Welcome to crazy!!!! On anniversary, Bush cites big successes in Iraq!!

[ganeil]

Originally Posted by Negotiator

Soldiers don't fight for a cause, they serve in the military and do what is asked, going above in beyond in many cases. That doesn't constitute believing in a cause. I have at least 4 friends that have, or are currently deployed in Iraq, all excellent soldiers, and none agreeing with the war and the administration's handling of it. Don't speak for everyone in the service, I don't think many will appreciate it.

You know 4 soldiers? I have led and served with thousands. They believe in what they are doing and the re-enlistment rates prove it. The war in Iraq has been going on for 5 years now. Virtually every soldier who is currently serving has either enlisted or re-enlisted since it began. They know what they signed up for and their sacrifice should never be used to make political points.

Pakistan is that way... *points*

believe it or not, the US military is capable of doing two things at once. I find it amazing that people will constantly complain (incorrectly) that we have "gone it alone" in Iraq and then also complain that in Afghanistan we should not rely on our allies to do what they committed to.

No, what he's proposing is withdrawal. What will happen is every faction will mow each other down, until someone much worse than Saddam will come to power, now under religious pretenses. And that will happen regardless of how long we maintain a presense there. Look at Russia, it's bedlam without a strong single governor ruling the country...I don't think Putin is an angel, but what he did with regards to revitilizing Russia as a world power has been extraordinary.

Withdrawing from the field of battle is surrender.

So Arabs are incapable of self-government? They should just butcher each other until another dictator takes control and bleeds them some more? Do you recommend the same solution to the Arab-Israeli problem? Would you approve of the Israelis slaughtering the Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza to solve that problem as well?

The sanctions were put into place to prevent Iraq from producing chemical and nuclear weapons, and after 12 years - there weren't any. You're right, utter failure.

You really should take the time to actually read what were Iraq's obligations under the ceasefire resolutions.

When has a UN peacekeeping deployment force proven incapable? The military record is spotless. The fact that UN is careful about deploying them, is another story, which is called diplomacy. Foreign terms to the current administration...

Yes, not a spot of success. How successful were UN forces in the Sinai in 1967? How about Lebanon? Rwanda? Srebrenica?

Do you not see the missing link in stabilizing an unstable region, making friends within hostile regions...

You mean like the new friendly governments in Iraq and Afghanistan, the newly contrite Libya, or maybe the Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman,...

[Negotiator]

You really should take the time to actually read what were Iraq's obligations under the ceasefire resolutions.

"The UN Security Council imposed comprehensive economic sanctions against Iraq on August 6, 1990, just after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. When the coalition war had ousted Iraq from Kuwait the following year, the Council did not lift the sanctions, keeping them in place as leverage to press for Iraqi disarmament and other goals. The sanctions remained in place thereafter, despite a harsh impact on innocent Iraqi civilians and an evident lack of pressure on Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. A UN "Oil-for-Food Programme," started in late 1997, offered some relief to Iraqis, but the humanitarian crisis continued."

elieve it or not, the US military is capable of doing two things at once. I find it amazing that people will constantly complain (incorrectly) that we have "gone it alone" in Iraq and then also complain that in Afghanistan we should not rely on our allies to do what they committed to.

I have full confidence in the US military. I'm sure we CAN send troops to hunt down terrorist cells in Pakistan. However, we aren't. We are also in Iraq for no reason. That was kind of my point.

Withdrawing from the field of battle is surrender.

There is no field of battle. There is no opposing standing military. What's your point?

I have led and served with thousands.

I commend you for your service, I'm sure it's been exemplary and you're obviously a true patriot, I'm not challenging that. What I am challenging is your views on the current international policy, which is extremely short-sighted.

They believe in what they are doing and the re-enlistment rates prove it. The war in Iraq has been going on for 5 years now. Virtually every soldier who is currently serving has either enlisted or re-enlisted since it began. They know what they signed up for and their sacrifice should never be used to make political points.

I'm NOT using their sacrifice to make a politcal point. What I am saying is their sacrifice proves patriotism and integrity of our soldiers, not their fanatisism or convictions. Claiming they died for a political cause is doing them a disservice, they died for their country.

Yes, not a spot of success. How successful were UN forces in the Sinai in 1967? How about Lebanon? Rwanda? Srebrenica?

UN forces have been capable, especially during the initial deployment. However, UN regularly limits their power, and withdraw them after they are unsuccesful.

[ganeil]

Originally Posted by Negotiator

"The UN Security Council imposed comprehensive economic sanctions against Iraq on August 6, 1990, just after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. When the coalition war had ousted Iraq from Kuwait the following year, the Council did not lift the sanctions, keeping them in place as leverage to press for Iraqi disarmament and other goals. The sanctions remained in place thereafter, despite a harsh impact on innocent Iraqi civilians and an evident lack of pressure on Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. A UN "Oil-for-Food Programme," started in late 1997, offered some relief to Iraqis, but the humanitarian crisis continued."

So, the sanctions failed to remove Iraq from Kuwait.

Let's take a look at those "other goals" and see how well they faired.

UNSCR 686

Iraq must accept liability under international law for damages from its illegal invasion of Kuwait. - FAILED

UNSCR 687

Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or rendering harmless "under international supervision" of all "ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 KM and related major parts and repair and production facilities." - FAILED

Iraq must not commit or support terrorism, or allow terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq. - FAILED

Iraq must cooperate in accounting for the missing and dead Kuwaitis and others. - FAILED

Iraq must return Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War. - FAILED

UNSCR 688

Iraq must immediately end repression of its civilian population. - FAILED

UNSCR 1115

Iraq must give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to Iraqi officials whom UN inspectors want to interview. - FAILED

I have full confidence in the US military. I'm sure we CAN send troops to hunt down terrorist cells in Pakistan. However, we aren't. We are also in Iraq for no reason. That was kind of my point.

Are you advocating the invasion of the nuclear armed, US allied Pakistan?

There is no field of battle. There is no opposing standing military. What's your point?

You need a standing military to have a field of battle???

I commend you for your service, I'm sure it's been exemplary and you're obviously a true patriot, I'm not challenging that. What I am challenging is your views on the current international policy, which is extremely short-sighted...

I'm NOT using their sacrifice to make a politcal point. What I am saying is their sacrifice proves patriotism and integrity of our soldiers, not their fanatisism or convictions. Claiming they died for a political cause is doing them a disservice, they died for their country.

You want to leave a failed state in the heart of the middle east in the hands of our sworn enemies and my view is short sighted?

No one claimed our soldiers are fanatics. They volunteered for this fight, with rare exceptions they believe in this fight. They do not want to surrender and leave the Iraqi people to extremists who chop off the heads of those who oppose them. Claiming their losses as justification for surrendering IS using their sacrifice for political ends.

UN forces have been capable, especially during the initial deployment. However, UN regularly limits their power, and withdraw them after they are unsuccesful.

Care to give a few examples of successful UN military operation?

[dr335is]

Originally Posted by ganeil

So, the sanctions failed to remove Iraq from Kuwait.

Let's take a look at those "other goals" and see how well they faired.

UNSCR 686

Iraq must accept liability under international law for damages from its illegal invasion of Kuwait. - FAILED

UNSCR 687

Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or rendering harmless "under international supervision" of all "ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 KM and related major parts and repair and production facilities." - FAILED

Iraq must not commit or support terrorism, or allow terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq. - FAILED

Iraq must cooperate in accounting for the missing and dead Kuwaitis and others. - FAILED

Iraq must return Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War. - FAILED

UNSCR 688

Iraq must immediately end repression of its civilian population. - FAILED

UNSCR 1115

Iraq must give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to Iraqi officials whom UN inspectors want to interview. - FAILED



Are you advocating the invasion of the nuclear armed, US allied Pakistan?



You need a standing military to have a field of battle???




You want to leave a failed state in the heart of the middle east in the hands of our sworn enemies and my view is short sighted?

No one claimed our soldiers are fanatics. They volunteered for this fight, with rare exceptions they believe in this fight. They do not want to surrender and leave the Iraqi people to extremists who chop off the heads of those who oppose them. Claiming their losses as justification for surrendering IS using their sacrifice for political ends.



Care to give a few examples of successful UN military operation?

What you FAIL to understand and connect is that you APPLY the pieces and inserts of the UN resolutions as you wish.

If you're so stuck to it, and use it to prove your point and how the USA is doing it all according to the rules, then -- point us also to other cases, for example:
- UN Resolution 1244 where Serbian trerritorial sovereignity is protected, buty the USA recognized separation of its territory (Feb 17, 2008) -- FAILED
- No UN approval and SC agreement was issued on the attack on the sovereign country called Iraq! -- FAILED

and so on...

It is clear that the US is acting as it wishes and no UN resolution is important to it. Only a few countries can actually do it -- Russia (Checnia example where US looked the other way while Russians did exactly the same thing as Serbians did in Kosovo, then 100x worse!); China in Tibet and other possible regions where US cannot do anything. But of course, They can easily mess with Iraq, or Serbia or other little shit countries that obviously cannot defend themselves...
Or maybe it was LESS obvious that NK may be developing the Nukes??? Or you (and people like you) think that NK leaders hate us just a little bit less than Saddam did??? Or maybe they did not break that many UN resolutions??? Iran???

IF, and only IF you really believe the causes behind the invasion are what you claim, then explain to me WHY this carrying country did not act in the other cases I explaines (Ruwanda, Somalia, Russia, China, NK, Iran...)?

[ATG]

Originally Posted by ganeil

I find nothing disingenuous about calling a transition from a brutal dictatorship to a representative government a liberation.

Did it ever occur to you that people and nations act for reasons outside of economics? We liberated Kuwait in 1992, did we get cheap oil from them afterwards? No we didn't.

1. So, let's get the story straight. What really prompted the war: (1) Saddam's threat to the world through his "immediate" ability to develop and manufacture WMD; or (2) the need to liberate a nation from a "brutal dictatorship?" It seems that the government goes back and forth between these two versions -- depending on where the political wind is blowing from. This is what I call disingenuous.

2. Why did "we" liberate Kuweit in 1992? And why don't we liberate Cuba? There is "brutal" dictatorship over there too. By the way, adjectives help a lot in political speeches ...

3. Who outside Iraq is exactly better of without Saddam Hussein? He did not plot bombings in Bali, Madrid, London, and New York. Is Europe better of with all kinds on Islamic terrorists only strenghtening their influence over there? Is Africa, most of which is in grave poverty, better of? Is Latin America better of? Are people of Iraq, who are now dying on their way to the grocery store, better of? Who is???

[ganeil]

Originally Posted by ATG

1. So, let's get the story straight. What really prompted the war: (1) Saddam's threat to the world through his "immediate" ability to develop and manufacture WMD; or (2) the need to liberate a nation from a "brutal dictatorship?" It seems that the government goes back and forth between these two versions -- depending on where the political wind is blowing from. This is what I call disingenuous.

Again, read the President's speech delivered in Cincinnati on 7 Oct 2002 and the Congressional Resolution Authorizing the Use of Force against Iraq as they each lay out the case for war. A case that included both reasons (with the exception that the threat from Iraq was never claimed to be imminent) as well as others.

2. Why did "we" liberate Kuweit in 1992? And why don't we liberate Cuba? There is "brutal" dictatorship over there too. By the way, adjectives help a lot in political speeches ...

We liberated Kuwait because they were the victims of naked aggression and they asked for our help and it was in our national interest to do so.

I seem to recall we did attempt to liberate Cuba in 1961 but JFK changed his mind at the last minute and left those we promised to support to be slaughtered.

3. Who outside Iraq is exactly better of without Saddam Hussein? He did not plot bombings in Bali, Madrid, London, and New York. Is Europe better of with all kinds on Islamic terrorists only strenghtening their influence over there? Is Africa, most of which is in grave poverty, better of? Is Latin America better of? Are people of Iraq, who are now dying on their way to the grocery store, better of? Who is???

Since we have no way of knowing what atrocities Saddam may have been planning, funding, or assisting when he was overthrown, there is no reasonable way to identify specific beneficiaries. The exception to this is the Israelis who no longer had to deal with Iraqi funding of suicide bombers.

[dr335is]

Originally Posted by ganeil

Since we have no way of knowing what atrocities Saddam may have been planning, funding, or assisting when he was overthrown, there is no reasonable way to identify specific beneficiaries. The exception to this is the Israelis who no longer had to deal with Iraqi funding of suicide bombers.

All we know is the ATROCITIES we commited -- let me remind you of the numbers of Colleterally burned kids and innocent in Iraq!

You have been a robot before and remained the same...great!
Cant teach an old dog new tricks as they say...

[ATG]

Originally Posted by ganeil

I seem to recall we did attempt to liberate Cuba in 1961 but JFK changed his mind at the last minute and left those we promised to support to be slaughtered.



Since we have no way of knowing what atrocities Saddam may have been planning, funding, or assisting when he was overthrown, there is no reasonable way to identify specific beneficiaries.

1. So were they (Cubans) slaughtered? When, where, and exactly how many of them? It seems that Cubans enjoyed quite a comfortable life style until the breakdown of the USSR, when the millions of dollars in subsidies to Cuba stopped in the late 1980s.

2. "No way of knowing," "no reasonable way to identify," etc. But how anyone can say now with the straight face that the world is better of? It's a catchy phrase that has an emotional appeal, but no evidentiary support. And a lot of the world's population would say that the world would be better of without G.W. Bush. Care to take a global poll?

[ganeil]

Originally Posted by ATG

1. So were they (Cubans) slaughtered? When, where, and exactly how many of them? It seems that Cubans enjoyed quite a comfortable life style until the breakdown of the USSR, when the millions of dollars in subsidies to Cuba stopped in the late 1980s.

2. "No way of knowing," "no reasonable way to identify," etc. But how anyone can say now with the straight face that the world is better of? It's a catchy phrase that has an emotional appeal, but no evidentiary support. And a lot of the world's population would say that the world would be better of without G.W. Bush. Care to take a global poll?

You can get a fairly good idea of the quality of life in a country by what happens when the border gates are lifted. Do people rush in or rush out? Cuba since the inception of the Castro regime has been a place where people risk their lives to get out.

How can anyone say with a straight face that the world is NOT better off in the absence of a despotic, fascist dictator who invaded two of his neighbors, gassed and slaughtered his own people, and funded and harbored terrorists?

[dr335is]

Originally Posted by ganeil

You can get a fairly good idea of the quality of life in a country by what happens when the border gates are lifted. Do people rush in or rush out? Cuba since the inception of the Castro regime has been a place where people risk their lives to get out.

How can anyone say with a straight face that the world is NOT better off in the absence of a despotic, fascist dictator who invaded two of his neighbors, gassed and slaughtered his own people, and funded and harbored terrorists?

Neil,

As smart and educated I believe you are, sometimes I get really surprised with your comments...

Your first paragraph clears it all in my mind -- brainwashed soldier mentality that cannot be easily changed... Your second paragraph clarifies where you get your (censored) information...

In the first paragraph you openly prove how much worse we are in the last 8 years as the % number of immigrants (outside MEX and CUBA) pouring in the USA (one of the easiest countries to become legal immigrant) has slowed down tremendeously, and we see the increase of the flow the other way. Yet, you refuse to admit how our standards and world respect went down since this lunatic (or I'd say the last two) took the office...

The second paragraph...SH did things because of our pure politics that did not hurt him but only people in Iraq for decades. SH lived better in the last 15 years of his time than in the previous 40, because we enabled him to do so. Unfortunately for the people of Iraq, it was opposite for them, and again, because of our wrong and sick politics... I can give you more examples of the same -- Cuba, NK, Yugoslavia, Iran getting there and so on... Isolating the country (people) because of the faults done by the dictators that lead them shoudl be a crime...

There was a much better, civilized and cheaper way to solve the SH saga than distroying the whole country while lying to the whole World about the reasons of doing so... But our administration failed to do so, and behaved like empty headed cowboys. The outcome -- $1T spent, additional $12B every month. $12B/month would have covered roughly 400,000 full YEARLY scholarships at Harvard for example. It would cover over 100,000 heart surgeries for people that will die soon...
It cost us (at least) 4000 of our lives, no major issues resolved within this country...

On the other hand, believing that Iraq is better NOW than in 2000 is simply ridiculous. Almost 1/2 million innocent dead (that were not threatened in 2000 or 2002), Infrastructure gone, Foreign soldiers that have no clue about your culture ruling your lives (is that really better than what they had???), sparce drinking water, electricity only a few hours daily...and all that in Baghdad...

Do you really believe that the US can afford to stay there another 10 years to make things better and that the US can really afford to rebuild the country when we have bridges falling in our own backyard, and roads that are becoming impossible to use...

Can we really just pack and leave? Or, do we have to?

[e90im]

Originally Posted by dr325i

Neil,

As smart and educated I believe you are, sometimes I get really surprised with your comments...

Your first paragraph clears it all in my mind -- brainwashed soldier mentality that cannot be easily changed... Your second paragraph clarifies where you get your (censored) information...

In the first paragraph you openly prove how much worse we are in the last 8 years as the % number of immigrants (outside MEX and CUBA) pouring in the USA (one of the easiest countries to become legal immigrant) has slowed down tremendeously, and we see the increase of the flow the other way. Yet, you refuse to admit how our standards and world respect went down since this lunatic (or I'd say the last two) took the office...

The second paragraph...SH did things because of our pure politics that did not hurt him but only people in Iraq for decades. SH lived better in the last 15 years of his time than in the previous 40, because we enabled him to do so. Unfortunately for the people of Iraq, it was opposite for them, and again, because of our wrong and sick politics... I can give you more examples of the same -- Cuba, NK, Yugoslavia, Iran getting there and so on... Isolating the country (people) because of the faults done by the dictators that lead them shoudl be a crime...

There was a much better, civilized and cheaper way to solve the SH saga than distroying the whole country while lying to the whole World about the reasons of doing so... But our administration failed to do so, and behaved like empty headed cowboys. The outcome -- $1T spent, additional $12B every month. $12B/month would have covered roughly 400,000 full YEARLY scholarships at Harvard for example. It would cover over 100,000 heart surgeries for people that will die soon...
It cost us (at least) 4000 of our lives, no major issues resolved within this country...

On the other hand, believing that Iraq is better NOW than in 2000 is simply ridiculous. Almost 1/2 million innocent dead (that were not threatened in 2000 or 2002), Infrastructure gone, Foreign soldiers that have no clue about your culture ruling your lives (is that really better than what they had???), sparce drinking water, electricity only a few hours daily...and all that in Baghdad...

Do you really believe that the US can afford to stay there another 10 years to make things better and that the US can really afford to rebuild the country when we have bridges falling in our own backyard, and roads that are becoming impossible to use...

Can we really just pack and leave? Or, do we have to?

$12b/week=$52b/month damn it.

[ganeil]

Originally Posted by e90im

$12b/week=$52b/month damn it.

I am not sure where you are getting your figures.

To date, the war has cost $505 billion. that puts your figures off by around 600%.

[ATG]

e90im, don't be greedy. $505 billion is our modest gift to the world (considering the dollar's current value).

[dr335is]

Originally Posted by ganeil

I am not sure where you are getting your figures.

To date, the war has cost $505 billion. that puts your figures off by around 600%.

$505 is not real value.
It is disclosed that NOW we spend $12b/month = $140B/year.
Multiply that by 5 and that is over $505B.

When the war started, it was disclosed that we were spending ALMOST $2B/day! So, someone is lying heavily. I assume the cost of the munition is not included or something like that. I can bet anything that more than $1T has gone into this damn war and that way more than 4000 American soldiers have been lost.

[dr335is]

Oh GANEIL, and ignoring the comments you cannot answer is really not the way to deal with it...
That is like Bush ignoring the majority people in this country that are unhappy with his dictatorship and that is where that ignorance got us...so far...