, mistrust all around, power vacuum.

Still: the antiwar side has been remarkably consistent, due to the fact that they never had to shift their reasons.

And the prowar side has been shifting reasons since before the war, during the war, and after the war.

[Tony]

Quote:

Originally posted by No Answers

And the prowar side has been shifting reasons since before the war, during the war, and after the war.

accually thats not true. Name one person that has shifted reasons.

[kerfer]

Quote:

Originally posted by crocodile deathroll


I would not jump for joy every time I hear that more US soldiers are getting killed, or Australians or UK soldiers, for that matter. I just hang my head in disgust of what just this insane and insincere President has conned us into.

I thought the insane and insincere president was out of office...I coulde have sworn that we had an election, and George W Bush won, and the insane and insincere guy was gone. And he took his liar of a wife with him.

Maybe the last two years have all been a dream.

[peptoabysmal]

Yes, now we will have several years of peace-keeping duties in Iraq, until Iraq can establish a viable government.

BTW:
Isn't it a bit premature to conclude that the WMD's don't exist before the search is concluded?

October 1998: Senate Democrats Signed Letter Urging Clinton to Attack Saddam Over WMDs!

[crocodile deathroll]

Quote:

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
Yes, now we will have several years of peace-keeping duties in Iraq, until Iraq can establish a viable government.

BTW:
Isn't it a bit premature to conclude that the WMD's don't exist before the search is concluded?

October 1998: Senate Democrats Signed Letter Urging Clinton to Attack Saddam Over WMDs!

More so called evidence of WMD rejected

[Questioninggeller]

Quote:

Originally posted by crocodile deathroll
Who said the war in Iraq is over. It's not as this clearly demonstrates BBC News , and since they have not yet found those WMDs this will become a serious embarrassment to the Bush Administration who reklessly risked his countyman's troups just to settle a family vendetta when Saddam Hussein attempted to do in his dad. America is now in this war for the long hall and the Domocrats will capitalize in this fiasco of a millitary operation.

Hey Croc., where's that Russell quote from on your signature? I really like that and would like to cite in the future.

[Mr Manifesto]

Quote:

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
.

BTW:
Isn't it a bit premature to conclude that the WMD's don't exist before the search is concluded?

Yes, but it isn't premature to say that if they are found, they wouldn't be a threat to the US. Unless, as I've said before, we can also find evidence that Saddam found a way to deliver them via FedEx.

[a_unique_person]

Quote:

Originally posted by Tony
The democrats are in a position where they(possibly) benefit from any complications in the economy and the Iraq situation. You guys must jump for joy every time you hear that more US soldiers are getting killed.

Exactly the same thing happened in Somalia. The credo of Bush was then 'we are not into nation building'.

[athon]

Quote:

Originally posted by Tony


accually thats not true. Name one person that has shifted reasons.

Hmmm, about some people name their reasons...fullstop!

I'm not saying you've changed your view, Tony, because without going back through posts I have no idea what your earlier view was. I'm guessing regime change, because it is the only 'successful' (note inverted commas) outcome of the war.

The issue is that all of those who advocated anti-terrorist and WMD reasons are awfully silent.

Athon

[athon]

Quote:

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
BTW:
Isn't it a bit premature to conclude that the WMD's don't exist before the search is concluded?

When will that be? Will it ever 'technically' be over? I guess unicorns might still exist, because we're still not finished looking for them.

Yes, WMD might still be yet found in Iraq. But my faith in the exercise has diminished greatly since the coalition declined to send in impartial weapons teams post-war.

Athon

[Jon_in_london]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto



.......... as I've said before, we can also find evidence that Saddam found a way to deliver them via FedEx.

well, tony bliar said they could be here in 45 minutes which means some kind of hyper sonic delivery system remains to be discovered.

[crocodile deathroll]

Quote:

Originally posted by Questioninggeller


Hey Croc., where's that Russell quote from on your signature? I really like that and would like to cite in the future.

Here There are stacks of good quotes on that site

[Tricky]

Quote:

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
Yes, now we will have several years of peace-keeping duties in Iraq, until Iraq can establish a viable government.

Quite a few. Let's hope it's just peacekeeping, and not nation-building.

Quote:

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
BTW:
Isn't it a bit premature to conclude that the WMD's don't exist before the search is concluded?

It is not a conclusion, it is just what the evidence so far has indicated.

BTW: Wasn't it a bit premature to invade Iraq until the weapons inspectors had completed their job?

Quote:

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
October 1998: Senate Democrats Signed Letter Urging Clinton to Attack Saddam Over WMDs!

Wow! Rush Limbaugh believes the Democrats were behind this! That's proof enough for me!

[crocodile deathroll]

In in everyone's interest not to wish any ill will of US, Australian, Polish or British soldier like in this latest incident where
British military police were killed but we just can't delude ourselves by politicians who prematurely capitalize on this so called "victory".


And those of you who thought the war in Iraq was over better think again......Attack on convoy kills S.C. soldier in Iraq

Quote:

Army Spec. Orenthial J. Smith

Iratean Smith said she had received phone calls from her son during the past month and one precious letter arrived Saturday.

"He was telling me (in the letter) how bad the conditions are there, not enough food and water. He said that everyone is trying to say the war is over but, he said, that the war is not over."

So we ought to start listening to the troops on the ground, the one's especially who's stories are not sanitized and sensored and who tell you an entirely different story to what the politicians tell you.


If Bush is not extremely worried about the ongoing situation, he is stupid.
Congatulations Bushy, you just dragged us all into a right mess!!!

[reprise]

Quote:

I just hang my head in disgust of what just this insane and insincere President has conned us into.

Irrespective of my personal opinions of Bush and my apprehension about US foreign policy under the current administration, I can't believe that people continue trying to lay the involvement of our military personnel in this conflict on Bush or the US.

Our government chose to send our troops to Iraq, and it's disingenuous to say that they were "conned" into doing so - our intelligence agencies expressed reservations about the intelligence information regarding WMD with which the government had been supplied and our government chose to dismiss those concerns; that is not the fault of Bush or the US, it's the fault of Howard and his Cabinet.

Yes, Howard has his head so far up Bush's butt that it would take a proctocologist to remove it (does anyone else get the feeling that he's hoping to be made Ambassador to the US or the UK when he finally retires?), but can you really blame the US for the fact that our PM has no nads?