Our Losses in Iraq...

[macavada]

It is only in the aftermath that we are getting resistance. Resistance being led by the very terrorists YOU say had no alliance with Saddam.

That was my point. They didn't expect the kind of resistance that they have encountered in the aftermath. They thought everything would be rosy after Saddam was toppled, thus the reduced forces that Rummy pushed for against the advise of the experience military leadership.

You go on believing everything this government is telling you. Go right ahead. You want to believe everything they say. I guess it makes you feel comfortable and safe in Bushy's bosom.

The only voice of reason in that administration's foreign policy was Powell. Unfortunately he's gone now. I didn't agree with everything he did (namely his performance before the U.N. with the phoney explanations of the satellite photos, which he later acknowledged was wrong information). But at least he knew the "crazies" needed to be kept in check to some degree, and he was at least trying to stem the tide.

 

[Cactus]

That was my point. They didn't expect the kind of resistance that they have encountered in the aftermath.

Then maybe you should have said that! Instead, you said "They truly didn't expect much resistance FROM SADDAM'S ARMY". In reality, they did expect resistance from Saddam's Republican Guard troops. They had expected to have to go door-to-door in taking Bagdad and had announced their concerns beforehand.

You go on believing everything this government is telling you. Go right ahead.

Ah, yes! When you can't answer a question, resort to adhominum attacks.

Better I should believe you? You haven't provided one single documented fact yet. When I disprove your accusations and challange you to back them up, you just ignore it and either bring up new accusations or repeat ones you made much earlier.

I'm not even going to go into what I feel have been the shortcomings of the Iraq War. You couldn't care less. All you want to do is bash President Bush for anything.

 

[macavada]

Cactus:

Did they have enough troops to get the job done? For both the invasion and the occupation?

If not, why do you suppose not? Your opinion, or well documented facts, which ever you want to provide is fine with me.

By the way, I don't see where you've disproved anything I've said. Some of the stuff I'm saying is obviously opinion.

My opinion that the administration doesn't care about democracy or the human rights of those people is drawn from two things: 1. The fact that the government did nothing under Bush 1 to take out Saddam because of the human rights violations when they were contemporaneous with his term in office, and 2. the fact that the letter from the PNAC, during the early policy forming stages of that organization, made no mention of the intent to spread democracy to the people of Iraq. It stopped short and dwelled on regime change.

Some of the opinions I've voiced have nothing to do with Michael Moore, or democratic underground, or any other place. These things are my opinions.

In some cases I do purport to sight facts like Rummy wearing down military leadership to get the troop requirements for the invasion and occupation down to his acceptable levels. That has been documented all over the media.

By the way, Cheney, Bush, Rice, Fox News, the Mainstream Media, etc. all got on that bandwagon of tieing Saddam to Al Qaeda. It was the only way they could justify going after Saddam when Bin Laden was the responsible party for 9/11.

 

[Cactus]

My opinion that the administration doesn't care about democracy or the human rights of those people is drawn from two things: 1. The fact that the government did nothing under Bush 1 to take out Saddam because of the human rights violations when they were contemporaneous with his term in office,

In case you failed to notice, President George HW Bush, the 41st President and President George W Bush, the 43rd President are two completely DIFFERENT people! They don't think identically, they don't act identically. I would imagine, kinda like you and YOUR father.

and 2. the fact that the letter from the PNAC, during the early policy forming stages of that organization, made no mention of the intent to spread democracy to the people of Iraq. It stopped short and dwelled on regime change.

And the fact that PNAC made no mention of Afghanistan or that we are not at war with Iran, Sudan or N. Korea and that we ARE intent on spreading democracy to Iraq, pretty well proves that PNAC's "master plan" for world domination is NOT being followed.

You may have noticed that the PNAC was first formed during the Clinton Administration and that it was Bill Clinton that made Iraqi regime change official U.S. policy? PNAC is not the President of the United States, some of its members are also members of this current Administration, as are members of MANY different organizations.

Maybe it's really Skull & Bones that is determining our foreign policy!

 

[macavada]

PNAC is not the President of the United States

Oh, but they are. They are. And they're trying to advance their plan. If they don't it is because it doesn't work, not because they're not trying.

The plans for the Iraq invasion were drawn up before Bush II was even put into office. THEY ALREADY HAD THE WAR PLAN. They just tweaked it when they had the chance to actually go in there.

The PNAC players in the administration are MAJOR PLAYERS IN THIS COUNTRY'S FOREIGN POLICY. They are pulling the strings on the foreign policy. Anybody that disagrees is either ignored or resigns.

 

[joerng]

haji hunting club

sadam was a threat. he sighned a treaty in the first gulf war that u.n. inspectors to inspect were ever they pleased. when he blew that off we took that a red flag. It just so happens that his regime is one of those extremist
muslim groups that needs to be taken out just like al queda and the taliban.
Clinton did lie by not takeing care of this extremest muslim broblem when it
arose. instead he swept it under the carpet for bush to take care of. I
would rather be ofensive in a forighn than defensive in america. happy
haji hunting

 

[Destructo6]

Oh, but they are. They are. And they're trying to advance their plan. If they don't it is because it doesn't work, not because they're not trying.

Nonsense. Otherwise, post some proof, not further innuendo. Or is this the typical case of "no proof is proof"?

The plans for the Iraq invasion were drawn up before Bush II was even put into office. THEY ALREADY HAD THE WAR PLAN. They just tweaked it when they had the chance to actually go in there.

I hate to break it to you, but we have some sort of plan to go to war with about every nation. Any nation with just a modicum of forethought has done similarly. These contingency plans are updated from time to time, moreso when the nation in question is belligerent.

It just so happens that his regime is one of those extremist
muslim groups that needs to be taken out just like al queda and the taliban.

Let's be accurate. Saddam was no pious Muslim, much less an Islamic extremist. His regime was rather secular, in the European dictator mold. Any alliance between his regime and Al Queda would be the matter of a common, more threatening, enemy.

 

[LAK]

macavada

and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard.
it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy

Not quite; the "hazard" was to the cost of Iraqi oil and the effect on the dollar. Iraq announced in 2000 that it would start using the Euro as it's reserve currency and demanding Euros in payment for it's oil. It switched to Euros in 2002.

Afghanistan was about oil; an oil and gas pipeline that has been on the agenda for many years. Except Unocal couldn't deal with the Taliban.

Then there is opium. The British never did get out of that business, and William J. Clinton understands the London School of Economics well. So do his cronies like Janet Yellen; who will be worming her way into the Federal Reserve Open Market Committee in 2006 where as a voting member she will be doing her own London School of Economics bit to set our interest rate policy.

Laura D'Andrea Tyson - Clinton's former National Economic Adviser - was so good at it she went on to become the London Business School's first female Dean in January 2002. Now Tyson has really gotten around the globe; she has a very interesting track record and connections

George has been such a good boy. Maybe they'll give him a promotion.

 

[bountyh]

After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, which killed six and injured 1,000; President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After 9/11 where 3000 Americans were murdered, Bush vowed that he would hold any country accountable if they supported terrorism. Four years later, here is the role call:

1) Bush sent an undersized force into Afghanistan after OBL and he rode his camel into Pakistan where he thumbs his nose at us to this day. The main bulk of the forces had to be with held for the Iraq invasion.

2) Bush has failed to hold Saudi Arabia accountable even though:

a) OBL and 15 of the 19 hijackers were saudis.

b) Saudi Arabia had OBL in prison on valid charges back in 1990 and let him loose because they were scared.

c) Wealthy saudis have been pumping money straight into the pockets of Al Qaeda for over a decade and actually funded the 9/11 attacks.

3) Bush not only is aware of the saudi's complicity, he had 28 pages of an intelligence report censored to maintain the cover up.

Sorry to interrupt with facts, go back to blaming Clinton for everything. It seems to be the only excuse the repubs have left to use.

 

[bountyh]

I have been waiting for someone to explain just what we have gained in protecting the United States by invading Iraq.

Here is a partial list of the excuses given by Bush as to why the war was necessary:

1) Iraq was devloping nuclear weapons. PROVEN 100% FALSE.

2) Iraq had stockpiles of nerve agents: 100% FALSE

3) Iraq was supplying WMD's to terrorists. 100% FALSE

4) Iraq had been involved with Al Qaeda in the attacks on the US. 100% FALSE

5) Iraq had WMD's hidden from the UN inspectors. 100% FALSE

The only excuse that is not 100% false:

Saddam was a bad guy who killed people.

TRUE. And most of the killing was done with the blessing of the US (when we helped him pound Iran into the sand as payback for taking our hostages and also stopping fundamental Islam from spreading).

Saddam gassed some people. TRUE

And he did it in 1988 under Reagan's administration and they did nothing about it. They even gave a silent condonation to an absurd US Army report that the dead Kurds were killed by bee feces containing toxic plant pollen (look it up, it's true).

Saddam killed about 10,000 Sheeites in 1990. TRUE. Bush the Elder called on them to rise up against the collapsing regime (which they did), and they fought well. However, Stormin Norman Schwarzkopf and the US negotiators allowed Saddam's forces to use their attack helicopters all throughout Iraq... and Saddam's armies promptly slaughtered the Sheeites as will always happen when infantry go up against air power. Thousands of the Sheeites were captured and then slaughtered and dumped into mass graves which we "discovered" when we invaded.

Those bodies must have been spinning as Bush the Younger wept crocodile tears and claimed these mass graves were proof that saddam was a murderer... when in fact, the bodies were what was left of the rebel forces his father called up to arms to overthrow Saddam in 1990.

 

[grey_pilgrim]

What's the difference between "proven 100% false" and 100% false??? Maybe that the ones that aren't proven aren't 100% false.


One other question i have: You neglected to mention Saddam's other links to terrorist organizations. . . which are most definately proven 100% true.

In addition, the fact that we allowed the Kurds to be slaughtered does not make what Saddam did any more right. The fact that Reagan overlooked this does not take away from the horror.

And i believe it's shi'as (or shiites or shi'i)

 

[bountyh]

One other question i have: You neglected to mention Saddam's other links to terrorist organizations. . . which are most definately proven 100% true.

No, I did not mention it because it's a classic urban myth and I did not want to assume the posters here were ignorant enough to subscribe to it. Not only is there exactly ZERO evidence linking the Iraq regime to any actual support of a terrorist group, our own CIA has made that conclusion and Bush was forced to admit it publicly when a reporter fired off a question that was never repeeated from that day forward. Both Bush and Cheney have been asked to supply proof of their claims that Hussein supported terrorism, and both have publicly backed down from making those claims any further. You do the math.

If you have any PROOF of a link between Iraq and a terrorist group, please print it. Spare us the one about the "intelligence guy" who met with the other guy, who had met with the guy that was known to be a friend of...... any proof that stands up to actual reading? let's see it.

In addition, the fact that we allowed the Kurds to be slaughtered does not make what Saddam did any more right. The fact that Reagan overlooked this does not take away from the horror.

You see, that's the funny part. I have never claimed it was less horrible. In fact, unlike Regan and Bush Senior, I loudly proclaimed it was horrible and it was a disgrace their admin was in bed with such a thug. Same thing I say today about Bush covering up for the Saudi's funding of Al Qaeda and the people who murdered our citizens. My story is consistent: I don't like governments that lie about things that get our people killed and cover up for the murderers just because it's convenient. In that respect, I will never be able to join the republican party.

SPEAKING OF SLAUGHTER: as I said, the mass graves in Iraq are mostly Sheeites and are the fighters Bush Elder said should rise up (and we would support them). By odd coincidence, a story in today's news (FOX news no less, so you can't accuse them of anti-Bush bias):

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,135652,00.html

When I saw the images I could only think back to Hilla, a town south of Baghdad where I went in the spring of 2003, just after the fall of Saddam. A mass grave of Iraqi Shiites was discovered there.

I will never forget it for as long as I live. Thousands of bodies. Thousands of families swarming over piles of clothing and flesh. Earth-moving equipment digging through the raw humanity. Digging up the past.

Some of these people were opponents of the regime, gunned down after an uprising against Saddam in 1991 and then dumped in big trenches. Women and civilians were also among the victims.

Truth has a way of eventually making it's way into the light.... but it often emerges to find a whole lot of people who don't believe or just don't care.

 

[bountyh]

And i believe it's shi'as (or shiites or shi'i)

I know how to spell Shiite, it is a problem because most forums have "obscenity" filters that remove any word that is any variation of the spelling of the colloquial form of excrement. I have to add the two "ee"'s in line to make the filter pass it.

 

[JohnKSa]

bountyh,

What you completely ignore is that Saddam did his best to convince us of all those things. That he was working on WMD, that he had chemical biological weapons, etc. We also knew he had used chemical weapons. His "hide the pea" game with the weapons inspectors was the final nail in his coffin and he drove it in himself.

Another twist to the story is that Saddam's scientists were scared to death of him and had embellished their progress in many cases. It's highly likely that he, himself believed he had a well-developed nuclear program.

In short:

He WAS doing his best to develop nuclear weapons--fortunately for us he didn't have the resources and technology to do a good job.

He DID at one time have stockpiles of nerve agents--what's more he had actually used them on the Iranians and his own people. Pretty good evidence...

There were training camps for terrorists involved with Al Quaeda in Iraq.

Iraq did their best to convince the world that they were hiding WMDs from the inspectors--they were good enough that they sealed their own fate.

I'm sorry, but your posts are just another version of the "lets wait until enough time has passed and make up our own history" technique. My recommendation to you is to wait another few years--the people have bad memories but you're pushing the boundaries a little.

 

[Cactus]

If you have any PROOF of a link between Iraq and a terrorist group, please print it.

No problem bh! But I'm sure YOU will enlighten us all as to how this is "not really proof" because their is no photographic evidence or some other nonsense.

"I don't think there's any doubt but that there were some contacts between Saddam Hussein's government and al-Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden's people." (9-11 Commission Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton, News Hour with Jim Lehrer, June 16, 2004)’

"Yes, there were contacts between Iraqi and al-Qaeda, a number of them, some of them a little shadowy. They were definitely there." (9-11 Commission Chairman Thomas Kean, News Hour with Jim Lehrer, June 16, 2004)

"Bin Ladin also explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan, despite his opposition to Hussein's secular regime... A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting Bin Ladin in 1994." (9-11 Commission Staff Statement 15, June 16, 2004)

"Bin Ladin is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded. There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda also occurred after Bin Ladin had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship." (9-11 Commission Staff Statement 15, June 16, 2004)

So much for all those lefty claims that "the 9-11 Commission found no links between Saddam and al Qaeda".

Add in the fact that Saddam was giving $25,000 to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, provided sanctuary for Abu Nidal, the terrorist training camp at Salman Pak and Iraq inclusion on the State Departments list of state sponsors of terrorism, and only a blind partisan or a fool could argue that there was "no link" between Saddam and terrorism.

 

[Destructo6]

Here is a partial list of the excuses given by Bush as to why the war was necessary:

Perhaps in your mind such things can be proven 100% true or false, but I don't think most rational folks would put the percentages nearly that high. Plenty of your assertions are simply not true.

 

[Fred Hansen]

The many meanings of accuracy

For example even forgeries can be 100% accurate.

 

[JohnKSa]

Example of fallacious reasoning using a SPECIFIC statement to make a GENERAL conclusion.

President says there is no DIRECT CONNECTION between SADDAM HUSSEIN and the MEN WHO PERPETRATED 9/11.

bears_fan says therefore AL QUEDA and IRAQ have NO CONNECTIONS.

Can anyone besides me see the problem here?

1. AL QUEDA is not the same as THE MEN WHO PERPETRATED 9/11. Al Queda had hundreds (thousands) of members. There were only a handful of MEN WHO PERPETRATED 9/11.

2. DIRECT CONNECTION is a very specific allegation. To say that there is no direct connection is a far cry from saying that there are NO CONNECTIONS.

3. SADDAM HUSSEIN is not IRAQ. To say that everyone who had anything to do with Iraq had direct connections with Saddam is foolishness.

On the surface you have a LOT of "evidence". The problem is that it only works if you stay on the surface. Once a person actually begins to look at the "evidence" it turns out to be far less substantial than it initially appears.

BTW, bears_fan--you have an interesting posting style--no capitals or punctuation... also did you know you can use the edit function to add to a post rather than post twice in a row?

 

[Fred Hansen]

so [sic] exactly what changed after these people said this?

A rational person would expect (at the very least) that the level of scrutiny on all countries would have increased dramatically post-9/11, and further that the level of scrutiny upon countries known to have supported terrorists in the past would have their levels of scrutiny increased even more dramatically. A rational person would then expect that previous assessments of said countries would change fairly dramatically. A rational person would believe this because they would understand that in a post-9/11 world, the "margins for error" if you will, would have to be redrawn. Redrawn to err in OUR* favor, for a change.

Oddly enough, the leftists in this country swore up and down that uncle Sadam's threat of "The Mother of All Battles!" would come to fruition should the United States attack the thug in Desert Storm I, yet now they claim that kindly uncle Sadam is harmless as a kitten. Personally I feel terrible that I could think of a sadistic socialist dictator thug as a bad person. I'm sure that I would see the error of my ways given the proper stay in a re-education camp run by the NEA.

In the meanwhile I suppose I will simply keep pointing out the painfully obvious.


*OUR meaning "the people of the United States" rather than world socialism/Islamofascism (for those who may be confused).

 

[Mike Irwin]

"Tricky Dicky did it - congress sanctioned it by saying nothing."

Pardon me, but war sans a declaration of war is an invention of the Democrats -- Harry Truman, John Kennedy, and most specifically, Lyndon Johnson (War Powers Act anyone)?