Aapl, I'm having trouble understanding your tone of impatient dismissiveness.
You talk as if the questions raised here are the sole provenence of "libbis" (?) and scurilous America haters. When in fact, the questions regarding the WMDs, exagerated or supressed intelligence, Sadam's ties to al Qeada, poor planning, et al are of grave concern to many Americans who would never consider themselves "liberal", much less "libbis" (?????).
They also remain open questions, despite your professed exasperation with our thick-headedness. The WMDs remain missing. The distortions of intelligence remain on the table. And I still haven't seen any compelling evidence of Hussein's ties to al Qaeda. I guess we all agree the occupation wasn't really planned. But you have to try really really hard to pretend that the events subsequent to the invasion somehow bear out Bush's reasoning.
So while you may well believe that the invasion was justified, this "how dare you pinko dupes question the President's reasons, everything is just as he said, I mean, its so obvious to anyone not under the thrall of ultra liberal group think, etc.,etc., is so very tiring, won't you please stop?
Aapl, I'm having trouble understanding your tone of impatient dismissiveness.
You talk as if the questions raised here are the sole provenence of "libbis" (?) and scurilous America haters. When in fact, the questions regarding the WMDs, exagerated or supressed intelligence, Sadam's ties to al Qeada, poor planning, et al are of grave concern to many Americans who would never consider themselves "liberal", much less "libbis" (?????).
They also remain open questions, despite your professed exasperation with our thick-headedness. The WMDs remain missing. The distortions of intelligence remain on the table. And I still haven't seen any compelling evidence of Hussein's ties to al Qaeda. I guess we all agree the occupation wasn't really planned. But you have to try really really hard to pretend that the events subsequent to the invasion somehow bear out Bush's reasoning.
So while you may well believe that the invasion was justified, this "how dare you pinko dupes question the President's reasons, everything is just as he said, I mean, its so obvious to anyone not under the thrall of ultra liberal group think, etc.,etc., is so very tiring, won't you please stop?
Oh? Well, have a look at chu_bakka's post right above yours. Can you see the glee and the stupid smirk as he made that post? Cause I sure can. Anyway, I've been around long enough to spot what is sincere criticism and what is emotional and often irrational partisanship trying to masquerade as legitimate and rational criticism. And frankly you don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to the argument for taking down Saddam.
Oh? Well, have a look at chu_bakka's post right above yours. Can you see the glee and the stupid smirk as he made that post? Cause I sure can. Anyway, I've been around long enough to spot what is sincere criticism and what is emotional and often irrational partisanship trying to masquerade as legitimate and rational criticism. And frankly you don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to the argument for taking down Saddam.
For what its worth, might I suggest posters distinguish between what was justified vs. what was wise. I've little doubt the invasion was justified, however, especially in retrospect, and am uncertain that it was wise.
For what its worth, might I suggest posters distinguish between what was justified vs. what was wise. I've little doubt the invasion was justified, however, especially in retrospect, and am uncertain that it was wise.
Still, hingsight is 20-20...
Well said max..
You will always have second doubts towards things of this nature. No one wants to see body bags coming home. It's very hard. Understandably. And one should always examine and reexamine one's mission and tactics in the field. I do believe there's room for improvement, but to argue that the basic premise(s) for the war was flawed or unjustified because some things did not pan out to perfection and at this early stage of the game, is just folly.
Oh? Well, have a look at chu_bakka's post right above yours. Can you see the glee and the stupid smirk as he made that post? Cause I sure can. Anyway, I've been around long enough to spot what is sincere criticism and what is emotional and often irrational partisanship trying to masquerade as legitimate and rational criticism. And frankly you don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to the argument for taking down Saddam.
Is he still swaggering? Bring 'em on? Misson Accomplished?
I point out our adminstration's arrogance and I have the smirk?
They hide our wounded and dead from the public... because they KNOW their arguments about "all news coming out of Iraq is bad for no reason, it's actually going really well"... is just patently false. The whitehouse is afraid of what will happen to public opinion if there's public grieving for our fallen soldiers.
By the way... I supported the war before we went in... I didn't think it was possible for an administration so sure of itself, would be so wrong. My friends thought I was nuts. They're more cynical than me.
Am I happy things aren't going well in Iraq? no.
There's nothing going on in Iraq to be happy about... yet.
Few if any Iraqis greeted American tanks with open arms, but many relished the arrival of real American values into the country. Those values are not the clichés of westernization-jeans, McDonald's and Starbucks-but the set of inalienable rights the West takes for granted: representative government, the right to due process, the promise of transparency in government, and the chance for redress.
But some eight months since the fall of the former regime, it is the violation of those basic American values that has turned off Iraqis once willing to give the Coalition a chance and given the resistance a leg up. Summary arrests by American soldiers ill equipped to deal with the complex political and tribal conditions on the ground, a rebuilding process with no seeming checks and balances and rife with questions of corruption and improprieties, and a legislative process seemingly bereft of any true representation on the ground have all engrained a deep distrust of America's real intentions in Iraq. The shakeup in the GC this week isn't likely to change that perception much.
If President Bush and his team really want to make good on their promises of building democracy in this country, their best answer is the constitution. Drafting a constitution is the most important conversation Iraq should be having today. If done right, it will spur discussions on the most fundamental issues facing Iraq: federalism, minority rights, secularism, and religion's role in society, restitution and corruption. It will provide Iraqis with a true roadmap out of occupation, while helping filter out corruption. And most important, the results of the national discussion will provide a binding contract that Iraq will never again fall deep into the abyss of dictatorship, and will flourish a sovereign nation. "
Comments
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/...ain/index.html
Look how the italian's honor their combat dead.
You talk as if the questions raised here are the sole provenence of "libbis" (?) and scurilous America haters. When in fact, the questions regarding the WMDs, exagerated or supressed intelligence, Sadam's ties to al Qeada, poor planning, et al are of grave concern to many Americans who would never consider themselves "liberal", much less "libbis" (?????).
They also remain open questions, despite your professed exasperation with our thick-headedness. The WMDs remain missing. The distortions of intelligence remain on the table. And I still haven't seen any compelling evidence of Hussein's ties to al Qaeda. I guess we all agree the occupation wasn't really planned. But you have to try really really hard to pretend that the events subsequent to the invasion somehow bear out Bush's reasoning.
So while you may well believe that the invasion was justified, this "how dare you pinko dupes question the President's reasons, everything is just as he said, I mean, its so obvious to anyone not under the thrall of ultra liberal group think, etc.,etc., is so very tiring, won't you please stop?
Originally posted by addabox
Aapl, I'm having trouble understanding your tone of impatient dismissiveness.
You talk as if the questions raised here are the sole provenence of "libbis" (?) and scurilous America haters. When in fact, the questions regarding the WMDs, exagerated or supressed intelligence, Sadam's ties to al Qeada, poor planning, et al are of grave concern to many Americans who would never consider themselves "liberal", much less "libbis" (?????).
They also remain open questions, despite your professed exasperation with our thick-headedness. The WMDs remain missing. The distortions of intelligence remain on the table. And I still haven't seen any compelling evidence of Hussein's ties to al Qaeda. I guess we all agree the occupation wasn't really planned. But you have to try really really hard to pretend that the events subsequent to the invasion somehow bear out Bush's reasoning.
So while you may well believe that the invasion was justified, this "how dare you pinko dupes question the President's reasons, everything is just as he said, I mean, its so obvious to anyone not under the thrall of ultra liberal group think, etc.,etc., is so very tiring, won't you please stop?
Oh? Well, have a look at chu_bakka's post right above yours. Can you see the glee and the stupid smirk as he made that post? Cause I sure can. Anyway, I've been around long enough to spot what is sincere criticism and what is emotional and often irrational partisanship trying to masquerade as legitimate and rational criticism. And frankly you don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to the argument for taking down Saddam.
Originally posted by aapl
Oh? Well, have a look at chu_bakka's post right above yours. Can you see the glee and the stupid smirk as he made that post? Cause I sure can. Anyway, I've been around long enough to spot what is sincere criticism and what is emotional and often irrational partisanship trying to masquerade as legitimate and rational criticism. And frankly you don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to the argument for taking down Saddam.
For what its worth, might I suggest posters distinguish between what was justified vs. what was wise. I've little doubt the invasion was justified, however, especially in retrospect, and am uncertain that it was wise.
Still, hingsight is 20-20...
Originally posted by MaxParrish
For what its worth, might I suggest posters distinguish between what was justified vs. what was wise. I've little doubt the invasion was justified, however, especially in retrospect, and am uncertain that it was wise.
Still, hingsight is 20-20...
Well said max..
You will always have second doubts towards things of this nature. No one wants to see body bags coming home. It's very hard. Understandably. And one should always examine and reexamine one's mission and tactics in the field. I do believe there's room for improvement, but to argue that the basic premise(s) for the war was flawed or unjustified because some things did not pan out to perfection and at this early stage of the game, is just folly.
Originally posted by aapl
Oh? Well, have a look at chu_bakka's post right above yours. Can you see the glee and the stupid smirk as he made that post? Cause I sure can. Anyway, I've been around long enough to spot what is sincere criticism and what is emotional and often irrational partisanship trying to masquerade as legitimate and rational criticism. And frankly you don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to the argument for taking down Saddam.
Ah....irrational partisanship. Of course.
Originally posted by addabox
Ah....irrational partisanship. Of course.
So you are a republican I take it? LOL
Is he still swaggering? Bring 'em on? Misson Accomplished?
I point out our adminstration's arrogance and I have the smirk?
They hide our wounded and dead from the public... because they KNOW their arguments about "all news coming out of Iraq is bad for no reason, it's actually going really well"... is just patently false. The whitehouse is afraid of what will happen to public opinion if there's public grieving for our fallen soldiers.
By the way... I supported the war before we went in... I didn't think it was possible for an administration so sure of itself, would be so wrong. My friends thought I was nuts. They're more cynical than me.
Am I happy things aren't going well in Iraq? no.
There's nothing going on in Iraq to be happy about... yet.
http://www.iraq-today.com/article.php?id=247
Few if any Iraqis greeted American tanks with open arms, but many relished the arrival of real American values into the country. Those values are not the clichés of westernization-jeans, McDonald's and Starbucks-but the set of inalienable rights the West takes for granted: representative government, the right to due process, the promise of transparency in government, and the chance for redress.
But some eight months since the fall of the former regime, it is the violation of those basic American values that has turned off Iraqis once willing to give the Coalition a chance and given the resistance a leg up. Summary arrests by American soldiers ill equipped to deal with the complex political and tribal conditions on the ground, a rebuilding process with no seeming checks and balances and rife with questions of corruption and improprieties, and a legislative process seemingly bereft of any true representation on the ground have all engrained a deep distrust of America's real intentions in Iraq. The shakeup in the GC this week isn't likely to change that perception much.
If President Bush and his team really want to make good on their promises of building democracy in this country, their best answer is the constitution. Drafting a constitution is the most important conversation Iraq should be having today. If done right, it will spur discussions on the most fundamental issues facing Iraq: federalism, minority rights, secularism, and religion's role in society, restitution and corruption. It will provide Iraqis with a true roadmap out of occupation, while helping filter out corruption. And most important, the results of the national discussion will provide a binding contract that Iraq will never again fall deep into the abyss of dictatorship, and will flourish a sovereign nation. "