Afghanistan.. clear objective and exit strategy?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

So you really want me to believe that an incompetent and corrupted organization could eliminate all traces of an active WMD program and stockpiles of weapons while under US/UN scrutiny?

That simply defies reason.

Saddam's organization was not incompetent, nor were his scientists. They certainly weren't under UN/US scrutiny much of the time. What are the differences between the traces of an "active" or a recently become "inactive" WMD program? If no traces were found, that STRONGLY, suggests elimination of traces.

Read the Duelfer report. I believe they were payed a government paycheck and nothing more.

So we've established that Duelfer WAS paid. So, then, his whole report is tainted. Is his report the total of the "tons" that you've read? Were the other sources also paid? Were any of the sources BOOKS published for public PURCHASE? If so, then those, must also, by your disdain, be tarnished.

As for what's in this tainted Duelfer Report--the key findings summary states that Saddam"wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his WMD when sanctions were lifted." Further, the summary states "Saddam's primary goal from 1991 to 2003 was to have UN sanctions lifted, while maintaining the security of the regime . . ." by balancing "the need to cooperate with the UN inspections . . . gain support for lifting the sanctions . . . to preserve Iraq's intellectual capital for WMD." Further, Saddam saw that the Oil for Food Program "could be corrupted to acquire foreign exchange both to further undermine sanctions and to provide the means to enhance dual-use infrastructure and potential WMD-related development." The report further states that Saddam focused on three permanent members of the security council, France, Russia, and China, bribing Government officials and business executives with billions skimmed from Oil for Food. "AT A MINIMUM" the report says, "Saddam wanted to divide the 5 permanent members [of the security council] and foment international public support . . . by 2000-2001, Saddam had managed to . . . undermine international support for the sanctions." Before Duelfer succeded Kay as head of the ISG, Kay's team found evidence of "WMD-related program activities" but no actual weapons. They also found WMD programs BANNED by the UN and CONCEALED during the IAEA and UNMOVIC inspections. David Kay said that "what we learned during the inspection made Iraq a more dangerous place, potentially than, in fact, we thought it was even before the war." His team established that the Iraqi regime had the production capacity and know-how to produce WMDs if sanctions were lifted. Kay BELIEVED some of Saddams WMD program components had been moved to Syria before 2003. Duelfer later reported there was no EVIDENCE of this. A lot of evidence was interviews with various Iraqis--He evidently didn't interview General Saya.

As for evidence Sada is lying, you're just playing the old game argumentum ad ignorantiam!-spence

You don't have evidence that Saya is lying, you're only depending on so called LACK OF EVIDENCE to support the argument for no WMD, which turns your "argumentum ad ignorantiam" right--back--at--YOU!!

As for an interesting argument for WMD, google "Kenneth Timmerman Saddam's WMD have been found."

Sorry Buckman, we seem to have highjacked your thread by rehashing old WMD stuff. There is no PROOF in any of this, just EVIDENCE or lack thereof. Again, I apologize, we should be discussing Obama's clear exit strategy. I guess, since no one has opined what that strategy is, no one thinks he has one.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

I mean by supporting the people's choice to have a democratic government, instead of forcing it upon them.

Before we handed Saddam over to the IRAQI authorities to "assassinate," the Iraqis forged a democratic government of their choice.

The Taiwanese people want a democratic state. The US supports them in that measure - be it with a military backing (just as we support our other allies with our military), economic support (like we give to the Europeans) and diplomatic support.

The Iraqi people want a democratic state. The US suports them in that measure-be it with a military backing . . .economic support . . .and diplomatic support.

My correlation of the US "Spreading Democracy" (a term which is Bush chanted quite frequently) and Imperialism is through the methods in which democracy was 'given' to the Iraqi people - through the military ousting of the previous government. My relationship to imperialism lies within your statement "Spreading democracy ... IS the right thing to do."

My head still spins at Imperialism being the method of giving democracy. So, then, I would guess by your relation to imperialism, imperialistically spreading democracy to a people by militarily ousting the previous government, our founding fathers were imperialists.

Overthrowing a government with our military to install a democratic one is what I am calling modern day Imperialism.

Oh---I see now, your talking about MODERN DAY imperialism.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Oh---I see now, your talking about MODERN DAY imperialism.

Correct. I'm inserting a concept into the conversation that I didn't hear on the radio or read on some website. It's an observation/opinion that I have formed on my own. I understand that is a novel concept for many of the conservatives in here.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Correct. I'm inserting a concept into the conversation that I didn't hear on the radio or read on some website. It's an observation/opinion that I have formed on my own. I understand that is a novel concept for many of the conservatives in here.

Very novel, indeed! I can see that you don't drink the Kool-Aid. At least not until you mix it with something more potent, something to truly stir the imagination--well beyond the musty, boring, pedestrian mind of some conservatives. Happy dreams, my boy, your creativity will take you far.

PS--it's amazing how much the meaning of words can change when they get "progressively" politicized.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Very novel, indeed! I can see that you don't drink the Kool-Aid. At least not until you mix it with something more potent, something to truly stir the imagination--well beyond the musty, boring, pedestrian mind of some conservatives. Happy dreams, my boy, your creativity will take you far.

PS--it's amazing how much the meaning of words can change when they get "progressively" politicized.

Drinking the Kool-Aid huh? When exactly has any comment referencing a phrase like modern day Imperialism ever been mentioned?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Drinking the Kool-Aid huh? When exactly has any comment referencing a phrase like modern day Imperialism ever been mentioned?

Naom Chonsky, left wing mags and blogs, even "centrist" ones. Even our relationship with Taiwan would be considered modern day imperialism. Our whole history would be considered modern day imperialism. Now that the US exists, it should not mix, meddle, suggest, or in any way influence a lesser state lest it become a modern day imperialist. Not to mention that we SHOULDN'T exist because so much, if not all, our past actions could be construed as modern day imperialism. Of course that would be re-writing history to suit the "modern" mind. But re-writing history seems to be the leftist mode, so, for the "modern" mind it's ok to do so.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Naom Chonsky, left wing mags and blogs, even "centrist" ones. Even our relationship with Taiwan would be considered modern day imperialism. Our whole history would be considered modern day imperialism. Now that the US exists, it should not mix, meddle, suggest, or in any way influence a lesser state lest it become a modern day imperialist. Not to mention that we SHOULDN'T exist because so much, if not all, our past actions could be construed as modern day imperialism. Of course that would be re-writing history to suit the "modern" mind. But re-writing history seems to be the leftist mode, so, for the "modern" mind it's ok to do so.

Your argument is about as valid as people that state I can't complain about illegal immigrants because we were all immigrants at one point.

Also, modern is a relative term meaning "characteristic of present-day". As such, the english, french and spanish coming to the new world and taking it from the indians was imperialistic, but certainly not modern-day imperialism since it happened three hundred years ago. I would also mention that expanding imperialistic government policies are not internationally acceptable any longer.

[scottw]

pretty funny... this was included in the definition of imperialism at Answers.com

Policy of systematic domination and exploitation of a country by another country or an empire. Marxists assert that the United States engages in imperialism because powerful U.S. Businesses need to protect their foreign markets.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by scottw

pretty funny... this was included in the definition of imperialism at Answers.com

Policy of systematic domination and exploitation of a country by another country or an empire. Marxists assert that the United States engages in imperialism because powerful U.S. Businesses need to protect their foreign markets.

Marxists.

Next you'll start quoting PETA with regards to animal rights.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Marxists.

Next you'll start quoting PETA with regards to animal rights.

JD, maybe you are a "Modern-Day" Marxist

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Your argument is about as valid as people that state I can't complain about illegal immigrants because we were all immigrants at one point.

Also, modern is a relative term meaning "characteristic of present-day". As such, the english, french and spanish coming to the new world and taking it from the indians was imperialistic, but certainly not modern-day imperialism since it happened three hundred years ago. I would also mention that expanding imperialistic government policies are not internationally acceptable any longer.

But, Johnny, I was merely answering your question "when exactly has any comment referencing a phrase like modern day imperialism ever been mentioned?" If you google "modern day imperialism" you'll find that you are not the first to ust the phrase, and the use of it (fairly wide spread in leftist talk) pretty much corresponds to my response to your question--which, BTW, shows how you contradict yourself when you say "our dealings with Taiwan, that's how you spread democracy." Our dealings with Taiwan would be considered, by those using the phrase before you, as modern day imperialism.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by detbuch

But, Johnny, I was merely answering your question "when exactly has any comment referencing a phrase like modern day imperialism ever been mentioned?" If you google "modern day imperialism" you'll find that you are not the first to ust the phrase, and the use of it (fairly wide spread in leftist talk) pretty much corresponds to my response to your question--which, BTW, shows how you contradict yourself when you say "our dealings with Taiwan, that's how you spread democracy." Our dealings with Taiwan would be considered, by those using the phrase before you, as modern day imperialism.

It would be ignorant for me to try to say I coined the term "modern-day imperialism". Now-a-days, you can google almost any collection of random words and find some response. My intention was, when have you heard anyone reference the term modern-day imperialism when talking about Iraq. I have not heard it referenced that way before.

But, if you want to nit-pick three words to spin away from what the actual point is, I commend you on trying to think it would work.

Regardless of your poor attempt to take a fine-toothed comb to my words and pick them apart, I still stand that Bush's approach to Iraq and all his "Spreading Democracy" references are Imperialistic.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Saddam's organization was not incompetent, nor were his scientists. They certainly weren't under UN/US scrutiny much of the time. What are the differences between the traces of an "active" or a recently become "inactive" WMD program? If no traces were found, that STRONGLY, suggests elimination of traces.

No, it strongly suggests the threat was not as characterized and that sanctions appeared to be working. He didn't just shut things down, the WMD appear to have been destroyed a decade earlier.

Would you expect a tyrant like Saddam to stop everything cold turkey? Of course not, but this is a looooonnnngggg way from having a functional weapons programs, or more importantly, the vast stockpiles the Administration argued were there.

So we've established that Duelfer WAS paid. So, then, his whole report is tainted. Is his report the total of the "tons" that you've read? Were the other sources also paid? Were any of the sources BOOKS published for public PURCHASE? If so, then those, must also, by your disdain, be tarnished.

Weak...

As for what's in this tainted Duelfer Report--the key findings summary states that Saddam"wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his WMD when sanctions were lifted." Further, the summary states "Saddam's primary goal from 1991 to 2003 was to have UN sanctions lifted, while maintaining the security of the regime . . ." by balancing "the need to cooperate with the UN inspections . . . gain support for lifting the sanctions . . . to preserve Iraq's intellectual capital for WMD." Further, Saddam saw that the Oil for Food Program "could be corrupted to acquire foreign exchange both to further undermine sanctions and to provide the means to enhance dual-use infrastructure and potential WMD-related development." The report further states that Saddam focused on three permanent members of the security council, France, Russia, and China, bribing Government officials and business executives with billions skimmed from Oil for Food. "AT A MINIMUM" the report says, "Saddam wanted to divide the 5 permanent members [of the security council] and foment international public support . . . by 2000-2001, Saddam had managed to . . . undermine international support for the sanctions." Before Duelfer succeded Kay as head of the ISG, Kay's team found evidence of "WMD-related program activities" but no actual weapons. They also found WMD programs BANNED by the UN and CONCEALED during the IAEA and UNMOVIC inspections. David Kay said that "what we learned during the inspection made Iraq a more dangerous place, potentially than, in fact, we thought it was even before the war." His team established that the Iraqi regime had the production capacity and know-how to produce WMDs if sanctions were lifted. Kay BELIEVED some of Saddams WMD program components had been moved to Syria before 2003. Duelfer later reported there was no EVIDENCE of this. A lot of evidence was interviews with various Iraqis--He evidently didn't interview General Saya.

Kay was referring to WMD parts rather than stockpiles of weapons.

But all this "Saddam was a sneaky bad guy" stuff is really moot. At what point does it justify war? Remember the war? Remember the Saddam -> stockpiles of WMD -> Bin Laden connection that was the justification for a massive and urgent action?

The intent or ability to restart programs if sanctions are lifted doesn't provide the justification for urgency, in fact it blows a rather large hole in the Administrations argument.

Remember, the Blix team before the war was essentially turning up the exact same information.

You don't have evidence that Saya is lying, you're only depending on so called LACK OF EVIDENCE to support the argument for no WMD, which turns your "argumentum ad ignorantiam" right--back--at--YOU!!

If you read the Duelfer report it's clear the "evidence" indicated Saddam destroyed his WMD in 1991, the last biological weapons facility in 1996 and that his production capacity had eroded dramatically since then.

I guess, since no one has opined what that strategy is, no one thinks he has one.

You don't actually read my posts do you?

-spence

[Fly Rod]

Fuel to the fire.
Saddam did have WMD'S

Some like to over look the fact that Saddam ordered the killing of thousands of Kurds in the north. And how did he do this? In 1989 or there abouts take or give a year he ordered his air force to bomb a kurd village knowing that the kurds would go to their bomb shelters dug in the earth. He was correct and the air force dropped mustard and other nerve gases that lays on or finds its way into low ground levels. Over 60,000 Kurds mostly women and children were killed. Killing 60,000 people is mass destruction and he used bombs filled with these gases, therefore becomes weapons of mass destruction.

You will always have the dis-believers as you have people who believe that there was no holocaust.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Fly Rod

Fuel to the fire.
Saddam did have WMD'S

Some like to over look the fact that Saddam ordered the killing of thousands of Kurds in the north. And how did he do this? In 1989 or there abouts take or give a year he ordered his air force to bomb a kurd village knowing that the kurds would go to their bomb shelters dug in the earth. He was correct and the air force dropped mustard and other nerve gases that lays on or finds its way into low ground levels. Over 60,000 Kurds mostly women and children were killed. Killing 60,000 people is mass destruction and he used bombs filled with these gases, therefore becomes weapons of mass destruction.

What fuel? Those events took place two years before the Gulf War. At the completion of which the WMDs were destroyed.

No one is arguing that Saddam possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction at one point in time, but that supposed concrete proof (with pictures) of WMD manufacturing facilities and pictures of the actual weapons was horribly incorrect and possibly fabricated.

You will always have the dis-believers as you have people who believe that there was no holocaust.

It's one thing to agree with substantial proof of Saddam not possessing any weapons. It's another for a quack job to turn a blind eye to the massacre of millions because he thinks everyone of a certain religion should be vaporized. Your relationship of the two situations is appalling.



As a note, the Wikipedia page on the Gulf War has a quote from #^&#^&#^&#^& Cheney, United States Secretary of Defense during the conflict, at the end of the war in 1992 (my emphasis added):

I would guess if we had gone in there, I would still have forces in Baghdad today. We'd be running the country. We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home. And the final point that I think needs to be made is this question of casualties. I don't think you could have done all of that without significant additional U.S. casualties, and while everybody was tremendously impressed with the low cost of the (1991) conflict, for the 146 Americans who were killed in action and for their families, it wasn't a cheap war. And the question in my mind is, how many additional American casualties is Saddam (Hussein) worth? And the answer is, not that damned many. So, I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the President made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq.

Oh how the times have changed. If he had only taken his own advice, we wouldn't be in this mess, over 4,250 supremely honorable service members would still be alive, 30,000+ wouldn't be injured and the US wouldn't have spent almost $700billion dollars.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Naom Chonsky, left wing mags and blogs, even "centrist" ones. Even our relationship with Taiwan would be considered modern day imperialism. Our whole history would be considered modern day imperialism. Now that the US exists, it should not mix, meddle, suggest, or in any way influence a lesser state lest it become a modern day imperialist. Not to mention that we SHOULDN'T exist because so much, if not all, our past actions could be construed as modern day imperialism. Of course that would be re-writing history to suit the "modern" mind. But re-writing history seems to be the leftist mode, so, for the "modern" mind it's ok to do so.

Why is it that some people find it so revolting to think critically about the USA, or worse yet, actually apply our own standards to our own behavior?

God forbid we admit that at times our own %$%$%$%$ doesn't stink.

Of course to do so much be a sign of weakness, or a viral based bout of Liberalism. Those who's minds are so polluted have their DNA firmly rooted in the finest Marxist traditions, and ScottW has the quotes to prove it.

One of my favorite critics of the US was my first cousin (once removed) Terry Spencer. He was quite Liberal and vehemently against the Iraq war on the basis that it was not a "preemptive" war as advertised, but rather a "preventive" war. How we could think that such influence in the region, primarily to secure our vital interests, couldn't be seen as somewhat imperialistic was beyond him. Look at the US military footprint across the planet...Instead of denying this perhaps the proponents should embrace the notion.

I'm sure if Terry were here to post his own thoughts he'd be quickly painted with the same pathetic and worn out talking points born from a talk radio inspired neo-McCarthyistic spasm.

Sadly, Terry passed away last year. Probably a better "American" than I, or any of us will every be.

Spencer, Terence J.

Pultneyville: Died April 1, 2008 after a long illness. Terence James Spencer, 79, was born October 10, 1928 in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, the only child of James Allen Spencer and Kathryn (Duffey) Spencer.

Terry graduated from Loras College in Dubuque, Iowa in 1950 with a BA in English. He earned his master's degree in speech and drama from Catholic University in Washinton, D.C. in 1954, and a PhD in English from Stanford University in Palo Alto, CA. in 1957.

His academic appointments included the University of Wisconsin (Madison), University of Notre Dame, Catholic University of America, Rochester Institute of Technology, National University of Zaire, and King Saud University.

A World War II and Korean War Army Veteran, he also served the government as an independent consultant for Project Upward Bound, as a Peace Corps. volunteer, and as a Foreign Service Officer. He had a life-long interest in theatre and the arts, and served in 1970 as the Executive Producer of Saint Albans Repertory Company in Washington, D.C. His own play, "Jonah" was produced off-Broadway in 1967.

Terry traveled the entire world, living and working in Zaire, Saudi Arabia, Australia, Papua New Guinea and Korea. He visited China, Antarctica, and the Galapagos Islands. He traveled extensively in Europe, Canada and the United States.

After retirement, Terry served terms as Trustees/Executive Director of the Wayne County Historical Society and Trustee/President of the Pultneyville Historical Society.

He contributed social-political, drama and travel columns to the Wayne Weekly, Newark Courier-Gazette and the Williamson Sun and Record. Most recently, he served as a Trustee for the Williamson Public Library. He was active in local politics and a member of the Williamson American Legion Post 394 and the Veterans of Foreign Wars Post 6778 in Palmyra.

Terry was predeceased by his first wife, Elois (Wiren) Spencer in 1971. He is survived by his son, Geoffrey Spencer of Manchester, New Hampshire; daughter, Katherine (Dell) Hodges of Webster, New York and granddaughter, Sarah Hodges of Buffalo, New York.

-spence

[detbuch]

[QUOTE=spence;709842]Why is it that some people find it so revolting to think critically about the USA, or worse yet, actually apply our own standards to our own behavior?

I'm not sure why you chose my response to JohnnyD referring to use of the phrase "modern day imperialism." What is in that response that implies I'm revolted by criticism of USA or that I don't apply my own standards to my own behavior? I think critically of OUR country almost daily. My posts in these threads are replies to fellow citizens of the USA. We all have a personal point of view, mine is no less important or less American than yours. Are you revolted by MY opinions?

God forbid we admit that at times our own %$%$%$%$ doesn't stink.

I often think my verbal feces stink. Do you ever feel the same about yours?

Of course to do so much be a sign of weakness, or a viral based bout of Liberalism. Those who's minds are so polluted have their DNA firmly rooted in the finest Marxist traditions, and ScottW has the quotes to prove it.

Historically, we are rooted in classical liberalism/conservatism, naturalism, evolutionary capitalism. It is natural for those still rooted such to reject Marxism. But the resistance to Marxism/socialism/progressivism is weakening, and the tide may turn. Can you blame old line Americans for defending their beliefs? Quite contrary to "a sign of weakness", it is seen as a sign of growing strength to view the growing numbers of youth, especially those educated in what conservatives feel are bastions of Marxism, along with the combined numbers of immigrants, minorities, laborites, gays, feminists, etc., who, for various reasons, sometimes in opposition to "conservatism," are swelling the "progressive" ranks,

One of my favorite critics of the US was my first cousin (once removed) Terry Spencer. He was quite Liberal and vehemently against the Iraq war on the basis that it was not a "preemptive" war as advertised, but rather a "preventive" war. How we could think that such influence in the region, primarily to secure our vital interests, couldn't be seen as somewhat imperialistic was beyond him. Look at the US military footprint across the planet...Instead of denying this perhaps the proponents should embrace the notion.

He is, by your account, an accomplished, intelligent, patriotic, wonderful man who has led a full, satisfying life. If I were prone to jealousy, I would be jealous. I truly mean that as a compliment.

I'm sure if Terry were here to post his own thoughts he'd be quickly painted with the same pathetic and worn out talking points born from a talk radio inspired neo-McCarthyistic spasm.-spence[QUOTE]

It sounds like he would make, as you do, some strong points. I don't know how quickly he would be painted, but you have quickly turned from reflection to revolting, nasty remarks. Are those an application of your own standards?

I sense a true loss in the passing of Terry. I apologize if anything I've said here is in any way offensive, that is not intended. Much as I may have disagreed with some of his opinions, I would that he were still here.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

It would be ignorant for me to try to say I coined the term "modern-day imperialism". Now-a-days, you can google almost any collection of random words and find some response. My intention was, when have you heard anyone reference the term modern-day imperialism when talking about Iraq. I have not heard it referenced that way before.

But, in replying to your "intention", I was pointing out that your exact phrase HAS been used in the EXACT way that you use it in talking about Iraq.

But, if you want to nit-pick three words to spin away from what the actual point is, I commend you on trying to think it would work.

But your EXACT point (question) to which I replied was "when exactly has any comment referencing a phrase like modern day imperialism ever been mentioned?"

Regardless of your poor attempt to take a fine-toothed comb to my words and pick them apart, I still stand that Bush's approach to Iraq and all his "Spreading Democracy" references are Imperialistic.

Good for you! And you have a host of leftists, some FAR left (which is OK--just mentioning it for clarity) who agree with you, using the EXACT phrase "modern day imperialism" to express their views on Bush's Iraq policy. And, unless there is some fine distinction between their definition and yours, you are still contradicting yourself when you say our relation with Taiwan is the way to spread democracy, since the predominent, current use of the phrase "modern day imperialism" defines our relation to Taiwan. Of course, you may have invented a specific, special use of the phrase that only applies to special instances of your choice. That, of course, by definition, is unarguable.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

No, it strongly suggests the threat was not as characterized and that sanctions appeared to be working. He didn't just shut things down, the WMD appear to have been destroyed a decade earlier.

"suggests . . .appeared . . . appear"--As I apologized to Buckman, we have hijacked his thread with an old rehash consisting of no proofs, but suggestions, appearances, agendas.

Weak...

Exactly as weak as your disregard of Saya's book.

Kay was referring to WMD parts rather than stockpiles of weapons.


So?

But all this "Saddam was a sneaky bad guy" stuff is really moot. At what point does it justify war? Remember the war? Remember the Saddam -> stockpiles of WMD -> Bin Laden connection that was the justification for a massive and urgent action?
The intent or ability to restart programs if sanctions are lifted Doesn't provide the justification for urgency, in fact it blows a rather large hole in the administrations argument.

Among other "justifications" for war:
Failure to cooperate with arms inspecters
Threat to our security
Had pursued and used WMD
Sponsored terrorists
Ordered his military to shoot at Brit & US pilots patrolling no-fly zone
Had invaded his neighbors
Declared the US an enemy
Refused to comply with more than a dozen UN resolutions including demands that he respect the rights of the Iraqi people, disclose his weapons, abide by cease fire.
The action was not urgent, it took 14 months to start the war. In that time as the Duelfer report states, Saddam was working, EFFECTIVELY, to create an international environment to lift the sanctions. If he had been allowed to succeed, then he would produce the WMDs, and the war would have to take place later with a stronger Saddam with weapons to do immensely worse damage than our troops and Iraquis suffered. Waiting to take Saddam out could only WORSEN the final outcome. Some have argued that we should have gone in SOONER, even immediately, rather than wait the 14 months "diplomacy", which, as it was occurring, some were exactly saying that the diplomatic gap WAS GIVING SADDAM TIME TO HIDE OR REMOVE HIS WMDs. As for evidence that there are traces of an existing program, google the Kenneth Timmerman reference that I mentioned above. And, of course, there is the Saya book.



You don't actually read my posts do you?
-spence

Your posts stated that Obama has pretty much continued Bushes flawed policy then depends on NATO for 10 years. Is that a clear objective and an exit strategy?

[detbuch]

As this thread is winding down, I would like to more clearly reply to JohnnyD and Spence re: "modern day imperialsm" and "somewhat imperialistic" describing our invasion of Iraq.

Classical empires, though brutal (what wasn't in their time), hastened the uniting of people and created good as well as ill. The 400 years of Pax Romana was beneficial. The British Empire brought progress and union, and the U.S. is a direct result. In the 1960s the radical left saw opportunity to influence the counter-cultural revolution and anti-Vietnam war sentiments in its direction. Its only real power to influence a generation of youth was through words, especially by the politicization of words. One of the most influential words was IMPERIALIST. The nasty trick of slick, politicized language is to slide a word away from its original meaning and use it to describe a loosely similar entity--sometimes positively, sometimes negatively. The dictionary definition of imperialism (the policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other natioins) didn't quite fit but was close enough, so America was described by the hard left as an imperialist, capitalist running dog pig. This also had the effect of erasing any positive connotation. Imperialism was now thoroughly bad. The radical view could not survive but politicized words did. And imperialism evolved into the many modern day imperialisms--economic imperialism, cultural imperialism, military imperialism, religious imperialism, political imperialism, ACTUAL imperialism, or, now any new imperialisms we wish to create. How about new ones like, say, family imperialism, relational imperialism, baseball imperialism, gender imperialism, sexual imperialism, racial imperialism, insurance imperialism, and on and on. Obviously, this destroys any connectioin to the original definitions of imperialism except for a shadowy similarity. The word, essentialy, loses any intrinsic meaning, This is similar to what George Orwell says in his essay "Politics and the English Language" about the word "fascism" no longer having any meaning other than signifying "something not desirable."

Certainly, it is good to criticize us when we do bad. But can we think of a better word than imperialism or imperialistic? We are not an empire. We don't have an emperor. We haven't territorially acquired Iraq nor established economic or political hegemony over it. Saying that our action in Iraq is modern day imperialism is using a politicized word that has lost all meaning and retained only some vague inflamatory connotation. It sounds authoritative to say that invading Iraq is modern day imperialism, but what does that mean? It is convenient to use the phrase because it excuses you from saying what that "something not desirable" actually is. And when one cannot find words to describe a supposed concept, that often implies that the concept does not actually exist--at least not in some well thought-out thesis. Unmuddle your thinking, then you can give us the hell we deserve. And saying that the invasion was "somewhat" imperialistic is not only hedging on whether it was or not, but it is qualifying a meaningless dead metaphor. What really does "somewhat imperialistic" mean? The hard left, on the other hand, is happy to throw a politicized metaphor that means "something not desirable" at America to influence the uninformed masses who are easily persuaded by the sound of words regardless of their lack of substance. For those with some historical insight, however, such phrases are an insult to our intellilgence.

[buckman]

So I'll ask again....Why are we here and what's the end game? Same questions I heard over and over about Bush. What are we trying to accomplish? The same thing Bush was accomplishing in Iraq? Nation building?

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by buckman

So I'll ask again....Why are we here and what's the end game? Same questions I heard over and over about Bush. What are we trying to accomplish? The same thing Bush was accomplishing in Iraq? Nation building?

Yes, and I'll repeat my first post too:

"I would like to know that too. The silence is deafening."

[buckman]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Yes, and I'll repeat my first post too:

"I would like to know that too. The silence is deafening."

I thought the war was the reason he won the election. I guess thereal agenda here was socialism. I'll have to hand it to him, he really knows how to play on a persons emotions. At least the people that make decisions based on them.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by buckman

I thought the war was the reason he won the election. I guess thereal agenda here was socialism. I'll have to hand it to him, he really knows how to play on a persons emotions. At least the people that make decisions based on them.

The reason he won the election is because people were scared of McCain continuing the Bush agenda, everything about Palin, and the Republicans buried themselves deep in the muck. Now the Democrats are doing the same thing.

[spence]

Originally Posted by spence

As for the Obama strategy, it's not that complicated. Raise troop levels to provide added security in the hopes of shifting responsibility onto Afghan and Pakistani troops. I believe the expectation is that there will be a NATO presence in the region for a decade or more to come.

Remember that a big reason for the recent increase in violence was the national election.

Didn't you guys read the thread? I think this dude outlined the high-level strategy pretty well.

-spence

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

Didn't you guys read the thread? I think this dude outlined the high-level strategy pretty well.

-spence

You also said he was following along with the Bush plan. Is it Bush's high-level strategy?

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

The "Obama mission and exit strategy"? He's pretty much continued the Bush policy on Afghanistan, with slightly more strategic focus than Iraq.

Strategy seems to have been flawed from the start, but people want to jump on Obama now that he's in charge. Too bad none of those neocons bothered to pick up a history book.

My opinion is that we should leave and park an aircraft carrier offshore who's responsibility is to punish anyone who gets out of line.

-spence

????

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

You also said he was following along with the Bush plan. Is it Bush's high-level strategy?

Some overlap, but Obama certainly wants to shift focus from Iraq and more importantly treat Afghanistan and Pakistan as a joint problem. This is different from Bush who simply wanted NATO to carry the water so he could focus on Iraq.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Some overlap, but Obama certainly wants to shift focus from Iraq and more importantly treat Afghanistan and Pakistan as a joint problem. This is different from Bush who simply wanted NATO to carry the water so he could focus on Iraq.

-spence

Are you saying that Bush was forever going to focus on Iraq and that he was never going to turn defence over to the Iraqi military, and that he would not return his focus to Afghanistan?

[buckman]

He said on Letterman last night that he won't commit anymore troops until he comes up with a plan. If I'm not mistaken, I thought he had a plan and already had more troops over there. WTF