If anyone can bring peace to the Middle East, it's

[Katyusha]

You are clearly an idiot. He went on television, right after 9/11, before the invasion, and said it would take years. He said it was a "different type of war." Pull your dick out of your ear and face the facts.

If I recall correctly, he said that the war on terror would take years. Not the war in Iraq, which is a totally separate entity that has caused us to lose sight of the war on terror.

 

[Katyusha]

But he didn't form an invasion plan for Iraq at that point--let alone a long, bloody, draining occupation. He never, ever, ever, ever thought in terms of a long, bloody, draining U.S. occupation. I don't think even he is that stupid.

Actually, that made it worse. If he'd thought that there would be a long, drawn-out, resource-draining, bloody U.S. occupation in Iraq, maybe he would have thought twice about going. It's easy to invade a country if you think it'll take a minimum amount of resources to accomplish your goal.

 

[sr71plt]

If I recall correctly, he said that the war on terror would take years. Not the war in Iraq, which is a totally separate entity that has caused us to lose sight of the war on terror.

Yep, you recall correctly. (I pointed this out too.)

And there's the rub. The U.S. invasion of Iraq aided and abetted global terrorism. Osama bin Laden couldn't have imagined better publicity for his cause. Way to go, Georgie.

 

[Katyusha]

Well, George the Lesser thought George the Greater lost his election because he didn't go to Baghdad and that the family honor needed to be vindicated. He was looking for an excuse to level Iraq from election day--and put out the word for those inside government to construct such an excuse. The square "invade Iraq" was jammed in the round "9/11 attack excuse" to fit that bill--against considerable inside advice. (I doubt that George the Greater felt the need for this sort of "vindication," though.)

LOL @ "George the Lesser and George the Greater"

George the Greater was actually wise enough to listen to his advisers when they said that storming Baghdad would result in a long, drawn-out and unnecessary war. So we got Iraq out of Kuwait, declared mission accomplished, and left. George the Lesser seems to think that was never even discussed.

I am glad to see that I'm not the only one on the planet who thinks this was a vendetta.

 

[Katyusha]

Yep, you recall correctly. (I pointed this out too.)

And there's the rub. The U.S. invasion of Iraq aided and abetted global terrorism. Osama bin Laden couldn't have imagined better publicity for his cause. Way to go, Georgie.

Indeed. And let's not forget that Al Qaida is at pre 9-11 strength, and the Taliban is back in power too.

What have we accomplished here? Oh, right, we deposed a man who was absolutely no threat to us whatsoever. We're something.

 

[shereads]

You are clearly an idiot. He went on television, right after 9/11, before the invasion, and said it would take years. He said it was a "different type of war." Pull your dick out of your ear and face the facts.

Publicly, Bush hedged his bets by saying the war on terror would take years. (He frequently mixed the war in Iraq with the so-called war on terror, to keep people like you confused.) Meanwhile, behind the scenes, he agreed with Rumsfeld that only a small troop presence would be necessary in Iraq after the initial big win, which was going to be just as easy as Mr. Chalabi promised it would be.

Where'd your Mr. Chalabi get off to, by the way? He still on our payroll? I have a feeling his head and yours are sharing your ass. Gets crowded in there, does it?

You really are the poster child for Willful Ignorance. If you knew anything that hadn't been in the headlines, you'd be 90% smarter.

 

[shereads]

Indeed. And let's not forget that Al Qaida is at pre 9-11 strength, and the Taliban is back in power too.

What have we accomplished here? Oh, right, we deposed a man who was absolutely no threat to us whatsoever. We're something.

Let's not forget that he was in his seventies and, like Fidel Castro, would eventually have died of natural causes. Tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians who died at our hands during Shock & Awe would have lived to celebrate the death of their dictator, and to figure out for themselves whether they wanted to fight for democracy and ask for the west's help.

But how exciting would that have been for George W. Bush? Not at all. Dullsville.

 

[shereads]

LOL @ "George the Lesser and George the Greater"

George the Greater was actually wise enough to listen to his advisers when they said that storming Baghdad would result in a long, drawn-out and unnecessary war. So we got Iraq out of Kuwait, declared mission accomplished, and left. George the Lesser seems to think that was never even discussed.

I am glad to see that I'm not the only one on the planet who thinks this was a vendetta.

I think George Lesser was allowed to think it was a vendetta, and to enjoy it as such. The real purpose - the Project for the New American Century Purpose - was to remove an obstacle to economic opportunity in Iraq. Mission accomplished.

Things get blown up that have to be rebuilt. Get there first with your no-bid contract, pay your people enough to make the risk of working in a war zone worthwhile, and before you know it you're raking up money like dead leaves. U.S. taxpayers foot the bill. Or, more accurately in this case, the grandchildren of U.S. taxpayers foot the bill. it works out magnificently, provided you have the luxury of watching from a distance.

Cheney's war was won when Bush duped Congress into giving him war powers.

 

[Carnevil9]

Let's not forget that he was in his seventies and, like Fidel Castro, would eventually have died of natural causes......

Yes, but his two sadistic rapist misbegotten sons would have lived on for decades, raping Iraqi women and spreading evil, instead of dying like the dogs that they were. Would you have preferred that? Ignoring problems, hoping that they will go away on their own, is rarely a good solution.

 

[sr71plt]

Yes, but his two sadistic rapist misbegotten sons would have lived on for decades, instead of dying like the dogs that they were. Would you have preferred that?

Actually, this is a good example of "doing it dumb." The sons just conveniently went off stage in a "but they weren't surrendering" hail of cost-efficient bullets. But did the same thing happen with Saddam (when it easily could have)? Noooooooo. We had to keep him alive; put him on trial so he could run rings around the Iraqi jurists, tying them in knots with Iraqi law and rallying Islamic support; keep him an ever-present need for our troops to stay there until he was dead (If we had pulled out at any time while he was still alive, he'd been reelected Iraq president the next day); and then we even botched the PR on executing him.

But I actually am posting to agree with you. The primary reason Saddam wasn't offed decades earlier (and he could have been--Osama bin Laden even offered to do it for us cheaply) was because we could never identify a replacement who was any more palatable (or capable--he held the country together, which is more than anyone is doing now)--certainly not those sons.

It's somewhat like what we have here in the States. George Bush's best insurance policy is that the next in line is Dick Cheney (not that he's going to survive his term, it would seem).

 

[Carnevil9]

.....But I actually am posting to agree with you......

Be careful about that "agreeing with me" jazz. You might find yourself persona non grata. This board isn't exactly known for its open-mindedness to opposing viewpoints.....Carney

 

[sr71plt]

Be careful about that "agreeing with me" jazz. You might find yourself persona non grata......Carney

I don't agree or disagree with anyone just to hold a dogma. I post the view I have at the time, whatever it might be.

 

[Huckleman2000]

You know he's really just humoring Condi with this whole Mid-East Peace thing.
He couldn't even care enough to learn how to pronounce the names of the principals involved in the talks. http://thinkprogress.org/2007/11/27/bush-pronunciation-olmert-abbas/

 

[shereads]

Yes, but his two sadistic rapist misbegotten sons would have lived on for decades, raping Iraqi women and spreading evil, instead of dying like the dogs that they were. Would you have preferred that? Ignoring problems, hoping that they will go away on their own, is rarely a good solution.

Is that why you're so eager to send U.S. troops into the Sudan?

Who are you kidding? Your - and Dubya's - sympathy for Saddam's victims began in earnest precisely when it had to: when the failure to find WMD threatened to make Shock & Awe look like Stunned & Stupid.

"The failure to find WMD is irrelevent," your friend Chalabi told a British reporter. "What matters is that the U.S. is in Baghdad."

Easy for him to say. As a known con artist, Chalabi didn't have much of a reputation to lose. Dubya, on the other hand, had to avoid admitting a fatal error, at all costs.

Saving the downtrodden people of Iraq was a fall-back position, as all but the most gullible have admitted by now. The downtrodden people of North Korea - whose tyrant was all but begging us to come see his WMD program - weren't our problem. Ditto the downtrodden people of Iran, some of whom had been gassed with Ronald Reagan's implicit okay back when Saddam was our boy. The downtrodden people of Afghanistan were briefly fodder for the PR machine, when it became evident that Operation Enduring Freedom needed a reason other than finding Bin Laden. The downtrodden people of Bosnia and Croatia were nothing but an excuse for that draft-dodging Bill Clinton to play at nation-building. The downtrodden people of Darfur aren't even a blip on your radar.

The right wing doesn't bat an eye over human rights abuses unless there's a political reason to care. What matters to you isn't the degree of suffering or even the likelihood that U.S. invervention can make a positive difference (instead of making matters worse, as was inevitable in Iraq). What matters is whether there's a chance to wear your good-guy hats while doing what you wanted to do anyway. Like occupy Iraq. Sadly, when the civilian death rate exceeds the numbers under the deposed dictator, you earn demerits instead of points.

To qualify as a victim of tyrany under the right-wing's definition, the torture/imprisonment/genocide must be at the hands of your political enemy. Leftists are ideal; almost as good is a tyrant whose presence is bad for business, perhaps because his policies have earned trade sanctions.

The Sandanistas had victims; the Contras had collateral damage while executing criminals. Augusto Pinochet, the Soviet-era Taliban, the Shah of Iran, the Duvaliers in Haiti, Saddam Hussein during the hand-shake/photo-op days, and of course Saudi Arabia, were/are guilty of many regrettable actions, and of course pressure was/is applied behind the scenes. (As referenced in the Reagan White House internal report, made public under the Freedom of Informatoin Act, that refers to Saddam's use of chemical weapons as "potentially embarrassing" to Iraq and the United States.) But we were/are not in the business of policing the world. We may fuck with it some; but who's going to stop us?

You'd have walked over Donald Rumsfeld to shake hands with Saddam Hussein if there had been an extra tax cut in it for you. Admit it...Is there any topic on which you are NOT a hypocrite?

 

[jomar]

Would just love to know what you think consitutes "finishing it."

Hard to know. We're gonna dig in there loooongterm. There's oil to protect, you know. Shucks, I bet G to the L will make a fine oil ambassador after he leaves office, just like he was in Texas.

 

[sr71plt]

Hard to know. We're gonna dig in there loooongterm. There's oil to protect, you know. Shucks, I bet G to the L will make a fine oil ambassador after he leaves office, just like he was in Texas.

Naw. That will be screwed up too. We'll end up leaving with nothing but a new round of "Vietnam memories." Whoever replaces Bush won't have an elegant exit strategy either--because there ain't one.

 

[Handley_Page]

They don't win prizes, but they might get nominations.

I think the only times the Middle East has ever been at peace for any llength of time was during the heydays of the Roman Empire and the Ottoman Empire. Then, it was because one nation ruled the whole place, and the value of oil wasn't as high as it is now.

Yes, but think of the fight they had to get it, and it didn't last too long and it wasn't complete. They've been fighting in the East (Palestine to Persia) for the last 3000 years and it's going to take a couple of generations to get it right.

 

[Katyusha]

Let's not forget that he was in his seventies and, like Fidel Castro, would eventually have died of natural causes. Tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians who died at our hands during Shock & Awe would have lived to celebrate the death of their dictator, and to figure out for themselves whether they wanted to fight for democracy and ask for the west's help.

But how exciting would that have been for George W. Bush? Not at all. Dullsville.

So he can run around like a chicken with its head cut off like the rest of us do in our daily lives, he takes us to war.

I agree...this is something they needed to have happen on its own. Or they at least needed to revolt on their own. You can't force a revolution and expect it to be successful. We'll declare a final "mission accomplished" and as soon as we're gone that country will be back in the grip of civil war.

And then we'll REALLY have accomplished something. ::shaking head::

 

[cantdog]

Yes, but think of the fight they had to get it, and it didn't last too long and it wasn't complete. They've been fighting in the East (Palestine to Persia) for the last 3000 years and it's going to take a couple of generations to get it right.

Dude, this fighting for three thousand years shit gets really old. What do you mean by that? Are you a 'stew in their own juices' advocate? They weren't fighting the Zionist state for three thousand years, because there wasn't one, for quite some little time there.

Fighting to recover parts of Palestine from the Crusaders, fighting to drive the Sassanids from Persia, none of this is still happening today. Each war is distinct enough to deserve more thoughtful treatment than 'fighting for three thousand years.'

We fought, in my state, to drive the French from Castine, to remove the British from the Penobscot, to suppress the Wabanaki, to establish a new home in the Valley. Before us, the native peoples had their wars. But like, we already have the towns in the Valley, the French have left, and the British withdrew. In your example, the Hittites fell, the Masada rebellion failed, the Ottomans lost the Levant, the British were removed from Iraq. Really. All this is in the past and has no bearing on the problem.

 

[cantdog]

Peace in the middle east has little to do with Antony's fleet's defeat or Crassus' capture by the Persians, or Cyrus the Great's campaign against the Assyrians. Get your cynicism wadded up in a nice neat ball, and throw it over your shoulder. Put it behind you. There you go.

 

[shereads]

Peace in the middle east has little to do with Antony's fleet's defeat or Crassus' capture by the Persians, or Cyrus the Great's campaign against the Assyrians. Get your cynicism wadded up in a nice neat ball, and throw it over your shoulder. Put it behind you. There you go.

Hey, watch where you aim that stuff. You broke a vase.

 

[Guest]

You know he's really just humoring Condi with this whole Mid-East Peace thing.
He couldn't even care enough to learn how to pronounce the names of the principals involved in the talks. http://thinkprogress.org/2007/11/27/bush-pronunciation-olmert-abbas/

Hey, he said he is hosting the talks. He said nothing about being best friends or getting on a last name basis with those two.

Maharat