[Al_U_Card]

mike777, on Sep 4 2007, 07:44 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Sep 4 2007, 07:22 PM, said:

The truth about the Iraq invasion is most likely more simple than most wars.

The PNAC drew up plans for an American Empire.
Miraculously, many of this same group were granted positions of power and influence inside the Bush administration.
9-11 gave them an excuse to implement thier plan.

dang an empire....?

that is thinking big.

So the Republicans build it and now the Democrats get to run it?

I can just see your heart filling with pride.......

too bad the blood pouring out is from other hearts sacrificed to that cause but not of their own volition.

[pbleighton]

Quote

Seriously, I don't think that the situation could ever become so dire in Iraq that I'd just toss off "killing off a half million kids would have been greatly preferable".

You have a very limited imagination, which fits in with your worldview, knowledge of history and current events, judgment, and moral standards.

At least you're consistent.

Peter

[pbleighton]

Quote

So the Republicans build it and now the Democrats get to run it?

Um, that would be *dismantle*, not *run*.

Peter

[mikeh]

jtfanclub, on Sep 4 2007, 08:10 PM, said:

Seriously, I don't think that the situation could ever become so dire in Iraq that I'd just toss off "killing off a half million kids would have been greatly preferable".  That's just not the sort of value judgement I'd be willing to make, any time, any where.  Kind  of horrifying, actually.  That's why we have a President to make that sort of decision, and that's why I'm glad I don't have that job.  I can't tell you what decision I'd have made, but I guarantee it wouldn't have been a flippant "greatly preferable" no matter what.

I suspect that the main point of departure between your view of the war in Iraq and that of your antagonists on this thread lies in your apparent assumption that Bush actually agonized over his decision to invade, when everything we know about how he actually made the decision suggests the opposite.

Yes, it OUGHT to have been a terrible question, on which he ought to have sought multi-lateral opinions. But all the evidence so far made public shows that he 'knew' what the answers were before he asked the question. He and Cheney/Rumsfeld had stacked the deck so that rarely a contrary word was heard... and it seems to be the general consensus that Bush doesn't actually tolerate disagreement.. he is really big on 'loyalty'.

If you truly believe that George W Bush is the kind of deliberative President that your post assumes is in office, then I suspect that no amount of discussion makes any sense.

If, instead, your position is that, in an ideal world, a President should and would weigh all of the complexities, then I suspect that you will find little issue here.

The problem seems to be that a significant number of people have seen the public evidence (including Bush's demonstrated inability to consider that he has EVER made a mistake) and drawn the conclusion that Bush is a man who is not one to let thinking influence belief. A man with no doubts is a horrifying President.

[mike777]

It does seem in some perfect world our leaders or any leader would look at all the options, ask for a multitude of opinions, read stacks of learned papers on both sides of an issue, seek out counsel of wiseman and then make a decision.

But as was said on 60 minutes one time by a Congressman, "Son, no one, I mean no one reads the bill or fully understands the bill before they vote on it"

Perhaps life in fact comes down to more tinkering and trial and error than we realize. Do we just choose to delude ourselves otherwise and think these complex decisions are really fully understood and thought out?

Here in America we seem to do a very good job of tearing down our heroes, be it the slave owner Washington, or Jefferson who raped his black female slaves or Ike who even his generals thought he was "a nice chap but knew nothing about being a soldier."

[pbleighton]

Quote

Here in America we seem to do a very good job of tearing down our heroes

Do you consider Bush to be a hero?

Peter

[helene_t]

mike777, on Sep 5 2007, 08:54 PM, said:

Perhaps life in fact comes down to more tinkering and trial and error than we realize. Do we just choose to delude ourselves otherwise and think these complex decisions are really fully understood and thought out?

There's a difference between "not fully understood" and "not understood at all, at least not by the morons in charge".

As for trial and error: error, certainly. But trial? Was anything learned from Iraq?

[Al_U_Card]

pbleighton, on Sep 5 2007, 02:00 PM, said:

Quote

Here in America we seem to do a very good job of tearing down our heroes

Do you consider Bush to be a hero?

Peter

Can you say "Turd Blossom"?

[cherdano]

mike777, on Sep 5 2007, 12:54 PM, said:

Here in America we seem to do a very good job of tearing down our heroes,

Rotfl. I don't know any other Western democratic country who worships his heroes as much (and, by and large, rather uncritically).

[jtfanclub]

pbleighton, on Sep 5 2007, 01:22 PM, said:

You have a very limited imagination, which fits in with your worldview, knowledge of history and current events, judgment, and moral standards.

From somebody who willfully refuses to learn anything whatsoever about what he's talking about, that's got to be a compliment.

You've posted several dozen times without ever giving a single fact. I must say I'm impressed by your ignorance, but I'm done. When you actually want to discuss history, instead of one-liners, look me up. Or don't.

[jtfanclub]

mikeh, on Sep 5 2007, 01:41 PM, said:

I suspect that the main point of departure between your view of the war in Iraq and that of your antagonists on this thread lies in your apparent assumption that Bush actually agonized over his decision to invade, when everything we know about how he actually made the decision suggests the opposite.

No, I just think it's moot. The fact that Bush blundered rather than agonized over it doesn't make it the wrong decision. That he did it for the wrong reasons doesn't make it the wrong decision. That he did a horrible job of executing the decision doesn't make it a wrong decision.

Quote

A man with no doubts is a horrifying President.

Well, yeah. You aren't going to get me to defend him.

But a decision by a bad person is not inherently a bad decision.

[Al_U_Card]

My country right or wrong
our leader is a dong
it's him we hate

He is our president
on him our wrath we vent
the neocons will not repent
it's him we hate

The towers came down hard
our freedoms were retired
more security can not be hired
it's him we hate

We hope its not too late
the bill of rights is great
save our United States

[luke warm]

jtfanclub, on Sep 4 2007, 08:10 PM, said:

pbleighton, on Sep 4 2007, 07:12 PM, said:

You need a lesson in the tense of verbs.  In 2003, we HAD invaded, 12 years in the past.  The status quo was containment.

No. Seriously. Look up Operation Desert Fox.

It's apparently not what you think it is.

Edited:

You know, I finally get it.

All that matters to you is whether you have to see it on your TV set, and what fits into your tiny little mindset. You won't even spend 30 seconds on Google checking up on Desert Fox or Flying Tigers to see if maybe, just maybe, your perception of reality hasn't taken a turn while the facts went flying by.~~

if you are waiting for him to engage in a logical debate-oriented mode, don't hold your breath... it's more fun playing "count the fallacies"

[pbleighton]

Quote

You've posted several dozen times without ever giving a single fact.

ROFL.

I gave you a fact, that Germany was engaged in conquering a continent, a fact which you were apparently unaware of.

You persisted in comparing World War II to the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Incredible.

Talk about ignorance of the facts.

Peter

[Winstonm]

Quote

That he did it for the wrong reasons doesn't make it the wrong decision.

There is fallacy of logic here that I am having trouble pinpointing.

Let's say I decide to shoot you because I believe you have been sleeping with my wife; but it turns out you don't even know my wife; however, you have been abusing your own wife.

So has my wrong reason turned into right decision? I don't think so, because the wrong "enforcer" was used. The law has penalties for spousal abuse, but that does not include vigilante execution for misapplied reasons.

If there were other valid reasons to be in Iraq, there were other avenues than a U.S. led invasion to attain those goals.

Reason - or call it motivation - is critical because it determines objectives.
The announced goal in Iraq was to rid Saddam Hussein of weapons of mass destruction so he wouldn't give them to terrorists - how can we forget the "mushroom cloud" threat Bush painted for us.

But there were no weapons of mass destruction and Iraq was not sponsoring Al-qaeda - yet somehow the decision to invade was still correct?

I don't see it - I see the subsequent arguments made as reasons to stay in Iraq, but not as valid justifications for the initial invasion.

[Winstonm]

Another oddity from today:

Quote

By Larry Johnson


Why the hubbub over a B-52 taking off from a B-52 base in Minot, North Dakota and subsequently landing at a B-52 base in Barksdale, Louisiana? .

Barksdale Air Force Base is being used as a jumping off point for Middle East operations. Gee, why would we want cruise missile nukes at Barksdale Air Force Base. Can’t imagine we would need to use them in Iraq. Why would we want to preposition nuclear weapons at a base conducting Middle East operations?

[cherdano]

jtfanclub, on Sep 5 2007, 02:54 PM, said:

That he did a horrible job of executing the decision doesn't make it a wrong decision.

Yes it does. If after a relay auction where you know partenr's hand exactly, you bid a grand slam that you can only make if you know about trump squeezes, but you don't, then it was the wrong decision to bid it.
If invading Iraq could have been a success with a military, intelligence, administration etc. that is capable of understanding a foreign country, listens to the experts who know the language, the region, the country etc. but instead you have a group of people that listens to authority over expertise, is guided by ideology rather than facts and realistic perception of reality, doesn't even realize they need a post-war plan, and is in general incapable of making good judgment in Iraq, then it still is the wrong decision to invade.

(Of course I disagree with the common claim among US conservatives that the Iraq invasion could have been a success if only had been executed better, but even if that claim were true I would still disagree with your claim above.)

[pbleighton]

Quote

That he did it for the wrong reasons doesn't make it the wrong decision.

A husband and wife have a furious argument. The man goes for his gun, the woman flees, he chases her and shoots at her. He misses, and instead kills a fugitive mass murderer who is on a murderous rampage.

He's a hero, right?

Absolutely remarkable logic.

And of course, the invasion of Iraq has been such WONDERFUL success, it hardly matters why we did it.

Just stunning.

Peter

[Al_U_Card]

He gets concurrent sentences for murder AND attempted murder

[jtfanclub]

Winstonm, on Sep 5 2007, 06:49 PM, said:

Quote

That he did it for the wrong reasons doesn't make it the wrong decision.

There is fallacy of logic here that I am having trouble pinpointing.

Hmmmm...good example.

OK, I found the fallacy there.

You're discussing the PERSON. I've already said that I won't defend Bush.

I'm discussing the EVENT.

A similar example. Some idiot cuts me off in traffic. I force him off the road, and shoot him dead. You know, a typical American response.

Later, it turns out that his car was full of explosives and he was on his way to blow up a preschool that wouldn't give him an extra pudding cup 20 years ago.

The PERSON: Should I be lauded, or rewarded, for my actions? Of cours not.

The ACTION: Was the result favorable to society and the world in general? I'd say definitely.

So I'm separating the two. I'm not a Republican, or a Conservative. You don't have to convince me that Bush is an idiot.

Quote

Reason - or call it motivation - is critical because it determines objectives. 
The announced goal in Iraq was to rid Saddam Hussein of weapons of mass destruction so he wouldn't give them to terrorists - how can we forget the "mushroom cloud" threat Bush painted for us.

Doesn't matter. Once you've decided on a course of action as big as a war, you give the reason that will give you unanimous support. That was the point of the Stamp Act, Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, the Maine, the Lusitania, even Pearl Harbor I suspect.

Suppose Bush had gone before Congress and said "Madeleine Albright was asked about half a million kids dying in Iraq due to the Sanctions, and she said 'we think the price is worth it'. If we pull out completely, millions of Kurds and Shiites who helped us and worked with us and trusted us will be killed. Well I say it's not worth it, and I say letting those people die would be a violation of all we hold dear. So I'm going to invade Iraq next week".

Americans, being Americans wouldn't have been very enthusiastic. Why should we sacrifice a couple of thousands of American good old boys to save millions of our erstwhile allies over there? Why do it now, instead of later (which is basically the reason why we didn't do it in 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001...)? Tepid support, fewer people volunteering, it would have made the mess far worse than it is now. If you're going to fight a war, you don't do it halfway. And sometimes, that means you lie to get the support of the populace. Sometimes, hell. I can't think of a modern war that hasn't used some pretence or another to get the populace riled up.

Quote

If there were other valid reasons to be in Iraq, there were other avenues than a U.S. led invasion to attain those goals.

Well, by all means, tell me what those avenues were. The reasons I gave two paragraphs up are the reasons I would have gone, plus one more: we were under time pressure. Saudi Arabia wanted us out, and soon. Funding Al Qaeda so they could attack us was only the start.