Well Spook:
What do you want? We are leaving. Is that good, yes or no? We will remain to protect the overall balance of security in the region just as we have in Japan, Germany, Italy, Turkey, Korea. Are you saying we were wrong to do so in those countries and how will this be any different?
Do you think the elections in Iraq are a bad thing? Do you think that the re-integration of Iraq into the world community is a bad thing? Do you think that the cooperation between the three major groups is a bad thing? By this, I mean the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds?
So what is your problem?
Wow, Spook, you just managed to cut those arguments down to size quite fast. Those WMD justifications should be able to ride the MRT for free from here on.
Tis a shame though that Spook “forgot” to add the other details from the quoted report…
[quote]On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.
For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.
The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play hard-ball with the UN.
John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real.[/quote]
So despite the fact that wmds were not viewed as a threat, we have to be worried about the possibility that they would be used against our troops, Kuwait and Israel!!! what the f***!!!
Finally, I think that this once again goes to show that there was discussion about urban combat and that the insurgency was envisioned BEFORE the action took place so we can dispense with the ridiculous assertions that the administration had no idea that any insurgency would take place.
[quote=“fred smith”]Well Spook: . . . We are leaving. . . We will remain . . .
So what is your problem?[/quote]
My problem? More mindless double-talk. My question? Do you really believe your own nonsense?
Compare Iraq with all other nations “occupied” by US troops and tell me where you think that we have been a force for evil. Where we have gone wrong. Yes, I believe what I am saying. I have seen the actions of the US and its government and I have seen the alternatives.
Viva America! Viva Bush and Viva the plan in Iraq which belatedly is moving ahead as planned. Compare that with the efforts in Bosnia and Kosovo where our European friends are involved. How’s the dialogue coning along? What about their efforts to strike a deal with Iran to dismantle its nuclear program? Unless of course you believe that Iran should be allowed to have one? Anyone doing anything about North Korea? Russians? Chinese? Japanese? South Koreans? UN? Europe? Hmmm?
[quote=“spook”][quote=“fred smith”]Well Spook: . . . We are leaving. . . We will remain . . .
So what is your problem?[/quote]
My problem? More mindless double-talk. My question? Do you really believe your own nonsense?[/quote]
U.S. policy in Iraq has “turned a new corner” so many times that it’s clear we’re just going in circles.
Witty.
But, I think you know that isn’t true. If we were truly going in circles, Saddam would be back in power and Iraq would be a far worse off place than it is today. Besides, in the middle east, turning corners is often necessary in order to get anywhere in the maze of ways. One only goes in circles if every turn is made in the same direction.
We’re behind the ideal schedule, and we’ve made a mess of some things… but, IMO, we are traveling on the right road and things are getting better.
Some of you have suggested that the slowness in getting a government formed was taking Iraq closer to a civil war. Here is a different perspective on that matter.
Not necessarily. Perhaps in order for us to “go in circles” we could simply pursue failed policies, chasing insurgents with the same “effectiveness” as a dog chases its tail.
One could also argue that for us to “go in circles” it might involve our willingness to adopt Saddam’s own methods in running the country. With Abu Ghraib basically being run by U.S. soldiers along the same principles of torture (interesting use of electrodes in that one famous photo, Grainer and others beating and jumping onto wounded prisoners, etc.), humiliation (light sticks jammed up people’s butts, lots of naked photos, etc.), and murder (still lots of unexplained deaths), I would say the U.S. didn’t go in the right direction. Wtih regards to the “Salvador Option” (i.e., planned use of paramilitary death squads to bring “order” to the streets), that seems doomed not to win many hearts and minds.
How’s the search for WMDs going? That’s the main metric, given that was the rationale used to sell the American people on the war. If we didn’t find WMDs, then we’re not on the right road.
Well, its not going well if the goal was to find them.
On the other hand, its going very well if the goal was to verify once and for all whether Saddam had them and whether or not he intended to re-start his programs and if the goal was to ensure that he never used what he had nor developed or obtained what he hoped to have. In that case, the invasion was a smashing success.
Well, given that the other, more important goal was reform in the region, and that actually the WMD issue provided the reason for going in earlier rather than later, again I’d have to conclude that we are indeed on the right road.
Had we taken the road you seem to favor, we’d likely still be uncertain as to what, if anything, Saddam possessed in the way of WMD, and we’d be nowhere near our destination of a reformed region. I’m not sure where your road would have taken us, but I’m certain that we were on that road for quite a long time and it wasn’t getting us anywhere.
At some point you need to stop and rethink the direction in which you are going.
Thank goodness W did just that.
It would seem like if the goal of the United States was to beat defenseless prisoners in Abu Ghraib and utterly embarrass itself in the world, Bush is doing a great job and “on the right path”. Ditto if the goal was to put lots of money into Halliburton’s pockets.
If the goal of the United States was to stop WMD threats or proliferation, then we really missed the boat. How many tons of explosives went missing? How many lies did the Bush administration tell in the weeks right before the election about this key issue?
If the goal was to fight terror, man did we go to the wrong place. It’s a bit like spreading corn flakes in a previously clean kitchen out of one’s supposed desire to fight cockroaches.
To which you of course have no proof MFGR. I think that you need to start backing up your statements with evidence. Remember we are in the no spin zone now.
Please provide some facts to show that the US has been utterly embarrassed in front of the world.
Anyway, its time you start living up to the debate standards that you impose on others.
As the saying goes, please put up or shut up… 
The best you have is that some overseas writers think that “perhaps” Bush got it right? Sounds like a ringing endorsement.
Its much more than what you have. 
We don’t have to agree with Bush’s methods but you have to be hiding your head in the sand if you think that Iraq is worse off now than yesterday.
Yeah MFGR:
Do you have any proof that what these writers are saying is not true? Do you have any proof that they do not genuinely think the way they do? Do you have any research or poll numbers to back up your opinion? If not, then back to the kiddie pool. We are in the no-spin zone here and denial ain’t a river in Egypt. Bye bye now.
The Bush administration has repeatedly stated that it intends to withdraw American military forces as the new Iraqi government develops the means, with our help, to defend itself and provide its own security. To my knowledge, the Administration has not positively stated, nor has it been definitively asked by the press or Congress, whether it intends to withdraw ALL troops.
There is one way to find out. Are we, or are we not, building permanent military bases in Iraq? Yes or no? If we are withdrawing ALL troops, we do not need permanent bases. If we are building military bases, we do not intend to withdraw all our troops. Simple as that. . .
[color=blue]If the goal of the Project for a New American Century, as it thereafter became the Bush administration, was to overthrow Saddam Hussein, install a friendly government in Baghdad, set up a permanent political and military presence in Iraq, and dominate the behavior of the region (including securing oil supplies), then you build permanent bases for some kind of permanent American military presence. If the goal was to spread democracy and freedom, then you don
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) – U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice paid a surprise visit to Iraq Sunday, praising Iraqi authorities and U.S. troops amid an insurgency that is taking dozens of lives each week.
“Our promise to the Iraqi leadership is that the multinational forces are here to help Iraq defend itself until it can defend itself,” Rice said at a joint news conference with Iraq’s interim prime minister, Ibrahim al-Jaafari.
“I assure you, we want it to be as soon as possible.” . . .
[color=blue](And we also hope you’re too stupid to realize that I’m using double-talk to make it sound like we intend to withdraw our troops from Iraq someday even though we intend to occupy your country permanently.)[/color]
"Although the U.S. decision to launch the war in 2003 was condemned in many nations and the original justification – Saddam’s alleged weapons of mass destruction – turned out to be based on flawed intelligence, Rice said, “This war came to us, not the other way around.” 
[color=blue](That old devil. Saddam, made us do it.)[/color]
CNN, 15 May, 2005
I don’t think the US has profited from Iraq or Afghanistan. Some people have. Techsystems, Boeing, General Dynamics, General Electric, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, Rockwell International, etc.