Iraq War question & befuddlement. Short--one paragraph

[Suff]

Ok. The rightys say (said) that a free Iraq would be (result in) a change for the Middle East. Correct? Thats what I heard. A free and Democratic Iraq woud be a beacon for freedom in the Middle East.


So what is the issue with Iran & Syria?

Not quite the march to Democracy they predicted is it?


If You stand with George Bush you are wrong.

Trust your instincts. This war is wrong.

[NoDayJob]

I believe President George Washington said something about this a while back, "No foreign entanglements". How many have we had since he spoke those words?

[GameTheory]

Ok. The rightys say (said) that a free Iraq would be (result in) a change for the Middle East. Correct? Thats what I heard. A free and Democratic Iraq woud be a beacon for freedom in the Middle East.


So what is the issue with Iran & Syria?

Not quite the march to Democracy they predicted is it?

It isn't an overnight change. These transformations take years, decades even. But the issue with Iran & Syria is that the powers-that-be see these changes coming, and want to shore up their power now...

[PaceAdvantage]

Yeah seriously. I thought Suff was too old to qualify as a member of the "MTV Generation"....you know....the instant gratification, limited attention span types....

Like GT said, this kind of stuff don't happen overnight....you have to give it time to grow, to let the roots take hold and start nourishing the liberty tree....

Don't you just love that kind of talk?

[ljb]

So after the rest of the middle east creates numerous terroists attacks on the U.S. and our grandchildren pay for this war we may see some results ?
World wide hatred of the U.S. is growing not dimminishing under this administrations policies and bully like tactics. As i have said many times before, our children and grandchildren will be paying for the misdeeds of the current regime for years to come.

[Tom]

Iran just needs a little push....like from a couple of "bunker busters!" ;)

[Snag]

Suff, did you forget our friends in Jordon and the new Afgans that just had elections?

If all you want is a plus or minus count to prove you hate GW, you should at least get the numbers right, pls.

[kenwoodallpromos]

Iran- 1980 hostages- always have been jerks;
Syia- 1883?- tried to shoot down 2 of our Air Force Jets- always have been jerks.

[ljb]

Iran- 1980 hostages- always have been jerks;
Syia- 1883?- tried to shoot down 2 of our Air Force Jets- always have been jerks.

You guys all seem to be overlooking the South American countries where China is quietly establishing a military presence.

[Tom]

Welcome Snag....be sure to wear a helmet in Off topics! :D


Suff, I trust my instincts - this was is long over due, as are several more.

[Steve 'StatMan']

In Iraq, the vast majority wanted Sadam out of power.

In Iran and Syria, I don't know that they don't want their current rulers. I know we sure don't want their current rulers, esp. with their actions that tip their hand regarding Nukes, likely WMD's, etc. I wouldn't trust Iran with the left over Radioactive Waste that could be used for a Dirty Bomb, even if their nuclear 'Intentions' are 'Peaceful' (yeah, who's 'Peace').

We could send in air strikes on their targets (if Israel doesn't beat us to the punch like last time), but I don't know that it is only their Regiems that are the problem. Topple their governments, and with or without our help, we may or may not have a 'new friend'. And maybe we don't want or need one. We just can't have a nuclear threat from Iran and/or Syria.

By the way, if we hadn't made weak agreement in the mid-1990's with North Korea, with no teeth and a poor monitoring job on their programs, and had found they were producing a nuclear bomb, we'd have sent in the air strikes there too. Piss poor job by those in charge in the mid-1990's the U.S.A. on that one. By the time GW and those willing to take actions got into office and were getting set up, over 95% of the work was likely done, with insufficient ongoing intelligence work coming in.

Once they get the stuff up and running, it's too late for air strikes, because then you cause a nuclear disaster for the 'innocent civilians' and a potential large region of other countries.

[Snag]

Thanks for the welcome Tom. Not to worry though. I've been reading here and else where for quite awhile and made a New Years Res to be more vocal this year.

I'm sick and tired of comments (good intentioned or not) that do not have all the facts or try to make a point without using all the facts and figures. The news media has gotten away with it for years and I feel it's time to speak up and point out the problem.

Thanks again.

[kenwoodallpromos]

"You guys all seem to be overlooking the South American countries where China is quietly establishing a military presence."
I say we mess with who is messing with us or our people or allys. Are the Chinese invading South America or invited? We invited the Chineses to control 1/3 of our debt, it was not by force.
Opining and voting 3rd party and petitioning on some issues is the best I can do. It is hard to beat corrupt greed by either party or outsiders.

[Secretariat]

Any government, including a democracy, is only as good as the leaders, and rights it embraces.

A democracy selected by people that base their constitution on a theocratic decision-making approach is going to be different than one that doesn't.

Currently, Iraq is in the midst of struggle for power between Sunnis, Shia, and Kurd, AND also outside influences such as Chalabi and Allawai. The insurgency represents this struggle for power. Who will prevail? We don't know, a lot can occur.

For example real possilbities are that Pakistan could destabilize, the Iran situation could become even more volatile, and we will not have enough troops to maintain security in Iraq while engaging Iran and/or Pakistan.

Right now, Suff is correct. It's a mess, and the illusion of peace through democracy has not materialzied.

[PaceAdvantage]

Right now, Suff is correct. It's a mess, and the illusion of peace through democracy has not materialzied.

I'm curious. What is your personal timeline as to how quickly peace through democracy should occur?

[PaceAdvantage]

You guys all seem to be overlooking the South American countries where China is quietly establishing a military presence.

That will give us one darn good excuse now won't it?

[Snag]

Secretariat, please reread the post by Suff. Suff did not say "It's a mess, and the illusion of peace through democracy has not materialzied". Not even close. Those are your words and assumptions.

Suff said that "A free and Democratic Iraq woud be a beacon for freedom in the Middle East." and wanted us to agree that because Iran and Syria are a problem, it is ..."Not quite the march to Democracy they predicted is it?"

Please do not inject if you are not willing to continue with the original premis as it only confuses the issue and takes away from a discussion started by Suff. We still are not sure who "they" are. Suff, would you care to tell us who "they" are and when this was predicted?

Thank you both.

[lsbets]

I'm curious. What is your personal timeline as to how quickly peace through democracy should occur?

His personal timeline? I'm sure he would love to see peace as long as Bush is not in office to get credit for it.

[ljb]

That will give us one darn good excuse now won't it?
Since when do we need an excuse ?

[JustRalph]

Sec, I suggest you take a look at our history..........and how long it took to become a stable democracy.............

[Lefty]

ndj says:








I believe President George Washington said something about this a while back, "No foreign entanglements". How many have we had since he spoke those words





______________________
The world's quite a diff place since those days; and with the asdvent of the jet plane; quite a bit closer.

[Secretariat]

Secretariat, please reread the post by Suff. Suff did not say "It's a mess, and the illusion of peace through democracy has not materialzied". Not even close. Those are your words and assumptions.

Suff said that "A free and Democratic Iraq woud be a beacon for freedom in the Middle East." and wanted us to agree that because Iran and Syria are a problem, it is ..."Not quite the march to Democracy they predicted is it?"

Please do not inject if you are not willing to continue with the original premis as it only confuses the issue and takes away from a discussion started by Suff. We still are not sure who "they" are. Suff, would you care to tell us who "they" are and when this was predicted?

Thank you both.

Snag, that's the way I interpret these comments by Suff:

"Iraq War question & befuddlement

If You stand with George Bush you are wrong.

Trust your instincts. This war is wrong."

Befuddlement translates as mess to me. He's saying the war is wrong. He's saying if you stand with GW you're wrong.

If Suff wants to correct my assumptions from his post fine, but I read his post a lot differently than you.

[Lefty]

If you stand against Bush you are wrong. If you're against the war in Iraq you are wrong. But i'm getting used to libs being wrong.

[PaceAdvantage]

No Secretariat, really, what is your personal timeline as to how quickly peace through democracy should occur in Iraq?

[hcap]

Short term? Long term? What's a few decades, among friends?
Maybe our mid east "democracy project" will eventually drain the swamp, long term, but in the words of youse guys fearless leedur...we'all will be dead so who gives a@%$* anyhoo.

Woodward. asks

‘Well, how is history likely to judge your Iraq war,’”

bush....

‘History,’ and then he took his hands out of his pocket and kind of shrugged and extended his hands as if this is a way off. And then he said, ‘History, we don’t know. We’ll all be dead.’”


Now the facts that:

1-for some reason Iraqs' WMD's and connections to Osama were the main suma cum laude ultra reason we were led into Iraq, and afterwards for some reason ( maybe lying?) didn't pan out.

Well No big deal

2-the democracy project via shock and awe was only a tiny pimple on the neocans' PUBLIC asses back then.
And for some reason the congress and us poor folk were never ever were told that a big new neocon foreign policy mid east makeover was real reason for swatting them thar ragheads...

Well no big deal.

3- And the fact that no one would have ever ever supported bushs war based on a makeover foreign policy,

Hey no biggie.

Meanwhile back at the short term ranch
At least a brave new world is beckoning.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002742696_mideastdem16.html

Islamists gain ground from American push for Mideast democracy

President Bush's efforts to spread democracy to the Middle East have strengthened Islamists across the region, posing fresh challenges for the United States, according to U.S. officials, foreign diplomats and democracy experts.

Islamist parties trounced secular opponents in recent elections in Iraq and Egypt.


Soooo, anybody think the terrorists on on their last throes?

[Tom]

Took quite a while before democracy in the USA took hold. Didn'thappen overnight by any stretch.

10 years after the constitution was written, balck people counted as 3/5 of a white man. Couldn't vote, could be owned and sold like funiture. 200 years later, we were still fighting the idea tha a black man was a man.
Women vote? Hahaha! Not in this country, not in that century.
We still had Indian wars for years, we had highwaymen, outlaws, unsttled lands, lawless lands for decades. It was not safe to go to many western cities for a long time.

70 or so years after the constitution, wise split into two countries, fought a war, man! You call this a successful nation! Ha!

Give it a rest, man, percentage-wise, more Iraqi's take part in their infant democracy that democrats do here. Even when thye get free rock concerts and guys like LJB go into the streets with free ciggy's for the homeless vote.

[Secretariat]

No Secretariat, really, what is your personal timeline as to how quickly peace through democracy should occur in Iraq?

As it goes on, I'm moving more towards Murtha's position in that the war in Iraq is ultimately unwinnable and that Civil War is going to occur no matter what.

I'm not alone in those positions, and initially I beleived, like Kerry, that an Allied Security Force could maintain the peace while Iraq worked through its blisters in a post Saddam Iraq. I was wrong and so was Kerry. Now, with the threat from Iran, and the continued presence of Al Queda, I beleive our troops are stretched thin, and nation building in Iraq (especially as more and more of the supposed coalition of the willing become unwilling and withdraw) is a mistake. After all in South Vietnam elections were held in 68 as well, and amounted to nothing despite the commitment to a democracy. Iran now poses a much greater threat to the US than Iraq ever did. We should get out, and soon. GW can save face by saying he got rid of Saddam, a Constitution is in place, and Iraq now has a democracy for whatever its worth. It's up to them to maintain it. In a football game if the strategy isn't working, you change it. You adjust. You don't keep making the same mistakes. GW has never learned this.

The articles below seem to bolster those ideas of the "mess" we've got involved in.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20060117/ts_csm/ogov_1;_ylt=As6PSpclSY2XIoo_FAahp7NX6GMA;_ylu=X3oD MTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1686529,00.html

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060117/ts_afp/iraq_060117111853

btw.. as to the length of time it took to secure America after the Amercian revolution? I don't know exactly. But remeber it ws OUR nation's revolution, and French was not an occupier of our country while we worked out our OWN problems. Surely, no one here is advocating staying in Iraq for 10 years or more while Americans die to nation build in Iraq?

[Lefty]

How long did we stay in Japan, Germany, Korea and Bosnia?

[NoDayJob]

How long did we stay in Japan, Germany, Korea and Bosnia?

:lol: We have squater's rights anywhere we land. Just ask us! :lol:

[Tom]

Civil war is a possibility. WE had one. It is part of building a nation sometimes. All you seem to do is look for reason why democracy will not work. Your attitude would have been welcomed by the Brittish.

[PaceAdvantage]

As it goes on, I'm moving more towards Murtha's position in that the war in Iraq is ultimately unwinnable and that Civil War is going to occur no matter what.

So, in other words, you will criticize that peace through democracy hasn't happened yet, but you still refuse to actually answer my question and give me your personal thoughts as to how long YOU felt this should have taken.

I guess I can just conclude that it is your opinion that peace through democracy should ALREADY BE IN PLACE....and since it is not, and you are criticizing this fact, then it has already passed your timeline.

Therefore I must conclude that you are one very impatient dude....


PS. Your last post is filled with insanity.

[Secretariat]

So, in other words, you will criticize that peace through democracy hasn't happened yet, but you still refuse to actually answer my question and give me your personal thoughts as to how long YOU felt this should have taken.

I guess I can just conclude that it is your opinion that peace through democracy should ALREADY BE IN PLACE....and since it is not, and you are criticizing this fact, then it has already passed your timeline.

Therefore I must conclude that you are one very impatient dude....


PS. Your last post is filled with insanity.

The first flaw in your premise is that we went to Iraq to create a democracy. We didn't. We went to Iraq because of the threat of WMDs. That threat has been addressed.

We've stayed to allow a constitution to be drafted, and multiple elections to be held. We are not the police force of Iraq, and polls show the majority of Iraqis want us out making us occupiers in a land in which we're not wanted.

It is not about impatience. It is about purpose. You need to go back and look at the Senate testimony on WHY force was authorized by the Congress. There is nothing about establishing a democracy and then occupying the land for decades.

Insanity is using American tax dollars to be in a land that the people by majority don't want us in, and risking American lives in the process. Your beleif that American troops there help with the peace, whereas Murtha states it encourages the insurgency, and acts as a catalyst to rile the Eastern world.

It's not about patience. It's about what was the mission that Congress authorized on why to invade Iraq. 911 had nothing to do with Iraq. Nothing. The attack came from Al Queda. The assault on Pakistan to kill Zawahari was the right thing to do (except they should have at least told Musharraf it was going to happen). It risks a lot, but that is where the 911 attack emerged from. Nation building democracies is expensive and paid for by the American taxpayer, and as you allude has no timetable for peace, hence no limitation to the expense.

A guy who continually spends money in another land in a hope that Islamic indoctrinated Iraqi citizens will embrace some kind of western democracy doesn't know the history of Mid-East politics or Islam.

So my time table? Get out now. The training of the Iraqi army is way past due. Let them fight their own civil war as our citizens did ours.

[Snag]

Secretariat, you still didn't answer the question that was asked of you for the basis of your points. In the process you have made some misstatements that are not true or are twisted.

1. No one has claimed that we intend to be in Iraq for decades as you have....."There is nothing about establishing a democracy and then occupying the land for decades." Where did that come from? Is that just your idea? On second thought, maybe that is your answer.

2. Congress did not authorize anyone to invade Iraq as you stated...."It's about what was the mission that Congress authorized on why to invade Iraq."
Congress established and authorized funds to be spent. There is a big difference. Unless you forgot or didn't want to admitt, the UN issued the resolution to authorize force. Some say the verbage was not very clear but the Administration used the UN resolution as the base to go into Iraq. Your version seems to twist the facts to fit your position. Clever, but some know better.

[Secretariat]

Secretariat, you still didn't answer the question that was asked of you for the basis of your points. In the process you have made some misstatements that are not true or are twisted.

1. No one has claimed that we intend to be in Iraq for decades as you have....."There is nothing about establishing a democracy and then occupying the land for decades." Where did that come from? Is that just your idea? On second thought, maybe that is your answer.

Allawai has claimed it will take at least a decade.

"Gen. Abizaid believes that the Long War is only in its early stages. Victory will be hard to measure, he says, because the enemy won't wave a white flag and surrender one day. Success will instead be an incremental process of modernization of the Islamic world, which will gradually find its own accommodation with the global economy and open political systems."

The adminstration and Colin Powell have stated generic terms such as "long as it takes". Former Prime Minister Allawai has said at least 10 years comfirmed by Gangle below.

"If we have the political will and stamina to stay, I could see this going on for 10 years," Randolph Gangle, head of the Marine Corps' Center for Emerging Threats and Opportunities, was quoted as saying.




2. Congress did not authorize anyone to invade Iraq as you stated...."It's about what was the mission that Congress authorized on why to invade Iraq."
Congress established and authorized funds to be spent. There is a big difference. Unless you forgot or didn't want to admitt, the UN issued the resolution to authorize force. Some say the verbage was not very clear but the Administration used the UN resolution as the base to go into Iraq. Your version seems to twist the facts to fit your position. Clever, but some know better.

Snag, you need to go back and read both the "UN" resolution and Congressional resolution. It was based on access to inspections, and the threat of WMD's. THe UN never mentions anything about the US establishing a democracy in Iraq, and netiher does the Congressional authorization to use force as a last resort mention establishing using force to install a democracy in Iraq.

So since the authorization was about WMD's and they don't exist, one could argue that establishing a democracy in Iraq was not authorized by Congress, and our intrusion into the political process of another nation (especially when the poll of Iraqis overwhelming do not want us in the country) has nothing to with the UN or the original authorization by Congress to use force.

Since GW then is essentially operating a miltary operation not authorized in the original resolution, then it is time to leave ASAP. (btw..this is more specific than GW has ever been...He says as long as it takes. I say as quickly as possible.)

[Secretariat]

Snag,

To make it easier, here is part of the authoirzation and the exact reference to use of force authorized by Congress.

"107th CONGRESS 2d Session H. J. RES. 114 To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES October 2, 2002

JOINT RESOLUTION

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq."

...

"SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION.—The President is authorized to use the
Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary
and appropriate in order to—
(1) defend the national security of the United States against
the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.

Snag, you need to go back and read both the "UN" resolution and Congressional resolution. It was based on access to inspections, and the threat of WMD's. THe UN never mentions anything about the US establishing a democracy in Iraq, and the Congressional authorization allows the President only the two reasons above to authorization the use of force in Iraq (notice not to establish an Iraqi democracy).

[lsbets]

Secretariat - here is a nice, neat organized list, with sources (click on the link for sources) of what has been found in Iraq. Most of these items have been listed here before:

1) 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium
In a joint Energy and Defense Department operation, 1.77 metric tons of low-enriched uranium and approximately 1000 highly radioactive sources were secured from Iraq's former nuclear research facility, packaged and then airlifted on June 23, the press statement said.
"This operation was a major achievement for the Bush Administration's goal to keep potentially dangerous nuclear materials out of the hands of terrorists," Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham said in the statement. "It also puts this material out of reach for countries that may seek to develop their own nuclear weapons."(source)

2) 1,500 gallons of chemical weapons agents
U.S. troops raiding a warehouse in the northern city of Mosul uncovered a suspected chemical weapons factory containing 1,500 gallons of chemicals believed destined for attacks on U.S. and Iraqi forces and civilians, military officials said Saturday.(source)

3) 17 chemical warheads containing cyclosarin (a nerve agent five times more deadly than sarin gas)
"Laboratory tests showed the presence in them of cyclosarin, a very toxic gas, five times stronger than sarin and five times more durable," Bieniek told Poland's TVN24 at the force's Camp Babylon headquarters.
"If these warheads, which were still usable, were used on a military base like Camp Babylon, they would have caused unforeseeable damage." (source)

4) Over 1,000 radioactive materials in powdered form meant for dispersal over populated areas
"Along with 1.77 tons of enriched uranium, about 1,000 "highly radioactive sources" were also removed.
The material was taken from a former nuclear research facility on 23 June, after being packaged by 20 experts from the US Energy Department's secret laboratories." (source)

5) Roadside bombs loaded with mustard and "conventional" sarin gas, assembled in binary chemical projectiles for maximum potency (source)

http://mobyrebuttal.blogspot.com/2005/11/no-wmds-what-has-been-found-in-iraq.html

[Tom]

ls....Sec says that's nuthin'!

Sec, how do you suppose one takes an accurate poll in Iraq? Your polls HERE had Kerry winning. How'd that one ever turn out anyhow??:bang:

I would look at the election turnout numbers - THAT poll says they like what we area helping them do over there.

You say pull out now, and leave them to the mercy of blood thirsty insurgents? What a cold, unfeeling person you are. Typical lib....

[Secretariat]

Secretariat - here is a nice, neat organized list, with sources (click on the link for sources) of what has been found in Iraq. Most of these items have been listed here before:

1) 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium
In a joint Energy and Defense Department operation, 1.77 metric tons of low-enriched uranium and approximately 1000 highly radioactive sources were secured from Iraq's former nuclear research facility, packaged and then airlifted on June 23, the press statement said.
"This operation was a major achievement for the Bush Administration's goal to keep potentially dangerous nuclear materials out of the hands of terrorists," Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham said in the statement. "It also puts this material out of reach for countries that may seek to develop their own nuclear weapons."(source)

2) 1,500 gallons of chemical weapons agents
U.S. troops raiding a warehouse in the northern city of Mosul uncovered a suspected chemical weapons factory containing 1,500 gallons of chemicals believed destined for attacks on U.S. and Iraqi forces and civilians, military officials said Saturday.(source)

3) 17 chemical warheads containing cyclosarin (a nerve agent five times more deadly than sarin gas)
"Laboratory tests showed the presence in them of cyclosarin, a very toxic gas, five times stronger than sarin and five times more durable," Bieniek told Poland's TVN24 at the force's Camp Babylon headquarters.
"If these warheads, which were still usable, were used on a military base like Camp Babylon, they would have caused unforeseeable damage." (source)

4) Over 1,000 radioactive materials in powdered form meant for dispersal over populated areas
"Along with 1.77 tons of enriched uranium, about 1,000 "highly radioactive sources" were also removed.
The material was taken from a former nuclear research facility on 23 June, after being packaged by 20 experts from the US Energy Department's secret laboratories." (source)

5) Roadside bombs loaded with mustard and "conventional" sarin gas, assembled in binary chemical projectiles for maximum potency (source)

http://mobyrebuttal.blogspot.com/2005/11/no-wmds-what-has-been-found-in-iraq.html

Is,

I respect your service, and beleif in the cause of Iraq, but you've got to give it up on this WMD thing. The President has. He appointed two different people to find these stockpiles. They have given it up. Even FOX has posted it.

"WASHINGTON - In his final word, the CIA’s top weapons inspector in Iraq [Duelfer] said Monday that the hunt for weapons of mass destruction has “gone as far as feasible” and has found nothing, closing an investigation into the purported programs of Saddam Hussein that were used to justify the 2003 invasion.

“After more than 18 months, the WMD investigation and debriefing of the WMD-related detainees has been exhausted,” wrote Charles Duelfer, head of the Iraq Survey Group, in an addendum to the final report he issued last fall.
“As matters now stand, the WMD investigation has gone as far as feasible.”"

From Reuters:

"CHARLESTON, S.C. - President Bush acknowledged Thursday that the United States had not found the banned weapons that his administration believed were in Iraq, but he defended the war as “the right thing” to do.

“We have not yet found the stockpiles of weapons that we thought were there,” Bush said in a speech at the Port of Charleston in his clearest acknowledgment of problems with prewar intelligence on Iraqi weapons.

And from FOX

"Top Bush administration officials have speculated publicly that chemical, biological or radiological weapons may have been smuggled out, and the question is one of the unresolved issues on WMD. The report is due next month.

Intelligence and congressional officials say they have not seen any information — never "a piece," said one — indicating that WMD or significant amounts of components and equipment were transferred from Iraq to neighboring Syria, Jordan or elsewhere.

The administration acknowledged last week that the search for banned weapons is largely over. The Iraq Survey Group's (search) chief, Charles Duelfer, is expected to submit the final installments of his report in February. A small number of the organization's experts will remain on the job in case new intelligence on Iraqi WMD is unearthed.

But the officials familiar with the search say U.S. authorities have found no evidence that former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein (search) transferred WMD or related equipment out of Iraq."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,144623,00.html

Give it up already.

[Lefty]

At the end of his post to ls, sec says: Give it up already
_____________-------
Exactly my advice to you, sec. It has become a moot point. When the terrorists flowed in, the war changed. Very unpredictable thing, war.

[lsbets]

Sec - the point of my post was not that we found large stockpiles (we didn't and there has been a lot on here about that). The point was that to constantly say we found nothing is simply false. Despite the items found, you insist on saying we found nothing, which is untrue. The one pushing the WMD debate is you, and you insist on telling a lie when it comes to it. If you said "We found no large stockpiles" you would be correct, but to say we found nothing is absolutely false. Try to be honest when you think you're making a point, it helps make a stronger case.

[Suff]

Suff, did you forget our friends in Jordon and the new Afgans that just had elections?

If all you want is a plus or minus count to prove you hate GW, you should at least get the numbers right, pls.

Jordan has 5 millin people and has been a point of free trade for some time.

If you think simply using numbers to support a point is invalid, the I see you doing the same thing with Afghanistan.

Nearly 30% of thier GDP is the Exportation of Poppy ( Heroin). Drug Lords play a significant part in Local Rule. Also the Taliban has seen a resurgence in the north.

Its a poor example, and a poor result of what we intended (and hoped for), four years ago.

I'm all for good news, and good works........ Jordan and Afghan in particular are not success storys as of yet.

Further, I don't support the Nation Building premise to begin with.

[toetoe]

Look, and I think suff may agree on this, if we move in on a sovereign country IN OUR OWN INTEREST, that's defensible. It's like the law of the jungle. Nothing personal, man. We gotta sustain ourselves. Okay, but to start worrying about the form of government in a God-forsaken (term used advisedly) desertified backwater is just too meddlesome. If we feel we need their oil, let's take it. If we think our survival depends on elimination of their weapons, let's get cracking. But once we're in there, let's not get bogged down in ladies voting and stories of heroism. Otherwise, we're like the guy that took my bet to the track and plowed the winnings back into the next race (well, he SAYS he did). Just as he says, "Well, it won, didn't it?" or "You wouldn't refuse the money if it won!," some say, "Well, democracy's really flourishing in Iraq," or "You're not getting the real, wonderful story from the major networks," and I say, I don't give a big rat's ass about Iraqi's voting rights, etc. I can't afford that luxury. I have my own country to worry about. If you disagree and say that the establishment of democracy is crucial to our survival, then the weapons thing was a red herring. If the weapons were a real reason, fine. We've found what we could, and let's get out. I'm not bashing Bush or his superiors, oops, I mean his henchmen. I just feel that if we stay, the weapons reasoning just looks more and more like a pretense for busting some heads. As I said in another thread, I don't respect these psychos, but I fear them enough to stay out of it, if at all possible. I'm not sure, but I think that's the view of many retired (read: independent)generals, also.

[Lefty]

we freed Germany from Hitler when he was a threat and we freed Iraq from Saddam, when he looked like a threat. And if we hadn't removed him he had the potential to be another Hitler. If only we had moved as fast as we did with Hitler. Let's just hope the Iraquis can become the democracy we hope for. We gave them a chance; soon, the ball will be in their court.

[Secretariat]

Well I'll defer to Duelfer, Blix, Kaye and GW on the WMd finds.

My point is the President was never originally authorized to use force to instill a democracy or to maintain a presence as an occupying force in Iraq. It was about WMDs or our national security as I posted previously the Congrssional authorization.

As to how long we'll be there. Here's what our friends in Iraq say:

Cleric Sees No End to Insurgency in Iraq
AP - 1 hour, 13 minutes ago

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Sunni Arab participation in a new government will not be enough to persuade Islamic extremists and Saddam Hussein loyalists to abandon the insurgency, the country's most powerful Shiite politician said Thursday. Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, a cleric with close ties to Iran and head of Iraq's largest Shiite party, also said the Americans must address "mistakes" in the battle against Sunni-led insurgents and allow the Iraqis a bigger role in the fight. "

Let the Iraqis fight for their country's security as they want to and let us get out of there. We've got Iran, and Al Queda to deal with.



http://news.yahoo.com/fc/world/iraq

[Lefty]

sec, how long you gonna beat a dead horse?

[toetoe]

Lefty,

I would not say that we freed Germany from Hitler. They had the ruler they wanted. The comparison begs the question, did we act to stop the slaughter of the Jews, Poles, etc.? I maintain we did not, but I don't judge us harshly for that. We had to think self-servingly. Look at the unholy alliance with the U.S.S.R. Were we trying to save their citizens, or the conceited fools in Japan, from their insane dictator? No, we could not afford that luxury.

Could we "save" the Koreans from their insane ruler? Yes, and we could argue, the sooner the better. Will we? I seriously doubt it. Much to lose, little to gain.

[lsbets]

Replying to the original question here:

"Two events sparked Lebanon's 2005 "Beirut Spring," that "street revolution" of protests and pro-democracy demonstrations which ultimately forced Syria to end its two-decade-long military occupation of Lebanon.

The first revolutionary fire-starter was Iraq's historic January 2005 election. The Iraqis trekked to the polls, despite the threats of terrorists, encouraging democrats throughout the Middle East -- particularly in Lebanon.

Murder, however, provided the ultimate spur. Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri was a Lebanese nationalist with the guts to challenge Syria's vicious and corrupt Assad regime. The Valentine's Day 2005 assassination of Hariri pushed hundreds of thousands of Lebanese into the streets.

Lebanese of all political and religious stripes suspected the orders to kill Hariri came from Syria. The assassination was clearly an act of terror designed to thwart Lebanese nationalist goals and democratic aspirations -- and to continue Syrian control.

Prior to 9-11, the assassination might have achieved those goals. There were no other choices. New Iraq, however, has created new political and democratic options. "

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=011906F