That's true on both the Left and Right.
Posted on 01/15/2005 2:30:04 PM PST by Prost1
Chaos will flourish in the Middle East if President Bush’s policy continues unchanged
EVEN DONALD RUMSFELD, in his more private moments, must wonder if the invasion of Iraq was really such a good idea. It has become obvious to almost everyone else, including many such as myself who originally supported the war, that it has been a huge mistake. My support was based solely on the evidence of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), on which the intelligence was exaggerated and which Washington has just admitted it is no longer looking for. There is absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting al-Qaeda. I believe that the real reason for the war, at least in the US, was to create a reasonably democratic, free-market Iraq to act as both a beacon and a rebuke to other countries in the region. That possibility looks more and more remote. The forthcoming elections look unlikely to produce a government with real authority and legitimacy, or to stop the violence, but they must go ahead; let us hope that they prove a step on the road to normality. Despite the bombing of the UN headquarters in August 2003, the current appalling level of violence did not begin until March 2004, a year after the invasion. It might have been more easily contained if the postwar administration had not made so many early mistakes.
(Excerpt) Read more at timesonline.co.uk ...
I think some on the right want to seem "progressive" and full of heart by agreeing with the looney left.
Big mistake.
If the "alleged" elections make you sneer that much, then why even have us stay one more day?
I think millions will vote in Iraq. The threat of terrorism will be less.
Good point. Shoot Saddam in the head, and let's go!
The presumption that levelling cities is an effective way to kill terrorists is wrong. Only a tiny fraction of the people are terrorists, and the terrorists are the first to escape a 'kill em all' approach. Anyway, we did the 'city levelling' thing in Fallujah in November, when we went in there and damaged the one city that they truly controlled. They dont control it now, but it is barely habitable, and many of the people are now refugees. It was necessary, but far better is how we retook Samarra: Combined Iraqi and U.S. operation, in 3 days we killed about 300 or so of the terrorists, captured about 150 of them. Collateral damage was much less than in Fallujah. In both Fallujah and Samarra some of the bad guys simply ran away. But at least with Samarra, there is a functioning city now held by Iraqi brigades, U.S. forces and a re-established police. That is a WIN for coalition. Fallujah is a win too, but only because the terrorists we found there are dead or captured; it looks like those cities after WWII and the residents marched asking to go back to the city.
How does establishing an Iraqi gov't help us "win", since their army is nowhere near ready to takeover? ON the contrary, the Iraqi army is already killing and capturing terrorists, patrolling and holding ground and engaging in a number of successful operations against the terrorists. Vast majority of Iraqis want democracy, support military / police action to defeat the terrorists. So an Iraqi govt will help us meet our goals.
And, I think some "moderate" terrorists might give up if they knew we weren't hesitant to unleash our full arsenal at any time, any where. If you run into a 'moderate' terrorist, let us know. I didnt say that terrorists shouldnt be killed, but killing civilians only helps fuel the AlJazeera media and helps their cause. Let us kill TERRORISTS not innocent bystanders who happen to be in the same neighborhood.
WE WAITED 9 MONTHS TO GO INTO FALLUJAH AFTER THE "BRIDGE" INCIDENT. Wrong. We (ie Marines) went in in April, killed almost a 1000 people and took parts of the city. then Al Jazeera made it sound like we were killing women and children and the IGC and others told us to stand down. So we went with the 'fallujah brigade' which failed to control the militants, and the city got taken over by terrorists and jihadists. All through the summer and into the fall, we were bombing fallujah, sometimes hitting our mark sometimes hitting collateral damage. ... the way we handled Najaf and Sadr city and the disbanding of the Madhi army, and Samarra worked out better.
The real limiting factor is our intelligence capability to know who and where the terrorists are, so we can go after them.
See Liberating Iraq
What a crock, his putting the elections in the scare-quote of "elections". The first elections that are real in an Arab country in a dog's age, and he sneers.
The elections are going to be phony, and you seem to care more for the Iraqi people than I do.
My first concern is for US. If we can win and avoid civilian deaths, even better. But I am angry when a Marine dies there's a good chance that additional air power could have prevented his death.
Japan seems to be our friend, even though we had to nuke two of their cities.
Bottomline that people have to accept is this, IMO. Iraq must go through a civil war. Laws without government are useless, and governments that cannot provide their own security are inoperable.
We cannot stop it from happening, but the longer we stay in the middle of it the higher our death count will go for no reason.
You can point to Iraqi National Guard successes, and I can point to failures. Bush and Rumsfeld have admitted recently that they are not close to being "ready" to perform on their own.
I think the war in Iraq is one small battle in the WOT, and quitting there doesn't mean we've lost the war, but if we commit years and years to that country, AQ et al will have time to rebuild itself elsewhere.
I think it's time to choose one or the other, defeating AQ et al while it's weakened, or democratizing Iraq.
And how would that take place? The Iraqi Navy? The Iraqi air force? Or from large holes in our immigration policies?
There are plenty who would consider themselves to the "right" of the political spectrum who hate President Bush just as much. Some are in this thread right now.
With all due respect. McCain is nuts not a war-monger.
In the minds of people who share his/her ideology, anyone who doesn't agree with their positions are either imbeciles or socialists.
That's true on both the Left and Right.
"So US troops are supposed to die enforcing UN resolutions? "
No, to the contrary. I do not believe we should base our actions on what the U.N. thinks. But, the Powell/State wanted the U.S. to have that as an umbrella.
I'm of the opinion that Saddam was in violation of the cease-fire he signed in 1991, therefore, we were free to impose whatever force necessary to mitigate his violations.
I don't need WMD, "imminent", U.N. or any other blather.
The first and very important step to fight and win the war on terror is to be military present in the Middle East and in a big way. The war on terror is not a police action (liberal belief) where we just go an capture a terrorist from here and a terrorist from there. It is about destroying the terrorist organizations, and the regimes that support them. One of these regimes was Saddam Hussein. Iraq is strategically at the heart of the geo-political Middle East and any change in Iraq will effect the whole region. We removed Saddam first because he is the most dangerous and the most unstable among all the rogue regimes that support terrorism. Many terrorists are pouring to Iraq to fight us, and we will kill most of them and eventually break the backbone of terrorism worldwide. It is better that they fight us I Iraq then they fight us here in our cities.
Being born and raised in Lebanon during the civil war, I understand the islamofacists much better than most people in the US and the West and I know that the only way to destroy them is to eliminate them militarily, period.
The terrorist insurgency in Iraq is doomed to fail and lose because of the following:
It is supported only by a minority among the Sunni Iraqis Arabs who themselves are a minority in the general population to begin with.
It does not have the geographical depth, it is only concentrated in the central part of Iraq.
It does not have an organized leadership.
It does not have any defined goals beside just killing Americans and Iraqis. Twenty or thirty thousand terrorist cannot and will not beat the American military, the mightiest military in history of mankind.
We are winning this war on Iraq and we will defeat this terrorist insurgency. We will win the war on terror.
"My support was based solely on the evidence of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), on which the intelligence was exaggerated and which Washington has just admitted it is no longer looking for. There is absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting al-Qaeda."
This writer relies on an impression that somehow the WMD claims were only from the W camp (and that Al Queda is the only terrorist group in the world.) Here are some Dem quotes in regards to WMD's (and one on Al Queda):
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
Exactly right. A couple of times a week, killing 20 or so terrorists a pop.
Some "conservatives" buy the MSM line that we "waited".
John Maples good try but never frame your argument by starting it off by attributing your opponent with thoughts you yourself could never know but support your argument. I didn't really need to read any further.
BTW, you're first thoughts were correct.
Astute analysis.
We've committed almost two years in Iraq. During that time Al Qaeda as been decimated. Why would any further time commited to Iraq make you think that Al Qaeda will "rebuild itself".
I don't.
"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." - Patty "Osama Mama" Murray, October 9, 2002
"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002
"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002
But I do think that the more serious question going forward is, what are we going to do? I mean, we have three different countries that, while they all present serious problems for the United States -- they're dictatorships, they're involved in the development and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction -- you know, the most imminent, clear and present threat to our country is not the same from those three countries. I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country. -Senator John Edwards on "Late Edition", February 24, 2002
Not to mention that Iraq controls most of the water in the region and is on the border with nuke crazed, Iran.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.