|
A picture is worth 1000 words--Sheehan Arrested (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Shakka |
Opus, No offense, but this whole "Talking Points" argument is a 2-way street. You are equally guilty of throwing out "Talking Points" of the left the people you are pointing the finger at. Furthermore, just because it is a "Talking Point" and you point it out as such, doesn't mean it's an irrelevant point. Ergo, simply identifying said "talking point" does not make it an irrelevant/impertinant.
With that said, I think there have been valid points made from both sides and the resulting ire and mudslinging are indicative of how divided we are are as a nation.
I honestly don't think it's a surprise at all that the longer the war has gone on, the more public support has waned. I bet that has been the case for a majority of wars throughout history. However, the right choice is not always the most popular one and I have more respect for a leader that is willing to see a mission through than for one who cowers out because suddenly the direction of leadership isn't as popular as it once was. There is a difference between leading and following public opinion.
Additionally, this administration has said from the get-go that this would be a multi-year operation, and to their credit, many of the milestones that have been targeted have been met on schedule.
With that said, whether the WMDs were found or not, you cannot deny that their existence was factually known in the '90's and before, and whether or not you want to admit it (because, yeah they were trace amounts), plenty of evidence has been found to support the fact that Iraq had the capability and the ambition to pursue a WMD program.
Aside from the WMD issue which was clearly the major selling point in going to Iraq, there was always the mission to get Saddam out of power and to establish a representative government for the people in Iraq. Saddam is out, elections have been had, a constitution has been drafted, and we have an obligation to see the mission through to the end, regardless of how loud the hypocritical Ted Kennedy's, John Kerry's, etc. of the world want to scream.
As much infighting as we have about this entire operation, as much as the anti-war crowd wants to equate it to Vietnam (which is in and of itself a laughable comparison meant to invoke hard-core anti-war sentiment), I think it's right to reserve judgement on the success of this operation as only time will tell (not 2 years, but more like 20) how this move serves the world (better or worse).
Did we rush to war? Maybe, though people seem to forget what life was like in 2002 and only remember what life was like yesterday (i.e. pretty much seems normal). However, what would waiting have accomplished? More rape room torture? A more advanced weapons program established prior to someone finally doing something? Forget the 12 years of ignored UN resolutions.
Also, as much of a pipe dream as it is, I can't help but imagine how the situation would've played out had the entire country gotten on board and supported this mission. It would've shown the Iraqis, radical Islamists and the world, that we at least were unified in our mission to stop the spread of radical Islam. Instead, we have bickering, a media that is by and large obsessed with blowing any negative story out of proportion without reporting positive developments, etc, etc, etc.
I'm tired of this. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Opus, No offense, but this whole "Talking Points" argument is a 2-way street. You are equally guilty of throwing out "Talking Points" of the left the people you are pointing the finger at. Furthermore, just because it is a "Talking Point" and you point it out as such, doesn't mean it's an irrelevant point. Ergo, simply identifying said "talking point" does not make it an irrelevant/impertinant. |
Okay, to be painfully honest I guess I never really considered what I say as a Dem. talking point, despite agreeance of points made from various liberal sources. Your point is taken and I'll concede this, however I do stand by the fact that the points being passed down from the RNC and the White House to the various conservative mouthpieces are much more influential and in synchrony than any given liberal talking head will ever be. If I have to use a given example, take the topic of this thread - Sheehan. Not one liberal blog or radio station was ever behind her actions from the start. Oh sure, a slew of 'em came on once her momentum increased, but as far as I know she had no sponsors from the getgo. This is a far cry from the coordinated Machine on the Right that starts together and continues running together until the entire public crowd is singing their repetition. The Swift Boaters are a prime example of this.
But again, you're coming at this with a cooler head, so I'll reply in kind as I concede your point.
| quote: | With that said, I think there have been valid points made from both sides and the resulting ire and mudslinging are indicative of how divided we are are as a nation.
I honestly don't think it's a surprise at all that the longer the war has gone on, the more public support has waned. I bet that has been the case for a majority of wars throughout history. However, the right choice is not always the most popular one and I have more respect for a leader that is willing to see a mission through than for one who cowers out because suddenly the direction of leadership isn't as popular as it once was. There is a difference between leading and following public opinion. |
As would I, so please don't misunderstand me here. I would not want a president to merely sway one way or the other simply because of opinion polls. Indeed, one of the true attributes of Bush is his conviction, which by and large the public identifies with and respects (and IMO, won him the reelection against hapless Kerry). If I agreed with this war and the resulting outcome of this war, I would not want Bush to sway merely on public opinion either.
It's not as if I don't understand this about you or Q's opinion on the matter - I do. However, I must also say that I don't think this fight for the resulting outcome is worth the fight anymore. Given the direction of where Iraq is likely going to go, analysts on both sides of the aisle are starting to chime on the tune of setting a date to get the hell outa there, and with good reason. And like I said, I wasn't too big on an immediate pullout myself, but things have changed and the lovely rosy picture that's being portrayed on how things are going to be in Iraq is just simply falling apart.
It's all bull, Shakka, and I don't want my friends and the loved ones of my friends dying for such a bull cause anymore. If things were not going to result in such a ed-up outcome, I'd think otherwise about this whole thing. But that's simply not the reality of the situation, and I don't want ANYONE from our country dying by being in the middle of a civil war in another country.
It's just not worth it anymore. We ed up, big. Our presence there is only giving them more momentum against us, as well as giving momemtum to our truly enemy, Al Qaeda, as it has become a terrorist breeding ground and recruitment hot bed. We just have to be seriously thoughtful on our actions there, and I don't see such thought occurring in this intellectually-challenged President.
Intelligence must override unwavering conviction at some point. Something has to give.
| quote: | | Additionally, this administration has said from the get-go that this would be a multi-year operation, and to their credit, many of the milestones that have been targeted have been met on schedule. |
I think you're trying to sugarcoat the bull here. Sure, some milestones have been met, but the vast majority have not, and many milestones the bar has been continually lowered and lowered down to the point that a blind quadriplegic toddler could crawl over.
| quote: | | With that said, whether the WMDs were found or not, you cannot deny that their existence was factually known in the '90's and before, and whether or not you want to admit it (because, yeah they were trace amounts), plenty of evidence has been found to support the fact that Iraq had the capability and the ambition to pursue a WMD program. |
You know I don't deny that - I've discussed that issue ad nauseum here before. And my reply has always been that Saddam did indeed need to be dealt with in time, but NOT at the expense of putting bin Laden and Al Qaeda on the backburner, NOT at the expense in terms of how we examined the evidence and discarded any counterevidence (Read "The Stovepipe" in the New Yorker), and most definitely NOT at the expense on how we handled the post-invasion fiasco. There were other alternatives to dealing with this hapless dictator, and the last option that we were supposed to utilize was invasion esp. at the expense of taking the eye off Al Qaeda.
That was clearly not the last option, especially given the fact that Saddam didn't have what we thought he had. Other Administrations certainly believed Saddam had capability, but it was THIS Administration that acted upon that notion without solid evidence and relying on dips like Chalabi and his minions ("Curveball") whom were deemed unreliable by CIA and the State Dept. intelligence agencies.
Of course all this will be told as soon as my Senator Roberts (KS) starts part 2 of the Select Intelligence Committee on WMD on how the White House and Dept. of Defense handled the intelligence given to them. Oh wait, I keep forgetting that he refuses to start that investigation.
Strange that, ain't it?
| quote: | | Aside from the WMD issue which was clearly the major selling point in going to Iraq, there was always the mission to get Saddam out of power and to establish a representative government for the people in Iraq. Saddam is out, elections have been had, a constitution has been drafted, and we have an obligation to see the mission through to the end, regardless of how loud the hypocritical Ted Kennedy's, John Kerry's, etc. of the world want to scream. |
And the question remains - what are our troops doing there fighting for again? What exactly is being established? What will likely occur once it is established? Why would our troops be required to remain there once the outcome occurs?
(answers: fighting for an Islamic fundamentalist government regime that has the Law of Islam as their guiding governing principle, civil war will ensue because of the Sunnis having no governing power, our troops will be fighting on the side of the Shiites against the Sunnis during this civil war).
| quote: | | As much infighting as we have about this entire operation, as much as the anti-war crowd wants to equate it to Vietnam (which is in and of itself a laughable comparison meant to invoke hard-core anti-war sentiment), I think it's right to reserve judgement on the success of this operation as only time will tell (not 2 years, but more like 20) how this move serves the world (better or worse). |
You know I've kept away from the Vietnam analogy, and I'll continue to do so. 2 different wars, 2 different times. While there are some similarities, the differences still tend to outweigh overall.
| quote: | | Did we rush to war? Maybe, though people seem to forget what life was like in 2002 and only remember what life was like yesterday (i.e. pretty much seems normal). However, what would waiting have accomplished? More rape room torture? |
Seems we did pretty well with some torture on our own. Abu Ghraib anyone?
| quote: | | A more advanced weapons program established prior to someone finally doing something? Forget the 12 years of ignored UN resolutions. |
Again I don't disagree with the necessity to address the Saddam problem. But we had a very real problem with AQ needing to be addressed and we simply pissed that away for this one. The truth of the matter is, according to the Duelfer Report, the UN sanctions had successfully kept Saddam crippled, although he had the intentions otherwise.
Well Jesus, there's probably 2 dozen dictators out there that don't care too much for us that might have similar intentions too. What, are we going to attack every on the block simply because they have the intentions to attack us? Since when did the US foreign policy become the ing Thought Police?
And if we were to address the problem with invasion - then we ing needed to do it right. How can you not agree with this? You guys honestly believe that the number of troops we used for post-invasion was appropriate? We still can't maintain stability in that country in at least 3 provinces which just happen to be Sunni populated - you think this is appropriate at all to have such low numbers of troops that are still not completely armoured?
This is what I ing laugh at when people like Q accuse me of attacking the sacrifice being made. If this Adminstration believed in the sacrifice made - they would have ing done things right from the getgo to successfully stabilize the region. But the truth is they didn't think this out whatsoing ever. They thought it was a bunch of rose peddles at our feet as we rebuild with such great ease. They have no ing clue or care a whit about Muslim culture, and they didn't even have ing enough interpreters in the first place.
This is what I'm talking about. The choice to me is clear on this war, and let me make my point very clear for you - fight this war right or get the out.
It's clear that this Administration refuses to even comprehend on how to fight this war right with the right # of troops and protection to both them and the innocent. As a consequence, they're ing stuck in the middle as they slowly get picked off one by one while a civil war ensues. This is the stem of my anger, and I think this is why the public is turning on the issue on both sides of the aisle. I'm sick of this Administration ups, and I don't want any more men and women to die as a consequence. I don't know how I can explain it any more clearly than that.
| quote: | Also, as much of a pipe dream as it is, I can't help but imagine how the situation would've played out had the entire country gotten on board and supported this mission. It would've shown the Iraqis, radical Islamists and the world, that we at least were unified in our mission to stop the spread of radical Islam. Instead, we have bickering, a media that is by and large obsessed with blowing any negative story out of proportion without reporting positive developments, etc, etc, etc.
I'm tired of this. |
As am I, but you simply can't handwave away the fact that you GOPers had the public in the palm of your hand after 9/11. Bush could do no wrong at all, and the numbers of invading Iraq and even post-invasion numbers were very much in your favor.
But sooner or later, reality catches up. It's not simply a matter of having a bigger chearing section in a ballgame - it's the fact that the players down on the field have no helmets, no referees, and no football either. It doesn't resemble the game that the people came to cheer for, so they're leaving the stadium.
Can you honestly blame them? |
|
|
| Shakka |
Certainly a good response--your points are well taken. I have no intentions of arguing with you, I think we know where each other stands. I'm trying to look out for your blood pressure here! Just a few things...
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Since when did the US foreign policy become the ing Thought Police? |
I love a good 1984 reference.
| quote: | | They thought it was a bunch of rose peddles at our feet as we rebuild with such great ease. |
That's petals.;)
| quote: | | This is what I'm talking about. The choice to me is clear on this war, and let me make my point very clear for you - fight this war right or get the out. |
I have no disagreement here. This war has certainly not been perfect (far from it). It is very important that we all learn from this experience so that we are better equipped to deal with the Irans, North Koreas, Venezuelas or any other regimes that are openly hostile towards us or who blatantly violate human rights. In the same breath, a good plan today is better than a perfect plan tomorrow.
| quote: | | As am I, but you simply can't handwave away the fact that you GOPers had the public in the palm of your hand after 9/11. Bush could do no wrong at all, and the numbers of invading Iraq and even post-invasion numbers were very much in your favor. |
This is pretty hard to deny. The country wanted action and action they got.
Again, let's just hope that we learn the valuable lessons from our successes and failures so that we are all the more better equipped when the next conflict arises (and there is no question that one will. It's always a question of when, not if). |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
It is very important that we all learn from this experience so that we are better equipped to deal with the Irans, North Koreas, Venezuelas or any other regimes that are openly hostile towards us or who blatantly violate human rights. |
Wtf since when is venuzuela a threat to anyone?! hey I say go invade china, that's probably a bigger human right violator than any of the others (except north korea I guess)! |
|
|
| trancaholic |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Additionally, this administration has said from the get-go that this would be a multi-year operation, and to their credit, many of the milestones that have been targeted have been met on schedule.
|
What do you mean by "get-go"? As far as I remember this thing started as a simple disarmament mission - the Iraqis would welcome the US troops and Iraq would be a beacon of freedom, tolerance, and democracy in the middle east. I remember no talk of two years plus of fighting rebels and soothing things over with quarreling ethnic groups? It's not until about a year ago, when I first heard Rumsfeld state that this was going to be a long operation (about the time the terminology changed from "war" to "struggle" - and after the US election:)), that the administration began to come clear about this IMO.
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
It's all bull, Shakka, and I don't want my friends and the loved ones of my friends dying for such a bull cause anymore. If things were not going to result in such a ed-up outcome, I'd think otherwise about this whole thing. But that's simply not the reality of the situation, and I don't want ANYONE from our country dying by being in the middle of a civil war in another country.
It's just not worth it anymore. We ed up, big. Our presence there is only giving them more momentum against us, as well as giving momemtum to our truly enemy, Al Qaeda, as it has become a terrorist breeding ground and recruitment hot bed. |
While I agree with most of your sentiments (particular your loathing of Bush) and admire your emotional engagement, I do think that you're forgetting one thing: The troops are not dying completely in vain, and the US hasn't lost completely - yet. As long as the US is present in Iraq it sends a signal to the world that the US realizes that it messed the place up - messed it up bad - and that you're doing whatever you can to get things into a stable state again. This quest for redemption is all that keeps you from facing up to the unfortunate facts that you lied in the UN and through deception goated your best friends into joining you in the war on Iraq. Once you leave Iraq in a mess you'll have no friends left. At least not among the populace of your current allies. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by trancaholic
What do you mean by "get-go"? As far as I remember this thing started as a simple disarmament mission - the Iraqis would welcome the US troops and Iraq would be a beacon of freedom, tolerance, and democracy in the middle east. I remember no talk of two years plus of fighting rebels and soothing things over with quarreling ethnic groups? It's not until about a year ago, when I first heard Rumsfeld state that this was going to be a long operation (about the time the terminology changed from "war" to "struggle" - and after the US election:)), that the administration began to come clear about this IMO. |
Would you prefer I said, "from the early stages?" Nobody ever promised me a quick resolution. I think an optimist would always hope for a swift end to this ordeal, but I don't think anyone ever said it would be over quickly. Maybe "major combat", but there's always been the pending reconstruction, which is the more difficult, time-consuming process. |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
However, the right choice is not always the most popular one and I have more respect for a leader that is willing to see a mission through than for one who cowers out because suddenly the direction of leadership isn't as popular as it once was. There is a difference between leading and following public opinion.
|
A++++++++!
A lot of leadership books/essays mention this very point of unpopular decision making.
If countries ran according to popular opinion all the time, they'd have a very flakey government indeed... |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
or any other regimes that are openly hostile towards us or who blatantly violate human rights. |
:rolleyes:
Don't we love being hypocritical. The US guilty of this itself on several occasions.
And to address your point about torture/sexual abuse earlier (which is also related to my previous statement), boy don't you have a selective memory. And what about the prisoners in Guantanamo and prisoners transferred to other parts of the world were the US can conduct brutal torture against people who they have no proof of guilt against.
WMDs? Give me a ing break. Even ex-CIA guys were saying it a bull manufactured claim by this Administration (watch Uncovered: The War On Iraq).
And the US obviously doesn't care about brutal dictators, especially as long as they serve their purposes, and have supported plenty in the past, including Sadaam.
I have yet to hear a single valid point from you. |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by trancaholic
What do you mean by "get-go"? As far as I remember this thing started as a simple disarmament mission - the Iraqis would welcome the US troops and Iraq would be a beacon of freedom, tolerance, and democracy in the middle east. I remember no talk of two years plus of fighting rebels and soothing things over with quarreling ethnic groups? It's not until about a year ago, when I first heard Rumsfeld state that this was going to be a long operation (about the time the terminology changed from "war" to "struggle" - and after the US election:)), that the administration began to come clear about this IMO.
|
I can't understand how people would think such a thing could ever happen over a weekend? :conf:
Countries simply don't work that way.
Personally, I'd be way more suspicious if they DID do it that way...
Puppet government, etc., etc. would be the first thing coming to mind. |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
:rolleyes:
Don't we love being hypocritical. The US guilty of this itself on several occasions.
|
Really? When? |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
Really? When? |
I really don't need or want to make any effort educate a blind, ignorant, and highly biased individual such as yourself, as no matter how much evidence is presented, you're not likely to change your mind. All you have to do is read the very next line for one example. |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
I really don't need or want to make any effort educate a blind, ignorant, and highly biased individual such as yourself, as no matter how much evidence is presented, you're not likely to change your mind. All you have to do is read the very next line for one example. |
No need to get personal but that's how you feel you have to be, then so be it.
Note however that it does nothing to enhance your intelligence either since you want to travel down that road...
I, in fact, did read the next line and my question would be, why wasn't it closed down then? |
|
|
|
|
