Another LIE by the neocons. (or miscalculation if you prefer)

[Zebo]

http://news.independent.co.uk/...story.jsp?story=592529

While "greeted with flowers" BS was quickly dispelled, another is the Saddams fear and fueling of insurgency.

 

[Czar]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4090081.stm

another on the same topic

 

[EagleKeeper]

Nature abhores a vacum.

Until there is a strong Iraq government, people will be trying to tear it down in favor of their own fiefdoms.

Also, the troublemakers are being encourage from outside. They are willing to destroy their country because they can not have control that they thought would come; when they either did not have to answer to Saddam or the power they had while a buddy of Saddam & friends)

 

[arsbanned]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Nature abhores a vacum.

Until there is a strong Iraq government, people will be trying to tear it down in favor of their own fiefdoms.

Also, the troublemakers are being encourage from outside. They are willing to destroy their country because they can not have control that they thought would come; when they either did not have to answer to Saddam or the power they had while a buddy of Saddam & friends)

These sound like good reasons to avoid a confrontation with such a place. Oh wait.
While what you're saying may be correct, you now simply need to accept the fact that the U.S. cannot and will not change the equation, no matter how many innocent civilian it slaughters.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: arsbanned

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Nature abhores a vacum.

Until there is a strong Iraq government, people will be trying to tear it down in favor of their own fiefdoms.

Also, the troublemakers are being encourage from outside. They are willing to destroy their country because they can not have control that they thought would come; when they either did not have to answer to Saddam or the power they had while a buddy of Saddam & friends)

These sound like good reasons to avoid a confrontation with such a place. Oh wait.
While what you're saying may be correct, you now simply need to accept the fact that the U.S. cannot and will not change the equation, no matter how many innocent civilian it slaughters.

Innoncent civilians don't exist... they're ALL terrorists! Even the 6-month-old babies!!!

 

[OffTopic1]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Nature abhores a vacum.

Until there is a strong Iraq government, people will be trying to tear it down in favor of their own fiefdoms.

Also, the troublemakers are being encourage from outside. They are willing to destroy their country because they can not have control that they thought would come; when they either did not have to answer to Saddam or the power they had while a buddy of Saddam & friends)

How can they have a strong government when foreign powers keep meddling with their politic?

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: Zebo
Topic Title: Another LIE by the neocons. (or miscalculation if you prefer)

What lie/miscalculation by the "neocons" has been dispelled by the editorials (yours and Czar's) posted?

Originally posted by: arsbanned
These sound like good reasons to avoid a confrontation with such a place. Oh wait.
While what you're saying may be correct, you now simply need to accept the fact that the U.S. cannot and will not change the equation, no matter how many innocent civilians it slaughters.

Certainly a realistic option - shun confrontation wherever possible and hope for the best. I take it you're a fan of Mr. Chamberlain's? Also, please feel free to back up your assertions that the United States slaughters innocent citizens in order to achieve political goals in Iraq.

Lastly, have any of you in this thread ever complained about being called as "libs" or some other unsavoury label? The wild statements and kickoff of this thread title with "neocons" in it isn't helping your cases.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: Zebo
Topic Title: Another LIE by the neocons. (or miscalculation if you prefer)

What lie/miscalculation by the "neocons" has been dispelled by the editorials (yours and Czar's) posted?

it was a miscalculation, to be sure. both Cheney and Rumsfeld thought that we'd be greeting by all Iraqi's as liberators, with little-to-no resistance once Saddam's army was disbanded.

 

[maddogchen]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: Zebo
Topic Title: Another LIE by the neocons. (or miscalculation if you prefer)

What lie/miscalculation by the "neocons" has been dispelled by the editorials (yours and Czar's) posted?

it was a miscalculation, to be sure. both Cheney and Rumsfeld thought that we'd be greeting by all Iraqi's as liberators, with little-to-no resistance once Saddam's army was disbanded.

I think it was a miscalculation not a lie too. just like how they miscalculated that the Shiites would revolt and help the Coalition invasion force overthrow Saddam. There were many miscalculations, some good like how they miscalculated how long Baghdad would fall in the invasion, and others very bad.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Didn't Rumsfeld say a few months ago that the insurgent attacks were going to get worse the closer we got to the elections? I believe he did so that pretty much turns this story into a strawman.

It does show the depths of fishing the new liberals will go to in order to create an angle, any angle, that they can use to disparage the admin.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Didn't Rumsfeld say a few months ago that the insurgent attacks were going to get worse the closer we got to the elections? I believe he did so that pretty much turns this story into a strawman.

It does show the depths of fishing the new liberals will go to in order to create an angle, any angle, that they can use to disparage the admin.

We don't have to "angle", Shrub and Co. give us an endless supply of material all on his own.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Didn't Rumsfeld say a few months ago that the insurgent attacks were going to get worse the closer we got to the elections? I believe he did so that pretty much turns this story into a strawman.

It does show the depths of fishing the new liberals will go to in order to create an angle, any angle, that they can use to disparage the admin.

We don't have to "angle", Shrub and Co. give us an endless supply of material all on his own.

But you do "angle" so there's obviously not an endless supply.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Didn't Rumsfeld say a few months ago that the insurgent attacks were going to get worse the closer we got to the elections? I believe he did so that pretty much turns this story into a strawman.

It does show the depths of fishing the new liberals will go to in order to create an angle, any angle, that they can use to disparage the admin.

We don't have to "angle", Shrub and Co. give us an endless supply of material all on his own.

Would you prefer to go back to the era of the 1930s and the practice of isolationism?

The admin miscalcuated (for one reason or another) on the way the Iraq situation would be played out. They have admitted it.
The Western perspective was that the Iraqis were willing to move forward without Saddam.

That theory was not solid, the loss of power and the ability to become a big fish in a small pond was desired by some tribal chieftans and others.

It was not expected that the insurgents would be so willing to destroy their country to prevent the loss of their power. That goes against the Western grain of thought.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Didn't Rumsfeld say a few months ago that the insurgent attacks were going to get worse the closer we got to the elections? I believe he did so that pretty much turns this story into a strawman.

It does show the depths of fishing the new liberals will go to in order to create an angle, any angle, that they can use to disparage the admin.

We don't have to "angle", Shrub and Co. give us an endless supply of material all on his own.

Would you prefer to go back to the era of the 1930s and the practice of isolationism?

The admin miscalcuated (for one reason or another) on the way the Iraq situation would be played out. They have admitted it.
The Western perspective was that the Iraqis were willing to move forward without Saddam.

That theory was not solid, the loss of power and the ability to become a big fish in a small pond was desired by some tribal chieftans and others.

It was not expected that the insurgents would be so willing to destroy their country to prevent the loss of their power. That goes against the Western grain of thought.

And herein lies a problem.

"That goes against the Western grain of thought".

In a previous post you remark about a strong Iraqi government. Well they had one, and it took a Saddam to keep the artificial construct known as Iraq intact. The Brits knew that after they inherited it from the Ottoman empire. They put a puppet in, declared it a Democracy and a victory and got out.

Americans as a whole have a real problem. They confuse Democracy with Freedom. They insist that the US form of Govt. is the RIGHT one.

Outside of Baghdad, people aren't really after a centralized govt. Those little fiefdoms are what a great many wish. Will we let them have it? No. We wish them to be "free" by doing what we think they should.

Unforeseeable? Hogwash. This was perfectly predictable, and has precedence in that region. Bush was incapable of wrapping his mind around the concept that what the people there wanted wasn't what he did.

We don't want to give them liberty. We wish to Americanize them, and in that it seems they have no freedom of choice.

 

[Zebo]

Would you prefer to go back to the era of the 1930s and the practice of isolationism?

Yes.

Nature abhores a vacum.

Until there is a strong Iraq government, people will be trying to tear it down in favor of their own fiefdoms.

Also, the troublemakers are being encourage from outside. They are willing to destroy their country because they can not have control that they thought would come; when they either did not have to answer to Saddam or the power they had while a buddy of Saddam & friends)

wow you are beyond hope if you actually believe that foreign figher crap along with they want to destory thier own country.

Rose colored glasses need to come off. Iraqis abhor US servicemen rumanging though thier homes, destroying thier property, rounding up all thier men for god knows what, torture is what they expect and have even been victim too etc. There are thoudands of news reports out there citing the cause and effect of this insugentcy. None of it has to do with vacuum. US is in charge period.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Would you prefer to go back to the era of the 1930s and the practice of isolationism?

Yes.

Nature abhores a vacum.

Until there is a strong Iraq government, people will be trying to tear it down in favor of their own fiefdoms.

Also, the troublemakers are being encourage from outside. They are willing to destroy their country because they can not have control that they thought would come; when they either did not have to answer to Saddam or the power they had while a buddy of Saddam & friends)

wow you are beyond hope if you actually believe that foreign figher crap along with they want to destory thier own country.

Rose colored glasses need to come off. Iraqis abhor US servicemen rumanging though thier homes, destroying thier property, rounding up all thier men for god knows what, torture is what they expect and have even been victim too etc. There are thoudands of news reports out there citing the cause and effect of this insugentcy. None of it has to do with vacuum. US is in charge period.

I don't think that is exactly what he means.

There was a strong central govt in place ruled by Saddam. The natural order of society in Iraq has traditionally been towards a feudal system, although that is not quite right either. Think of it as smaller and decentralized. There is no Iraq, just an artificial state by that name. There is no sense of nationalism outside of Baghdad and a few other population centers. No natural cohesion. When Saddam went that DID leave a power vacuum as we think of it. There was no power in place to keep a national bureaucracy/govt going. I also believe this natural tendency is being encouraged by outsiders. Keeping Iraq in turmoil keeps us off balance. Until we deal with our conceptualizations of what Iraq IS vs what we would like it to be, we will forever be shooting ourselves in the foot.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Didn't Rumsfeld say a few months ago that the insurgent attacks were going to get worse the closer we got to the elections? I believe he did so that pretty much turns this story into a strawman.

It does show the depths of fishing the new liberals will go to in order to create an angle, any angle, that they can use to disparage the admin.

LOL Rumsfeld says you're a moron for using him as a truth sayer when he's already been caught lying publicly Text, well well well LOL...btw where the WMD's

As far as "disparaging" the adminsitration. They seem to do fine on thier own. They were wrong on just about every peice of intellegence, prediction and conduct of this war. You even have moral down the tubes with soldiers talking sh1t to the head honcho of DoD and refusing to go.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Would you prefer to go back to the era of the 1930s and the practice of isolationism?

I would be content to do something moral for a change.

The admin miscalcuated (for one reason or another) on the way the Iraq situation would be played out. They have admitted it.
The Western perspective was that the Iraqis were willing to move forward without Saddam.

That theory was not solid, the loss of power and the ability to become a big fish in a small pond was desired by some tribal chieftans and others.

It was not expected that the insurgents would be so willing to destroy their country to prevent the loss of their power. That goes against the Western grain of thought.

More likely the administration lied to themsleves, repeatedly, so they could legitimize what they were doing in moral terms.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Would you prefer to go back to the era of the 1930s and the practice of isolationism?

I would be content to do something moral for a change.

The admin miscalcuated (for one reason or another) on the way the Iraq situation would be played out. They have admitted it.
The Western perspective was that the Iraqis were willing to move forward without Saddam.

That theory was not solid, the loss of power and the ability to become a big fish in a small pond was desired by some tribal chieftans and others.

It was not expected that the insurgents would be so willing to destroy their country to prevent the loss of their power. That goes against the Western grain of thought.

More likely the administration lied to themsleves, repeatedly, so they could legitimize what they were doing in moral terms.

They have been wearing rose-colored classes for the past 2 years.

They looked at the results of GWI (quality of the Iraqi forces) and how the allies were viewed as liberators in WWII.

The miscalculation was that "because our way was just," there would be no problems, we would be greeted with open arms like the French did in WWII.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Didn't Rumsfeld say a few months ago that the insurgent attacks were going to get worse the closer we got to the elections? I believe he did so that pretty much turns this story into a strawman.

It does show the depths of fishing the new liberals will go to in order to create an angle, any angle, that they can use to disparage the admin.

He said the same thing in regards to the handover of control from the coalition to the interim government. The Insurgency has been growing in strength for approx a year now and it only appears to be growing stronger. A monkey could make that prediction.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

So, let's follow this to some conclusion, or at least an avenue of action.

With the premise that the political/social situation was poorly understood at best, how does one correct the situation.

You get to be President. What changes would you implement in Iraq?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Didn't Rumsfeld say a few months ago that the insurgent attacks were going to get worse the closer we got to the elections? I believe he did so that pretty much turns this story into a strawman.

It does show the depths of fishing the new liberals will go to in order to create an angle, any angle, that they can use to disparage the admin.

LOL Rumsfeld says you're a moron for using him as a truth sayer when he's already been caught lying publicly Text, well well well LOL...btw where the WMD's

LOL indeed. Done slapping yourself with that red herring yet?

As far as "disparaging" the adminsitration. They seem to do fine on thier own. They were wrong on just about every peice of intellegence, prediction and conduct of this war. You even have moral down the tubes with soldiers talking sh1t to the head honcho of DoD and refusing to go.

LOL again. YOU are talking about moral? It's people like you, with your defeatist view of anything and everything, that bring down the moral of our soldiers.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
So, let's follow this to some conclusion, or at least an avenue of action.

With the premise that the political/social situation was poorly understood at best, how does one correct the situation.

You get to be President. What changes would you implement in Iraq?

1) Realize that the situation is going to be volitile over the next year.
2) Admit #1 to the public.
3) Decide if the US is going to try to control the situation or back out once the Iraqi elections are held.
4) If we are going to try to help stablize the country, honestly determine the resources that may be needed. Manpower, technology, equipment, etc. We have been there for 2 years, there is enough knowledge to analyze the situation.
5) Generate an overkill on the resources.

Now, deploy the resources properly.
Ignore the media coverage and sacred places. We have already squandered our chance to sit on the high horse, now get down and dirty with the opponent. Not scorched earth policy, but impliment a no-holds barred.

We have the technology to quickly track and retaliate against the insurgents once they strike, use it.

Do not force the civilian population to choose between an us or them option. But encourage the civilians to realize that we want stability so they can control their own destiny.

Seal the borders with Syria, Jordan and wherever trouble is slipping in from.
Let Syria know that they will be held accountable for groups/materials that make it through their border.

Do the same for Saudi, they need us as much as we need them.

 

[RealityTime]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Didn't Rumsfeld say a few months ago that the insurgent attacks were going to get worse the closer we got to the elections? I believe he did so that pretty much turns this story into a strawman.

It does show the depths of fishing the new liberals will go to in order to create an angle, any angle, that they can use to disparage the admin.

We don't have to "angle", Shrub and Co. give us an endless supply of material all on his own.

Would you prefer to go back to the era of the 1930s and the practice of isolationism?

The admin miscalcuated (for one reason or another) on the way the Iraq situation would be played out. They have admitted it.
The Western perspective was that the Iraqis were willing to move forward without Saddam.

That theory was not solid, the loss of power and the ability to become a big fish in a small pond was desired by some tribal chieftans and others.

It was not expected that the insurgents would be so willing to destroy their country to prevent the loss of their power. That goes against the Western grain of thought.

rofl, what a farce. Iraq was still in tatters from bush sr. last attack. And following madman-bush's latest asasult, the country was left in tatters. They don't have anything left to destroy, bush took care of that. The real disgrace is that, that region is aknowledged as the oldest and longest populated area on the face of the earth. There were architectural areas in Iraq dating back to the dawn of civilization and the nutcase levelled it to make halliburton money and steal a country. rofl, couldn't expect they'd destroy their own country? It's been levelled man! There is nothing left to destroy. If you can't get a clue, go down to the library and borrow one.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
So, let's follow this to some conclusion, or at least an avenue of action.

With the premise that the political/social situation was poorly understood at best, how does one correct the situation.

You get to be President. What changes would you implement in Iraq?

There is no good result for Iraqi's IMO.

1) US stays, Insurgents continue to kill Coalition Members and Iraqi Coalition Conspirators(err, whatever they be called). The Insurgency grows, the US gets mired even deeper needing to regularly increase Troop levels, the Stream of American Dead/Wounded from Iraq increases slowly, but remains steady, Iraq is in a constant state of Emergency. $Billions flow into Iraq monthly to no avail pogress is never made as things are destroyed faster than they are built, eventually the Iraqi Economy slips into a hole too big to get out of.

The US continues to take a Relations hit, especially in the Mid-East. Terrorism against the US increases elsewhere and even on US soil.

2) US leaves. The Iraqi government(Elected or Not) either reverts to a Dictatorship brutally dealing with any dissention or it gets overthrown and replaced with a 1 of 3 Ethnic/Religious based controlled brutal Dictatorship. About the only difference between the new Dictatorship and Saddam will(hopefully) be that the new Dictator will not have any desire for WMD. That can not be gauranteed though, in fact the new Dictator could be Hyper-Anti-American and willing to go to lengths Saddam had never even dreamed of.

The US will stop the flow of Dead/Wounded, money down the drain, and it's Relations will begin to repair, even though there might be a short-term backlash to their pulling out.


If the US is willing to put up with the current situation for 10-20 years(I highly doubt they will or even can), then situation #1 could end up resolved with Iraq a Free and Democratic society. However, long before that happens the American People will grow tired of the constant flow of Casualties, Military Enlistment will fall dramatically, Taxes will rise, the Economy will Stagnate, and other events(especially Terrorist attacks) will show the futility of remaining in Iraq.