|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,506
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,506 |
Try posting it without the ' in the middle and you'll get this: [censored].
MSDS, SHO-shop Y, custom 2.5" catback; xcal2; 63mm TB, K&N 3530; Koni struts, Aussie bar; THaines forks, Quaife, SpecII, UR fly; DMD; Nima UD pullies; Stazi brakes; f&r Pole120 mounts. Just a daily commuter car. Silver '98 SVT E0 #3159
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,445
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,445 |
Originally posted by PDXSVT:
Try posting it without the ' in the middle and you'll get this: [censored].
That is what they get for spelling it wrong.
2000 Contour SE Sport
Originator of the Beowulf Headlight Mod and the Beowulf CAI
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718 |
Comments from this particular resident Conservative, war-mongering Nutjob coming, but not today as work has me buried.
Click; tick, tick, tick...
JaTo
e-Tough Guy
Missouri City, TX
99 Contour SVT
#143/2760
00 Corvette Coupe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718 |
Originally posted by PDXSVT:
Bush does not want history rewriten because it was written just the way he wanted it to be when it was written that first time... before everyone else knew what the administration knew.
Please point to the SPECIFIC information that the CIA, DIA, NSA, Mossad, MI6, etc., etc., had in hand on Hussein having NO WMD and NO nuclear aspirations.
Please, please, please, please, please show me these. No tabloid pieces, but actual doctrine written from those in the know (i.e., inside Hussein's cabinet).
Originally posted by PDXSVT:
Today's Bush speech sounded good but it did little except ask the public to ignore the issue underlying this thread and vow to stay the course.
It's getting close to "put up or shut up" time for Iraq; I agree that Iraqis are going to have to start stepping up to the plate "en masse" and FAST, otherwise we DO need to start working on leaving the country...
...however, I don't think we are quite there yet, though the time is closing in quickly.
Originally posted by PDXSVT:
Meanwhile, on staying the course, here's food for thought on finishing the mission. Who on CEG wants to step up and establish HE KNOWS BETTER than Pres. Reagan's Director of the NSA?
I'll take a stab at countering some of his points, though not all of them since I'm in agreement with a few.
Originally posted by Article:
1) We would leave behind a civil war.
Civil unrest due to an insurgency is what US and British troops are seeing today; NOT civil war, so the comparision is quite reckless. Yes, that civil unrest is aggressive, deadly and one that's taking a toll, but calling it "civil war" isn't entirely bright. No, I'm not splitting hairs here in terms of definitions or perceptions; civil war is VASTLY different that what is going on in Iraq today and we may be witness to the difference before the final chapter of our involvement is over. Perhaps Gen. Odom needs a slide lecture on Rwanda and it's ethnic conflict (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/rwanda.htm) to define what Iraq could fully turn into without a solidly armed presence there. I agree that the US and Britian can't carry the burden of "self-determination" for the Iraqis much further without a LARGE portion of the country putting aside petty differences and trying to work together, but to pick up and bail at this particular time will work against us FAR more than for us.
Originally posted by Article:
2) We would lose credibility on the world stage.
The US still carries a fair amount of credibility/power/weight with moderates in the Middle-East; lifting up and bailing out of Iraq without so much as a planned withdrawal or Iraq even half-heartedly capable of keeping some semblance of peace isn't going to play WELL at all. Bush Sr. took a beating here and abroad for stirring up the Shi'ites to revolt during the first Gulf War and unceremoniously dumping them to the side when we rolled armor up to the Kuwaiti border and said "not an inch further"; Clinton took the same level of beating in Somalia due to Mogadishu and yanking troops out of there, thereby snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
What do we tell the next struggling democracy to give them hope if we yank troops out of Iraq as fast as we can?
Look at our track-record?
What feelings would this give moderates and the political leadership of Eqypt, Turkey, Baharain, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and other countries strugging with the cancer of radical Islamic extremism? What feelings would this give the radicals in their midst that they are struggling to deal with?
The general is being a bit myopic in his viewpoint here, in my estimation, but since I don't carry his credentials, I'm sure you'll call my thoughts and concerns irrelevant...
Originally posted by Article:
3) It would embolden the insurgency and cripple the move toward democracy.
No, it would VALIDATE the insurgency and DESTROY all hopes for democracy. The generals point that whatever government that takes hold after we leave will be anti-American is one that is well-taken and I think an accurate one to a degree. I think in order to appease the Sunni and Shi'ite conservatives, ANY government in Iraq is going to have to start taking a VERY independent and somewhat critical voice towards some of the West's methods and ways of conducting itself on the international stage...
...of course, there are ways of doing this without alienating the US/Britian ties and pissing off the entire population of Iraq at the same time, and there are ways of doing it without doing what Sadat did to Eqypt and ultimately, his own position in that country in the '70s.
Oddly enough, modern-day Eqypt is a good example that comes to mind for a country that has successfully "ridden the line"; their constitution bans religious-based political parties and while they certainly are NOT the shining star of the Middle-East in terms of a democracy or economic prosperity, the way that they have tackled some of the issues that they've faced in the past is a good roadmap for how Iraq could address some of their problems. I'm getting ahead of myself, though...
Originally posted by Article:
4) Iraq would become a haven for terrorists.
OK, his point that it has become 10x the haven for terrorists than what it was under Hussein is taken as a bitter dose of medicine and it's one Hell of a black-eye for Team Bush/Blair (which I still root for). We f**ked up big-time by letting the Iraqi Army melt back into the population and I'd personally like to take a bull-whip to Rumsfeld's ass for micromanaging and entirely mishandling the initial security aspect of the Iraq War, and then go on to FURTHER screw things up by not making sure we positioned more troops than what we had to "police" the place...
Out of everyone that has left Bush's cabinet or appointements (excluding Michael Brown), I wish Rumsfeld had bailed or was forced out as he's been a JOKE of a Secratary of Defence outside of the intial stages of the invasion.
Anyway...
In short, I agree that our continued presence in Iraq merely stokes the fires of radicalism at this point in time over projecting any presence of "peace and stability", which is why it is SO imperative that we get the Iraqis up to par on taking over the "police" role that the US and Britian are providing today.
Originally posted by Article:
5) Iranian influence in Iraq would increase.
Inconclusive; the specter of nationalism between Iraqi Shi'ites and Iranian Shi'ites would be a factor, but to what degree I have no clue. I don't think the current imams or clerics in Iraq would be too happy taking orders from Tehran and firebrands like Al-Sadr would push for their own fifedom...
Now, if he said Shi'ite influence, I would agree, but Iranian influence over Iraq in terms of political aims, I'm not entirely sure about.
Originally posted by Article:
6) Unrest might spread in the region and/or draw in Iraq's neighbors.
It already has, so there's no arguing that point, but to the degree of which it has is another story. Leaving things the way they are today can certainly make things WORSE than leaving sometime in the future when the neighboring states (Iran excluded) have been allowed the time to make preparations for such an event...
Originally posted by Article:
7) [censored]-Sunni clashes would worsen.
Go back to the civil war comment; things CAN get a LOT worse.
Originally posted by Article:
8) We haven't fully trained the Iraqi military and police forces yet.
No argument here, either. The Iraqi leadership have to get the population behind them before they will see any sort of military or police force become an effective tool in combatting the insurgency. In reality, it's no longer up to the US toops to win the "hearts and minds" of the Iraqi people; it's up to the religious leadership among the various Shi'ite sects to come together behind the Iraqi leadership, as well as Sunni and Kurdish leaders to put weight behind a moderate popular majority that will protect their interests instead of attacking them.
This is going to be a b**ch of a task, one that is iterative, and one that a Constitution no matter how well-drafted can protect or nurture. It's going to take a mindset change, STRONG solid leadership by an Iraqi council and it probably won't take place until US/British troops are on the cusp of leaving...
...which puts us in the predicament of gambling that that leadership has staying power under it's own steam and not with US military muscle propping it up.
Originally posted by Article:
9) Talk of deadlines would undercut the morale of our troops.
I would like to see a flushed-out debate on the merits of such a pullout, but not by the liberal ilk that will end up leading such a goat-rodeo in the Senate or House. With Kennedy, Boxer, Clinton or some such other slobbering lefty nimrob at the helm of such a discussion, it would quickly turn into an '08 pre-campaign infomercial and that is PRECISELY what is not needed at this time.
Conversely, I would hope that Rumsfeld, Cheney and other hawkish inviduals on the GOP side would conspicuously be absent from these discussions as well, as they are sounding like a f**king broken record and have added little to making CLEAR, CONCISE, RESPONSIBLE and EFFECTIVE suggestions/recommendations towards getting Iraq on it's own two feet.
Originally posted by PDXSVT:
Anyway, I feel secure that someone here will want to flame Gen. Odom as a puppet of the far left. Should I start a stopwatch?
I'm not flaming Odom, as he brings up some valid points, but it appears to me he's certainly taking a solider's view of the conflict and "siloing" it to the exclusion of many other things that will be effected by a knee-jerk pullout.
There's an excellent article that James Dobbins wrote on keeping a middle-course (staying in until Iraq can effectively put forth it's own presence in the area and "police" itself; his credentials include being prior U.S. Special Envoy in Kosovo, Somalia, Afghanistan, Bosnia and Haiti, so he too has some experience in seeing the "big-picture" and knowing what premature disengagement can do to areas):
Foreign Affairs Essay
Believe it or not, the Washington Post had a good article (I about fell over dead on seeing it) on a similar note:
Washington Post Article
Iraq can be saved yet, though it's out of Bush and Blair's hands for the most part.
JaTo
e-Tough Guy
Missouri City, TX
99 Contour SVT
#143/2760
00 Corvette Coupe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,489
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
OP
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,489 |
Originally posted by JaTo:
Please point to the SPECIFIC information that the CIA, DIA, NSA, Mossad, MI6, etc., etc., had in hand on Hussein having NO WMD and NO nuclear aspirations.
whether saddam had wmds or was looking into nukes is not in dispute.
the dispute is over the veracity and urgency of the intelligence presented to congress and the american people as justifying a pre-emptive attack on iraq.
the dispute is whether the congress and american people had access to all the intelligence where our own agencies had a difference of opinion between what they found and the message coming from the bush admin.
this was a decision that was made knowing we would have little to no help from the rest of the world. was it urgent enough, was it supported by the intelligence we had, did we have to do it right at that point in time knowing that american forces and tax payers would bear the brunt of the effort for an unknown period of time. making a decision to go to war is too serious to be entered into under questionable pretenses. what was the litmus test for whether this intelligence was reliable or not?
i can understand why the bush admin wants to avoid completion of the investigation by the joint committee, but we deserve to know how "disputed" their case was since we obviously didn't know the whole story on the intelligence the first time around and the case for war has not stood the test of time.
'03 Saab 9-5 Aero
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,710
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,710 |
Hindsight is 20/20. 
- Tim
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,506
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,506 |
So how does "hindsight is 20/20" explain information being withheld?
Or did you mean you are looking at things differently now yourself?
MSDS, SHO-shop Y, custom 2.5" catback; xcal2; 63mm TB, K&N 3530; Koni struts, Aussie bar; THaines forks, Quaife, SpecII, UR fly; DMD; Nima UD pullies; Stazi brakes; f&r Pole120 mounts. Just a daily commuter car. Silver '98 SVT E0 #3159
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 7,117
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 7,117 |
I keep telling you guys the data gathered was nothing more than frosting on the cake. Declarations from Iraq to the UN would tell any reasonable person that the WMDs were there. As for the ugency, let's review news stories reported in the press in the months leading to the war:
1. Iraq regularly shooting at coallition planes patroling the no fly zone. That alone is grounds for military action according to the post Gulf War I agreements, IIRC.
2. Regular refusals (over a 12 year period mind you!) & delays in permitting inspections at various sites, giving Sadam a chance to move his WMD materials & personel away prior to allowing inspectors in.
3. US seeking UN agreement on action against Iraq for their refusal to allow un-inhibited inspections is unexpectedly met with resistance. Diplomats from france are actually campaigning/bribing other countries (particularly in Africa if you will recall) to vote against action, and france assures security council veto. Further investigation into the matter reveals contacts between the french ambasador & persons handling money in the oil for food program. Investigation begins as to whether or not france has been selling their security council vote.
4. Prior to invasion, review of the last two Iraq declarations reveals missing WMD materials & delivery systems - in a very considerable quantity. I documented these discrepancies on CEG with links to the CBS News website on more than one occasion. Additionally, Iraq is un-able and/or un-willing to provide explanations of these discrepancies & again blocks inspectors & refuses to allow access to various "palaces" that are suspected to house WMD materials and/or information.
Considering the animosity developed over the last two decades between Iraq & the U.S., is there any doubt that Iraq would at least consider placing some of the materials in terrorist hands??? With some material already gone, what choice would you have made given these conditions?
Must be that jumbly-wumbly thing happening again.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 6,760
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 6,760 |
Originally posted by TourDeForce:
I keep telling you guys the data gathered was nothing more than frosting on the cake. Declarations from Iraq to the UN would tell any reasonable person that the WMDs were there. As for the ugency, let's review news stories reported in the press in the months leading to the war:
1. Iraq regularly shooting at coallition planes patroling the no fly zone. That alone is grounds for military action according to the post Gulf War I agreements, IIRC.
2. Regular refusals (over a 12 year period mind you!) & delays in permitting inspections at various sites, giving Sadam a chance to move his WMD materials & personel away prior to allowing inspectors in.
3. US seeking UN agreement on action against Iraq for their refusal to allow un-inhibited inspections is unexpectedly met with resistance. Diplomats from france are actually campaigning/bribing other countries (particularly in Africa if you will recall) to vote against action, and france assures security council veto. Further investigation into the matter reveals contacts between the french ambasador & persons handling money in the oil for food program. Investigation begins as to whether or not france has been selling their security council vote.
4. Prior to invasion, review of the last two Iraq declarations reveals missing WMD materials & delivery systems - in a very considerable quantity. I documented these discrepancies on CEG with links to the CBS News website on more than one occasion. Additionally, Iraq is un-able and/or un-willing to provide explanations of these discrepancies & again blocks inspectors & refuses to allow access to various "palaces" that are suspected to house WMD materials and/or information.
Considering the animosity developed over the last two decades between Iraq & the U.S., is there any doubt that Iraq would at least consider placing some of the materials in terrorist hands??? With some material already gone, what choice would you have made given these conditions?
C'mon TDF that still doesn't give us the right to go in and kick Saddam's arse! He could be screwing our mothers and these people still wouldn't want to kill him.....
Ryan
Trollin!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718 |
Originally posted by PDXSVT:
So how does "hindsight is 20/20" explain information being withheld?
Or did you mean you are looking at things differently now yourself?
So, what KEY information are you talking about here and would this KEY information have countered a decade of doubt, deceit, lies, obfucation, etc., etc., from Iraq on the topic of their WMD capabilities, as well as CIA estimates and Tenet concluding the infamous "slam dunk" scenario?
Are you suggesting that the CIA abandoned it's charter of political neutrality and "conspired" with the Bush administration in orchestrating what would be the BIGGEST cover-up since history has been documented? Are you actually suggesting that they provided the Senate Intelligence committee with "spun" dossiers on Iraq vs. what the Oval office saw?
Finally, to use your and many other liberals' thoughts against them, how could the liberally-labeled "dumbest US President ever" and his "Keystone Cop" staff manage to formulate, execute and more importantly, successfully cover up such a MASSIVE undertaking? If a pretzel gave Bush Hell, then trying to get him to digest something like this would have induced a coronary when he was still Governor of TX...
...and yes, he would have had to have enlisted Tenet, the CIA and a whole slew of other lackies back in the mid 90's for ANY of this crap that is being slung agaist the wall to pan out and stick!
Keep staring through that kaleidoscope and pretending that it's a microscope, guys. It's entertaining.
About the only people I see casting doubt on the case that was built on going to war are those with political horses in the race and those with "Certified Conspiracy Theorist" branded on their business card...
There will ALWAYS be small holes to nit-pick about any declaration to take an entire country into the meat-grinder of war. As I have continuously said, there may easily been a good 10-15 reasons not to invade Iraq at the time we did and with the information that we had in hand. However, AT THE TIME and WITH THE INFORMATION WE HAD IN HAND, there were an overwhelming number of reasons to invade.
JaTo
e-Tough Guy
Missouri City, TX
99 Contour SVT
#143/2760
00 Corvette Coupe
|
|
|
|
|
