Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Both are based on what Adelman said. It's just that you're willing to overlook his intellectual dishonesty.> His intellectual dishonesty exists only in the minds of certain liberals. <Unless one restricts the meaning of "invasion" to "deposing Saddam," this is true, and they were correct.> In other words, their statement is only correct if they used the word incorrectly. <Since neither neocons nor liberals thought that could possibly be the case, it is disingenuous to read "invasion" as meaning "deposing Saddam" solely.> Not true. There was a school of thought that said we could go in, remove Saddam, and install a new government, without a long occupation. If you had read the "Desert Crossing" report, rather than just the summary provided by the anti-war critics, you'd have seen it mentioned there. Besides, as I mentioned earlier, there were no neocons that said an occupation would not be costly, or difficult. The question is how costly, and how difficult. I'd say it has been harder than some guessed, but less than others. <We're winning with 66% of the vote.> Truth does not depend on "votes".
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>I'd say it has been harder than some guessed, but less than others.<< Unfortunately, it has been harder than Cheney and Rumsfeld led Americans to believe it would be with several of their statements. I'll give President Bush credit in that, other than the 'Mission Accomplished' foolish photo op, he hasn't ever, to the best of my knowledge, said the war wouldn't be difficult.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Both are based on what Adelman said. It's just that you're willing to overlook his intellectual dishonesty.>> <His intellectual dishonesty exists only in the minds of certain liberals.> Sorry. It exists in his piece. <<Unless one restricts the meaning of "invasion" to "deposing Saddam," this is true, and they were correct.>> <In other words, their statement is only correct if they used the word incorrectly.> Just the opposite. Since an invasion necessitated an occupation. Critics foresaw this; the neocons minimized it. <<Since neither neocons nor liberals thought that could possibly be the case, it is disingenuous to read "invasion" as meaning "deposing Saddam" solely.>> <Not true. There was a school of thought that said we could go in, remove Saddam, and install a new government, without a long occupation. If you had read the "Desert Crossing" report, rather than just the summary provided by the anti-war critics, you'd have seen it mentioned there. > I have read it. And what constitutes "long" is an open question - they certainly don't define it. At any rate, no one was saying there wouldn't have to be some occupation after the deposing of Saddam, so eliminating that in one's arguments does constitute intellectual dishonesty, and was of course a big reason why the neocons got it so wrong. They never answered the questions: after we get rid of Saddam, THEN WHAT? And how do we get there? And what happens when we unleash these 1,000 year-old enmities? < Besides, as I mentioned earlier, there were no neocons that said an occupation would not be costly, or difficult. The question is how costly, and how difficult. I'd say it has been harder than some guessed, but less than others.> Oh please. Of course there were some who said it would not be costly or difficult. The "we'll be greeted as liberators" crowd. Hell, Cheney was saying even after the insurgency proved more stubborn than ANY of the neocons predicted that it was in it's "last throes." And that was HOW many months, lives, and billions of dollars ago? <<We're winning with 66% of the vote.>> <Truth does not depend on "votes".> Nor does it depend on your definition of it. In fact, that would be one of the worst tests I could think of for it.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I'll give President Bush credit in that, other than the 'Mission Accomplished' foolish photo op, he hasn't ever, to the best of my knowledge, said the war wouldn't be difficult.> During the "Mission Accomplished" speech, the President specifically said, "We have difficult work to do in Iraq."
Originally Posted By RoadTrip I think Bush, at his core, is a very good man who is not savvy enough to realize that he has been very poorly served by his advisors. If he'd had Daddy's guys working for him from the start he would have had a much more successful presidency.
Originally Posted By Brer Jules It is definitely more than time for both US and Canada to get the HE** out of Iraq and Afghanistan!! The horror there is devastating to all sides and for what...?? What good has come of it? No "weapons of mass distruction" have been found. Let these people live their lives already! Draft....? I dont think so!
Originally Posted By ecdc "I think Bush, at his core, is a very good man who is not savvy enough to realize that he has been very poorly served by his advisors." I'd take this a step further. I don't think Bush is a bad man at all. I think he's a man who's lived a very privileged life and is entirely out of touch with most Americans. I don't think he means any harm but causes a great deal through his sheer ignorance and incompetence. I think this last few weeks is the perfect example: He says he will be bipartisan and I think he meant it. Then, like the clueless out of touch man he is, he appoints a man opposed to birth control to head family planning for our nation. I don't care what political party you're part of, most Americans don't object to birth control. It's his being out of touch that makes him such a poor leader. It's this that leads to disastrous responses to Katrina, for example. He's led a life where he can afford to say he won't back down in Iraq even if only his dog supports him.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <If he'd had Daddy's guys working for him from the start he would have had a much more successful presidency.> America rejected Daddy's guys back in 1992.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <The horror there is devastating to all sides and for what...??> To put terrorists on the defensive. To deny them support and safe harbor. <What good has come of it?> We've given more than 50 million people the chance to lead a free and prosperous life.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj Too bad we had to sacrifice the future economic stability for the 300 million Americans at home in order to make that happen.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Too bad we had to sacrifice the future economic stability for the 300 million Americans at home in order to make that happen.> "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty."
Originally Posted By jonvn And yeah, they have a lot of liberty in Iraq these days. Personally, I see nothing all that bad about us being in Iraq, provided we are willing to do what needs to be done. We aren't. So we need to simply leave.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>We've given more than 50 million people the chance to lead a free and prosperous life<< Which apparently they really don't want all that much.
Originally Posted By jonvn None of them do. Jordan's king says there is now looming three civil wars in the area. Iraq, Palestine, and Lebanon. Israel is an excuse for their bloodshed. They'd be killing each other no matter what. We really need to become energy independent of these people. They are all crazy. If we do that, then they can go on killing each other with abandon as they have for the last millenia or so, and it won't matter to us. Hopefully they will all kill each other, and no one will be left there and no one will need their oil. Then the world can be at peace.
Originally Posted By ecdc "We've given more than 50 million people the chance to lead a free and prosperous life." No we haven't. That's the goal, and it's a noble one - no disputing that. But we've failed. Every poll where we ask the people of Iraq how they feel tells us that we haven't given them this chance. Unless you're really suggesting that living with power only a few hours a day and with the constant threat of being shot or blown up is a chance to live free and prosperous?
Originally Posted By jonvn We've given them nothing. Nothing but more misery. It is more violent in Iraq now than when Saddam was in charge. At least then you knew what to do to stay alive. Now, it's a free for all, and everyone is killing everyone. Free and prosperous. What a joke.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <No we haven't.> I disagree. <Unless you're really suggesting that living with power only a few hours a day and with the constant threat of being shot or blown up is a chance to live free and prosperous?> It's a better chance than they had before, when they were living with power only a few hours a day and with the constant threat of being shot or blown up by Saddam's regime.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>It's a better chance than they had before, when they were living with power only a few hours a day and with the constant threat of being shot or blown up by Saddam's regime.< Yes, because it's far better to have a greater chance of being killed by Shiite or Sunni militias than by Saddam's regime. At least it's more democratic.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Yes, because it's far better to have a greater chance of being killed by Shiite or Sunni militias than by Saddam's regime. At least it's more democratic.> Yes. Now they have the opportunity to band together and stop the killing.
