For the Removal of Saddam, Yet against the war

[Nightwish]

I said one cannot support the ousting of Saddam, yet be against the Iraqi inavsion.

A philosophical claim that I'm still waiting for you to support.

 

[Said1]

Whether it is more than me remains to be seen. I have six years. Not that it gives me any credible insight into military strategy. Some of my opinions, however, are inspired by a family member, an Air Force Lt. Colonel who has had a 24-year career in Air Force Intelligence, and he is critical of the war because he feels not enough options that he feels deserved at least a nominal consideration were tried. He is currently stationed in Italy, however, so I haven't had much opportunity of late to speak with him.

Ohhh. I get it. When you said you didn't have THE advanced experience, you neglected to mention you did, but not to the extent that your opinion is worthy, like Hobbit's. Cool. I'm hip. No one likes a braggart.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

A philosophical claim that I'm still waiting for you to support.

:blah2: STFU.

 

[Gunny]

In what? Military experience, and strategic military planning are two different things. If you're just a gunny sgt, then it's unlikely you have all that much experience in planning complex strategies. But if you do, kudos to you, it would give your opinion a lot more weight in support of an objective claim than the opinion of one who lacks such experience.

All senior enlisted in the Marines are required to know how to plan and execute tactics based on their assets to achieve a strategic goal. I assume the same would be true for the other services.


Yet that's never stopped them, has it?

Irrelevant. It is illegal. Be that as it may, as a tactic it fails to complete the objective entirely -- removing Saddam AND his regime from power. As previously stated, the former means little without the latter.

Actually, leaving the Ba'athist regime in power was one of the early ideas being tossed around, because the Bush administration would prefer a secular and not a religious government installed. The problem of Saddam's sons could have possibly been handled in a similar fashion to the problem of Saddam himself.

Actually, had he behaved, leaving Saddam in power was the plan for the very reason you stated -- preferring a secular government to theocracy. He was stupid and rattled his saber at us and defied us and the UN one time too many with a President that wasn't going to ignore him as the previous one had. His removal from power is the end result of HIS actions.


Totally different scenario. They tried to foment rebellion against a strong Saddam who had the backing of a strong and loyal army. What we encountered this time around was a weak, demoralized army that was all too eager to get away from a fattened, greedy, relatively isolated Saddam.

Dude, the army encountered in 2003 was the same army we encountered in 2001, and they were far from weak. They were poorly led both times, and we walked right through them both times. With good leadership, they could have made a real war out of it for awhile.

 

[Nightwish]

Ohhh. I get it. When you said you didn't have THE advanced experience, you neglected to mention you did, but not to the extent that your opinion is worthy, like Hobbit's. Cool. I'm hip. No one likes a braggart.

I don't have the experience. Someone I know does. And he's far from the only one who believes we could have done more. At any rate, you're still missing the point -- I'm not the one objectively claiming alternatives would have worked. Conversely, your cohorts have objectively claimed they would not have. Since they made their claims objective, they need to back them up with something more than opinion.

 

[Nightwish]

Dude, the army encountered in 2003 was the same army we encountered in 2001, and they were far from weak. They were poorly led both times, and we walked right through them both times. With good leadership, they could have made a real war out of it for awhile.

I think you meant 1991, not 2001. They were considerably weaker. Did you forget the part where the majority of them surrendered to us without a fight this time around? Did they do that in 1991?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I don't have the experience. Someone I know does. And he's far from the only one who believes we could have done more. At any rate, you're still missing the point -- I'm not the one objectively claiming alternatives would have worked. Conversely, your cohorts have objectively claimed they would not have. Since they made their claims objective, they need to back them up with something more than opinion.

No. We're saying what we actually did worked, and should be recognized as successful and therefore a "good thing". But we know you must warp reality to maintain your irrational contempt for bush and everything he does, so carry on. We'll keep on laughing at you.

 

[Said1]

I don't have the experience. Someone I know does. And he's far from the only one who believes we could have done more. At any rate, you're still missing the point -- I'm not the one objectively claiming alternatives would have worked. Conversely, your cohorts have objectively claimed they would not have. Since they made their claims objective, they need to back them up with something more than opinion.

Actually, I wasn't addressing that point.

Why did you say you have six years?

And I don't have cohorts. I work alone.

 

[Nightwish]

Actually, I wasn't addressing that point.

Why did you say you have six years?

And I don't have cohorts. I work alone.

I was in the Air Force for six years. I was a scrub, though, for the most part, nothing to do with military planning or strategy. I fueled airplanes on the tarmac.

 

[Nightwish]

No. We're saying what we actually did worked, and should be recognized as successful and therefore a "good thing".

At this point, it is too early to decide if the war was a "good thing." One positive does not excuse the entire thing. When it is all over with, when our troops are out of harms way, and we have a clear picture of what kind of government they've put in place, then we can weigh the cost and the rewards and see which is higher. Then, if the rewards are higher, if they install a Democracy rather than a Theocracy, and the people of Iraq have the come out from under the shadow of fear and reprisal (whether it be from Saddam, Al Qaeda, or the Sunnis), we can begin to entertain thoughts that it was a "good thing."

But we know you must warp reality to maintain your irrational contempt for bush and everything he does, so carry on. We'll keep on laughing at you.

I don't hate Bush. I pity him for his willingness to be led around by the collar by Cheney and the neocons. Believe it or not, I voted for him in 2000, not only because Al Gore was a pathetic candidate, but also because I didn't want Tipper Gore getting anywhere near a position of national authority.

 

[Gunny]

I think you meant 1991, not 2001. They were considerably weaker. Did you forget the part where the majority of them surrendered to us without a fight this time around? Did they do that in 1991?

You are correct on the dates ... and yes, they couldn't throw down their weapons fast enough in 91.

Those that were deployed were deployed piecmeal, with no real overall defensive strategy. They had no choice but surrender or get run down. When you stick your military out there as a decorative device without a plan, they are about as effective as a mob can be. It was obvious throughout the military phase of the invasion that there was no coordinated effort being made by the Iraqi Army.

THAT is called a lack of competent leadership.

 

[Bonnie]

Please quote one. One problem I've noted with the right is that they seem to be unable to separate the ideas that "the war was a bad idea" and "Saddam should have been left alone." Those aren't equal statements, but for some reason the right wing tends to see them as equal, mainly because it fuels their rhetoric. But please do not make the mistake of thinking that when someone says they were against the war, that it means they think Saddam should have been left in power or that Iraq was better off with Saddam than without him. That's a fallacy. I know you're more reasonable than RWA, so please don't start thinking like him.

Here are just a few, many more out there if you look.

Some Democrats have gone as far as to become apologists for our mortal enemies. Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, N.Y.) claimed that the women of Iraq were better off with Saddam in power. "He was an equal opportunity oppressor," she said, conceding that he'd been a brutal despot, while finding him innocent of the (presumably more serious) offense of sexism. "But on paper, women had rights. ... As long as they stayed out of his way, they had considerable freedom of movement." On paper, they had rights, in a dictatorship? "As long as they stayed out of his way?" Some freedom.



Mrs. Clinton's willingness to see the sunny side of Saddam's Iraq seems mild, compared to what her colleague, Sen. Patty Murray (D, Wash.) had to say about Osama bin Laden. "We've got to ask, why is this man so popular around the world?" she gushed to a group of high school students. "Why are the people so supportive of him in many countries that are riddled with poverty? ... He's been out in these countries for decades building roads, building infrastructure, building day care facilities, building health care facilities and the people are extremely grateful. He's made their life better. We have not done that. How would they look at us today if we had been there helping them with some of that rather than just being the people who are going to bomb in Iraq and go to Afghanistan?"

Once in a while, some lardhead will try to temper condemnations of Hitler's atrocities by reminding us that he'd built the Autobahn. At least this point, while insignificant, has the advantage of being true. Sen. Murray becomes more creative in her defense of bin Laden, crediting him with building day care centers for women who weren't allowed to be employed or educated. Furthermore, she ignores the massive quantities of foreign aid given to Afghanistan and other third-world countries by American taxpayers.

At least Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D, Ohio) doesn't portray Americans as inferior to al-Qaeda. She allows that our founding fathers are roughly equal to the mass-murdering terrorists. "One could say that Osama bin Laden and these non-nation-state fighters with religious purpose are very similar to those kind of atypical revolutionaries that helped cast off the British crown," she told the Toledo Blade. How many of our soldiers are aware that they're fighting the War on Non-Nation-State Fighters with Religious Purpose?

http://shinbone.home.att.net/wahw.htm


QUOTE: “I'm absolutely convinced that we're making no progress at all, and I've been complaining for two years that there's an overly optimistic—an illusionary process going on here.” –Rep. John Murtha on “Meet the Press,” November 20, 2005

QUOTE: “Iraq is George Bush's Vietnam.” –Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA), April 5, 2004

QUOTE: “It looks like today—and this could change—as of today, it looks like women will be worse off in Iraq than they were when Saddam Hussein was president of Iraq.” –Howard Dean, CBS “Face The Nation,” August 14, 2005


QUOTE: “Basic services such as electricity have never been worse and the economy of Arab Iraq is in ruins.” –Andrew Gilligan, The Evening Standard (London), February 14 2005

http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/wm932.cfm

 

[rtwngAvngr]

At this point, it is too early to decide if the war was a "good thing." One positive does not excuse the entire thing. When it is all over with, when our troops are out of harms way, and we have a clear picture of what kind of government they've put in place, then we can weigh the cost and the rewards and see which is higher. Then, if the rewards are higher, if they install a Democracy rather than a Theocracy, and the people of Iraq have the come out from under the shadow of fear and reprisal (whether it be from Saddam, Al Qaeda, or the Sunnis), we can begin to entertain thoughts that it was a "good thing."


I don't hate Bush. I pity him for his willingness to be led around by the collar by Cheney and the neocons. Believe it or not, I voted for him in 2000, not only because Al Gore was a pathetic candidate, but also because I didn't want Tipper Gore getting anywhere near a position of national authority.

I disagree. Even if, going forward, we screw it up royally, the end of Saddam's reign of terror alone justifies the invasion.

 

[archangel]

is either Wesley Clark or his wannabee...arm chair generals who have been outta the field way too long...I have a major headache from this diatribe...two aspirin on the way....as he seems to avoid me and wishes I would go away! I take notice to his denial!

 

[MtnBiker]

At least Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D, Ohio) doesn't portray Americans as inferior to al-Qaeda. She allows that our founding fathers are roughly equal to the mass-murdering terrorists. "One could say that Osama bin Laden and these non-nation-state fighters with religious purpose are very similar to those kind of atypical revolutionaries that helped cast off the British crown," she told the Toledo Blade. How many of our soldiers are aware that they're fighting the War on Non-Nation-State Fighters with Religious Purpose?

Perhaps Rep. Kaptur was watching the movie "The Patriot" before she made that comment.

 

[Nightwish]

I disagree. Even if, going forward, we screw it up royally, the end of Saddam's reign of terror alone justifies the invasion.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on that point. I'll never buy the ends justify the means line whenever the cost outweighs the reward.

 

[archangel]

I was in the Air Force for six years. I was a scrub, though, for the most part, nothing to do with military planning or strategy. I fueled airplanes on the tarmac.

we are getting someplace with this now...ya are full of gas...NO?

 

[Nightwish]

Here are just a few, many more out there if you look.

Some Democrats have gone as far as to become apologists for our mortal enemies. Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, N.Y.) claimed that the women of Iraq were better off with Saddam in power. "He was an equal opportunity oppressor," she said, conceding that he'd been a brutal despot, while finding him innocent of the (presumably more serious) offense of sexism. "But on paper, women had rights. ... As long as they stayed out of his way, they had considerable freedom of movement." On paper, they had rights, in a dictatorship? "As long as they stayed out of his way?" Some freedom.



Mrs. Clinton's willingness to see the sunny side of Saddam's Iraq seems mild, compared to what her colleague, Sen. Patty Murray (D, Wash.) had to say about Osama bin Laden. "We've got to ask, why is this man so popular around the world?" she gushed to a group of high school students. "Why are the people so supportive of him in many countries that are riddled with poverty? ... He's been out in these countries for decades building roads, building infrastructure, building day care facilities, building health care facilities and the people are extremely grateful. He's made their life better. We have not done that. How would they look at us today if we had been there helping them with some of that rather than just being the people who are going to bomb in Iraq and go to Afghanistan?"

Once in a while, some lardhead will try to temper condemnations of Hitler's atrocities by reminding us that he'd built the Autobahn. At least this point, while insignificant, has the advantage of being true. Sen. Murray becomes more creative in her defense of bin Laden, crediting him with building day care centers for women who weren't allowed to be employed or educated. Furthermore, she ignores the massive quantities of foreign aid given to Afghanistan and other third-world countries by American taxpayers.

At least Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D, Ohio) doesn't portray Americans as inferior to al-Qaeda. She allows that our founding fathers are roughly equal to the mass-murdering terrorists. "One could say that Osama bin Laden and these non-nation-state fighters with religious purpose are very similar to those kind of atypical revolutionaries that helped cast off the British crown," she told the Toledo Blade. How many of our soldiers are aware that they're fighting the War on Non-Nation-State Fighters with Religious Purpose?

http://shinbone.home.att.net/wahw.htm


QUOTE: “I'm absolutely convinced that we're making no progress at all, and I've been complaining for two years that there's an overly optimistic—an illusionary process going on here.” –Rep. John Murtha on “Meet the Press,” November 20, 2005

QUOTE: “Iraq is George Bush's Vietnam.” –Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA), April 5, 2004

QUOTE: “It looks like today—and this could change—as of today, it looks like women will be worse off in Iraq than they were when Saddam Hussein was president of Iraq.” –Howard Dean, CBS “Face The Nation,” August 14, 2005


QUOTE: “Basic services such as electricity have never been worse and the economy of Arab Iraq is in ruins.” –Andrew Gilligan, The Evening Standard (London), February 14 2005

http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/wm932.cfm

Okay, there are a few quotes. Now let's examine both the quotes, and the quote from you that prompted my response in the first place.

You said that Libs, not Dems, believe that Iraq was better off with Saddam. That's a very broad statement. Even if people believe that one aspect of their lives was better (utilities, women's rights), that's a far cry from believing that they were in better shape overall. I don't know a single liberal who believes that. I believe that there were some aspects that were better, but that overall they are better off now.

Now, again, you said Libs, not Dems. That's an important difference, first because those terms are not synonymous. The quotes you provided are all from Democratic leaders, who are using them for political leverage, not to represent the actual views of the party. They are intended not so much to be apologetic for Saddam, but rather to be harshly critical of our shortcomings in the war. I'm not a Democrat, so I don't mind saying that I find that tactic kind of reprehensible, and I think Godwin's Law is getting worked overtime among the current Dem elite.

But to claim that "the Libs" or even "the Dems" (implying more than just a few talking heads trying to unbalance their opponents) believe that Iraqis were better off under Saddam's rule is crass, unfair and very farfetched. Incidentally, the Murtha and Kennedy quotes don't support your point at all, and the Gilligan quote is a weak connection at best.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I'll never buy the ends justify the means line whenever the cost outweighs the reward.

Just like you haven't bought the basic rules of logic, debate, and sense?

 

[Nightwish]

Just like you haven't bought the basic rules of logic, debate, and sense?

RWA, for the sake of your own credibility (which I'm told is pretty questionable, even among your fellow right-wingers), I wouldn't even use the word "debate" in one of your posts. You jab, you insult, and you asperge, and that's about all you do. That's not debate, that's not even discussion. Admittedly, I've been lured into trading insults with you and a couple others on occasion, but I at least make an attempt at civility, decorum and support, when it is needed.