Question for Iraq war supporters

[mattskramer]

Is anyone willing to say that Bush should have at least inspected the hospitals before he had us go to war? Can you say that there is anything that you think would be obvious that Bush should have done differently? (I’m not talking about hindsight being 20/20. I’m talking about foresight that would make you think that Bush jumped into war too quickly.) Would anyone say something along these lines, “Wow? You screwed up here. Didn’t it ever dawn on you that this action would be more appropriate?” - or do all pro-Bush and Pro-Iraq people think that all of Bush’s decisions throughout the war in Iraq to this point were reasonable and well-planned-out.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Can you say that there is anything that you think would be obvious that Bush should have done differently? (I’m not talking about hindsight being 20/20. I’m talking about foresight that would make you think that Bush jumped into war too quickly.)

There is nothing to indicate that we jumped into the war too quickly.

 

[Meemer]

There is nothing to indicate that we jumped into the war too quickly.

You're kidding, right, Shooter? A holiday joke thing you got going there?

Riots, plundering, too few troops, the beginning of open civil unrest between religious groups, primarily Sunni and Shi'a; and an almost total infrastructure breakdown (which hasn't been rectified yet).

Didn't jump in too quickly, you say? Ah, yes, those elusive WMD's. Something I've always wondered about and questioned while watching Powell's dog and pony presentation before the UN (with the not-too-happy visage of Tenet always visible off Powell's right shoulder). All those photos of suspected chem/bio labs and mobile units; all those WMD factories and storage facilities. Meanwhile, back in Iraq, the UN had searchers on the ground looking for those alleged WMD thingies. Why did not the US transmit the location of the coordinates of those alleged sites to the UN teams on the ground? All photos have those coordinates. But, nope, Geo. the Lesser announced his war would begin and for the inspectors to high tail it out of harm's way. Didn't jump into war too quickly, you say?
Ah, I don't think so.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Riots, plundering, too few troops, the beginning of open civil unrest between religious groups, primarily Sunni and Shi'a; and an almost total infrastructure breakdown (which hasn't been rectified yet).

Presuming for the moment that these things actually happend to the degree that you believe they did -- how do they indicate that we 'jumped into the war too quickly'?

Didn't jump in too quickly, you say? Ah, yes, those elusive WMD's....All those photos of suspected chem/bio labs and mobile units; all those WMD factories and storage facilities. Meanwhile, back in Iraq, the UN had searchers on the ground looking for those alleged WMD thingies.

Hans Blix, 26 FEB 2003:
""I do not think I can say there is evidence of a fundamental decision [by Iraq to disarm]"
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,79671,00.html
That covers the WMD issue.

 

[jillian]

Presuming for the moment that these things actually happend to the degree that you believe they did -- how do they indicate that we 'jumped into the war too quickly'?


Hans Blix, 26 FEB 2003:
""I do not think I can say there is evidence of a fundamental decision [by Iraq to disarm]"
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,79671,00.html
That covers the WMD issue.

Perhaps you should try looking at the final Blix Report instead of what they said on FauxNews.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Perhaps you should try looking at the final Blix Report instead of what they said on FauxNews.

You were SO falling all over yourself to rip Fox News that you didnt take the time to see they had posted an AP story.

Not surprising, but so very, very sad.

No fundamental decision to disarm. All you need to know.

 

[jillian]

You were SO falling all over yourself to rip Fox News that you didnt take the time to see they had posted an AP story.

Not surprising, but so very, very sad.

No fundamental decision to disarm. All you need to know.

You mean the big bad liberal media aided in the run up to the war? shocked I tell ya....

My point either way (and perhaps I was a little quick to jump on poor little FauxNews) is that the Blix Report said something real different.

 

[mattskramer]

Presuming for the moment that these things actually happend to the degree that you believe they did -- how do they indicate that we 'jumped into the war too quickly'?

Uh. If we had prepared adequately, we would have went in with an overwhelming ground force, after first clearing the area with an overwhelming number of armored vehicles. We would have had more than enough soldiers to squelch the riots and guard places from plunder. We would have then immediately had engineers there, fully protected by armored soldiers, to immediately start rebuilding the infrastructure after we destroy it. There would not have been so many kidnappings if I had decided that we go to war and led the war. It is as simple as that.

P.S. The hospitals should have been ready.

 

[Annie]

Perhaps you should try looking at the final Blix Report instead of what they said on FauxNews.

Here's a link to the text of Blix report, what part do you disagree with Jillian?

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/27/sprj.irq.transcript.blix/index.html

 

[Gunny]

Is anyone willing to say that Bush should have at least inspected the hospitals before he had us go to war? Can you say that there is anything that you think would be obvious that Bush should have done differently? (I’m not talking about hindsight being 20/20. I’m talking about foresight that would make you think that Bush jumped into war too quickly.) Would anyone say something along these lines, “Wow? You screwed up here. Didn’t it ever dawn on you that this action would be more appropriate?” - or do all pro-Bush and Pro-Iraq people think that all of Bush’s decisions throughout the war in Iraq to this point were reasonable and well-planned-out.

As I've said more than once ...

Bush's decision to invade Iraq was a mistake. Sure, Saddam was everything Bush claimed he was, and none of the weak-ass arguments have disproven it.

But Saddam was the lesser of two evils. The DoD assessment back in 91 was that if Saddam was taken out, it would create a power vaccuum and lead to factional fighting, and a (as predicted then) a rush for control by Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Syria. While some of the players have turned out to be different, the result has been essentially the same.

Strategically, as long as Saddam was in power, he stood between all the factions and kept them at bay.

 

[Annie]

As I've said more than once ...

Bush's decision to invade Iraq was a mistake. Sure, Saddam was everything Bush claimed he was, and none of the weak-ass arguments have disproven it.

But Saddam was the lesser of two evils. The DoD assessment back in 91 was that if Saddam was taken out, it would create a power vaccuum and lead to factional fighting, and a (as predicted then) a rush for control by Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Syria. While some of the players have turned out to be different, the result has been essentially the same.

Strategically, as long as Saddam was in power, he stood between all the factions and kept them at bay.

maybe I'm weird, but this just strikes me wrong:

Is anyone willing to say that Bush should have at least inspected the hospitals before he had us go to war? Can you say that there is anything that you think would be obvious that Bush should have done differently?

Do you understand how lame this is?

 

[Gunny]

maybe I'm weird, but this just strikes me wrong:

Do you understand how lame this is?

The hospital question? I just ignored it and went with the intent of his question. I have no idea what matts is talking about in regard to hospitals. Perhaps he will enlighten us.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You mean the big bad liberal media aided in the run up to the war? shocked I tell ya....

My point either way (and perhaps I was a little quick to jump on poor little FauxNews) is that the Blix Report said something real different.

I dont see where Blix recants his statement in the report.
I also see lots of places where Blix says that Ieaq cannot account for numberuns WMDs it said it had.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Uh. If we had prepared adequately, we would have went in with an overwhelming ground force,

Uh... we did. Iraq fell in three weeks.

after first clearing the area with an overwhelming number of armored vehicles.

We sent 2 infantry divisions; the UK sent one armored division.
How did they not overwhelm the Iraqi army?

It is as simple as that.

There's -something- simple here, that's for sure...

 

[mattskramer]

Uh... we did. Iraq fell in three weeks. We sent 2 infantry divisions; the UK sent one armored division.
How did they not overwhelm the Iraqi army?

Did I say anything about the Iraqi army? I’m not just talking about the army. I’m talking about all of the mess in Iraq: the looting, the delay in restoring the infrastructure, the kidnappings, and the unnecessarily large number of injuries to our soldiers. This would not have happened if we had sent in enough people.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Did I say anything about the Iraqi army? I’m not just talking about the army. I’m talking about all of the mess in Iraq: the looting, the delay in restoring the infrastructure, the kidnappings, and the unnecessarily large number of injuries to our soldiers. This would not have happened if we had sent in enough people.

Its pretty clear that you've committed yourself to parroting the usual talking points.
Let me know if and when you decide you actually want to listen.

 

[mattskramer]

Its pretty clear that you've committed yourself to parroting the usual talking points.
Let me know if and when you decide you actually want to listen.

I have been listening to your replies. Tell me something besides I’m a parrot or my ideas are impossible. If they are talking points, refute the talking points. It is as simple as that.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I have been listening to your replies.

No, you haven't.
If you had, and if you were willing/able to think for yourself, you wouldnt be droning on and on with the same, tired, worn, talking points.

 

[mattskramer]

No, you haven't.
If you had, and if you were willing/able to think for yourself, you wouldnt be droning on and on with the same, tired, worn, talking points.

How do you know that I don’t think for myself? I learn things. I examine issues from both sides. Then I draw my own conclusions. If my conclusions are similar to those of others, so be it. I like Bush in certain respects. I think that he is right in what he does. Sometimes I think that me makes foolish choices. I’m not a parrot for one political party or the other. I’m listening to you yet I have not grasped anything you have said to me on the issue except for name calling, saying that my ideas are impossible and have never been taught, and things of that nature. Give me some explanations. Why are my ideas actually impossible? Why have they never been taught? While you are at it, why not answer my simple question concerning the hospital? – whether it is a parroted question or a talking point or not.

 

[M14 Shooter]

How do you know that I don’t think for myself?

Asks the guy that believes that it -is- possible to think of, and then plan for "every" possible contingent when going to war.

Do you understand what every possible contingent means?

If you did, you'd undertsand why its pretty clear you dont think for yourself.