Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]



This is an archived forum, so it is here for read-only purposes only. We are not accepting new members and members cannot post any longer. Members can, however, access their old private messages. Strawberry Fields was open from 2006 until 2011. There is a Strawberry Fields Beatles Forum on Facebook. If you are registered with Facebook, join us at the group there!

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
The Iraq War; 5th anniversary edition
Topic Started: Mar 19 2008, 11:47 PM (902 Views)
beatlechick
Member Avatar
In Paul's Arms!
What more can you say about a war that was based on lies? How about this?


U.S. Deaths Confirmed By The DoD: 3991
Reported U.S. Deaths Pending DoD Confirmation: 1
Total 3992
DoD Confirmation List


U.S. Deaths: Self-Inflicted As reported by the DoD as of 3/1/2008
Self Inflicted Army Navy Marines Air Force Total
Died of Self-Inflicted wounds 118 4 23 0 145

Missing or Captured:
Nationality Name Date
US Staff Sergeant Keith M. Maupin 16-Apr-2004
US Ahmed Qusai al-Taei: Status - missing-captured 23-Oct-2006
US Spc. Alex R. Jimenez: Status - missing-captured 12-May-2007
US Pvt. Byron W. Fouty: Status - missing-captured 12-May-2007

*Other Coalition Countries:

Country Total

Australia 2
Bulgaria 13
Czech Republic 1
Denmark 7
El Salvador 5
Estonia 2
Georgia 1
Hungary 1
Italy 33
Kazakhstan 1
Latvia 3
Netherlands 2
Poland 23
Romania 3
Slovakia 4
South Korea 1
Spain 11
Thailand 2
Ukraine 18
United Kingdom 175


And the list goes on.

Iraq War Casualties

Bin Laden? Still alive!
Posted Image Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bag O' Nails
Member Avatar
MaccaMomma
Although this war may have been deemed "uneccessary," I just want to thank all of these soldiers, Americans and those of other countries, who have given the ultimate sacrifice of their lives to help those who are oppressed in other parts of the world.

I heard today on the radio that re-enlistments are at an all-time high in the US. I think that as terrible as this or any war is, there are still those out there who are willing to take a stand for what they feel their duty to their country and their world. I wish the war would end, too, and I have high hopes that we will get Bin Laden...sooner or later he will pay. :angry:
Posted ImagePosted Image
One sweet dream came true....London & Liverpool '08
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ThirdHarmony
Member Avatar

Five years...

I can not count myself amongst those who are opposed to the broad goals of seeing democracy brought to the Middle East and an end to brutal dictatorships - and I suspect very few are. However noble and worthwhile those goals may be, execution is everything and I cannot fathom the monumental levels of incompetence which has surrounded the entire Iraq endeavour.

In the weeks before the war broke out, I had a dinner conversation with my father about the "second war" that seemed imminent and about to take away all focus from the "first war" in Afghanistan. Even though we both detested Saddam with all of our beings, the idea of entering full swing into a difficult arena seemed like something that needed careful consideration first.

He asked me if I didn't think the presented case for WMD's looked a bit shaky, at least as a case for entering with armed forces. I recall my reply, at that point still not utterly disillusioned with those in charge: "I'm sure they have some pretty solid intelligence that they cannot share at this time for security reasons. Afterwards, they'll probably reveal what they knew but couldn't divulge at the time." Dad looked at me with concern but replied "Yes, perhaps that is the case."

I am not nor have I ever been "Anti-American", as some might portray any critic of the way the Iraq war was started. I am, on the other hand, never again going to have the sadly blind and naive trust I once had that people of such dramatic arrogance, ignorance and incompetence could not be allowed rise to the level of being key players in American national security matters.

As for the continuing arrogance of some of the (few remaining) people, this one is a doozy:

A Washington Post-ABC News poll showed nearly two-thirds of Americans believe the war was not worth waging.

Told about the poll in an interview on ABC's "Good Morning America," Vice President Dick Cheney, in Oman after a visit to Iraq, said dismissively: "So?"

[source]
"My definition of a free society is a society where it is safe to be unpopular." - Adlai Stevenson

"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith. I consider the capacity for it terrifying." - Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tagandolfo
Member Avatar

:( :( :( :( :(
Will it ever end???
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
maccascruff
Sing the Changes
McCain says we will be there in 100 years.

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED????

Iraq War Results & Statistics at March 16, 2008

3,989 US Soldiers Killed, 29,395 Seriously Wounded


US SPENDING IN IRAQ

Spent & Approved War-Spending - About $600 billion of US taxpayers' funds. President Bush has requested another $200 billion for 2008, which would bring the cumulative total to close to $800 billion.

U.S. Monthly Spending in Iraq - $12 billion in 2008

Cost of deploying one U.S. soldier for one year in Iraq - $390,000 (Congressional Research Service)

Lost & Unaccounted for in Iraq - $9 billion of US taxpayers' money and $549.7 milion in spare parts shipped in 2004 to US contractors.



Also, per ABC News, 190,000 guns, including 110,000 AK-47 rifles.

Missing - $1 billion in tractor trailers, tank recovery vehicles, machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades and other equipment and services provided to the Iraqi security forces. (Per CBS News on Dec 6, 2007.)

Mismanaged & Wasted in Iraq - $10 billion, per Feb 2007 Congressional hearings

Halliburton Overcharges Classified by the Pentagon as Unreasonable and Unsupported - $1.4 billion

Amount paid to KBR, a former Halliburton division, to supply U.S. military in Iraq with food, fuel, housing and other items - $20 billion

Portion of the $20 billion paid to KBR that Pentagon auditors deem "questionable or supportable" - $3.2 billion

Number of major U.S. bases in Iraq - 75 (The Nation/New York Times)



TROOPS IN IRAQ

Iraqi Troops Trained and Able to Function Independent of U.S. Forces - 6,000 as of May 2007 (per NBC's "Meet the Press" on May 20, 2007)

Troops in Iraq - Total 164,481, including 155,000 from the US, 4,500 from the UK, 2,000 from Georgia, 900 from Poland, 650 from South Korea and 1,431 from all other nations

US Troop Casualities - 3,989 US troops; 98% male. 90% non-officers; 80% active duty, 12% National Guard; 74% Caucasian, 10% African-American, 11% Latino. 18% killed by non-hostile causes. 51% of US casualties were under 25 years old. 70% were from the US Army

Non-US Troop Casualties - Total 308, with 175 from the UK

US Troops Wounded - 29,395, 20% of which are serious brain or spinal injuries (total excludes psychological injuries)

US Troops with Serious Mental Health Problems - 30% of US troops develop serious mental health problems within 3 to 4 months of returning home

US Military Helicopters Downed in Iraq - 68 total, at least 36 by enemy fire



IRAQI TROOPS, CIVILIANS & OTHERS IN IRAQ

Private Contractors in Iraq, Working in Support of US Army Troops - More than 180,000 in August 2007, per The Nation/LA Times.

Journalists killed - 127, 84 by murder and 43 by acts of war

Journalists killed by US Forces - 14

Iraqi Police and Soldiers Killed - 8,009

Iraqi Civilians Killed, Estimated - A UN issued report dated Sept 20, 2006 stating that Iraqi civilian casualities have been significantly under-reported. Casualties are reported at 50,000 to over 100,000, but may be much higher. Some informed estimates place Iraqi civilian casualities at over 600,000.

Iraqi Insurgents Killed, Roughly Estimated - 55,000

Non-Iraqi Contractors and Civilian Workers Killed - 548

Non-Iraqi Kidnapped - 305, including 54 killed, 147 released, 4 escaped, 6 rescued and 94 status unknown.

Daily Insurgent Attacks, Feb 2004 - 14

Daily Insurgent Attacks, July 2005 - 70

Daily Insurgent Attacks, May 2007 - 163

Estimated Insurgency Strength, Nov 2003 - 15,000

Estimated Insurgency Strength, Oct 2006 - 20,000 - 30,000

Estimated Insurgency Strength, June 2007 - 70,000



QUALITY OF LIFE INDICATORS

Iraqis Displaced Inside Iraq, by Iraq War, as of May 2007 - 2,255,000

Iraqi Refugees in Syria & Jordan - 2.1 million to 2.25 million

Iraqi Unemployment Rate - 27 to 60%, where curfew not in effect

Consumer Price Inflation in 2006 - 50%

Iraqi Children Suffering from Chronic Malnutrition - 28% in June 2007 (Per CNN.com, July 30, 2007)

Percent of professionals who have left Iraq since 2003 - 40%

Iraqi Physicians Before 2003 Invasion - 34,000

Iraqi Physicians Who Have Left Iraq Since 2005 Invasion - 12,000

Iraqi Physicians Murdered Since 2003 Invasion - 2,000

Average Daily Hours Iraqi Homes Have Electricity - 1 to 2 hours, per Ryan Crocker, U.S. Ambassador to Iraq (Per Los Angeles Times, July 27, 2007)

Average Daily Hours Iraqi Homes Have Electricity - 10.9 in May 2007

Average Daily Hours Baghdad Homes Have Electricity - 5.6 in May 2007

Pre-War Daily Hours Baghdad Homes Have Electricity - 16 to 24

Number of Iraqi Homes Connected to Sewer Systems - 37%

Iraqis without access to adequate water supplies - 70% (Per CNN.com, July 30, 2007)

Water Treatment Plants Rehabilitated - 22%



RESULTS OF POLL Taken in Iraq in August 2005 by the British Ministry of Defense (Source: Brookings Institute)

Iraqis "strongly opposed to presence of coalition troops - 82%

Iraqis who believe Coalition forces are responsible for any improvement in security - less than 1%

Iraqis who feel less ecure because of the occupation - 67%

Iraqis who do not have confidence in multi-national forces - 72%
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

Do you feel any safer?

Is the world any safer?

Is Iraq any safer?

Has bin Laden (look him up) been caught?

Is there any end in sight?


If you answered No to any of the above, the the follow up question is:
Why are the people who did it still in office?
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
BeatleBarb
Member Avatar

The answer of course, is NO to the above questions.

I can't believe this invasion has gone on this long....simply tragic!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rose
Member Avatar
Well, here's another clue for you all, the Walrus was Paul...
5 years...and what do we have to show for it? Trillion dollars in debt, hated across the world, and most importantly...almost 4000 young men and women...dead. :no:

Posted Image Posted Image

"I'm in awe of McCartney. He's about the only one that I am in awe of. He can do it all. And he's never let up... He's just so damn effortless." ~ Bob Dylan
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
BlueMolly2009
Member Avatar
LOLcat Freak
Five years is way too long.

The thing that pisses me off are those who are "for the war" who say that those of us who are against the war can't say we support the troops. I have high school friends and friends who have family members over there and I support them. I felt really bad when I hear about a soldier from this area who gets injured or killed. I would do anything to support the troops, but I don't think that the US should force themselves on countries like Iraq and Afganistan.
Molly
Myspace
My Twitter
My FriendFeed
My Facebook
Posted Image
Boston Chihuahuas (I took this while at a Starbucks)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JeffLynnesBeard
Member Avatar
Administrator & Moderator
I'm still puzzled as to why people are mentioning bin Laden and the Iraq War in the same breath.

Has the Bush administration's unsubtle campaign to somehow link 9/11 with Iraq and convince the public that it is, indeed, one and the same worked?

bin Laden's family and links are in Saudi Arabia. The majority of the terrorists on the 9/11 flights were from Saudi Arabia. bin Laden based himself in Afghanistan with the Taliban.

It's one hell of a spin job to see people still talking about Iraq and bin Laden as if they are in any way linked.

Third Harmony's first paragraph sums up the way I felt about the Iraq invasion. I feel for and support the US, UK and allied soldiers still fighting this futile and unjustified war. I do not support the politicians who sent them there and yet, had their reasons and reasoning been more noble, I would probably detest them a little less for the many thousands of innocents - as well as the troops - who have been killed, maimed or injured.
...and in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
maccascruff
Sing the Changes
Do you feel any safer? NO

Is the world any safer? No

Is Iraq any safer? NO

Has bin Laden (look him up) been caught? NO

Is there any end in sight? NO


If you answered No to any of the above, the the follow up question is:
Why are the people who did it still in office?

I didn't vote for them and will not vote for the candidate who wants to stay there 100 years.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

JeffLynnesBeard
Mar 21 2008, 02:44 AM
I'm still puzzled as to why people are mentioning bin Laden and the Iraq War in the same breath.

Has the Bush administration's unsubtle campaign to somehow link 9/11 with Iraq and convince the public that it is, indeed, one and the same worked?

bin Laden's family and links are in Saudi Arabia. The majority of the terrorists on the 9/11 flights were from Saudi Arabia. bin Laden based himself in Afghanistan with the Taliban.

It's one hell of a spin job to see people still talking about Iraq and bin Laden as if they are in any way linked.

Just for the record, I brought it up to illustrate how the original objective of the "war on terror" has not been achieved, thanks in no small part to the escapade in Iraq.
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatlespud
Member Avatar

I didn't vote for him either time....



I support the troops but it is my right as an American to question why they are there and not be insulted by the pro-war people. Of course if Bush was in for a third term would Americans have any rights that weren't taken away as so many have been already?





Dean
Save the whales, collect the entire set!!!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

I am glad my country was not part of it. A war is always the most primitive way to solve things.

Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mia Culpa
Member Avatar
This space intentionally left blank.
For those saying they didn't vote for Bush so it's not their fault, look at it this way, nobody in Iraq voted for Bush.

Cheney gives an intelligent analysis of an Iraq invasion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I&feature=related
If you read my posts backward there's evidence that Paul is dead.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

You're only absolved if you voted against him. ;)
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mia Culpa
Member Avatar
This space intentionally left blank.
What about the billions of us who never had the option?
If you read my posts backward there's evidence that Paul is dead.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatlechick
Member Avatar
In Paul's Arms!
Mia Culpa
Mar 21 2008, 08:24 PM
For those saying they didn't vote for Bush so it's not their fault, look at it this way, nobody in Iraq voted for Bush.

Cheney gives an intelligent analysis of an Iraq invasion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I&feature=related

You've got it all wrong. A good deal of us didn't vote for him but no one is saying that we are not to blame. There are a lot that did vote for him but did not want us to go to war. There are some that did not vote for him and did want to go to war. It's the President, his advisors, AND the people that voted for the war that are to blame.

If you feel you had no option because you could not vote in American elections, you still had a voice in your own part of the world.
Posted Image Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mia Culpa
Member Avatar
This space intentionally left blank.
beatlechick
Mar 22 2008, 09:38 AM
Mia Culpa
Mar 21 2008, 08:24 PM
For those saying they didn't vote for Bush so it's not their fault, look at it this way, nobody in Iraq voted for Bush.

Cheney gives an intelligent analysis of an Iraq invasion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I&feature=related

You've got it all wrong. A good deal of us didn't vote for him but no one is saying that we are not to blame. There are a lot that did vote for him but did not want us to go to war. There are some that did not vote for him and did want to go to war. It's the President, his advisors, AND the people that voted for the war that are to blame.

If you feel you had no option because you could not vote in American elections, you still had a voice in your own part of the world.

What? :blink: I think you quoted the wrong person?
If you read my posts backward there's evidence that Paul is dead.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Old Brown Shoe
Member Avatar

Dean Martin and The Duke said it all
http://download.yousendit.com/5070B25A2F25D15E
Rest in Peace Mom!!!!4/7/38-2/8/09 I Miss You!!!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
fab4fan
Member Avatar
Caretaker
I'm not going to change anyone's mind on here about this but I would appreciate the indulgence of at least reading this alternate view.

http://www.slate.com/id/2186740/

How Did I Get Iraq Wrong?
I didn't.
By Christopher Hitchens
Updated Monday, March 17, 2008, at 4:29 PM ET
Editor's note: To mark the fifth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, Slate has asked a number of writers who originally supported the war to answer the question, "Why did we get it wrong?" We have invited contributions from the best-known "liberal hawks," many of whom participated in two previous Slate debates about the war, the first before it began in fall of 2002, the second in early 2004. We will be publishing their responses through the week. Read the rest of the contributions.

An "anniversary" of a "war" is in many ways the least useful occasion on which to take stock of something like the Anglo-American intervention in Iraq, if only because any such formal observance involves the assumption that a) this is, in fact, a war and b,) it is by that definition an exception from the rest of our engagement with that country and that region. I am one of those who, for example, believes that the global conflict that began in August 1914 did not conclusively end, despite a series of "fragile truces," until the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union. This is not at all to redefine warfare and still less to contextualize it out of existence. But when I wrote the essays that go to make up A Long Short War: The Postponed Liberation of Iraq, I was expressing an impatience with those who thought that hostilities had not really "begun" until George W. Bush gave a certain order in the spring of 2003.

Anyone with even a glancing acquaintance with Iraq would have to know that a heavy U.S. involvement in the affairs of that country began no later than 1968, with the role played by the CIA in the coup that ultimately brought Saddam Hussein's wing of the Baath Party to power. Not much more than a decade later, we come across persuasive evidence that the United States at the very least acquiesced in the Iraqi invasion of Iran, a decision that helped inflict moral and material damage of an order to dwarf anything that has occurred in either country recently. In between, we might note minor episodes such as Henry Kissinger's faux support to Kurdish revolutionaries, encouraging them to believe in American support and then abandoning and betraying them in the most brutal and cynical fashion.

If you can bear to keep watching this flickering newsreel, it will take you all the way up to the moment when Saddam Hussein, too, switches sides and courts Washington, being most in favor in our nation's capital at the precise moment when he is engaged in a campaign of extermination in the northern provinces and retaining this same favor until the very moment when he decides to "engulf" his small Kuwaiti neighbor. In every decision taken subsequent to that, from the decision to recover Kuwait and the decision to leave Saddam in power to the decisions to impose international sanctions on Iraq and the decision to pass the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, stating that long-term coexistence with Saddam's regime was neither possible nor desirable, there was a really quite high level of public participation in our foreign policy. We were never, if we are honest with ourselves, "lied into war." We became steadily more aware that the option was continued collusion with Saddam Hussein or a decision to have done with him. The president's speech to the United Nations on Sept. 12, 2002, laying out the considered case that it was time to face the Iraqi tyrant, too, with this choice, was easily the best speech of his two-term tenure and by far the most misunderstood.

That speech is widely and wrongly believed to have focused on only two aspects of the problem, namely the refusal of Saddam's regime to come into compliance on the resolutions concerning weapons of mass destruction and the involvement of the Baathists with a whole nexus of nihilist and Islamist terror groups. Baghdad's outrageous flouting of the resolutions on compliance (if not necessarily the maintenance of blatant, as opposed to latent, WMD capacity) remains a huge and easily demonstrable breach of international law. The role of Baathist Iraq in forwarding and aiding the merchants of suicide terror actually proves to be deeper and worse, on the latest professional estimate, than most people had ever believed or than the Bush administration had ever suggested.

This is all overshadowed by the unarguable hash that was made of the intervention itself. But I would nonetheless maintain that this incompetence doesn't condemn the enterprise wholesale. A much-wanted war criminal was put on public trial. The Kurdish and Shiite majority was rescued from the ever-present threat of a renewed genocide. A huge, hideous military and party apparatus, directed at internal repression and external aggression was (perhaps overhastily) dismantled. The largest wetlands in the region, habitat of the historic Marsh Arabs, have been largely recuperated. Huge fresh oilfields have been found, including in formerly oil free Sunni provinces, and some important initial investment in them made. Elections have been held, and the outline of a federal system has been proposed as the only alternative to a) a sectarian despotism and b,) a sectarian partition and fragmentation. Not unimportantly, a battlefield defeat has been inflicted on al-Qaida and its surrogates, who (not without some Baathist collaboration) had hoped to constitute the successor regime in a failed state and an imploded society. Further afield, a perfectly defensible case can be made that the Syrian Baathists would not have evacuated Lebanon, nor would the Qaddafi gang have turned over Libya's (much higher than anticipated) stock of WMD if not for the ripple effect of the removal of the region's keystone dictatorship.

None of these positive developments took place without a good deal of bungling and cruelty and unintended consequences of their own. I don't know of a satisfactory way of evaluating one against the other any more than I quite know how to balance the disgrace of Abu Ghraib, say, against the digging up of Saddam's immense network of mass graves. There is, however, one position that nobody can honestly hold but that many people try their best to hold. And that is what I call the Bishop Berkeley theory of Iraq, whereby if a country collapses and succumbs to trauma, and it's not our immediate fault or direct responsibility, then it doesn't count, and we are not involved. Nonetheless, the very thing that most repels people when they contemplate Iraq, which is the chaos and misery and fragmentation (and the deliberate intensification and augmentation of all this by the jihadists), invites the inescapable question: What would post-Saddam Iraq have looked like without a coalition presence?

The past years have seen us both shamed and threatened by the implications of the Berkeleyan attitude, from Burma to Rwanda to Darfur. Had we decided to attempt the right thing in those cases (you will notice that I say "attempt" rather than "do," which cannot be known in advance), we could as glibly have been accused of embarking on "a war of choice." But the thing to remember about Iraq is that all or most choice had already been forfeited. We were already deeply involved in the life-and-death struggle of that country, and March 2003 happens to mark the only time that we ever decided to intervene, after a protracted and open public debate, on the right side and for the right reasons. This must, and still does, count for something.
Mnisthiti mou Kurie!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
maccascruff
Sing the Changes
I did not vote for Bush, I have protested the war, I wrote letters to my people in Congress to try to get them not to vote for the war. Yet the US has blood on it's hands and always will because of this war that should never have happened. It's a horrible feeling.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mia Culpa
Member Avatar
This space intentionally left blank.
fab4fan
Mar 23 2008, 08:41 PM
I am one of those who, for example, believes that the global conflict that began in August 1914 did not conclusively end,

It's all the Austro-Hungarians' fault.
If you read my posts backward there's evidence that Paul is dead.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

It's worth noting that the Hitchens article was one of a series in which they ask supporters of the war why they were wrong. Hitchens is the only one of many who says, "I wasn't."

And he makes some fair points like


Quote:
 
This is all overshadowed by the unarguable hash that was made of the intervention itself. But I would nonetheless maintain that this incompetence doesn't condemn the enterprise wholesale.

Theoretically true, but in practical terms, the people who screwed it up time and again are still in charge of it now. Common sense tells us to expect more stuff-ups no matter how optimistic your disposition may be. Last week, Paul Bremer said that even knowing what he knows now, he still would have done the same thing. Who says we learn from our mistakes?

It also assumes there was ever a way to achieve success in the way imagined. Colin Powell's advice was that nothing succeeds like excess but he was shouted down. Whether the Powell doctrine would have succeeded is an unknown quantity. Hitchens speaks of attempting the right thing rather than "doing" in Rwanda. It's a fair point. Whether the right thing would ever truly have been done, if attempted, is unknowable. But that principle applies equally to Iraq. The right thing was attempted and comprehensively botched. But following Hitchens' own very sound logic on Rwanda, Darfur and Burma, there is no way of saying for certain that there was ever a way to achieve the objectives in Iraq without the wholesale mess we see today. Positive thoughts simply aren't enough, and Hitchens being an outspoken atheist should know that better than most.

Elsewhere though, he comes out with some howlers:

Quote:
 
A much-wanted war criminal was put on public trial.

But he was never tried for his worst crimes. He was tried on a lesser charge first, then hanged for it before they could ever get to the really gruesome stuff that also implicated the US. Then they dropped all further charges on the grounds that he was dead. Convenient?

Quote:
 
The Kurdish and Shiite majority was rescued from the ever-present threat of a renewed genocide.

Are you sh*tting me?
The only difference between then and now is that every ethnicity is at equal threat of genocide from every other quarter. So full points for levelling the playing field but zero for removing the threat of genocide.

Quote:
 
A huge, hideous military and party apparatus, directed at internal repression and external aggression was (perhaps overhastily) dismantled.

This is grossly overstating the case. If Iraq was truly in possession of this fearsome war machine, don't you think they would have used it to repel an invasion?
Or did they instead sacrifice their country and their lives in order to spirit their precious weapons away to Syria where they remain unused?
Give me a break!

Quote:
 
Huge fresh oilfields have been found, including in formerly oil free Sunni provinces, and some important initial investment in them made.

Oil you say? How very interesting. I thought it wasn't about the oil. At $100 a barrel, supply is certainly not increasing.

Quote:
 
Elections have been held, and the outline of a federal system has been proposed as the only alternative to a) a sectarian despotism and b,) a sectarian partition and fragmentation.

Elections have also been held recently in Russia and Pakistan. How did that turn out? Simply holding some form of election does not a democracy make.

Quote:
 
Not unimportantly, a battlefield defeat has been inflicted on al-Qaida and its surrogates, who (not without some Baathist collaboration) had hoped to constitute the successor regime in a failed state and an imploded society.

That is attempting to make a virtue out of a stuff-up. Yes, they had hoped to fill the power vacuum. Duh! Funny how no-one planned for that eventuality. Funny also how there were no al Qaeda in Iraq before the invasion.

Quote:
 
Further afield, a perfectly defensible case can be made that the Syrian Baathists would not have evacuated Lebanon, nor would the Qaddafi gang have turned over Libya's (much higher than anticipated) stock of WMD if not for the ripple effect of the removal of the region's keystone dictatorship.

Defensible, but unconvincing. Libya's turnaround had begun back in the Clinton administration and quite frankly, they needed the money. Just on a whim, I suggested many years ago that it would have been cheaper and easier to just bribe the Baathists out. Then last year it was revealed that Saddam would have gone into exile for $1 billion. Seems like a bargain now. And ironically enough, most of the former insurgents who are now fighting with America against the al Qaeda who used not to be there, are doing so because America is paying them to.
Also, Hitchens is dishonest to not include Iran in his "ripple effect" theory. Iran has become more radicalised since the invasion (sorry, intervention) of Iraq and a defensible case could be made that it's because of the invasion.


So while Hitchens makes some good points, he falls into that atheist trap of arguing non sequiturs. He cites the evils committed by religion (which are undeniable) as evidence that there is no God. That doesn't follow. Equally, it's drawing a very long bow to suggest that the people who he admits got it wrong at every stage of the war were still right when they decided to invade.

Also, I have issues with any atheist using words like "good" and "evil." If there is no moral guide in the universe, as Hitchens would argue, then logically an atheist's moral compass would be completely arbitrary. I bring his outspoken atheism up because I think it's dishonest of him not acknowledge the undertone of Christian evangelism in the invasion. President Bush frequently refers to freedom as "God's gift," and I would be interested to know how Hitchens reconciles that along with the fact that the invasion was done without any understanding of the culture they would be dealing with. Since Hitchens holds all faith systems in equal contempt, that's probably not an issue to him but it does effect how things pan out whether you believe in them or not. And that addresses his point that World War 1 never truly ended. On that point, he is spot on (although he loses points for using the word "believe"). But if you follow cause and effect, every conflict that has been spawned from World War one (which is most of them) has come about from idiots with no understanding of the local culture attempting to tell the locals how and where to live. Sound familiar? While he is right to point out that the US's involvement in Iraq goes back to the 60s, he is wrong not to point out that Iraq is a completely artificial nation to begin with. Without a common enemy to unite against, the three different ethnicities will always fight amongst themselves for dominance unless they each get their own chunk of the country. Then they will fight over which chunks and then they will fight over where the borders are. Read your history, it's always the way.
Again, I think Hitchens' contempt for religion (which he is entitled to) makes him blind to these fundamentals.

A very interesting article, but I think he protests to much.
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

I didn't mean to be so long winded on that. As you can perhaps tell, I've had issues with Hitchens' intellectual honesty for a while now. :lol:
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

A much more compelling case for staying in Iraq until the country is stable was made by Michael Ware on Real Time:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSP0CYEvq4w
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
BeatleBarb
Member Avatar

Did you see that arrogant, s.o.b. Cheney respond "So" when told by a t.v. interviewer (sorry, forget which one) that 2/3 of Americans oppose the war? Said he isn't concerned about fluctuations in public opinion.

What ever happened to "government of the people, for the people"?

Fluctuate this you heartless jerk!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ThirdHarmony
Member Avatar

Many well-made points there, Bill.

A comment on the atheist argument issue, since you brought that aspect up:

"Bill"
 
...that atheist trap of arguing non sequiturs. He cites the evils committed by religion (which are undeniable) as evidence that there is no God. That doesn't follow.


Speaking as an agnostic when it comes to "God" as a completely undefined entity and as an atheist (lacking belief) in any of the specific God(s) as defined by religions across the globe: you are right on target when it comes to the fallacy of deducing a non-existance of a God due to the presence of horrible things commited by people fueled by religious fervour (or indeed any fanaticism). That is not a workable argument, and not one I would use since I would first want to ask the question "what in the world do you mean when you say God?" (or other terms which are subjectively defined) and then try to figure out the rationale for believing so.

As a side note to this, though: If a person is inclined to believe in a very specific religious worldview, then the issue of his/her personal God allowing endless barbarism to occur, regardless of man's so-called "free will" (another hard-to-define concept), may lead to a theological discussion - but, of course, not an atheist argument.
"My definition of a free society is a society where it is safe to be unpopular." - Adlai Stevenson

"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith. I consider the capacity for it terrifying." - Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatlechick
Member Avatar
In Paul's Arms!
Mia Culpa
Mar 22 2008, 09:54 PM
beatlechick
Mar 22 2008, 09:38 AM
Mia Culpa
Mar 21 2008, 08:24 PM
For those saying they didn't vote for Bush so it's not their fault, look at it this way, nobody in Iraq voted for Bush.

Cheney gives an intelligent analysis of an Iraq invasion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I&feature=related

You've got it all wrong. A good deal of us didn't vote for him but no one is saying that we are not to blame. There are a lot that did vote for him but did not want us to go to war. There are some that did not vote for him and did want to go to war. It's the President, his advisors, AND the people that voted for the war that are to blame.

If you feel you had no option because you could not vote in American elections, you still had a voice in your own part of the world.

What? :blink: I think you quoted the wrong person?

No, I didn't. Sorry. You did say this
Quote:
 
What about the billions of us who never had the option?
as well as the quote that is above.
Posted Image Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

BeatleBarb
Mar 25 2008, 01:31 AM

What ever happened to "government of the people, for the people"?

Still living in a pre-9/11 world I see, you naive young thing. ;)
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DCBeatle64
Member Avatar
Wings nutter
BeatleBarb
Mar 24 2008, 03:31 PM
Did you see that arrogant, s.o.b. Cheney respond "So" when told by a t.v. interviewer (sorry, forget which one) that 2/3 of Americans oppose the war? Said he isn't concerned about fluctuations in public opinion.

What ever happened to "government of the people, for the people"?

Fluctuate this you heartless jerk!

The public aren't always necessarily right though. Something like 90% of the UK want the death penalty back but I get the feeling that aint gonna happen
I'm a BIGGER Beatles fan than you and I'm an even BIGGER Wings fan than that...
'You're a Paul McCartney fan? No you're a Wings fan'. 'Thankyou Scotland' Ho Hey Ho...
Posted Image
I am the buttplug goo goo goo joob
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
BeatleBarb
Member Avatar

DCBeatle64
Mar 25 2008, 12:48 AM
BeatleBarb
Mar 24 2008, 03:31 PM
Did you see that arrogant, s.o.b. Cheney respond "So" when told by a t.v. interviewer (sorry, forget which one) that 2/3 of Americans oppose the war? Said he isn't concerned about fluctuations in public opinion.

What ever happened to "government of the people, for the people"?

Fluctuate this you heartless jerk!

The public aren't always necessarily right though. Something like 90% of the UK want the death penalty back but I get the feeling that aint gonna happen

You're right, the public isn't always right, but to dismiss what 2/3 favor in this fashion is nothing but hubris to me!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

DCBeatle64
Mar 25 2008, 10:48 AM
BeatleBarb
Mar 24 2008, 03:31 PM
Did you see that arrogant, s.o.b. Cheney respond "So" when told by a t.v. interviewer (sorry, forget which one) that 2/3 of Americans oppose the war? Said he isn't concerned about fluctuations in public opinion.

What ever happened to "government of the people, for the people"?

Fluctuate this you heartless jerk!

The public aren't always necessarily right though. Something like 90% of the UK want the death penalty back but I get the feeling that aint gonna happen

Excellent point but there is also the distinction between leadership and dictatorship. The leader will state his case to convince the people he is right. The dictator says 'f*ck you. What are you gonna do about it?'
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DCBeatle64
Member Avatar
Wings nutter
well of course, I do actually think he is a jerk for putting it like that. I dont think you can be so flippant about an unpopular war the world over.

But considering they went to war and Bush still got back as president for a second term tells me that it is still a democracy.

As for the issue of the Iraq war I have said before that I was initially in support of it although for the sole reason that Hussain was a jerk. Yeah it wasn't handled well and in hindsight wasnt the best thing to do but I have spoken to some Iraqis who actually believe that the war was the right thing to do and are glad that he is out of there
I'm a BIGGER Beatles fan than you and I'm an even BIGGER Wings fan than that...
'You're a Paul McCartney fan? No you're a Wings fan'. 'Thankyou Scotland' Ho Hey Ho...
Posted Image
I am the buttplug goo goo goo joob
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
maccascruff
Sing the Changes
Cheney is and always has been a total a$$. Bush's war was wrong from the beginning and it's wrong now. The US has to get out of Iraq before another 4000 troops die and the cost totally bankrupts the country.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatlespud
Member Avatar

I agree, Linda!





Dean
Save the whales, collect the entire set!!!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DCBeatle64
Member Avatar
Wings nutter
I have to admit to getting a little irritated when Americans or Brits say 'get our army out' Its to late the damage is been done and it disturbs me that once we have caused an instability and removed any structure it once had (no matter how bad) that we should just remove our army to save them and stuff the Iraqi's
I'm a BIGGER Beatles fan than you and I'm an even BIGGER Wings fan than that...
'You're a Paul McCartney fan? No you're a Wings fan'. 'Thankyou Scotland' Ho Hey Ho...
Posted Image
I am the buttplug goo goo goo joob
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatlechick
Member Avatar
In Paul's Arms!
We started watching Bush's War on PBS and just can't understand why this man was ever selected again as President. There apparently was a meeting held by the Prez and the Cabinet the night of 9/11. Colin Powell was in Peru when he was told about the attack. He went back in the plane and came home. He came home in time for the War Cabinet meeting. He tried to push for a coalition. By the following Saturday, the War Cabinet already had in mind to hit Iraq. They were just looking for a reason to invade Iraq and the attacks just widely opened the door.

Apparently it was Condi Rice who told the UK Ambassador that she said the one thing we have to look into is to see if Iraq has anything to do with the attacks. That comment was just a day or two after the attack.

Magnificent job done by Frontline. You can watch it here Frontline - Bush's War

For the people against this war, it is riveting. For those of you for the war, you may not like it so much but watch it just the same.
Posted Image Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ogoble
Member Avatar

In December of 2003, when Saddam was captured, the U.S. should have started a rapid un-deployment plan. We should have aided the new Iraqi government as much as possible and left while we were still welcomed by their people.

Many may disagree with me (a veteran of the 1st Gulf War). But, honestly, I don't feel that Iraq will ever experience the peace & freedoms that we enjoy here. And we can not and should not force one culture to change their ways of life.


Posted Image
Posted Image Beatles/Paul McCartney & Wings Fan Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatlechick
Member Avatar
In Paul's Arms!
Olen, I think your assessment is spot on. :clap:
Posted Image Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

ogoble
Mar 25 2008, 07:11 PM

Many may disagree with me (a veteran of the 1st Gulf War). But, honestly, I don't feel that Iraq will ever experience the peace & freedoms that we enjoy here. And we can not and should not force one culture to change their ways of life.


Posted Image

DAMN OLEN!!!!

GREAT POINT!!!

It's just like forcing a bee to act like a butterfly.

I couldn't agree more! :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mia Culpa
Member Avatar
This space intentionally left blank.
If the Americans had pulled out in 2003 would Bush have been re-elected in 2004?
If you read my posts backward there's evidence that Paul is dead.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

ogoble
Mar 26 2008, 11:11 AM
In December of 2003, when Saddam was captured, the U.S. should have started a rapid un-deployment plan. We should have aided the new Iraqi government as much as possible and left while we were still welcomed by their people.

Many may disagree with me (a veteran of the 1st Gulf War). But, honestly, I don't feel that Iraq will ever experience the peace & freedoms that we enjoy here. And we can not and should not force one culture to change their ways of life.


Posted Image

I agree too. It's a cultural thing. Iraqis are not going to be won over with Levis and Coca Cola like the Russians were. It's because - strange as it may seem to some in Washington - not everyone in the world wants to live like America does. That's not me dissing America - Lord knows I'd prefer it to the middle east, but not everyone does. The freedom they want is the freedom to live as they see fit. And what the Bush administration never got and still doesn't get is that Iraqi freedom to live as they please and alliance with America are not necessarily compatible goals.
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

Mia Culpa
Mar 26 2008, 01:07 PM
If the Americans had pulled out in 2003 would Bush have been re-elected in 2004?

Are you suggesting the war was prolonged for political purposes? How dare you!

Next you'll be saying all those terror alerts in 2004 were political too.
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

Not exactly to do with Iraq, but from the same people who brought it to you:

Defense Dept. gives $300mil contract to 22yo to supply US and Afghan forces with 40yo Soviet surplus ammunition.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/27/world/as...all&oref=slogin
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Audio_reveal...osing_0327.html

You couldn't make this crap up. <_<
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
fab4fan
Member Avatar
Caretaker
:duh:
Mnisthiti mou Kurie!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Queenbee
Member Avatar
Moderator
Back in 1987-88, the company I worked for sold HIAB cranes. We were given a contract by the military to have the cranes fitted to be in sand, so they had to be sealed properly. So the government/military was already thinking Middle East.

PEACE and love to my friends, Judy

When the Power of Love over comes the Love of Power, the world will know Peace.
-Sri Chinmnoy Ghose

Till me meet again ~ I Love you Mike! You were one of a kind.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
maccascruff
Sing the Changes
beatlechick
Mar 25 2008, 06:17 PM
Olen, I think your assessment is spot on. :clap:

They have been fighting in the Middle East since the beginning of time. Bush's insistence that Iraq needs to be a democracy will never happen, IMO. It's time to come home and stop wasting my tax dollars there.

I don't understand why anybody for Bush the first time around, but voting for him the second time was totally unjustifiable.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-geiger/t...0-_b_93909.html
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Fully Featured & Customizable Free Forums
Learn More · Sign-up for Free
« Previous Topic · Things We Said Today · Next Topic »
Add Reply


"Treasure these few words"