Originally posted by Rex Barnes: It doesn't? How can we acheive democracy, a stable economy, a functioning government, or any of Bush's other goals unless Iraq is physically secure? How can we acheive that without controlling the insurgents?
Where have I said we could do any of this without additional time, troops and effort? Please point it out.
"Additional time"? That's the age-old excuse for failure: "we just need more time." Tell us exactly how additional time is going to reverse this chaos.
I made an explicit argument earlier in this thread that the attacks have consistently increased. you agreed. Wake UP! Time is on the side of the insurgents, as it is in almost every guerilla war. Maybe you think the insurgents will get bored and go on vacation soon?
Originally posted by JaTo:
Originally posted by Rex Barnes:Ordinary Iraqis are afraid to apply for jobs with the government (virtually the only decent jobs that exist), because they are afraid of being killed. Unemployment is rampant. The economy is dead, because foreign investors see there is no security (as you know, dozens of foreigners and hundreds of their Iraqi employees have been killed). The occupation is an epic failure by any practical measure, and even under Bush's own stated goals.
It's an unpleasant situation
"Unpleasant situation" is Rumsfeld's euphemism for "disasterous."
Originally posted by JaTo: There exists NO crystal ball that any administration has ever had on the EXACT amount of resources and capital needed, troops required and time spent on excercises like this. Calling the game only 12 months into the process reeks of foolishness.
We have been there for NINETEEN months. To say we are only 12 months into the process is a poor attempt to falsify the facts.
It is ridiculous for you to say that we are not allowed to judge the progress of the occupation. If you want me to say it is a failure only THUS FAR, then OK. Maybe Bush will pull a rabbit out of a hat, and we will start making progress toward security and fair elections and economic stability. I might even believe that, if Bush had described to us just how he is going to do it. He hasn't. He just says we are going to stick it out and hang tough. Great, that's an excellent plan.
Originally posted by JaTo:
Originally posted by Rex Barnes:Forget about practical measures and Bush's goals: What about our MORAL responsibility to the millions of innocent Iraqis who need a secure place to live and work? To them, the lawlessness and terrorist groups we are allowing must seem as bad as Baathist dictatorship!
Don't even PRETEND to discuss or even care about the moral responsibilities when you seem to think that going into Iraq in the first place FOR ANY REASON was a bad idea. Hussein and his regime killed MILLIONS during his tenure as dictator in Iraq, unless you have forgotten.
I didn't see liberals clamoring all over each other to decry the gassings in Kurdish controlled territory of the mass killings and torture that was the mainstay of Husseins regime under ANY administration...
Saddam's brutality was indeed a legitimate (but insufficient) justification for going to war. But you are confusing that with Bush's conduct of the occupation, which is a very separate issue. You are, again, dodging my irrefutable point (that we have a moral obligation to the Iraqis to conduct the occupation in a humane, efficient and reponsible way), and spinning off into a separate issue concerning justification for the invasion. It seems we are spending very little time actually debating issues; instead I seem to spend most of my time here pointing out that your responses do not really address the point under discussion. My points are clear enough, I think. Can't you please focus on them?
Originally posted by JaTo:Even with the screwups that the Bush administration has honestly made, I would rather see them in charge than ANYONE who voted against additional supplies (the $87B aid package) for these same troops that are having a hard enough time over there without having political HACKS playing election-year games in order to make a stand on the '04 ticket...
You have been told many times in this forum that Kerry voted against that aid package because it was a poorly conceived irresponsible slop bucket for Halliburton & Co., and he had hopes of forcing a rewrite that would be far better for American taxpayers AND the troops. But go ahead and stick to your spin, even though no one believes it anymore.
