Patriotically Correct?

“Nigel, I'm sure you are right.
But I have been there, seen it. I have skipped meals because I knew it would not stay down.
The stench is unbelievable, clouds of flies everywhere. I am adamant in my position because I know I am right, I have zero doubt!
Nigel and people like him cannot make a legitimate argument, they always change the subject or attack you on a personal level.

You cannot win an argument when the subject is not a matter of opinion, and you are dead wrong.

Anyone who says there is a gray area here is simply looking through the cloud of confusion they are surrounded by. This is usually caused by a lack of good moral judgement.
Along with great power comes great responsibility.

You can not sit by and watch people being slaughtered and not do anything, when you possess the most powerful military in the world. The great shame is that the other countries in the region care more about oil profits than their own kind. But that's just how they are, they do not put any real value on human life Nigel.”

“Nigel you are probably right, how ever I have been there and saw it. I have skipped meals because I knew they would not stay down. I wonder If Tilt has ever seen a mass grave of dead children? The stench is unbelievable, and the flies are thicker than molasses. I have no doubt in the correctness of my position, NONE.
People like Nigel cannot make a legitimate argument,(it's impossible when you are wrong) so they change the subject or attack you personally.

This is not a matter of opinion, taking out brutal dictators is the right thing to do.
There is no shade of gray here. Those who see a gray area are only looking through the cloud of confusion they are surrounded by.
This is caused by a lack of good moral judgement.

With great power comes great responsibility.
You can not sit by and do nothing while masses of people are tortured and slaughtered by brutal dictators, and you possess great military power. How can we just look away?

The real shame here is that the other countries in the region let this go on for 40 yrs. But they care more about oil profits, thats just the way they are, they do not place much value on human life Nigel.”

“sorry, thought I forgot to hit the submit button as we turned the page, typed it twice.”

“Is trout arguing with someone who agrees with him?”

“It's better than arguing with poor hatefilled tilt.”

“Did you protest Reagan's support of Saddam while he was gassing the old Iranian men and boys the Ayatollah threw at him? � I'm sure you were crying crocodile tears for the dead while that was going on, RIGHT?

Oh, No.... not 'looking the other way'.... Active Support. � Materiel. � Satellite intelligence. � Logistics.

Or when the previous George Bush shot his mouth off back in 1991 and made the Kurds and the Shia think we would come in and support them if they revolted.� They rose up and were massacred. � You recall all the mass graves that were found..... from 1991. � They'd all been dead for a dozen years.

How many more Iraqis would be alive today if not for the Greatest Blundering in Modern History? � The LOWER estimates put it at over a million. � You remember how a hundred people were blown to bits day in and day out for four years while Rumsfeld twiddled his thumbs.... or do you have some kind of selective amnesia? � Don't make excuses for the fools who made it all possible and paint it up as some kind of Humanitarian Mission. � It wasn't. � It was sold as a preemptive act of self defense.... � against weapons that did not exist.

Somebody should've told George that you just don't start a war because you feel like it or because you heard some Voice from Above or even if you think you're finishing up what Daddy Started. � You don't decide to start a war then scrape together excuses to do it. � People die. � LOTS of people. � It's not "collateral damage". � Those are people. � Or they were before George started #&%!$ing up over there.

That's why you don't put a crackpot in the Oval Office in the first place.


I don't know if you saw the "American Perspectives" episode this past Spring about G. Herbert Walker Bush, but there was one part that caught my interest:

Comment on the judgment of the previous George Bush
and his team came from James Baker, Colin Powell and
Brent Scowcroft. They each discussed the criticism they took
for not toppling Saddam Hussein and occupying Iraq back
in 1991. �Each man concluded that conversation with a near
identical phrase:

�Nobody asks us about that anymore.�

”

“In my very first post I said that politicians were destroying this country, Rumsfeld was a pencil pusher, he thought if it worked on paper it would work on the ground.
We gave Saddam WMD, that is one reason we knew he had them.
You are correct, Saddam should have been taken out a long time ago, even before the first Gulf war. That was my whole point!!
I already pointed out that Saddam was a brutal Dictator who massacred anyone who stood up against him!!
Do you have amnesia concerning the Russians giving material, satellite, and logistical support to the Iranians?? It was a counter move on our part to keep the Soviets out of the Middle East, do you remember the Cuban missile crisis?
No excuses were scraped together, The WMD existed, 17 countries had their own independent intelligence that came to the same conclusion.
Are you saying that 17 countries all got together and agreed to back Bush on a lie?
That's retarded!
The WMD was either moved, or most likely sold to the Syrians.
You do not know what you are talking about!

But I do agree that the politicians are blundering fools!”

“My main point is that coming to the defense of a suffering, oppressed people is the moral thing to do!
Tilt is trying to derail the subject to one of political blunders, just as many have been made by Dems. if not more!!! Clinton had a perfect opportunity to take out Bin Laden several times while we had him under surveillance, he did not, big mistake as we all now know. That does not change the fact that it would have been the right thing to do.

I said in my earlier post he would try to change the subject to personal attacks.”

“I am not trying to debating politics, Democrats vs Republicans.
My bigger point is that if you do not allow evil people to hold powerful positions, you can avoid a lot of suffering. Once they grow in military might and gain both fear and support in their region, there is not always an easy or humanitarian way to deal with them. Soon it reaches the point where it is less costly in terms of human life to overthrow them militarily, than to allow them to go on torturing and killing for years to come.
Do innocent people die in war? YES THEY DO
Is there any way to avoid it? NO
Neither does it help when the thugs you are trying to overthrow put hundreds of human shields in the combat areas just so it will look like we are ruthless murderers. Or they shell their own people and blame it on us.
This is a very common tactic in the middle east, like I said before, they place no value on human life.
What is almost as bad is all the people who jump on those news stories and believe Aljezeera over our own embedded reporters many of whom reported this constantly.
Then you have traitors who drum up numbers that they know to be false and publish them as "killed in combat" and blame it all on the very forces that are there to help, the guys who do care, who have the courage to fight tyranny, and yes tilt, for the troops it IS a humanitarian mission. You are way off base, and your reasoning has been corrupted by your hatred of things you do not understand.
Tank personnel do not stick their head out of a turret to throw candy to kids that have NEVER had any, because they are heartless murderers. You need to think about that!!
last edited: 7/23/08 5:56:55 PM”

“Ah, we've had the entire range of BS arguments here.

If we'd have stopped Hitler ..... justification for all other invasion.

Lets stop the brutal dictators.... so whose next North Korea, maybe we should take a better look at Darfur. Zimbabwe, that would have been nice.... yet we're not massing forces on other borders.
We went to war to further our own national interest, not a bad thing - but only the naive buy into the good vs evil routine - it was NEVER about this.

WMDs - well we never found them - whether some small amounts were there... maybe, but certainly no threat to America... there was no mushroom cloud.

Ah yes, and lets blame everyone but this administration for its failings.


The aims behind the invasion weren't necessarily too wide of the mark, but things have been so badly handled by a group of very arrogant people as to make this irrelevant. We are in a weaker position now than had the invasion taken place.”

“So says the traitor to his own country.”

““Is trout arguing with someone who agrees with him?”

LOL! The old boy is in a frenzy and windmilling at anything that gets within reach.”

“And once again tilttiltbung can't support a position accept to rail and point his finger at some republican. In this case Regan. And he talks about XL's obsession with Clinton? BAWHAWHAWHAWHAW!”

“If someone slaps you in the face, you slap back twice.

To not do so only invites another slap.

No politics there!!

I have no respect for the politicians as I have already said twice!

If we had stopped Hitler early on, an invasion would not have been necessary!!! That seems to be the part you are missing, thus your inability to make a logical argument does not surprise me. If we would act before we have a huge problem on our hands small scale assaults (like Iraq) and major invasions would be a lot less likely.

Doesn't that sound like a way to save lives?

And Yes, Iraq was a small scale assault, compared with what we can bring to bear if we have to.

But you are correct, thing were mishandled badly, like I already said, Rumsfeld was a pencil pusher who dealt in part with theory, he wanted to change the military structure to be lighter, faster, and more potent.

Problem is he did not change strategy when things on the ground did not mesh with his ideas.

Busch had too much faith in him. Too many
politicians deal in theory for the most part, trying this and trying that, to see what gets them re-elected. Not what is truly best for us down the road. They do not always have practical, been there done that experience.
All politicians I'm referring to here, With me?

Then when they needed to get bailed out, who do they call? Gen. Petraeus a brilliant man with real experience.
Real experience tends to put things in perspective for you, you suddenly can see night & day. Right & wrong become much more focused.
That is precisely why the surge has worked, you MUST overwhelm the enemy quickly, it is effective in saving lives on both sides, and very rapid advancement by your forces is extremely damaging to the enemies mental state and their ability to remain cohesive.

That is the only part Rumsfeld got right, but he did not put enough troops into the theater to maintain his strategy. Things got out of hand in terms of the insurgency, he should have expected that since both Iran and Syria saw this as an opportunity to fight a war by proxy, and had months to prepare. The administration was warned about this. It soon became clear that we had two conflicts in the same theater. At that point we should have added another 100k troops to the theater, and ended the conflict quickly, this would have also had the effect of winning the confidence of the Iraqi people, instead we created confusion.

There is no doubt however that the Iraqi people want freedom from tyranny, their dignity back, and yes the right to hope for a decent life.
If we had not have taken Saddams regime out of power, his sons would have assumed power and not wanting to share it probably split the country in two, resulting in yet more bloodshed in the region.
last edited: 7/23/08 7:34:30 PM”

“You do not understand,


Was the handling of the war fumbled? Yes

Was it right to overthrow Saddam? Yes
Let the military do it when it is necessary.
Many times conflict is humanitarian if it stops long term suffering of whole societies.
last edited: 7/23/08 7:45:50 PM”

“You seem to forget Cheney too - I'm not sure it's wise to have a man with little to lose (four heart incidents) in a position of such power.

In theory it's nice to say that if we have the power then we should overthrow brutal dictators, but there's a whole host of reasons we shouldn't.

We should try to make other countries in our own eye. American democracy is not necessarily going to work elsewhere.

You can not force your vision of society on others. To function democracy needs to come from the bottom up not the top down.

Overthrowing a dictator can well cost more lives than it saves - sometimes it's better to let him die.

Invading a dictator against the wishes of the majority of nations can erode even a superpower's strength and weaken them in the long-term.

Military action should be the last resort - here there was a rush to war.

America needs to understand that the rest of the world does not always work the same way. Other nations have different priorities. The American neocon is a long way from the majority of people on the planet.

This was not the right war and it was undertaken at the wrong time.

It was NEVER a humanitarian mission, it was about what was perceived to be Americas national interest. It's wrong to dress this up as saving lives.
I think many of the leaders thought they were doing this - I'm sure this is how many sleep at night, but the reality was that this was merely a 'fringe benefit' of trying to turn the world to America's advantage.”

“I think you misunderstand.

The war was fumbled
but
NO it was never the right move to topple Saddam - it was always too risky for all concerned. Maybe in principle, but in practice it was always too much of a roll of the dice to be the correct decision.
It was always more likely to fail than succeed for both Iraqis and Americans.”

“some people don't grasp the concept and importance of spreadibg freedom.”

“You can not force your vision of society on others. ... We should (not) try to make other countries in our own eye. - y2

Irony?
last edited: 7/24/08 5:56:31 AM”

“I think a letter of condemnation from the United Nations is enough to make any evil dictator change his ways. I think we need to do more of that.”

“Fox 'News' will rot your brain.

We see it here every day.”

“So will mother jones news, dailykos, etc, etc

You're exactly like the wingnuts you hate, Tilt. Everyone can see that but you. Or maybe you can and just don't care. Either way, it's rather pathetic.”

“I agree with Noncon. We need more condemnation OF the U.N.”

“It was always more likely to fail than succeed for both Iraqis and Americans. - y2

it really depends on how you define failure.”

“I think he defines it as lack of government control.”

“Balance, population or greed?”

“Salebored:

”

“KMA doesn't work, are you the clerk or just...?”

“I'm a natural born follower, I do what I'm told

Nothing that bold, give me a bid and I'm good as sold.”

“it really depends on how you define failure.�
Mutt
6:28:11 AM
7/24/08
Thousands of American soldiers killed, many many more thousands injured
Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed
Almost no progress on Americas stategic goals
Any gains against AQ could have been made without invading Iraq.
Higher oil prices, less secure oil supplies.
America powerless to halt rise of oil powers
Americas global influence waning
Huge budget defecit
Little end in sight to spending
A resurgent taliban in Afganistan due to loss of focus
Instability in Pakistan (anti-Americanism helps this)
America now no longer seen as honest broker in the region.
Syria resurgent in Lebanon
Iran's nuclear power growing, now standing up to America (for the moment at least)

You know this list goes on and on and on.

IF it had all gone to plan then it would have been great - but war should have been the last resort - here it was the first response.”

“LOL!!!

Classic!

First response????

What, like 13 years of U.N. Resolutions and talks???

Wow, this y2 cat is a riot!!”

“y2.0 is rather silly.”

“Y2 - just for fun:

Thousands of American soldiers killed, many many more thousands injured

Pretty much every war would be a failure using this guideline.

Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed

In an area of the world with deeply imbeded, irrational tribal animosities that easily boils over into killing. If we carpet bombed Baghdad, you'd have a point.

Almost no progress on Americas stategic goals

AQ Prime in ruins, the AQ franchise hugely discredited among muslims, countries strong-armed into cooperating on the WOT, no new 9/11 scale attacks. Nah, none of that means anything because golly Europe is mad at us.

Any gains against AQ could have been made without invading Iraq.

Right, like Saudi Arabia was really cracking down on extremists before the invasion. LOL

Higher oil prices, less secure oil supplies.

Instability in Iraq has ceased to be a consistent, major factor in this, particularly since the surge and negotiations with Iran are progressing.

America powerless to halt rise of oil powers

Huh?

Americas global influence waning

Diplomatic influence shifts and varies with time and administrations and foreign policies. As long as the USN controls the world's shipping lanes, America's global influence has not waned.

Huge budget defecit

Valid.

Little end in sight to spending

Valid, particularly when Obamamessiah is elected.

A resurgent taliban in Afganistan due to loss of focus

I wouldn't call assigning petreus "loss of focus". We always knew the taliban would resurface. We didn't invade the country and destroy them, remember?

Instability in Pakistan (anti-Americanism helps this)

That's like saying there's instability in Africa. Yeah, so? That's pakistan!

America now no longer seen as honest broker in the region.

Well yeah, with Obama making ignorant gaffes about Israel, it's no wonder.

Syria resurgent in Lebanon

Iran resurgent in Lebanon.

Iran's nuclear power growing, now standing up to America (for the moment at least)

American-Iranian negotations continue to progress. But this would've been a problem regardless of the Iraq war.”

“You can say that again. Doesn't he know , by the rules of victory between 10;02-10;41 pm last night, we had won all wars and had achieved total victory over the terrorist.

Disregard the above, things have changed 9.9x 10 to the nth since that 10;41pm report.”

“It's a wonder they could get the Bradleys into Baghdad for all the rose petals.”

“Ok, lets look at these

Thousands of American soldiers killed, many many more thousands injured.

Pretty much every war would be a failure using this guideline.

Yes, which is why it should be used as a last resort under imminent threat, not as a tool of foreign policy.

Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed

In an area of the world with deeply imbeded, irrational tribal animosities that easily boils over into killing. If we carpet bombed Baghdad, you'd have a point.

Animosities which we exposed with the invasion, with little plan for dealing with them

Almost no progress on Americas stategic goals

AQ Prime in ruins, the AQ franchise hugely discredited among muslims, countries strong-armed into cooperating on the WOT, no new 9/11 scale attacks. Nah, none of that means anything because golly Europe is mad at us.

AQ wasn't in Iraq before we invaded. We can't claim credit for progress on a problem we created. This could have been achieved without invading a place where AQ wasn't active.

Any gains against AQ could have been made without invading Iraq.

Right, like Saudi Arabia was really cracking down on extremists before the invasion. LOL

Of course they would, the Saudi royals saw extremism as a threat to their own prosperity. This is what led to a crackdown. You could say they stepped this up because the invasion of Iraq increase the risk of an instablility in Saudi

Higher oil prices, less secure oil supplies.

Instability in Iraq has ceased to be a consistent, major factor in this, particularly since the surge and negotiations with Iran are progressing.

Iraqi exports down, only now exploring the future. Real progress yet to be achieved. Wasn't this oil supposed to pay for war and reconstruction?


America powerless to halt rise of oil powers

Huh?

One of the reasons for invasion of Iraq was to create a stable democratic producer of oil beholden to US - fail!

Americas global influence waning

Diplomatic influence shifts and varies with time and administrations and foreign policies. As long as the USN controls the world's shipping lanes, America's global influence has not waned.

It does indeed, but we spent far too much political capital in the invasion. Bush turning to Iran and North Korea now is just farsical.

Huge budget defecit

Valid.

Little end in sight to spending

Valid, particularly when Obamamessiah is elected.

Glad you see his victory is ineviatable!

A resurgent taliban in Afganistan due to loss of focus

I wouldn't call assigning petreus "loss of focus". We always knew the taliban would resurface. We didn't invade the country and destroy them, remember?

Petreus was assigned because we're losing ground out there. We didn't do the job properly and now we're paying the price.

Instability in Pakistan (anti-Americanism helps this)

That's like saying there's instability in Africa. Yeah, so? That's pakistan!

Well ok, always unstable, but we've done so much to help the extremist's cause.

America now no longer seen as honest broker in the region.

Well yeah, with Obama making ignorant gaffes about Israel, it's no wonder.

Well lets just go for more of the same instead then?


Syria resurgent in Lebanon

Iran resurgent in Lebanon.

Iran's nuclear power growing, now standing up to America (for the moment at least)

American-Iranian negotations continue to progress. But this would've been a problem regardless of the Iraq war.�

The invasion or Iraq turned Iran in an extremist direction due to the implied threat of invasion in the Axis of Evil. There was a window for talks, but appaently Cheney refused to talk in the first year after Iraq invasion.

Overall - if a plan is very likely to fall flat on its face then it is the WRONG decision to carry on with it.

There was too much risk of failure in this from the start.

They ignored the advice of diplomats and regional experts, threw the diplomatic rule book out the window - threw the military rule book out the window - and then still expected to achieve their goals.

We're simply in damage limitation mode now.”

“Can somebody tell me, is this y2 guy for real?”

“Why don't you deal with some of the issues raised Sargie - oh I forgot - you're not capable of that are you.

Ok, lets try this in term you'll understand.

Some local Republicans near me have begun a charity which takes the fine sport of golf to the inner cities. They take poor kids and take them out on the Golf course and show them if they work really hard, they can have poor dress sense, drive a lexus and have membership to a country club that keeps people like them out.

Now they don't have much money - times are hard and portfolios are not what they were and so on - so this charity only has $1,000 in the bank - barely enough for a new driver.

So I have this idea of taking this $1,000 and going to Vegas, going to the roulette table and putting it all on lucky number 7.

I plan on winning $36,000 which will be enough to buy lots of golf clubs (from the country club store) lots of silly hats to give out to remind them what they're missing - and even a bottle or two of decent wine to have with lunch, on expenses of course.

Now my financial advisor and my broker, even my mom tells me this is a bad idea and I'm likely to end up with nothing. But I think it'll be great for all the kids, so I'm gonna do it anyway!
last edited: 7/24/08 11:10:42 AM”

“I did, but you never countered my pointing out of your obvious memory loss of over a decade of NOT invading Iraq, so I figured you are just spouting what you hear on NPR.”

“.....is this y2 guy for real?...

He's British.”

“To be honest if you think the reason we went to war was to uphold some old UN resolutions then there's little point in talking to you as you're a fool.

You're not a fool are you Sargie?
last edited: 7/24/08 11:13:13 AM”

“You said war was our "first response".

Response to what then? What did we respond to that we didn't first talk to them about?”

“He's British!?

Then why does he keep saying "we"?

Is there a mouse in his pocket?”

“Wowzer - not even bothered to see who was involved in the Invasion of Iraq then!

This really is a battle of wits with the unarmed isn't it.”

“Who was it that keeps blaming America, and is making most of his standards for success based off American goals (not coalition), yet says "we"? The fact is America made those calls, you know it, and you're not American.

Now, back to the point you pushed ... the issues. Response to what then? What did we respond to that we didn't first talk to them about?”

“Ok, lets look at these

Thousands of American soldiers killed, many many more thousands injured.

Pretty much every war would be a failure using this guideline.

Yes, which is why it should be used as a last resort under imminent threat, not as a tool of foreign policy.

We were under imminent threat. Remember 9/11? At the time I didn't agree with the timing of the Iraq war, either. But, in the year that followed then invasion, watching the Saudis create a mini civil war was gratifying, for starters.


Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed

In an area of the world with deeply imbeded, irrational tribal animosities that easily boils over into killing. If we carpet bombed Baghdad, you'd have a point.

Animosities which we exposed with the invasion, with little plan for dealing with them

I agree the aftermath was poorly handled. That does not mean the war was a failure.

Almost no progress on Americas stategic goals

AQ Prime in ruins, the AQ franchise hugely discredited among muslims, countries strong-armed into cooperating on the WOT, no new 9/11 scale attacks. Nah, none of that means anything because golly Europe is mad at us.

AQ wasn't in Iraq before we invaded. We can't claim credit for progress on a problem we created. This could have been achieved without invading a place where AQ wasn't active.

AQ Prime wasn't. However, the AQ the franchise among peasant jihadists was everywhere. Iraq created a focal point for it. Not only did they get their asses handed to them, they showed the Muslim world how brutal they are to Muslims. Lose-lose.

Any gains against AQ could have been made without invading Iraq.

Right, like Saudi Arabia was really cracking down on extremists before the invasion. LOL

Of course they would, the Saudi royals saw extremism as a threat to their own prosperity. This is what led to a crackdown. You could say they stepped this up because the invasion of Iraq increase the risk of an instablility in Saudi

No, SA mostly accomodated them, watched them, and acted against direct threats to the monarchy. After the invasion, after they were forced to crack down, a small-scale civil war erupted. Much was purged.

Higher oil prices, less secure oil supplies.

Instability in Iraq has ceased to be a consistent, major factor in this, particularly since the surge and negotiations with Iran are progressing.

Iraqi exports down, only now exploring the future. Real progress yet to be achieved. Wasn't this oil supposed to pay for war and reconstruction?

Yeah, I remember some loudmouths before the war making that claim. I found it to be ridiculous. But Iraq oil wasn't your original point.


America powerless to halt rise of oil powers

Huh?

One of the reasons for invasion of Iraq was to create a stable democratic producer of oil beholden to US - fail!

What in the world does that have to do with "rise of oil powers"???

Americas global influence waning

Diplomatic influence shifts and varies with time and administrations and foreign policies. As long as the USN controls the world's shipping lanes, America's global influence has not waned.

It does indeed, but we spent far too much political capital in the invasion. Bush turning to Iran and North Korea now is just farsical.

Bull. Europe when they need us will be groveling again. Like I've said before, any time a major power is focused on something, the regional powers will flex. The idea that we spent "too much political capital" is right in line with that, and it doesn't reflect reality. Iran has ALWAYS been the major player in post-war Iraq, so I have no idea why you'd suggest we're just now dealing with them

Huge budget defecit

Valid.

Little end in sight to spending

Valid, particularly when Obamamessiah is elected.

Glad you see his victory is ineviatable!

Yes, and it will be a presidency reminiscent of, but much more damaging than, jimmy carter

A resurgent taliban in Afganistan due to loss of focus

I wouldn't call assigning petreus "loss of focus". We always knew the taliban would resurface. We didn't invade the country and destroy them, remember?

Petreus was assigned because we're losing ground out there. We didn't do the job properly and now we're paying the price.

So you think sending in tens or hundreds of thousands of soldiers and $billions more would have done the job "properly"? Have you learned *nothing* about the history of afghanistan? This was inevitable. As long as we're there, the situation on the ground *will* fluctuate. We didn't invade, we didn't conquer, and we're not going to change the nature of the country. It's ridiculous - I can point this reality out over and over, yet you always come back with the "afghanistan lost" crap. It's childish!

Instability in Pakistan (anti-Americanism helps this)

That's like saying there's instability in Africa. Yeah, so? That's pakistan!

Well ok, always unstable, but we've done so much to help the extremist's cause.

Gee, I wonder how extremism got started and ended up with 9/11 before the Iraq war? Oh that's right, because anti-americanism and extremism had been at high levels for DECADES. Extremism is actually taking hits, too, you know.

America now no longer seen as honest broker in the region.

Well yeah, with Obama making ignorant gaffes about Israel, it's no wonder.

Well lets just go for more of the same instead then?


Syria resurgent in Lebanon

Iran resurgent in Lebanon.

Iran's nuclear power growing, now standing up to America (for the moment at least)

American-Iranian negotations continue to progress. But this would've been a problem regardless of the Iraq war.?

The invasion or Iraq turned Iran in an extremist direction due to the implied threat of invasion in the Axis of Evil. Iran didn't just turn to nukes because of the Iraq war.There was a window for talks, but appaently Cheney refused to talk in the first year after Iraq invasion.

Oh, Iran was rational and agreeable but Cheney snubbed them into extremists seeking nukes? LMAO! Iran didn't just turn to nukes because of the Iraq war; that goes quite a bit further back. And we ARE talking with the Iranians and have been for years now. Do you just not want to hear that?

Overall - if a plan is very likely to fall flat on its face then it is the WRONG decision to carry on with it.

There was too much risk of failure in this from the start.

They ignored the advice of diplomats and regional experts, threw the diplomatic rule book out the window - threw the military rule book out the window - and then still expected to achieve their goals.

We're simply in damage limitation mode now.

It was risky. There were major mistakes made. Welcome to war. So what if their goals didn't get met. Others did. That's the point - it's not a huge defeat like the liberals want to reify”

“I think it's apparent that we weren't under imminent threat from Saddam.

If the risks and potential costs outweigh the benefits then of course war is the wrong thing.

I'm not claiming war is always wrong in all circumstances - just that it was a BAD STRATEGIC DECISION which continues to be proven each day.”

“Except you can't make the case for it...”

“Golly, I hope you're not avoiding the question, especially since it was you who pressed me to talk about the issues.

What did we respond to, if not the 'more than a decade' of not cooperating after Kuwait that we didn't talk to the Iraqis about - and just went un guns-a-blazing?

Are you going to 'pass'?”

“�Except you can't make the case for it...�
Mutt
11:57:08 AM
7/24/08

Certainly it's a stronger case than repeating "war is war".”