Why are we in war?

[Groovehigh]

Reason a) provided by our government:

Iraq has weapons of mass destruction are willing to use them.

Where are the weapons?

uhmmm....Mr. Powell do you know?

b) there's a link between Iraq and 9-11.

uhmmm....where?

c) okay, no weapons of mass destruction, alright we will bring democracy and human rights.

uhmmmm.....

d) we want to get the oil out of Iraq and want to have a safe connection to Saudi Arabia for "our" oil.

uhmmm....is this the true reason?

Should this be the USA foreign policy?

I am sick of it. It's a joke.

[Groovehigh]

at war I meant..

[RBS]

Everything you said.

[Darryl G. Thomas]

Go to this URL. Notice the names at the bottom. It'll explain everything.




http://www.newamericancentury.org/st...principles.htm

[Dr Dave]

Wow, Darryl, that's great. Here's a recent item I found there from Robert Kagan:

"...Bush himself is the great mystery in this mounting debacle. His commitment to stay the course in Iraq seems utterly genuine. Yet he continues to tolerate policymakers, military advisers and a dysfunctional policymaking apparatus that are making the achievement of his goals less and less likely. He does not seem to demand better answers, or any answers, from those who serve him. It's not even clear that he understands how bad the situation in Iraq is or how close he is to losing public support for the war, a support that once lost may be impossible to regain. Bush politicos may take comfort from polls that show the public still trusts Bush more than Kerry when it comes to conducting the war. That won't be worth much, however, if the public turns against the war itself. The tragedy may be that Bush will not understand until it is too late. In which case we will lose in Iraq, and the dire consequences that he has rightly warned of will be upon us."

[Darryl G. Thomas]

Doc,

That seems to be the current theme of the neo-con intellectuals. Bill Kristol's rapping the same thing.

And you have a split between neo-cons and traditional conservatives like George Will. I read an op-ed piece by Will that could've been written by a member of the Kerry campaign. There are a lot of traditional conservatives who do not believe in this war. They've kept silent because Bush is on their team and they don't want to be seen as helping Kerry capture the White House.

[Bruce Lindfield]

Originally Posted by Groovehigh

Reason a) provided by our government:

Iraq has weapons of mass destruction are willing to use them.

Where are the weapons?

uhmmm....Mr. Powell do you know?

b) there's a link between Iraq and 9-11.

uhmmm....where?

c) okay, no weapons of mass destruction, alright we will bring democracy and human rights.

uhmmmm.....

d) we want to get the oil out of Iraq and want to have a safe connection to Saudi Arabia for "our" oil.

uhmmm....is this the true reason?

Should this be the USA foreign policy?

I am sick of it. It's a joke.

Well - I'm not defending anybody - just saying you should get your history right.

So the reason was that Saddam was in material breach of the treaty that ended the last Gulf War and which was the condition for allowing him to remain in power after he lost that war.

OK it was a mistake to trust him, the war has been a shambles - but I think people need to get the facts right...?

[GoodSpeak]

If Daddy Bush had the gonads to do it right the first time, maybe we wouldn't have to be in Iraq.

Like father, like son.


I guess it's true what they say....that the apple don't fall far from the tree.

[Pete C]

Darryl: Indeed. The "oil" argument from the left is oversimplistic and distracting from the true, scarier agenda: hegemony.

[Bruce Lindfield]

Originally Posted by GoodSpeak

If Daddy Bush had the gonads to do it right the first time, maybe we wouldn't have to be in Iraq.

Like father, like son.


I guess it's true what they say....that the apple don't fall far from the tree.

That's true - the first Gulf war was won, but nobody nailed Saddam (maybe because they thought it might affect oil revenue) - at least they got him this time - has everybody forgotten that already?

[Dr Dave]

Originally Posted by Bruce Lindfield

That's true - the first Gulf war was won, but nobody nailed Saddam (maybe because they thought it might affect oil revenue) - at least they got him this time - has everybody forgotten that already?

Yeah, we got him. Fat lot of good it's doing us, eh?

It only cost billions of dollars and thousands of lives to get the old guy. And most Iraqis don't feel better off today than the did when Bush started this costly nonsense.

[john williams]

Originally Posted by Darryl G. Thomas

Go to this URL. Notice the names at the bottom. It'll explain everything.




http://www.newamericancentury.org/st...principles.htm

That's pretty terrifying stuff, very hawkish.

[patricia]

Originally Posted by Chris A

It only cost billions of dollars and thousands of lives to get the old guy. And most Iraqis don't feel better off today than the did when Bush started this costly nonsense.

A threat, or even a potential threat is not quashed by the capture of one person, or even several people.
Capturing Saddam Hussein was news for a few days, but it made little difference in the progress of the conflict.
It was also too early to do the Bush administration any good, politically. Nobody cares who is going to try Saddam Hussein, or even where he is.
That capture is yesterday's news. Attention spans are Sesame Street short these days.
Which makes me wonder whether another attack is imminent, the aftermath of which Mr Bush can be photographed with a megaphone, being presidential, or if the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden is known, but his capture is being delayed until closer to the election.
I fell like a conspiracy nut, even thinking along those lines, but the last four years have made me doubt that the Bush administration is anything other than perpetrators of global unrest, smoke and mirrors and lies, lies, lies.
If ever there was a time for the truth, it's now, before we all self-destruct.
Is it possible for a politician, just once, in an emergency situation, to actually tell the truth??

Originally Posted by Darryl G. Thomas

Go to this URL. Notice the names at the bottom. It'll explain everything.

• Elliott Abrams
• Gary Bauer
• William J. Bennett
• Jeb Bush
• Dick Cheney
• Eliot A. Cohen
• Midge Decter
• Paula Dobriansky
• Steve Forbes
• Aaron Friedberg
• Francis Fukuyama
• Frank Gaffney
• Fred C. Ikle
• Donald Kagan
• Zalmay Khalilzad
• I. Lewis Libby
• Norman Podhoretz
• Dan Quayle
• Peter W. Rodman
• Stephen P. Rosen
• Henry S. Rowen
• Donald Rumsfeld
• Vin Weber
• George Weigel
• Paul Wolfowitz

This is the most frightening list of names I have seen since Hitler's inner circle. Put these greedy, hateful people out to graze and we will have made a giant step towards a better world.

[Bruce Lindfield]

Originally Posted by Chris A

It only cost billions of dollars and thousands of lives to get the old guy. And most Iraqis don't feel better off today than the did when Bush started this costly nonsense.

But you're missing my main point there - if Saddam had been nailed in the first Gulf War and hadn't been allowed to sign a treaty - then all of this would have been completely unnecessary and all the lives and money spent would have been saved!

That's where it all went wrong!!

But it seems most people have forgotten that far back - those who forget history are doomed to repeat it!!

If our politicians were forced to study history, rather than Law or "making money" etc. - then things might be different....?

[Phil_Meloy]

Originally Posted by Bruce Lindfield

But you're missing my point completely!! The thing is that if Saddam had been nailed in the first Gulf War and hadn't been allowed to sign a treaty - then all of this would have been completely unnecessary and all the lives and money spent would have been saved!

It needs to be remembered Bruce that the previous Gulf War was prosecuted under a UN approved mandate in order to liberate Kuwait - a sovereign nation state that Saddam had invaded and occupied. Once this objective had been achieved there was no further UN mandate to continue with a full scale invasion of Iraq in order to remove Saddam Hussein from power.

[Bruce Lindfield]

But I think that it would have been quite possible for troops involved in that War to have targeted Saddam as a legitimate enemy and removed him from power - British and US forces had air superiority, surgical incision capability (we were told) and since when did lack of UN mandate stop us...?

Think how many lives would have been saved, if Saddam had been killed then.....!!!

Of course you are right about initial causes and I think people asking why we are at war - need to look back as far as this for the answer and not let political prejudices get in the way of proper analysis of history.

[Phil_Meloy]

With the Iraq army having suffered heavy losses and in complete disarray with large sections of it exposed in the desert it would have been undoubtedly logistically simple for Britain and America to continue all the way to Bagdad and remove Saddam Hussein from power however it should also be remembered that Britain and the USA were acting as part (albeit the largest part by far) of a 32 nation coalition which also included Afghanistan, Argentina, Australia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belgium, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Egypt, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Honduras, Italy, Kuwait, Morocco, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Korea, Spain, Syria, Turkey and The United Arab Emirates. For Britain and the USA to then go far beyond the agreed UN agenda and completely snub the opinions of their allies who had backed them in gaining UN support for military intervention would have been politically unthinkable - and in any case who can say with any certainty the situation in Iraq after the removal of Saddam then would have been any different then than that which exists there today now that he has been removed.

[Darryl G. Thomas]

I seem to recall that at the time there was zero support (domestic and foriegn) for going into Iraq and over-throwing Saddam. Also, there was a great fear that getting rid of Saddam would send Iraq into civil war. You've basically got three countries in one: the Sunni part, the Shiite part and the Kurdish part. The feeling was that if the regime fell, the country would split. Iran would look to protect the interests of Iraq's Shiites, Turkey would attack the new "Kurdistan" in the north, and all the other Arab countries, which are Sunni dominated would rush in to protect the Sunni minority.

As a matter of fact, that may be the scenario once the US does leave.

As screwed up as did may sound, when you look at the big picture, it may have been better geopolitically to have left Saddam in power.

Yeah, I know, he's a brutal dictator, but so is Ghaddafi and he and Bush are practically french-kissing these days.

Darryl, surely you mean liberty-kissing.

[patricia]

Originally Posted by Chris A

Darryl, surely you mean liberty-kissing.

Are "Freedom Fries" now "Liberty Fries"?? When did that happen??
A person can't keep up with all the approved patriotic expressions and the political correctness, rampant, anymore.

Sorry, I meant "freedom-kissing," that sounds more interesting, anyway!

[patricia]

Originally Posted by Chris A

Sorry, I meant "freedom-kissing," that sounds more interesting, anyway!

I agree. Hard to keep up with what the approved terms are nowadays.

[clinthopson]

"Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today."

I think it's pretty fashionable with the neocons.

Remember that Reagan's spending to bring down an already crumbling "evil empire" almost bankrupted the US.

It wasn't until the maligned Bill Clinton's administration that our fiscal health improved. Shrub is putting us in the same hole.

[jesus marion joseph]

Originally Posted by Bruce Lindfield

That's true - the first Gulf war was won, but nobody nailed Saddam (maybe because they thought it might affect oil revenue) - at least they got him this time - has everybody forgotten that already?

The reason Bush I didn't topple Hussein is that the Saudis only joined the coalition and allowed the use of their country as a staging ground on the condition that the operation go no further than regaining Kuwait from the Iraqis. It has nothing to do with gonads, and everything to do with (ironically enough) diplomacy and coalition-building.

[Pete C]

Maybe Chris is nostalgic for liberty cabbage.

[GoodSpeak]

Originally Posted by Chris A

• Elliott Abrams
• Gary Bauer
• William J. Bennett
• Jeb Bush
• Dick Cheney
• Eliot A. Cohen
• Midge Decter
• Paula Dobriansky
• Steve Forbes
• Aaron Friedberg
• Francis Fukuyama
• Frank Gaffney
• Fred C. Ikle
• Donald Kagan
• Zalmay Khalilzad
• I. Lewis Libby
• Norman Podhoretz
• Dan Quayle
• Peter W. Rodman
• Stephen P. Rosen
• Henry S. Rowen
• Donald Rumsfeld
• Vin Weber
• George Weigel
• Paul Wolfowitz

This is the most frightening list of names I have seen since Hitler's inner circle. Put these greedy, hateful people out to graze and we will have made a giant step towards a better world.

Truer words were never spoken.

[BFrank]

Looking at the list of failures and miscalculations in this article, it sure appears that some heads should be rolling. The list of "concessions" is appalling. Yet...Bush marches on, in his own private Idaho.



U.S. Faces Growing Fears of Failure
Wolfowitz Concedes Errors as Damage Control Continues
By Robin Wright and Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, May 19, 2004; Page A01


The Bush administration is struggling to counter growing sentiment -- among U.S. lawmakers, Iraqis and even some of its own officials -- that the occupation of Iraq is verging on failure, forcing a top Pentagon official yesterday to concede serious mistakes over the past year.

Under tough questioning from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz, a leading administration advocate of the Iraq intervention, acknowledged miscalculating that Iraqis would tolerate a long occupation. A central flaw in planning, he added, was the premise that U.S. forces would be creating a peace, not fighting a war, after the ouster of Saddam Hussein.

"We had a plan that anticipated, I think, that we could proceed with an occupation regime for much longer than it turned out the Iraqis would have patience for. We had a plan that assumed we'd have basically more stable security conditions than we've encountered," Wolfowitz told the senators.

The testy hearing reflected growing anxieties with only six weeks left before political power is to be handed over to Iraqis. The United States is now so deeply immersed in damage control -- combating security problems and recriminations from the Abu Ghraib prison scandal and making a third attempt at crafting an interim government in Baghdad -- that lawmakers and others say Iraq faces greater uncertainty about the future than it did when the occupation began with great expectations a year ago.

"There are a lot of people across this country who are very, very worried about how this is progressing, what the endgame is, whether or not we are going to achieve even a part of our goals here -- and the growing fear that we may in fact have in some ways a worse situation if we're not careful at the end of all this," warned Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), echoing comments of several committee members.

President Bush acknowledged yesterday that the United States is facing "hard work" in Iraq that is "approaching a crucial moment." But he said he will not be swayed from the goal of helping Iraq become a "free and democratic nation at the heart of the Middle East."

"My resolve is firm," he said in a speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. "This is an historic moment. The world watches for weakness in our resolve. They will see no weakness. We will answer every challenge." But lawmakers challenged Wolfowitz with their fears that the U.S.-led coalition still does not have a viable plan in place for the transition -- and that failure could be costly.

"A detailed plan is necessary to prove to our allies and to Iraqis that we have a strategy and that we are committed to making it work. If we cannot provide this clarity, we risk the loss of support of the American people, loss of potential contributions from our allies and the disillusionment of Iraqis," said Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.), chairman of the panel.

U.S. successes in Iraq have been "dwarfed" by two deficits created by the administration -- a "security deficit" and a "legitimacy deficit," said Sen. Joseph R. Biden (D-Del.).

The public criticism on Capitol Hill mirrors growing alarm expressed in private throughout the U.S. foreign policy community as well as among Iraqis about the political transition and deteriorating security. The U.S.-led coalition has dramatically lowered its goals, they say, from an early pledge to create a stable, democratic country that would be a model for transforming the greater Middle East, to scrambling to cobble together an interim government by June 30 that will have only limited political authority and still depend on more than 130,000 foreign troops.

"We've sacrificed the preferable to that which is most expedient," said a U.S. official involved with Iraq policy. "We've gone from hoping for a strong and empowered government to one that can survive, literally, until a new constitution is drafted."

With mounting instability, from the assassination of a top Iraqi politician to kidnappings for ransom of prominent professionals and their children, Iraqis close to the negotiations by U.N. special envoy Lakhdar Brahimi are now warning that credible politicians or technocrats may not be willing to accept jobs in the interim Iraqi government.

"Anyone in his right mind would say, 'What you're giving me is an impossible task and a no-win situation,' " said an Iraqi adviser to a member of the Iraqi Governing Council.

The crisis over mistreatment of detainees at Abu Ghraib has also complicated the political transition, with fears among Iraqis that any association with an interim government named by U.N. and U.S. diplomats will undermine their political aspirations.

Some military officers are also concerned that Washington is now cutting back on its original goal of eliminating major flash points in Iraq before June 30. They say the United States has basically retreated in Fallujah, handing over control of the Sunni city to a former Iraqi general who is now commanding some of the very insurgents U.S. forces were fighting -- again, in the name of expediency.

"What we're trying to do is extricate ourselves from Fallujah," said a senior U.S. official familiar with U.S. strategy who would speak only on the condition of anonymity. "There's overwhelming pressure with the Coalition Provisional Authority and the White House to deliver a successful Iraq transition, and Iraq is proving uncooperative."

In his testimony, Wolfowitz expressed optimism about trends in Iraq. "We're not trying to suggest by any means that this is a rosy scenario, but we do think that Iraq is moving forward toward self-government and self-defense, and that's the key to winning," he said.

But in response to persistent questioning, Wolfowitz said the United States had been "slow" in creating Iraqi security forces and too severe in its early policy of de-Baathification, or barring from government jobs and political life tens of thousands of Iraqis who were members of Hussein's ruling Baath Party.

He listed other shortcomings in planning, including underestimating the resilience of Hussein or his supporters, their postwar operational capabilities and financial resources. Wolfowitz also said he did not know how many U.S. troops would remain posted to Iraq over the next 18 months. "It could be more, it could be less" than the level of 135,000 troops the Pentagon has said it plans to keep in Iraq through 2005.

And he conceded that the question of how Iraq will operate after June 30 remains unsettled, adding that officials would have a better idea of how Iraqi sovereignty will work "as soon as we know who our counterparts are."

In Britain, the closest U.S. ally in Iraq, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw also conceded that the Iraq situation is more troubled than the coalition predicted. "It's palpable that the difficulties which we faced have been more extensive than it was reasonable to assume nine months ago," he said in an interview with the British Broadcasting Corp.