It's called "failure"

[Silicon]

Each day when some new malcontent pops up who formerly supported the war, it doesn't phase me a bit. It just tells me that this person didn't understand why it was important in the first place. The challenge of ensuring a safer world a century from now doesn't need "fair weather fans". If we want islamo-fascism practically extinct in our children's lifetimes, it requires grand plans and grand actions. Most people are too apathetic and complacent to think on this scale or even support action on this scale.

I too think this is important. That's why I gave Bush a "hope you know what you're doing" pass when he started this war.

I don't think he knows what he's doing now.

Do you really think this is still an achievable goal? Do all the things that have happened since the end of active hostilities give you an indication that it's going well?

I REALLY REALLY REALLY think that winning Iraq for peace and democracy is important.

Tell me it's going to happen.

 

[RandFan]

Each day when some new malcontent pops up who formerly supported the war, it doesn't phase me a bit. It just tells me that this person didn't understand why it was important in the first place. The challenge of ensuring a safer world a century from now doesn't need "fair weather fans". If we want islamo-fascism practically extinct in our children's lifetimes, it requires grand plans and grand actions. Most people are too apathetic and complacent to think on this scale or even support action on this scale.

Sorry I missed this corplinx,

You make a valid point. I have not wavered from my belief that the reasons for the war were correct. I am concerned about the direction it is going. But I don't think we should turn tail and run. Honest criticism of current events are fair though. I remain a supporter but if Bush ordered criminal acts then I will cease to support him.

RandFan

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

You still believe that our reasons for invading Iraq were correct?

Which reasons were those, again? Because Iraq had WMDs they could ready and deliver in a few minutes? Because Iraq was aiding terrorists?

No, those can't be it, because they've both been proven wrong.

 

[RandFan]

You still believe that our reasons for invading Iraq were correct?

Which reasons were those, again? Because Iraq had WMDs they could ready and deliver in a few minutes? Because Iraq was aiding terrorists?

No, those can't be it, because they've both been proven wrong.

Because Saddam was potentialy dangerous to the world. That was proven correct by his invasion of Kuwait. After 12 years Saddam did not comply. Saddam had shown that he was willing to wait until his time was ripe. He proved he wanted WMD. Well, he won't be using WMD and the people he won't be oppressing anyone anytims soon as a consolation.

 

[Mr Manifesto]

Because Saddam was potentialy dangerous to the world. That was proven correct by his invasion of Kuwait. After 12 years Saddam did not comply. Saddam had shown that he was willing to wait until his time was ripe. He proved he wanted WMD. Well, he won't be using WMD and the people he won't be oppressing anyone anytims soon as a consolation.

He won't be using WMD's because he didn't have any. Whether it appeals to your visceral instincts or not, violence wasn't the way to solve this one. As I've said before, the botched occupation of Iraq has become a recruitment poster for Muslim extremists. Tell me how this makes America safer?

 

[RandFan]

He won't be using WMD's because he didn't have any. Whether it appeals to your visceral instincts or not, violence wasn't the way to solve this one. As I've said before, the botched occupation of Iraq has become a recruitment poster for Muslim extremists. Tell me how this makes America safer?

Muslims were already being recruited. I don't know if you noticed but they flew two plans into the twin towers. Kissing a$$ wasn't going to stop them. These are not folks who respond to diplomacy. We needed to take a proactive stance and we did.

And just because Saddam didn't have WMD right now doesn't mean that he wouldn't have them later. He had a WMD program, he used WMD and he resented being controled. He wanted WMD and he wouldn't comply. We have yet to account for all of his WMD. Clearly by the time we got there the WMD claimed by Bush and others was not there. Does that mean that he never had them or wouldn't try? All I know is for 12 years the guy refused to comply and tried to get the world to drop the sanctions.

 

[a_unique_person]

Because Saddam was potentialy dangerous to the world. That was proven correct by his invasion of Kuwait. After 12 years Saddam did not comply. Saddam had shown that he was willing to wait until his time was ripe. He proved he wanted WMD. Well, he won't be using WMD and the people he won't be oppressing anyone anytims soon as a consolation.

He was no more dangerous to the world than numerous other dictators.

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
He was no more dangerous to the world than numerous other dictators.

What does that mean? He was no less dangerous either.

 

[a_unique_person]

What does that mean? He was no less dangerous either.

So why Saddam?

 

[Mr Manifesto]

Muslims were already being recruited. I don't know if you noticed but they flew two plans into the twin towers. Kissing a$$ wasn't going to stop them. These are not folks who respond to diplomacy. We needed to take a proactive stance and we did.

For someone who's such a big fan of syllogisms, you sure have a nasty habit of falling into false ones.

Let's get the story straight- terrorists were already flying planes into buildings. What this had to do with Saddam has never been answered. As we know, he had nothing to do with 9/11. However, now that the US has rather ill-advisedly decided to attack Iraq, Muslims want to know where they can sign up to fight the Evil Americans.

In other words, this wasn't a proactive stance. Not unless the US intended to entrench her enemies.

And just because Saddam didn't have WMD right now doesn't mean that he wouldn't have them later. He had a WMD program, he used WMD and he resented being controled. He wanted WMD and he wouldn't comply. We have yet to account for all of his WMD. Clearly by the time we got there the WMD claimed by Bush and others was not there. Does that mean that he never had them or wouldn't try? All I know is for 12 years the guy refused to comply and tried to get the world to drop the sanctions.

Yeah, and couldn't we all see Bush getting impatient, too? Just like the supporters of the war against Iraq. Some people have short attention spans. They want to get to the climax- see the villian pitched off the building, final speech from the good guys (with a nice moral message for all would-be evildoers out there), fade to black, roll credits. Unfortunately, the real world tends to work a little more slowly. You have to allow time for diplomacy to work.

And it was working. As can be found by the complete and utter lack of WMD stockpiles in Iraq. Or do you still think people are too terrified to tell the US where they are, in case they face retribution from Saddam?

 

[AtheistArchon]

Yeah, and couldn't we all see Bush getting impatient, too? Just like the supporters of the war against Iraq. Some people have short attention spans. They want to get to the climax- see the villian pitched off the building, final speech from the good guys (with a nice moral message for all would-be evildoers out there), fade to black, roll credits.

- Mission accomplished!!

 

[Thanz]

Re: Re: Re: It's called "failure"

There are millions of people who will vote for him no matter what happens, short of him personally skinning live babies on TV.

Excellent Tom the Dancing Bug cartoon (May 22):
http://www.ucomics.com/tomthedancingbug/

 

[corplinx]

So why Saddam?

There's a whole book explaining why saddam. I don't think encapsulating it in a forum post will do it justice. It was even written by one of those pesky neocons who want to change the world.

 

[RandFan]

For someone who's such a big fan of syllogisms, you sure have a nasty habit of falling into false ones.

Let's get the story straight- terrorists were already flying planes into buildings.

Which proves that there already were people who were planning to attack us.

What this had to do with Saddam has never been answered. As we know, he had nothing to do with 9/11. However, now that the US has rather ill-advisedly decided to attack Iraq, Muslims want to know where they can sign up to fight the Evil Americans.

They already knew where and they already were signing up. Now they know we will not sit by as they do.

In other words, this wasn't a proactive stance. Not unless the US intended to entrench her enemies.

The enemies were entrenched. That was the wake up call we refer to as 9/11.

Yeah, and couldn't we all see Bush getting impatient, too? Just like the supporters of the war against Iraq. Some people have short attention spans. They want to get to the climax- see the villian pitched off the building, final speech from the good guys (with a nice moral message for all would-be evildoers out there), fade to black, roll credits. Unfortunately, the real world tends to work a little more slowly. You have to allow time for diplomacy to work.

Yes, Nevile Chamberlain taught us the futility of ignoring people like Saddam.

And it was working. As can be found by the complete and utter lack of WMD stockpiles in Iraq. Or do you still think people are too terrified to tell the US where they are, in case they face retribution from Saddam?

Not at all, the poeple who are killing our soldiers right now are not afraid of Saddam. If there are any WMD those who knew might be dead or part of the group attacking us now.

 

[Sundog]

OK, so for those of you who fall into the neocon "Grand Plan" way of thinking, a question. Would you consider our eventual success or failure in Iraq to be a touchstone on the wisdom of this plan? After all, this Iraq war presumably is exactly what the far right wanted, and is being run entirely by neocons in the administration, so if it fails, what does that say about the Grand Plan?

See, many (including me) consider this Grand Plan idea to be amazingly naive and driven by American ignorance and arrogance. We see the problems in Iraq as a direct result of the hubris of these leaders, and as powerful evidence that this strongarm approach is not the proper way to go about changing the world.

I guess I want to know, is this Grand Plan so core to the doctrine of neoconservatism that you won't admit it's the wrong path ieven in the face of overwhelming evidence? Granting you that you don't believe such evidence exists yet.

 

[Sundog]

Yes, Nevile Chamberlain taught us the futility of ignoring people like Saddam.

This is such a strawman:

He taught us the danger of appeasement. You are equating not going to war with appeasement. This is one of those righty black-and-white things; there were other options. Bush and the far right ignored them, sneered at them.

The question is, and it seems to be being evaded so far, why Iraq? Why not any of a half-dozen other places? Why not North Korea, for heaven's sake, if we really have this grit-our-teeth-and-blast-'em mentality?

The point being that there was NO reason to commit to this in the way we did. There were better ways to do it. At this point, this can hardly be denied.

 

[RandFan]

OK, so for those of you who fall into the neocon "Grand Plan" way of thinking, a question. Would you consider our eventual success or failure in Iraq to be a touchstone on the wisdom of this plan? After all, this Iraq war presumably is exactly what the far right wanted, and is being run entirely by neocons in the administration, so if it fails, what does that say about the Grand Plan?

See, many (including me) consider this Grand Plan idea to be amazingly naive and driven by American ignorance and arrogance. We see the problems in Iraq as a direct result of the hubris of these leaders, and as powerful evidence that this strongarm approach is not the proper way to go about changing the world.

I guess I want to know, is this Grand Plan so core to the doctrine of neoconservatism that you won't admit it's the wrong path ieven in the face of overwhelming evidence? Granting you that you don't believe such evidence exists yet.

Good post sundog,

I don't count myself a neocon. I do think the war in Iraq was appropriate but I think mistakes were made. On the other hand I accept that I am not schooled in military tactics or strategy or even the requirements of mainting a country like Iraq once a dictator has been deposed. There are such people and they have differening views. Most recently we heard from Zinni who was opposed to the actions in Iraq. I think it would be wrong to dismiss him.

The history of current affairs have not been written. You call current actions a failure but we had difficulties in Germany following World War II and that is not seen as a failure. There is a very good chance for this to ulimately be a good thing.

In the face of overwhelimng evidence? I guess if you are selective in your evidence then it is overwhelimng. I certainly don't see it that way. There is evidence both pro and con. I see both sides.

 

[RandFan]

This is such a strawman:

He taught us the danger of appeasement. You are equating not going to war with appeasement.

I don't agree. One of the lessons according to Churchill is to not ignore people who have as their goals domination. Mix that with the willingness to aquire and WMDs in an area like the mideast and you have a real problem that diplomacy will only fix for a short time.

This is one of those righty black-and-white things; there were other options. Bush and the far right ignored them, sneered at them.

I think you see this as black and white.

The question is, and it seems to be being evaded so far, why Iraq?

Because we decided on a course of action 12 years prior and we failed to complete that action due to Saddam.

Why not any of a half-dozen other places? Why not North Korea, for heaven's sake, if we really have this grit-our-teeth-and-blast-'em mentality?

We don't have that mentality.

The point being that there was NO reason to commit to this in the way we did. There were better ways to do it. At this point, this can hardly be denied.

There was a reason. That you choose to ignore or it or not see it does not make it not there.

 

[Sundog]

Because we decided on a course of action 12 years prior and we failed to complete that action due to Saddam.

OK, I see, so your take on it is more "let's finish the job" than "let's declare war on all the people we don't like". Fair enough.

I'm not sure where you're coming from, though, saying that I see it in black and white. I simply see that there were multiple ways of accomplishing the goal of ousting Saddam and we took by far the most adventurist of them... and that many of our difficulties there now are undeniably a result of this choice, especially our horrific public-relations problem in the rest of the world.

You know, if Bush Senior had gone on for one more day, we would have HAD Saddam. I'll bet you've read in his book where he clearly outlines the reasons why he did not do so; reasons that rise up to haunt us now that his son has ignored his very good advice.

 

[RandFan]

I'm not sure where you're coming from, though, saying that I see it in black and white. I simply see that there were multiple ways of accomplishing the goal of ousting Saddam and we took by far the most adventurist of them... and that many of our difficulties there now are undeniably a result of this choice, especially our horrific public-relations problem in the rest of the world.

I understand and agree.

You know, if Bush Senior had gone on for one more day, we would have HAD Saddam. I'll bet you've read in his book where he clearly outlines the reasons why he did not do so; reasons that rise up to haunt us now that his son has ignored his very good advice.

Yes, I have brought that fact up a number of times. You are right that Bush Sr. was worried and rightfully so. I don't know that this will all turn out ok. I hope it does.