The particularly vile thing is that they won’t be passively waiting for us to lose as expected. They will be working for it. That is unacceptable, except I can’t think of a single thing I can do about it.
I come from a state–Michigan–which would elect the devil if he ran as a democrat.

They’re opposing the war, I’m afraid, because of sincere conviction. They _really want America to lose_. The Democrats and other liberals just don’t like this country and its people very much. They want us beaten, humiliated, and impoverished.

You should know, you live there.

There seems to be some uncertainty. They were hired as leaders, but don’t seem able to lead a group of Boy Scouts. They are constantly looking over their shoulders to see which way the wind in blowing so they can change their views yet again.

I think the real reason is that they cannot allow Bush to be successful, no matter how bad it turns out for America or the rest of the world.

Not even close. Sigh.

Calling someone a traitor for disagreeing with you is diametrically opposed to the founding principles of democracy.

Can you say - hypocrite?

If the last time this particular situation occurred was in 1938 then it follows that the probability of the occurrence is very low. Therefore it is unlikely that Justaguy’s prescription will cause a sacrifice of millions.

|quote|Traditionally, “pre-emptive” action refers to times when states react to an imminent threat of attack. For example, when Egyptian and Syrian forces mobilized on Israel’s borders in 1967, the threat was obvious and immediate, and Israel felt justified in pre-emptively attacking those forces. The global community is generally tolerant of such actions, since no nation should have to suffer a certain first strike before it has the legitimacy to respond.

By contrast, “preventive” military action refers to strikes that target a country before it has developed a capability that could someday become threatening. Preventive attacks have generally been condemned. For example, the 1941 sneak attack on Pearl Harbor was regarded as a preventive strike by Japan, because the Japanese were seeking to block a planned military buildup by the United States in the Pacific.|quote|

Would we be justified on capturing or killing the 911 team as they plotted on coming into U.S? Sure, if we had discovered them in time. WE didn’t. But that doesn’t mean start a full scale offensive into Iraq.

There seems to be a thought–probably not believed by those who preach it in the hope some of the unwary will believe it–that we are fighting 9-11.

We’re fighting Islamic expansionism. It’s been going on for fourteen hundred years and I see no evidence that 2007 is the year they stop. Even the west’s victories are defensive, Tours, Lepanto, the siege of Vienna.

After all, we got the guys who did the 1993 WTC bombing. Which did us how much good?

It isn’t goat humpers in the mountains, as the previous poster surely knows, but a bunch of end-timers with nukes and a pathological hate of Israel and the west and a view that losing a fifth of their population–in Iran–is a fine price to pay for achieving their goals.

Saddaam with no sanctions, no inspectors, and boatloads of oil money would have been trouble till the day he died and then his sons would have had several more decades at it.

Anyway, the arguments of the anti-war types impeach themselves upon being verbalized. The only strength those arguments have is that it takes more time to refute them than it does to make them and so the refuters may get tired first. Old tactic.

In which case there is no need to refute them. Why it should take so long to refute arguments which do not need refuting is unclear.

Iraq just doesn’t compare. Saddam wasn’t on the move. Intelligence turns out to be cherry picked (IMO).
Where is the imminent threat? Also, according to my logic, I am refusing the option to bomb the “potentials” - the first-he-secretly-gets-nuclear weapons-then-he-uses-them idea. Doesn’t necessarily follow. Also, doesn’t necessarily follow there aren’t other options available. I can even quote Bush in repeating war is the last option. Always. Period.

Right now, based on words alone, Israel should bomb Iran (nuclear), or us. Fortunately politicians (like Iran’s president) never do even half the things they talk about, so maybe there are other options.

Let’s see. We were not attacked by Iraq yet we invaded Iraq. BushCo preached premption yet Iraq had no WMDs (as most of us knew). Now the pinhead neocon Richard wants us to buy the “fighting Islamic expansion” schtick yet we are the imperialists.

I guess the paleocons would rather grasp at wet grass as they slide off the cliff than ask for help from those who told them to stay away from the edge.

[from neo-neocon: Sam is using a fake IP. A troll, but which troll? Perhaps a new one, but certain stylistic similarities lead me to believe this might be our old friend stevie.]

Edited By Siteowner

That is not true. the Talib government offered to arrest and transfer them to any third country for trial. We declined this offer.

As has been said before, Bush did not say the threat was imminent. He said we could not wait for the threat to become imminent.

I know you know the list of other attacks on us the Islamofascists have made, although you pretend 9-11 is the only one. They were coming after us and they said so. Maybe they’re lying?

The North Koreans had no chance against us. But it took probably three to four million dead to prove it.

The point is not to have a war, and if it takes pre-emption, then there are several that would have been profitably pre-empted. World War II comes to mind. Germany was no threat to anybody in 1936, as Hitler and his generals knew. They didn’t have the combat power to fight the French if the occupation of the Rhineland had been contested, as it should have been. I wonder if part of the calculation to allow it was that the Germans weren’t a threat.

Obviously, trying to be nice didn’t help.

“most of us” didn’t know the WMD didn’t exist. Those who claimed it was the case were acting on hope and it appears Saddaam got the stuff out of the country, so “most of us” seem to have been right. But most of the world’s intel thought otherwise. We have between five hundred and seven hundred WMD of various types. You don’t make just one, say, Sarin shell, unless it’s the first and you want to know if the factory works and then you stop. So, since they had one, they had more or they had the opportunity to make more.
It was up to Iraq to account for them and, for some reason, the dispute got framed as hide and seek and if Saddaam beat the inspectors, well, that was the game. No problem.

Well, I am trying to make this point in substantive terms and you and others like you have no interest in them.

Wild. You may be right. It’s a waste of time trying to convince a liar of the truth when you know he’ll ignore it–knows it already–and will keep on lying.

But there is always the possibility that some unwary type, possibly a malleable student, might be convinced. That would be unfortunate.

They were. This offer came rather late in the day. It was made by the Talib Foreign Minister.

So you agree that the invasion was contrary to US law and illegal.

We have already discussed the probability of the World War II applying to the invasion of Iraq.

Is that so. Which intelligence services do you claim thought the Iraq had WMD?

But refuting the argment is unlikely to address this problem. By your own admission “The only strength those arguments have is that it takes more time to refute them than it does to make them and so the refuters may get tired first.“

That should read:

We have already discussed the probability of the World War II case applying to the invasion of Iraq.

To Wild Rice: Warning. Don’t post a whole bunch of short comments, one right after the other. Condense them instead into one or two. You are very close to being labeled a troll.

Edited By Siteowner

East Asia has never been at war with Oceanian, Neo…. don’t you know that?

Clinton said that she supported more troops, but these 20k were too few, so to her she should knock it down since it is just sending more i nharm’s way without doing anything that “her more troops” would accomplish. East Asia, get it?

The resolutions are meant to undo that error, even if they have no real effect in the real world–except, of course, as Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates pointed out, to “embolden the enemy.”

They need to stop using that word embolden. It is old, cliched, and makes the entire Admin sound like zombies repeating each other. Get some other new term, jeez, can’t be that hard.

For proponents of the resolution, the die will have been cast. The biggest risk to them, paradoxically, would be a win in Iraq.

They don’t call it the domestic insurgency for nothing, neo.

If they were really self-interested, they’d wrap themselves in the flag and make fire-breathing speeches about fighting the Islamic menace.

There’s a diff between self-interest and enlightened self-interest Trim. And then there is long term and short term as well, basically enlightened being long long term.

Hey, I got a bright idea. Here’s a message that I want to send to conned and justa. They might recognize some of their buddies here.

Link

However, as somebody said years ago, the fight would have been condemned by the left as the same old contest for markets or some such nonsense. It would be hard to argue, since we wouldn’t know what we’d missed.

So the point is, whether the lesson comes from WW II or some other war, some wars can probably be pre-empted.
The war we are attempting to prevent is one which includes(d) a well-armed Iraq with a victorious Saddaam in charge. Now, if we weren’t going to inconvenience Saddaam, I’m certain you’d have reasons not to pester Syria, or Iran, or anybody else. So, by Wild’s standards and those of his view, the ME would have been left to become more wacked out and better armed and more confident.
Great idea, not.

No, I don’t think the invasion was illegal. We were in a state of war which had been interrupted by a cease-fire bearing certain conditions, which Saddaam had not honored. Bingo. Ceasefire off. Then there are the UN resolutions.

Which intel agencies? Most of them. The Brits thought Iraq was trying to get uranium from Africa, which the 9-11 committee agreed was the case learning from independent sources.

It’s interesting to hear the lefties condemn the US for selling dual use facilities and precursors for this or that to Saddaam and then insist he never put them to the nefarious use.

Dual use facilities have two dual uses. Make bug spray or nerve gas, is one set. The other is to be used to reproach the US for providing them, while, when the US points to their illegal use, to wonder how come we want the Iraqis to starve on account of we don’t want them to have bug spray.

Visualize transparency.

I guess the reason for refuting the anti-war arguments put forward here is that malleable and unwary student out there who might be convinced by such arguments.

Worth the effort.

Hard to say. Would we still be dealing with large populations of true believing Nazis’ all over the world if we had acted early? Can you really answer that? The Nazi dream realized IS the Nazi nightmare, and is why we only have small pockets of believers in a discredited idealogy.

I think the idea, of prevention, is at least suspect at best. It’s a cautionary tale to say you’d have prevented anything — unless, you can for sure stomp out all traces. Nero violently tried to stamp out Christianity — spread like roaches.

When you do take early action though– you guarantee peoples deaths, no doubt about that but I don’t know that you guarantee anything else.

I don’t necessarily think we need to wait until several countries have fallen to join in a war against an evil, but I believe there is the other side of scale of exacerbating a situation and actually make it worse. (I believe we did that in Iraq)

Just as the people in the alternate universe don’t know what they missed by having pre-empted Germany and can argue fruitlessly for decades, we don’t know what we have missed, or bought in this case.
We do the best we can and in this case, it appears it was the right choice, in the sense of being the least wrong choice.

On Jeff Goldstein’s blog, some posters have linked to extensive documents about the WMD. I won’t bother neo with the volume, but folks here might find them interesting.

heh.

Could you post a link, please?

Wild Rice: Is that so. Which intelligence services do you claim thought the Iraq had WMD?

Actually, good evidence came from Hans Blix. His March 7, 2003, final report to the UN stated tons of chemical weapons agent were still unaccounted for and Saddam was not completely cooperating. Additionally, US intel (especially the “slam dunk” CIA, and CENTCOM), UK intel, etc.

Have you not been following what various generals are saying about the insurgency? Are you not aware that the estimates are roughly 1200 or so foreign fighters in Iraq - jihadis. If they were ‘hell-bent’ on our destruction there would be a hell of a lot more of them in Iraq right now. So how does that translate into a threat to our existance? It doesn’t - not in a million years.

Which is probably why there in no support for the war - and why congress - as beholden as they are to elite interests to support the war - are giving the impression they opposse the irrlevant and meaningless ’surge’- it is what the vast majority of the country supports. Hard to understand what the author finds offensive given that she must be aware of the lack of evidence of any coordinated Islamist threat of any significance - and the fact that military figures know the complete opposite is true - despite the intense pressure to tow the party line.

I suppose, for some, the horrendous results that 19 unarmed men wrecked one fateful September morning is the stuff of nightmares and phobias; visercal fears that are not easily relinquished whatever the facts.

As for the fear of the ‘left’ - I know of no simple cure except just using your common sense….

“Biedermann is a fairly well-off man who believes that the arsonists who have recently attacked the city should be hanged. When a man who seems suspiciously like he might be an arsonist comes to Biedermann’s house, he talks about throwing him out, but he never actually does. Instead, he allows his own guilt over having so much money to convince him to allow this man to stay in his attic. Later, he even allows the man’s friend to stay in his attic, even though he catches the two loading barrels of gas into his attic. It’s both funny and depressing to see how far Biedermann will go in order to ignore the evidence that his guests are arsonists and convince himself that he is a good person.”

And those who are polled as disapproving of the president’s path here include a good many–you can get a taste by reading conservative blogs–who think Bush is a wimp and ought to be prosecuting the war with considerably more zeal.

But if the question is solely, “do you approve of the president’s handling of the war?”, the only answer for those seeking more vigor is “no” and people like TC pretend the “no” means pull out now.
They know better, but, like Wild and Justa, hope the rest of us don’t.

I think you have to be a little bit more specific. Are you refering to Lee and Justa?

Perhaps I should have said “‘virtually’ no support for the war”. Both among Americans in general and in congress.

What I don’t understand - and I do read conservative blogs - is how do you prosecute the Iraq war with greater ‘zeal’? Does this mean putting down the Sunni resistance? The Shia resistance? Standing in the middle of a civil war of which there are literally millions of participants? Attacking Iran of which there is alot of accusations of ‘infilitration’ of Iraqi society very little proof - and even more vexing is the fact that the current Shia government is Shia and favors stronger links between Bagdhad and Tehran.

Even with the McCain plan - 500 000 more troops(where you’d get the troops from is another bit of neoconservative fantasy)- you’d basically open up a war between both Iran and Iraq - with both attacking U.S troops with millions of insurgents. This is apart from the distinct possibility of drawing China and Russia into confrontation with U.S troops - not a situation where one would anticipate a victory parade through Washington at it’s conclusion.

So maybe you could help me understand how instigating a major war in the name of fighting ‘militant Islam(Islamofascism)’ of which U.S sources admit is a minor force in Iraq and even in the ME in general(the Saudis, Pakistanis, Yemeni etc governments all seem to be having no problems beating back Islamic fundamentalists in their countries with nothing like the military effort of the U.S)- is a path to victory.

Or is this generally a religous question(a “clash of civilizations??”) - or of complete domination of the ME regardless of the facts ‘on the ground’?

Your not ‘feeding’ anybody by stating your arguments clearly and addressing honest critiques that may get your argument across much better than it appears to be in the country as of late…

Most of the continental United States opposse the war fundamentally because it was prosecuted for reasons of ntional security - it’s not a handful of ‘leftists’ that are against it - and not because of the “President’s handling of the war” - it’s oppossition to the war because it’s seen to be making America more vulnerable - not by leftists but by serious conservatives(even more so I’d wager)and most of the military establishment….

Ten percent of the population of Indonesia–as polled–were willing to admit this to strangers. How many think so and don’t admit it is an interesting question.

I wanted to bring up a whiplash opportunity from the NYT.
The feds were eventually prevailed upon to put on the web various documents discovered after the invasion. There are millions of them and most are either innocuous and a waste of paper, or suggestive of something.
Several months ago, the NYT excoriated the feds for posting particularly detailed plans for making an atomic bomb. Stupid Bush administration. They could depend on readers of the NYT, and people like TC, Justa, and Wild, to ignore the howlingly funny origin of the plans, Saddaam’s documents.

And that ignoring is the reason I can’t “help” you.

It’s simple, TC. Islamic radicalism is dangerous precisely because a “man with a few dollars” can acquire wildly destructive technology from a hostile nation like Iran or NK and convince some zealot to strap it to his body/fly it into a building/put it on his boat in NY harbor, and blow quite a few of us to bits. This is not an “unreasonable” fear, especially when it’s espoused every Friday in mosques all over the world—including, for instance, Dearborn, Michigan.

It’s a danger to the U.S., because—as has been explained to you before—destruction of just two buildings in New York caused several trillion dollars of economic damage to this country. Imagine what a suitcase nuke could do? Now imagine what several, placed in strategic Western cities could do to Western civilization as a whole…but that’s your dream, isn’t it?

HOWEVER, the intent is to help the fledgling Iraqi military learn to handle their own country–and sometimes that means dealing with the political interference from al-Malaki and his group. The Shia/Sunni confrontation would have erupted eventually, but at least we’ve got some containment otherwise it would have devolved into a true death spiral.

The surge could work if the ROE changes and allows capture and imprisonment of all sectarian militiamen bearing arms, capture and interrogation of Iranian agent provocateurs, summary execution of anyone caught planting IEDs.

Seriously, does anyone really think the political situation would improve over there if the US pulled out without leaving behind a viable government and police? As things stand right now, we have a mitigating effect on the chaos and violence. We have some influence in the direction Iraq will go—but without our presence, no one can predict the eventual outcome, but I’d wager that we’d be paying a far higher price in the future. -cp

Where to start?

Richard - I’m sorry you feel I’m not in a position to be helped to understand your reasoning and concerns - but I’d have to say that I’m wasn’t asking what your reasons are for supporting the war in the first place - I think that’s clear. I’m asking how you think escalating the war will accomplish the very goals you are offering in your assessment of the threat. Putting aside your reasons - of which I must say I don’t understand in the way that you’ve presented them (”killing kids”???) - how to you envision the path to victory? Am I to infer that a much more aggressive, if not outright genocidal approach is what you are advocating? While you’d be correct if your saying I would find this morally reprehensible, the point is how this will work to bring victory as you have/haven’t defined it. How do you determine who the enemey is? Without a plan and a clear defintion of the goals in Iraq there can be no victory - so I’m not asking you why. I’m asking you, ‘how’? But please - I’m not looking for a slagging match - I’m aware of the limitations of my own views, and whether or not I agree with everything you say isn’t important - I am attempting to open my mind to what you are saying - or do you absolutely have to define those who don’t understand your fears and views as ‘the enemy’???

BTW - what are you refering to in regards the Bali attack? Are you saying it was rationalized on the grounds that Indonensia invaded and violently annexed East Timor? Do you have a link? And I’m not being snide, so please don’t take offense.

Stumbley -don’t presume I don’t want help understanding your views because I am critical of them - I’m quite sure that despite the polarized view you are expousing, you understand that not everything is black and white or you see some contradiction or doubt in the war - even if you think it shouldn’t be discussed by the media or the average American. I don’t need to agree completely with your views on Islamic fundamentalists and terrorism completely(I’m not saying it isn’t a serious threat)to find problems with your view that the war should be escalated without clear goals in mind.

So yes the scenario you mention is a serious threat - but how will continuing on the current course in Iraq, if we agree with the President that it isn’t going particularly well , aleviate that threat? Seems to me the only way to address that problem is to completely destroy these countries or police them indefinitely - options that have their own severe concequences(and if we’re going to imagine threats that require preemptive action - than why aren’t we imagining threats that will result from our action as oppossed to our history of inaction - as you would claim?

BTW - I do not dream of having my country attacked or my people killed - I hope you don’t seriously believe that. Because I do not in any shape or form.

You might take some small relief from the fact

Very little physical damage…but the resultant radiation damage would be disastrous.

Okay, a nicely worded response, so I will respond in kind. I think the problem that folks have with the “war in Iraq” is a misunderstanding of what’s at stake and how our presence there will deal with the “success” or “failure” of the mission.

My opinion is that “success” in Iraq consists of a country that has a relatively stable democratic government, with security forces that can maintain a level of order consistent with that of other countries in the region (without resorting to brutality or excessive violence). Our “mission” in Iraq is to be there long enough for the Iraqis to be able to establish such a government. This is important in that it will deny al-Qaeda and other radical elements a “safe haven” for training, equipping and proselytizing terrorists (which, despite what others have said on this thread, had been occurring and would certainly have continued under Saddam). A stable, prosperous, democratic Iraq would also act as a beacon of hope to democratic reformers in the area, most notably in Iran, Lebanon, and Syria. We have already seen what the US’ actions in Iraq have done to get Libya in line. Iraq thus has strategic importance not only for the US, but for the West in general, as a prosperous, democratic Iraq will help to damp down the fires of Islamic radicalism, however minimally that might be. You know, “a journey of a thousand miles begins with one step.”

When you talk of a change of ROE as being “genocidal”, you make it clear there is no point talking to you. You’re not stupid and you know the difference, so using “genocidal” is bogus, and so is an indicator.

I’d only say to your considerate response is that it sounds more like the original aims rather than a outline of steps needed to be taken to bring about those goals. Goals that even you would have to consider might not be attainable as the situation now stands. And yes I know that you feel there in no option to simply leave Iraq and have a failed state(it needs to be said that even those on the left opposed to the war are NOT advocating immediate withdrawal) whereby fundamentalists can organize and be funded through oil profits to attack U.S targets home and abroad.

But if certain developments are true(and I know there is the challenging gulf in interpretation and difference)- such as the number of foreign fighters in Iraq and just how the Iraqis themselves feel about the U.S role(I’m assuming it’s negative - and not because I want it that way either - so relax)in their country and THIER interpretation of the U.S role -than at what point, for you, is this venture simply not worth it i.e growing fundamentalism, U.S troop deaths, possible terrorist attacks in the U.S directed by Iraqi nationals opposed to foreign troops in their country? Is their a ceiling in terms of cost to America - and of course to Iraq - where it simply becomes counterproductive to have U.S troops in Iraq? If a Shia, democtratically elected goverment comes into power and attains some measure of stability as asks the U.S to leave would you support that - particularly if U.S troops were to remain?

But, no I don’t agree with the notion that violence is meaningfully connected to Islam - and yes I’ve reviewed the ‘evidence’ - I feel it is a canard to blame Islam for being a violent religon - simply put I don’t believe that about Christianity either or Judaism despite the many references to murder and mayhem in the Torah and Old Testament - or the history of violence surrounding Christianity that simply is far greater in scale than it is in Islam.

None of which has much to do with dicussing the Iraq war and it’s success and failure - unless your telling me that, for you, it is simply necessary to conquer Muslim nations because they are evil - in which case, I haven’t much to argue one way or the other.

My comment was the number of deaths in Iraq is reaching genocidal numbers - total deaths i.e Iraqi, American, civilian, insurgent. And yes I believe that most accurate number is over half-a million as the John Hopkins study proposed - simply put it is the most stastically reliable - and morally reliable source about the IBC.

As such a very serious topic. That’s what I mean. But I’m glad you think I’m not stupid - but I’m not sure what that is an indicator of - other than I might have some points of disagreement with you. Nothing to be afraid of though.

BTW - what in ROE?