So now the parrot talk from the liberals is that Rumsfeld=McNamara which means that Iraq=Vietnam. I don't think you can make that argument, you dirty hippies.
Uhh OK . . . but I still want the ticket . . . preferably Concorde but I will settle for an All-Asia Pass on Cathay Pacific . . . business class b/c that flight to HK sux.
We are not fighting for Baghdad . . . if you believe Bush et al we are fighting for a grand vision. A liberated, democratic Iraq at peace with itself and its neighbors exemplifying the tremendous potential of the Middle East. Regimes throughout the region will fall as Arabs reject totalitarian and Islamic oligarchies alike in favor of the Iraqi model. The Enlightenment of the Middle East will flush radical elements out of the region leaving them few refuges outside of Africa and SE Asia.
This outcome will be measured in years and decades . . . so Bush/Rummy can say WE will win . . . while I say you're full of it if you think bombing Baghdad will produce this rosey scenario.
Now the military objectives will be an unqualified success assuming:
1) Saddam is removed from power (almost a certainty)
2) Coalition finds WMD which it can reputably link to Saddam's regime (jury is out)
3) Iraqi civilian casualties are minimal
4) Baghdad and the civilian infrastructure is rapidly reconstituted
5) Iraqis accept imposed leadership (UK defense? minister Hoon apparently proposed the UN select Iraq's interim leader)
6) US troop casualties are minimal
7) Iraqi oil production can be ramped up to defray US costs in rebuilding Iraq
This sum of good news could occur in less than a year (#7 may take two) at that time the Arab street and every American objector (like me) would have absolutely no choice . . . but to support Bush. While I would still disagree with the method, I would certainly admit Bush's 12mo did more for Iraq and the world than the previous 12 years of UN efforts. In the meantime, I will stick to my principles and biased perspective on the facts.
1) Saddam may or may not be in power but THOUSANDS are still fighting in his name and for their country AGAINST the US/UK (and 200 Pols)
2) FOXNews has found WMD but apparently no one else (supposedly there's a new report from the terrorist camp in KURDISH-controlled northern Iraq which implies a possible WMD find . . . seems like that's proof that Bush should have invaded that camp long ago instead of focusing on Saddam).
3) Even minimal casualties will not assuage Iraqis or other decent people who are deeply disturbed at buses of civilians riddled with bullets.
4) In the absence of a ceasefire/surrender, taking Baghdad will not be pretty . . . every day the pictures look more and more like the West Bank. And of course, our civilian faux pas of last week was bombing a civilian bridge (and bus).
5) The notion of planting a former US general as the legitimate authority in Iraq has always been ridiculous. The Iraqi opposition community (which apparently has Rummy's ear) has NEVER endorsed it, the people of Iraq are unlikely to endorse it, and the rest of the world does not endorse it. As I noted above, even our ONE ally, UK, is making noise about the UN NOT the US appointing the interim leader.
6) We've taken relatively few casualties and if we stop shooting one another it would be even less. But of course, we entered through territory where Saddam lacked broad support, initially avoided conflict within the cities, and raced through the desert where Saddam had few troops. RPG vs Abrams . . . of course US casualties are low.
7) We saved the oil fields b/c Saddam did not make a serious attempt to blow them up OR decent people chose not to follow his immoral orders. Sadly, the southern oil fields are the ONLY thing secure in Iraq.
We are not fighting for Baghdad . . . if you believe Bush et al we are fighting for a grand vision. A liberated, democratic Iraq at peace with itself and its neighbors exemplifying the tremendous potential of the Middle East. Regimes throughout the region will fall as Arabs reject totalitarian and Islamic oligarchies alike in favor of the Iraqi model. The Enlightenment of the Middle East will flush radical elements out of the region leaving them few refuges outside of Africa and SE Asia.
This outcome will be measured in years and decades . . . so Bush/Rummy can say WE will win . . . while I say you're full of it if you think bombing Baghdad will produce this rosey scenario.
Now the military objectives will be an unqualified success assuming:
1) Saddam is removed from power (almost a certainty)
2) Coalition finds WMD which it can reputably link to Saddam's regime (jury is out)
3) Iraqi civilian casualties are minimal
4) Baghdad and the civilian infrastructure is rapidly reconstituted
5) Iraqis accept imposed leadership (UK defense? minister Hoon apparently proposed the UN select Iraq's interim leader)
6) US troop casualties are minimal
7) Iraqi oil production can be ramped up to defray US costs in rebuilding Iraq
This sum of good news could occur in less than a year (#7 may take two) at that time the Arab street and every American objector (like me) would have absolutely no choice . . . but to support Bush. While I would still disagree with the method, I would certainly admit Bush's 12mo did more for Iraq and the world than the previous 12 years of UN efforts. In the meantime, I will stick to my principles and biased perspective on the facts.
1) Saddam may or may not be in power but THOUSANDS are still fighting in his name and for their country AGAINST the US/UK (and 200 Pols)
2) FOXNews has found WMD but apparently no one else (supposedly there's a new report from the terrorist camp in KURDISH-controlled northern Iraq which implies a possible WMD find . . . seems like that's proof that Bush should have invaded that camp long ago instead of focusing on Saddam).
3) Even minimal casualties will not assuage Iraqis or other decent people who are deeply disturbed at buses of civilians riddled with bullets.
4) In the absence of a ceasefire/surrender, taking Baghdad will not be pretty . . . every day the pictures look more and more like the West Bank. And of course, our civilian faux pas of last week was bombing a civilian bridge (and bus).
5) The notion of planting a former US general as the legitimate authority in Iraq has always been ridiculous. The Iraqi opposition community (which apparently has Rummy's ear) has NEVER endorsed it, the people of Iraq are unlikely to endorse it, and the rest of the world does not endorse it. As I noted above, even our ONE ally, UK, is making noise about the UN NOT the US appointing the interim leader.
6) We've taken relatively few casualties and if we stop shooting one another it would be even less. But of course, we entered through territory where Saddam lacked broad support, initially avoided conflict within the cities, and raced through the desert where Saddam had few troops. RPG vs Abrams . . . of course US casualties are low.
7) We saved the oil fields b/c Saddam did not make a serious attempt to blow them up OR decent people chose not to follow his immoral orders. Sadly, the southern oil fields are the ONLY thing secure in Iraq.
Bwahahahahahahaha Like I said in another thread one day you'll grow up and realize we're not so bad. See ya.
One day you will learn to read. I'm not calling anyone bad . . . except maybe Saddam. I'm calling American foreign policy mistaken . . . big difference. Good people do bad things all the time. Sometimes good people do nothing more than . . . nothing . . . which can be very bad.
If the Bush/Cheney/Rummy (wet dream of Wolfowitz) vision comes to fruition (democratic Middle East with its hub in American-liberated Iraq), I have NO qualms about admitting MY lack of vision and lauding the foresight and fortitude of this administration.
If the Bush/Cheney/Rummy (wet dream of Wolfowitz) vision comes to fruition (democratic Middle East with its hub in American-liberated Iraq), I have NO qualms about admitting MY lack of vision and lauding the foresight and fortitude of this administration.
A CIA official said you smell bad. <--- See how easy and stupid this is? If you wish to believe anything an anonymous source says, that's your right. I prefer to do otherwise.
EDIT: I would also give more credence to that TIME report if I could see that they were consistent in quoting these anonymous officials. (i.e. If they have been saying that since January or so), as opposed to suddenly these sources popping out of nowhere.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter