You once claimed that "bush had stated while he was governor of Texas that he wanted to invade Iraq toi gain political capiutal" (sic). I asked you to prove that claim then and you didn't. So can you now? Or were you just making that claim up out of thin air?
Originally Posted by Meadmaker
I'm not sure the UN has been exactly effective in reigning in rogue states, but I get your point.
The scale of warfare in the 60 years since the creation of the UN has been substantially smaller than the scale of warfare in the 60 years prior to the creation of the UN. This despite a phenomenal increase in the destructive potential of warfare and a substantially larger global population.
But surely you aren't crediting the UN with the reduction in the scale of warfare. If anything, you should credit the technologies that in large part the US is responsible for developing ... i.e., smart and precision guided weapons.
The "new" way ensures a relatively clean and quick military phase, but it's followed by a much more violent occupation.
On balance, the new way appears to be the better choice, but preserving the will to continue the occupation in the face of ongoing violence is an issue.
Yes. Consider Iraq a test ground for the new form of conflict brought about by technology and a new desire to minimize death ... even amongst enemies. On that basis, I'd have to say Iraq has been fairly successful ... but only because Bush was in charge. Obama was ready to give up from the outset and had we done what he specifically tried to make happen in January of 2007, we would have folded and the other side won. And ironically, violence in the country would probably now be higher than ever.
In some battles, the NVA had their soldiers CHAINED to their tanks. And you think they were freeing those in the south? And after Tet, most of those in the NLF were actually North Vietnamese.
Except we have Saddam and his henchmen on tape in the late 90's clearly indicating that they considered themselves to still be at war with us. They even discussed the use of 3rd party WMD attacks against us. The urgency came from the fact that on 9/11 terrorists demonstrated they were willing to cross the mass casualty threshold and Saddam was applauding and talking to those terrorists. But you believe what you want.
I don't think it has been ever proved that Al Quida had much to do with the government in Iraq. ... snip ... The only link between Iraq and Al Quida was after we started the war in Iraq.
Nonsense. We have documents discovered in Iraq after the invasion that show the Iraqi government and Taliban/al-Qaeda were in friendly communication AFTER 9/11. We know that many terrorists who were in Afghanistan at the time of our attack fled to Iraq. Their leader got treatment for injuries in one of Saddam's private hospitals. The 2008 Senate Intelligence Committee (SIC) report states that that Iraqi intelligence must have known about, and therefore at least tolerated, al-Zarqawi's presence in the country. The SIC report in 2004 found that al-Zarqawi roamed freely around Iraq. As did other members of his group. Captured documents show that when a member of that terrorist group was detained for crimes, Saddam himself ordered his release, even though the arresting officer maintained the man was guilty of the crimes. A dozen self admitted al-Qaeda terrorists were convicted in Jordan of a chemical bomb plot that might have killed tens of thousands if it had succeeded. They said they met with al-Zarqawi (the mastermind and funder of the operation) in Baghdad before the invasion. The Institute for Defense Analyses published a study of captured Iraqi regime documents in November 2007 (http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/206xwlcs.asp ). The IDA found that when it came to "attacking Western interests": "Captured documents reveal that the regime was willing to co-opt or support organizations it knew to be part of al Qaeda - as long as that organization's near-term goals supported Saddam's long-term vision."
To suggest that there were no links is just plain wrong.
I only repeated the statement of the Chief ISG inspector, David Kay. He said Iraq was more dangerous as a possible source of WMD related materials than anyone suspected prior to the invasion. And you, of course, are welcome to answer the 6 simple questions that I asked the others regarding Iraq's WMD.
The American Revolution occurred at a time when technology, communications and weaponry were such that a very small group of people could dream of successfully challenging a large and powerful opponent. A different "age" than Iraq.
Dude, they weren't there. However, even if you believe that they pulled off an amazing trick of hiding all trace of them, you missed the point of my statement.
President Bush may very well have believed that they had chemical weapons. I am asserting, without proof, that he didn't care.
Now, I could try to explain why I believe that, but I won't. If you want to know why, I would recommend reading the New Testament, but you will have to guess which part.
Dude, they weren't there. However, even if you believe that they pulled off an amazing trick of hiding all trace of them, you missed the point of my statement.
Dude, WMDs are like invisible pink unicorns. They are there, and they're pink. We have all kinds of paperwork to show they're pink. It's just that when you look for them, well, ya know, they're invisible.
BUT! We know that there were several trail rides where something was herded up and taken to Kansas city. No, they don't have any of the trail riders to testify, and they don't have unicorn meat in Kansas City, but then, once it get's mixed in with the other stuff, you don't even realize it's unicorn!
It isn't over yet, so how do you know who won what? That will be decided between various factions in Iraq. They have not yet settled down.
Foreign policy objective for US to win as of this morning:
Create a Shia parliamentary state, friendly to Iran, which Saddam most certainly was not. Was that the US policy objective in Iraq? If that was the objective, then "we got what we came for" is a reasonable assessment.
Was "independent Kurdistan" an American foreign policy objective? If yes, then odds are good that above aim will have been achieved when the dust settles.
This goes back to the old question: what the hell do you mean by "win" in this thing? Toss Saddam out? Hell, that was a done deal in 2003.
Is that victory?
If yes, why are we still there?
If no, then I'll examine a "win" when I can be sure I grasp the political objectives.
Iran emerges as a more potent political force in the PG was NOT a Bush foreign policy objective.
It is, however, what he achieved, as of this writing.
Ironic, thinks I, that W was the best friend that member of the "Axis of evil" had in the past eight years.
if Iraq becomes a semi-stable democracy, and maybe even starts to take a leadership role in the Middle East, then yes....someday Bush will get some credit.
This goes back to the old question: what the hell do you mean by "win" in this thing?
...
If no, then I'll examine a "win" when I can be sure I grasp the political objectives.
That's a rather old school way of looking at things, isn't it?
Somewhere along the line in my life, I realized that despite my perpetual cynicism, I was, at heart, an incurable idealist. (I have heard it said that a cynic is a combination of an idealist, and a realist. He can't help but want what is best, and can't help see what is real, and the mismatch ticks him off.)
The "political objectives" would be some sort of statement about how we would want our goals to be achieved in their country. In my humble, and quite unrealistic, opinion, the only worthy objective is freedom. If most of the people of Iraq hate us, and a few love us, and all of them are free to express their opinion on the subject, we've won, even if they won't sell us cheap oil.
As for what Mr. Bush and his administration actually wanted, who cares?
Hmmm....If an invisible pink unicorn carries something, does that thing become invisible? I wonder if you could hide something that way? Just sayin....
Um, with what that I wrote did you not agree? Did not many in the south defect to the NLF because they shared a common goal of defeating Diem? The NVA were certainly not fighting for the benefit of those in the south, but Cicero's post conveniently ignores the fact that many from the south willingly defected to the NLF as a means by which to overthrow a theocratic dictator that the United States supported.
And after Tet, most of those in the NLF were actually North Vietnamese.
Serious encroachment on a country's resources or trade routes would be one I could think of. Destabilisation of a border caused by refugees due to famine or any other number of things...
I guess I was more idealistic about the whole process. I thought that maybe Japan embraced democracy because most people would embrace it, given the chance. I didn't think they had to be beaten into submission so severely.
I think this was probably true of Germany, not so much of Japan. But I think defeating a population's will to fight is essential for smooth post-war recovery. Simply put, you can't begin the post-war process if the local population think the war is still going.
One: The Czech intelligence service said back in 2003 that it was "70% certain" Mohammed Atta (leader of the 9/11 terrorists) met with an Iraqi Intelligence agent named al-Ani in Prague just a few months before 9/11. See http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030729-093909-9839r.htm . Nothing has been published since to indicate they've changed their mind. Ani, by the way, was in charge of special projects.
This is all false. Ahmad Samir al-Ani was the Iraqi consul in Prague, a diplomat not some sort of shadowy head of "special projects". Mohamed Atta was not even in Prague on the day the alleged meeting occurred - he was last in Prague a year earlier while en route to the USA.
The confusion stems from a Pakistani businessman with the same name (though spelled differently) who was in Prague a few days before Atta, and was detained for visa problems.
The meeting is now widely regarded to have never occurred. Interestingly, the report of the meeting appeared on 18th September 2001 - over a week prior to the FBI releasing photographs of the 9/11 Hijackers.
Countless media outlets have repeatedly reported that Czech officials do not support the story.
The CIA, FBI, Czech Police, and 9/11 Commission all investigated the alleged meeting, and all concluded it never occurred. At the time of the alleged meeting, Mohamed Atta was in Florida.
Two: al-Ani's day calendar, which the Czech's seized after the Iraq invasion, listed a meeting with a "Hamburg student" on the very day the meeting between Atta and al-Ani was alleged (by an eye witness) to have occurred. What a coincidence that al-Ani listed "Hamburg Student" as his occupation on his travel documents.
Three: we know that Atta had visited Prague and met al-Ani several times in 2000 ... traveling as a "hamburg student". Both a few days after an earlier visit and a few days after the last alleged visit in 2001, Atta's bank account in the US received a very large deposit.
We know nothing of the sort. What we know is that Atta was in Prague only once, on June 2, 2000. He bussed into Prague from Germany, and left on June 3 for Newark, USA. He never came back. He did not meet with any Iraqi officials on June 2, and no one thinks he did.
Four: Atta and several other hijackers just happen to reside within a few miles of the American Media building where the first case of 9/11 anthrax showed up. What are the odds of that?
Except the initial batch of five letters were posted from New Jersey, not Florida, and while one went to Florida, another four went to New York. Oh yeah. And they were posted a week after Mohamed Atta and Marwan al-Shehhi (who lived in Coral Springs, Florida for a time) died...
Several of the hijackers had met with the wife of the editor of the magazine where the victim worked. Atta and several hijackers ask about crop dusters at a time when they were already training to fly hijacked commercial planes into buildings. Atta sought a loan to modify a crop duster. To what purpose?
Five: Atta and another hijacker sought treatment for skin lesions in June that in hindsight (after 9/11) both the doctor who saw them (Dr Tsonas) and the pharmacist they visited said was "consistent with cutaneous anthrax".
This is incorrect. On June 25th Ziad Jarrah took Ahmed al-Haznawi to a hospital to be treated for a gash on his leg - at the advice of their landlord. In 2002 this was erroneously reported as a "dark lesion" and there was suspicion of a link to the Anthrax attacks, but thorough investigations by the FBI concluded that this was false.
See what I mean by coincidences? And none of them has been adequately explained. Now given that we have Saddam and his henchmen on tape in the mid 90's talking about the use of 3rd party assets to attack the US with WMD, are you sure that involvement of Iraq has been totally ruled out?
But surely you aren't crediting the UN with the reduction in the scale of warfare. If anything, you should credit the technologies that in large part the US is responsible for developing ... i.e., smart and precision guided weapons.
They have nothing to do with it. The reduction is due primarily to the old mode of diplomacy in which countries form opposing "blocs". With a single "bloc" (the UN) in which everyone can discuss their issues, there's no need for war.
Victory conditions, and thus victory proclamations, are dependent upon political objectives for a war.
1. Was Saddam removed? Yes. That victory condition was achieved.
2. Was a stable democracy, friendly to US/West, established.
Still in doubt, possibly no.
3. Was the war as cheap and as simple to wrap up as Rummy claimed it would be?
No. No. No. The "Iraq can pay for its repair" is a resounding failure, political policy, and implementation, wise.
4. Was Iran (part of that infamous Axis of Evil) intimidated and influenced into compliance with Western aims?
NO! Not only no, but HELL NO! The one benefactor of the War in Iraq, without question, politically, is Iran. Mahmoud the Mouth ought to be writing thank you letters to W each week. He owes him that kind of gratitude for the favors W did for him.
5. Was WMD threat, of whatever severity (or non severity) dispensed with in the case of Iraq? Yes. A bit of pole vaulting over a high hurdle, that. Sadly, Iran and NK have been undeterred, likewise Pakistan. Thus, the WMD element of this policy has not only backfired, it is an abject failure.
To sum up, the answer to your sillly question is a mixed bag. For the critical component, the transformation of Iraq, and then other areas of the Middle East, into democratic governments, it is far too soon to tell, and will likewise founder upon the lack of fertile cultural soil upon which seeds of democrace are blown by an explosive force. War.
Real Life isn't a ****ing baseball game.
See, once again, my tired old wheeze from Carl von Clausewitz: "In war, the outcome in never final."
This is a reflection upon the fact that war, a child of politics, is bound by the temporal continuum of politics: the outcome is never final, since play is continuous. Another chance tomorrow, to try and implement a change, or a course of action for change. Napoleon understood. My wish is that more people would.
DR
Please completely mask swearing in the public sections.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic Posted By: prewitt81
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
And after Tet, most of those in the NLF were actually North Vietnamese. 
