The Iraq / war on terror thread

[Surfrider]

Read that a few weeks back

Tempted to say just pull the troops out and let the genocide commence - they would soon be begging for the troops to come back!

No shit.

[lastroots]

Well, looks like most people in Irak have a very realistic view on the things happening.


/lastroots

[Surfrider]

Well, looks like most people in Irak have a very realistic view on the things happening.


/lastroots

Which part, the attacks being justified?

[lastroots]

Violence is never justified, but if you see you friends and family get killed in a senseless war, wouldn't you say "oh, go and kill those invaders, I don't give a fuck about them". I'm sure you would.


/lastroots

[Surfrider]

Violence is never justified, but if you see you friends and family get killed in a senseless war, wouldn't you say "oh, go and kill those invaders, I don't give a fuck about them". I'm sure you would.


/lastroots

Maybe the invader terrorists, but not the ones that are actually trying to protect their friends and family against such bombings.

[lastroots]

To clear some things up: The US opened the way for Mussab As-Sarkawi and Al-Quaida. Without the US invasion the terrorists would not be there. Second. Countless civilians still get killed by american troop, sometimes just because they have no idea of the arabian culture. Therein it is usual to shoot to the sky duruing a marriage. It already happened at least 20 times that the US thought if terrorists when someone at a wedding shot his gun. As a result, the whole wedding party was killed by american soldiers. Third: in arabian countries, men are not allowed to enter the womens rooms. US-soldiers didn't know or didn't care, but they entedered womens rooms and also forced the women to take off their clothes. Could be they hide bombs, what? Lots of people were killed in false bombings. Etc........


Well, if I would be an Iraki, I would be damn angry, believe me.


/lastroots

[Surfrider]

To clear some things up: The US opened the way for Mussab As-Sarkawi and Al-Quaida. Without the US invasion the terrorists would not be there.

Actually that is incorrect, Zarqawi was there prior to the invasion.? But I agree that most of the terrorists came across the border after the war started.? However, it is these people killing the people not the US.? 

Second. Countless civilians still get killed by american troop, sometimes just because they have no idea of the arabian culture. Therein it is usual to shoot to the sky duruing a marriage. It already happened at least 20 times that the US thought if terrorists when someone at a wedding shot his gun. As a result, the whole wedding party was killed by american soldiers.

Link please?? The only incident I saw of this there was a dispute over whether it was a wedding or not.? Everytime the US bombs somewhere they claim that there were not terrorists there.? Much of it is propoganda to try and make it look like the US is targeting civilians to get the people to turn against the coalition.

Third: in arabian countries, men are not allowed to enter the womens rooms.

Not in Western culture either.

US-soldiers didn't know or didn't care, but they entedered womens rooms and also forced the women to take off their clothes. Could be they hide bombs, what?

Could be, I am sure that was the case.? They probably suspected her of carrying a bomb.

Lots of people were killed in false bombings. Etc........

How can someone be killed in a false bombing?

[Dr. Blutarsky]

People killed by a false bombing? thats good 

[Rain]

People killed by a false bombing? thats good?

Maybe the ones that were supposed to be terrorists ? Just a guess 

[Booker Floyd]

The Right Way in Iraq

By John Edwards
Sunday, November 13, 2005; B07


I was wrong.

Almost three years ago we went into Iraq to remove what we were told -- and what many of us believed and argued -- was a threat to America. But in fact we now know that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction when our forces invaded Iraq in 2003. The intelligence was deeply flawed and, in some cases, manipulated to fit a political agenda.

It was a mistake to vote for this war in 2002. I take responsibility for that mistake. It has been hard to say these words because those who didn't make a mistake -- the men and women of our armed forces and their families -- have performed heroically and paid a dear price.

The world desperately needs moral leadership from America, and the foundation for moral leadership is telling the truth.

While we can't change the past, we need to accept responsibility, because a key part of restoring America's moral leadership is acknowledging when we've made mistakes or been proven wrong -- and showing that we have the creativity and guts to make it right.

The argument for going to war with Iraq was based on intelligence that we now know was inaccurate. The information the American people were hearing from the president -- and that I was being given by our intelligence community -- wasn't the whole story. Had I known this at the time, I never would have voted for this war.

George Bush won't accept responsibility for his mistakes. Along with Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, he has made horrible mistakes at almost every step: failed diplomacy; not going in with enough troops; not giving our forces the equipment they need; not having a plan for peace.

Because of these failures, Iraq is a mess and has become a far greater threat than it ever was. It is now a haven for terrorists, and our presence there is draining the goodwill our country once enjoyed, diminishing our global standing. It has made fighting the global war against terrorist organizations more difficult, not less.

The urgent question isn't how we got here but what we do now. We have to give our troops a way to end their mission honorably. That means leaving behind a success, not a failure.

What is success? I don't think it is Iraq as a Jeffersonian democracy. I think it is an Iraq that is relatively stable, largely self-sufficient, comparatively open and free, and in control of its own destiny.

A plan for success needs to focus on three interlocking objectives: reducing the American presence, building Iraq's capacity and getting other countries to meet their responsibilities to help.

First, we need to remove the image of an imperialist America from the landscape of Iraq. American contractors who have taken unfair advantage of the turmoil in Iraq need to leave Iraq. If that means Halliburton subsidiary KBR, then KBR should go. Such departures, and the return of the work to Iraqi businesses, would be a real statement about our hopes for the new nation.

We also need to show Iraq and the world that we will not stay there forever. We've reached the point where the large number of our troops in Iraq hurts, not helps, our goals. Therefore, early next year, after the Iraqi elections, when a new government has been created, we should begin redeployment of a significant number of troops out of Iraq. This should be the beginning of a gradual process to reduce our presence and change the shape of our military's deployment in Iraq. Most of these troops should come from National Guard or Reserve forces.

That will still leave us with enough military capability, combined with better-trained Iraqis, to fight terrorists and continue to help the Iraqis develop a stable country.

Second, this redeployment should work in concert with a more effective training program for Iraqi forces. We should implement a clear plan for training and hard deadlines for certain benchmarks to be met. To increase incentives, we should implement a schedule showing that, as we certify Iraqi troops as trained and equipped, a proportional number of U.S. troops will be withdrawn.

Third, we must launch a serious diplomatic process that brings the world into this effort. We should bring Iraq's neighbors and our key European allies into a diplomatic process to get Iraq on its feet. The president needs to create a unified international front.

Too many mistakes have already been made for this to be easy. Yet we must take these steps to succeed. The American people, the Iraqi people and -- most important -- our troops who have died or been injured there, and those who are fighting there today, deserve nothing less.

America's leaders -- all of us -- need to accept the responsibility we each carry for how we got to this place. More than 2,000 Americans have lost their lives in this war, and more than 150,000 are fighting there today. They and their families deserve honesty from our country's leaders. And they also deserve a clear plan for a way out.

The writer, a former senator from North Carolina, was the Democratic nominee for vice president in 2004.

[SLCPUNK]

Character is defined in many ways. One of them is admitting you were wrong, and facing the music.

Bush's approval ratings dip a tad lower then the rim of my toilet bowl. At this point, he might as well be a man, and admit he fucked up. With this, he would at least have a chance of redeeming himself. He won't, and that is why we will get more of the same: spending like a drunken sailor, more death, with no end in sight.

[sandman]

glad to see a prominent democrat state clearly that they "voted for this war", and NOT voted to give the president authority.  many liberals have incorrectly argued that the kerrys and the edwards and all the other democrats didn't actually vote for the war.

but i find it weak that he's taking responsibility, but still putting the blame on someone else (bush). i think that shows he has a pathetic character.

i also think it's a political mistake. if i was a john edwards supporter i would lost total respect for him.

here's an interesting article on this topic. dick polman is one of my favorite political analysts....


Democrats: Deceit made us back war

By Dick Polman

Inquirer Political Analyst

The Democratic party appears to have finally come up with a way to explain why so many of its elected leaders gave President Bush the authority to wage war in Iraq.

Three simple words: "We were duped."

A parade of top Democrats have contended in recent days that they would have been antiwar in 2002 had they known then what they now believe to be true: that the Bush administration manipulated the intelligence in order to build a bogus case for war. In pursuit of that theme, Senate Democrats on Tuesday successfully demanded that their GOP colleagues quit stalling and finish a long-promised investigation that could determine whether the war planners were dishonest.

Many Democrats believe it's good politics these days to say that they were lied to. This message, actually a rite of confession, is designed to help their erstwhile pro-war politicians get back in sync with the party's liberal antiwar base. That's especially important for some of the original pro-war Democrats who want to run for president in 2008. After all, liberal voters tend to dominate the Democratic primaries, and they're expecting to hear apologies.

Hence, Sen. John Kerry (who wants to try again) said in a speech on Oct. 26: "The country and the Congress were misled into war. I regret that we were not given the truth... knowing what we know now, I would not have gone to war in Iraq." Hence, Tom Daschle (the deposed Senate Democratic leader, who is weighing a campaign) said in a speech Wednesday that senators voted incorrectly because "on so many fronts, we were misled."

At least four other Democratic senators who voted to authorize war have use the dupe argument in recent days, including Christopher Dodd of Connecticut (who periodically voices White House ambitions) and Tom Harkin of Iowa (who now calls his war support "one of the biggest voting mistakes of my career"). And once having confessed, these Democrats believe they have sufficient credibility to call for the phased withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.

But not all the prominent Democrats who voted with Bush have embraced the dupe message. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton - who continues to exasperate the liberal base - hasn't renounced her vote; when asked about it the other day by NPR, she dodged: "I can't talk about this on the fly; it's too important." Sen. Evan Bayh, another presidential hopeful, hasn't renounced. Former Sen. John Edwards, another prospective candidate, hasn't renounced. Sen. Joe Biden hasn't, either.

Their reticence might stem in part from awareness of the George Romney rule of politics: Gullibility is not a character asset for a presidential candidate.

The late George Romney (father of current Massachusetts Republican Gov. Mitt Romney) was the anointed front-runner of the 1968 GOP presidential race - until he tried to explain, in a radio interview during the summer of 1967, why he had renounced his previous support for the Vietnam war. The Michigan governor complained that, while visiting the hot zone, he had been duped by the brass into backing the war:

"I just had the greatest brainwashing that anybody can get when you go over to Vietnam. Not only by the generals, but also by the diplomatic corps over there, and they did a very thorough job."

Romney plummeted in the polls, and his candidacy soon evaporated; voters didn't like the idea of electing someone who admitted he was capable of being fooled. And, as many political observers argue, that's the lesson for Democrats today.

Charlie Cook, a Washington analyst who runs the nonpartisan Cook Political Report, said Friday: "If Democrats want to argue that the administration misrepresented and distorted the prewar intelligence, OK, that's one thing. But if they push the argument that they have been duped, fooled and victimized - well, to a lot of [independent swing] voters, they're just going to come across as weak."

The Romney rule is also invoked by moderate Democrats who see Iraq as a noble cause. Marshall Wittmann, a senior fellow at the Democratic Leadership Council, warned on his blog the other day that the Democrats "are positioning themselves as a party that is gullible, feckless, and indecisive... beware of the long-term impact on the party which already suffers from a perception of being weak on national security."

But David Sirota, a liberal antiwar activist and organizer, contends that the Romney rule is irrelevant today, because of the public's broad-based opposition to the Iraq war. (Most Americans still generally supported the Vietnam war at the time Romney committed his gaffe).

Sirota said Thursday: "Obviously, the [dupe] message needs to be played properly. But most Americans already believe that Bush misled the country" - polls support his contention - "so it makes perfect sense for Democrats to say they too were misled... . They followed tradition and gave the benefit of the doubt to a president on a national security issue, and they were lied to. That doesn't mean they were stupid. They were being patriotic.

"And rather than just apologize for being misled, Democrats need a message of outrage. Make the argument that this administration deliberately manipulated the intelligence."

That message is dismissed by critics as paranoid; Wittmann calls it "Michael Moore territory." But the Republican Senate leaders did promise, back in February 2004, that it would investigate whether the war planners had been deliberately dishonest. Asked in October 2004 (before the election) why that key question had not been resolved, Kansas Sen. Pat Roberts replied: "We simply couldn't get that done with the work product that we put out." Then, eight months ago, Roberts said the probe had been put "on the back burner."

Early last week, Senate Democrats employed a parliamentary maneuver to force a showdown over the sluggish probe; as a result, a progress report will be issued within the next several weeks. Liberal bloggers were thrilled by this rare act of boldness; in the words of Philadelphia-based billmon.org, it was a treat "watching the Democratic jellyfish rear up on its hind tentacles and sting someone."

If the GOP report concludes that the Bush team manipulated intelligence, it would buttress the Democratic message about being duped. But the party's strategy could fail anyway. There is always the possibility, as some Democrats say privately, that the report will exonerate Bush, leaving Democrats to merely complain that there must have been a whitewash.

And the dupe message may be only as good as the individual messenger. Kerry, in his Oct. 26 speech, declared that "as I said more than a year ago," he would not have voted for the war if he had known about "the Bush administration's duplicity." Yet, on Aug. 9, 2004, he said he would have still voted to authorize Bush even if he had known in advance that no mass weaponry would be found. Those statements don't necessarily contradict each other, but a fresh round of Kerry nuances may not boost his fortunes.

Clearly, gaining traction on Iraq is a Democratic imperative. Bush may be tanking in the polls, but Democrats have barely moved the needle their way. In the words of party pollster Stan Greenberg, summarizing his late-October numbers, "Democrats have not made noticeable gains on thinking long-term... knowing what they stand for, or being trusted to keep America safe."

As for the 2008 race, Charlie Cook suggests a way for Democrats to dump the dupe message entirely: "By 2008, there will be a tremendous constituency for a candidate who can argue clearly that the war was always a mistake. Forget all the senators. The answer for Democrats is to nominate a governor, somebody who never had to vote at all on the damn war."

[SLCPUNK]

glad to see a prominent democrat state clearly that they "voted for this war", and NOT voted to give the president authority.  many liberals have incorrectly argued that the kerrys and the edwards and all the other democrats didn't actually vote for the war.

A quick, pathetic play on words, while ignoring the rest of his article. You put on your deflector shield asap and changed the subject (to a false claim, play on words) to put everybody on the defense instead of facing the music.

Why not face it? Address the points made in the article, rather then change the subject. Take it head on, can you? You can not, because it is all true.

Bush is a dead duck, liar, and is finished as President. Nobody wants to hear it from you guys anymore. It's over. I was shocked to see a W sticker on a car today; I guess some people are morons til the end 'eh?

[Dr. Blutarsky]

glad to see a prominent democrat state clearly that they "voted for this war", and NOT voted to give the president authority.? many liberals have incorrectly argued that the kerrys and the edwards and all the other democrats didn't actually vote for the war.

A quick, pathetic play on words, while ignoring the rest of his article. You put on your deflector shield asap and changed the subject (to a false claim, play on words) to put everybody on the defense instead of facing the music.

Why not face it? Address the points made in the article, rather then change the subject. Take it head on, can you? You can not, because it is all true.

Bush is a dead duck, liar, and is finished as President. Nobody wants to hear it from you guys anymore. It's over. I was shocked to see a W sticker on a car today; I guess some people are morons til the end 'eh?

So people who dont agree with you are morons?

In my book, people who do not agree with me (like yourself) are entitled to their opinion and I dont have to attack them just because they have a different point of view. That would be narrow minded.

[Guns N RockMusic]

I'm at least glad that the left on this board have temporarily abandoned the racist term and are calling people morons and idiots.? I mean, at least calling someone a moron and idiot isn't a personal attack and in violation of HTGTH policies.?

[SLCPUNK]

So people who dont agree with you are morons?

Nah ah ah...Don't try to change it around...I said people who support the prez, not people who disagree with me.

People who still support this asshole in the white house? Yup...Morons, dumb, idiot, whatever you would like to pick. You would HAVE TO BE to continue to back him at this point. If that is you, then it applies.

Until then.........

I'm at least glad that the left on this board have temporarily abandoned the racist term and are calling people morons and idiots.  I mean, at least calling someone a moron and idiot isn't a personal attack and in violation of HTGTH policies. 

Don't even jump on the bandwagon, I didn't call one person here a Moron, and you know it.

You guys are so desperate to create a fuss, you'll do anything.

Guess what else?

Nobody has addressed the article still. Remember that first post? About being responsible? Don't you think it's about time the asshole in the white house do just that? Or would you rather discuss my comment about a W sticker instead?

[KillYourIdols]

John Edwards...didn't that guy win the "Biggest Douche in the Universe" award?

[SLCPUNK]

John Edwards...didn't that guy win the "Biggest Douche in the Universe" award?

No, that was this guy...........





He was such a douche that he won the title "biggest douche in the universe" two terms in a row.

[Booker Floyd]

but i find it weak that he's taking responsibility, but still putting the blame on someone else (bush). i think that shows he has a pathetic character.

Oh...so you mean it was Edwards that vigorously pursued ending diplomatic efforts and launching an invasion?? If thats the case, then youre absolutely right and he shouldnt blame Bush.?

Maybe you want to correct his statements?

The argument for going to war with Iraq was based on intelligence that we now know was inaccurate.

True or false?

National security adviser Stephen Hadley answers that: "Turns out, we were wrong."

The information the American people were hearing from the president -- and that I was being given by our intelligence community -- wasn't the whole story.

True or false?

Had I known this at the time, I never would have voted for this war.

This honesty and willingness to admit to a mistake seperates Edwards and some others from those with truly questionable character.

i also think it's a political mistake. if i was a john edwards supporter i would lost total respect for him.

Considering this silly hypothetical is based on your own pre-existing opinions, I cant interpret it as much more than a joke.? Aside from that, youre wrong.? Democrats have expressed great satisfaction with Edwards honesty and attempt to outline a plan.?

And its really nice to know that you hold such a high standard for character, accountability, and refusal to shift blame:

Sen. John McCain: ?Every intelligence agency in the world, including the Russian, including the French, including the Israeli, all had reached the same conclusion, and that was that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.? [Face the Nation]

Sen. Pat Roberts: ?Not only ours but the British, not only that but the French, not only that but the Russians, not only that but the Israelis ? this was a worldwide intelligence failure.? [Fox News Sunday]

Former White House Political Director Ken Mehlman: ?The UN looked at it, the Germans looked at it, the French looked at it? they all agreed that this guy has WMD.? [Meet the Press]

Considering your own strong character and intellectual honesty, I know that youll make the same judgement on the above individuals' "character.? ?? While youre at it, you might want to point out the misleading nature of the above quotes and mention the fact that foreign officials from nearly every country mentioned discouraged war with Iraq.?

President Jacques Chirac:? "But we just feel that there is another option, another way, a less dramatic way than war, and that we have to go down that path."

Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer:? "Are we really in a situation that absolutely necessitates the ?ultima ratio?, the very last resort? I think not, because the peaceful means are far from exhausted."

Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov:? "It is our deep conviction that the possibilities for disarming Iraq through political means do exist."

Foreign Minister Tang Jiaxuan:? "We believe that as long as we stick to the road of political settlement, the goal of destroying Iraq?s WMD could still be obtained. "

And your hero, who would never mislead you:

"That's why more then a hundred Democrats in the House and the Senate, who had access to the same intelligence, voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power. " - George W. Bush

Of course he had access to information that senators and representatives didnt. ? They relied on his administration to provide the intelligence that they viewed.  If I was a Bush supporter, I would have lost total respect for...oh wait.

It should also be noted that while the president and his lackeys attempt to lay blame at the feet of "Democrats," about half of the senates Democrats had the good sense to vote against this war, and Im proud that one of them was elected governor of my state last Tuesday. 

[SLCPUNK]

Damn that was a good post.

Damn.